Rushcliffe Borough Council have proposed plans to fine homeless people £100 under the 2014 "Public Space Protection Order". Rushcliffe Borough Council believe that the rough sleepers cause a "nuisance" to those who live locally. Fines can be increased to £1000 following non-payment of the original fine. The idea of fining those who already have so little that they are forced to sleep out in the cold is a cruel and heartless act. This is attacking vulnerable persons and does not aid in resolving the homeless issues. Other campaigns have successfully halted other councils from imposing similar fines. More info here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37693295?client=ms-android-htc-rev

In 2010, the US government passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) obliging US citizens, regardless of dual citizenships and even though they may not have lived in the US since childhood, to self-report their non-US assets and to pay US tax on foreign income if the foreign tax should be less than US tax. For example, if such persons sell their home, then they are liable for American capital gains tax on the sale as the UK levies no such tax. FATCA obliges all non-US financial institutions to search through their customer databases to identify those customers suspected of being US citizens and to disclose the account holders' names, addresses, and the transactions of most types of account. It requires foreign financial institutions to require all foreign account holders (not just US citizens) to certify their foreign status. In 2014, The Economist called FATCA's "extraterritoriality stunning even by Washington's standards." FATCA potentially affects 173,470 people born in the US by chance but many of whom left the country as small children and have since been resident in the UK and are UK citizens. Following FATCA's passage, many such "accidental Americans" suffered closure of their bank accounts: a 2014 survey of US citizens in other countries by Democrats Abroad found that 12.7% of respondents had been denied financial services by their banks, making it harder for accidental Americans to live and work in their countries of residence. Accidental Americans often no owe US income tax, but must spend thousands of dollars in accounting fees to prove that fact, and face potential fines of tens of thousands of dollars for paperwork errors. Those who have spent their lives planning for their retirement without considering the US tax consequences of the non-US financial instruments they hold may find that US taxation wipes out most of their returns on investments. UK residents suspected to be US citizens are separated out at their financial institutions for differential treatment, based upon their place of birth and nationality. Discrimination according to national origin is prohibited in most countries and by the European Convention on Human Rights. American Citizens Abroad, a not-for-profit organization representing the interests of the millions of Americans residing outside the United States, points out that FATCA's problem is citizenship-based taxation. The United States and Eritrea are the only countries in the world which impose taxation and reporting requirements on citizens living abroad permanently. The Guardian reports that Americans living abroad feel financially terrorized by FATCA requirements. According to research by Democrats Abroad: "These survey results show the intense impact FATCA is having on overseas Americans. Their financial accounts are being closed, their relationships with their non-American spouses are under strain, some Americans are being denied promotion or partnership in business because of FATCA reporting requirements and some are planning or contemplating renouncing their US citizenship”. The US will not allow accidental Americans to renounce citizenship until they have filed five years’ of tax returns. Due to the rise in applications, the fee for renouncing citizenship was raised by roughly 400 percent in 2015 to $2,350. According to a recent piece in The Economist, a UK resident who was born in America but moved to Britain as a child, “recently received a huge bill from the IRS [the US Internal Revenue Service], out of the blue, for many years of unfiled taxes. He had not realised that he owed anything; he had always paid taxes promptly in Britain. The IRS was so aggressive that he feared he might lose his technology business; he even discussed divorce with his wife as a way to shield their assets. In the end, he settled for a six-figure sum.” In 2014, the UK Government entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement whereby financial institutions in the UK report information about US accounts to HMRC. HMRC then provides the information to the US. The UK government has estimated that the cost to British businesses will be £1.1 billion to £2 billion for the first five years, in order to locate the US citizens. HMRC estimates its own one-off IT and staff project costs at approximately £5m, with ongoing annual costs of £1.4m from this year. FATCA’s effects on UK citizens who by accident of birth are deemed American means that the UK Government’s cooperation with FATCA must end. The relationship between the British state and its citizens is founded on an implicit contract whereby, in exchange for obedience to the law and performance of their civic duties, citizens have a right to the state’s protection.

PERSONAL PRIVACY: The Digital Economy Bill currently before Parliament will introduce compulsory age verification without guaranteeing privacy protections for subscribers. This omission risks users’ personal details and private sexual preferences being exploited for commercial gain and/or leaked into the public domain. SEXUAL FREEDOM: Consensual adult sex should not be outlawed, yet this Bill will prohibit the publication of depictions of sexual activities that are legal to perform. This Bill imposes a financial burden on free, amateur and niche commercial websites, affecting sexual minorities by denying them from freely expressing their sexuality.

Anti-immigrant hate crime in the UK has increased fivefold over the past few months (according to the National Police Chiefs' Council). The UK media has, in the words of the United Nations human rights chief, peddled "sustained and unrestrained anti-foreigner abuse" and "vilification, intolerance and politicization of migrants." Migrants are routinely portrayed as less-than-human, and unworthy of dignity and respect. The Daily Express alone is responsible for headlines such as "BRITAIN MUST BAN MIGRANTS" and " SEND IN ARMY TO HALT MIGRANT INVASION." Specsavers: is this your vision? We are calling on you to take a stand, and no longer tacitly endorse the demonisation of migrant communities by the Daily Express. Just earlier this year, the newspaper was forced to publish a correction after press watchdog IPSO ruled that a piece entitled 'Europe's leaders have no plan to cut immigration' inflated and distorted migration figures. The impact of this kind of media rhetoric is not limited to the newspaper stands: it has real-life, divisive consequences. By withdrawing a recent front-page advert from the Daily Express, you have recognised that what your brand appears alongside, matters. We call on you to take this further and withdraw all financial and symbolic support for a newspaper that is notorious for inciting racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia.

1500 children were transferred yesterday, Wednesday 2nd November, from the container camp in Calais to processing centres and temporary accommodation in France Besides the children with family to join in UK, there are many hundreds of unaccompanied children seeking asylum. Surely we can offer sanctuary to a large proportion of these children in Scotland and give them the care and attention they need? The risk of unsupervised children leaving temporary centres in France and setting out alone or in small groups to look for an illegal route to UK is HUGE. It has been reported that many children went missing during last week's evacuation of the Calais Camp, as did 129 children during partial evacuation of the camp in February this year. It will be shameful for us a a nation if we cannot resolve this situation, by harnessing the goodwill of the British public in welcoming these children, and encouraging Local Authorities to accommodate them.

Unaccompanied children in the Calais Jungle are suffering appalling conditions. Many are being abused and have mental health problems. Many have been injured and some killed trying to reach the UK. Their suffering is needless - they have the legal right to be in the UK. The Home Office has the details of nearly 400 young people and children with legal entitlement to come to the UK. They are therefore now our responsibility. Refusing to welcome them is criminal negligence. The Calais Jungle is due to be demolished by October 31. The children must be brought to safety before then. As Hastings and Rye residents, with a proud tradition of helping those in need, we call on Amber Rudd MP to do whatever she can to bring those children to safety immediately.

Because the extreme bloodshed and destruction in and of Syria is a War Crime foisted on them by the West and their Middle East 'Allies', and just like Iraq and Libya, it is a 'Regime Change' plot based on lies. The creation, arming, paying and transport to Syria of terrorist mercenary interventionist groups is the worst crime of all, a 'Crime Against Peace', which also enshrines War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

While we welcome action against anti-social behaviour, Sunderland city council’s proposals for new Public Space Protection Orders seem to be focused on the persecution of homeless individuals. This is particularly apparent in the plans to stop ‘bin raking’. It is a disgrace that in one of the world’s richest countries people need to feed themselves, or make a living, from the contents of public waste bins. Imposing fines on these individuals, and those who beg on our city’s streets, would be pointless and counter-productive. It would serve only to distress the individuals concerned and increase the work and, therefore, the cost of police, community workers and the CPS. We appeal to Sunderland City Council to reconsider these plans and to take steps to address the underlying problems of homelessness, poverty and substance dependence. http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/beggars-could-face-fines-under-new-sunderland-plans-1-8139928

It is time for a new humanitarian approach. The French have done everything possible to prevent refugees entering the UK, although you wouldn't get this from the anti European UK press, so change the approach, stop spending on penning people in and help them with a job, training and a proper roof over their heads.

I'm a transgender myself and would love to have SRS straight away but the rules are preventing me for having my wish I feel extremely uncomfortable in my body and am scared of going out as people stare, I have noticed other people in the same position who would love to have the rules changed so they feel more comfortable and I think this would give us the freedom we always wanted and give us the correct body and allow us not to feel trapped.

A spit hood is a material bag that goes over someone’s head with a drawstring to tighten it - and the Metropolitan Police want to start using these restraints on people across London. Spit hoods are degrading and inhuman, and can be used on anyone. In Suffolk, a spit hood was placed on an 11 year old girl with severe learning difficulties. Having a bag put over your head while being held down would be traumatic for anyone, let alone a vulnerable child. The police already have handcuffs, batons, leg restraints and are allowed to use force... Do they really need to use spit hoods too? There appears to be little solid proof they are actually necessary, but what is certain is that they can be dangerous, and cause significant panic for a detainee, whilst officers could protect themselves with masks and eye protection instead. The image of their use has been described as reminiscent of torture and horror films. They can prevent recognition of urgent health issues involving breathing and swallowing, and with inequality a hot topic currently for the UK society at large (including the Police), there are questions around whether or not their use could deepen social divides and exacerbate inequality issues, particularly bearing in mind their recent use against those with mental health issues. Major police forces around the UK don't allow the use of spit hoods - and they shouldn't be allowed to be used in London.

They are already using enough equipment to apprehend and pacify offenders.It is very worrying that the met police are going to use this in custody suites where there are no independent witnesses. Police officers are not in a position to establish whether an individual is in a satisfactory medical condition to carry out this forceful and highly stressful action.