Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are integral to global peace and security. We don't have to agree with what is being said, but we have to respect the persons rights to say it without fear. States which have laws like this which restrict free speech are wont to abuse them - to shut down dissent, to punish difference of opinion, and to insulate the government from all criticism. That is why the right to free speech, including the right to offend, is protected in international law. Even Raif's lawyer has been jailed. His crimes? 'Harming the reputation of the state by communicating with international organizations' and 'preparing, storing and sending information that harms public order'. Without respect for the right to freedom of expression, we are vulnerable to the worst oppression states can muster.

Ofcom’s decision means the Greens would not be allowed election broadcasts on eight major TV and radio stations despite having overtaken Nick Clegg’s Lib Dems in the polls.

This is important because we are democratic, aren't we? 79% of the general public believe the leader of the Green Party should be invited to debate, found in a poll by ICM Unlimited. Currently, 81% disagree with Ofcom's statement that UKIP is a major political party, but the Greens aren't. Younger populations must not be alienated from the processes that will decide their future. http://www.icmunlimited.com/media-centre/polls/4-in-5-greens-should-be-part-of-leader-debates http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/poll/2015/jan/08/ofcom-ukip-greens-major-party http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0019/16093/youngpplvoting_6597-6188__E__N__S__W__.pdf

For too long the political views of young people in the United Kingdom have been swept aside, not only by the so called 'major parties' but also by the mainstream British Media. Recent polls show that the Green Party of England and Wales, in the run up to the 2015 General Election, are polling at the same level as the Liberal Democrats who are themselves considered one of the major parties. To add insult to injury OFCOM have decided to upgrade the status of UKIP to major party, giving them more television time, more radio time and more opportunity. Quite frankly the decision taken by OFCOM to not grant 'Major Party' status to the Green Party is symbolic of two things. The first, that they are stuck in the past, unwilling to listen to the views of young people, not dissimilar to the current government. Secondly, that OFCOM as an organisation are more worried about viewing rates, and consider the controversial politics of UKIP to be better for viewing statistics. Both of these facts are unavoidable and unacceptable and we would call upon the UK OFCOM to reconsider its decision and upgrade The Green Party of England and Wales to Major Party status for the 2015 General Election.

Anyone using a British companies services has the right to have their data provided in the mother-tongue with regards to convention of dates. This sounds Techy and maybe not so important however, it can and does affect people and companies finances. Here is what I am going on about........6/1/2015 is and always should be 6th January 2015 if you are using a British business or companies services. It is NOT 1st June 2015 which is what some other countries use/cultures. This ignorance of locale can and does cause major financial errors, confusion and disruption. The compromise version is the month being written in words EG: 06/Jun/15 or Jun/06/2015. I don't think is good enough. As Boris says, if you go to Rome, you will be expected to at least fit-in, at most integrate. When I downloaded some major banks statements last year, the dates were in US convention not British (English). This bank is a major very old institution. I read the dates correctly but they were in US convention and lead to issues. This is also cultural erosion. It is not acceptable to have this change unmanaged. If you have been affected by reading a date incorrectly that has had major impact on your life or your family please get behind this campiagn and let's start at the top. I have already discussed it with the Banking Ombudsman but it was pushed aside. This is NOT a 'non-issue'. It is as much about 'stealth-change' and NOT involving or asking opinion of the 'average Jo' as much as being a flaw. I have gone on enough now!, please have a serious think about joining this campaign and let's try and reduce cultural erosion and enforce Technical locale conventions. Thank you! NB: Here is a screenshot of computer settings for English (United Kingdom) http://i.imgur.com/7pZnG2t.png

They were fighting (peacefully) for our freedom and showed greater courage than the rest of us. The least we can do is now is support them by recognising their bravery.

We are living in the shadow of 4 historic landfill sites. And are currently in danger of being developed due to the core strategy for housing in Amber Valley Derbyshire. We currently have a live planning application for 200 new homes on top of a landfill site and a potential 700 more within 800 metres help our plight.... This is important for the future health of people in the area.

This was not Phil's last dying wish, 57 our home of vitality should not be taken over and changed in to a single room occupancy this is a family home.and thats all Phil wanted. There are 4 children that live here too, Hamwick want to make 10 living beings homeless, plus 2 family house dogs, we are all paying our bills and we all live very happy and are taking care of Phil's legacy,just like he wanted us to. But Hamwick's plan is to kick us all out and change 57 vitality house in to a single room occupancy, please help us to save our home,sign and share. YOUTUBE.. phil sadler and you see what you think. its wrong and i really need help.

Colourblindness is a disability that affects one in eight men (and about 1% of women). Football bulletin boards on the Internet have recently been awash with comments by people unable to follow the FA cup because the ball disappears from view when played on green grass, especially in distance shots. This is particularly bad for those suffering from Deuteranopia (in which the green retinal photoreceptors are absent). The FA makes millions from its fans (a recent £425m from TV alone). The FA is committed to inclusion and to equal opportunities, so the decision to use a ball which causes problems for so many of its customers seems at odds. It is not just the viewing public who suffer from colour blindness. You may recall (http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/07/chris-rogers-pink-ball-colour-blind) that Australian cricketer Chris Rogers recently had to withdraw from a match that was to trial a pink cricket ball. (Also see http://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/living-with-colour-vision-deficiency/sport/ for examples of how a colourblind individual would visualise pink on green). Obviously, it's not just about the spectators. Players can be colourblind as well, though most try to keep quiet about it until after their professional career, for obvious reasons (distinguishing between red and green shirts can be a challenge also!). Which is why only recently we discovered, for example, that Ipswich, Charlton and Republic of Ireland legend Matt Holland was colourblind. In Brazil, for instance, goalkeeper Castilho was colourblind, as were two players of the 2000 Brasilian Olympic football team. Pelé also famously had visual impairments rumoured to be colourblindness that almost kept him out of La Seleção. We should reserve pink, orange or "mango" balls for when the playing surface is snowy. Otherwise, there is no logical reason for using them, other than to promote sales of them which will, in turn, make grassroots football even harder for those with visual impairments such as colourblindness. Enough is enough!

At the moment energy companies are only required to bill you ONCE a year and only need to review your usage against payment every 15 months. The better companies undertake these activities more frequently and have signed up to a charter. However, some of the newer companies which appear to provide cheaper tarriffs do not. With the complicated way in which bills are calculated it is very easy to get into arrears and if you receive an annual bill, it can be for a hefty amount. When people are presented with massive demands they simply can not afford to pay them. Yes they have used the units but without the information they can not provision for the costs. By keeping on top of the problem, with monthly bills, people that need to manage their fiances closely will be in a better position to do so. If companies fail to produce accurate monthly bills they should have to right off the costs.

On the 22 October 2014 Jonathan Ashworth, Labour MP for Leicester South, in a written question 211600 to the Secretary of State for Health about NHS spending on temporary workers? It was answered by Dr Daniel Poulter on 29 October 2014. Following the Francis report many trusts were required to increase their spend on temporary staffing to meet safe staffing levels. The Department expects trusts to have a strong grip on their finances, and manage their contract and agency staffing spend (including use of locums) responsibly through effective and efficient workforce planning and management and to minimise temporary staffing costs in future years. The amounts spent on agency and contract staff (including locums) in the National Health Service in each year since May 2010 are as follows: NHS Foundation Trusts 2010-11 - £854,700,000 2011-12 - £907,000,000 2012-13 - £1,101,000,000 2013-14 - £1,396,200,000 Total - £4,258,900,000 This means that over a 4 year period from 2010 to 2014 - £4,258,900,000 has been taken directly from the public purse and paid to privately run recruitment agencies for the hiring of contract staff within the NHS without any consideration for the effect this has on the end user. At a time when massive government cuts are being made to spending across the board on all public services, I think this is wholly wrong and quite frankly, obscene. When other public sector establishments such as schools and social care authorities and the exorbitant costs of hiring temporary staff in these places are also taken into account, this means that the only winners in this scenario are the privately run Recruitment Agencies. Similar comparisons can be applied to the Education Sector where schools are spending huge amounts of money on supply staff from private recruitment agencies. In response to the problem, I have developed a blueprint for change entitled ‘Share and Share Alike’ administered through a new social enterprise business called ‘Social Recruitment Solutions Limited’ that will recycle 60% of its Net Profit back into the system on a pro-rata, dividend basis and will also give a further 10% to charity. I want to make my vision a reality by garnering support from like-minded individuals who share my belief, to come together through the spirit of partnership and co-operation in order to make a real difference in the field of Public Sector Recruitment for the benefit of all UK citizens. We cannot affect the lack of council funding but what we can do is change the way recruitment is carried out through my New Social Enterprise Model. This model will save millions of pounds in the cost of temporary and permanent recruitment and at the same time ‘give back’ to the stakeholders who work within these sectors and also to charity. Using the figures provided by the government as mentioned before, £4,258,900,000, my new social enterprise business model will see the NHS get back £391,631,100 and the staff the same amount distributed on a pro-rata, dividend basis. In my area, the new Hexham General Hospital cost £54,000,000 over 3 stages. This means the money given back over the same 4 year period through using my model - 7.25 new hospitals could be built at no extra cost to the tax payer. I firmly believe that the time has come for change. We need to remember that privately run recruitment agencies have their place in the Commercial Sector but not within the Public Sector. Why should a hospital have to pay a £7,500 for offering a supply nurse a permanent contract? Multiply that by 100 (100 nurses) - £750,000. As far as education is concerned, I know that many supply teacher agencies are offering 2 for the price of one? How does that affect the professional status of a teacher? How does that make them feel? It makes them feel like a commodity to be bought and sold like a loaf of bread. These introduction fees that agencies charge for staff to be taken on full-time contracts can be up to 25% of their annual salary. It prevents schools and hospitals being able to offer permanent positions to temporary staff because they simply cannot afford to do so. This is part of the recruitment problem particularly in the NHS. My Social Enterprise model will not charge these introduction fees and as a result schools and hospitals and other public sector establishments will be free to offer permanent contracts to temporary staff if they wish to do so without being penalised by massive temp to perm fees. They will not have to think twice about offering staff contracts because it will cost them nothing. This model can be used by all NHS Foundation Trusts and all Schools and Social Care Establishments run by Local Authorities, across the whole of the UK with no geographical boundaries. It all depends on which local authority has the desire to change, the vision to make a difference and the courage to take the bull by the horns and do something about it.

The Current First Past The Post Voting System Is Out Dated & Doesn't Represent The Choice of the UK Voters Alternative Voting System Removes The Two Party Problem (aka Spoiler Effect), the need for Tactical Voting & gives smaller Political Parties to be represented in Parliament More Information below, "The Alternative Vote Explained" by CGP Grey (Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE Alternative Voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting