IPP prisoners remain in jail indefinitely in England and Wales under the sentence of imprisonment (IPP), which was abolished in 2012 for future offenses. Many have long exceeded the punitive tariff imposed for the offenses they committed, in some cases as little as a few months. However, at present IPP prisoners must seek release on parole on the same terms as life sentence prisoners, although the Justice Secretary has a statutory power to establish a new release test. In several cases the European Court of Human Rights has found continued IPP detention to be arbitrary and in breach of Convention rights. Lord Lloyd of Berwick, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, said: "There are thousands IPP people in prison who arguably shouldn’t be there and have no release date. A senior high court judge describes them as ‘the disappeared'...“This is a crime against humanity. We are talking about people here who have paid for their crime who have finished their sentence who want to return home to their families build their life’s back up” IPP sentance is effecting the prisoners Mental Health It should also be noted that apart from the IPP prisoners themselves, the real losers are their family and friends who are often left struggling to understand the realities of an IPP sentence often at a loss as to what to do about the nightmare situation in which they find themselves. Further information: 1. The Guardian - "Former law lord says 3,500 prisoners behind bars longer than necessary" - http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/05/lord-lloyd-prisoners-chris-grayling-indefinite-sentences

Mohammad Asghar is a British grandfather who suffers from a serious mental illness. He is currently facing the death penalty in Pakistan on blasphemy charges. Last week, a policeman – one of the people tasked with ensuring Mr Asghar’s safety – burst into his cell and shot him. 70-year-old Mohammad’s attack was not unusual; people accused or convicted of blasphemy in Pakistan face a high level of risk from attacks by religious extremists. Mohammad’s lawyers at legal charity Reprieve had repeatedly warned that he would not be safe in prison. What’s more, Mohammad should never have faced blasphemy charges in the first place – under Islamic law and Pakistan’s criminal law, mentally-ill people cannot be held accountable for what they do or say. Mohammad’s poor mental health has been confirmed by his UK medical record, and a sworn statement from his British psychiatrist. Mohammad is now receiving urgent treatment in hospital, where his health is worsening – but despite this, Pakistan’s police want to return him to the same prison in which he was shot. His family in Edinburgh is desperately worried about his safety. Time is running out for Mohammad to be released and reunited with his family in Britain. Prime Minister David Cameron must use this window of opportunity and ask the Pakistani government to release Mohammed to the UK, rather than sending him back to prison. Mohammad is an ill, vulnerable man who has suffered a near-fatal attack. It is clear that his sentence is unjust, and his life is at risk if he remains in Pakistan. He must be returned to the UK at the earliest opportunity.

The current Home Secretary Teresa May has recently announced that she intends to include the creation of so called "Terrorist ASBOs" as part of the Conservative election manifesto. While on the face of it this appears to be a laudable idea, the impact on freedom of speech is unacceptable in a democracy. In particular I draw your attention to: "The definition will also include anybody who seeks to ‘overthrow democracy’." To me it is a very short step from "seeks to 'overthrow democracy'" to 'speak in opposition to the government'. The government always considers itself the very epitome of democracy so opposing its views can all to easily be considered an attempt to overthrow it. If this proposal became law it would be a totally unacceptable infringement of freedom of speech. The Home Secretary needs to be informed as quickly as possible that her idea is not supported. Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/terrorist-asbos-to-silence-hate-preachers-pledged-by-tories-for-election-manifesto-9763288.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2774285/I-ll-silence-preachers-hate-vows-May-Home-Secretary-ban-extremists-speaking-public-spreading-poison-social-media.html

Dog attacks on humans and other dogs are increasing. Specific breeds are not attacking people or animals across the breed, but irresponsible owners causing problems

The people named in the report were supposed to be protecting children and were guilty of extreme negligence. It is important for those in positions of responsibility to be really accountable. Saying sorry is not enough, saying lessons will be learned is not enough and staying in post should be out of the question. There is generally an attitude amongst senior management that it can earn large salaries and that this quite separate from the damage it might do through its own incompetence or immorality. Far too often the large salaries are unjustified.

Whistle blowers are being hounded out of jobs for speaking up about wrong doings and then becoming unemployable because of this. Colleagues are too scared to back them. Confidence in public services will be restored and confidence of employees to report issues without reprisals. Current internal whistle blowing policies are ineffective and not used.

Bitter experience has shown that councils cannot be trusted to protect children or set their own houses in order. If officers are prosecuted it will send out a strong message that they will be held to account and will focus their minds on their legal duties.

Its a cruel way of getting rid of animals when there are more humane ways of dealing with the problem

TRAVELLERS AND GYPSIES ARE SUFFERING BECAUSE OF CHANGES TO THE LEGAL AID SYSTEM.WE NEED THE LAW TO BE CHANGED

Based on data from the ‘Crime Survey for England and Wales’ around 473,000 adults were victims of sexual offences (around 404,000 females and 72,000 males) on average per year from 2009-2012 (Sexual Offending in England and Wales, 2013). 90% of victims of the most serious sexual offences reported they knew the perpetrator, yet only 15 per cent of victims of such offences said that they had reported it to the police. Stating that it was ‘embarrassing’, they ‘didn’t think the police could do much to help’, that the incident was ‘too trivial or not worth reporting’, or that they saw it as a ‘private/family matter and not police business’. We must learn from the tragic case of Frances Andrade, who tragically died at her home in Guildford, Surrey in January 2013, just a week after giving evidence in court about historical sexual abuse by her former choirmaster. Her husband, Levine Andrade, 59, found his wife, known as Fran, dead at 8am on 24 January last year. He said, "Apart from the trial bringing it all back up she felt the defence barrister seemed to be attacking her personally. "It got her completely down and she felt completely defenceless. I think she felt she was not prepared enough for the trial. She was not expecting to be attacked personally and have to answer so many direct questions in public. Much more needs to be done to provide and promote professional high-quality support services to help victims move on with their lives. Only when victims have sufficient support can they make the choice to go through the criminal justice system. More importantly victims must have sufficient professional support to endure the often lengthy and protracted court process. In the policy 'Ending violence against women and girls in the UK' it stated that the government would part-fund 87 independent sexual violence advisers and pledging £1.2 million for 3 years from 2012 to improve services. The problem is this funding will end in 2015 and 87 part-funded ISVA's are far from adequate for the number of victims we have in the UK. We need to put this on the public and government agenda before the next elections.

Sunderland Councils Assistant Head of Law and Governance does not have the authority to decide where the public interest lies. The reply informed the requester the following: (I HAVE CONSIDERED WHERE THE PUBLIC INTEREST LIES) in respect of making the report public in response to your request. I do note that, as you indicate within the body of the request, the conclusion of the report is already in the public domain. While it is apparent that some members of the public, including yourself, consider they would benefit from seeing the report in full, and I take it you would prefer to see proof of the valuation, it is apparent that individuals remain intent on campaigning against this development. In this context, where information has previously been provided by the council in all good faith this has routinely been misinterpreted and misrepresented by individuals, in ways that are in fact misleading to the public and which generate a further administrative burden to the council in addressing and correcting these misconceptions. While I appreciate that you may not be among those individuals who have misused information in this way, it must be remembered that release of information under FOI has the effect of making it available to everyone.) The full reply can be viewed by following this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/237101463/SCC-Ref-14-05-62 This person has decided that she can decide where the public interest lies in respect of making the report public. The ratepayers of Sunderland have a right to see the file the council holds on the sale of the land at Marine Walk. They have a right to decide if procedures were followed. How could the information within the file be misused / misinterpreted or misrepresented if all is aboveboard? SCC has by their own admission spent thousands of pounds of ratepayer’s money and many man-hours refusing a simple request to view the details of a land sale??? I request Sunderland City Council release the information held on the sale of land on Marine Walk Roker Sunderland.

If police carry arms routinely, this will fuel fear and criminals might arm themselves more heavily. Despite this, a number of police officers (around 300) are now routinely carrying sidearms while on patrol in much of Scotland. Armed police officers have been seen in a bakery, in a branch of Aldi and at a routine traffic incident in Glasgow - all incidents where it was unnecessary for the officer to have a firearm by his side. Until 2009, firearms officers had to keep their weapons in a locked safe and have a senior officer’s authorisation to take them. Firearms officers should revert back to this practice, because it is not necessary that they take their arms on routine patrol.