It's completely unacceptable that someone has, allegedly, been denied access to travel because of the colour of their skin. From Rosa Parks to Bristol's own Paul Stephenson, activists have struggled to ensure, and maintain, equal access to public transport for everyone regardless of their skin colour. Not tackling this head-on sets a dangerous precedent and will surely lead to more incidents of discrimination. National Express needs to address this serious allegation and win back public confidence. It should take this opportunity to become an industry leader and set an example in this time of tension when discrimination against Muslims is on the rise. Labour Councillor for Easton, Afzal Shah, said: “Have we really returned to days where people are kicked off buses because of the colour of skin, their appearance or religion? National Express has a lot of questions to answer. Yes, people who are behaving suspiciously on public transport should be challenged, but when someone is apparently asked to leave a bus because they are a Muslim carrying a bag, that is unacceptable and Islamophobic.” The allegations are serious and could amount to a criminal offence under the discrimination act. This petition is supported by ACORN Bristol, Bristol Somali Forum and Bristol Green Party. Links: - B24/7 Marvin Rees' article: http://www.bristol247.com/channel/opinion/your-say/politics/mayor-should-confront-national-express - Bristol Post - latest article about the protest: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-bus-station-protest-way-Muslim-treated/story-28387134-detail/story.html - Bristol Cable: https://thebristolcable.org/2015/12/muslim-man-thrown-off-bus-full-inquiry-demanded/ - The Mirror - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/muslim-man-thrown-national-express-6967457 - Bristol Post - witness statements: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Man-thrown-National-Express-coach-Bristol/story-28312057-detail/story.html - Bristol Post - Ibrahim Mohamed Ismail's statement: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Kicked-National-Express-coach-m-Muslim-Bristol/story-28320122-detail/story.html - The Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/national-express-muslim-passenger-thrown-off-bus-was-asked-to-leave-due-to-concerns-over-excess-a6763571.html - A similar incident on National Express in June 2015: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/25/national-express-investigates-claim-of-drivers-racist-and-islamophobic-tirade - 'Muslim man forced off London Underground after commuter accuses him of acting 'suspiciously' with an iPad' (10th Dec 2015): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-man-forced-off-london-underground-after-commuter-accuses-him-of-acting-suspiciously-with-an-a6766941.html

It isn't fair that 16 and 17 can't vote for who will make important decisions for their future. They should be able to decide who they want making these decisions as they also get affected by the changes. It isn't fair that people can make the decision on who runs their future but they can't so we think that the voting age should be brought down. Our reasons for this is 16 year olds already have many opportunities like: leaving school working full time paying taxes getting married having consenting sex and having a child leaving home joining the armed forces. They are also responsible for any criminal action and can go to jail. We think that all of these show responsibility and adultery so we don't understand why 16 year olds aren't seen as mature enough to do something as "simple" as voting. Another reason we have is people of this age have a bit of knowledge about politics and actually, a lot of people are interested in it. We have found out that a lot of people would vote at 16 if they had the chance and they don't want to wait another two years to make an impact in the government. The only thing is, a lot of people don't think that we are educated enough about politics. In our questionnaire, 18 out of 120 people said that they think we are. This would definitely need to be changed because they need to have a wider knowledge on the subject so they know about it before this action takes place.

The disparity between the State pension our oldest citizens have to live on, and an MP's high salary together with non means tested perks and allowances, is a national disgrace, but its never even been brought to light, or discussed. Well its time it was. Please sign and share my petition.

Because for many staff working in Universities their pay is squeezed while others are paid extortionately. Wage rises have not kept up with inflation, staff face job insecurity and regradings, and privatised services often pay only the legal minimum wage for working at the same site. Meanwhile private remuneration committees set the highest wages without criteria or accountability, at up to 25x the pay of staff at the same institution and pay rises of up to 40% per year. It's just not fair! This campaign is led by UNISON.

The proposals were developed in consultation with the local community, prioritising feedback from rough sleepers at the group's weekly Love Kitchen. Love Activists hope to gather 1250 signatures to force the council to debate the proposals at a full council meeting. Reasoning/Rationale: 1. In May, the Supreme Court ruled that when local authorities make vulnerability assessments, a 'homeless person' should be compared with an 'ordinary person who is at risk of becoming homeless'. There is no doubt that any homeless person is 'significantly more vulnerable' than an ordinary person, therefore everybody living on the street should be assessed as being in priority need. The judgement also made it clear that while councils are often under huge financial strain, this must not be used as an excuse for avoiding their legal duties. To guarantee duty of care and legal obligations are met, all local authorities must provide permanent housing for anybody living on the streets. 2. Housing first pilot project had a 70% success rate in Brighton & Hove - helping 7 out of 10 people with high support needs into accommodation. 3. Extended winter provision: additional services provided over a period of time e.g. every night from November to March. If the material resources exist to provide shelter from a severe weather emergency, economic arguments against keeping the shelters open are not as powerful as the humanitarian ones for opening them. (Copy & pasted from 'Homeless Link') Humanitarian Response: SWEP should be applied responsibly to prevent death at all times; 3 consecutive nights at zero or below is the minimum requirement. Local authorities should consider factors such as wet weather and wind chill, snow coverage and duration of extreme weather when looking at provision. Preventing deaths on the streets is the aim of the protocol, so if this demands more beds and a longer response the local authority should do everything it can to prevent harm to individuals. Economics cannot change the weather any more than economics can determine people's relative vulnerability to each other. 4. It doesn't have to be severely wet to have a severe impact if you're sleeping on the streets. Severely windy, wet weather is an emergency, as is extremely hot, dry weather. Homeless Link offers advice and guidance to BHT, St Mungo's and Brighton & Hove City Council. Currently their minimum definition of severe weather is when the temperature drops below zero for three consecutive nights. (Copy & pasted from 'Homeless Link') There is no strict definition of what counts as ‘severe weather’. Local authorities should proactively identify any weather that could increase the risk of serious harm to people sleeping rough and put measures in place to minimise this. This includes extreme cold, wind and rain. It is important not to presume when, or in what form, severe weather will occur. Sleeping rough is never comfortable, but the suffering is exacerbated by all elements It doesn't have to be severely wet to have a severe impact if you're sleeping on the streets. ('Homeless Link') http://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Winter%20provision%20guidance%202015-16.pdf 5. If this doesn't happen there will be no truly affordable places to live and more people will inevitably become homeless. 6. This would make use of empty properties, keep people safe and avoid waste of tax payers money, private money and time spent on security, policing and court costs. (Copy & pasted from 'Homeless Link') In addition to the direct risk associated with severe weather, local authorities should work alongside other local statutory and voluntary services to identify and mitigate actions taken during severe weather that can increase risk for those sleeping rough. For example, people may choose to sleep in riskier places, such as in bins, where they can find cover. They may also enter buildings or property illegally, or increase their substance use as a coping mechanism. 7. No single authority can successfully move to implement all of these measures, because if they 'move first', their service capacity would risk being overwhelmed by people migrating to that local authority. Therefore, we must work towards implementing these measures nationally. [email protected] twitter.com/loveactivists_ facebook.com/loveactivistsbrighton

While women may be happy for extra funding for such charities, this purely political gesture completely misses the point. These products are NOT luxuries so why are they taxed as such? What George Osborne did today was keep a discriminatory tax and make it an enforced charitable contribution which only women have to pay. This is important because the tax is discriminatory.

This once again will hit the poorer families and the sick and disabled! Why do this section of the public have to suffer to repay the monies stolen/lost by the bankers? Yet MP's find its ok to give themselves an 11% pay rise. Their 'Rich' friends lost the countries money they should be made to repay it by increasing their taxes! Let those who can afford pay! This section of society are already struggling, many have committed suicide as they can no longer cope with the stress of all the cuts and reductions in their income. Its discrimination by the Government to Cut only benefits that the poorer people are entitled to claim!

No one should be put through an ordeal like this - especially someone with children waiting for her back home. I honestly could not believe this headline when scrolling through my facebook news feed. I once read a short story called The Lottery by Shirley Jackson in which a woman is stoned to death because she is unlucky enough to draw the unlucky ticket in the local 'lotery'. That was fantasy. This is reality; and the two should never be mixed. Please help prevent this barbaric act before it's too late. Surely we've had enough of death and murder?

Do I really even need to answer this? I'll just tell you about a man I befriended a few years back, let's call him John. He was homeless. I got taking to him whilst waiting for the Gosport ferry after work one day. John was selling the big issue, he was clearly unwell. When I questioned him on his health he said is was "just a cold." I'd bump into John at least once a week and as the weeks went on his health deteriorated. One evening I pretty much ordered him to get a bus to QA. I watched him get on the bus. I didn't see John for the rest of that winter, then around April I saw him in North End. He was unrecognisable, he was a different colour, his eyes where shining, his hair was fuller and he was standing up straight. He had a girlfriend. He told me he that when he go to QA they all panicked over him. He had got pneumonia. I am quite certain if John hadn't gone to hospital AND if he hadn't had a roof over his head whilst he recovered, he would have died. It is also much less likely that he would have had pneumonia if he was not exposed to the brutality of a British winter. If there is shelter in the form of empty or unused buildings, is it humane to deny it to those who need it the most? This year 2,744 are estimated to be sleeping rough in the uk on any one night. This is up 14% from estimations on rough sleepers in 2013 and a staggering 55% from 2010! Let's try and change that for the better!

The new UK passport design supposedly celebrates the British 'cultural pantheon' but in 16 pages features only 2 women, despite finding plenty of space for men, as well as everyday objects such as the postage stamp and telephone box. British history contains countless inspirational women such as Jane Austen, Emmeline Pankhurst, Charlotte Bronte, Barbara Hepworth, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, Laura Ashley, Boudicca, Queen Elizabeth I, Elizabeth Fry, Florence Nightingale, Mary Wollstonecraft, Marie Stopes, Agatha Christie , Beatrix Potter, Maggie Smith and Amy Winehouse - and many, many more besides! It is wrong that in 2015 men and women do not have equal representation on this important document - a document that will be in the hands of every man, woman and child for years to come. We are constantly hearing about how we must encourage women and girls to become engineers, doctors, company directors and much much more, but this sends the message to our women and girls that their contribution to society does not count. Is the contribution of inspirational women such as Emmeline Pankhurst or Jane Austen really not as important or interesting as a postage stamp or telephone box?

Having a job and earning a decent wage is a necessity if we as a society are going to address some of the biggest concerns facing our generation. Poverty has a devastating effect on families across Scotland and in-work poverty has no place in the 21st century. There is no excuse for low-pay, when time and time again it has been shown to be not only an ineffective means of employment, but also a hindrance on long-term sustainable economic growth. Low wages result in poorer services, higher staff turnover, increased absences from work and a lower quality of life for staff stuck in low pay. We have not only an opportunity, but a responsibility, to tackle poverty and eradicate the blight it puts on people’s lives once and for all. Addressing low pay will not put an end to hardship overnight, as it is only part of a much wider and more complex picture of social justice, but it is a start, and it should be our goal to achieve it.

As a single parent I work full time and not only responsible to keep my children fed, clothed and housed I also have £700 nursery fees to pay monthly. Currently absent parents pay 11% of their gross income (CSA) and have equal rights and responsibilities for a child to whom their name is on a piece of paper known as a birth certificate... YET, the responsibilities are significantly cut when it comes to financial support - why? It is punitive to the resident parent and the detriment is felt by the children housed with that parent. Significant changes need to be implemented in respects to parental responsibility to encompass ALL areas of a child's life or none at all - not the areas that the non resident patent chooses. My children and I live renting, in debt and on the poverty line whilst the non resident parent owns a home, car, motorbike and has holidays. Is 11% of their gross income really £41 per week to have such luxuries?