Today, I walked past a gentleman near the Watershed who was playing his trumpet to a jazz track. It was wonderful to hear live music of such good caliber being performed for the general public. I stopped to listen to at least three pieces, and I applauded for each one. I dug into my wallet and pulled out a handful of coins and tossed them into his tipping hat, then handed him my business card (I'm a private piano teacher) and told him to give me a call if he ever wanted an accompanist. Later this afternoon, I walked past a woman named Lily Bell, whom I've seen before in Broadmead selling her beautiful cards and prints featuring her original artwork. But today, Lily had no artwork to sell. Instead, she was writing with a fat black marker on a white piece of poster board, "POLICE HAVE TAKEN MY ART AFTER I KEEP PAYING LICENCE FEES. I WAS MAKING AN HONEST LIVING, NOW DEGRADED TO..." She didn't get to finish her sign because I began questioning her regarding the details. She explained that she has already applied for her street vendor's licence but hadn't yet received it. She had no proof that she paid for her permit, so the police confiscated her artwork. She is a peaceful woman who is homeless and trying to sell her original art to help make a decent living without panhandling or begging for handouts. And now, she has no artwork to sell, no place to live, and no where to turn. I think it is unfair that the police have taken what is rightfully hers in order to discourage her from selling on the street. She doesn't want a hand out--she wants a hand up. She needs her community to have her back.

Call on Cardiff Council to halt its attempts to transfer ownership of this important piece of Cardiff’s heritage to hotel company Signature Living. We need to fight to protect the historic integrity of a national icon. Any building in any city could become a home for this 'proposal.' Once this building is gifted to dubious developers, and the work carried out, it will be taken from the nation forever, with all profits made going to Liverpool. Signature Living’s owner was barred by from holding any company office for 8 years by court order. They have little interest or experience in renovating a building of this significance and will strip it of its character and most of the jobs it creates will be minimum wage zero hours contracts. Its financial methods leave it vulnerable to collapse and there is a real risk that the Coal Exchange could be left in a far worse state than it is in now. Despite concerns raised by local MPs and AMs, Cardiff Council justify this short sighted insensitive decision by saying the Coal Exchange is derelict which it is not. Signature Living specialise in hosting parties and accommodation for stag parties and hen do's and have been quoted as saying that they take the hen and stag parties "nobody else wants." The building although promised to be restored to full conservation standards, will succumb to daytime and late night revellers stumbling to find their way back to the 'hotel' becoming a nuisance to local businesses and residents. This building was built by the backbreaking work of our forefathers and made our nation famous globally. It belongs to the people of Wales, not developers whose main priority is to financially benefit not only from alcohol sales, but also claiming BPRA on a building they don't own. The company hasn't even acknowledged the 35 companies already in the building, almost 70 residents or the efforts action group Save the Coal Exchange who are maintaining this building. There has yet to even be a full survey instructed by the company, but yet they have plans that are all based on artist impressions. Stephen Doughty had a meeting with the developer who said that he would do "as much as the council would let him get away with" and that in fact, the building will be one third residential, one third serviced apartments, one third hotel. Their entire business model is based on BPRA which is being abolished this year due to developers exploiting it as a tax avoidance. Stephen Doughty has also said that the developer said they could turn it around in record time as they would "bring our own team in" yet they have publicly said they will use local labour. In a Wales Online article dated 12th April 2016, Signature Living was quoted that the 200 bedroom hotel "will bring 100 jobs and apprenticeships to Cardiff Bay, and another 60 jobs will follow when it opens in 18 months time." Then in an article on Wales Online dated 17th April 2016, Signature Living was then quoted as saying "there will be a restaurant on site and at least 200, and possibly as many as 300 rooms - some of which will be serviced apartments." Signature Living were also then quoted as saying that "the new Coal Exchange could be open within 8 months because he (Lawrence Kenwright) employs each team himself". So does that sound like local workmen? Or a team he's bringing in to "deliver the building in half the allowed time given to us." This is a grade II* listed building that will require CADW accredited surveys and craftsmen to carry out ANY restoration to the facade and hall. Really? This whole building, in 8 months? Another thing taken from the Wales Online article dated 17th April 2016. Is the fact that Signature Living can be quoted as saying "the project will not be funded by public money. We fund the process from investors from all over the world." But in the very same article Signature have admitted to using the BPRA (Business Premises Renovation Allowance) scheme, for his initial kickstart of funds. I'd like to point out that this is claimed as tax relief for the development of derelict buildings from the HMRC. SO if it wasn't claimed, that money would STILL be in the HMRC's possession. Meaning - IT IS PUBLIC MONEY. As it has been taken FROM the HMRC pot. THERE IS A SECRECY OF PROCESS. LACK OF TENDER FOR THE BUILDING. LACK OF COMMUNITY GUARANTEES. NO CLARITY REGARDING SPECIFIC USE. SUSPECT FINANCIAL MODEL. More info on BPRA as a tax avoidance for developers http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/hmrc-kick-starts-crackdown-on-commercial-property-tax-avoidance/a797955 Cardiff South & Penarth MP Stephen Doughty's concerns http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/mp-raised-serious-concerns-over-11160631 and http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2016-04-14/should-40-million-cardiff-coal-exchange-hotel-project-go-ahead/ And a Private Eye article about the developers: http://codphilosophy.co.uk/sections/fishy-business/2014/09/class-act THERE HAS BEEN A CALL FOR A FULL PUBLIC ENQUIRY OVER THIS BY STEPHEN DOUGHTY MP. IT HAS ALSO BEEN ANNOUNCED THAT IT WILL BE BROUGHT TO PARLIAMENT IN WESTMINSTER ON 20TH APRIL AT 11AM. IF NOTHING WAS UNTOWARD, THEN WHY HAS STEPHEN DOUGHTY MP CALLED FOR THIS? WE WANT AN OPEN, DEMOCRATIC, TRANSPARENT PROCESS WITH THE COUNCIL CONSULTING THE PUBLIC THE WHOLE TIME WITH NO UNDERHANDED DEALS BEING ANNOUNCED AS "DONE." SURELY IT IS IN THEIR INTEREST TO AUCTION THE BUILDING FOR AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, RATHER THAN LET IT GO TO RECOUP FUNDS OF £177,000 (WHICH WAS £1.2 ORIGINALLY). Transcript of Stephen Doughty's Westminster debate: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-04-20/debates/Hocdebdt20160420scrlgtghs_2Cwesthalldebateod3ticardiffcoalexchange/CardiffCoalExchange BBC: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-36093246 And Wales Online article: www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/call-halt-redevelopment-cardiffs-coal-11216462

All conflicts of interest should be declared when policy making according to parliamentary rules - this is in the public interest

The risks from smoke are already recognised extensively and this is why the policy exists so are unlikely to need listing here. Currently the strategy of having a policy and signs are not effective. I have observed it being an issue over years but was driven to create this petition recently due to attending maternity myself the last few months as an outpatient and then inpatient. Leaving with my new born through a cloud of no fewer than 8 smokers on either side of the door and smoke pouring in whilst I was waiting to leave drove me to take action.

No two schools are alike. But the government doesn't seem to agree. It wants to rush through plans to force every single school in England to become an academy the type of school paid for by taxpayers, but run by businesses, sponsors or trusts. Many teachers and parents are already standing against the plans, saying that they're "a step towards privatisation", ignore local views, and could force some schools to close. One size does not fit all, and local parents and teachers should have a say in the future of our school. ------ If this isn't your local school, click here to sign your local petition, or start one if no-one else has yet: https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/start-a-campaign-for-your-school

JENGbA (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association) is a grass roots campaign who were instrumental in helping The Supreme Court reach this land mark decision. This was a legal victory and a vindication for all those who have campaigned tirelessly against this error, of which we have felt so much pain but now feel so much hope. With this in mind we the undersigned now feel that the issue merits the full attention and the support of Parliament and request a full public inquiry that can review cases swiftly and rectify the mistakes. Without this 'Hillsborough' type inquiry then a thirty two year mistake that has led to the continued incarceration of men, women and children will continue to be a stain on the British justice system. Please sign and help us fight for an inquiry into all of the cases, so the truly guilty can be captured and the innocent will walk free.

The ACV has been appealed. The Local Community has campaigned successfully to list the Three Horseshoes in Fordam as an 'Asset of Community Value'. Pubs listed as Assets of Community Value are automatically granted additional planning protection. Without ACV status, a pub can be demolished or converted into several other uses without planning permission. The local group are therefore campaigning to see the pub remains listed to ensure it remains in the local community. The ACV also gives the opportunity to bid to buy the pub should it come up for sale. There are around 50 community owned pubs already in the UK. The pub was nominated by the CAMRA Branch - other nominating bodies can include: Parish Councils, groups of 21 local people or a Neighbourhood Forum. For more info please visit: http://mycommunity.org.uk/resources/understanding-the-community-right-to-bid/

In the interests of fairness, to punish all the children of a class because of misbehaviour of one or two cannot be acceptable. It demoralises the children who try hard to be good and are consistently well behaved members of the class. Many well behaved children find this collective punishment very upsetting and unfair. It also encourages bullying - in the sense that by using peer pressure as a form of control to bully the mis-behaving child into behaving because the rest of the class are expected to be upset at being punished for another child's poor behaviour. This is outdated and there are many better methods of improving behaviour from children.

The release of the Panama Papers has shown that tax avoidance/evasion is still a massive problem allowing the greed of a rich elite to rob HMRC of £10's billions which could be used to fund Education, Welfare or the NHS, instead of us having to have ideological austerity forced on us. No MP, and certainly no Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet member should be found to be making any kind of gain from offshore accounts/tax avoidance schemes so, In the interests of transparency and in the public interest all Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet ministers should make their Tax Returns public to show they are not using any tax avoidance schemes and there is no conflict of interest.

In recent years the NUS has become a laughing stock that many students no longer feels represents them or their best interests. The curtailing of free speech and a proliferation in censorship have made themselves uncomfortably common occurrences on a local and national level, this has to stop. Non-platforming speakers that the NUS does not see eye-to-eye with and creating "safe spaces" sterile of conflicting opinions doesn't solve anything, it is un-academic and makes UK University students seem like petulant children whenever we find an idea we disagree with. Students deserve better than this, we want debate, to challenge and be challenged, that is what University should be about. Not to be molly-coddled, and our fragile points of view "protected" from views that differ to ours. People with unacceptable views must be argued with, not banned. We also wish to see and end to the unbelievable representation rankings in the LGBTQI division. Recently it was decided that gay male students do not deserve the same level of representation in this division anymore because they are 'not oppressed enough', by NUS standards. An assumption that is not necessarily true to life. This is an unacceptable display of discrimination based on orientation and gender that the NUS has previously prided itself on stamping out, yet now is guilty of. Irony. The banning of certain items of clothing and decorations, especially at Universities such as Manchester truly trivialize the issues that the actions are meant to be in aid of and make a mockery of the real advancements in social justice that were achieved by our forebears. For these reasons I am calling for the NUS leadership to take in to account our collective displeasure with the direction the NUS has taken and demand that we be allowed to re-elect our national and local representatives in the near future. It should also be made clear where the candidates stand on the above mentioned issues: "Safe spaces", no-platforming, and LGBTQI representation, so that students may make an informed choice on who they elect.

There are a lot of MIND Service Users who have been seriously affected by reduced services, leaving them vulnerable and less able to cope

This is very important because of the fact that Donald Trumps ideals and proposition are flawed and are frankly ludicrous. For example: a Mexican / American boarder wall, a ban of Muslims entering the US, War on ISIS ( this issue need to be handled with care, not weapons) and finally women being criminalised for having abortions.