It is now 5 years since the Inquiry into the Iraq war was announced, 3 years since the the hearings were completed, and and to date it has reportedly cost £10 million. It is a national scandal that Sir John Chilcot’s findings have still not been published and we call upon The Iraq Inquiry for the report’s immediate publication, including full disclosure of all communications between Tony Blair and George Bush, regardless of political expediency and personal interest. Surveys suggest that the Iraq war has claimed up to 250.000 lives, cost billions of pounds, and its aftermath continues a toll of death years after the foreign troops have left. The legacy of the war has critically undermined any moral authority that the United Kingdom seeks to exert in international affairs as well as intensifying both national and global insecurity. The vested interests of a few individuals in further prevarication must no longer override the moral right of British citizens and the world at large to know the sequence of events and culpabilities of individuals responsible for this disastrous episode. If you believe this report is long overdue, please sign my petition.

The transparency and accountability of the ICO is under the spotlight because section 14(1) VEXATIOUS decisions are being handed down on a whim by the ICO/Upper Tribunal and First Tier Tribunal and hundreds of rogue Public Authorities.Ditto for section 12(4)(b( of the EIR Act 2004. All these vexatious decisions are being handed out based on a court authority GIA/3037/2011 Dransfield v ICO and Devon County Council ,which is still before the European Court of Human Rights Section 14(1) Vexatious decisions should be a LAST RESORT but since the Dransfield case decision in Jan 2013 it has been used as a FIRST CHOICE Nutcracker.

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.

There is a suggestion that the BBC may be being used to promulgate propaganda in this affair, may not be unbiased or may be being coerced or influenced to serve one particular agenda. This suggestion should be investigated and BBC conduct explored in the light of their charter.

Sure Start Children's Centre services in Newcastle are facing a two thirds cut in funding over the next three years. This will mean closure of services, buildings, parents groups, activity for young children across the city. It will mean at least 100 jobs will be lost across the council and the voluntary sector. It will mean the opportunities for children and parents will continue to be worsened, following significant cuts already 2010, and the axing of the councils play and youth services last year. SSCCs in Newcastle are all rated Good and Outstanding by Ofsted, reach the vast majority of children under 5 and their families offering universal as well as targeted services. The council proposals:  For the three year budget cycle (2013 – 2016) - the cuts proposed equate to over £5 milllion (or approx. 65% of the total budget) The first £1 million savings have already been agreed, with a proposal for a further £1 million this year and then £3 million for the year 2015-16.   Overall the cuts since 2011 will equate to over 70% with the budget being reduced to less than £3 million from approximately £10 million in 2010-11.   The review of Sure Start and Early Years Services has now been incorporated with the Family Services Review which is being asked to cut £670,000 over the next two years out of budget of £2.3 million which is a 34% cut in services to the most vulnerable families, children and young people.   50% of these services are delivered by the council and 50% by the Community and Voluntary Sector. The city council have estimated that for the work they directly deliver this would equate to the lost of 63 full time equivalent posts (i.e. this will actually be more than 63 people losing their jobs as many jobs are part-time or may be job share) we can only estimate that the equivalent level of job cuts would be made by the Community and Voluntary sector meaning the job cuts proposed would be at least 126 full time posts (probably between 130 and 180 people losing their jobs)   The review has not identified which Sure Start Children’s Centres, Services, Buildings or staff will face cuts.   The councils review timetable includes: ·         April 2014 onwards: Options appraisal (looking with partners at what the cuts could like and coming up with proposals) ·         July 2014: Consultation on the proposed cuts and closures ·         August 2014: Partners agree which options are to be implemented ·         September 2014: Implementation of the cuts for both 2014-15 and 2015-16. ·         March 2015: All cuts implemented.   The councils proposals for 2014 – 2016: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/sites/drupalncc.newcastle.gov.uk/files/wwwfileroot/your-council-and-democracy/budget_2014-15_-_pc_-_2_-_family_services_review_0-25_incorporating_early_years.pdf   Previous year budgets: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/your-council-and-democracy/budget-annual-report-and-spending/budget   Unison’s campaign page: http://unison-newcastle.org.uk/sure-start.html   Motion passed at Unison Newcastle City AGM: http://www.unison-newcastle.org.uk/assets/files/AGM2014/140210_18%20Motion%20-%20Save%20Sure%20Start.pdf

In February of 2011, after more than a year of investigation, the Chilcot Inquiry into Britain's role in the invasion of Iraq concluded. It is outrageous that today, more than three years after the end of the inquiry, the public has still not been given the conclusion. What is equally reprehensible is, apart from the occasional meek entreatment to Chilcot by some politicians to get on with it, hardly any body of influence seems to be pressing for the results to be finalised and published. The day Britain began its attack on Iraq was one of the blackest days in the history of our nation because, despite massive public opposition, our Government, with the full support of the parliamentary opposition, went ahead with the invasion, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children and a major increase in terrorism. To their eternal disgrace, there are many in the 'establishment' and in political circles who supported the attack and in whose interest it is to keep kicking the report into the long grass. Consequently, the only group who can try and bring about publication of the report is us. I would therefore like 38 Degrees, through its members, to campaign and pressurise Chilcot into releasing the report immediately. We must show that we will not be treated as inconsequential bystanders and be ignored and humoured as though we are simply an annoyance. We must force those we elect and nominate, to do the job we pay them to do and not simply make up their own forever changing timetable. The British public were treated with contempt when the Government and the parliamentary opposition chose to ignore us and take us into an unprovoked war of aggression, the worst type of war crime. We must not let the Inquiry into that disgraceful episode also treat us with contempt. *************************************************************** We now have the answer to the reason for the delay:- 12th Nov. 2013 "Cabinet boss must not decide on Iraq papers", says Owen: David Owen, former Foreign Secretary demands Sir Jeremy Heywood is stripped of responsibility because he worked closely with Tony Blair Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot said last week that his probe has stalled indefinitely because Sir Jeremy is blocking the release of correspondence Sir Jeremy was Principal Private Secretary to Tony Blair between 1999-2003 ******************************************** 29th May 2014 CHILCOT WILL RELEASE THE ‘GIST’ It’s just another way of saying “we will withhold important information” It would obviously be much better for us to see all of the documentation between Blair and Bush in the run-up to the invasion but the most important document we need, if it exists, is the one where Blair agreed to assist Bush in the attack come what may. That information is absolutely no threat to security but of course if it is a threat to Blair we may never see it. If an 'independent' committee has sight of documents that clearly show that a Prime Minister or any minister for that matter, for their own reasons, committed our country to a course of action that had not been fully approved or discussed and which resulted in a massive loss of life for hundreds of thousands of innocent people, without question that information should be released. Why should those documents be for the eyes of the committee only and not for the rest of us when in that situation the minister in question has clearly acted incorrectly?. It means that they are above the law and can transgress with impunity, we are supposed to be a democracy! The excuse that the documents cannot be released for either security or confidentiality reasons is totally spurious. The conversations between Blair and Bush are about a specific and unique situation. They were not conversations about the price of fish, they were conversations that resulted in Britain engaging in and waging a war of aggression against a country that was absolutely no imminent threat to us - a war crime. Many believe the British people were lied to over the reasons for taking the country to war and those in power at the time know it and so do the families here and in Iraq whose relatives were killed as a result. We must have a full and complete report describing how and why our Government decided to invade another sovereign country in our name. It has been deliberately stalled for far too long, we need it NOW

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.

At a time when Government cutbacks are affecting vital public services and most people's pay rises have not kept pace with rising prices, it is important that the Government is fair and even handed. We all have to pay the full cost of issuing passports and driving licenses, so gun owners should do the same. Subsidies to wealthy grouse moor owners should be stopped and the money used for wider benefit. See http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/22/cameron-blasted-battle-shotgun-licence-fees or http://www.monbiot.com/2014/04/28/the-shooting-party/ for more information.

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

In a time of austerity a few are profiting nicely at the tax payers expense. MP's expenses need to be rigourously scrutineed in order to restore public confidence in our leaders. For Osbourne to declare that 'we are all in it together' is rank hypocrisy in the extreme. More background: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9729139/George-Osborne-bought-paddock-with-taxpayers-money.html

Rather than discussing the horrendous economic situation that has forced many people to use food banks, the article focused on the warped idea that food banks are merely an easy means of obtaining free food. This is not true, and suggesting this is an insult to the thousands of decent people who are living in poverty because of the cavalier attitude to unemployment and enormous welfare cuts that have been imposed by the government, which is supported by the Mail on Sunday. While we need a strong media to bring the ills in society to our attention, it is also important that the media should be honest and should not misrepresent issues for political gain or out of mere hatred. When the media uses inaccurate reporting to mislead the public, we must take action to stop them.