Amazon has avoided tax in the tens of billions of pounds and it is inappropriate for them to be given such high profile locations to promote themselves and sell to the public whilst starving the public purse of much needed tax revenue and taking advantage of job losses at TFL with the closure of ticket offices.

On Monday 23rd June, a peaceful protest by members of Sheffield Disabled People Against The Cuts and Barnsley Retirees Action Group was broken up by British Transport police. The protesters were taking part in the Freedom Ride, a long-running protest against cuts to free travel provision in South Yorkshire. Witnesses report that the police used heavy handed tactics. One witness, Jen Dunstan, of Sheffield Disabled People Against the Cuts, said: “Dozens of elderly and disabled people have been left with bruising. Some have cuts where their skin has broken from being pushed and shoved. “A placid and calm gentleman was roughly manhandled. I am angry and shocked. The police are meant to protect elderly people.” A journalist from the Sheffield Star was present, and tried to video events on his phone. He was ordered to erase footage he’d recorded on his phone because he did not have permission to film on private property inside Sheffield station. When he initially resisted the request and continued to film, he says he was told he could be arrested under terror laws. A statement from Northern Rail said: “Members of the media must have written permission from the train operator which manages the station before undertaking any filming on station property. Under no circumstances are Northern Rail employees to be filmed without prior agreement from the Northern Rail press office.” Fortunately, other witnesses were able to video the behaviour of the police on Northern Rail's property. The treatment of the elderly gentleman can be seen here:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svv9YcyZ6Os&list=UUiZU8ySSrpSg-qhR3BsYSSQ Many people who view this video will think that this treatment is disproportionate for an old man accused of fare-dodging, especially when he is taking part in a legitimate peaceful protest. In the video, five burly police officers are pinning the elderly gentleman down so that he cannot move, despite no visible signs of protest or resistance from him. It is not within the rights of Northern Rail, or any other organisation, to try to ban filming on their premises, when that filming clearly shows a questionable activity taking place with the collusion of that organisation. It is anti-democratic to try to silence the press in this way. Please sign this petition to force Northern Rail to retract their statement, and issue an apology that recognises the right of journalists and the public to film wherever they wish when a breach of a person's rights is taking place.

Many problems in social care in and around private sector centre around the failures of organisations to recruit and train staff appropriately. The dementia strategy is only one element of ensuring care is appropriate in both hospital and community settings, and that patients are treated with respect and the dignity they deserve. Not withstanding the fact that most of these services are purchased on behalf of either NHS scotland and local authorities and the majority of staff working in the care industry are often: (1) women (2) have unpaid caring commitments such as children or elderly relatives themselves (c) in poverty despite being in work (4) part time. Surely the large city councils in Scotland despite the squeeze on the public purse and NHS when commissioning should ensure that as part of the arms length approach to nursing and social care that staff are paid a living wage. This industry has large recruitment issues such as high turnover, and if companies paid the living wage it perhaps would go some way to address this and ensure adequate staffing with the appropriate knowledge and skills are employed. Most companies in the private sector do not recognise that the staff that are employed on basic salary despite giving up weekends and working unsocial hours with the only recognition of this fact being on 8 public holidays a year where staff are paid an unsocial hrs bonus and also a high number are on zero contracts.

SSCL has already cut 500 jobs across the UK. It's also announced the closure of three offices in Cardiff, Leeds and Sheffield, and is shipping 200 posts to India. SSCL, the joint venture company, is 25% government owned. The remaining 75% is controlled by French multinational Steria - one of the companies responsible for failing to deliver a £56m IT project, recently written off by The Ministry of Justice. Despite this, MoJ is now rewarding failure by awarding further work to the company. If this privatisation and offshoring goes ahead,1,000 staff in Newport and Bootle also face being privatised. More jobs could be lost. The staff in Newport and Bootle handle personal data belonging to thousands of public servants, prison and probation officers. This data would be at risk if it was offshored to a country without the UK’s robust data protection regulations. We want the government to use its stake in the SSCL company to prevent the offshoring of jobs and data and to stop future offshoring by ending its privatisation agenda.

So we can get more kids of the street and into their local skatepark where you can be active with your friends and in the future there may be some sort of events. Please sign!

I have been a registered psychiatric nurse for more than twenty years. I am gravely concerned regarding the situation unfolding within our communities and mental health services as a whole. Times are difficult and I appreciate the need for financial constraint but fear we have gone too far down this road. Following the suspension of our local psychiatric inpatient unit in 2012 our area has been without sufficient inpatient beds to meet the needs of its community. Consequently people are being placed in intolerably difficult and potentially life threatening situations, as people are discharged prematurely to free up beds, increasing pressure on dwindling community resources. Similarly people are becoming unnecessarily acute symptomatically, prior to admission, necessitating Mental Health Act Assessment, where timely intervention would minimise the need for such measures. Services are at breaking point and I fear a significant rise in untoward and avoidable incidents were sufficient resources in place. The lack of adequate inpatient beds is resulting in many of our most vulnerable being hospitalised in an untimely manner, hundreds of miles away from family, friends and the familiarity of local support and services, exacerbating difficulties arising from already fragmented care and a lack of continuity and seamlessness within service provision. Waiting times for care co-ordination are in excess of 3 months. Something I have never before encountered, leaving people in the community unsupported and without service provision. Timely intervention at the point of referral is critical to recovery, promoting well-being and optimising the efficacy of community based solutions, as alternatives to hospital admission. My purpose in writing to you is as advocate to those I serve. They are amongst the most vulnerable and I fear, increasingly neglected members of society. I respectfully petition you to bring their plight to the attention of government and support my plea to you, to support the urgent need for adequate inpatient beds, per head of the population. Services are in collapse and otherwise avoidable tragedies are going to become common place. In the last two years 1291 acute inpatient beds have been c!osed. Below is a list of individuals within my local authority, who at the time of writing are being accommodated in inpatient wards a great distance away from local facilities. There are 60 such local authorities in England alone: 19 year old hospitalised 85.2 miles away from home. 20 year old hospitalised 83.1 miles away from home. 23 year old hospitalised 48.2 miles away from home. 27 year old hospitalised 75.6 miles away from home. 27 year old hospitalised 76.8 miles away from home. 30 year old hospitalised 105.5 miles away from home. 34 year old hospitalised 222.6miles away from home. 47 year old hospitalised 82.7 miles away from home. 54 year old hospitalised 316.3 miles away from home. 58 year old hospitalised 237.8 miles away from home. 68 year old hospitalised 81.5 miles away from home. 73 year old hospitalised 69 Miles away from home. 93 year old hospitalised 81.2 miles away from home. My greatest fear is these difficulties are not locally based but reflect a national crisis within the provision of services for those in need of acute psychiatric care.

We need our hospital services back. Maternity and paediatric services at Eastbourne District General Hospital (DGH) were downgraded a year ago. The local NHS Trust said it was a temporary measure. Now we are facing a bleak future with these core services likely to be lost forever in Eastbourne. Why? In May 2013, the local NHS Trust centralised consultant-led maternity services for the area at the Conquest Hospital in Hastings leaving only a midwifery unit at the DGH. At the same time it stopped overnight care for children at the Eastbourne hospital. We were assured these changes were temporary for 18 months only. In the meantime, the East Sussex Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), the organisation which commissions NHS services, launched a review of permanent services for maternity, paediatrics and emergency gynaecology in East Sussex. It drew up six options, none of which include a two-site option for consultant- delivered services. Option 6 (selected by the CCGs) will keep consultant-led services for maternity and paediatrics at the Conquest Hospital. So people in Eastbourne will have to travel to Hastings for this care with an average total transfer time of 1 hour 34 minutes from the DGH to the Conquest. This far exceeds acceptable safety limits for many interventions such as emergency Caesarean sections. What is our alternative? Save the DGH launched an alternative proposal for the CCGs to consider alongside its six options. Option 7 keeps consultant-led maternity services, emergency gynaecology and in-patient paediatrics at both hospitals. Our proposal also maintains a level one special care baby unit and a short stay paediatric assessment unit at the DGH and the Conquest. It also goes further by stating that all core services, like emergency general surgery and emergency orthopaedics which have recently been removed, are needed and should be provided at the DGH. Option 7 maintains all of the services that the IRP stated must remain. Why do we need Jeremy Hunt's help? The CCGs made a ruling on permanent changes to services in June and selected Option 6. Then HOSC met on the 28th July and failed to refer the decision back to the Secretary of State. The IRP ruling states that these Consultant-led services must remain in Eastbourne and Hastings and therefore we ask Jeremy Hunt to intervene and enforce the IRP ruling. People living in Eastbourne deserve a hospital in the town that provides them with the care they need. If maternity and paediatrics are permanently downgraded at the DGH, we will have the most disadvantaged town in the UK for the population size. Please support us by signing. We need your help! For more information visit www.savethedgh.org.uk

There are already many millions of visitors to the area each year, hikers, cyclists and motorists, a number which Scarborough Borough Council's Tourism Strategy is seeking to increase. The removal of public toilets in this area will leave many people in distress and will discourage tourism in the area.

We consider that the public toilets are needed: *by the increasing numbers of visitors to the town arriving on foot, by bicycle, bus and car *by local residents and business owners; not all businesses have their own toilets *by the many users of the adjacent Lothian Gardens especially children and their parents and *by people working in the town on a day to day basis as part of their trade.

East Lothian Council should not be able to dictate to their tenants what animals they can keep, unless the animal causes damage to the property or is a danger to the public. So if you have a GUINEA PIG, RAT, CHINCHILLAS, DEGUS, TURTLE, CHIPMUNK, SNAKE, LIZARD, GECKO, SCORPION, AFRICAN PYGMY HEDGEHOG, FROGS, TOADS, NEWTS, SALAMANDERS, STICK INSECTS, ANY INVERTEBRATE, TARANTULAS, SPIDERS, AFRICAN LAND SNAILS OR ANYTHING REMOTELY EXOTIC YOU WILL BE MADE TO GET RID OF THEM.

Parks and green spaces have been shown to improve the wellbeing of local people and attract visitors from further afield. According to Bristol City Council's Parks and Green Spaces Strategy the centre of Bristol is lacking in green space, so temporary park closures would further deplete this green space. Parks are a Public Service owned and run by the council on behalf of the People of Bristol and should not be exploited as a way to generate revenue.

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.