This concerns every person living in Britain. What happened to Mr Hilton can happen to anyone in Britain, whether we’re aware of it or not. The following took place. Mr Hilton of Meadoway, Church in East Lancashire felt very vulnerable and grew increasingly upset when he was threatened with eviction from the home in which he’d been living for 30 years. He responded by threatening to blow up his home. The reason for the eviction was that Mr Hilton developed rent arrears as a result of what PM David Cameron euphemistically and callously calls the withdrawal of the spare room subsidy, and what I see as an instrument of a feudal aristocracy, the so-called bedroom tax. We all tend to assume that when someone else is threatened with eviction, the person could make this ‘go away’ if only they would act. Because we have no choice but to believe that if it happened to us, we would make it go away. Because we, we would act. That is how threatening the idea of an eviction is to most of us. Losing our home… In reality, however, there is often very little a person can do against an eviction for arrears if the person has no money. In cases of rent arrears caused by the so-called bedroom tax, it is safe to assume that if the person was unable to do anything about the bedroom tax, he or she is equally unable to do anything about the eviction. Effectively, Mr Hilton was being threatened with homelessness after having lived in his home for 30 years. I don’t know Mr Hilton and he may have been seriously mentally ill. If he was merely terribly stressed, then chances are that he did not stick his head in the sand, but simply felt there was nothing he could do and was convinced that his housing association could not do anything for him either. I think that he threatened to blow up his home because he could not accept the idea that there was absolutely nothing he could do to stop the eviction. He did not blow up anything at all, and no one got hurt. He just yelled. He was arrested because he had made many people worried which can be seen as a disturbance. He has been in custody since the beginning of June 2014. The plea hearing is set for 22 August 2014 and his trial hearing is scheduled for 12 November 2014. A little earlier, namely in May 2014, David Garbett of Sunderland took similarly drastic steps when he chained himself and his wheelchair to the railings of Southwick JobCentre. In his case, his Employment Support Allowance had stopped which meant that he became unable to buy food and pay bills. After he chained himself to the JobCentre, Mr Garbett’s claim was settled, and his payments were backdated. Mr Garbett was not in danger of losing his home, but he too was desperate so he did something desperate. When austerity has already been part of your daily life for years, there is no room for more austerity. It is believed that Mr Hilton was eligible for exemption from this wretched bedroom tax, but apparently did not know how to obtain this exemption. It is also believed that Mr Hilton had been in bad mental health for some time. So here we have two men who apparently both had health problems. One was losing his home and spoke desperte words that others felt threatened by, but did not carry out his threats. The other one was fed up with having to go to the food bank and being unable to pay his bills and did not threaten but took desperate action. One is now in detention and has lost his home. The other one’s claims were reinstated and backdated. Mr Hilton – the man in detention – is a victim, not a criminal. He deserves leniency.

Hussein was a member of a political group opposed to the dictatorship in Chad. His best friend, cousin and father were all arrested and disappeared in 2010 and the authorities were looking for him. He fled to Italy, but in his asylum interview they stopped him giving important information, then refused his case with no explanation and no chance of appeal. He then found that his life was also in danger in Italy, he was threatened by groups connected to the Chad dictatorship. He had to leave and came to the UK, which has no historical links to Chad. He thought it would be safe and to claim asylum, but the Home Office has refused to hear his case. Instead the UK wants to deport him on 20th June to Italy under the Dublin III regulation, where his life remains in danger. The Italian asylum system is under severe pressure, people wait for years in overcrowded immigration prisons and the chances of a fair hearing for Hussein's case in Italy are very low. If returned to Chad Hussein faces persecution. To be returned would be in contravention of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He must be given the opportunity to apply for asylum and seek safety in the UK. We the undersigned people call on The Rt Hon Teresa May to stop the planned removal for 20th June to Italy and allow Hussein (H.O. No.A1802739) to claim asylum in the UK. Italy's asylum system is under severe pressure and his life would not be safe there. We want Hussein to stay because he won't be safe in Italy. We want Hussein to stay because in Italy the asylum system is collapsing. We want Hussein to stay because he is family to us. UPDATE 18 June: We have enough to pay for injunction! Unbelievable amount of money raised 12 hours! You are all amazing! Wow, thank you all so much for your help yesterday we now have over 1600 petition signatures for Hussein, including the paper petitions and have raised £1400 which is enough to pay for the solicitors to put in an injunction to aim to halt the deportation. So we don’t need further donations at this point. It's really amazing to feel the power of so many people working together to achieve this. We are hopeful that this will halt Hussein’s deportation. We are really grateful for all your support but since we won’t know until late on Thursday if the injunction has been successful, in the meantime we’re also taking other steps:

East Lothian Council should not be able to dictate to their tenants what animals they can keep, unless the animal causes damage to the property or is a danger to the public. So if you have a GUINEA PIG, RAT, CHINCHILLAS, DEGUS, TURTLE, CHIPMUNK, SNAKE, LIZARD, GECKO, SCORPION, AFRICAN PYGMY HEDGEHOG, FROGS, TOADS, NEWTS, SALAMANDERS, STICK INSECTS, ANY INVERTEBRATE, TARANTULAS, SPIDERS, AFRICAN LAND SNAILS OR ANYTHING REMOTELY EXOTIC YOU WILL BE MADE TO GET RID OF THEM.

Thousands of victims of domestic violence are forced/pressured into unsupervised contact orders every year, between their children and the perpetrators who abused them. This is because the UK law states that it is in the 'child's best interest to have two parents', regardless of whether there is a history of violence. The government has limited funding for contact centres, so unless violence has been proven to have happened 'towards children' (many parents shield their children from this happening) in the majority of cases contact is ordered, and moves out of contact centres as quickly as possible. This frequently happens after risk assessments are ordered. Perpetrators are offered an opportunity to offer excuses for the abuse, to discredit victims. Abuse can then be cited as the result of a bad relationship – thus eliminating the risk as the relationship has ended - so contact can be moved out of contact centres. Saving the government substantial costs in the long term. Anger management and domestic violence courses may be ordered, but these offer no guarantees. What isn't acknowledged is the effect the violence and emotional abuse has on the abused parents. The abuse may not be aimed directly at children - often because the abused parents shield them and take the abuse themselves - but any parent who has been punched, choked, kicked, verbally abused, bullied, and demeaned, will feel extremely anxious about unsupervised access. It's common for perpetrators to seek contact, knowing that it will cause victims further distress. Many victims of abuse are so distressed at the idea of unsupervised contact orders, they are diagnosed with anxiety and depression, and medicated. Medication has side-effects. In a recent study of 1,829 people who have taken antidepressants in the past five years, led by Professor John Read, University of Liverpool, 60% of participants reported 'feeling emotionally numb', 52% 'feeling not like myself', 42% reduction in positive feelings, and 39% reported caring less about others. These side effects aren't in children's best interests. Yet parents are forced/pressured into a position, in that if they struggle with anxiety or depression, as a result of unsupervised contact orders, they risk being labelled 'fragile' and losing their children. Either into care, or to the abusive parent (who can then state he or she is reformed) because the primary carer is then considered an 'emotional risk'. The UK is one of the only countries to remove children for such a reason. I believe this is wrong. In cases in that parents have been found guilty of significant abuse towards their partners, risk assessments should be carried out by specialist domestic violence workers, to help find a way forward for contact to progress that is safe for chidren, and that doesn't subject victims to further distress. This does not necessarily mean no contact, or long-term contact in contact centres (as understandably funding is short.) In many cases contact could be supervised into the long term by a party the primary carer feels assured by, without over night contact. This would significantly reduce emotional distress, which would be positive for both children and victims of domestic violence into the long term. Fear leads to poor mental health, dysfunction and addictions (all a strain on public funding.) It can also lead to desperate-measures; Parents have fled the UK to escape such contact orders. Only to be brought back under the Hague Convention, to lose their children forever for seeking to protect them. Children's best interests should be paramount. But the fundamental flaw in the current law, is that it neglects to take into account parental emotional wellbeing. If primary carers are subjected to significant stress, this inevitably effects children. Although this is recognised in court proceedings, and is intended to be taken into account, there is a SERIOUS CONFLICT; The current UK law states that children can be removed from parents who 'pose emotional risk', Because of this there is reluctance from parents to admit to struggling with court orders. Any parent who has been violently attacked over many years, by his or her partner, will inevitably feel afraid of unsupervised/unsupported contact. This is not because he or she is mentally ill, or of a fragile disposition, it is because parents instinctively look to protect their children. Take the ability to protect your children away from you and it leads to distress. I believe it is important for children to have a relationship with both parents. But I believe it is equally important for parents who have been abused not to be subjected to further distress. This isn't in children's best interests. Nor for children to be put at further risk of abuse. I ask for re-assurance for victims of domestic violence, that children be kept safe. Please sign this petition and share it! Thank you! Zoe.

My husband has an advanced prostate cancer. He wants to die at home, but he may not get what he wants, because there are inadequate services and support in the community; and if he runs into any medical problems there is little or no communication between the Hospital and those who work in the community. Whether you want to die in a hospital, a hospice or at home, you need the services to link together and support you. And you need seven days a week services. Research carried out ten years ago found that 2/3 of people want to die in their own homes, but only 1/3 do. Let's all work together to change this! It will be too late for my husband, but it will benefit everyone else. There needs to be an overall plan for each individual, as put forward in the End of Life Care Strategy. This is important for every one of us. Whilst there have been three pilot studies in Lincolnshire, Leeds and Somerset, the majority of Hospital Trusts and Clinical Commissioning Groups have failed to get their act together. Please sign my petition and show the NHS that people want action and they want it NOW!

On 22 May 2014 GP's are to vote on whether to introduce appointment charges (estimated £10 - £25 per visit). If this vote is passed it could mean the end of our NHS, free at the point of use. The NHS is currently being dismantled under the guise of an ineffective system and more consumer choice. Increased GP workload and patient demand driving this issue is largely as a result of government policy, hospital closures and privatisation. GP income has fallen by design and patient charges are not the answer. "How many times are we going to fall into the traps set by our political masters?" asks Gurdave Gill, GP Partner writing on the Pulse Today website. "Patient charges are NOT the answer. User charges deter the sick and poor as much as the 'worried well'. Expensive and bureaucratic to collect, evidence shows patients delay seeking medical advice when user charges are introduced. Delay in diagnosis can cause significant harm. If we know this to be fact, to introduce charges appears to suggest that our incomes are more important than any potential harm to the patients. Is this ethical? "The current crisis in Primary care has been manufactured to create a pressure from GPs for charges. [...] We should be demanding increased resources from Government and not our patients. The NHS returned £5bn underspend to the treasury in the last 3 years. The cost of the purchaser-provider split exceeds £10bn pa yet delivers absolutely no patient gain at roughly the entire cost of primary care! {...] We need to identify the correct target and demand our representative bodies are more effective rather than the incompetence/collusion with Government we have seen in recent past. The minority of pro-privatisation GPs leading the call for charges need to be recognised for what they are. We must not be persuaded by the 'greedy and dims' amongst us.” And how about that consumer choice? Right now we have the best of both, individual private healthcare and tax-payer funded. Both are a form of 'paid for' healthcare, one is paid for by the individual, the other paid for and negotiated collectively. If the asset strip continues we will only have the most expensive poorly-negotiated option open to any of us. That is no choice at all. UPDATE The BMA's current position on this motion as outlined to one of our members, obviously, it would be naive to rest on these laurels: "The BMA's current position is not in favour of charging patients for GP appointments. Introducing charging would undermine the basis of the NHS; that healthcare is free at the point of use, and patients receive care based on their clinical need. A fee charging system could require an expensive bureaucracy to collect money from patients. It is also possible that the charges may deter vulnerable patients from seeing their GP which could lead to delays in treatment. However, there will be a motion debated at the Local Medical Committee (LMC) conference in York later this month. If the motion is carried, this does not mean it will become BMA policy. BMA Policy is decided at our Annual Representative Meeting (ARM) in July [ed- It's actually Sunday 22 - Thursday 26 June 2014] and motions are proposed by individual branch of practice conferences (e.g. GPs, consultants, junior doctors etc) and submitted for debate by geographical divisions. It would require further consideration by the BMA's leadership and the BMA's Annual Representative Meeting in July. It is understandable that GPs are looking at raising these kind of ideas, given the enormous pressure on GP services. Many GP practices are struggling from a combination of rising patient demand and falling funding that ministers have failed to recognise. However, the BMA feels that we don't need a complicated and unfair charging system to be introduced for GP appointments. We need the government to provide the resources to enable GPs to deliver the care that their patients need. I hope this is helpful and that it clarifies the BMA position for you." Links: Facebook page that inspired this petition: https://www.facebook.com/healthcharge Pulse Today - GP leaders to vote on whether to support patient charges for appointments: http://bit.ly/1lrI1gg LMC Conference - Full Agenda: http://bit.ly/fullagenda BMC/GPC: http://bit.ly/bmcandgpc BMC Annual Meeting: http://bma.org.uk/working-for-change/arm-2014-info Wessex LMC: http://bit.ly/aboutWessex

It is, of course, right and proper that everyone should pay their due taxes, but by asking for these new powers it sets a worrying precedent. At the moment they can recover owed taxes once a court ruling has been obtained, but it seems they want to get rid of this restriction on their activity and be able to operate free from any legal ties. It is especially worrying that they are bringing this in under the Finance Bill 2015, mentioned in the Budget, but without any details. The government has issued a public Consultation Direct Recovery of Debts (DRD) seeking views on their proposals to introduce into the Finance Bill 2015 the right of HMRC to recover debts over £1,000 by direct access to the debtor's bank accounts. This Consultation paper reveals the full details and everyone should be very worried as this is an unbelievable threat to our civil liberties. At present, HMRC has to go to court to seize money owed and prove it is necessary. Under the new proposals, the 'debt' can simply be removed from the debtors account at the "click of a mouse" and the debtor will have just 14 days to appeal. The 'threshold' is stated at being £1,000 which can be made up over a range of smaller debts and can INCLUDE TAX CREDITS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE. But once power is included in the 2015 Finance Bill the threshold amount can be altered and could affect many thousands of individuals. More worryingly, this precedence could pave the way for other debts (eg council tax arrears) to be removed and for the period of debt to be shortened without further legislation; effectively giving HMRC free reign to raid our personal finances at their leisure. HMRC has a history of frequently making mistakes in their calculations and have to adjust and re-adjust tax assessments. If they have unrestricted access to bank accounts, there is a strong possibility they may well take out monies incorrectly. Please don't let this happen: it is too much power and no one, or government department should be above the law.

We need to change the unjust laws that are causing us so much suffering. We are an advantage to the UK, but we have to wait too many years for an answer to our asylum claims. We are not allowed to work in the meantime and have to survive on £5 a day. Many of us become ill, physically and mentally.

In 2014 and 2013 the reported cost of policing this group was £1million in Brighton alone. There were 27 arrests during the 2014 march, and several violent clashes bringing injury to bystanders and destruction to property. The Marchers and EDL members often stay in town once the march is over and create an atmosphere of intimidation, often resulting in further violence. It is clear that the people of Brighton do not want the March to take place, and make their presence known along the route. Free speech is important in our country, nobody wants to deny peaceful protest no matter how abhorrent the opinions of the protesters are to us. But when a protest consistently brings violence, stands for racism, hatred of minorities and scapegoating, AND costs the tax payer hundreds of thousands of pounds to police, it's time to put an end to it. They are disturbing the peace and inciting hatred, and we want to stop them marching through our town. To show how serious this cause is, I include a link to a short video. This shows one of the mass street fights which occurred during the march, which police were powerless to prevent. WARNING contains violent scenes. http://youtu.be/uU8TnvCgBqQ

Increasing research and global experience in both Nuclear Energy and Fracking highlights the profound danger of these energy sources to all Sentient Beings and the precious Earth that supports us. New Nuclear and the proposed storage of nuclear waste on threatened coastal sights is a potential environmental catastrophe of horrifying proportion; is a threat to human health and the Earth; has a huge funding legacy that will continue to increase all our energy bills for years to come; and is totally unnecessary in the light of viable, safer and more economic green alternatives. Fracking has profound implications environmentally for the safety of water supplies,the poisoning of land, air quality, atmospheric carbon levels and the potential to cause earthquake. There are now safe, economic and green alternatives which must be supported by Government alongside an energy conservation programme. If we are concerned with the future of our children, and care for the Earth that so lovingly supports us all, we will act now and encourage a potential Prime Minister to review energy policies. What we do unto this Earth we do unto ourselves. Thank you.

Your Choice Barnet, that provides services for adults with learning and physical disabilities. Your Choice Barnet Ltd (YCB) began operating as a Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) in February 2012 and 100% owned by Barnet Council. In February 2013 a year after its creation Your Choice Barnet, was in serious financial difficulties and as a result, it looked to make savings by cutting staff terms and conditions and reduce staffing levels in some of the social care settings. It also received a £1 million bail out from Barnet Homes requiring a 6% interest repayment. A significant number of loyal hard working care staff were made redundant last year as a result of this cut which has led to an increase in agency staff delivering services. In January 2014, Your Choice Barnet were still in a financial crisis and stated they needed to cut the staff bill by a further £400,000. It is obvious to everyone that the ongoing attack on the terms & conditions of care staff will ultimately lead to: • fewer stimulating activities in a safe environment for adults with disabilities in Barnet. • fewer staff to work with adults with vulnerable disabilities in Barnet. • less supervision of, training and support for remaining skilled staff. • loss of professional staff and lower morale and motivation among remaining staff. • negative impact on staff health and well-being, with a knock-on impact on service quality. Both the Francis Inquiry into Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and the Winterbourne View abuse scandal highlighted the shocking results of employing unskilled and unsupervised staff. I note in a recent article http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2014/03/maude-praises-the-barnet-formula.html you have been extolling the virtues of mass outsourcing “Our approach is already paying dividends, by allowing us to cut Council Tax bills to all residents next year.” Surely you must concede that instead of making a gesture of funding a tax cut, which will save a Band D taxpayer all of 26p a week; the money would have been better spent on ensuring safe and quality services for adults with disabilities. In another article http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/barnet_can_make_future_council_tax_cuts_due_to_one_barnet_outsourcing_says_westminster_finance_chief_1_3429038 you are quoted as saying: “We’ve made enough savings via the One Barnet programme so that we can meet our budget and distribute the money saved, back to the community.” In which case why are you not ensuring the savings you are referring to are redirected to Your Choice Barnet?

For close to a decade, Isabella cleaned ex-immigration MP Mark Harper's home for £22 per week - as well as a number of other politicians. When her undocumented status was revealed, she became a pawn in a political point scoring battle and the focus of a national media campaign which resulted in Mark Harper resigning. As none of the MPs that Isabella worked for were criminalised, the same spirit of kindness ought to be immediately extended to the hard working Acevedo family. We’re asking Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to do the honourable thing and grant citizenship to this lady and her family, whose lives have been turned upside down by this whole affair. Isabella Acevedo has since been forced into hiding, her family is being torn apart and they are facing destitution having lost their income. The hard working Acevedo family have spent close to 15 years in London - building a modest life. During this time, Isabella never had any sick pay, never had any holiday pay and earned less the minimum wage. Despite the difficulty, she was able to provide for her small family and create a home and life in London. All of this is now at risk of being destroyed as result of the damaging politics of Theresa May and Mr Harper. Please sign this petition and support the Acevedo family in their struggle to stay together, to keep a roof over their heads and food on their plates. More information: http://legaldefencefund.wordpress.com/about/ ** A campaign to stand with Isabella Acevedo and others in similar circumstances was collectively launched in February. Supporters include: No One Is Illegal; Campaign Against The Criminalisation Of Communities; National Coalition Of Anti-Deportation Campaigns; Tawantinsuyu Nation; Myrdle Court Press; Defend The Right To Protest; Precarious Workers Brigade; Unity In The Community; Movimiento Ecuador en el Reino Undio Meru; This Is Not A Gateway; 3 Cosas Campaign; Movimiento Jaguar Despierto; Justice For Domestic Workers; Latin American Women's Aid; El Telefono De La Esperanza UK