In July 2013 the government introduced fees for taking an employer to an employment tribunal. Their reasoning behind this was that it would stop people making bogus claims. In reality, all introducing these fees has done is made it financially impossible for the majority of people who have been treated unfairly to take action against their employer. The current fees for taking an employer to an employment tribunal are between £390 and £1200. According to research carried out by Citizens Advice, now only 14% of valid claims are being taken forward to a tribunal and from October 2013 to March 2014 there was a 73% drop in claims on the same period the previous year. Imagine the following: -your employer sacked you because you developed a long term illness or because you were pregnant. -your boss was bullying you because of your sexual orientation, your race or your religion. -you employer stopped paying your wages or stopped you from being able to attend maternity related appointments. All of these thing would be a breach of your employment rights so why should you have to pay to stand up for them? These rights are protected by law so how can it be legal for the government to charge you a fee to take action when these rights have been broken? We need to get these fees scrapped so people can have the ability to stand up for themselves when they have been treated unfairly, otherwise it will just become even easier for employers to treat their employees however they want without any consequences.

This is an issue that I have heard from some people in my own area, as well as this is repeated news stories of people losing their homes over this issue. A link to one such story is here http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Stoke-Trent-City-Council-forced-evict-25-tenants/story-23048087-detail/story.html The authority has confirmed that in the last year a total of 65 tenants were evicted, with many already in rent arrears before the introduction of bedroom tax in April 2013. But 25 of that number went into arrears purely because of the levy, after previously being able to afford their rent. Nobody should face homelessness over this all the while they are at least attempting to avoid it by moving.

Because Britain should provide an example to the world of how a legal system's first duty is to protect the country's citizens

Mohammad Asghar is a British grandfather who suffers from a serious mental illness. He is currently facing the death penalty in Pakistan on blasphemy charges. Last week, a policeman – one of the people tasked with ensuring Mr Asghar’s safety – burst into his cell and shot him. 70-year-old Mohammad’s attack was not unusual; people accused or convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan face a high level of risk from attacks by religious extremists. Mohammad’s lawyers at legal charity Reprieve had repeatedly warned that he would not be safe in prison. What’s more, Mohammad should never have faced blasphemy charges in the first place – under Islamic law and Pakistan’s criminal law, mentally-ill people cannot be held accountable for what they do or say. Mohammad’s poor mental health has been confirmed by his UK medical record, and a sworn statement from his British psychiatrist. Mohammad is now receiving urgent treatment in hospital, where his health is worsening – but despite this, Pakistan’s police want to return him to the same prison in which he was shot. His family in Edinburgh is desperately worried about his safety. Time is running out for Mohammad to be released and reunited with his family in Britain. Prime Minister David Cameron must use this window of opportunity and ask the Pakistani government to release Mohammed to the UK, rather than sending him back to prison. Mohammad is an ill, vulnerable man who has suffered a near-fatal attack. It is clear that his sentence is unjust, and his life is at risk if he remains in Pakistan. He must be returned to the UK at the earliest opportunity.

This plan is ridiculous, degrading and a breach of our human rights. Not allowing us to have any cash at all is an unwise and unworkable idea, because some things do require cash, e.g. travelling on the bus, buying fresh vegetables and fruit from a farmer's market, using vending machines, using a trolley at the supermarket, buying second-hand clothes from a car boot sale. The poor often buy second-hand goods in charity shops, car boot sales and Ebay. Many buy books and worksheets for their children, plus toys and Christmas presents, and benefit cards would take all of that away from them. Many parents are desperate for work but cannot find any. Some are so severely unwell or disabled that they are unlikely to ever work at all, even though they want to. Some are financially ruined in family courts while getting divorced. Anyone can fall into it. Almost 80% of middle class families are greatly helped by their parents and/or grandparents, but not everyone is so lucky. If, for instance, you were to tell a person who has worked all of their life, but has recently become unemployed through no fault of their own (e.g. redundancy), that they can't even buy a magazine or go for a coffee with a friend, it would be ridiculous, and being told what to do like a naughty child would be degrading. It would also be ridiculous, and degrading, for them to be dictated to by the government and be told "You can't have any cash, you can only spend money in these shops, you can have this but you can't have that, because we say so." Iain Duncan-Smith, whose idea it is, has not said exactly when he intends to push his plans through, and what worries me the most is how far he and the rest of the government intend to dictate to benefit claimants what they can and cannot spend their money on. Just what else, exactly, will the government define as irresponsible spending? Will they tell us that we can't buy a laptop, a t-shirt, an item of stationery or pet food, for instance? The bottom line is, benefit claimants do not deserve to be treated like criminals or naughty children, especially if they are sick or disabled and/or are doing everything the DWP ask of them. The whole idea needs a lot more thinking through before the government even think about rolling it out, so that benefit claimants can continue to live their lives in peace and dignity. All of the stereotypes you hear about in the media are rubbish - they are designed to blinker, divide and sway people. Being unemployed is not a crime, therefore we shouldn't be punished for it - we are no less deserving of human rights than those who are lucky enough to have a job. You can read more about the proposals here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/tories-prepaid-benefit-cards-welfare-poverty

The current Home Secretary Teresa May has recently announced that she intends to include the creation of so called "Terrorist ASBOs" as part of the Conservative election manifesto. While on the face of it this appears to be a laudable idea, the impact on freedom of speech is unacceptable in a democracy. In particular I draw your attention to: "The definition will also include anybody who seeks to ‘overthrow democracy’." To me it is a very short step from "seeks to 'overthrow democracy'" to 'speak in opposition to the government'. The government always considers itself the very epitome of democracy so opposing its views can all to easily be considered an attempt to overthrow it. If this proposal became law it would be a totally unacceptable infringement of freedom of speech. The Home Secretary needs to be informed as quickly as possible that her idea is not supported. Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/terrorist-asbos-to-silence-hate-preachers-pledged-by-tories-for-election-manifesto-9763288.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2774285/I-ll-silence-preachers-hate-vows-May-Home-Secretary-ban-extremists-speaking-public-spreading-poison-social-media.html

Monmouthshire County Council have removed funding that helped pay for transport to college for 16 years + children with SEN. This means that the parents/guardians of these children are left with difficult choices. Pay themselves or use public transport. Some of these children have ADHD, Autism and Aspergers and for them, using public transport is impossible. One of the most vulnerable groups in our communities is suffering due to these cuts.

During the recent referendum in Scotland all 16 and 17 year olds were given the vote . They were very enthusiastic taking part in the campaign .As well as voting in large numbers. We have a general election next year.It is wrong to tell people that you were old enough to help decide the future of Scotland but you are to young to decide who should represent you at Westminster.I believe that the vote should be extended to ALL 16 year olds.

Recently, one local authority, Barnet Council, has consulted on requiring survivors of domestic violence to register as homeless before rehousing them. This will have the effect of removing their priority status on the housing waiting list, dropping from Band 1 down to Band 2 or 3. If these proposals are implemented, they will set a dangerous precedent for our society as well as the way we treat those who have survived domestic violence - who are often forced to choose between their safety and their own home. We should be looking to change the narrative about domestic violence - and that means recognising and taking steps to protect survivors' right to housing.

Wadih came to the United Kingdom in 1997 because his life was in danger from the various gangs operating in Beirut who were victimising him because of his Down's syndrome. He has lived in Twickenham, London, since his arrival and was looked after by his parents and is now being looked after by his brother. He cannot cook and needs help with washing and dressing himself. His life would be in danger on two counts: firstly he will not be able to look after himself and secondly from violence. News story here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/man-downs-syndrome-faces-being-4131650

Based on data from the ‘Crime Survey for England and Wales’ around 473,000 adults were victims of sexual offences (around 404,000 females and 72,000 males) on average per year from 2009-2012 (Sexual Offending in England and Wales, 2013). 90% of victims of the most serious sexual offences reported they knew the perpetrator, yet only 15 per cent of victims of such offences said that they had reported it to the police. Stating that it was ‘embarrassing’, they ‘didn’t think the police could do much to help’, that the incident was ‘too trivial or not worth reporting’, or that they saw it as a ‘private/family matter and not police business’. We must learn from the tragic case of Frances Andrade, who tragically died at her home in Guildford, Surrey in January 2013, just a week after giving evidence in court about historical sexual abuse by her former choirmaster. Her husband, Levine Andrade, 59, found his wife, known as Fran, dead at 8am on 24 January last year. He said, "Apart from the trial bringing it all back up she felt the defence barrister seemed to be attacking her personally. "It got her completely down and she felt completely defenceless. I think she felt she was not prepared enough for the trial. She was not expecting to be attacked personally and have to answer so many direct questions in public. Much more needs to be done to provide and promote professional high-quality support services to help victims move on with their lives. Only when victims have sufficient support can they make the choice to go through the criminal justice system. More importantly victims must have sufficient professional support to endure the often lengthy and protracted court process. In the policy 'Ending violence against women and girls in the UK' it stated that the government would part-fund 87 independent sexual violence advisers and pledging £1.2 million for 3 years from 2012 to improve services. The problem is this funding will end in 2015 and 87 part-funded ISVA's are far from adequate for the number of victims we have in the UK. We need to put this on the public and government agenda before the next elections.

Britain has unfinished business in Iraq, from the errors of 1914 to 1932 and the debacle of 2003 to the religious genocide against Christians and other groups right now.