Many children commit suicide as a result of sexual abuse. They are not here to write their petitions are to ask for your help. I ask for your help for them, and for those victims of child sexual abuse who are still suffering and whose brave and truthful stories have been covered up by the schools where they were hurt. Child X was sexually abused at New Beacon School in Kent by Paul Woodward, a music teacher at the school who had previously been suspended as a result of allegations of sex offences and who was subsequently reinstated at the school before abusing child X. Woodward was found guilty of sexual offences against other children in the community and sent to prison. The headmaster, Mr Constantine quickly found another job at Ipswich. Child X was too ill to give evidence in Court against Woodward in 2008, but in 2013 was made an award by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. New Beacon School sought to protect its own reputation by the new head, Mr Piercy making misleading press statements which covered up the abuse at the school, regardless of the effect on child X. He and the school continues to refuse to admit the abuse, to apologise or to correct the misleading press statements. The most vulnerable victims of child sexual abuse are too ill to give evidence at the time, and these are at the greatest risk of health problems and adult suicide. There are many cases of Independent Schools who cover up abuse in this way regardless of the very serious consequences of their behaviour on the victims. The Government is considering introducing mandatory reporting for independent schools. I strongly ask that all cover ups by Independent Schools of sexual abuse of children be included in this legislation, so that misleading press statements of known or proven abuse (including awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority) are criminal acts.

It has been almost forty years since the UN recognised that referring to migrants as 'illegal' is dehumanising, discriminatory, and above all, incorrect. Since 1975, the UN has used either 'undocumented' or 'irregular' to refer to migrants that 'do not fulfil the requirements established by the country of destination to enter, stay, or exercise an economic activity'. As Editor-in-Chief of the BBC Tony Hall has the mandate to implement this change and correct inaccurate reporting. The BBC continues to use the term 'illegal' with no justification. A headline as recent as 15 May 2014 reads: 'Illegal migration to EU rises by nearly half'. As a public service broadcaster and influential media organisation the BBC ought to abide by its own clear editorial guidlines that say: 'We...are committed to achieving due accuracy in all our output...Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences'. Unfounded discrimination against migrants is a clear breach of these standards. Human Rights Watch recently observed, 'The term “illegal”...reinforces prejudices about nationals of a particular country or persons of a particular race.' The term incorrectly suggests that migrants are criminals and encourages prejudiced views about those individuals. Cecilia Malmström, European Commisioner for Home Affairs clarified the issue in 2010. She said, 'Let me be clear about my vocabulary...illegal migrants do not exist. People may come to the EU and might be required to use irregular ways...but no human being is illegal'. This petition supports the use of the word 'undocumented' instead of 'irregular' as 'irregular' retains connotations of otherness and deviation from a perceived norm, marking individuals as abnormal and continuing to estrange migrants. For more information see: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/24/dispatches-why-we-should-outlaw-illegal http://picum.org/picum.org/uploads/file_/TerminologyLeaflet_reprint_FINAL.pdf http://www.un.org/esa/population/migration/index.html

This is a humanitarian crisis on the same scale as Rwanda or Srebrenica. The Yazidi people are being hunted down purely for their beliefs

The vast majority of people are appalled by the massive gap between the very richest and the very poorest in society; a gap that over the past two or three decades has been ever widening. Most people are particularly dismayed at the growing need for those in work to need the crutch of benefits to bring their income up to a living wage. An effective way of combating this is to outlaw excess at the top and to obligate fairer wages at the bottom. A relative earnings limit which puts a statutory maximum multiplier on the earnings of the highest paid employee v the lowest, should go some way to curbing this inequality. For example, if that maximum multiplier were x50 (which itself is massive), then if a CEO wished to be paid earnings (including bonuses) of £1,000,000 per year, then the lowest paid employee must earn the equivalent of £20,000 full-time salary. This petition doesn't in itself suggest what that maximum multiplier should be but simply that there should be some degree of relativity. We also appreciate that the policy and any legislation needs to be drafted with considerable care, to ensure that all earnings are included (including bonuses, pensions and share options) and to ensure that lowest wages aren't disguised by outsourcing the lowest paid jobs to other bodies. However fear of loopholes and abuse should not stop the brightest politicians and economists from devising a workable and legally binding way of promoting fairness through a relative earnings limit. We do not see such a limit applied to personal investors in and entrepreneurs and creators of new ventures - only to employees within organisations.

It will put money in the Treasury's coffers as well as ending a deep unfairness

We, the undersigned members of Unite, were disappointed by Unite's decision, announced on 2 July 2014, to urge the Labour Party to commit to holding a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union.[1] We believe this decision by Unite's Executive Council was a mistake. It does not reflect our wishes, it was taken without consulting Unite's members, and it demonstrates race-to-the-bottom politics. We believe the UK should remain a member of the EU because membership enhances UK workers' rights, including via the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.[2] We believe the best way to ensure the UK remains a member of the EU is for political parties to reject referendum calls and instead make the case for continued membership. With no referendum, there would be no risk of the UK exiting the EU. We note that the Conservative Party rejected the Charter when previously in power, and that it is only thanks to the Labour Party that it covers UK workers.[3] We note that because the Conservatives have committed to a parliamentary vote in favour of an in/out referendum on the EU, the only realistic prospect of avoiding such a referendum and saving the Charter is for the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats to commit themselves against such a vote.[4] The Liberal Democrats have already done this.[5] We emphasise that neither this petition, nor the act it requests, brings any injury to or discredit upon Unite or any member of Unite. On the contrary, the act requested would strengthen Unite by demonstrating Unite's commitment to the EU's protection of worker's rights, and would help to forge a Labour Party that will provide a real alternative to the Conservative Party in opposition and at the next General Election. REFERENCES: [1] http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/unite-urges-labour-party-to-hold-eu-referendum/ [2] http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/charter/index_en.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union&oldid=614017036#Legal_status [3] http://socialrights.net/community-charter-of-fundamental-social-rights-of-workers/ [4] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/02/david-cameron-eu-referendum-pledge-disaster [5] http://www.libdems.org.uk/european_election_manifesto_2014 Image source and license: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/skuds/3736995016/

GCHQ are taking away our freedoms and rights to privacy. Collecting masses of data that will undoubtably be leaked in the future. All of UK citizens privacy is now at risk!

For all the right reasons it needs to happen to demonstrate how safe it is to the british public

The interest of the general public should be the sole motive of government. If other motives exist, these should be publicly known.

Israel's continual blockade of Gaza, expanding illegal settlements in Palestinian territory and massacre of Palestinian women and children needs to STOP. This is state terrorism. Our government together with the US and other European countries sell Israel the arms to do this. All the Palestinians can do is fire rockets which are intercepted easily by Israeli mighty fire power. We all feel helpless as the world cannot stop Israel from killing more civilians. A boycott of Israeli goods is something we can all do in our small way, maybe it will affect them and make them consider longer term peace options. In the meantime let's sign a petition to our government to stop selling arms to Israel.

These companies (only a very few of which have been named and shamed in the press, and that is ALL they have suffered as the politicians are still doing nothing about it!) are pouring money out of this country, with full collusion from our politicians who are clearly doing nothing to prevent it. I would not be surprised if the entire deficit could be paid for by legislating to stop the sicking levels of tax fraud and evasion.. Next time you check your wage slip, ask yourself if you are ok for a portion of your tax to go to some fat cat corporation owner so they can have a slightly bigger yacht in the med..

Self evident to anyone with a conscience