Help us protect our Crisis Line in Bristol! Earlier this month, Bristol Mental Health (BMH) announced the proposed closure of the crisis line from the end of November 2016. Some concerned users of the crisis line have expressed anxiety over the potential changes, sharing that they worry they would "lose a valuable service" that has helped them 'throughout the last eighteen months or so', approximately how long the line has been operational. With at least one in four people experiencing a mental health issue in their lifetime, now is the time for increased and clear mental health support that is easily accessible for all. We feel that there needs to be more improved signposting, with clear and easily accessible information available for people wanting to use mental health services and seek support. We want to ensure that any changes to the crisis line are in the best interests of those currently accessing services, and those that may access Bristol’s mental health services in the the future. We will be meeting with BMH and Bristol CCG on 9th September to discuss the crisis line further, and will also announce a date for an open meeting to get wider views in the near future. In the meantime, please join us in ensuring proper scrutiny of the future of our Crisis Line and spread the word of this vital campaign by signing and sharing this petition to show you are with us when we meet with them. If you want to get in touch about this campaign, or share your experience of using the Crisis Line, then please drop BIMHN Secretary, Tom, an email at: [email protected] References 1. BIMHN article breaking the story: http://bimhn.org.uk/news/bristol-crisis-line-closure/ 2. Bristol Cable article: https://thebristolcable.org/2016/08/mental-health-crisis-line-to-close-oh-wait/ 3. Second BMH Statement: http://bristolmentalhealth.org/news-and-events/bristol-mental-health-news/2016/august/statement-regarding-bmhs-crisis-line/ 4. Latest BIMHN statement and link to third statement from BMH: http://bimhn.org.uk/news/response-latest-crisis-line-statement/ 5. Updated BIMHN news article on the campaign, including latest statement from BMH: http://bimhn.org.uk/news/crisis-line-update/

The term ‘Short Breaks’ for families of disabled children, conjures up a beautiful and relaxed vision of families merrily enjoying weekends away, holidays abroad and special, celebratory times with family and all at the expense of the tax payer, when in reality this could not be further from the truth. These short breaks are periods of respite for the families giving them precious time to spend with their other children whose needs are, through sheer necessity, often placed a distant second to their disabled sibling’s complex care needs. This time often allows families do the ordinary everyday tasks that many of us take for granted, such as homework, going swimming, maybe a trip to the cinema and spending priceless time with their parents. Parents often carry out the more mundane domestic tasks such as washing, cleaning and shopping during these times. Other parents access these services to enable them to take part in social activities, maintain friendships and relationships, and access further training or have some simple down time to recuperate so they are able to continue to care for their child at home. The few short hours our special children spend at the specialised after-school clubs, Youth Clubs, Holiday Play Schemes, Saturday Clubs and overnight breaks, with highly trained staff who can meet their complex needs, enables many parents to continue to work full time and provide valuable financial contributions to the economy and local community. The short breaks undeniably enable families to cope with their extraordinary day to day life. The withdrawal of these short breaks will have a catastrophic effect on some families who will quickly become unable to cope and will be faced with one of the most heart breaking decisions any parent will be forced to make, which is to move their child into a residential setting, thus splitting their family forever. Our special children simply cannot access mainstream activities, no matter how much we would love this to be the case and these short breaks give each and every one of them the opportunity to socialise with their peers, to laugh, to play, to be children – how can anyone deny them this? Would it be acceptable to close all of the mainstream playgrounds, groups, holiday schemes, after-school clubs and social activities? The answer to this we are sure, would be a resounding NO! Parents of our special children must invest huge amounts of time and energy to meet the care requirements and demands of their disabled children and they do this without question and at great personal cost, as this is what parents do for their children. The savings being made are potentially equal to the cost just one child moving into residential care? By keeping the funding in place you will support hundreds of children and families for the same cost as one in care.

In February and March 2012 my 11 year old daughter, Sophie, was put in a ‘spit hood’ by Sussex Police officers on at least three occasions. Sophie has a rare neurological disability, similar to autism, that can cause her to act in ways that people find challenging. She can become very upset when she is over-stimulated and can sometimes spit out of frustration. I had never heard of a ‘spit hood’ until one was used on my daughter. It is a material bag that goes over someone’s head with a drawstring to tighten it. Sussex Police allows its officers to put spit hoods on anyone who is spitting, regardless of whether they are a hardened adult criminal or a terrified 11 year old disabled girl who isn’t in control of her actions. I cannot describe how traumatic it was for Sophie to be hooded by police officers. Due to her disability she finds it very upsetting to have someone even touch her head. Having strangers put a bag over her head when she was already extremely distressed was profoundly shocking for her and she still hasn’t fully recovered from the experience over four years later. In June 2016 the Independent Police Complaints Commission published its report into Sophie’s treatment by the police. It found that 11 police officers and one member of police staff had cases to answer for misconduct. However, the IPCC wasn’t able to criticise the repeated use of the spit hoods as this was authorised by Sussex Police policy. Obviously it is not a pleasant experience to be spat at; however, the risk to police officers needs to be balanced against the very real psychological and physical risks to children who are subjected to this shocking treatment. Several of the largest policy forces around the country, including West Midlands Police and Merseyside Police, do not authorise the use of spit hoods on anyone let alone on children. In 2009 a man died after he was placed in a spit hood and became unwell in a Peterborough police station. In the wake of national media coverage about Sophie’s case (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/ipcc-criticises-sussex-police-treatment-11-year-old-disabled-girl) Sussex Police confirmed that it would not stop its officers from hooding children. I think this is wrong. The police do an important and difficult job, but I don’t think they should be allowed to treat children in an inhuman, degrading and dangerous way. If you agree with me please sign this petition and call on Sussex Police to stop using spit hoods on children. Thank you. Note: names have been changed for legal reasons.

The actions of the NEC are so undemocratic they do not belong in this country. All across society they have excluded members and supports with bitter choices. This cannot be allowed to go on in The Labour Party.

This is important to give people mentioned there independence and inclusion. There freedom from there carers. And it would give there carers some rest bite

Our family have been on the Bromley housing register, since 19/01/15 and we have been given the highest priority (1) for housing, which should mean a short wait. We have a severely disabled two and a half year old son, (Teddy) and have been told that it will be a long wait until we can get a house. While we wait, we are sleeping on the living room floor, as he is too big to carry upstairs and the problem is only getting worse as he gets bigger. The council knows of our situation and has said that they can’t do anything because there are not enough houses for the thousands of people on the list and even less available to those requiring adaptions. They have assessed us as needing a lift, wheelchair access, ramps, a wet room or adapted bath and hoists. In the year and a half we've been on the list, There have only been two suitable adaptable houses made available in Bromley, the last was over a year ago. This was one of the managers response to our MP who wrote to Bromley council on our behalf: "I’m afraid the continuing extreme scarcity of such valuable properties (which is an even bigger problem to us than the mismatch between supply and demand for general needs properties) continues to mean that very vulnerable families are suffering a long delay before being able to move from very difficult circumstances." I don't believe this is acceptable for my family or the many others in the same situation, facing the same insurmountable challenge. We feel really trapped by the whole situation as everyone we have spoken to has refused or been unable to help in any practical way. Please sign this petition to support our family and force Bromley council to open their eyes to this neglect.

Legal Spark was formed as a result of the crisis in legal aid. People were going without representation because they could not afford a lawyer. This is particularly the case for disabled people. No one else would do this type of work, as it was deemed too expensive, not financially viable and also too complex. Daniel Donaldson, a disabled Solicitor, set up Legal Spark with the Support of the Scottish Institute for Enterprise under their Young Innovators Challenge 2015 programme. Daniel wanted to develop creative solutions to help people access justice and to fix the exclusion that disabled people face from the legal system. Daniel spent one year talking to the Law Society about this issue, highlighting that it was important that everyone could access a lawyer. Legal Spark consulted with the Chief Executive (Lorna Jack), the Head of Professional Practice, the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar (James Ness) and the Secretary to the Civil Legal Aid Quality Assurance Committee (Hannah Sayers) amongst others. A document was prepared that explained what Legal Spark was planning to do. The Law Society accepted this document and did not object. The Law Society encouraged Legal Spark and found their approach "refreshing" and "innovative". Legal Spark was granted permission to do Legal Aid work in November 2015, and a compliance certificate was issued in December 2015. Legal Spark began helping the many disabled people that needed their help and began to have success. In April 2016, the Law Society decided that they had made an "error" and instructed Legal Spark to stop all Legal Aid work by Thursday 30 June 2016. By this stage, Legal Spark had a number of clients, with active and complex cases, some of which were about to go to Court. "A" is one such client. They had experienced awful disability discrimination from a University. They were not given adequate support to help them during a course, and had to leave. Additionally, Legal Spark uncovered evidence that the University's staff had used "unprofessional language" in their approach to "A". This case has now been lodged in Court. "B" is another client adversely affected by this decision. B is also disabled and is housebound. They had tried to find a lawyer for sometime but because of their rural location in the Highlands there were no Solicitors available to help. Legal Spark took on this case and was successful (in part) in achieving a resolution for B. However, because B had been adversely affected by a decision of Highland Council, and had lost out financially, the case may need to go to Court. B is unable to find anyone else to help them. These are only two examples of where Legal Spark is making a difference, there are others too. Since establishing Legal Spark, Daniel Donaldson has not drawn a salary and has used some of his own money to sustain the Legal Practice while it develops and is able to stand on its own feet. Legal Spark has also grown to enable it to employ staff and provide much need paid employment to some disabled people and unemployed law graduates. The Legal Aid certificate meant that Legal Spark could help people who could not access help elsewhere. Now "A", "B" and other will have to go without representation because of the Law Society of Scotland's failures. The Law Society's Chief Executive (Lorna Jack)says that they have to act in the public interest. The Director of Regulation (Philip Yelland) shares this view. 1. Where is the public interest in denying disabled people representation? 2. Also, where is the public interest is giving permission to do Legal Aid work only to revoke that permission 6 months later? The Law Society say that there are other Solicitors who can help, however this is not true. Legal Spark contacted 134 Civil Legal Aid lawyers with advertised specialism in discrimination law. Even the biggest Legal Aid firm in Scotland could not help. The Law Society has said that this will cause Legal Spark’s disabled client’s “inconvenience”. This is an offensive comment; they have never met any client, they have ignored client’s opinions, and also refused to acknowledge that they will suffer substantial prejudice in their cases because of the Law Society’s decision. This petition is addressed to the Law Society and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It is important that you fulfil your roles correctly. Overturn your decision to stop Legal Spark doing legal aid work, remedy the mistake you have made and apologise. This is the only way you can restore public trust and continue to say you act in the public interest. Allow Legal Spark, and their clients the opportunity to continue to work together for the public interest and tackle the horrors faced by disabled people on a daily basis.

Orkambi is a drug that is vital in the preservation of the lives of people suffering from cystic fibrosis. It's currently not available to patients on the NHS and deemed "not value for money" by NICE. The aim is to get this drug available to all cystic fibrosis patients and start saving lives.

So that carers get a fair wage .

Poole Council's closure of town centre and shopping area toilets is hurting those who need more accessible loos - whether that be for those with disabilities, parents with small children and our OAPs. The alternative offered of using the toilets provided in shops does not take into account our community's needs as the shops taking part in the scheme may not be open when you need it or not be what people need. For example, I have spoken to disabled people that would not want to go into a cafe to use their wc to change themselves with their helper. One other lady said: "My husband had prostate cancer. We wouldn't have been able to go out if there were no public toilets for him to use. There are many in the same situation who rely on them." In Bournemouth, they have new disabled toilets with hoist and a changing table. Let's get Poole Council to reinstate the public toilets - particularly for OAPs, parents with small children and disabled people.

The station is a main link for our community and at the present time cannot be accessed freely by people with children in prams and wheelchair bound. The nearest station with these facilities is Eastleigh where you have to change trains to get you back to the right side of Hedge End Station. Which involves time and hassle.

For too long priority signage has been ignored. Pregnant women are left to stand, disabled people are ignored, young children get squashed and the elderly shown little consideration. Priority seat users shouldn't have to ask. LET'S DO IT TOGETHER! #lookupgetup is aimed at making sure we all take social responsibility to ensure priority seats are available for those that need them. Together we're pledging not to fall asleep, continually look at something VERY important on our phones or bury our heads in a newspaper. Instead, if we're sat in a priority seat, we will look up regularly and offer up the seat as soon as we see someone who might need it more. If you're worried about embarrassing yourself, just don't sit there. WHAT ELSE? In exchange I will contact transport providers, starting with TFL, asking them to provide better signage and promote awareness. Let's try and crack this - we have no problem telling people to stand on the right of escalators, why should this be any different? SPREAD THE WORD! If you see or know of anyone who qualifies for a priority seat and has been ignored, please tell them about this campaign!