Numerous countries have now realised the benefits of this drug. They have taken it out of the drug barons hands an have organised it. They now have revenue and employment opportunities within this growing sector but the most important part is that it is saving lives. We need to forward think and not be bogged down with old ways of thinking regarding this wonder drug. It's the future of pharmacy.

The residents who live within TfL zone 6 who have London Freedom Pass are recognisable accepted to use all TfL transport and National. ENCTS passes are not. It is because some areas within TfL zone 6 are not managed bt the London Borough Councils. As we live within TfL zone 6 and managed by Tanridge Council (Surrey), those residents who live in London have Freedom Pass take their granted for using our nearest railway stations for free travel to/from London that our ENCTS disabled concessionary pass cannot. This is unfair. Have they met the Equality Act 2010 regarding our concessionary passes that are limited use whilst people with London Freedom Passes can be used everywhere in England including all TfL transport? I discovered that the funds for TfL are partly from the Central Government Fund where we pay our taxes, why we don't have this benefit?

Thousands of victims of domestic violence are forced/pressured into unsupervised contact orders every year, between their children and the perpetrators who abused them. This is because the UK law states that it is in the 'child's best interest to have two parents', regardless of whether there is a history of violence. The government has limited funding for contact centres, so unless violence has been proven to have happened 'towards children' (many parents shield their children from this happening) in the majority of cases contact is ordered, and moves out of contact centres as quickly as possible. This frequently happens after risk assessments are ordered. Perpetrators are offered an opportunity to offer excuses for the abuse, to discredit victims. Abuse can then be cited as the result of a bad relationship – thus eliminating the risk as the relationship has ended - so contact can be moved out of contact centres. Saving the government substantial costs in the long term. Anger management and domestic violence courses may be ordered, but these offer no guarantees. What isn't acknowledged is the effect the violence and emotional abuse has on the abused parents. The abuse may not be aimed directly at children - often because the abused parents shield them and take the abuse themselves - but any parent who has been punched, choked, kicked, verbally abused, bullied, and demeaned, will feel extremely anxious about unsupervised access. It's common for perpetrators to seek contact, knowing that it will cause victims further distress. Many victims of abuse are so distressed at the idea of unsupervised contact orders, they are diagnosed with anxiety and depression, and medicated. Medication has side-effects. In a recent study of 1,829 people who have taken antidepressants in the past five years, led by Professor John Read, University of Liverpool, 60% of participants reported 'feeling emotionally numb', 52% 'feeling not like myself', 42% reduction in positive feelings, and 39% reported caring less about others. These side effects aren't in children's best interests. Yet parents are forced/pressured into a position, in that if they struggle with anxiety or depression, as a result of unsupervised contact orders, they risk being labelled 'fragile' and losing their children. Either into care, or to the abusive parent (who can then state he or she is reformed) because the primary carer is then considered an 'emotional risk'. The UK is one of the only countries to remove children for such a reason. I believe this is wrong. In cases in that parents have been found guilty of significant abuse towards their partners, risk assessments should be carried out by specialist domestic violence workers, to help find a way forward for contact to progress that is safe for chidren, and that doesn't subject victims to further distress. This does not necessarily mean no contact, or long-term contact in contact centres (as understandably funding is short.) In many cases contact could be supervised into the long term by a party the primary carer feels assured by, without over night contact. This would significantly reduce emotional distress, which would be positive for both children and victims of domestic violence into the long term. Fear leads to poor mental health, dysfunction and addictions (all a strain on public funding.) It can also lead to desperate-measures; Parents have fled the UK to escape such contact orders. Only to be brought back under the Hague Convention, to lose their children forever for seeking to protect them. Children's best interests should be paramount. But the fundamental flaw in the current law, is that it neglects to take into account parental emotional wellbeing. If primary carers are subjected to significant stress, this inevitably effects children. Although this is recognised in court proceedings, and is intended to be taken into account, there is a SERIOUS CONFLICT; The current UK law states that children can be removed from parents who 'pose emotional risk', Because of this there is reluctance from parents to admit to struggling with court orders. Any parent who has been violently attacked over many years, by his or her partner, will inevitably feel afraid of unsupervised/unsupported contact. This is not because he or she is mentally ill, or of a fragile disposition, it is because parents instinctively look to protect their children. Take the ability to protect your children away from you and it leads to distress. I believe it is important for children to have a relationship with both parents. But I believe it is equally important for parents who have been abused not to be subjected to further distress. This isn't in children's best interests. Nor for children to be put at further risk of abuse. I ask for re-assurance for victims of domestic violence, that children be kept safe. Please sign this petition and share it! Thank you! Zoe.

Ignoring the rise in Green Party successes membership is an obvious move towards discrediting them. You are telling your readers that the Green Party is a negligible entity, which discourages them from voting for this party. This kind of partiality and political complacency is extremely disappointing in one of the most respected newspapers of the UK - a newspaper that likes to remind its readers of the prizes it's won.

Gove is rapidly ruining this country's education system. He is creating schools which only teach what he personally feels is important. Subjects like art, drama and design are being sidelined and considered of less importance than the "core" subjects of Maths, English and Science. Even those are being butchered by Gove, removing anything that isnt 'truly British' from our education.

Across the UK thousands of people with dementia are being denied their rightful entitlement to continuing health care funding. It is quite clear that since the Coughlan judgment in 1999 not much has changed as National Health CCG's and Local Authorities are still willfully abusing the system in order to ‘balance the books’, creating a culture of NHS CHC funding assessors applying their own subjective interpretation of the guidelines onto funding decisions. Alongside that the Decision Support Tool, in its current form, does not take into account the complexities, uniqueness and unpredictability of dementia and therefore is not inclusive and fair when judging medical needs. It urgently needs reviewing for those suffering multiple medical needs from symptoms of dementia. We acknowledge that there is a CHC funding crisis but to use the vulnerable and elderly to fill this void by the misrepresentation of medical needs is morally repugnant. All we are asking is that the NHS, Social Services and the Government obey the law as it currently stands and ask for an urgent review of the DST assessment tool.

Capitalism is an unrivalled humanitarian success story. But it could be better. Ownership of capital (assets) is declining at a time when returns are increasing; i.e. the rich naturally get richer. Returns on labour (wages) are decreasing; i.e. work is less rewarding. Yet, the quality of political debate on the subject of inequality has been abysmal, veering between an illiberal and unproductive pursuit of high earners to 1970s-style price and wage-fixing. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. A sensible, simple, tax system that rewards partnership structures and encourages widespread capital ownership of companies would: 1. Make work pay. 2. Reduce inequality. 3. Improve productivity. 4. Improve industrial relations. 5. Incentivise workers. In summary, as John Lewis said in 1957: " Capitalism has done enormous good and suits human nature far too well to be given up as long as human nature remains the same. But the perversion has given us too unstable a society. Differences of reward must be large enough to induce people to do their best but the present differences are far too great. "

I like many others began my love of literature reading "Of Mice and Men" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" I have re-read them both several times in adulthood. In addition to being entertaining, the book's have powerful messages of fairness, equality and compassion. Our Children deserve to be taught in a balanced way and monumental decisions like this should be made by the experts. The National curriculum should be in the best interest of the pupils and not the whim of someone who "doesn't like them"

This matters greatly because every day we are giving a terrible impression of our country to incoming business people, tourists and other visitors by the shocking inefficiency of our airport checks and controls. Often they are staffed by illiterate and surly staff. One short example: on Sunday 18 May at 0700, there were enormous queues at Heathrow Terminal 5 as hundreds of people queued at border control after disembarking from incoming flights. There were not enough staff at the individual inspection booths. Even people on 'Fast Track' were made to queue beyond any reasonable duration. People were shouting at security (Mitie) and Border Agency staff and those staff in turn were rude or dismissive. The security staff were patently ill-trained to cope with the situation. Those being made to go through security and scanning again (despite just coming off flights) were subjected to another huge queue and lengthy wait. The majority of bags were being checked for explosives. One Muslim woman on her way to Bahrain was in tears having just received bad news from home: she was ignored by security staff. A businessman from South Africa said he would never, ever again fly via Heathrow. When politely challenged, the man wearing the "Supervisor" vest was also dismissive and said if there were fewer retail outlets, there'd be more room for security controls. What a terrible impression of the UK. What are we thinking of?

The introduction of fees into the Employment Tribunal system has reduced the access to justice of many deserving people. The large reduction in claims, as shown by official statistics, is not mainly, as suggested, the elimination of ‘vexatious’ litigation but rather the actual prevention of access to justice of vulnerable persons. In a civilised society this is simply unacceptable and must stop at once. It is against ‘natural justice’. We ask that this divisive decision be reversed by removing fees, thus restoring traditional ‘fair play’ into the tribunal system.

We feel the BBC News coverage of the European and Local Elections has, to date, been unfairly biased against the Green Party. This bias is not only evident in the almost complete absence of coverage of the Green Party during the European and Local Election results, but also prior to this during the campaign for the elections on Thursday 22nd May and in the months since. Whilst we understand that UKIP made gains in the Local Elections, it has gone largely unreported that the Green Party currently have a total of 162 Councillors and are now the official opposition in Liverpool, Solihull, Islington, Lewisham, and Norwich (15 councillors to Labour's 21). They gained two seats in Bristol, one with over 47% of the vote and retained a third seat, bringing the total to 6. In addition to their many councillors, the Green Party also have one MP, one member of the House of Lords, three MEPs, three MSPs (Scottish Greens), two London Assembly members, as well as a Green-led Council in Brighton & Hove. UKIP don't have any MSPs, London Assembly members, or run a Council. In the European Election coverage the Green Party were only very sporadically and reluctantly mentioned by the BBC. A representative of the Green Party (Leader Natalie Bennett) was not interviewed until 2:30am (26/5/14) on BBC One's Vote 2014, members of the other four parties were interviewed multiple times prior to this. The Today programme (R4) news summary at 8:30am (26/5/14) mentioned the Lib Dems in 5th place, but there was no mention of the Greens, let alone their being in 4th. These are just a couple of examples of the blatant refusal by the BBC to acknowledge the Green Party's successes. Seeing as the results of the European Elections placed the Greens ahead of the Lib Dems they should surely be treated as a Major Party, especially as UKIP are treated as such whilst not having had an MP until four months after these elections took place. The Green's membership has increased by 45% since January. They should receive coverage reflective of their successes and a chance to share the political floor with Farage et al not only during and in the lead-up to elections, but also in the interim period on programmes such as Newsnight and Question Time and in any Leaders' Debates. Incidentally, from the beginning of January 2014 until 22nd May 2014 Question Time has featured five UKIP representatives and only one Green representative (Caroline Lucas). Most despicable of all was how, in much of the BBC's coverage of the election results, the Green Party were consistently lumped in with the 'Others' category and often removed altogether from statistical evidence. This is an insult to the 8% who voted for them - 1.2million members of the British public. The BBC prides itself on painting a fair and unbiased picture of events, however in this case we feel they have not done so. All parties should receive fair, impartial coverage, whether they be Left, Right, or Centre. This apparent news blackout of the Green Party by a much respected taxpayer-funded corporation is incredibly disturbing and must not be allowed to continue. *This petition has been edited to keep its content up to date with the changing political climate*

Chinese (or ‘Sky’) lanterns consist of a paper-covered wire or bamboo frame and an open flame heat source, which lifts the lantern into the air where it can float for miles from the point of release. Lanterns pose a threat to animals, as they can cause severe burns, injury, suffering, and death, through:ingestion, entanglement and entrapment.. Landowners have called for a ban on Chinese lanterns in the UK, following cases of livestock injured or killed from eating lantern parts accidentally chopped into animal feed during harvest, or getting caught in wire frames that have landed in fields.Sharp parts can tear and puncture an animal’s throat or stomach causing internal bleeding or death. Animals can become entangled in fallen lantern frames and suffer from injury and stress struggling to get free, or starve to death. Marine life is also endangered by lanterns falling into the sea. Help us, and many other organisations including the Marine Conservation Society, Women’s Food and Farming Union (WFU), Soil Association and National Farmers Union (NFU).