A law for victims of crime Victims are victims, not just witnesses! This country is in desperate need of better law to protect victims of crime; currently, perpetrators of crimes have more rights and greater protection than do their victims. Why is this important? When I tell people my story I invariably encounter disbelief. Their eyes widen and mouths open – they then scan my face for a hint of a smile, as if I’m joking - because this is not how a victim of crime should be treated, especially when she’s a 13-year-old girl. Sadly, however, my story is true – and I am not alone; 7.5 million crimes against UK households were recorded last year. The first major flaw is that victims are reliant on police officers being well-trained and unbiased. Their initial perception of incidents influence whether or not they’re logged as crimes. Officers’ failure to have a clear understanding of the law or pressure from their workloads may lead to crimes not being recorded, let alone investigated. Our legal system treats victims of crime as witnesses; that’s their only rôle. It might be possible to provide impact statements but these are read after any verdicts. Victims have no legal representation; CPS prosecutes; it works for the Crown, not victims of crime. There is a victims’ code of practice but it really only gives victims the right to seek support and be informed of proceedings. See https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmic/publication/crime-data-integrity-force-reports/, CRIME DATA INTEGRITY INSPECTION OF SUFFOLK CONSTABULARY, AUG 2014, p. 7 As some of these records relate to sexual offences and assaults on vulnerable adults and children, this is a significant concern; it means that 26 vulnerable victims received no justice, no support and might have gone on to be further victimised. These records are from just one county – only a sample of reports were taken - so the success rate for reporting of crimes against the most vulnerable is approximately 20%, meaning only a 1 in 5 chance of victims receiving any support whatsoever. Victims are left in the hands of the police. It’s incredibly hard to get them to listen, especially to criticism; victims must hope that police do their jobs properly. It’s also extremely difficult to bring negligence claim against the police. Following the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988), it was decided that, in most circumstances it would not be fair, just and reasonable to make the police liable for negligently causing loss or damage to members of the public. I propose that this changes; it would make the police more accountable and encourage them to improve performance. Proposed victim law 1. There should be reasonable access to Courts, including Legal Aid where appropriate. 2. Hearings must be held within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial Court or tribunal established by law (including unbiased jurors); what is “reasonable” depends on the complexity and importance of the case, the behaviour of the applicant and competent authorities and the length of time between the incident and commencement of the trial. Victims must have real opportunities to present their cases of the alleged crimes against them, including the right to impartial legal representation that may liaise with CPS, access to opponents’ submissions, procedural equality and evidence relied on by the other party and oral hearings. 3. There should a right to silence and a privilege against self-incrimination (although it may be possible to draw adverse inferences from victims remaining silent). 4. Victims must have the right to effective participation in criminal trials via legal representatives. 5. Victims must have the right to continue their lives after trials without discrimination, harassment or fear imposed on them by trial participants including all witnesses as well as the accused, irrespective of the verdict or judgement. 6. Victims of crime have the right to report those crimes to police and have them fairly investigated. 7. Police officers should be accountable for the well-being of victims of crime. Please see my website for more details http://victimslaw.wordpress.com/about/ It’s too late for us now, but we can protect victims in the future. Help us do that.

This is important for the fact children all over the country up to the age of 18 are being left to themselves to deal with a mental health condition. Having to wait months or even years to be seen for a review or a meeting. People aged 16-18 being left because they don't know what to do with them. With teachers not seeing that a child is self harming and trying to kill themselves which could help prevent anything drastic happening. The fact that mental health is still a taboo and the answer you get from a doctor when you speak up is it's exams or teenage angst is not professional in the slightest and is not right. This is the next generation now and we need to help them before its too late some funding for children's health services was cut 90% this is not okay.

For the last 5 years, pathology services at Guy's and St Thomas and King's College Hospital's have been managed by Viapath, a for-profit company formed between SERCO and the two hospital Trusts. Since the takeover by Viapath, the service has been plagued by problems; chronic understaffing, inability to recruit and retain, reduced training, closure of vital services and massive financial losses. Now the remaining NHS staff in the service face being transferred out of the NHS on the 1st January 2015. We oppose the transfer of staff and believe that to guarantee a quality and safe service for patients, the staff should remain part of the NHS, and all pathology services should be brought back into the NHS. The alternative is a the running down of a vital service for patients, and the loss of highly skilled and experienced staff. SERCO is a company notorious for poor services, bad employment practices and is being investigated for defrauding the government on other outsourcing contracts. Their involvement in the NHS can only jeopardise patient safety and damage the hospital’s reputation.

Teignbridge District Council intends to issue a compulsory purchase order to force a a farmer off his farm in Devon so that they can use the land for a country park for SANGS (sustainable alternative natural green-space). The farm land has been farmed by the same family for over 60 years, and is a mixture of arable, sheep and cows. The council maintain that they are required to offset the loss of land a couple of miles away, and that they need to provide alternative green space. However, putting a park on this farmer’s land would require car parks to be built, possibly another road, and people using it would need to drive there. Warren Farm is adjacent to South West Water’s sewage works, and we understand that Natural England advises that ‘Sangs’ should not be in close proximity. (Appendix 4: Natural England SANGS Guidance dated 03.07.07, "SANGS must be free from unpleasant intrusions (e.g. sewage treatment works smells etc"). Cllr John Goodey, of Teignbridge District Council, states that Warren Farm would be the ideal location for the SANGS (necessary because of the 1,200 new homes being built in Dawlish), and that it ticks all the boxes for Natural England. As well as being adjacent to a sewage works for South West Water, it is Grade 1 agricultural land. In Exminster, still managed by TDC, the land for SANGS was provided by the developers when they built all the new houses there. If Cllr Goodey states that this SANGS location is ideal as it would protect the nature reserve at Dawlish Warren, why did Teignbridge D.C. give permission for houses to built there a few years ago - Sandpipers Court - if they are so concerned. The farm has been farmed with countryside preservation to the fore for the last decade, and it is a habitat and feeding ground of the endangered cirl bunting, and also the endangered snipe. The way that the Warren Farm is managed benefits the local environment and wildlife through countryside stewardship, and should be promoted and recognised. How can it be morally justified that a council can force a farmer off his land and out of business in order to provide land for green space in order that developers can build houses on other green space? The land is being usefully used for agriculture, and is not an eyesore, and there are public footpaths across and around some of the fields. It is both morally and ethically wrong to prevent a farmer from growing food on a well-managed farm in this world of food shortages. There is land currently for sale in close vicinity, why can the council not buy that land which is actually for sale? Another option would be to open up the Cofton woodland walks to the general public - the land is presently already parkland and goes down to the Warren, and this could be arranged with the owners without putting them out of business. Alternatively, Cllr Humphrey Clemens is a tenant farmer on farmland owned by Devon County Council, part of which is on the coast adjacent to Smugglers' Inn, and has excellent, possibly even better coastal views than Warren Farm. This land is already owned by Devon C.C., so should be a much cheaper option, and would have the added benefit of attracting people away from the Dawlish Warren nature reserve, and thereby protecting it. Britain...imports 40% of the total food consumed and the proportion is rising (http://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/issue/uk.html, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council), so why are we getting rid of quality farmland, if this plan by Teignbridge DC goes ahead. If this compulsory purchase order of quality working farm-land is allowed to go ahead, what is there to prevent Teignbridge District Council issuing further compulsory purchase orders in the future? We the undersigned hereby oppose Teignbridge District Council's proposed compulsory purchase order of Warren Farm, and urge you to use your powers in Government to prevent this.

I feel that this is a truely shocking piece of news that the BBC are keeping this money in a bank account gaining interest and investing it in other things and all the while they want us to keep donating. The Slogan for the appeal say's All the money raised goes to children in Need. I beleave this is a kick in the teeth to many wonderful people who spend hard earned cash to donate to such a wonderful cause. Please tell the BBC to get this money to those who need it and stop making money from it for themselves.

Dr Gilbert worked tirelessly trying to save the children of Gaza during the recent bombing campaign by Israel, the Israeli government are attempting to silence him for speaking out about the atrocities that he witnessed first hand, Dr Gilbert carried out great humanitarian work in the most difficult of circumstances, banning from entering Gaza for like is tantamount to a kind of punishment and is certainly not the actions of a 'democratic government' http://bit.ly/1sMZrV3

The Disabled Student’s Allowance (DSA) is a fund that covers the additional costs of attending university with a disability. It has enabled many thousands of students in the U.K to access higher education where this otherwise would not have been a possibility. A key part of the allowance goes to providing the assistance of support workers. Support workers see students regularly, depending on the student's needs, and are one of the most important aspects of support for students with disabilities at university. The government are proposing a cut to DSA that would remove the funding for a support worker (for full details of what aspects of DSA are being cut and which are remaining in place please see the link below(2)). According to a 2014 study by Randstad: “More than one in three students with a disability (34%) say they would definitely not have attended university without DSA support, while a further 36% are unsure if they would have originally attended. Less than one in three students with a disability (30%) would still definitely have decided to go to university without the support of the DSA.(1)” I am a support worker myself, and two of the students I support have said that they would not have made it through the first year of University without the support they received. I have seen first-hand what a difference the presence of support workers make to students’ experiences of university. It is in the Government’s interests, also, for the funding for support workers to be in place. In the long term, there is much more money to be saved by enabling a large proportion of people with disabilities to enter into work, and hence less reliant on the welfare system, by providing access to higher education. Disabled students who are granted DSA, assigning them support workers, are much more likely to complete their course and get a higher grade(1). The government are defending their decision to make cuts to DSA based on the fact that Higher Education Institutions would be obliged to fund support workers. Although, in theory, this is a legal requirement on the part of Higher Academic Institutions, this would create a market where admitting students with a disability would cost the university a great deal more than non-disabled students, and would result in some universities not providing the necessary quality or quantity of support. For more information on this issue please visit (1) http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/news/2014/november/fight-dsa-cut and for the original statement from David Willetts see (2) https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/higher-education-student-support-changes-to-disabled-students-allowances-dsa. If you agree that a cut to DSA funding of support workers is unacceptable, please sign this petition. I will be writing to the three Brighton MPs for delivery on the 20th November, asking them to please vote against this decision, so the matter can come up for debate, and hope to have a wealth of signatures to back my request. Many Thanks, Priya.

There are many people speaking openly online about the fact that this is far from historic and is still going on now and as well as parties from both houses the suspects go into the church and royal family at the highest levels. if a small amount of the allegations are real then we have the right to know and the appropriate parties should be removed from office and society. If any of us were suspected you would be in custody NOW, there wouldn't be an "inquiry" into it simple POLICE ACTION and that's what we need

In the UK about 70 crops are dependent on, or benefit from, visits from bees. In addition, bees pollinate the flowers of many plants which become part of the feed of farm animals. The economic value of honey bees and bumble bees as pollinators of commercially grown insect pollinated crops in the UK has been estimated at over £200 million per year. Bees are in danger of disappearing from our environment. Farming practices continue to disturb the natural habitats and forage of solitary and bumblebees at a rate which gives them little chance for re-establishment. The honey bee is already under attack from mites & diseases and it is only the treatment and care provided by beekeepers that is keeping colonies alive. Most wild honey bee colonies have died out . There is no effective cure for small hive beetle other than the destruction of affected colonies. Small hive beetle in the UK would be a disaster for our bees & once here would be very difficult to remove Please Help

Once again our papers are full of yet another banking scale - this time fined £2.6 billion for manipulating a market worth £5 trillion, markets that affect companies, families and communities the world over. Yet since the 2008 financial crisis the number of bankers jailed for corrupt practices can be counted on two hands. In no other part of society would corrupt practice be so tolerated. Enough is enough, jail those involved in this most recent scandal and pass legislation that makes those at the top of our major financial institutions personally responsible for the conduct of their traders.

Because these people affect our every day life and by their cheating and gambling

It should reduce corruption in the arms trade and make governments more accountable to the people they serve. Savile gets Investigated and Exposed after Death, Same for the Thatchers. (1 living and 1 dead)