In an allegation of assault or aggravated burglary the witnesses and victims do not currently have automatic anonymity and therefore put themselves at extreme risk of retribution from the family and friends of the perpetrators of the crime who may decide to take the law into their own hands. The law as it stands provides no real incentive for people to do their civic duty. Giving evidence from a remote location would avoid innocent witnesses and victims having to endure the fear and real danger posed by visiting a courtroom where the perpetrators of the crime and their family and friends are present - this should be an automatic right rather than a privilege. The principle of open justice can act as a bar to successful prosecutions because of the natural fear a witness may have in the case of a gun or knife or other violent crime so if the default position in these cases was changed to one where the Police and or CPS should have to apply for open proceedings rather than the existing system where the onus is upon the witness to declare their fear then potentially more people would be willing to testify. Safety aside, the impact on the long term wellbeing of victims of violent crimes and their families in crimes of this type may not be fully understood and certainly may be underestimated. The CPS guidance on this matter talks of the police establishing whether a witness is in fear, yet this may only become apparent once the proceedings are in train and may be exacerbated by the behaviour of the defendants and their families and contacts during the proceedings. In instances like this, it is too late to offer protection – the names of the witnesses have already been disclosed; the witnesses may well have been seen by defendants, their families and associates, because of the poor design of many Courts. The ECHR should serve everyone; the current system seems to favour the protection of one group at the expense of the other. Victims of violent crime have already suffered at the hands of their perpetrators. The purpose of a court of law is to establish whether a crime has been committed and whether those accused were indeed the perpetrators and we, rightly in my view, have a presumption of innocence until guilt is proved but I am not sure how an innocent man or woman would be disadvantaged if they didn’t know the names of the witnesses but relied upon their counsel to interrogate a witness via , for example, a live link to a remote location with the witnesses behind a screen thus serving the purposes of justice and the protection of the innocent.

JENGbA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association) is a grass roots campaign who were instrumental in helping The Supreme Court reach this land mark decision. This was a legal victory and a vindication for all those who have campaigned tirelessly against this error, of which we have felt so much pain but now feel so much hope. With this in mind we the undersigned now feel that the issue merits the full attention and the support of Parliament and request a full public inquiry that can review cases swiftly and rectify the mistakes. Without this 'Hillsborough' type inquiry then a thirty two year mistake that has led to the continued incarceration of men, women and children will continue to be a stain on the British justice system. Please sign and help us fight for an inquiry into all of the cases, so the truly guilty can be captured and the innocent will walk free.

The "Panama Papers", a massive leak of over 11 million documents from the Mossack Fonseca Company, has revealed a wealth of corruption that covers 4 decades, and may represent millions, if not billions, of Pounds Sterling in lost taxes. Think of all the things these lost taxes could do in balancing the budget, in strengthening public services. This is why any and all wrongdoing relating to the UK must be investigated, prosecuted, and punished.

Begging is not harmful. Woking Borough Council argue that begging can be intimidating. But if someone feels intimidated, the Police can use existing powers under the Public Order Act. The council also said there is no need to beg in Woking- because there is sufficient help available. However, the waiting lists for NHS mental healthcare, and substance misuse treatment are not short. It is also claimed that many people who beg aren't actually homeless. Of course, lying about your circumstances is fraud and the Police can use existing powers to deal with it. This campaign is based on this information from Woking Council's website: https://www.woking.gov.uk/community/safety/pspo If you have anything that suggests that Woking Borough Council are no longer able to fine people for begging then we'd love to hear more from you, drop us an email at [email protected]

Tax evasion has been estimated to cost the UK between £34bn to upwards of £100bn a year, this is money that is being stolen from our NHS, Schools and other public services. We jail single mothers for fraudulently claiming benefits for amounts that are insignificant by comparison to the people using these tax dodging schemes. The law should be fairly applied to all in society, regardless of their status or wealth.

Democracy is only an idea and it takes the will of the people to make our society even close to this task. We are held in tyranny and being robbed by a government who blatantly broke the law when they "won" the 2015 elections. https://www.rt.com/uk/337732-conservative-broke-law-election/

On 12th March two hunt monitors, one an ex-police officer, from the League Against Cruel Sports were seriously assaulted and robbed while monitoring Leicestershire’s Belvoir Hunt. They were attacked by a gang of hunt followers, some of whom were on quad bikes and wore masks. There have been arrests but, so far, the Belvoir Hunt has declined to condemn, or even comment, on the attacks. No reputable organisation should remain silent in the face of violent acts committed in its name, much less condone them. It is important that the Belvoir Hunt takes a strong position following the recent attacks and issues a statement as outlined in the petition. For more on the violent assaults see: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/men-arrested-animal-rights-charity-s-monitors/story-28913823-detail/story.html http://www.league.org.uk/news-and-opinion/videos/2016/mar/two-league-staff-brutally-assaulted-and-robbed-by-hunt-supporters Image: © Copyright Simon Mortimer and licensed for reuse under Creative Commons Licence.

The refuge is a safe place for women who's lives have been shattered by rape, sexual assault and domestic violence. Without this safe place, which although only short term, provides much needed breathing space. Not only that it shows these people that not everyone is out to hurt them. The removal of funding for these vital services, gives abused women the message that no one cares and it is ok for them to be abused. Is this a good message to send out across Cumbria?

Fully examine the very likely possibility of Toxic gasses caused by landfill were the cause of the death of child Zane Truth and help Zane's parents

Children are dying from internal injuries - According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), between 2011 and 2020, more than 140 million girls will become child brides (before the age of 18). 50 million will be under the age of 15. One of the main issues is that there is currently no consistent established definition of a “child” that has been agreed upon worldwide. This leaves various interpretations within countries and little protection for those who are affected. Establishing this age limit is among the top priorities of groups like HRC which was responsible for publishing the 54-page report “How Come You Allow Little Girls to Get Married?”, documenting the lifelong damage to girls who are forced to marry at young ages. Most pro age-limit organizations agree that 18 should be the legal age for marriage. In February 2009, a law was created in Yemen that set the minimum age for marriage at 17. Unfortunately, it was repealed after more conservative lawmakers called it un-Islamic.

Without my car, I'm not safe. I use my vehicle to get to work, the supermarket, the shops, the cleaners, the hairdressers, to visit family, to volunteer, to do everything I need to do. Without my car, I cannot get about. I cannot safely walk to the bus stop, and should I use public transport I have no guarantee that my mobility will remain long enough for me to get to my destination or even get home. I've been stranded in city centres and other places because I used public transport and then wasn't strong enough to return to a bus stop and get home. Many people with motability vehicles rely on these to get by. Without my car, I couldn't work. If I can't work, I can't pay my rent. If I can't pay my rent, I don't have anywhere to live - disabled people are facing these choices today. Many disabled people have 'mild-moderate' support needs. That means, social services cannot afford to help them in this climate of cuts and their only way forward is disability benefits or a motability vehicle. Without the motability vehicle, we become vulnerable. We can exert ourselves, get weaker, get to a place where we become more reliant on the state, cannot work, cannot socialise and collectively cost more in healthcare. That argument doesn't matter though. What matters is that collectively we have a right and a need to access a full and equivalent life and bit by bit rights are being stripped away. Re-evaluate and stop removing people's motability cars.

Democracy is a farce if cheating in an election is permitted regardless of how late the wrong doing is discovered and whether or not police action is possible. Political parties that gain office through electoral fraud should not be allowed to continue with impunity, they must demonstrate that they have legitimate support of the electorate.