Boaters who move every fourteen days are acting legally and should be left in peace. No one should have to endure the fear and trauma of being needlessly threatened with homelessness. No charity should be in the business of harassing and threatening members of the public, and boaters should have the same rights as all other travelling people. It is not an acceptable use of public money to spend it taking people to court to try and take their homes from them. Many boaters are retired and have limited funds. There are boaters who are key workers and cannot afford to live in regular accommodation. Some boaters are disabled, others have families. Those who move every 14 days are entitled to live and travel on the canal, and do so perfectly legally, yet The Canal & River Trust harasses such people regularly. They threaten to take away the boat license, then to take the boater to court and take their boat from them. If your boat is your home and your only major asset, this is a terrifying prospect. If they take your boat, they can sell it for a profit and you get nothing. The Canal & River Trust pressures liveaboard boaters to take permanent moorings. Most moorings do not have planning permission for residency, so if you live on your boat, a mooring is mostly something you cannot use. The Canal & River Trust owns many of the available moorings and benefits financially from pressuring boaters into taking moorings. In other circumstances, using threats to pressure someone into paying you for something they do not really need and cannot use, just to avoid some threatened outcome, is called a protection racket. This hardly seems like good, charitable activity.

There are up to three in one thousand people currently suffering from NEAD. It is a very debilitating condition, and one that usually means the person requires a carer 24 hours a day. There is typically a long delay in getting a diagnosis, which is partly due to insufficient knowledge, both of GP's and Specialists, but also a tendency for the condition to be labelled a 'pseudo' condition, that is, an assumption that it is not really a medical condition. This condition affects both men, women and children, and as awareness slowly increases, partly through the efforts of self funded groups such as the NEAD Trust, based in Sheffield, more and more cases are being confirmed. There is no official national organization, and in most cases, no local support. Sufferers, and their carers often have great difficulty in obtaining their benefit entitlements, and in some cases are suffering severe hardship and well as being marginalized by the health service and others. When you are caring for someone who may have multiple fits each day, causing falls, injury, loss of memory and the inability to carry out normal activities of daily living, it can take it's toll on both sufferer and carer. All we ask is that the condition is better publicized, that health professionals are better trained to diagnose and support sufferers, and a health service funded external national support organization is set up to help with ongoing advice and support. Thank you.

Ilford police ran co-ordinated raids on homeless people in Redbridge on the night of the 23rd of May. One of the men targeted, Adam Jaskowiak, reported that the police swooped in on the group he was sheltering with, bundling all their belongings into the back of a car: “They were just taking the sleeping bags and chucking out everything. I asked to keep it and the food, but they said ‘no’. I just grabbed as many of my things as possible and put them into a bag and ran.” Ilford chief inspector John Fish has been quoted as follows:- "The public rely on police to reduce the negative impact of rough sleepers.' This strongly suggests that Chief Inspector John Fish sees Rough Sleepers as something other than 'the public', and the actions of the Ilford Metropolitan Police, in confiscating these items, are surely the most despicable form of bullying - taking from those who have nothing. Indeed, Chief Inspector Fish states, with no apparent regret, that:- 'This includes the need for us to assist in the removal of temporary structures, tents, and bedding from public spaces and other inappropriate locations.' It is reported that nine of the men were taking refuge in the former Ilford Baths - do Chief Inspector John Fish and the Metropolitan Police realise that rough sleeping is not a lifestyle choice? Where would they suggest these men sleep? The police claimed they carried out this raid in the name of public. Well, we are the public - so let’s show them this isn’t what they want. Sign the petition now and help make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

UK coroner Sir Robert Owen, under pressure from Foreign Secretary William Hague, has said a legal inquest will exclude material implicating either Russia's state agencies or the UK security services. Seven years after the death of her husband, Marina Litvinenko is no closer to knowing the truth about his death. This is a travesty of justice at the heart of Westminster and a disgrace to the people of Britain. Many other lives were also put at risk - in London, Moscow and Hamburg and on planes and vehicles in which the Polonium was transported. The public deserves an answer too. see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22579463 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/17/alexander-litvinenko-widow-slams-william-hague?INTCMP=SRCH

Refuge supports a number of families who have lost loved ones to domestic violence. Rachael Slack and her two-year-old son Auden were killed by Rachael’s ex partner Andrew Cairns in June 2010, after Rachael had reported Cairns to the police for stalking and threatening to kill her. Derbyshire Police failed to tell Rachael that she and Auden were at high risk of serious harm or homicide from Cairns. An inquest found that police failures contributed to Rachael and Auden's deaths. Maria Stubbings was murdered by her former partner, Marc Chivers – a man already known to the police for killing a previous girlfriend – in December 2008. In the days leading up to her death, Maria called the police to ask for help, but none came. When the police attended the house, they took Chivers at his word when he told them she had gone on holiday. By the time they carried out a thorough search of the house on 19th December, Maria was already dead. The IPCC found that Essex Police made a catalogue of failures in their response to her. Rachael Slack and her two-year-old son Auden were killed by Rachael’s ex partner Andrew Cairns in June 2010, after Rachael had reported Cairns to the police for stalking and threatening to kill her. Derbyshire Police failed to tell Rachael that she and Auden were at high risk of serious harm or homicide from Cairns. An inquest found that police failures contributed to Rachael and Auden's deaths. Sabina Akhtar was stabbed to death by her husband in September 2008, two months after she told the police he had assaulted her and threatened to kill her. Malik Mannan had been arrested less than a month before her death for assault, but the CPS released him without charging him. Social services had received three separate referrals relating to Sabina and her two-year-old son – but closed the case without even doing an initial risk assessment. An inquest found that serious failings had been made by Greater Manchester Police, Manchester Social Services and the Crown Prosecution Service which may possibly have contributed to Sabina’s death. Cassie Hasanovic was killed by her estranged husband in front of her two young children as she attempted to flee to a refuge. An inquest into her death found that Kent Police had failed to arrest Hajrudin Hasanovic for breaching his bail conditions, and that the CPS did not take a number of steps to safeguard Cassie’s life, including failing to apply for Hajrudin’s bail to be withdrawn and failing to inform Cassie of the special measures that might have been available to assist her in giving evidence against him. The inquest also found that Sussex Police officers were inadequately trained in domestic violence. Numerous investigations into the handling of domestic violence have shown recurring failings across the country. Many women using our services also tell us that they feel completely let down by the police, and other state agencies. We urgently need a public inquiry to investigate why these failures keep happening. Individual reports put the spotlight on individual police forces and local agencies – but no-one is looking at the national picture. A public inquiry will make links between different cases and help improve the state response to domestic violence across the country. Refuge, along with families who have lost loved ones to domestic violence, are determined to create real change - for Maria, Rachael, Sabina, Cassie, and countless other women. Please add your voice to this campaign. Find out more about domestic violence and our campaign for a public inquiry at http://refuge.org.uk/publicinquiry

Affected borrowers will pay substantially more than they believed they would be paying. If one lender is allowed to get away with changing mortgage terms in this way what's to stop other mortgage lenders copying them? You may not be affected by this change but stopping Bank of Ireland might prevent your mortgage lender imposing unfair terms on your mortgage in the future. No borrower with a tracker rate mortgage can afford to allow Bank of Ireland to get away with this.

For two and a half years we have been trying to find out the circumstances surrounding the death of our son, Andrew, in France in September 2010. Throughout the process of organising a post mortem, trying to work with the French authorities to understand what happened, and trying to work with the Foreign Commonwealth Office we have been faced with many struggles and barriers in gaining access to all the answers we, as a family, need about Andrew’s death. We are currently at the third stage of appeal, desperate to understand the circumstances of our son’s death, but the Foreign Office is refusing to release this information as they claim it could damage relations between France and the UK. Andrew was living in France with his French girlfriend. He was heavily medicated without choice, for a degree of paranoid schizophrenia. He wanted to return home to the UK but his partner prevented him from doing this. The day before he was found dead he told his partner that he wanted to return to the UK. Even in the weeks before he died he had spoken to family members about returning home. Andrew could talk to anyone, he saw everyone as a friend. In the UK he always enjoyed people’s company and this was denied to him in France. From the age of 12 he played chess and before and after he studied Maths at Leeds University he played at County level. He worked at PGL activity centres and loved his guitar. His company will always be missed. As a family we not only feel we have a right to this information, but that any family in the future who may go through similar circumstances in finding out about a loved one’s death in the UK or abroad should have access to all information in the case. The Foreign Office should only be able to withhold information if it’s in the interest of national security, not because they want to prevent embarrassment as seems to be the case in our terrible situation, a situation many families find themselves in. We therefore ask William Hague to please appeal to the Information Commissioners Office to rule in our favour and finally release to us all the details of Andrew’s death. We want him to stop allowing the Foreign Commonwealth Office to use the broad language in Section 27 of the Freedom of Information act to refuse to release information to grieving families who need to understand the details of their loved ones death. The UK government’s need to save face should not be put above its citizen’s need for answers during such a traumatic time.

Last year, student Cait Reilly and unemployed driver Jamieson Wilson, took the Tory led coalition to task over their controversial Workfare programme arguing that it was unlawful. Three Judges found that regulations under which most of the Tory led coalition back-to-work schemes were created are unlawful. The main issue is that the Tory led coalition lost this case and they lost because they failed to provide sufficient and legal information about Workfare to job-seekers. It is estimated that 231,000 people were originally affected by their decision and had their benefits sanctioned (ie stopped). The morality of the Workfare system is not being debated here (although flaws of the system are outlined below). This petition is about the abhorrent behaviour of the Tory led coalition that followed this decision and their decision to retroactively change the law. On 19 March 2013, a Bill was rushed through the House of Commons which will change the law (that they broke) retroactively thus enabling the Tory led coalition to avoid having to repay the money that they illegally took from job-seekers - an average of £550 per person. The issue here is threefold: Firstly, the Tory led coalition (assisted by Labour and Lib Dems) are trying to retrospectively change the law to protect themselves from their own flawed policies. By retrospectively changing the law they can ensure that no law has now been broken and thereby avoid having to repay those who they illegally sanctioned. This behaviour is morally repugnant and vile and cannot be allowed to happen. Secondly, there seems to be a complete media blackout on the story and the Bill was rushed through, the day before the Budget - one may argue in an attempt to bury it? Thirdly, the Workfare scheme is fundamentally flawed and has been shown not to be an effective tool to get unemployed back in to work. The problem is there are no jobs for people and the Tory led coalition is deflecting this fact away by demonising those looking for work such as Miss Reilly and Mr Wilson. There is plenty of evidence to show that workfare claimants are replacing real jobs. Since this WP came in, many retail giants and the Royal Mail have used workfare so they don't have to offer overtime to their existing workers. Asda recently put all their part-time staff on contracts which guarantee just 4 hours work a week. Many shops are run by workfare. This whole scheme is about exploiting labour - the workfare claimants are being exploited for free labour; the existing workers are being exploited by losing hours and pay; and we are all being exploited when what we buy is making profits for corporations which are using what is effectively indentured labour. People who are fortunate enough to be paid for their work are afraid of rocking the boat lest they be replaced. These schemes guarantee a cowed and compliant workforce, paid or not, who will be reluctant to unionise and unwilling to protest in case they lose their jobs. Meanwhile, taxpayers' money is being poured by the billion into the coffers of welfare-to-work companies and corporate profiteers, and Labour seem to be OK with this in principle. These are extremely important issues and cannot be ignored.

Michael MacDonald was arrested on the night of the 16th February when he was at home alone looking after his young son. The arrest followed an incident earlier in the day when MacDonald, known by friends and colleagues as 'Don', engaged with Nick Forbes, the the Labour Council leader, in the street. 'Don' wanted to discuss with Forbes, the effects of the cuts to Newcastle's youth services, which the youth worker fears will have a devastating effect on the most vulnerable residents of the city. Don was not threatening to him. He didn't swear. He only tried to explain to Forbes, as a professional youth worker, the effects these cuts would have on the city's services. The actions taken by Forbes and the police are not what we expect of those who are meant to serve and protect the residents of Newcastle. It is important that situations involving the police as outlined above are not allowed to occur, which serve to intimidate and disturb the people of Newcastle who exercise their right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech. Although a minor offence, if charged Don would be left with a criminal record and there would a black mark against this hard-working and well respected community worker. Don was served a fixed penalty notice under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, but has returned this notice to the court and has stated his intention to fight the accusation. His arrest has serious implications for public protest and freedom of expression in Newcastle and nationally. We stand with him against this attack on the right to protest. The accusation is unjust, meant to intimidate and is preposterous. It is clear that: 1. A civil servant has used their authority to demand an arrest. 2. The police have removed a family man from his home in the middle of the night when he had sole responsibility for his six year old child, detained him for four hours on the basis of a minor charge, during which time he was encouraged to accept a fixed penalty fine for doing nothing more than exercising the rights we all have as residents of Newcastle. Initial signatories: John McDonnell MP Kate Hudson, national secretary Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Jerry Hicks, Unite Grassroots Left Dot Gibson, National Secretary Pensioner Convention Bill Bowring, Haldane Society Socialist Lawyers Andrew Burgin, vice chair Coalition of Resistance

The wrongful arrest and detention of Palestinian children has a long history and is contrary to UN, EU and UK law The International Declaration of Human Rights protects and enshrines the rights of childre as does the UN constitution The treatment of Palestinian children in detention is in breach of both of these for further info please go to: www.palestinecampaign.org

The 'big four' supermarkets: Asda, Morrisons, Tesco and Sainsburys do not pay the Living Wage. These companies employ around 900,000 people meaning that together they employ the second largest number of people in the UK after the NHS. The Living Wage is “the threshold at which people can live above the poverty level with a sufficient safety net to provide for quality of life”. We need to ask these supermarkets to pay their staff the living wage. Big companies don’t like bad publicity. 38 Degrees members put pressure on the Olympic sponsors who were dodging their tax in the summer, and they caved to public pressure. We need to shame them into paying their staff a wage which affords them dignity and shows that they’re worth more than the legal minimum. Sign this petition to show the CEOs that you think they should pay their staff a wage they can live on! Together we can work together to lift people out of poverty. These supermarkets can afford it! The salaries paid to their CEOs are evidence of this. Justin King, the CEO of Sainsburys, receives £3.2 million a year; Philip Clarke of Tesco, £6.9 million; Dalton Philips of Morrisons, £4 million; Andy Clarke of Asda's pay is not in the public domain. If they can afford to pay their bosses this much, they can afford to pay their staff a few pounds more an hour. Tesco announced sales of more than £1 billion a week and annual profits of more than £3 billion despite the impact of the global downturn. Sainsburys opened five supermarkets, 28 convenience stores and two extensions, adding 267,000 square feet to its estate over the last three months. If they can afford to expand to at this rate, they can afford to pay their staff more. The Living Wage is beneficial to employees, employers and taxpayers. It prevents working poverty and the exploitation of low-paid workers. Taxpayers top up the low wages of supermarket workers by £50 a week in tax credits. If all low paid workers earned the living wage, the government could save £823 million a year by decreasing welfare benefits. It’s not just those who are unemployed who are in poverty, it’s also those in work who just don’t earn enough money to pay for the basics. One-fifth of women and one-seventh of men earn less than £7 per hour. More than six million working adults in Britain are living in poverty. Since the beginning of the Living Wage campaign in 2001 led by Citizens UK, they have lifted 45,000 people out of poverty and put over £210 million into the pockets of some of the lowest paid workers in the UK. *UPDATE* I have made a short link if you'd like to share the petition on Twitter: It is http://bit.ly/Big4LW745

**UPDATE: Job Done! (House of Bishops statement 11 Dec 2012). Many thanks to all supporters - keep praying!** 42 out of 44 Dioceses have voted for women bishops; the House of Laity vote clearly did not reflect the democratic wishes of the membership they are supposed to represent. A year's delay will enable Dioceses to reflect again, and make their views even clearer to their Synodical representatives.