The public's safety is key, especially those with young families and the elderly. By Kirsty Anne Taylor with the help of my friends and a big thank you to Harry Acid for your support. https://www.facebook.com/Kirstyanne1989

This is important as so many vulnerable people have died after being wrongly assessed and being made fit for work when clearly they have not been fit enough. There has been a count of 10,600 deaths between Jan-Nov 2011 some of which were suicides. How many deaths does it take for the government and ATOS to recognise the connection? Since this last count the DWP refused to release the figures that were collected calling the FOI requests "vexatious". Therefore how many more have died since? There are thousands who believe, assessments that have been undertaken were incorrect and there are thousands of witnesses to this fact, which has caused more stress and poverty as more and more people are waiting for money that has been stopped whilst waiting for their appeals to be processed correctly. Due to the negligence of this company ATOS have to be found accountable. Not only for the loved ones of the people who have died, but also for those who may have died without a family and is important that even though they have gone from this planet, they have somebody fighting for them to correct a system that clearly does not work so they did not die in vain.

In November 2013, a Prison Service instruction removed metal stringed electric and acoustic guitars from the list of permitted prisoner possessions. https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2013/psi-30-2013.doc At the same time, access to arts materials for purchase by prisoners has become more restricted by the limited items available through approved suppliers. And when an order is placed, the delay in receiving materials is often protracted. One of the effects of linking prison education funding to vocational targets is the loss of much of the non-accredited arts programme; dramatic arts have particularly suffered. Prison staff are often not sensitive to the value of creative art work to prisoners and have removed art and writing from the possession of prisoners without explanation. These are not isolated events but are indicative of the need for the Ministry of Justice to reconsider the value of the arts in prison. Prisoners are full of creativity. You only need to look at the success of the Koestler awards to see that. But many prisoners actually rely on their creative outlets just to cope with life. There are many recent studies which have shown how participation in the arts can be a life-changing experience for prisoners. Not only do the arts support prisoner welfare but they can also provide a pathway to change, enabling growth of self-esteem and helping to combat depression. In this respect, the arts should be seen as a cornerstone of the rehabilitation process. The people who are most affected by these changes have no voice. Prisoners are unable to sign this petition or campaign for change. But you can. Please do. You can make a real difference to their lives. "I've had a guitar in my cell ever since my first days in custody and it really helps me cope with my sentence. It's a really creative and educational outlet. I'm still improving and I've even written my own compositions. I don't know what I'll do when they take it off me. It's going to leave me feeling very down. There are a lot of poor copers in prison. What are we supposed to do?” Nathan, HMP Wakefield Further discussion of these issues by a serving prisoner: http://adammac.co.uk/2014/02/20/arts-under-attack/

The UK throws away over 5.3 million tonnes (£12 billion worth) of edible food each year. In a time of economic hardship its grotesque that such a huge quantity of food is wasted whilst more and more people are becoming reliant on food banks. Supermarkets are one of the worst contributors to food waste but rather than donate their excess food to charity, many supermarkets send it to landfill or to be incinerated. This is partly due to fear of prosecution should someone become ill and partly out of a desire to maintain their profit margins - if people are getting food for free then they don't need to buy it from you. At the most basic level people take food from bins out of desperation, because they need to eat to survive. However, many others rescue food because they wish to reduce their environmental impact or because of an anti-consumerist ideology. Many of these freegans donate rescued food to charity or share it with their friends, family and neighbours. Technically something which has been thrown away still belongs to the person who threw it out and taking it can be seen as theft. People who rescue food from bins are charged with "theft by finding" or similar offences. But how can someone "steal" food which has been thrown away and is destined to rot on a landfill site? Below are some links containing more information and details of some of the arrests and prosecutions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13037808 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6933744.stm http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-bin-raiders-revelations-on-waste-food-put-21st-century-scavengers-in-the-spotlight-8904765.html http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/28/three-charged-vagrancy-act-food-skip-iceland

The use of water cannon would be a violent and excessive use of force to combat protests on the streets of the UK. The right to protest is one of the most important aspects of our free and open democracy and I believe that the threat of this weapon will be an inhibitor to people of all ages from exercising that right. My concerns are twofold. 1 - ACPO's own report into water cannon states that: "the full-pressure jet from a water cannon is capable of causing serious injury or even death and says there are also possible injuries from the impact on the body of street furniture or other debris." http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/22/police-home-secretary-approve-use-water-cannon-austerity-protest We have seen all too frequently instances of police abusing their power, and using unnecessary force to break up protests. Be it the death of Ian Tomlinson, or the assault on anti-fracking campaigner Sean O'Donnell, elements of the police force would prefer to use violence and aggression to silence peaceful protest. I don't believe allowing them access to this weapon will lead to less unprovoked aggression, but more. 2. This leads to my second point. The police are not the government's armed guards, hired to subjugate the will of the people. Increasingly I fear they are becoming so. ACPO argue that they would like water cannon in their arsenal "because austerity measures are likely to lead to continued protest" http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/22/police-home-secretary-approve-use-water-cannon-austerity-protest For starters that is presumptive, and is not representative of their own report: "The report says there is no intelligence to suggest there is an increased likelihood of serious riots within England and Wales." If, however, they are right that increased austerity measures will need to further protests, then so be it. The people have a right to protest against the actions of the government that they do not agree with. It is not the job of the police to suppress this feeling with threat of serious injury, or even death, through the use of water cannon should people wish to protest. The police are for the protection of us all, not to maintain the establishment status quo. Water cannon are dangerous to the public and reinforce the notion that the police may use excessive force to quell the will of the people.

Given the recent revelations about GCHQ's 'Tempora' programme UK citizens are facing the greatest threat to their civil liberties in this country's history. Indiscriminate surveillance is being collected on the populace on a massive scale with no public mandate or accountabilty. This is being allowed through a legal loophole which would have been legitimised with the Snooper's Charter. If this kind of system is allowed to exist at all at the very least it should have a mandate from both the public and parliament - with external accountability and auditing. No publicly accountable body currently exists to audit this programme.

Ilford police ran co-ordinated raids on homeless people in Redbridge on the night of the 23rd of May. One of the men targeted, Adam Jaskowiak, reported that the police swooped in on the group he was sheltering with, bundling all their belongings into the back of a car: “They were just taking the sleeping bags and chucking out everything. I asked to keep it and the food, but they said ‘no’. I just grabbed as many of my things as possible and put them into a bag and ran.” Ilford chief inspector John Fish has been quoted as follows:- "The public rely on police to reduce the negative impact of rough sleepers.' This strongly suggests that Chief Inspector John Fish sees Rough Sleepers as something other than 'the public', and the actions of the Ilford Metropolitan Police, in confiscating these items, are surely the most despicable form of bullying - taking from those who have nothing. Indeed, Chief Inspector Fish states, with no apparent regret, that:- 'This includes the need for us to assist in the removal of temporary structures, tents, and bedding from public spaces and other inappropriate locations.' It is reported that nine of the men were taking refuge in the former Ilford Baths - do Chief Inspector John Fish and the Metropolitan Police realise that rough sleeping is not a lifestyle choice? Where would they suggest these men sleep? The police claimed they carried out this raid in the name of public. Well, we are the public - so let’s show them this isn’t what they want. Sign the petition now and help make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

UK coroner Sir Robert Owen, under pressure from Foreign Secretary William Hague, has said a legal inquest will exclude material implicating either Russia's state agencies or the UK security services. Seven years after the death of her husband, Marina Litvinenko is no closer to knowing the truth about his death. This is a travesty of justice at the heart of Westminster and a disgrace to the people of Britain. Many other lives were also put at risk - in London, Moscow and Hamburg and on planes and vehicles in which the Polonium was transported. The public deserves an answer too. see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22579463 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/17/alexander-litvinenko-widow-slams-william-hague?INTCMP=SRCH

Refuge supports a number of families who have lost loved ones to domestic violence. Rachael Slack and her two-year-old son Auden were killed by Rachael’s ex partner Andrew Cairns in June 2010, after Rachael had reported Cairns to the police for stalking and threatening to kill her. Derbyshire Police failed to tell Rachael that she and Auden were at high risk of serious harm or homicide from Cairns. An inquest found that police failures contributed to Rachael and Auden's deaths. Maria Stubbings was murdered by her former partner, Marc Chivers – a man already known to the police for killing a previous girlfriend – in December 2008. In the days leading up to her death, Maria called the police to ask for help, but none came. When the police attended the house, they took Chivers at his word when he told them she had gone on holiday. By the time they carried out a thorough search of the house on 19th December, Maria was already dead. The IPCC found that Essex Police made a catalogue of failures in their response to her. Rachael Slack and her two-year-old son Auden were killed by Rachael’s ex partner Andrew Cairns in June 2010, after Rachael had reported Cairns to the police for stalking and threatening to kill her. Derbyshire Police failed to tell Rachael that she and Auden were at high risk of serious harm or homicide from Cairns. An inquest found that police failures contributed to Rachael and Auden's deaths. Sabina Akhtar was stabbed to death by her husband in September 2008, two months after she told the police he had assaulted her and threatened to kill her. Malik Mannan had been arrested less than a month before her death for assault, but the CPS released him without charging him. Social services had received three separate referrals relating to Sabina and her two-year-old son – but closed the case without even doing an initial risk assessment. An inquest found that serious failings had been made by Greater Manchester Police, Manchester Social Services and the Crown Prosecution Service which may possibly have contributed to Sabina’s death. Cassie Hasanovic was killed by her estranged husband in front of her two young children as she attempted to flee to a refuge. An inquest into her death found that Kent Police had failed to arrest Hajrudin Hasanovic for breaching his bail conditions, and that the CPS did not take a number of steps to safeguard Cassie’s life, including failing to apply for Hajrudin’s bail to be withdrawn and failing to inform Cassie of the special measures that might have been available to assist her in giving evidence against him. The inquest also found that Sussex Police officers were inadequately trained in domestic violence. Numerous investigations into the handling of domestic violence have shown recurring failings across the country. Many women using our services also tell us that they feel completely let down by the police, and other state agencies. We urgently need a public inquiry to investigate why these failures keep happening. Individual reports put the spotlight on individual police forces and local agencies – but no-one is looking at the national picture. A public inquiry will make links between different cases and help improve the state response to domestic violence across the country. Refuge, along with families who have lost loved ones to domestic violence, are determined to create real change - for Maria, Rachael, Sabina, Cassie, and countless other women. Please add your voice to this campaign. Find out more about domestic violence and our campaign for a public inquiry at http://refuge.org.uk/publicinquiry

For a thorough and definitive analysis of why NOTA is the logical starting point for electoral reform, that could usher in an era of real democracy that maximises the common good, see our white paper here: https://notaukdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/nota-wp_16_js_rv.pdf Consent is central to the concept of democracy. But consent is only measurable if it is possible to withhold it. In the context of elections, this withholding of consent MUST be formal as consenting (voting) is formal. Yet it is currently impossible to do this. Abstaining is not formally withholding consent, it is simply not participating and can be dismissed as voter apathy with no further analysis. Spoiling the ballot in protest is not formally withholding consent either as they are lumped in with those spoiled in error. Any spoiled vote count is therefore meaningless as a measure of voter discontent. And neither abstaining or ballot spoiling affects the election result in any way. Having a formal 'None of the Above' (NOTA) option on ballot papers is the only way to formally withhold consent at an election. For this reason, NOTA can be shown to be a democratic pre-requisite. As such, inclusion of it would be achievable, with enough understanding and support for it among the general public, because to argue against NOTA is to argue against the concept of democracy itself, once both ideas are properly understood. The powers-that-be must be seen to be pro-democracy at all times, even if they aren't in practice. NOTA, essential in any true democracy, is therefore achievable. All other touted reforms, PR for example, are seen as desirable only, so can be paid lip service to and ignored by those in power. This is why NOTA should be the ground zero of electoral reform. In February 2015 we took a significant step closer to getting it. Thanks to NOTA UK's lobbying, the parliamentary Political & Constitutional Reform Committee (PCRC) felt compelled to recommend that the next government hold a public consultation before May 2016 solely on inclusion of NOTA on ballot papers. This was due to their conclusion that there is not only huge demand for it but that there would be a clear positive impact on voter engagement of having it. This was a huge development. Unfortunately, one of the very first acts of the incoming Conservative government that year was to shut down the PCRC, rendering all their good work on this and many others issue much harder to follow up on. However, on the upside, it is now an official policy of the Green Party of England & Wales to introduce a Re-Open Nominations (RON) option to UK ballot papers, effectively NOTA by another, less well known name. This is definitely a step in the right direction. Having a ‘None of the Above’ option on ballot papers for all future UK elections, as well as providing a way for people to cast a protest vote if they so choose, would be a game changer for our political system as a whole – but only if implemented properly i.e.: with formalised consequences for the result in the event of it ‘winning’. In other countries that have a NOTA option, India for example, in the event of a NOTA ‘win’, the candidate or party polling the next highest number of votes would be allowed to take office regardless. Clearly, this renders the option meaningless, as a NOTA 'win' would indicate that more voters actively rejected all the available candidates than endorsed any one of them. It therefore makes no sense for the next placed candidate or party to be elected. For NOTA to be effective in the event of it ‘winning’, a remedial process must be triggered. The election must be re-run with new candidates and/or policies in place. In the UK, this would most likely occur at constituency level, triggering by-elections only. But if it were to ever occur nationally, then a second general election would have to follow. This is democracy in action. In such circumstances, we propose an empty seat is returned for each constituency has rejected all candidates, but for no more than three to months while preparations for by-elections are put in place. This would avoid political instability and the possibility of voter fatigue from having instant re-run elections whilst ensuring that the will of the electorate is honoured in an acceptable time frame. This is no more or less disruptive than what happens when an MP dies or steps down suddenly. The knock on effect of having this real NOTA option with real ramifications could be huge. To avoid a NOTA defeat, or even to avoid finishing behind the NOTA option (just as embarrassing), parties would have to rethink their choices of candidates and policies and offer something that might be acceptable to more of the electorate, would-be NOTA voters included. Implemented this way, as well as engaging disillusioned non-voters, NOTA also has the potential to engage disillusioned voters and bring politics and our democracy into the 21st Century, ultimately making our democracy something meaningful and worth engaging with in the first place - something that genuinely maximises the common good over time. If you agree, please sign and share the petition and let the current crop of career politicians and vested interests know that enough is enough. Thank you.

For two and a half years we have been trying to find out the circumstances surrounding the death of our son, Andrew, in France in September 2010. Throughout the process of organising a post mortem, trying to work with the French authorities to understand what happened, and trying to work with the Foreign Commonwealth Office we have been faced with many struggles and barriers in gaining access to all the answers we, as a family, need about Andrew’s death. We are currently at the third stage of appeal, desperate to understand the circumstances of our son’s death, but the Foreign Office is refusing to release this information as they claim it could damage relations between France and the UK. Andrew was living in France with his French girlfriend. He was heavily medicated without choice, for a degree of paranoid schizophrenia. He wanted to return home to the UK but his partner prevented him from doing this. The day before he was found dead he told his partner that he wanted to return to the UK. Even in the weeks before he died he had spoken to family members about returning home. Andrew could talk to anyone, he saw everyone as a friend. In the UK he always enjoyed people’s company and this was denied to him in France. From the age of 12 he played chess and before and after he studied Maths at Leeds University he played at County level. He worked at PGL activity centres and loved his guitar. His company will always be missed. As a family we not only feel we have a right to this information, but that any family in the future who may go through similar circumstances in finding out about a loved one’s death in the UK or abroad should have access to all information in the case. The Foreign Office should only be able to withhold information if it’s in the interest of national security, not because they want to prevent embarrassment as seems to be the case in our terrible situation, a situation many families find themselves in. We therefore ask William Hague to please appeal to the Information Commissioners Office to rule in our favour and finally release to us all the details of Andrew’s death. We want him to stop allowing the Foreign Commonwealth Office to use the broad language in Section 27 of the Freedom of Information act to refuse to release information to grieving families who need to understand the details of their loved ones death. The UK government’s need to save face should not be put above its citizen’s need for answers during such a traumatic time.

Last year, student Cait Reilly and unemployed driver Jamieson Wilson, took the Tory led coalition to task over their controversial Workfare programme arguing that it was unlawful. Three Judges found that regulations under which most of the Tory led coalition back-to-work schemes were created are unlawful. The main issue is that the Tory led coalition lost this case and they lost because they failed to provide sufficient and legal information about Workfare to job-seekers. It is estimated that 231,000 people were originally affected by their decision and had their benefits sanctioned (ie stopped). The morality of the Workfare system is not being debated here (although flaws of the system are outlined below). This petition is about the abhorrent behaviour of the Tory led coalition that followed this decision and their decision to retroactively change the law. On 19 March 2013, a Bill was rushed through the House of Commons which will change the law (that they broke) retroactively thus enabling the Tory led coalition to avoid having to repay the money that they illegally took from job-seekers - an average of £550 per person. The issue here is threefold: Firstly, the Tory led coalition (assisted by Labour and Lib Dems) are trying to retrospectively change the law to protect themselves from their own flawed policies. By retrospectively changing the law they can ensure that no law has now been broken and thereby avoid having to repay those who they illegally sanctioned. This behaviour is morally repugnant and vile and cannot be allowed to happen. Secondly, there seems to be a complete media blackout on the story and the Bill was rushed through, the day before the Budget - one may argue in an attempt to bury it? Thirdly, the Workfare scheme is fundamentally flawed and has been shown not to be an effective tool to get unemployed back in to work. The problem is there are no jobs for people and the Tory led coalition is deflecting this fact away by demonising those looking for work such as Miss Reilly and Mr Wilson. There is plenty of evidence to show that workfare claimants are replacing real jobs. Since this WP came in, many retail giants and the Royal Mail have used workfare so they don't have to offer overtime to their existing workers. Asda recently put all their part-time staff on contracts which guarantee just 4 hours work a week. Many shops are run by workfare. This whole scheme is about exploiting labour - the workfare claimants are being exploited for free labour; the existing workers are being exploited by losing hours and pay; and we are all being exploited when what we buy is making profits for corporations which are using what is effectively indentured labour. People who are fortunate enough to be paid for their work are afraid of rocking the boat lest they be replaced. These schemes guarantee a cowed and compliant workforce, paid or not, who will be reluctant to unionise and unwilling to protest in case they lose their jobs. Meanwhile, taxpayers' money is being poured by the billion into the coffers of welfare-to-work companies and corporate profiteers, and Labour seem to be OK with this in principle. These are extremely important issues and cannot be ignored.