The use of debt recovery companies by the council clearly victimises the least financially secure people in the town who are struggling to keep up with council tax bills, rent (often due to bedroom tax) and even parking charges. Some of the companies employed by the council use bully tactics, harassment and intimidation to coerce people to pay debts. To make matters worse they add crippling and punitive charges on to debts adding further stress and worry onto those who cannot afford to pay their debt. A recent example of this was a situation where one person owed Merthyr Council £45 but had to pay Excel Debt Recovery £150 on demand and have been told they will again return to collect a further £245. Giving the person further stress, worry and financial hardship. We demand that the council stop using such companies who bully, intimidate and harass people and profit on the misfortune of others. Such use of companies is unethical and goes against the principle of local government looking after and supporting those who require it's services the most.

Private collection agencies are ruthless and add more debt to those who can least afford it.

My disabled Brother has been waiting for well over a year to be re homed in a suitable property. He has multiple disabilities and has to have oxygen almost all the time. He has not been out of his small flat for over a year (except for emergencies) and despite being unable to walk more than a few feet before being exhausted, he remains housed in a third floor flat which is dirty and dangerous. My brother was born with multiple health problems and was not expected to live much beyond his forties. He is now 54, and his health is increasingly worse. The whole family is worried about his safety and he has few, if any visitors. One of his regular visitors, and oldest friends from schooldays, recently died from Cancer. So he is now even more isolated. He has had to have his bed moved in to his front room as it's too difficult for him to get to the bedroom. He cannot reach the bathroom in the night so has to urinate in bottles which he keeps by his bed. He has undergone many serious operations throughout his life and suffered more than most, from being bullied during our school days right through the emotional problems that his poor health has brought with it. Our Mum has had Parkinson's for over 25 years and has recently had to go in to a nursing home. She now has related dementia but nonetheless is constantly asking after my Brother and is always worried about his well being. Despite repeated conversations with Bexley housing service and their acknowledgement that my Brother should be treated as a priority on the grounds of his ill health, he is in the system with everyone else and has had no luck in his search for a property. He doesn't want much, just a ground floor flat, with disabled access so that, perhaps with the aid of a mobility scooter, he could once again be able to get out once in a while. Please sign my petition, I have already tried contacting his M.P. but this achieved nothing. Thanks to all who sign. Kind regards, Mark Walker

It is important because the existing practice is unfair, dishonest and discriminatory all of which are un-British. It often results in pensioners who have gone to live with their families in countries like Canada or Australia having to sponge on their children or return to a lonely life in the UK where, of course, they become a burden on the NHS. The exclusion of British pensioners in most countries from receiving their rightful pension is irrational. Pension freezing means that after twenty years a pensioner is getting less than half of his or her entitlement. Our Government claims to be fair and honest but it seems to be unfair and dishonest. If we all pay the same compulsory contributions we should all get the same pension.

People are being mocked and their struggles are being seen as entertainment when, in fact, it is day-to-day existence for many and not a fictitious variation of shows such as ‘Big Brother’. Sanctions, starvation and evictions are not ‘amusing’ or a joke, they are a reality for many and are horrifying in their brutality. People have died. The result of this misinformation is the alarming increase in hate crime against those who are claiming benefits. Spying on friends and neighbours is encouraged. covert filming and recording is rife. According to the Crown Prosecution Service in 2014 there was a 213 percent increase in the number of prosecutions for hate crime against disabled people. In 2011 the report, ‘Ready Willing and Able’ highlighted the fact that 38 percent of the general public perceived disabled people to be a burden on society. On 24 April 2015 the UN high commissioner for human rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein compared British print media’s attitude to migrants to propaganda in 1930s Nazi Germany. The impact of benefits cuts and of the associated campaign of demonisation of disabled people, the unemployed, migrants, asylum seekers and other vulnerable groups has been catastrophic. Crimes motivated by hate have wider and deeper roots, but austerity has made the problems worse.’ This is not healthy. This is frightening. I am asking the Chief Executive Officers and Director Generals of the main broadcasters of UK terrestrial television programming to do the right thing. I am asking them to have the courage to say ‘No More’. The public should be shown the true stories of the struggling majority, not the glamorisation of the extreme minority. Over many years the British press has been lauded for its fairness and unbiased reporting. Please do not allow this to change.

The government are currently bringing in more companies and small businesses to run apprenticeships within the work place. However once you have an apprenticeship you are not entitled to the same privileges to someone the same age without an apprenticeship if you want a prescription or dental care. Currently someone on an apprenticeship's minimum wage you earn £2.73 an hour, so if you need to get a prescription at a cost of £8.20 then this is roughly 3 hours work just to pay for it! I say we as apprentices should be allowed to have free prescriptions and free dental care.

We already have laws in place intended to protect mainly ethnic minorities within society at large, while other often-disadvantaged groups of people can take comfort in there being rules by which prospective employers must abide. The question of gender equality and the LGBT movement also continue to be major talking points, as campaigns such as those seen on this very site and others enjoy increasing momentum. However, one thing that does appear not to have penetrated the public consciousness - quite the opposite - is the situation pertaining to, in particular, many unemployed and disabled people, beyond merely the legislation being passed. Compounding the present climate of savage spending cuts, workplace ambivalence to rights and key government departments' cruel dehumanisation of their core services' users, is the growing groundswell of opinion - perpetuated by small-scale local news sources [1] and internationally-renowned public service broadcasters [2] alike, alongside everything in-between [3] - whereby anyone out of work or known to be claiming any sort of social security is instantly not only marginalised, but in fact openly vilified [4], and blamed for all manner of perceived problems blighting the country. Some writers even set up websites for the sole purpose of baiting those on welfare. [5] Worse still, the overriding premise around which the whole hysteria was intended to revolve, thanks to the 'free' British media, is a purely sensationalist, propaganda-fuelled one that ultimately rings hollow when scrutinised on the grounds of accuracy. [6] From domestic charities [7] to medal-winning athletes [8], bloggers [9] to the research teams of esteemed Universities [10] the length and breadth of the country [11], online publications [12] and even some mainstream news outlets [13], the message is clear: this is irresponsible, vindictive journalism. Of course, even in light of the recent revelations in relation to the practices of the press and the resulting Leveson Inquiry, it seems that the nature of the stories' content itself is something largely being forgotten about, and so the attacks go ahead. Such is the public's apparent willingness to serve as a channel for the outrage emanating primarily from reports peddled by the likes of the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Express, that we are now seeing innocent claimants abused [14], harassed [15] and even driven to death [16] by those who feel compelled to do their bidding. All this because a tiny minority (less than 1%!) of the DWP's bill are understood to be 'scrounging' off taxpayers' money. Taking vital funding away from those with little else to hold onto is one thing; sitting idly by while the institutions we depend on to inform us fairly and comprehensively instead choose to make these people's lives a complete misery - if not aiding them in doing so - is quite another. The media has no right and no mandate to wilfully turn citizens against each other (regardless of whether the victims can defend themselves any better than is the case here), especially on the basis of misinformation and spin. The buck for the crimes committed against these people (and no doubt many others hounded for a variety of reasons) falls squarely at the feet of those who are moulding ordinary people into vehicles of unfounded hate. This societal cancer needs to be removed at the source. By extending what we already have written in Acts of Parliament, to encompass anyone at risk of being the subject of incitement to ill intent, we can achieve this. [1] http://goo.gl/Sp3YQn [2] http://goo.gl/bMvbz [3] http://goo.gl/ar7Hgh (various links, including top of page 1) [4] http://goo.gl/SO8DPm [5] https://goo.gl/Ti1EK5 [6] http://goo.gl/hKFRrs [7] http://goo.gl/owGMal [8] http://goo.gl/4SwXGH [9] https://goo.gl/c9doFM [10] http://goo.gl/rNbdhv [11] http://goo.gl/9vpRQb [12] http://goo.gl/argS0d [13] http://goo.gl/FfpmZA [14] http://goo.gl/2XgLMn [15] http://goo.gl/EHOxz [16] http://goo.gl/ZHgNhP

It is not about being a "party of protest" as some have said, its about standing up & recognising that those millions of voters who voted for you to be their voice, need that voice to be heard.

People seeking asylum do not have permission to work in the UK. Unless they have their own savings – and many have used any resources they possess to get to safety – they are forced to rely on support provided by the Home Office. This consists of accommodation and, for a single adult, £5.28 per day to cover food, clothing, toiletries, travel, communication and all other necessities. This is simply too low to cover anybody’s basic needs, remembering that the living wage is £7.85 per hour! This forces asylum seekers to live in poverty and isolation. The plight of asylum families is somewhat better as children are given about £3 more per day (the actual amount depending upon the number of parents and children in a family). However, on 16th July 2015, the Government introduced a new statutory instrument that reduces support for all people seeking asylum to the single flat rate. This will substantially reduce the amount given to children seeking refugee protection, as the current supplement they receive will be removed. This is a devastating blow. The internationally recognised poverty threshold, or ‘poverty line’, is defined as living on less than 60% of the median UK household income. The Child Poverty Action Group has calculated this at £346 per week after housing costs for a couple with 2 children. The Government’s decision means an asylum couple with two children will soon be forced to live on £147.80 per week, 58% below the poverty threshold.

Any of us could lose our jobs, become disabled or find ourselves struggling and in need of help, and we will hopefully all grow old, so let’s change our language when we talk about ‘state benefits’. Change the term to ‘state support’ and we start to talk about it for what it really is. Whilst the government is not likely to make the change (it would highlight how morally corrupt their policies have become), I hope this campaign will raise awareness about the true nature of social support and show the government how proud we are as a nation to have a welfare system, and that we are determined to protect it. Let’s show the government that we haven’t lost our compassion as a nation.

No American has ever been extradited for a crime allegedly committed physically on US soil - so if the alleged crimes Lauri has committed took place in the UK, should his trial not also? The judicial frameworks for due process in the United Kingdom exist to process these cases. The UK-US extradition treaty, used to uphold a so called "special relationship", has been historically one-sided. There is absolutely no guarantee Lauri will receive the standard of healthcare he requires in the United States. In the spirit of what has been an cruel and underhanded case, the prosecution responded to concerns regarding Lauri's well documented health problems both mental and physical by continually seeking to undermine the opinions of medical professionals who state extradition is not in Lauri's best interests. Theresa May pardoned Gary McKinnon in 2012, blocking his extradition to the United States on the grounds of Human Rights. What is so different about the Love vs USA case? As McKinnon said in 2015, "It would be tragic if the ladder used to rescue me from extradition was kicked away from the next person who needs it". "Lauri is adamant he will not come to the US to be prosecuted. One need only look to the cases of whistleblowers and activists such as Jeremy Hammond, Barrett Brown, Aaron Swartz and Chelsea Manning to know the US legal system is not about justice, but about retribution. Lauri is also concerned about the extensive use of solitary confinement as punishment in the US legal system. The prolonged use of solitary confinement has been ruled torture by every major human rights group, and yet is still used as a routine form of punishment for even the most minor infractions without concern for the mental health of the prisoner. It is clear from recent examples that there is no potential for anything remotely resembling justice to come from an extradition order to the US in a case such as this." -- freelauri.com

Whilst many of us do agree that high earners should probably pay more for living in social housing, an entire household on £30,000 (or £40,000 in London) a year just isn’t high or wealthy. That would consist of a couple earning just £15,000 each, and we know how hard it is to get by on that meagre amount. The current government are contradicting themselves when they say they’ll “make work pay” and they’re the party for the workers; yet if a social housing tenant works, they will now be penalised for it. If you live in social housing and you work, you will now face the prospect of losing your home. Many of these working families in social housing (just like most other people) have aspirations to get out of the poverty trap and use the opportunity of social housing to save for a deposit to one day buy their own home, thus freeing up the home for the next family who needs it. Now it is as though they are not allowed to have dreams or better themselves. All hope of saving for a decent mortgage have been ripped out from under their feet while they are pushed back down into the ground where they apparently “belong”. It is increasingly depressing that there is near to no hope for people’s futures. Mortgages aside, many families, especially those with children, will find it increasingly hard to manage day to day. These families could be forced to private rent, but not their own self contained flat as before, as the rents would again be too high, they will be forced into renting a room and sharing a house. Is this the way a family should live? We are regressing back to the days of overcrowded houses with notorious rip off landlords. The ONS says that a family of four will spend on average £517.30 per week. If both parents earned a total of £31,000, they would (after tax), have only around £465 to spend per week, this is well below the UK average. When their rents are raised to market level, where will they get the extra money from? This will result in more poverty, tenants giving up jobs or reducing their hours to earn under the threshold, or in worst case scenarios, couples splitting up or living apart to avoid being penalised for having a job or older working children being kicked out to reduce the household income. If these children are under 21, and on a low wage, how will they find housing without a Housing Benefit top up? Let’s cut out the “luxuries” of living, the ONS estimates that to live basically (rent/mortgage not included), a household will spend an average of £350 a week on bills, food, basic clothing, travel and health. This would leave a £30,000 earning home with about £100 a week to spend on their social housing rent. The average UK market rent is £960 per month, or £222 per week. How will these households meet the shortfall of market rent? Where will these families go? This petition is to ask for consideration that the threshold for Pay to Stay be increased to at least £60,000 per household (£70,000 for London). This would ensure that the average family is able to live without poverty, keep a roof over their head and still be able to save a little each month for a deposit to buy their own home, freeing up social housing without first making more people homeless. The current proposed threshold will only make one family homeless to rehome another, thus not bringing down homeless levels, and increasing the housing benefit spend. A consultation paper was produced which asked the opinions of experts in the field – Local Authority landlords, Private Registered Landlords, Tenant Representative Bodies, Private Landlords, and Individuals. A brief quote from the paper is below. Why was there a consultation when the majority of the views were not taken into account? “About a third of respondents thought that the threshold of £60,000 was appropriate. A smaller proportion thought that £80,000 should be the minimum, while the least favoured was £100,000. Social landlords largely preferred £60,000. There were also views that the threshold could be lower than £60,000, though not a consensus in favour of lowering the threshold. If the threshold was below £60,000 it could act as a disincentive to work, particularly for larger households and in high demand areas such as London. Those who favoured the threshold of £60,000 suggested it was reasonable and consistent with other Government policies involving income thresholds, such as access to affordable home ownership (although it was noted that the threshold may need to be adjusted to £74,000 for London, to align with London schemes) and the child benefit “cap”. There were also views that no more than 30% of a household’s income should go on housing costs; otherwise, it could start to impact detrimentally on the household’s budget.”