Because vulnerable children are left with no education, feeling that they aren't excepted in mainstream schools, because they need support

Channel 4 are contributing to the erroneous and damaging view that people on benefits are living 'the life of Riley' and draining our system. They clearly and shamelessly, continually concentrate camera shots on people smoking, drinking and breaking the law as if this is a normal and continuous action of EVERYONE on benefits. They never concentrate on people who have been made unemployed through no fault of their own, disabled people, vulnerable people who are unable to battle through the over-complicated and deliberately awkward benefits claiming process such as special needs individual or those who have never been faced with having to fill in deplorably convoluted claim forms before and are undoubtedly contributing to an erroneous image of what 'Austerity' will achieve.

Wild animals are still being used in horrific conditions for the sole purpose of 'enjoyment' but when they are held captive in cramped housing, forced against their will to train and perform and are subject to loud noises from crowds of people, how can a civilised society call this entertainment? I hope that in 15 years from now that the next generation of children don’t have to witness animals in these conditions and if they ask what a circus is, we can tell them the use of wild animals was a barbaric form of entertainment that ended many years ago. Help us make this a reality. 90% of the British public support a ban on wild animals being used in circuses (The Guardian). David Cameron has called it an "outdated practise" (The Independent). Despite this clear majority of support, three Conservative MP's are blocking this law from being passed. Those Members of Parliament are Christopher Cope of Christchurch, Andrew Rosindell of Romford and Phillip Davies of Shipley. Animal Defenders International, the British Veterinary Association, RSPCA and Ricky Gervais are among the high-profile supporters who back this key piece of legislation. Sign the petition now to show these MP's how severely out of touch they are and the media backlash they face from not allowing the law to pass through Parliament. For further reading, see the government's policy paper on animal welfare and their progress made on banning wild animals performing in circuses: http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-animal-welfare/2010-to-2015-government-policy-animal-welfare#appendix-3-wild-animals-in-travelling-circuses www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/05/law-to-ban-wild-animals-in-uk-circuses-being-blocked-by-three-tory-mps www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ban-on-wild-animals-in-circus-blocked-by-tory-backbenchers-10092779.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2230913.stm

The BBC, particularly its radio service, is essential intelligent conversation for the whole nation.

As present system is unfair and undemocratic

In the forthcoming license fee review, the Government will endeavour to impose severe cuts upon the BBC in order to benefit the commercial broadcasters. The Government is too close to commercial broadcasting lobbyists, and is acting in their interests, not in the public interest. In particular, abolishing the BBC Trust would serve to greatly undermine the independence of the BBC from political interference. The BBC is one of the greatest and most valuable assets to the United Kingdom, and forcing cuts for purely political, ideological purposes would represent a terrible act of cultural vandalism. The British people need to show a collective will to resist such damaging changes, and demonstrate to the Government that any actions towards privatizing the BBC would cause severe electoral consequences for the Conservative party in the future.

I have been trying to obtain responses to the following queries from my local East Lancashire CCG for a long time: 1. Will the CCG treat local press and radio as primary routes for keeping the public informed of its activities? 2. Will the CCG require members with links to private sector providers to stand down? 3. Since its inception 01.04.13., what percentage of former in-house provision has the CCG awarded to private contractors? 4. In awarding contracts, what criteria do the CCG apply other than cost? In effect, the answers to '1' and '2', were 'no'. After prevarication, the answer given to '3' is 0%. Working conditions, etc., were not included in answer to '4'. The failure to treat local media as primary routes for keeping the public informed makes a mockery of East Lancashire CCG's commitment to be '... accountable to local people'. Failing to exclude persons with private sector health provision connections brings into question the award of contracts to such organisations. Local GPs have formed a private limited company, and our CCG is 'Led by clinicians ...'. Should a contract be awarded to the GPs' company, no matter how properly, can we imagine the response of the big beasts of private health provision? The CCG could be mired in legal challenges, at enormous cost, and with attendant delays to the provision of medical care. 0% to private contractors is difficult to reconcile with findings obtained under freedom of information legislation for the period April 2013-August 2014: ‘... analysis of the data supplied by clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) showed that 1149 contracts (33% of the total) were awarded to private sector providers ...’. BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) ‘A third of NHS contracts have gone to private sector ...’. 10.12.14. Other than emphasising, ‘Quality of service’, the CCG had nothing to add to an earlier response. When awarding contracts, the CCG's omission of criteria re. working conditions, employee rights, wages, zero hours contracts, and materials’ sourcing plays to the advantage of private health providers. (Just type 'private health providers' and 'scandals' into a search engine. I did so, with about 658,000 results in 0.30 seconds.) Incidentally, I put these matters to East Lancashire CCG by email 29.03.15. To date, I have had no reply. Maybe my follow-up letter to our local paper, the Rossendale Free Press, published 01.05.15, will be more successful in prompting a response. It is worth pointing out that I do not raise these concerns as a private individual. I belong to a local Patient Participation Group (PPG) and am charged with handling '... any dealings with, and to do with, the CCG on behalf of the PPG.' Not only does the CCG show itself unaccountable to local people in general, but it doesn't see the need to account to our local Patient Participation Group. I can't imagine that concerns over my local CCG are not reflected across the entire country. Please support this petition if you share those concerns.

In 1998, around the time the Human Rights Act was enacted in the UK, Michael Gove publicly called for hanging to be brought back. Michael Gove does not represent UK public opinion on justice and should resign as Justice Secretary and not touch our Human Rights.

The human rights act protects liberty, freedom of speech and the basic human rights people fought and died for.

The current system of voting for the House of Commons is grossly unfair and clearly unfit for the multi party climate we now have in Britain. People struggle to engage in politics because, very often, they feel unrepresented. This leads to a situation where people become vulnerable to those who have their own vested interests. The current system allows the possibility that extreme political parties can take control of Government despite getting a minority of the popular vote. A proportionally representative voting system was imposed on post war West Germany in order to help ensure that fascists would not retake control.

David Cameron has just appointed Michael Gove as Justice Secretary and his remit is to abolish the 1998 Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. The legislation will be introduced in the next parliamentary session. Or aim is 10 million signatures by the end of August 2015 and to put voting pressure on those decent-minded Conservatives such as Kenneth Clarke and Dominic Grieve (the latter was forced out over this issue). We can defeat David Cameron and Michael Gove in parliament when the legislation comes to a vote this autumn. If it does pass the House of Commons, we need to ensure it is defeated in the Lords and then keep fighting via legal challenges.

This enables people, who perhaps weren't so successful in previous educational facilities, to have a second chance. This would allow people to have the chance to leave their schools and enjoy a new experience in a different learning environment. Signing the petition would ensure job security for teachers, and help students to realise their full potential. Plymouth City Council have just granted a further £4 million funding to the College but despite this, A-Level and GCSE progammes are still being cut and over 200 students that applied to study in the upcoming academic year are left unable to access the subjects they need to get into university and other areas of higher education. This will continue to effect students for years to come if nothing is changed.