Andargachew Tsige is a campaigner for democracy in Ethiopia, he is an innocent man trying to bring change to his native country. He was sentenced to death in absentia for trumped up charges. Freedom of speech and dissent is a basic human right, which the Ethiopian government denies its people.

Lady Butler-Sloss, the judge you have appointed, is the sister of Sir Michael Havers who tried to prevent Geoffrey Dickens from naming Sir Peter Hayman being named as a member of the paedophile information exchange. This means that from her position at the highest level of the very establishment she is supposed to be investigating, it is very difficult for the public to have the complete confidence that she will get to the bottom of things where establishment figures are concerned. There should be several lay people sitting with her, seeing everything she sees. These people are there to serve, who have never been in politics or public service, who are good decent sensible people who can take a balanced view.

Mrs Rivas is a fugitive from Justice, charged with aggravated assault and torture that resulted in the death and disappearance of twelve people. In memory of the fallen victims and the many survivors of torture that are currently living in Australia, Great Britain and beyond, we ask that the Australian Government consider the pain and suffering inflicted upon the Chilean people during the dictatorship and the international community of Chilean exiles of which there are over 3,000 in Britain.

UK legislation does not allow people with a sight impairment to use technology, which we use in our normal daily lives to maintain independence, to vote It is not always possible for someone with sight loss to get to a polling station and if they do, only 25% are accessible. We want to be able to use our technology, for example, to allow ballot papers to be sent to us via email attachment or CD, complete those using electronic devices (with the aid of assistive software) such as Smartphone, Tablets or a PC and return them for printing and entered into the ballot box. Security measures can easily be set up to avoid fraud as with normal postal voting. We do not believe this constitutes 'electronic voting' but simply a reasonable adjustment (auxiliary aid) under the Equality Act 20 Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with a Disability article 29 we have the right to a political and public life. We believe the UK Politicians are breaching the convention. People with sight impairment have the right to dignity and choice and control over their own Imagine for one moment you were told you were losing your sight or that you were going blind, "pretty emotional I expect". Putting those emotions to one side for a moment, how would you cope for instance with getting a hospital or mental health (emotional support) appointment, accessing your own NI number in order to get employment or benefits, bank or insurance information as well as many other services you would need to access in order to retain as much independence as possible. Even if you were to go totally blind, independence is achievable with the aid of assistive technology such as text-to speech and touch type You have coped with the emotional impact of sight loss and are now ready to move on. Sorry but worse is yet to come because you are discriminated by mainly public bodies and also the private sector who place barriers in your way such as reasons of security or integrity of documents to demy you the right to participate in society or allow you your rightful independence It has been made virtually impossible to get legal aid anymore in order to fight discrimination and injustice. UK politicians seem to have a 'Blindspot ' when it comes to accessible voting I therefore need this matter debated in the House of Commons. For this to happen I would need to raise 100,000 signatures. Please show your support and sign the petition. We all have the human and democratic right to vote Worse than being told you are losing your sight, for many, is being told you cannot use what ability is left to you. Therefore the answer too "how do you cope with sight loss" is you don't if you are not allowed too. We have sexism and racism but it appears we do not have 'disablism' in the UK. RNIB Policy Position Statement https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9vheEyP62zlbGZxaWFxOXBxbDg/edit?usp=sharing Article 29 http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=289 Electoral Commissioners comments http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2014/05/legal-action-threat-over-postal-voting-discrimination

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.