Because the BBC is one of this country's gems which is admired worldwide for it's reliability. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/08/tv-licence-fee-decriminalise-miller-bbc

This is important because the government withdrew legal aid at a time when it contracted out its duties to ATOS to assess whether or not claimants, of sickness benefits, were fit for work. Job Centres and the Department of Works & Pensions have strict guidelines to follow when assessing claimants, however, by contracting out to ATOS they avoided these strict guidelines to reach the government's targets to reduce the number of people on sickness benefits. Thousands of people, who were misdiagnosed by ATOS, won their appeals. No fines have been levied on ATOS, or compensation paid by them, for financial loss or the pain and suffering caused to the individuals, despite the proven negligence at the tribunals.

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

It is important for the people of this country to know that no one is above the law. The current situation where the tax payer is bailing out the financial institutions is intolerable. How did banks end up selling and purchasing unsustainable mortgages if no fraud was committed.

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.

I think it speaks for itself as to why it is important. Bradford Council claim to be in line with all other Councils. How is £85 in line with £10 for exactly the same thing? The Council made 3.33 million pounds doing this in the council tax year 2012/2013. Un-waged people are struggling just to pay council tax they also have to pay bedroom tax if they are renting privately, benefits do not take these taxes into consideration and neither do Bradford Council. Bradford Council have already announced Council Tax rises for the 2 years to come. During the Council Tax year 2012/2013 Bradford Council summonsed 1 in 4 households for Council Tax. With the current economic climate more and more people will be summoned as less people are able to afford to pay Council Tax, why should people already struggling be charged £85 per summons whilst others are charged only £10 for exactly the same thing?

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/

Millions of tonnes of food, particularly fresh food, that is perfectly good for human consumption are destroyed every year by supermarkets because it is in some way "blemished". Meanwhile those living in poverty, housed or on the streets, are going hungry or even malnourished here in the UK. This is utterly immoral and must cease NOW.

The cuts mean that in the cases of divorce and separation the spouse denied legal aid will be the one who cannot afford to go out to work because they are looking after young children. The spouse who can afford legal representation is the more likely to win the custody battle. In very many cases he or she is really not the best parent to look after the child/ren and the heartache for both the children and the better placed parent will be grossly unfair. This matter should most definitely NOT be a case whereby the parent who has the money to spend on the case is the victor. Lives will be severely blighted. Many in particular only see their children as a key to the door of the family home and do not have the children's interests at heart. The withdrawing of legal aid in these cases is grossly inhumane and really must not go ahead.

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

This is important to me, because there's a lack of awareness that men can get raped or sexually assaulted despite the recent male rape attack in Bristol. According to UK charity Mankind 1 in 29 have reported being sexually assaulted and 1 in 20 have been affected by sexual violence. There's a huge denial that male rape exists, rooted in mistaken ideas that 'real' men can fight off an attacker, women cannot rape men, and male rape only happens in prison. These mistaken beliefs make it hard for male survivors to come forward, because they are left with feelings of shame, confusion and self blame for what happened. That's why we need the council and police to publicly recognise male rape to make it easier for male rape survivors to get the help they need and to report the crime.

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.