In February and March 2012 my 11 year old daughter, Sophie, was put in a ‘spit hood’ by Sussex Police officers on at least three occasions. Sophie has a rare neurological disability, similar to autism, that can cause her to act in ways that people find challenging. She can become very upset when she is over-stimulated and can sometimes spit out of frustration. I had never heard of a ‘spit hood’ until one was used on my daughter. It is a material bag that goes over someone’s head with a drawstring to tighten it. Sussex Police allows its officers to put spit hoods on anyone who is spitting, regardless of whether they are a hardened adult criminal or a terrified 11 year old disabled girl who isn’t in control of her actions. I cannot describe how traumatic it was for Sophie to be hooded by police officers. Due to her disability she finds it very upsetting to have someone even touch her head. Having strangers put a bag over her head when she was already extremely distressed was profoundly shocking for her and she still hasn’t fully recovered from the experience over four years later. In June 2016 the Independent Police Complaints Commission published its report into Sophie’s treatment by the police. It found that 11 police officers and one member of police staff had cases to answer for misconduct. However, the IPCC wasn’t able to criticise the repeated use of the spit hoods as this was authorised by Sussex Police policy. Obviously it is not a pleasant experience to be spat at; however, the risk to police officers needs to be balanced against the very real psychological and physical risks to children who are subjected to this shocking treatment. Several of the largest policy forces around the country, including West Midlands Police and Merseyside Police, do not authorise the use of spit hoods on anyone let alone on children. In 2009 a man died after he was placed in a spit hood and became unwell in a Peterborough police station. In the wake of national media coverage about Sophie’s case (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/ipcc-criticises-sussex-police-treatment-11-year-old-disabled-girl) Sussex Police confirmed that it would not stop its officers from hooding children. I think this is wrong. The police do an important and difficult job, but I don’t think they should be allowed to treat children in an inhuman, degrading and dangerous way. If you agree with me please sign this petition and call on Sussex Police to stop using spit hoods on children. Thank you. Note: names have been changed for legal reasons.

The State of North Carolina recently enacted House Bill 2 known as HB2. The bill prevents local governments in North Carolina from passing anti-discrimination laws, undoing those already in place. It also permits business owners to discriminate against LGBT+ people on grounds of religious belief, and demands that individuals use the public bathroom corresponding to the sex on their birth certificate, endangering transgender people. This is clearly a huge injustice to the LGBT+ community of the State, but also to those visiting who are now at risk. In 2016 we expect to see nothing but progress when we see LGBT+ rights in the news. Sadly this is not always the case, as we were reminded earlier this year by the passing of this bill in the State of North Carolina. I was dismayed therefore to see that our new Secretary of State for International Trade, Dr Liam Fox MP, has announced plans to open a UK trade office in the state capital Raleigh. Liam Fox must not press ahead with plans to open this office not just as an act of solidarity, but to pressure the authorities of North Carolina to undo these awful laws and keep British people out of harm's way. In response to the enactment of HB2 a boycott of the state has ensued, with musicians pulling out of gigs and businesses withdrawing investment. If the Department for International Trade opens a new UK trade office in Raleigh then this boycott will be undermined. Furthermore the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has issued a warning to LGBT+ travelers to the State of North Carolina. Brits working at the new office may be put at risk because of HB2. This is unacceptable.

Virgin’s brand values - being honest, decent and playing it straight - are totally at odds with the Sun’s track record of misleading reporting, and of playing one group off against another in pursuit of a divisive political agenda. Last year, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights raised serious concerns about a Sun article likening migrants to “cockroaches". He said this was typical of “decades of sustained and unrestrained anti-foreigner abuse, misinformation and distortion” by the UK media. Yet since then, the Sun’s demonisation of immigrants has only intensified. The hate campaign reached new heights during the European Union referendum. An upsurge in scare stories about EU migrants was followed by a wave of violence against immigrant families. Virgin’s founder, Sir Richard Branson, has previously spoken out against the “anti-refugee and anti-immigrant rhetoric... gaining support in many of the richest nations”. With racist attacks on the rise, it is vital that we all now unite against the hatred and division that has been poisoning our public discourse for so long. As one of the UK’s leading companies, Virgin Media has the chance to take a bold stand for unity and tolerance. By pulling your advertising from the Sun newspaper, you can send a strong message that this aggressive rhetoric has gone too far. In doing so you can position yourself as a company that not only stands out from the crowd, but also stands up for the vulnerable and maligned.

The actions of the NEC are so undemocratic they do not belong in this country. All across society they have excluded members and supports with bitter choices. This cannot be allowed to go on in The Labour Party.

The government’s Prevent strategy, a centrepiece of its national counter-terrorism policy, is stifling the freedoms of children in classrooms across the United Kingdom and is counter-productive. It is leaving a generation of young Britons fearful of exercizing their rights to freedom of expression and belief and is counter-productive by driving children to discuss issues related to terrorism, religion and identity outside the classroom and online where simplistic narratives are promoted and go unchallenged. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQR0QZDPMvU Recent legislation in the form of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 places an obligation on public sector workers, including teachers and child care providers to report individuals including children considered at risk of being drawn into terrorism based on their perceived association with non-violent extremism. Yet this obligation is based on a vague definition of extremism that includes opposition to ‘British values’, and a set of prescribed indicators of vulnerability to extremism that include ‘a desire for status’ and ‘a need for identity meaning and belonging’. Children in classrooms across the United Kingdom have been impacted by Prevent. For example, a 8-year-old boy was interviewed, without a parent or guardian present, and ‘cautioned’ for wearing a t-shirt with Arabic writing on it. Since the incident, the child is reluctant to return to school and is experiencing stress related health problems. A 16-year-old student with learning disabilities was referred to Prevent for borrowing a book on terrorism from the school library, and a 17-year-old boy who was questioned by police officers about his political and religious views after he was referred to Prevent for expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people. This 17-year-old student also discovered that the police had collected information on him without his or his parent’s knowledge or consent, and was told that this information would be held indefinitely by the police and may be used against him in the future. Prevent is jeopardising the rights of children in the United Kingdom to freedom of expression and education in the name of counter-terrorism. We’re demanding an immediate repeal of the policy. For more information on the impact that the Prevent strategy is having on children in the United Kingdom see Rights Watch (UK)'s landmark report Preventing Education? Human Rights and UK Counter-Terrorism Policy in Schools http://rwuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/preventing-education-final-to-print-3.compressed-1.pdf

This is a really important to me as I see the National Minimum Wage an unfair practice to everyone Under 25. Workplace Policies bang on about "Equal Opportunities" and "Equal Rights", but where does equal rights and opportunities come into play about how much every single worker gets? It is unfair and wrong of every workplace in Britain to be giving extremely hard, motivated and invaluable employees to be unfair paid all due to the National Minimum Wage boundaries set by the UK Government. Every single employee in Britain should be entitled as my pay as everyone else. It is completely bang out of order pay 16 year old £3.87 per hour for then a 28 year old, holding the same job role AND experience, to be paid £7.20 per hour. This is not "Equal" and this is not by any means right. This, back in 1996 should have been outlined in The Employment Rights Act 1996, to where every employee is within their right to equal pay to anyone of all ages. Personal Story: I once worked at an Attraction Theme Park where in 2013 was getting paid £3.72 per hour (I was 16). After a year and a half of employment there (2014) with a year and a half's experience on my CV, there was 21+ year old getting paid £6.50 per hour when these employees has no experience of anything of any kind and they were getting paid at the time (nearly £2) more than i was earning per hour. I am now 19, driving, got rent to pay, pay for car insurance, pay my monthly phone bill, fuel, car tax, MOT, ect. National Minimum Wage is not enough to pay for all of this. We as a generation need to paid equally as we all have expensive bills to pay out for. Not just the Over 25's. This age segregation of our pay limits is common discrimination to all of us and segregating all of us just because of how old we all are. This is a disgrace to my employment rights and my own equal opportunities and rights of the work place. It is a sham that this sort of practice is getting used today where workers are entitled to equal pay. This is the reason why the National Minimum Wage needs to be complete and indefinitely abolished, then that to be taken over with the National Living Wage.

Too many innocent lives have been lost - Statistics ref BBC: In 2015 - Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured those figures exclude suicide - There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, this is according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant.. A third of the worlds gun crime is in America. How can Americans show the world that they are a nation of peace and freedom when you have so much gun crime, within America and unfair documented shootings of black individuals?. The world is looking on - observing America's gun laws with great pity - you do not need guns - to show you're a nation of peace - you need friendship and calm. If you believe America should make an amendment to their guns laws - to save lives - then please sign this petition and help make a difference. Thank you -Please share this on Facebook and Twitter.

Ahmed fled from Algeria with his boyfriend after they were subjected to torture, physical abuse often from their own family members. They reached Greece Ahmed got through his Boyfriend did not. They have not had any communication since. We are asking for Ahmed to be immediately released from detention and returned to Plymouth where he has friends and an important support network. Ahmed is a very shy, loving person in the UK he does not appear to be 'Gay' however in North Africa he is seen as effeminate and will be subjected to further abuse and even risk of being brutally murdered. We Believe that Ahmed will not be safe in any detention centre as he will be held with others that are intrinsically homophobic. This puts him at increased risk of both physical and sexual attacks. Much work being done to present new evidence to the Home Office including the important professional and expert reports on the physical and psychological trauma Ahmed has suffered. The first of a series of appointments with experts has been arranged is due to take place on 20th July here in Plymouth which makes the decision to detain him at this time complete madness. Pride in Plymouth has been supporting Ahmed by reducing the social isolation he has suffered since being in the UK. He is valued and loved by ALL of the 'Pride Family' in Plymouth. Please sign this petition to ensure Ahmed is returned to Plymouth where he has the support and love he needs whilst the necessary professional evidence is collated. It cost the tax payer far more to keep Ahmed in detention than does to house him in the community. Homosexuality is illegal in Algeria carrying an official sentence of three years in Prison. The law in Algeria does not recognise or respect the civil rights of LGBT persons. Officially, there are no gay-friendly establishments and no political organisation is allowed to campaign for LGBT rights. Harassment, violence, and murder of LGBT persons by family members, religious fundamentalists or other vigilant groups is generally tolerated.

Legal Spark was formed as a result of the crisis in legal aid. People were going without representation because they could not afford a lawyer. This is particularly the case for disabled people. No one else would do this type of work, as it was deemed too expensive, not financially viable and also too complex. Daniel Donaldson, a disabled Solicitor, set up Legal Spark with the Support of the Scottish Institute for Enterprise under their Young Innovators Challenge 2015 programme. Daniel wanted to develop creative solutions to help people access justice and to fix the exclusion that disabled people face from the legal system. Daniel spent one year talking to the Law Society about this issue, highlighting that it was important that everyone could access a lawyer. Legal Spark consulted with the Chief Executive (Lorna Jack), the Head of Professional Practice, the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar (James Ness) and the Secretary to the Civil Legal Aid Quality Assurance Committee (Hannah Sayers) amongst others. A document was prepared that explained what Legal Spark was planning to do. The Law Society accepted this document and did not object. The Law Society encouraged Legal Spark and found their approach "refreshing" and "innovative". Legal Spark was granted permission to do Legal Aid work in November 2015, and a compliance certificate was issued in December 2015. Legal Spark began helping the many disabled people that needed their help and began to have success. In April 2016, the Law Society decided that they had made an "error" and instructed Legal Spark to stop all Legal Aid work by Thursday 30 June 2016. By this stage, Legal Spark had a number of clients, with active and complex cases, some of which were about to go to Court. "A" is one such client. They had experienced awful disability discrimination from a University. They were not given adequate support to help them during a course, and had to leave. Additionally, Legal Spark uncovered evidence that the University's staff had used "unprofessional language" in their approach to "A". This case has now been lodged in Court. "B" is another client adversely affected by this decision. B is also disabled and is housebound. They had tried to find a lawyer for sometime but because of their rural location in the Highlands there were no Solicitors available to help. Legal Spark took on this case and was successful (in part) in achieving a resolution for B. However, because B had been adversely affected by a decision of Highland Council, and had lost out financially, the case may need to go to Court. B is unable to find anyone else to help them. These are only two examples of where Legal Spark is making a difference, there are others too. Since establishing Legal Spark, Daniel Donaldson has not drawn a salary and has used some of his own money to sustain the Legal Practice while it develops and is able to stand on its own feet. Legal Spark has also grown to enable it to employ staff and provide much need paid employment to some disabled people and unemployed law graduates. The Legal Aid certificate meant that Legal Spark could help people who could not access help elsewhere. Now "A", "B" and other will have to go without representation because of the Law Society of Scotland's failures. The Law Society's Chief Executive (Lorna Jack)says that they have to act in the public interest. The Director of Regulation (Philip Yelland) shares this view. 1. Where is the public interest in denying disabled people representation? 2. Also, where is the public interest is giving permission to do Legal Aid work only to revoke that permission 6 months later? The Law Society say that there are other Solicitors who can help, however this is not true. Legal Spark contacted 134 Civil Legal Aid lawyers with advertised specialism in discrimination law. Even the biggest Legal Aid firm in Scotland could not help. The Law Society has said that this will cause Legal Spark’s disabled client’s “inconvenience”. This is an offensive comment; they have never met any client, they have ignored client’s opinions, and also refused to acknowledge that they will suffer substantial prejudice in their cases because of the Law Society’s decision. This petition is addressed to the Law Society and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It is important that you fulfil your roles correctly. Overturn your decision to stop Legal Spark doing legal aid work, remedy the mistake you have made and apologise. This is the only way you can restore public trust and continue to say you act in the public interest. Allow Legal Spark, and their clients the opportunity to continue to work together for the public interest and tackle the horrors faced by disabled people on a daily basis.

In the current UK climate, incidences of extreme and vile racism have increased by 57% since the EU referendum. While most people can accept and debate the outcome of the result with consideration, it has become apparent that many others have now found a "voice" to incite violence and hatred to those that may have been unfairly portrayed as symptomatic to the countries issues. As Facebook has always set itself as an open and inclusive social media platform, "It's free and always will be", it also has a duty to ensure that it's billions of users are safe on it, and that those outside of such a group are not at risk from such. A group 'liked' by 1.5m people which shares and actively comments with such hatred on minorities, religions and races should have no place on the major social media platform.

For too long priority signage has been ignored. Pregnant women are left to stand, disabled people are ignored, young children get squashed and the elderly shown little consideration. Priority seat users shouldn't have to ask. LET'S DO IT TOGETHER! #lookupgetup is aimed at making sure we all take social responsibility to ensure priority seats are available for those that need them. Together we're pledging not to fall asleep, continually look at something VERY important on our phones or bury our heads in a newspaper. Instead, if we're sat in a priority seat, we will look up regularly and offer up the seat as soon as we see someone who might need it more. If you're worried about embarrassing yourself, just don't sit there. WHAT ELSE? In exchange I will contact transport providers, starting with TFL, asking them to provide better signage and promote awareness. Let's try and crack this - we have no problem telling people to stand on the right of escalators, why should this be any different? SPREAD THE WORD! If you see or know of anyone who qualifies for a priority seat and has been ignored, please tell them about this campaign!

It's 98 years since (some) women were allowed to vote in Britain, and 214 years since A Vindication of the Rights of Woman was published. Muirfield Golf Club needs to get up-to-date. Treating all human beings as equal is a mark of civilisation.