Numerous countries have now realised the benefits of this drug. They have taken it out of the drug barons hands an have organised it. They now have revenue and employment opportunities within this growing sector but the most important part is that it is saving lives. We need to forward think and not be bogged down with old ways of thinking regarding this wonder drug. It's the future of pharmacy.

Thousands of victims of domestic violence are forced/pressured into unsupervised contact orders every year, between their children and the perpetrators who abused them. This is because the UK law states that it is in the 'child's best interest to have two parents', regardless of whether there is a history of violence. The government has limited funding for contact centres, so unless violence has been proven to have happened 'towards children' (many parents shield their children from this happening) in the majority of cases contact is ordered, and moves out of contact centres as quickly as possible. This frequently happens after risk assessments are ordered. Perpetrators are offered an opportunity to offer excuses for the abuse, to discredit victims. Abuse can then be cited as the result of a bad relationship – thus eliminating the risk as the relationship has ended - so contact can be moved out of contact centres. Saving the government substantial costs in the long term. Anger management and domestic violence courses may be ordered, but these offer no guarantees. What isn't acknowledged is the effect the violence and emotional abuse has on the abused parents. The abuse may not be aimed directly at children - often because the abused parents shield them and take the abuse themselves - but any parent who has been punched, choked, kicked, verbally abused, bullied, and demeaned, will feel extremely anxious about unsupervised access. It's common for perpetrators to seek contact, knowing that it will cause victims further distress. Many victims of abuse are so distressed at the idea of unsupervised contact orders, they are diagnosed with anxiety and depression, and medicated. Medication has side-effects. In a recent study of 1,829 people who have taken antidepressants in the past five years, led by Professor John Read, University of Liverpool, 60% of participants reported 'feeling emotionally numb', 52% 'feeling not like myself', 42% reduction in positive feelings, and 39% reported caring less about others. These side effects aren't in children's best interests. Yet parents are forced/pressured into a position, in that if they struggle with anxiety or depression, as a result of unsupervised contact orders, they risk being labelled 'fragile' and losing their children. Either into care, or to the abusive parent (who can then state he or she is reformed) because the primary carer is then considered an 'emotional risk'. The UK is one of the only countries to remove children for such a reason. I believe this is wrong. In cases in that parents have been found guilty of significant abuse towards their partners, risk assessments should be carried out by specialist domestic violence workers, to help find a way forward for contact to progress that is safe for chidren, and that doesn't subject victims to further distress. This does not necessarily mean no contact, or long-term contact in contact centres (as understandably funding is short.) In many cases contact could be supervised into the long term by a party the primary carer feels assured by, without over night contact. This would significantly reduce emotional distress, which would be positive for both children and victims of domestic violence into the long term. Fear leads to poor mental health, dysfunction and addictions (all a strain on public funding.) It can also lead to desperate-measures; Parents have fled the UK to escape such contact orders. Only to be brought back under the Hague Convention, to lose their children forever for seeking to protect them. Children's best interests should be paramount. But the fundamental flaw in the current law, is that it neglects to take into account parental emotional wellbeing. If primary carers are subjected to significant stress, this inevitably effects children. Although this is recognised in court proceedings, and is intended to be taken into account, there is a SERIOUS CONFLICT; The current UK law states that children can be removed from parents who 'pose emotional risk', Because of this there is reluctance from parents to admit to struggling with court orders. Any parent who has been violently attacked over many years, by his or her partner, will inevitably feel afraid of unsupervised/unsupported contact. This is not because he or she is mentally ill, or of a fragile disposition, it is because parents instinctively look to protect their children. Take the ability to protect your children away from you and it leads to distress. I believe it is important for children to have a relationship with both parents. But I believe it is equally important for parents who have been abused not to be subjected to further distress. This isn't in children's best interests. Nor for children to be put at further risk of abuse. I ask for re-assurance for victims of domestic violence, that children be kept safe. Please sign this petition and share it! Thank you! Zoe.

The introduction of fees into the Employment Tribunal system has reduced the access to justice of many deserving people. The large reduction in claims, as shown by official statistics, is not mainly, as suggested, the elimination of ‘vexatious’ litigation but rather the actual prevention of access to justice of vulnerable persons. In a civilised society this is simply unacceptable and must stop at once. It is against ‘natural justice’. We ask that this divisive decision be reversed by removing fees, thus restoring traditional ‘fair play’ into the tribunal system.

There must be real accountability for the bad behaviour of individuals, not a counter-productive additional burden on the resources of our public institutions which is shouldered by the very public that have been badly served. It adds insult to injury.

It is now 5 years since the Inquiry into the Iraq war was announced, 3 years since the the hearings were completed, and and to date it has reportedly cost £10 million. It is a national scandal that Sir John Chilcot’s findings have still not been published and we call upon The Iraq Inquiry for the report’s immediate publication, including full disclosure of all communications between Tony Blair and George Bush, regardless of political expediency and personal interest. Surveys suggest that the Iraq war has claimed up to 250.000 lives, cost billions of pounds, and its aftermath continues a toll of death years after the foreign troops have left. The legacy of the war has critically undermined any moral authority that the United Kingdom seeks to exert in international affairs as well as intensifying both national and global insecurity. The vested interests of a few individuals in further prevarication must no longer override the moral right of British citizens and the world at large to know the sequence of events and culpabilities of individuals responsible for this disastrous episode. If you believe this report is long overdue, please sign my petition.

The transparency and accountability of the ICO is under the spotlight because section 14(1) VEXATIOUS decisions are being handed down on a whim by the ICO/Upper Tribunal and First Tier Tribunal and hundreds of rogue Public Authorities.Ditto for section 12(4)(b( of the EIR Act 2004. All these vexatious decisions are being handed out based on a court authority GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO and Devon County Council ,which is still before the European Court of Human Rights Section 14(1) Vexatious decisions should be a LAST RESORT but since the Dransfield case decision in Jan 2013 it has been used as a FIRST CHOICE Nutcracker.

We the undersigned believe that in a multicultural city like London the important principle of ‘policing by consent’ remains a cornerstone of modern British policing. Under radical new arrangements for the Metropolitan Police Service community engagement strategy as proposed by the Mayor of London and agreed by Lambeth Council, Lambeth Police Consultative Group (CPCG), alongside all other local London CPCGs, has seen the Mayor’s Office cut funding completely with many such important groups being closed. We believe this to be a serious and critical error of judgement The Mayor seeks to replace CPCGs with his proposed local Safer Neighbourhood Boards (SNBs) that, as currently conceived, will be far less representative than Lambeth CPCG in terms of diversity, gender, faith and youth. These proposals are currently subject to public consultation, amendment and agreement at local level by Borough Councils and Borough Commanders. It is our view that the proposed terms of reference and administrative arrangements for Lambeth SNB will be far less accessible to the general public, much less accountable in terms of its membership and , as a result, will enjoy very little credibility among alienated communities, many of which lack trust and confidence in Lambeth Police Service and other statutory agencies. Public trust in the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is central to and a prerequisite for ensuring the effective policing of crime and for improving levels of community safety. A modern, multicultural borough like Lambeth suffering high levels of deprivation, youth unemployment and crime requires a credible, inclusive, accessible public forum open to all. Lambeth CPCG has a long track record of innovation in challenging police malpractice and thus improving operational policing and MPS policy. For thirty years Lambeth CPCG has routinely held monthly public meetings attended by MPS Borough Commanders alongside their senior management teams. Also in regular attendance Lambeth officers, Councillors and other important key local stakeholders and members of civil society. Lambeth CPCG facilitates what can often be quite difficult and fraught discussions directly between statutory agencies and local communities on a range of policing related issues, for example the nature of ethical professional policing, in addition to discussions on priorities for crime prevention and reduction and community safety initiatives. One of the strengths of the CPCG is that any member of the public can walk in off the street, giving them unprecedented access to senior MPS officers and local officials tasked with reducing crime and improving public confidence. We believe the principles of independence, open access, inclusivity and accountability all inform the extent to which such forums are viewed as credible. We consider them to be fundamental to maintaining a legitimate and effective forum for ongoing police-community engagement. The central importance of this issue was recognised and highlighted by Lord Scarman in his seminal report into the causes of the 1981 Brixton disturbances; community engagement, trust and confidence were all cited as critically important factors in the maintenance of credible and effective police-community relations. This remains just as true today as it was in 1981. The Coalition Government report ‘Riot Communities and Victims Panel’ into the causes of the August 2011 disturbances recommended that ‘police forces proactively engage with communities about the impact on the perceptions of their integrity.’ The central importance of ensuring public access to timely meetings, agendas and minutes, the ability of the public and the press to raise issues of concern, to engage and ask questions of the SNB in public are considered optional in the current Draft Terms of Reference for Lambeth SNB, recently published for consultation. We believe Lambeth’s current proposals are deeply flawed and will further erode police accountability. In such high crime, tough to police areas, like Lambeth, any erosion of police accountability is likely to lead to increased community tensions. Given the challenging local history of police community relations, added to the current backdrop of legitimate public concerns about the disproportionate use of stop and search powers, deaths in police custody, allegations that MPS undercover officers spied on the family of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, the Mark Kennedy scandal and, of course, Plebgate means that in boroughs such as Lambeth trust and confidence in the MPS remains dangerously low. Whatever the new arrangements, we believe it is vital that the important principles cited above, derived at great expense, often through the tragic, fraught and sometimes extraordinarily difficult policing experience of local communities, are both respected and maintained.

MI6 is alleged to have "organised" two high-profile murders in 1961: Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba in January and UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld in September. Together with the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the South African Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB), MI6 is also alleged to have targeted UN Assistant Secretary-General Bernt Carlsson on Pan Am Flight 103 which was sabotaged over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. In 2014, because incriminating evidence has recently come to light, the United Nations is expected to launch an inquiry into these state sponsored murders. (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/The_How,_Why_and_Who_of_Pan_Am_Flight_103#Naming_names)

As someone who has had to put up with noise I have been horrified by the apathy of the authorities. despite being able to hear noise from a household that was not my direct neighbor the police could not act. If you contact the council department responsible for dealing with the problem you find that you have to make a formal complaint during normal working hours which means that the culprits are notified of YOUR complaint even before the local authority bothers to collect evidence which they will then want to do. A much simpler solution is that the police are called and that they witness and deal with the problem on the spot and perhaps leave until later a return to the property to confiscate equipment used to make excessive noise. In every neighborhood there are people who have to go to work and it is unacceptable that they should have to put up with excessive noise. I personally have witnessed where a noise complaint has been made it has resulted in retaliation from the perpetrators in the form of damage to property resulting in £1000's of damage done and the victim has had to move with the police unwilling or unable to intervene and the local authority uninterested and other neighbors too worried of retaliation to offer supporting evidence. Many people do not report noise problems and suffer in silence because they FEAR retaliation which is a highly realistic risk.

It is, of course, right and proper that everyone should pay their due taxes, but by asking for these new powers it sets a worrying precedent. At the moment they can recover owed taxes once a court ruling has been obtained, but it seems they want to get rid of this restriction on their activity and be able to operate free from any legal ties. It is especially worrying that they are bringing this in under the Finance Bill 2015, mentioned in the Budget, but without any details. The government has issued a public Consultation Direct Recovery of Debts (DRD) seeking views on their proposals to introduce into the Finance Bill 2015 the right of HMRC to recover debts over £1,000 by direct access to the debtor's bank accounts. This Consultation paper reveals the full details and everyone should be very worried as this is an unbelievable threat to our civil liberties. At present, HMRC has to go to court to seize money owed and prove it is necessary. Under the new proposals, the 'debt' can simply be removed from the debtors account at the "click of a mouse" and the debtor will have just 14 days to appeal. The 'threshold' is stated at being £1,000 which can be made up over a range of smaller debts and can INCLUDE TAX CREDITS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE. But once power is included in the 2015 Finance Bill the threshold amount can be altered and could affect many thousands of individuals. More worryingly, this precedence could pave the way for other debts (eg council tax arrears) to be removed and for the period of debt to be shortened without further legislation; effectively giving HMRC free reign to raid our personal finances at their leisure. HMRC has a history of frequently making mistakes in their calculations and have to adjust and re-adjust tax assessments. If they have unrestricted access to bank accounts, there is a strong possibility they may well take out monies incorrectly. Please don't let this happen: it is too much power and no one, or government department should be above the law.

In 2014 and 2013 the reported cost of policing this group was £1million in Brighton alone. There were 27 arrests during the 2014 march, and several violent clashes bringing injury to bystanders and destruction to property. The Marchers and EDL members often stay in town once the march is over and create an atmosphere of intimidation, often resulting in further violence. It is clear that the people of Brighton do not want the March to take place, and make their presence known along the route. Free speech is important in our country, nobody wants to deny peaceful protest no matter how abhorrent the opinions of the protesters are to us. But when a protest consistently brings violence, stands for racism, hatred of minorities and scapegoating, AND costs the tax payer hundreds of thousands of pounds to police, it's time to put an end to it. They are disturbing the peace and inciting hatred, and we want to stop them marching through our town. To show how serious this cause is, I include a link to a short video. This shows one of the mass street fights which occurred during the march, which police were powerless to prevent. WARNING contains violent scenes. http://youtu.be/uU8TnvCgBqQ

At a time of austerity for the majority of working people in the UK and David Cameron and Nick Clegg claiming we are "in this together", the UK government continues to show it is one rule for the rich and one for the poor when it comes to paying taxes. ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS. It is time David Cameron stepped up and made good on his pledge for a fairer Britain.