My friends and their daughter were unable to get home one Saturday evening, having to push their daughter in her wheelchair several miles, after having approached four dissabled carrying taxis in a row parked together in a taxi rank, all claiming their ramps for wheelchair access were not functional.

Helping preserve and conserve woodland and helping children learn the importance of trees. By introducing the one tree per child to Brighton and Hove hopefully more cities in the UK will follow meaning the more of the environment will be saved.

This is an idea that received unanimous support from the Dundee Fairness Commission. The Scottish Unemployed Workers' Network is calling for it to be translated into action. People unable to find work are increasingly being made to work for nothing on pain of losing their benefits and being left destitute. There have been various different work-for-your-benefits schemes - including Community Work Placements that mandate people to work unpaid for 30 hours a week for 6 months, a total of 782 hours, or more than 2 ½ times the maximum community service given as punishment for a crime. The DWP doesn’t actually use the term workfare, which comes from the United States where this approach was developed, but it is a convenient word to use to cover all the different schemes that both punish and exploit the unemployed. Very few of these schemes provide anything at all in the way of useful experience, and the people forced to do them are often treated like skivvies both in the work they are made to do and the attitudes shown to them. Far from building their confidence, as official documents suggest, this forced labour saps the spirit and wears down people’s mental health. And if they deviate at all from what they are being instructed to do they can end up sanctioned and penniless. In addition, rather than increase the numbers of people in paid work, these schemes actually cut across the creation of paid jobs. Why pay someone to work when you can get the labour for nothing? They also provide unfair competition to businesses who want to do the right thing by their workers. These schemes are a major source of worry for everyone who is faced with them, but they have not gone unchallenged – and challenges have elicited widespread support. Naming and shaming of companies and organisations who have exploited this forced labour has persuaded many well-known names to pull out of these schemes, and the Government refuses to publish the names of organisations involved as this would expose them to protests. Keep Volunteering Voluntary has persuaded large numbers of charities and non-profit organisations to sign up to their promise not to use forced labour. Workfare is an integral part of the ‘welfare reform’ juggernaut that is destroying our welfare state. We don’t have the power to change the rules, but a concerted programme of resistance organised at city level could provide a significant contribution to making them unworkable, and also highlight what is happening to those not already aware. We see the first (simple and easily instigated) steps as falling under two headings: 1/ We call on the City Council to agree that it will not itself be party to any workfare schemes and that it will make non-participation a condition for any organisation in receipt of council funding. 2/ We also call on the Council to give official backing to a well-publicised campaign to give formal recognition to all businesses and organisations who agree not to participate in these schemes. This would be similar to the scheme operated by Keep Volunteering Voluntary (who are very interested in the idea of a no-workfare city), but would include commercial organisations and not just voluntary ones. Organisations who have agreed not to exploit workfare would be listed in a well-publicised website and licensed to display a ‘no-workfare city’ logo on their window and publicity materials so that the general public would know where they could go without patronising organisations that use forced labour. This sort of opt-in scheme would avoid the difficulties of getting the accurate and up-to-date information needed for a name and shame list. However, it does need to be very well publicised so that organisations feel under sufficient pressure to take part. Publicity would also help prevent small voluntary organisations from being persuaded by misleadingly worded DWP documents into thinking that by participating in these schemes they are helping unemployed people. It would enable them instead to provide real help that people can access on a voluntary basis.

The 19 and 20 bus routes serve areas of the city which are not covered by other bus services, so the council's proposals will cut off a vital lifeline to the residents living along those routes, especially those who are old or have limited mobility. Reliable and frequent bus services near to where people live reduce congestion and air pollution, both of which are major problems for the whole city. Cutting these services will force even more people to drive, making these problems worse. This is part of a major consultation on bus services in York and we will be submitting this petition as part of the response to the consultation.

First, there was the evidence that the Conservative party broke the law in three key by-elections. Now, the party faces allegations that dozens of its MPs broke the law to win their seats in the 2015 general election itself. The party, already under investigation over its campaign spending, now faces calls for an investigation into possible criminal conspiracy. But will it be held to account? The Director of Public Prosecutions says they do not have the power to investigate but they may ask the police. If there is enough pressure placed upon them, perhaps they will and regardless to your political persuasion, surely it is the right of the British population to have a fair democracy?

Continuing to enforce this ban will impact on the very essence of Museums, to teach and to educate. In the Museums' own words, the new exhibition 'A world of fragile parts' aims to “question the relationship between the copy and the original in a society that privileges authenticity”. How is this possible without document? There is no issue of copyright, nor of (usually) entrance fee. The Museum claims that unclogging the gangways will lead to more visitors. I argue it will lead to less, and destroy part of the soul of the Museum, for after all, to quote Le Corbusier. “Drawing in a sketchbook,” he wrote, “teaches first to look, and then to observe and finally perhaps to discover … and it is then that inspiration might come.” Please continue to allow the people to learn in these ways.

My eight year old is in Ton Yr Ywen Primary year 3. My youngest who currently attends Nursery there has been refused a place. We are unable to be in two places at the same time. But it would be to emotionally traumatic for my eldest son to be moved. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education/mums-three-year-old-child-11229150

On April 1st a woefully-ill-equipped private firm, Coperforma, replaced the NHS’s South East Coast Ambulance Service in a botched privatisation of NHS services. The mobile phone app the company uses often doesn’t work, especially in areas of poor mobile reception and its own ambulance drivers have said the company is ‘out of its depth’. The result? • Cancer patients have missed oncology appointments after ambulances failed to turn up to collect them. • Patients with kidney failure have not been able to receive scheduled sessions of kidney dialysis for the same reason, with some missing two of their three treatments in a week. • So many patients have become stuck at the Royal Sussex County hospital in Brighton because their transport has not arrived that it has paid for taxis and other private vehicle suppliers to take them home. • Staff there have had to stay until midnight to ensure kidney patients arriving hours after their scheduled start time have received vital dialysis. • Coperforma vehicles have turned up to collect patients who have already died. Patients, relatives, NHS bodies, Trade Unions and local MPs have severely criticised the service’s performance but still local CCGs persist with the untenable private company. The previous public provider regularly had approval ratings of over 90%. For more information http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/12/patients-wait-hours-for-ambulances-nhs-transport-service-privatised-sussex http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/local/14432002.Patient_transport_company_out_of_its_depth__say_its_own_drivers/

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

The first step in challenging the toxic PFI/PPP contracts in Scotland is to end the secrecy and open them up to full public transparency. With full transparency, all of the facts will be public so that we can pursue: • Re-negotiation of the expensive debt repayments for PFI/PPP contracts • The freezing of any further public-private partnerships until a full inquiry has taken place into PFI/PPP Since the collapse of a wall at Oxgangs Primary School, 17 schools in Edinburgh have been closed to save children's lives from being placed at risk. The construction of these schools under Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and Public-Private Partnership (PPP) contracts allowed private companies to declare their own buildings safe while extracting Billions from the public purse in debt repayments. Yet there is an enormous lack of transparency over the correspondence between public authorities and these companies and the contracts they signed. The cost of debt repayments on PFI/PPP contracts is still rising and public-private contracts (including the new NPD model) are still being signed up to despite fears over the quality of buildings and the extortionate cost. We call on all parties and leaders standing for the Scottish Parliament to support four keys steps to open the books on public-private contracts: 1) Secure the release of the full contracts and correspondence between all Scottish public authorities and PFI/PPP companies, even when public authorities are not legally obliged to do so, so the public can judge for themselves what went wrong. 2) Secure the release of the legal and financial advice which underpinned the decisions by public bodies to enter into PFI/PPP contracts, including whether they took this advice from public or private consultancies. 3) Pursue debt renegotiation for PFI/PPP in all cases of misconduct and where contractual obligations have not been fully met or standards have been breached. 4) Freeze all further public-private partnership contracts until the causes of the Edinburgh schools scandal have been determined in full, and until a full inquiry has taken place into the financial and quality implications of the PPP model for public service delivery.

The Borough of Lewisham plans to develop a private rented sector (PRS) scheme on its site at Besson Street, which has been in public hands for decades. While a council-run PRS scheme does avoid the loss of social housing to Right-to-Buy, Lewisham have unfortunately decided to set 65% of starting rents at market level in this scheme, partnering with a private company that will profit from this. While Lewisham say profits will also fund council services, it will not address the housing needs of local people. In the midst of a housing crisis Lewisham should be using public land to help house local people afflicted by the crisis. While the Besson Street site is technically in Telegraph Hill Ward, it is more obviously part of the other areas north of Queens Road, which according to the GLA ward atlas are in the lowest median income bracket in London. This means that market rents in new-build housing will be well out of the reach of nearly everyone who lives locally. The result will be housing provided for higher income people from outside of the area. This will help drive a process of gentrification that will make the area more expensive for everyone. Given the diversity of the area, and the economic gap that - for historical reasons - exists between white and minority ethnic groups, this means the scheme will disproportionately disadvantage the ethnic minority residents who live locally. Lewisham even present this scheme, on a site which used to contain council housing, as one to help address the housing crisis. Whose housing crisis are they trying to solve? Those who lack new-build flats at market prices? There are plenty of such schemes being built all around Lewisham. The real housing crisis - among those on low incomes - is being ignored by this scheme. This is not what residents should expect of their local authority. We call upon Lewisham to use the Besson Street site to provide housing for those in most need.

I want to tell the story on behalf of two people, with the same disability, whose PIP, or Personal Independence Payment, reports and outcomes were totally different. This petition is anonymous because the claimants cannot cope with the additional anxiety and stress of being named. I recently attended assessments for both claimants. One received 14 points and is therefore now in receipt of PIP. The other person with exactly the same condition received NO points at all. Both are diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, which is an autistic spectrum disorder. Both were born with this highly complex, incurable and debilitating condition. Both, therefore, have a social communication and developmental disability, very often accompanied by poor mental health. Both suffer from associated problems of depression, paranoia, OCD, anxiety and stress. Both have the same problems with engaging with people face to face, verbal and written communication, dressing and undressing, bathing and washing, preparing food and planning and following journeys. So why the vast difference in the outcomes? I witnessed two very contrasting face to face interviews within the space of just six weeks. The difference between these two experiences was astonishing. 1) There was variation between the scripts and the questions covered. 2) There was a tremendous difference in the knowledge, experience and understanding of autism. 3) The atmosphere and approach in the second assessment was noticeably less understanding. The two outcomes completely reflected these variations. One received NO points at all and the other 14. One now receives PIP and the other does not. I also want to tell you about the steps in arriving at a decision: The final decisive face to face assessment with the 'Disability analyst', on which the outcome appears to be determined. 1) The PIP hearing took forty five minutes. 2) It was conducted by someone who did not know the person being interviewed, a real problem for people on the autistic spectrum. 3) It was carried out by someone who appeared to have little or no knowledge, experience or training in autistic spectrum disorder. 4) It was conducted by someone seemingly with no concept of how to carefully structure questions , communicate or interact with a claimant with autism. 5) The assessor's report, unseen by the claimant, is then sent to the DWP to confirm the decision. In contrast, the other evidence, was provided by a number of sources who know the individuals well. A close family member with thirty years experience of this lifelong, incurable disability, and additional input from autism and health professionals. 1) A PIP questionnaire was completed by both. In the case where no points were awarded this was by the designated advocate, a very close relative, because of the inherent communication issues. 2) It took considerable time and effort filling in the many pages of this PIP form with the claimants concerned, making sure the information was detailed, accurate and truthful,. 3) Supportive evidence from professionals was provided of the diagnosis of Asperger's, and a number of associated mental health issues. Many people on the autistic spectrum suffer poor mental health, such as severe anxiety, stress and depression. 4) All this took considerable time and effort from all the people concerned in order to truly reflect the significant level of impairment. 5) We filled in each different section of the form to clearly described the high degree of incapacity of the claimant to complete the tasks. YET, by awarding NO points at all, that information appears to be: 1) Totally negated in one case, and endorsed in the other. 2) Judged true in the first and false in the other, 3) Suggesting the claimant is legitimate in the first and a liar in the other. This is very distressing and offensive to everyone concerned. I have therefore started this petition because as the observer (not the named person) I want to know: 1) How two people with the same diagnosed disability and associated mental health issues can receive such contrasting PIP assessment outcomes? 2) How a claimant's mental health can be assessed accurately and appropriately in under an hour? 3) That people with autism to be fairly treated. In the light of my own concerns and the very serious issues highlighted in the Dispatches programme 'The Great Benefits Row' (Channel 4, 11 April 2016), please sign this petition. Please join me in calling on the new minister for the Department for Work and Pensions(DWP), Stephen Crabb and the Government to carry out an urgent review into the whole PIP assessment system.