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?

If you cannot pass the tests in your third attempt, like me, then this holds you back from becoming an outstanding teacher. 2 years is a lot of time and it holds students back from wanting to teach because if you cannot pass after 2 years then you have to wait for another 2 years. I would like unlimited chances to pass Literacy and numeracy skills test to be put back to action because the government is loosing so many highly skilled student teachers as they are unable to pass their qts tests. I am sure most PGCE students would agree with this.

(To skip the history of this issue please scroll to **) In 2016 the government passed a bill called the "Investigatory Powers Bill" (now the Investigatory Powers Act). This bill replaced the UK's old RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) from 2000, which referred to the powers the UK police and security services had when it came to collecting, monitoring, intercepting, etc - electronic communications from any UK resident, or person currently in the country. The bill effectively makes it legal for the government to spy on everyone in the country, at their will, as well as conducting mass surveillance of the entire country (which they have renamed to "Bulk Collection", as this tends to make people less concerned.) This bill was hugely opposed by those who knew about it, however it wasn't widely known about due to the government precisely timing when they bought it to parliament to coincide with much bigger issues (such as BREXIT). When this bill officially became law it was referred to in headlines as "The UK now has a surveillance law that is more suited to a dictatorship than a democracy". Now the Conservative party are trying to sneak through an expansion of this bill. When the IPAct was bought into power the Conservatives said on numerous occasions said they would not ban or undermine encryption (by implementing backdoors etc) Theresa May personally said "We believe that encryption is important. It is important that data can be kept safe and secure. We are not proposing in the bill to make any changes in relation to the issue of encryption and the legal position around that. The current legal position in respect of encryption will be repeated in the legislation of the bill". ** However the following has document has made its way into the open (article link on page): https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/04/uk_bulk_surveillance_powers_draft/ Technology and apps like WhatsApp and Signal rely on strong encryption to keep our messages private. Weakening the encryption or inserting backdoors is an enormous risk for the entire UK, as the same encryption that keeps these messages safe, also secures things such as bank transactions, social media login, emails, etc. Theresa May usually refers to her famous "double lock" system. Meaning these kinds of things must be authorised by both the home secretary (for example) and a judge. The problem we have seen with this is that these people are not experts in these fields, so rather than question who, how, what, where, when and why they just rubber stamp it. The USA has a court that their surveillance has to go through. This court has rejected 0.03% of all requests ever made. Companies like Facebook (who own WhatsApp) have previously shown their dedication to keeping their users privacy. For them to disable encryption for the UK means anybody messaging that person is also vulnerable, which could cause WhatsApp the shut down in the UK. They may also refuse the request, which could then lead the Government to ban WhatsApp. Please join with me in getting the government to withdraw these plans, and work with an expert in the field to attempt to come up with an approach that keeps us all secure as well as sparing our privacy. Thank you.

Because it's really annoying and an unnecessary invasion of privacy

The integrity of the whistle blowing system of the Financial Services Industry has been jeopardised by his actions. It is simply outrageous that someone in his position can even claim he did not know any better. I work as a customer service rep and even I know the identity of a whistleblower must not be compromised. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/10/barclays-boss-jes-staley-may-lose-bonus-over-bid-to-expose-whistleblower

The most important liberty of all is privacy, a right to operate in silence and in peace. Assuming no one is being harmed and everyone is innocent until proven guilty; I'd rank it above the freedom to speak. I wish to admit, but avoid, my republican nature in my argument and I think I can. I wish to remain polite and not be too crude. Unfortunately life is very much crude, and events are rarely polite. I cannot help but notice the masses around me suffering poverty under the guise of austerity. The sheer amount of charities that have sprung up, to cope with public services' duties. I feel this creates an air of "Us First", pitting poor against poor. Whilst those who are supposed to serve this kingdom do so well. This is aimed at our politicians and not a republican's slip. You have a chance to break with tradition and remind the world that "how we've always done it" is a terrible argument for a society that wishes to progress. As I'm sure you are well aware, Royal Assent has not been given in person since 1854 and has not been refused since 1707. I believe that breaking both of these records on the same day would send an important message through the ranks who support this bill, as well as to the people who oppose it. I fear that if you do not, Eric Arthur Blair may become the greatest prophet this country ever created. This comes from someone who hates clichéd tropes.

Haringey residents have six concerns about the Smart Meter installation programme: 1. Not being consulted prior to installation; 2. Not compulsory (?); 3. Penalise poor people who live in crowded homes; 4. Risk to the health of humans, animals, pollinators, trees and plants; "10. The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorised RF EMFs as a Possible CARCINOGEN (Group 2B), the same as lead, DDT, chloroform & methylmercury (31 May 2011)". "11. Dr Andrew Goldsworthy’s research warned that electromagnetically-conditioned water flow could strip lead from pipes (after firstly removing limescale) leading to lead poisoning. (1998, 2007, 2012 and 2016)". 5. Surveillance of water, gas and electric usage; and 6. Security risk through (nuclear) electromagnetic pulse attacks, space weather and hacking (“cybercrime”). Our focus is on Smart Water Meters but not exclusively. Full details about the Stop Smart Meters Haringey campaign can be found on our website below. This petition will be initially delivered to Haringey Council. The target is 2,200+

A location history of your movements for the last year or more is incredibly insightful. Location data can show your sex, your approx age, your home and work addresses, where your children go to school, whether you are ill or becoming ill, how affluent you are (or how much poorer you are becoming), who your friends and family are (or were), your sexual orientation, how fast you drive, your personal preferences and lifestyle and much more. Worse - you really don't know who this data is being sold to or what for. To learn more and how to opt out go to www.optmeoutoflocation.com and sign our petition asking the UK ICO (Information Commissioners Office) to make the mobile and Wi-Fi operators ask our consent before they take and use this data.