However well meaning this may be to start with, removes the rights and civil liberties that this nation was built on. There is little or no judicial overview and as such this law is going to be misused. You only have to look to 1950's America to see how things could get out of hand so easily. McCarthyism blighted ordinary, innocent citizens lives for decades. We cannot let this happen in the UK.

Help prevent fraud, scams, time wasters and people who are ignorant and hang up when told politely that 'I'm not interested'..

Please sign the petition to stop this government rushing through legislation that has the power to impact on all our lives not just the Muslim community. This year is the 800 year anniversary of the Magna Carta, this bill seeks to undo the very principles signed 800 Years ago. In the guise of fear mongering and scaring the wider community about Islamist extremist and criminalising the whole of the Muslim community, this bill will erode the civil liberty of all people and all communities. For further details please see www.stopthebill.co.uk or sign this petition It is an erosion of civil liberty, fair trial, the freedom to travel and justice for all.

The proposals, which will compel telecoms companies to retain data about customer calls and internet usage for one year, comes after Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to crack down on encrypted communications over the internet. But encryption is a normal part of internet security. This is dangerous nonsense. Besides, it doesn't make us any safer. In fact, the recent shocking murder of Lee Rigby was facilitated by the fact that our security agencies have too much useless information to wade through, much of which returns false positives during keyword searches because people talk about what happened in the films or programmes they've seen, or mention that something they bought cost a bomb. They are too busy sifting through all that trying to find any useful data to go about the business of catching criminals and stopping terrorists. Indeed, most of the high profile arrests made lately were for making abusive or foolish comments online. They're not catching terrorists or criminals, they're catching people who make fools of themselves online. We are no safer. "In our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?" he asked rhetorically in justification. "In our country, do we want to force people to leave their doors and windows open to let the law enforcement and security agencies in as and when required? Do we want to grant them instant access to all our private business without question?" FIFY, Dave. Further reading - http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2391667/-snoopers-charter-sneaked-in-to-counter-terrorism-bill Please sign this petition. We stopped the Snooper's Charter for a reason. They should NOT be allowed to sneak unwanted legislation back in under the guise of amendments to existing laws. It's anti-democratic. UPDATE: A last-minute attempt to revive a "snoopers' charter" before the general election has been dropped... The BBC understands they will try again next week unless the Home Office publishes a government redraft of the bill, of which the Lords has been told... In response, the peers withdrew the proposed amendments, which threatened to enshrine the controversial measures in law, and called on the government to produce its draft... A source told the BBC that if the Home Office was to refuse that request, the "snoopers' charter" proposals would be revived once again and added to the draft counter-terrorism legislation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31001575 Can you BELIEVE these people? Lord King is a former Conservative defense secretary, Lord Blair is a former Metropolitan Police commissioner, Lord West is a former Labour defense minister and Lord Carlile is a former Liberal Democrat reviewer of counter-terror laws. Each of them was around during the Troubles when attacks were taking place in mainland Britain and they weren't calling for mass surveillance then. Like The Terminator, they'll be back. We need to show them that we know this and that every time they try to put this in, we will be right there to yank it back out. Please keep signing this and please use https://www.writetothem.com/lords to write to each of the lords involved in this atrocious attempt to undermine our right to privacy.

We are told that 'Smart' Meters will replace our existing water, gas and electricity metering systems and that the UK as a whole could benefit from saving up to 2% of our energy IF we change our behaviour. What are we NOT being told.. 1. There are major health concerns 'Smart' Meters emit a continuous stream of pulsed microwave radiation, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. These fields are intensely bio-active and affect the people and natural ecology in and around each home as well nearby. Mechanism for harm to Human Health include activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) and cellular communication interference which leads to the production of free-radicals and DNA damage (Prof. Martin Pall, 2014) EMF waves are especially dangerous to the cells, DNA and organs of young children, babies and foetuses. 2. There are cheaper, less intrusive, ways of monitoring energy Germany has rejected 'Smart' Meters, citing a "lack of savings" for customers. In the UK, 'Smart' Meters are being publicised promoted as "putting consumers in control of energy". If that were true, UK consumers would be given an inexpensive energy monitor - available for just £15 - to assess their own energy/appliance use. Instead, 'Smart' Meters are designed to transmit private data to energy companies and allow them to remotely disconnect supplies and perform "Active Demand Management" - where appliances can be controlled by the energy company (Ofgem 2014). These facts are not being explained to the public. 3. They do NOT reduce energy/utility consumption Only consumers can save energy - when they chose to change their behaviour. If saving measures are not taken, Smart Meters will actually lead to higher bills to pay for the total programme cost of £12bn - representing a cost to each home and small business of at least £400. Energy bills shot up in December 2013 - as energy companies looked to maximise profits. 4. Security vulnerabilities The proposed 'Smart' Meter infrastructure is inherently insecure and will leave UK homes, in the words of GCHQ, "open to terrorist [cyber] attack". A plan to place our entire domestic and small business energy and water supply online is at best reckless and at worst openly inviting trouble - whether that threat lies abroad or closer to home. 'Smart' Meters also increase the impacts of grid security threats from electromagnetic pulse attacks (Jamieson 2012) 5. Privacy intrusions and profiling Smart Meters harvest vast amounts of private data about occupant's lives and behaviours at home - allowing corporations and agencies to analyse our habits, profile our behaviours and monetise our private lives. We are aware that access to our medical data and tax data is already being passed on to third parties - we have no doubt that the valuable data gathered by 'Smart' Meters will follow. 6. They are a poor investment of OUR money Smart Meters will COST THE PUBLIC AT LEAST £12 BILLION with no guarantee of any savings being returned by Big Energy. And because of the significant project risks and problems, the bills is likely to be far, far higher. 7. They are neither 'green' nor “clean” – and could become the basis for unaffordable remediation costs Many countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Austria, Russia) have taken great steps to limit or remove sources of RF/MW pollution - especially for children - due to the now 5,000+ studies now showing harm from artificial sources of EMFs. The UK, however, seems oblivious to now established mechanisms for harm and is therefore not taking a precautionary approach in its continued implementation of a wireless "Smart" Grid. While UK standards were overwhelmingly voted "out of date and obsolete" in an EU parliamentary motion in 2008, they remain in place despite PHE's inability to categorically confirm that non-thermal EMF exposure is "safe". Simultaneously, the WHO now categorises RF EMFs as a 2B possible cancer causing agent. 8. They are likely to disappoint and further disenfranchise hard-working consumers A one year study by Toronto Hydro showed that 84% of people's bills went UP after 'Smart; Meters had been installed - often by more 50%+. There is no guarantee of any savings from 'Smart' Meters. Instead, Ofgem's recent 'Smartgrid Routemap' promotes the introduction of lucrative "Time of Use" tariffs which will require people to take significant steps to avoid being penalised for using appliances at busy times. Many pilot studies show that Smart Meters do NOT lead to sustained energy savings - ComEd's pilot in the US showing "zero statistical difference" in usage. Who will benefit when users make no energy savings, but Big Energy and the Government has the means to exploit private data and take control of our appliances? Whoever it may be, it will not be the UK public. We therefore want this £12bn programme STOPPED.

SSCL has already cut 500 jobs across the UK. It's also announced the closure of three offices in Cardiff, Leeds and Sheffield, and is shipping 200 posts to India. SSCL, the joint venture company, is 25% government owned. The remaining 75% is controlled by French multinational Steria - one of the companies responsible for failing to deliver a £56m IT project, recently written off by The Ministry of Justice. Despite this, MoJ is now rewarding failure by awarding further work to the company. If this privatisation and offshoring goes ahead,1,000 staff in Newport and Bootle also face being privatised. More jobs could be lost. The staff in Newport and Bootle handle personal data belonging to thousands of public servants, prison and probation officers. This data would be at risk if it was offshored to a country without the UK’s robust data protection regulations. We want the government to use its stake in the SSCL company to prevent the offshoring of jobs and data and to stop future offshoring by ending its privatisation agenda.

Our medical records have always been private and confidential and the government are sneaking through a decision to allow our files to bought. Without any notice or consultation and under the proviso of making our care better in the future. They are using the covid crisis as a blanket to cover this story up.

The ICO refuse to enforce the law on behalf of the individual and refuse to investigate no matter how blatantly obvious the offence has been undertaken. The benefit of the doubt is always given to the data controller. Section 173 of the new act claims to institute a criminal offence "to alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal information with the intention of preventing disclosure of all or part of the information that the person making the request would have been entitled to receive." This is lifted from section 77 of the existing FOIA 2000 which in the 18 years it has been law has NEVER been implemented by the ICO. Complaints sent to the ICO languish in a 3-4 month queue for attention and if at any point in that timeline the data controller does release any information the ICO deems it to be a matter of slow compliance rather than a criminal offence. The ICO does however have fixed penalties against data controllers for non payment of ICO fees and the data controller cannot be allowed to pay later than specified. It is our data and yet the organisation responsible for protecting our rights simply will not do so unless the breach makes the news in some spectacular fashion. My father died I believe as a result of Corporate Manslaughter and the Police who failed to take action to prevent his death have so far refused to comply with my subject access request and FOIA requests and the ICO simply refuse to investigate or take action. Please if you can find the time tell the ICO that their attitude is unacceptable and require a change.

It is important because when a family/parent loose their child and an inquest has come out and said that that person did not deliberately hurt their child but it was natural causes that killed their child, therefore everyone should let people grieve in there own way and time and the press shouldn’t have to publish it and plaster it all over social media such as my daughters case for example, I want to help change people views about how it is wrong for the press to think it’s a “story” then can announce to everyone on the social media especially without any consent and for my daughters case we didn’t even consent to it being published but it somehow was a “story” to the press and they published it when I was in the hospital grieving about my dear daughter who sadly passed away at 12 days old.

We have the Data Protection act in this country to which we have to adhere and therefore the DVLA is likely in breach of this by selling details to third parties for profit.

The petition of residents of United Kingdom, Declares that there is compelling evidence from clinical and laboratory studies that interacting with pets can be beneficial to the physical, social, and emotional well-being of humans and that the human-animal emotional bond does not differ from the one that we sustain in relation to close family members; further that the twenty-first century is the beginning of the revolution in ethics related to scientific evidence regarding consciousness in animals – now confirmed that it is astonishingly close to humans; further that mental health services in the UK are overstretched, have long waiting times and a lack specialist services in some regions; further that the Mental Health Foundation also recognises the value of “pet therapy” in suicide prevention and treating depression leading to it; further that there is no scientific research to support the thesis that tenants who have pets are worse, more difficult or cause more damage to properties than those who do not; and further that almost all tenancy agreements, by default, contain a no pet clause, which is nothing more than a prejudiced practice, as a result, people who have pets are especially victimised in their attempt to simply put a roof over their heads in this difficult housing crisis context. Therefore, the petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce legislation that recognises the importance of the emotional relationship of man and their non-human family members; further to put the interest of the most vulnerable and the public interest above the right of the property owners if the property is a subject of commercial gain; and further that the legislation should allow the emotional support animal access in housing facilities, even when the complex has a no pet policy or breed/weight discriminatory policies.

Men do not have to specify their marital status at all and have a one-size-fits all title. What sort of message is this sending to women? That their marital status is somehow related to their worth? That society might judge them based on their marital status? If marital status is irrelevant to our value in society then why do we have to specify it?