David Cameron announced we’ll welcome 20,000 more Syrian refugees. But there’s a catch. This will take 5 years, leaving thousands of refugees in limbo. It’s now up to us to show that in cities, towns and villages all across the country we’re ready to welcome people now. Aylan, the toddler who drowned fleeing Syria, was just three years old. His town was under attack by Isis. His five year old brother and his mum also died trying to reach safety.We don't want Britain to be the kind of country that turns its back as people drown in their desperation to flee places like Syria. So let's stand up for Britain's long tradition of helping refugees fleeing war. Let's show the Prime Minister that we, the people of the UK, are proud to do our part and provide refuge to people in their hour of need. Please sign and share, or start your own petition for your town or city here: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/efforts/refugees-welcome

Haringey has the expertise and resource available to provide a good home for many more than four families. It only remains for the Council leadership to submit a request to the Home Office. Why have they refused to do so? The VPR scheme was established by central Government in 2014, and in September 2015 David Cameron promised to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees during the lifetime of the current parliament. The refugees are currently in UNHCR camps in countries neighbouring Syria, and have particular vulnerabilities such as disabilities, or having survived torture, which mean they cannot safely stay in the camp environment. Each refugee is funded to a total of £20,000 over five years, which is channelled through the local authority to pay for the costs of resettlement. So, a family of five would be funded to a total of £100,000. Four such families would be funded to a total of £400,000. These funds are already available to provide important wrap around care and support to refugees arriving through the VPR scheme. Resettling refugees through the VPR scheme would give them the opportunity for a new start. But Cllr Kober and Haringey Council are still refusing to resettle even a small token number of refugees. They claim that central Government funding is inadequate and that they must wait until negotiations via the GLA are concluded. We agree that central Government’s role in dealing with the refugee crisis has been wholly inadequate, but there are funds available now. Eleven other London authorities – including Camden, Islington, Barnet, Tower Hamlets, Hackney, and Kingston – have started resettlements. We do not agree with using vulnerable refugees as political bargaining chips in negotiations. We must provide support for all those we can, right now. We call on Cllr Kober to take action immediately to bring this about. Four families by Christmas! Please sign the petition if you agree. Further information: https://refugeeswelcomeharingey.wordpress.com By signing this petition your details may be placed in the public domain (e.g. they may be published on the Council’s website).

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.

Please accept the advice from the soil association and other word leading scientists that glyphosate is harmful to health when ingested in any quantities and the use of it as a pre harvest dessicant has been shown to cause high levels of glyphosate in the grain and humans who consume wheat soya barley based products show significant levels of glyphosate in their urine. It is a WHO suspected carcinogen a hormone disruptor damages the gut biome and may contribute to auto immune disease. The EU has refused a full license and given only a short temporary approval to glyphosate and deprecates it's use as a dessicant. My wife and I both have developed auto immune diseases and we both were exposed to glyphosate spray mist directly and in our food through no choice of our own as it is almost impossible to buy glyphosate free produce. Products that may contain glyphosate from pre harvest desiccation include flour, bread, sauces ,pizza, pastry, beer, soy sauce, biscuits, any meals using wheat as a thickener (most do) etc ... https://www.farminguk.com/news/Soil-Association-writes-to-major-bread-companies-asking-them-to-avoid-glyphosate_42519.html

The State of North Carolina recently enacted House Bill 2 known as HB2. The bill prevents local governments in North Carolina from passing anti-discrimination laws, undoing those already in place. It also permits business owners to discriminate against LGBT+ people on grounds of religious belief, and demands that individuals use the public bathroom corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate, endangering transgender people. This is clearly a huge injustice to the LGBT+ community of the State, but also to those visiting who are now at risk. In 2016 we expect to see nothing but progress when we see LGBT+ rights in the news. Sadly this is not always the case, as we were reminded earlier this year by the passing of this bill in the State of North Carolina. I was dismayed therefore to see that our new Secretary of State for International Trade, Dr Liam Fox MP, has announced plans to open a UK trade office in the state capital Raleigh. Liam Fox must not press ahead with plans to open this office not just as an act of solidarity, but to pressure the authorities of North Carolina to undo these awful laws and keep British people out of harm's way. In response to the enactment of HB2 a boycott of the state has ensued, with musicians pulling out of gigs and businesses withdrawing investment. If the Department for International Trade opens a new UK trade office in Raleigh then this boycott will be undermined. Furthermore the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has issued a warning to LGBT+ travelers to the State of North Carolina. Brits working at the new office may be put at risk because of HB2. This is unacceptable.

There is no evidence to support that the building of further border defenses at Calais will help resolve the border situation, and will rather put refugees at further risk of injury and death. We need better political dialogue around the safe passage of refugees into Britain. As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, it is Britain's responsibility to care for those affected by wars, poverty and conflict, particularly those that Britain has had a direct hand in creating or maintaining through defensive interventions and the arms trade. Britain's responsibility includes caring for the displaced citizens of those countries on our home soil. The Calais jungle and other migrant camps in the Calais area are a human rights sore on the conscience of the West. The first-step solution is to stop the building of a pointless wall on the UK border in Calais, the second step will be to remove the UK border from Calais and back into the UK. This will ensure a safe passage of refugees into their destination country. The border situation is not going to be solved by building a pointless wall. The camps exist in Calais because the UK has pushed its border controls into France, to try and stem migration into the UK. Since the defenses were built in 2014, net migration into the UK has increased, as have the residents of Calais and the documented border crossing attempts. This proves that these controls have little or no impact on migration into the UK. The UK demonstrates a rigid, racist border control policy by not allowing migration form outside the EU into the UK where people can seek asylum through legal means. This results in people being trapped on the border in Calais living in slum conditions, attempting dangerous crossings to try and reach family and asylum in the UK. Building walls and increasing border defenses has yet to be proven as an effective means of dealing with refugees and migration. Instead it puts pressure on neighbouring countries and fractures international relations with these countries. Stop the building of a pointless wall in Calais, and take our border back onto our own soil. #pointlesswall #Calais #stopthewall ----- Il n’y a aucune preuve soutenant que la construction de défenses frontalières supplémentaires va aider à résoudre la situation à la frontière, et cela va plutôt mettre les réfugiés dans une situation où ils courent plus de risques de blessures et de mort. Nous avons besoin d’un meilleur dialogue politique autour de possibilités de passage sûr des réfugiés vers la Grande-Bretagne. En tant qu’un des pays les plus riches du monde, il est de la responsabilité de la Grande-Bretagne de prendre soin des personnes affectées par la guerre, la pauvreté et les conflits, particulièrement ceux dans lesquels la Grande-Bretagne a une implication directe en les créant ou les maintenant par des interventions défensives ou par les ventes d’armes. La responsabilité de la Grande-Bretagne est notamment d’accueillir des citoyens déplacés sur son propre sol. Les campements existent à Calais parce que le Royaume-uni a déplacé ses contrôles frontaliers en France, pour essayer d’empêcher la migration vers le Royaume-uni. Depuis que des défenses ont été érigées en 2014, la migration nette vers le Royaume-uni a augmenté, comme le nombre de réfugiés présents à Calais et les tentatives documentés de franchissement de la frontière. Cela prouve que ces contrôles ont un impact limité ou pas d’impact sur la migration vers le Royaume-uni. Le Royaume-uni fait preuve d’une politique de contrôle des frontières rigide et raciste en n’autorisant pas l’immigration de l’extérieur de l’Union européenne de personnes qui peuvent demander légalement l’asile. Avec comme résultat des personnes bloquées à la frontière à Calais vivant dans des conditions misérables, essayant dangereusement de franchir la frontière pour rejoindre leur famille et tenter l’asile au Royaume-uni. Il faudrait maintenant prouver que construire des murs et accroître les défenses à la frontière sont un moyen effectif de traiter la question des réfugiés et de la migration. Cela met plutôt sous pression les pays voisins et brise les relations internationales avec ces pays. Arrêtez la construction d’un mur inutile à Calais, et reprenez votre frontière sur votre propre sol. #pointlesswall #Calais #stopthewall

It is important to remove the fee so that most families can be able to make application especially as more children could be further trapped in destitution and limbo if they could not afford such payment in other to regularies their stay, and will therefore continue to be supported by their respective local authority with continuous burden on the tax payer.

Virgin’s brand values - being honest, decent and playing it straight - are totally at odds with the Sun’s track record of misleading reporting, and of playing one group off against another in pursuit of a divisive political agenda. Last year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights raised serious concerns about a Sun article likening migrants to “cockroaches". He said this was typical of “decades of sustained and unrestrained anti-foreigner abuse, misinformation and distortion” by the UK media. Yet since then, the Sun’s demonisation of immigrants has only intensified. The hate campaign reached new heights during the European Union referendum. An upsurge in scare stories about EU migrants was followed by a wave of violence against immigrant families. Virgin’s founder, Sir Richard Branson, has previously spoken out against the “anti-refugee and anti-immigrant rhetoric... gaining support in many of the richest nations”. With racist attacks on the rise, it is vital that we all now unite against the hatred and division that has been poisoning our public discourse for so long. As one of the UK’s leading companies, Virgin Media has the chance to take a bold stand for unity and tolerance. By pulling your advertising from the Sun newspaper, you can send a strong message that this aggressive rhetoric has gone too far. In doing so you can position yourself as a company that not only stands out from the crowd, but also stands up for the vulnerable and maligned.

UK has voted out of the EU and needs all hands to contribute to the national development. If illegal immigrants who are already in the United Kingdom are granted amnesty, they will play a major role in the development of the country. An amnesty could yield an additional millions of Pound Sterling a year of Income Tax and National Insurance receipts. Granting an amnesty to the illegal immigrants who are already in the country will bring them out of the shadows and into the real economy and they can contribute to the tax system. In the process of granting an amnesty, they will pay fines so the legalisation will not be dependant on a taxpayers’ money and it will be self-sustained, and also to have a proper criminal checks. The case of amnesty extends beyond economics. It is also a human thing to do. Regularising status to illegal immigrants avoid vulnerability exploitation and destitution as well as avoid creating a situation in which they are more likely to be pushed into the black economy. In extreme cases, illegal immigrants can slip into sexual exploitation and forced labour. The Prime Minister, Theresa May said , the government she leads will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few but promised to give more control over everyone's life in the country. Illegal immigrants really want to take up jobs to support themselves, their families and the national development but they are unable to do so as their lives are restricted in a multicultural country where the whole world look up to due to resident permit. Please grant amnesty to these illegal immigrants who are already in the country to live a normal life and to contribute substantially to the national economy.

The government’s Prevent strategy, a centrepiece of its national counter-terrorism policy, is stifling the freedoms of children in classrooms across the United Kingdom and is counter-productive. It is leaving a generation of young Britons fearful of exercizing their rights to freedom of expression and belief and is counter-productive by driving children to discuss issues related to terrorism, religion and identity outside the classroom and online where simplistic narratives are promoted and go unchallenged. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQR0QZDPMvU Recent legislation in the form of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 places an obligation on public sector workers, including teachers and child care providers to report individuals including children considered at risk of being drawn into terrorism based on their perceived association with non-violent extremism. Yet this obligation is based on a vague definition of extremism that includes opposition to ‘British values’, and a set of prescribed indicators of vulnerability to extremism that include ‘a desire for status’ and ‘a need for identity meaning and belonging’. Children in classrooms across the United Kingdom have been impacted by Prevent. For example, a 8-year-old boy was interviewed, without a parent or guardian present, and ‘cautioned’ for wearing a t-shirt with Arabic writing on it. Since the incident, the child is reluctant to return to school and is experiencing stress related health problems. A 16-year-old student with learning disabilities was referred to Prevent for borrowing a book on terrorism from the school library, and a 17-year-old boy who was questioned by police officers about his political and religious views after he was referred to Prevent for expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people. This 17-year-old student also discovered that the police had collected information on him without his or his parent’s knowledge or consent, and was told that this information would be held indefinitely by the police and may be used against him in the future. Prevent is jeopardising the rights of children in the United Kingdom to freedom of expression and education in the name of counter-terrorism. We’re demanding an immediate repeal of the policy. For more information on the impact that the Prevent strategy is having on children in the United Kingdom see Rights Watch (UK)'s landmark report Preventing Education? Human Rights and UK Counter-Terrorism Policy in Schools http://rwuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/preventing-education-final-to-print-3.compressed-1.pdf

Ahmed fled from Algeria with his boyfriend after they were subjected to torture, physical abuse often from their own family members. They reached Greece Ahmed got through his Boyfriend did not. They have not had any communication since. We are asking for Ahmed to be immediately released from detention and returned to Plymouth where he has friends and an important support network. Ahmed is a very shy, loving person in the UK he does not appear to be 'Gay' however in North Africa he is seen as effeminate and will be subjected to further abuse and even risk of being brutally murdered. We Believe that Ahmed will not be safe in any detention centre as he will be held with others that are intrinsically homophobic. This puts him at increased risk of both physical and sexual attacks. Much work being done to present new evidence to the Home Office including the important professional and expert reports on the physical and psychological trauma Ahmed has suffered. The first of a series of appointments with experts has been arranged is due to take place on 20th July here in Plymouth which makes the decision to detain him at this time complete madness. Pride in Plymouth has been supporting Ahmed by reducing the social isolation he has suffered since being in the UK. He is valued and loved by ALL of the 'Pride Family' in Plymouth. Please sign this petition to ensure Ahmed is returned to Plymouth where he has the support and love he needs whilst the necessary professional evidence is collated. It cost the tax payer far more to keep Ahmed in detention than does to house him in the community. Homosexuality is illegal in Algeria carrying an official sentence of three years in Prison. The law in Algeria does not recognise or respect the civil rights of LGBT persons. Officially, there are no gay-friendly establishments and no political organisation is allowed to campaign for LGBT rights. Harassment, violence, and murder of LGBT persons by family members, religious fundamentalists or other vigilant groups is generally tolerated.

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.