1. It undermines families: Introducing a state employed Named Person for every child in Scotland – by definition – undermines the role of parents and carers, the vast majority of whom do an excellent job raising their own children and have no need or desire for third party involvement of this sort. 2. It wastes resources and jeopardises child safety: It is almost inevitable that by stretching resources to police the wellbeing of all children, attention will be diverted away from genuine cases of child neglect or abuse. 3. There is a serious risk of the powers being mis-used: By granting the Named Person sweeping legal responsibility to monitor the wellbeing of all children, there is a very real danger of families being needlessly embroiled in ‘the system’ because a Named Person takes issue with a particular parent. 4. It may be in breach of European Convention rights to privacy and family life: Leading QC Aidan O’Neill says the policy: “may not be lawful on the basis that the blanket nature of this provision constitutes a disproportionate and unjustified interference with the right to respect for individual families’ private and family life and home.” 5. It may breach EU law on data confidentiality: The Named Person legislation lowers the threshold to make it easier for officials to pass around confidential data like children’s medical reports. This may breach EU law on data sharing. 6. A broad coalition of organisations, individuals and newspapers have raised very serious concerns about the Named Person including: The Scottish Parent Teacher Council, The Christian Institute, CARE for Scotland, The Tymes Trust (for young ME sufferers), Schoolhouse (representing families who home-school), The Faculty of Advocates, The Law Society of Scotland, The Scotsman, The Press & Journal, The Daily Mail and The Daily Express.

To the French Ambassador; Mme Sylvie Bermann, We are writing to you to express a deep concern about the treatment of refugees and migrants on the French-UK border. On the 31st January, nearly a month after the ‘exclusion zone’ was announced in the Calais refugee camp - a church and mosque were demolished by the French authorities. This is contrary to a promise made publicly by the Prefect of Calais that these would be protected. Armed CRS police stood by as the demolition took place. The exclusion zone – until recently home to 2000 people - has become the scene of regular unprovoked tear gas attacks from the police, who also continue to shoot refugees with rubber bullets and water canons, randomly beat people walking in the streets, and are complicit with aggression from far-right activists. While we recognise that the UK government must bear equal responsibility for the existence of these camps, we, as residents of the UK, with or without papers, call on you, the French Ambassador, to put pressure on the French government to cease sanctioning such pitiless and violent behaviour, which demonstrates complete disregard for human dignity. The refugees come here for safety and are greeted by razor wire and armed police. Two nations who pride themselves on their democracy, fairness and justice should not be committing this appalling violence against people who are fleeing war, terrorism, poverty, drought and persecution. Both governments must now recognise that this is a global and long-term issue and act accordingly, not with hostility and border controls, but with compassion. This situation is not going away: the long-term issues of the current ‘refugee crisis’ will continue to escalate due, not only to intensifying conflicts, but also climate change. Thus it is essential that we find a kinder, more rational and human response to the situation. We are asking you, as the French Ambassador, to take a stand against the violent response of both the French and British authorities, and represent to them the shame we feel at both our nations’ behaviour. We are here in solidarity with the refugees and migrants trapped on the border with the UK, those already here and those to come, whose voices and stories are not being heard and whose basic humanity is being ignored.

We, the undersigned, care deeply about the arts, and equally the natural environment and the rights of humans around the world. We believe arts and cultural institutions should break their ties with oil companies such as BP, a company which has caused repeated environmental catastrophes, including the Deepwater Horizon spill, and been implicated in numerous human rights violations. Furthermore, BP is turning a profit on the continued extraction of dirty fossil fuels, pushing us towards runaway climate change, whilst lobbying against environmental laws and clean energy alternatives [1, 2]. By accepting sponsorship from BP, cultural institutions give the oil giant much-needed positive publicity, and help it to obscure the destructive reality of its activities with a veneer of respectability. At the same time, oil sponsorship taints the reputation of the institutions that accept it. We recognise the vital importance of arts funding, particularly after public funding cuts. However BP sponsorship provides less than 1% of the annual income of the British Museum, Tate, and Royal Opera House, and just 3% of the income of the National Portrait Gallery [3], yet BP are allowed to place their name and logo alongside the names of these institutions, on their website and in exhibitions (despite many artists and arts workers having strong views against such branding) [4, 5]. BP needs these institutions far more than they need BP. This is the 26th year that BP has sponsored the Portrait Awards, through an agreement with the National Portait Gallery (NPG) in London. Fortunately this agreement is due to end this year. The NPG could choose not to renew the agreement, and to find a more appropriate sponsor for the Portrait Awards. However, negotiations about renewal are already underway. The NPG will not drop BP as a sponsor without strong pressure from the public and the arts sector. We need to act now. Over its 26 years of sponsorship, BP has repeatedly caused great harms to the environment and people; it has been responsible for multiple deadly explosions and oil spillages, including that of Deepwater Horizon, which killed 11 people, decimated ecosystems and livelihoods in the Gulf of Mexico, and resulted in the largest corporate fine in history [6]. It has traded with oppressive regimes from Azerbaijan to Libya, and has even been implicated in torture in Colombia [7]. It has recently expanded into tar sands, an extreme form of energy production which contaminates water and tramples on indigenous rights [8]. Worldwide, fossil fuel companies have currently laid claim to five times the volume of oil, gas and coal that humanity can burn without causing dangerous and destructive levels of global warming [9] - despite this, BP has stated that it will continue to explore and exploit new reserves of oil and gas into the future. In 1989, the National Portrait Gallery ended its eight-year Portrait Award sponsorship agreement with tobacco company John Player [10]. It is time for this national cultural institution to show such moral leadership and forward-thinking once again, by cutting ties with BP. As a partner of the National Portrait Gallery, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery can influence this decision. We call on this respected national cultural institution to put pressure on the NPG to find a more appropriate sponsor, and to refuse to host the BP Portrait Awards until a new sponsor has been found. For more information, please see: http://bp-or-not-bp.org/ http://bp-or-not-bp.org/scotland http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/picturethis/ References 1. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/may/02/bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spills 2. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/21/bp-tops-the-list-of-firms-obstructing-climate-action-in-europe 3. http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/artoilinfographic/ 4. http://fossilfundsfree.org/who/ 5. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/24/no-oil-painting-bp-sponsorship-npg-portrait-award 6. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/02/bp-will-pay-largest-environmental-fine-in-us-history-for-gulf-oil-spill 7. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/22/gilberto-torres-survived-colombias-death-squads-now-he-wants-justice 8. http://environmentaldefence.ca/reports/canadas-toxic-tar-sands-most-destructive-project-earth 9. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719 10. http://platformlondon.org/p-publications/picturethis/ 11. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/

In less than three months, Rakuvaran Parameswaran, known locally in our village as Guru, will face deportation, a decision made by the Home Office earlier this year. Guru sought refuge in the UK eleven years ago when he came to the UK as a fourteen year old boy to escape the threat of death in his native Sri Lanka and to be re-united with his relatives. He believes his parents were both killed in the Civil War by pro Government activists and still fears that he will suffer the same fate if he is forced to return. As a valued member of our community, Guru has already raised over 1300 signatures through a local petition in our small village. He has a job and he contributes fully to village life. He is the kind of person that we want living amongst us (whether immigrant or indigenous) and we want to ensure that Guru’s future remains in the UK, with his friends and family. Please help to save him from deportation. Sign this petition to encourage Theresa May to rethink her decision on Guru's deportation.

Some men will always fight, there will always be tribal wars, there will always be bullies. To put dangerous weapons in the mix leads to death of people who just want to do the best for their families, communities, the world and want to have peaceful lives. Migrant crises world over have been due to the above.

It is imperative that the UK Government introduce respect for human rights and international law to UK Foreign Policy and safeguard national security by ending support for a regime which: i) exports a violent and intolerant ideology across the globe. ii) executes peaceful activists including those who were children at the time of their "crime". iii) is accused in a UN report of “widespread and systematic” attacks on civilian targets in violation of international humanitarian law in Yemen. By defending mass Saudi executions the Foreign Minister, Philip Hammond MP and the UK Government are damaging what little reputation remains of Britain as a country which values freedom of speech, democracy, human rights, the right of assembly and peaceful protest. UK Government policy does not represent British values but those of the brutal Saudi regime. As an apologist for Saudi Arabia's execution of peaceful protestors, Hammond is working in the interest, not of the British people but of the despotic Saudi monarchy. As David Mepham, the UK director of Human Rights Watch points out: "1. Phillip Hammond is an apologist for the death penalty. 2. Phillip Hammond believes that execution by beheading for political protests is an acceptable form of punishment. 3. It doesn’t matter how low Saudi Arabia sinks in order to stifle protests against their barbaric regime, Phillip Hammond will seemingly refuse to condemn their actions – even if their actions are relative to those of Daesh (ISIS)."* The UK Government has long prioritised arms sales and securing oil supplies above human rights and democracy, but the hypocrisy of condemning ISIS's horrific beheadings whilst defending Saudi Arabia's makes a mockery of the UK's claim to be a champion of "the free world". *http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-executions-philip-hammond-condemned-by-rights-campaigners-for-excusing-mass-killings-a6802641.html

It is important that all disabled veterans are supported by the government as it is the same government that placed them in areas of conflict that has resulted in them requiring financial supports as a result of the injuries they received while serving their country this including loss of mobility, loss of their ability to maintain their basic personal care, ie such as washing dressing, nutrition. Please support this petition to ensure that those U.K veterans who have been left permanently disabled do not also find themselves financially disadvantaged due to the these changes. Ian Duncan Smith needs to remove this process, provide a fair system and be forced to support disabled veterans and not just on Poppy Day. It will only take a few minutes of your time, but a life time of difference to improve the quality of life for disabled veterans.

Increasing numbers of homeless people are being arrested for begging around the country. In 2013-14, 2771 cases were brought before the courts, a 70% increase on the previous year. Police use an archaic law which deems those found begging to be 'idle and disorderly'. Begging was made a recordable offence in 2003 against the strong criticisms of civil rights groups and homelessness organisations. Those prosecuted can be fined up to £1000 excluding court charges when found with just a few pennies. Those who have 'gathered alms' (that is, accepted money, food or other material goods offered to them) can be prosecuted under this same law with the same consequences. Some people are kept in cells for several nights. Although begging in and of itself is not an imprisonable offence, if the person is already on bail for another case a simple arrest for begging can lead to imprisonment. Those who are fined will inevitably have to beg more to pay off these fines, risking further arrests and fines, a punishment which stands out in its absurdity. Punishing the destitute for trying to survive is both costly and morally abhorrent. It is a waste of tax payers' money which is spent paying police who 'catch people out' in organised undercover operations, as well as on court cases to prosecute them. The minimum cost of bringing one case to the Magistrates' Court is £1000, meaning that in the year 2013-14, bringing begging cases before the courts cost the taxpayer at least £2.777 million. This is money that could be spent helping people rather than punishing them. Police also routinely move homeless people on under part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) which gives police the power to confiscate property and exclude individuals from a particular area for up to 48 hours, with the officer also able to impose by what manner and route the person must leave. Failure to comply is a criminal offence which can result in a £2500 fine or 3 months in prison. Refusing to surrender your property is punishable by a fine of up to £500. The two conditions needed by officers to issue a dispersal order are firstly, that the constable has 'reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to (a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or (b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder, and secondly, that the constable considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of (a) or (b)'. Given that begging is a crime considered 'idle and disorderly', the two laws in tandem essentially give police de facto power to exclude any homeless person from any area simply because they think it is likely that the person, being homeless, might beg there. The highly subjective definition of 'anti-social behaviour' as that which contributes or is likely to contribute to members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed reinforces this and even with the decriminalisation of begging, would still give police the power to move on any homeless person from any area simply because they believe doing so is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of members of the public being distressed by seeing them. Seeing people forced to live on the streets is distressing to much of the public for good reason, but this compassionate distress means that under this definition a homeless person is considered to be exhibiting anti-social behaviour simply by existing visibly. The anti-social behaviour that causes the public distress is not caused by the homeless person however, but by the authorities' failure to provide people with shelter in a country that has 600,000 empty homes. As described by someone living on the street, being asked to move on when you have nowhere to go is like being asked to walk into a brick wall. These laws and their enforcement victimize vulnerable people who are already suffering the daily struggle of life on the streets or in insecure and unstable temporary accommodation. We believe that kicking someone for limping when it is you who cut off their leg is shameless and cruel. We believe that the government should be providing homes for the homeless, not handcuffs. We therefore call on parliament to repeal without replacement section 3 of the Vagrancy Act (1824), to amend part 3 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) to safeguard homeless people from its discriminatory use, and for an ultimate end to the criminalisation of homelessness by any and all other laws that may be newly concocted or dug up for this purpose. If you have an MP who may be sympathetic, get in touch with them to push this issue to parliament. We launched this petition at our demo at Brighton Magistrate's court on the 20th January.

Volunteer doctors and nurses from MSF were working in one of the few functioning hospitals in Afghanistan. The hospital was targeted by American bombers in an act of complete bungling incompetence. 42 patients and staff were killed by the Americans in their attack. MSF believe that a war crime was committed. Those responsible need to be held accountable for their actions: not only the air crew, but their commanders as well.

The threat to neighbourhoods and businesses suffering this plague of development show planning rules to be far too heavily weighted in favour of developers. Local residents and businesses, ambushed by ambitious plans, are now often locked out of any consultation process - their rights ignored. Local councils, who they count on to represent their interests are increasingly unwilling to fund legal appeals against their own refusals of planning consent - so give in. Now, not only are homes and businesses put at risk but the quality of life of entire neighbourhoods is vandalised. Innocent property owners should not have to mortgage their livelihoods to fight off the life-style expansions imposed by their neighbours and absent developers. This is wrong and needs to change nationally and locally. Legislation needs to be introduced to persuade or nudge a change in the current property abusing culture. The weight needs to shift in favour of those who need protection against the bullying financial demands of those who assume they can continue, and afford, to override and out-finance their innocent neighbours and local councils and, thereby, impose their encroachments on others. Somehow, a wholesale review of this clash needs to address and reform this injustice, where local authorities decide in favour of developments, regardless, because they are financially restricted, particularly through expensive appeals processes, in affording the costs incurred, to protect their constituents who innocently assume such local authorities might act in their civil interests – many are now disillusioned. As Air Studios fights for its survival, there are other fights against basement plans, including those of the owners of Admiral’s House to safeguard the heritage of Hampstead against plans by the owners of Grove Lodge and the residents of New End to stave off a 3 basement development by the owners of 29 New End. Countless others abound around the country. Something needs to be done against the tyranny of unsuitable basement developments.

Mears helps the elderly to remain in their own homes. Elderly neighbours and relatives have found this service vital when they did not know who else to turn to. The cost is reasonable and the workmen are very good and caring.

Junior doctors of the United Kingdom have reluctantly, and almost unanimously, voted in favour of the first "all-out" strike in the history of the NHS. This is in response to the proposed imposition of a contract which is widely acknowledged in medical circles to be unsafe for patients and doctors alike, without mentioning the likelihood of a significant cut in pay for medical staff, while asking them to work longer hours. This is not a decision that has been made lightly, and at all points the BMA has remained open to the option of full, fair contract negotiations - an option which Secretary of State Jeremy Hunt and the current government have repeatedly declined to take. Throughout this process, junior doctors have been the target of a smear campaign headed by national media institutions, none so fervently as The Sun newspaper. This systematic abuse reached a new low today (10/01/2015) in an article entitled "Moet medics: High life of docs’ leaders who are heading up NHS strike", which passes beyond slander into the realms of active discrimination. To take photos of doctors on holiday from personal social media accounts and print them in a national newspaper is invasion of privacy enough, without pretending that this is evidence of a "jet-set lifestyle" being enjoyed by these medical professionals. As part of every doctor's contract, they are entitled to periods of annual leave, and whether they choose to travel abroad or not during this time is utterly irrelevant to their professional practice. Similarly, stating that these doctors are "champagne-swilling socialists" on the basis that one individual supported a ratified candidate in their successful campaign for the position of head of the Labour party is not only a sweeping generalisation completely immaterial to the debate at hand, but is an attempt to debase an entire profession by implying that, for doctors, the right to political expression is not a basic human right. The same is true of publishing the values of property owned by various committee members - the insinuation being that home-ownership in major UK cities is somehow a crime for the medical staff who work in these areas, and being able to afford accommodation is evidence of the "high life". Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 enshrine the right of every UK citizen to " the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence", "freedom of thought" and "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas". For an article in a mainstream newspaper to imply that a person's profession and position on committees somehow renders these guarantees forfeit is not only a pathetic excuse for "investigative journalism", but also risks setting a dangerous precedent whereby the basic rights of essential, hard-working medical professionals are eroded in the public conscience. Such thinly-veiled attacks on dedicated doctors will serve only to reduce already unprecedented low levels of morale, and further drive the ongoing exodus from the medical profession in the United Kingdom. As such, we the undersigned petition Tony Gallagher and The Sun to limit the damage done to these individuals and the medical profession as a whole by submitting a full, unreserved apology to the BMA junior doctors' committee in a prominent position on the front page of an edition of their newspaper.