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

Mohammad Asghar is a British grandfather who suffers from a serious mental illness. He is currently facing the death penalty in Pakistan on blasphemy charges. Last week, a policeman – one of the people tasked with ensuring Mr Asghar’s safety – burst into his cell and shot him. 70-year-old Mohammad’s attack was not unusual; people accused or convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan face a high level of risk from attacks by religious extremists. Mohammad’s lawyers at legal charity Reprieve had repeatedly warned that he would not be safe in prison. What’s more, Mohammad should never have faced blasphemy charges in the first place – under Islamic law and Pakistan’s criminal law, mentally-ill people cannot be held accountable for what they do or say. Mohammad’s poor mental health has been confirmed by his UK medical record, and a sworn statement from his British psychiatrist. Mohammad is now receiving urgent treatment in hospital, where his health is worsening – but despite this, Pakistan’s police want to return him to the same prison in which he was shot. His family in Edinburgh is desperately worried about his safety. Time is running out for Mohammad to be released and reunited with his family in Britain. Prime Minister David Cameron must use this window of opportunity and ask the Pakistani government to release Mohammed to the UK, rather than sending him back to prison. Mohammad is an ill, vulnerable man who has suffered a near-fatal attack. It is clear that his sentence is unjust, and his life is at risk if he remains in Pakistan. He must be returned to the UK at the earliest opportunity.

The current Home Secretary Teresa May has recently announced that she intends to include the creation of so called "Terrorist ASBOs" as part of the Conservative election manifesto. While on the face of it this appears to be a laudable idea, the impact on freedom of speech is unacceptable in a democracy. In particular I draw your attention to: "The definition will also include anybody who seeks to ‘overthrow democracy’." To me it is a very short step from "seeks to 'overthrow democracy'" to 'speak in opposition to the government'. The government always considers itself the very epitome of democracy so opposing its views can all to easily be considered an attempt to overthrow it. If this proposal became law it would be a totally unacceptable infringement of freedom of speech. The Home Secretary needs to be informed as quickly as possible that her idea is not supported. Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/terrorist-asbos-to-silence-hate-preachers-pledged-by-tories-for-election-manifesto-9763288.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2774285/I-ll-silence-preachers-hate-vows-May-Home-Secretary-ban-extremists-speaking-public-spreading-poison-social-media.html

Dog attacks on humans and other dogs are increasing. Specific breeds are not attacking people or animals across the breed, but irresponsible owners causing problems

The people named in the report were supposed to be protecting children and were guilty of extreme negligence. It is important for those in positions of responsibility to be really accountable. Saying sorry is not enough, saying lessons will be learned is not enough and staying in post should be out of the question. There is generally an attitude amongst senior management that it can earn large salaries and that this quite separate from the damage it might do through its own incompetence or immorality. Far too often the large salaries are unjustified.

Whistle blowers are being hounded out of jobs for speaking up about wrong doings and then becoming unemployable because of this. Colleagues are too scared to back them. Confidence in public services will be restored and confidence of employees to report issues without reprisals. Current internal whistle blowing policies are ineffective and not used.

Bitter experience has shown that councils cannot be trusted to protect children or set their own houses in order. If officers are prosecuted it will send out a strong message that they will be held to account and will focus their minds on their legal duties.

Its a cruel way of getting rid of animals when there are more humane ways of dealing with the problem

TRAVELLERS AND GYPSIES ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF CHANGES TO THE LEGAL AID SYSTEM.WE NEED THE LAW TO BE CHANGED