It is important because animals are suffering, laws are being broken and backs are being turned. Despite the UK having some of the best animal welfare laws in the world, this case shows once again that they are simply not upheld, leaving animal cruelty and neglect to run rife while its perpetrators get away with it time and time again. In our considerable experience, when it comes to the authorities, these welfare laws are simply in place to give the impression of caring and protection for the animals when, in reality, very little exists. Caution, video contains upsetting footage of animal slaughter and cruelty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELvbWEUarDw&list=UUCdxkOePfUwgVLRU31wC_tQ

Currently loving, capable, and willing parents with equal parental rights and responsibility are being denied access by their ex-partners. In turn children are being denied the love and care of both of their parents regardless of their wishes or welfare. The current legal system is grossly flawed, biased, outdated, and prohibitively expensive, protracted, and complicated.

Approx. £1.9m was wrongly collected from 70 thousand motorists who were not aware they were even entering a bus lane. The adjudicator said the signs were confusing and inadequate, so these fines should not be enforced. Innocent motorists, many of whom were visiting the nearby Children's Hospital, have paid the fines not realising the Councils serious errors, but no offence whatsoever has been committed. Birmingham City Council are refusing to repay the money and now refuse to discuss this in the public domain, reverting to debating in a private session with no one else allowed to know what has happened in the meeting. Citizens and visitors to Birmingham, experiencing recently altered city centre road layouts, will find this confusing. You can read more about how this happened here: http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/new-birmingham-city-centre-bus-6681476

So that silence cannot be bought by managers of the NHS for their own benefit. For example, the Baby P case.

This will give better protection for birds of prey on shooting estates. The Scottish Government has made landowners share the blame when gamekeepers are found to have killed birds of prey. The UK government should do the same. For more details please refere to the BBC report dated 6/11/2014 re the conviction of yet another gamekeeper.

MPs accused of abusing the unreformed expenses system will escape official investigation after the House of Commons authorities destroyed all record of their claims John Bercow, the Speaker, faces accusations he has presided over a fresh cover-up of MPs' expenses after tens of thousands of pieces of paperwork relating to claims made before 2010 under the scandal-hit regime were shredded. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/11204405/MPs-to-escape-expenses-investigations-after-paperwork-destroyed-by-Parliament.html I am calling for John Bercow to be investigated to by the police to find out if there are any records that have been destroyed contrary to the proceeds of crime act . I am calling for a police investigation into every MP’s expenses. I am doing this on the grounds that although MP’s are entitled to expenses, these expense claims should be available to the public to inspect the claims made. There is a 7 year time limit for investigation of these claims and MP’s should keep proper records of these claims. If they fail to do so then they are failing in their duties as public servants. In my opinion any MP that has not kept records of their expense claim for the past 7 years should be investigated with the possibility of having to repay those expenses if they are unable to justify the claims with paperwork to back up the claims made. We, the general public, are constantly being told by politicians that the laws are all inclusive and that if we are innocent then we will have nothing to worry about. This same principle should also apply to MP’s and if the MP’s are innocent and can prove that they have made expense claims that are justified then they are entitled to keep the expenses received. However, if MP’s are not able to prove that the expense claims that they made are justified then they should be forced to repay these expenses. Below I have pasted a copy of the proceeds of crime act part 7 (this has been taken from the following page) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceeds_of_Crime_Act_2002 I think that at the end of this there is an important part about this act that should be acted upon – The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine This means that if any member of public suspects that any MP has falsely claimed expenses that they are not entitled to – by law you must report this suspicion. If anybody reading this suspects that any MP (or any other public figure such as the speaker John Bercow) has committed an offence then it is your public duty to immediately forward this suspicion onto your local police authority. I would suggest either putting your suspicions in writing or forwarding this page by email to the chief of police in your area. Proceeds of Crime act part 7 Unlike certain other jurisdictions (notably the USA and much of Europe), UK money laundering offences are not limited to the proceeds of serious crimes, nor are there any monetary limits, nor is there any necessity for there to be a money laundering design or purpose to an action for it to amount to a money laundering offence. A money laundering offence under UK legislation need not involve money, since the money laundering legislation covers assets of any description. Technically therefore an individual who steals even a paper clip in the UK commits a money laundering offence (possession of the stolen paper clip) in addition to the predicate offence (of theft of the paper clip). In consequence any person who commits an acquisitive crime (i.e. one from which he obtains some benefit in the form of money or an asset of any description) in the UK will inevitably also commit a money laundering offence under UK legislation. The principal money laundering offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The offence of failing to report a suspicion of money laundering by another person carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine. Parts 8 to 12 of the Act make further provisions with regard to investigation of suspected offences, international co-operation, etc. Importantly it is a criminal offence to impede a money laundering investigation by the authorities by the concealing, destroying or falsifying of documents relevant to the investigation or by the making of a disclosure of information which prejudices the investigation. The offence carries a maximum punishment of 5 years imprisonment.

Britain first are a far right hate group that promotes racial and religious hatred via their website and Facebook page. The number of their likes, even though fake, gives them a veneer of respectability and increases their global reach. The comments on their posts are of the vilest hate speech imaginable. Facebook needs to investigate Britain Firsts page and remove their fake likes.

Our dad, Andargachew ‘Andy’ Tsege from Islington, London, was kidnapped by Ethiopian security forces from an airport in Yemen in June 2014. He is now held in a brutal prison in Ethiopia. We're not able to speak to him, and we have no idea what is going to happen to him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqmqj0Pvmfg In 2009, the Ethiopian regime said that they would execute our dad for his political activism. Now they’ve kidnapped him - and they are even preventing British consular staff from checking on his welfare. Time is running out to save his life. Please, Prime Minister, tell the Ethiopians to let our dad come home. Andy made Britain (London) his home in 1979, after fleeing political persecution by the Ethiopian government. He is a prominent opposition activist, working towards a democratic Ethiopia. In 2009, the regime said that they would execute our dad if he ever returned. Since Dad’s disappearance, our family has been in agony. We still don’t know where our dad is being held, or how he is being treated. The only glimpse we’ve had of him was when he was paraded on Ethiopian state TV giving a forced 'confession' in July 2014. He looked thin and unwell. So far the Ethiopian government has ignored British requests for ‘assurance’ that our dad will not be executed. We also know that torture is very common in Ethiopia, and we are desperately worried about his safety in detention. Dad is a kind, loving and caring man – we are so worried about him and miss him so much. We need him home with us in London. Please, Prime Minister, tell the Ethiopians to let our dad come home. His kidnapping and detention is a serious breach of international law – please take firm action with the Ethiopian authorities and demand his return to the UK without delay. (This petition was written by Yemi Hailemariam, Andy’s partner, and their children: Helawit, Menabe, and Yilak.)

Services are being broken up and sold off to private companies for them to make profit from crime. Criminal Justice should be above the profit incentive and motivated by justice, the clues in the name. People are being put at risk by the creation of artificial barriers between staff, depending on who they work for. This is very bad for the sharing of information and risk management. Work is already being skewed towards working with those who will be the best bet to comply, rather than according to risk. A lot of what was previously done to protect the public is becoming impossible because of a ludicrous diversion of resources. Staff in the private companies will not need to be trained as they are in the public sector. They will be dealing with violent domestic abusers and others who pose a real risk to the public. The Probation Service was already a high performing organisation that had exceeded targets set for it by government. This privatisation politically is driven and is not cost effective or in the interests of the public.

people should not be put in danger by having dangerous criminals living in their neighbourhood with new identities. New identities should be to protect witnesses, not criminals. The law needs to change to prevent this happening again.

In July 2013 the government introduced fees for taking an employer to an employment tribunal. Their reasoning behind this was that it would stop people making bogus claims. In reality, all introducing these fees has done is made it financially impossible for the majority of people who have been treated unfairly to take action against their employer. The current fees for taking an employer to an employment tribunal are between £390 and £1200. According to research carried out by Citizens Advice, now only 14% of valid claims are being taken forward to a tribunal and from October 2013 to March 2014 there was a 73% drop in claims on the same period the previous year. Imagine the following: -your employer sacked you because you developed a long term illness or because you were pregnant. -your boss was bullying you because of your sexual orientation, your race or your religion. -you employer stopped paying your wages or stopped you from being able to attend maternity related appointments. All of these thing would be a breach of your employment rights so why should you have to pay to stand up for them? These rights are protected by law so how can it be legal for the government to charge you a fee to take action when these rights have been broken? We need to get these fees scrapped so people can have the ability to stand up for themselves when they have been treated unfairly, otherwise it will just become even easier for employers to treat their employees however they want without any consequences.

IPP prisoners remain in jail indefinitely in England and Wales under the sentence of imprisonment (IPP), which was abolished in 2012 for future offenses. Many have long exceeded the punitive tariff imposed for the offenses they committed, in some cases as little as a few months. However, at present IPP prisoners must seek release on parole on the same terms as life sentence prisoners, although the Justice Secretary has a statutory power to establish a new release test. In several cases the European Court of Human Rights has found continued IPP detention to be arbitrary and in breach of Convention rights. Lord Lloyd of Berwick, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, said: "There are thousands IPP people in prison who arguably shouldn’t be there and have no release date. A senior high court judge describes them as ‘the disappeared'...“This is a crime against humanity. We are talking about people here who have paid for their crime who have finished their sentence who want to return home to their families build their life’s back up” IPP sentance is effecting the prisoners Mental Health It should also be noted that apart from the IPP prisoners themselves, the real losers are their family and friends who are often left struggling to understand the realities of an IPP sentence often at a loss as to what to do about the nightmare situation in which they find themselves. Further information: 1. The Guardian - "Former law lord says 3,500 prisoners behind bars longer than necessary" - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/05/lord-lloyd-prisoners-chris-grayling-indefinite-sentences