Mrs Rivas is a fugitive from Justice, charged with aggravated assault and torture that resulted in the death and disappearance of twelve people. In memory of the fallen victims and the many survivors of torture that are currently living in Australia, Great Britain and beyond, we ask that the Australian Government consider the pain and suffering inflicted upon the Chilean people during the dictatorship and the international community of Chilean exiles of which there are over 3,000 in Britain.

The Government recently agreed to spend £12 billion a year in Foreign Aid, yet Carers in THIS country are paid less than £2 an hour for ensuring the care needs of sick or disabled persons, for a minimum of 35 hours a week. There are about 800K carers in the UK, £220 (minimum wage) x 52 weeks = £11,440 per annum x 800,000 = £9.152 billion a "saving" of almost £3 billion on the Foreign Aid programme.

For a substantial amount of time now, Buckinghamshire has received less funding per capita than most of the country for our hospitals. This ‘cash-starving’ or 'squeeze' contributed to downgrades at Amersham and Wycombe hospitals and our Trust has recently been in 'special measures'. Since the downgrades at Wycombe hospital, many people have suffered and neighbouring hospitals have been overwhelmed. Staff, patients and their loved ones deserve better.

It is important because TTIP will rid us of some of our basic liberties and will oblige the UK Goverment to put businesses over people,stop the UK making laws that hinder companies profitability and will allow companies to bring in workers from any where in the world to save money on labour. TTIP should not,must not and will not make exploitation from corporations easier! With the help of you we can stop this! For more information on the issue search TAFTA,TTIP or go to the following link http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/trade-justice/more/inform/18078-what-is-ttip

The government is thrusting disabled and disadvantaged people into depression, despair, and even suicide. It must stop.

It is important to Breaking Bad fans as the series finished in 2013 and everyone misses it, a game however would be dateless and be a treasure to play for eternity.

This outline proposal which include plans for up to 500 homes, public open space, outdoor sporting facilities and a contribution towards, or the delivery of, a new primary school, destroys grade one farmland,and will make an already oversubscribed and neglected services in the area even worse. .

The Walk In Centre is easily accessible and an excellent service used by more than 27,000 people last year. Local people are very concerned at the prospect of losing this local facility and feel the District Hospital in South Shields as an alternative is out of the way. Waiting 2 weeks to see a GP is not an option for worried parents with poorly kids, the elderly, and vulnerable patients. The Walk In Centre is a prime example of Right Treatment, Right Time, Right Place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FqdVitbgh0 South End Green is a shopping parade in the lower part of Hampstead. It is a few yards from the Royal Free Hospital and makes up a small high street with a number of diverse and independent shops. Mark & Spencer food halls is one of very few chains on this high street and is a large store. Recently, the landlord of 4 shops on this high street gave notice to its tenants because it wants to sell the 4 shops to Sainsburys who plan to knock them together and to open a Local store there. The sale has not yet occurred, but both parties have expressed the public intention that the sale should take place. Local residents object fiercely to the arrival of Sainsbury’s for a number of reasons: 1. The arrival of Sainsburys will unbalance this shopping area because there is already the large M&S supermarket in situ. South End Green is too small to fit two supermarkets. 2. It will take away 4 shop units and will replace them with an identikit chain store which will move South End Green closer to a clone town which detracts from its unique character. 3. The arrival of Sainsburys would reduce the ability of South End Green to sustain its independent character and it will be on its way to losing its sense of place and the distinctive facades of its high street under the march of the glass, steel, and concrete blandness of a chain store built for the demands of an inflexible business model that provides the ideal degree of sterility to house this big, clone town retailer. 4. Traffic will increase as those living further away come into South End Green to shop at Sainsburys. The roads in this area are already small and under a lot of traffic pressure. It cannot cope with more traffic. 5. The lorry deliveries which will be needed to service this store will cause blockages to the road which is already narrow. 6. In order to alleviate such blockage, Sainsburys will have to apply for planning permission to cut into Hampstead Heath on the opposite side of the shops to park its lorries so that they are not a traffic hazard or cause of accidents. Many residents will oppose vehemently, any suggestion that the heath should be encroached on in this way. 7. The loss of these independent local shops mean that social contact will be reduced. It is widely recognised that small independent shops make up the heart of a thriving community. The importance of this cannot be underestimated for people who are less mobile, such as the elderly. 8. Sainsburys has a much more limited view of its community role than do independent shops. It is unlikely to take a proactive role in activities that are not seen to be profit-making in the long term. 9. Food miles will increase with potentially devastating impact on climate change with an inflation of CO2 emissions arising from more lorries arriving to bring supplies to Sainsburys in this area. 10. The arrival of Sainsburys will have an impact on other shops in the area too, not simply on South End Green, but also on Hampstead High Street. As people gravitate towards the price synergies which Sainsburys can offer, the flower stall and cafes on that parade may experience less trade and may eventually close. M&S will be affected too. 11. If other shops close on the parade as a result of the arrival of Sainsburys, maybe they will be re-populated but it will take time and the local community will suffer the scabs of closed shops for a while. Why are residents responding in this way? The government has empowered the local people to take more of an interest and to make their voices heard in relation to what is going on on their high street. It affects our lives and we have a right to have an opinion on what landlords plan to do with shops in our midst. Many local groups on South End Green have mobilised in light of this threat and as the Hampstead Shops Campaign Town Team (set up by the Department of Communities and Local Government), we have joined their struggle. They see the imminent sale to Sainsburys by Dorringtons as the catalyst for action to prevent further decay and decline which will impact on their community. We invite you to join them as comrades and to lend your voice to their struggle. We hope that in this new era of local power, Sainsburys will heed our views and leave South End Green to retain its independent character. If you agree with the text of this petition, please sign it and forward it to anyone else you think may be interested. I will be delivering this petition to the Chair of the Board of J Sainsbury plc in the week ending 11 July. If you can obtain as many signatures as you can by Tuesday 8 July, that would be helpful. Jessica Learmond-Criqui Chair Hampstead Shops Campaign Town Team

Whether we farm animals for food, use them for recreation, or keep them as pets, we need to make sure they are properly looked after. This requires more than simply protecting them from cruelty. We need to meet their needs for food, water and living space, protect them from disease, and create a healthy and stress-free living environment for them. When we slaughter animals for food, we need to ensure that, as far as possible, they have calm, painless deaths.

Please sign and share this petition to save the first beavers who somehow managed to arrive in the UK and set up home. An article in the Guardian said... The future looks gloomy for the first wild group of beavers to be spotted in England for around 500 years after the government revealed it intended to trap the dam-building critters. To the delight of animal lovers, video footage proved the existence of a family of beavers apparently thriving in the River Otter in Devon earlier this year. But the government announced on Monday that it was planning to capture the animals and find a new home for them in a zoo or wildlife park. In a written parliamentary answer, George Eustice, a minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), said: "We intend to recapture and rehome the wild beavers in Devon and are currently working out plans for the best way to do so. All decisions will be made with the welfare of the beavers in mind. There are no plans to cull beavers" Please sign and share this petition. We can make a difference with a simple signature.

If a Minister in the Government saw the number of signatories rising beyond – say 120,000, it would be open to them to stick to what they believed to be a point of principle (whatever the personal cost to them), or hastily propose that the issue will be immediately reconsidered and interested parties consulted with, provided the Minister was able to remained in Office long enough to do so. Other than this, there would be no appeal from this verdict of the Electorate. This would immediately make the Government far more responsive to, and aware of the needs and wishes of the voters who put them in Office; it would increase democracy – Government by the people, for the people. It would return power to the people – the electorate –which is where it belongs, and it would (rightly) ensure that government is by consent of the Governed. Government Ministers (including Secretaries of State) would need to keep “looking over their shoulders” to ensure that they remained fully aware of the Electorate’s reasonable expectations. The Prime Minster (of whatever party or coalition) and the Cabinet would have to consider most carefully what Bills to proceed with, for fear of losing a valued member of their team. Where a Government Minister lost Office by this process, a Prime Minister might have considerable difficulty finding any one else willing to accept the Poisoned Chalice of promoting whatever the unpopular legislation had been. It would reduce cases of “single-issue politics” occurring at an election –many “single issue politics” issues would be resolved (and the issue would be closed and finished with) at each and every decision of the Government. This would also make the whole matter of Internet petitions far more worth while. People would know that it really could make a difference if enough people signed – the petition could not just be ignored by those in power. Those faced with unfairness and injustice would re-double their efforts to get more signatories, knowing that it really could change the outcome of the matter under discussion. There would probably be strong opposition to this proposal from current members of the Government (whatever Government is in power whenever this measure is proposed). Ministers have nothing to gain from this proposal, but it does threaten their self-interests and any attempt to impose doctrinaire positions or non-manifesto items. The shadow cabinet would similarly oppose it – particularly those who hope to be in power come the next election and gain a portfolio, as they would then have to live with this measure. Back-bench MPs have absolutely nothing to fear from this as it is totally separate from the “recall of MPs”; it applies only to Government ministers. Many Back-bench MPs might in fact see an opportunity for a quick promotion into the empty shoes of a minister who was diplomatically inept or out of touch with the electorate. (One thinks of the alleged old Royal Navy toast; “Here’s to a short and bloody war and a quick promotion”!) No Health Minister would close a hospital (or it’s A&E or Maternity departments) unless they were certain that they could convince all the local voters of the necessity to do so. No minister of Immigration would engage in dubious deportations of a promising A level student or a young mother with two small children, for fear of losing his ministerial position. Bedroom tax, reduction of Legal Aid, the Lobbying Bill and the spread of Academies might all have been defeated if such a constraint had been in place. No secretary of state would overturn a local planning decision unless he was sure that he could argue the case – and equally a minister aware of strong and widespread local feeling against a planning appeal would have a strong incentive to consider the needs of those most affected by the planning issue. No minister of transport would plan new a train-line or a motorway if it caused planning blight or if it passed through a site of Special Scientific Interest or an area of outstanding Natural Beauty, unless he was sure of support from a vast majority for his sacrificing the views of a tiny unrepresentative minority. Similarly Wind Farms and individual wind turbines could not be installed, nor could “Fracking” occur against the wishes of a significant number who were opposed to such actions. It has occasionally been suggested that it should never be a crime to assassinate a member of the Government – thereby ensuring that only those who truly want to act for the benefit and welfare of their country would accept Office. This is a kinder and less violent alternative.