Disabled customers should not have to justify their disability to bored customer care staff in a supermarket. Having to produce proof of a disability (as the blue badge will have been left on display in their vehicle) is undignified and demeaning. Having to divulge sensitive and personal information in a public area of a supermarket is unfair and unjust. Forcing customers to struggle back through a shop to the customer care desk in order to avoid being fined when they are wheelchair bound, struggle to walk or are in pain is a disgraceful way to treat a customer. Refusing to accept the validity of a blue badge becuase they are not on a supermarkets database is highly unfair and quite possibly illegal.

We already have laws in place intended to protect mainly ethnic minorities within society at large, while other often-disadvantaged groups of people can take comfort in there being rules by which prospective employers must abide. The question of gender equality and the LGBT movement also continue to be major talking points, as campaigns such as those seen on this very site and others enjoy increasing momentum. However, one thing that does appear not to have penetrated the public consciousness - quite the opposite - is the situation pertaining to, in particular, many unemployed and disabled people, beyond merely the legislation being passed. Compounding the present climate of savage spending cuts, workplace ambivalence to rights and key government departments' cruel dehumanisation of their core services' users, is the growing groundswell of opinion - perpetuated by small-scale local news sources [1] and internationally-renowned public service broadcasters [2] alike, alongside everything in-between [3] - whereby anyone out of work or known to be claiming any sort of social security is instantly not only marginalised, but in fact openly vilified [4], and blamed for all manner of perceived problems blighting the country. Some writers even set up websites for the sole purpose of baiting those on welfare. [5] Worse still, the overriding premise around which the whole hysteria was intended to revolve, thanks to the 'free' British media, is a purely sensationalist, propaganda-fuelled one that ultimately rings hollow when scrutinised on the grounds of accuracy. [6] From domestic charities [7] to medal-winning athletes [8], bloggers [9] to the research teams of esteemed Universities [10] the length and breadth of the country [11], online publications [12] and even some mainstream news outlets [13], the message is clear: this is irresponsible, vindictive journalism. Of course, even in light of the recent revelations in relation to the practices of the press and the resulting Leveson Inquiry, it seems that the nature of the stories' content itself is something largely being forgotten about, and so the attacks go ahead. Such is the public's apparent willingness to serve as a channel for the outrage emanating primarily from reports peddled by the likes of the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Express, that we are now seeing innocent claimants abused [14], harassed [15] and even driven to death [16] by those who feel compelled to do their bidding. All this because a tiny minority (less than 1%!) of the DWP's bill are understood to be 'scrounging' off taxpayers' money. Taking vital funding away from those with little else to hold onto is one thing; sitting idly by while the institutions we depend on to inform us fairly and comprehensively instead choose to make these people's lives a complete misery - if not aiding them in doing so - is quite another. The media has no right and no mandate to wilfully turn citizens against each other (regardless of whether the victims can defend themselves any better than is the case here), especially on the basis of misinformation and spin. The buck for the crimes committed against these people (and no doubt many others hounded for a variety of reasons) falls squarely at the feet of those who are moulding ordinary people into vehicles of unfounded hate. This societal cancer needs to be removed at the source. By extending what we already have written in Acts of Parliament, to encompass anyone at risk of being the subject of incitement to ill intent, we can achieve this. [1] http://goo.gl/Sp3YQn [2] http://goo.gl/bMvbz [3] http://goo.gl/ar7Hgh (various links, including top of page 1) [4] http://goo.gl/SO8DPm [5] https://goo.gl/Ti1EK5 [6] http://goo.gl/hKFRrs [7] http://goo.gl/owGMal [8] http://goo.gl/4SwXGH [9] https://goo.gl/c9doFM [10] http://goo.gl/rNbdhv [11] http://goo.gl/9vpRQb [12] http://goo.gl/argS0d [13] http://goo.gl/FfpmZA [14] http://goo.gl/2XgLMn [15] http://goo.gl/EHOxz [16] http://goo.gl/ZHgNhP

People seeking sanctuary are now given a further push into poverty due to the Home Office’s decision to drastically reduce the weekly support payments made to asylum seekers. Following a review of asylum support payments earlier this year, the Home Office has now taken the decision to provide every asylum seeker, adult or child, the total of £36.95 a week to cover what they refer to as the “essential living needs” of a person claiming asylum in the UK. This amounts to a 20% cut in support for each child. Families with very young children will receive an additional £5 per week for children under the age of 1 and £3 for those age 1-3 years old. Similarly pregnant women will continue to receive an extra £3 per week and be able to apply for a maternity grant of £300. Below are the different payments made currently and the impact from 10th August 2015 Single Parent and a child is £96.90 will be £73.90 Single Parent and 2 children is £149.86 will be £110.85 Couple and 1 child is £125.48 and will be £110.85 Couple and 2 children is £178.44 and will be 147.80 Given that many asylum seekers already experience destitution due to the low level of support provided, it seems inevitable that these cuts will have a huge impact on the quality of living for people seeking sanctuary. Many asylum seekers come to the UK with almost nothing. In addition asylum seekers are forbidden from working by the Home Office. The current level of support is already inadequate and many rely on the support of voluntary agencies to help them get through the day. It is important to remember that asylum seekers have to rely on this £36.95 a week to feed, clothe and take care of themselves and their family, not forgetting travel costs for asylum appointments, solicitors, healthcare and other essential journeys. The Home Office states that “full consideration has been given to the welfare of children”. However it is families with children who will experience the greatest impact of this reduction in support. At the Welsh Refugee Council, we see many asylum seekers coming through our doors for food and clothing vouchers including food and welfare supplies for their children. Welsh Refugee Council Chief Executive, Salah Mohamed, says ‘These changes suggest the UK Government’s intention is to prolong the suffering of asylum seekers and make it more difficult to access their right to sanctuary and protection. This kind of treatment is unacceptable. The Welsh Refugee Council and other agencies in Wales calls upon all organisations working with asylum seekers to express their disapproval of these cuts by asking the government to abandon its plan to put people in further destitution and help families in the asylum process get a decent quality of life after fleeing conflict or persecution.’

On the 10/08/2015, levels of cash support for asylum seeking families will be cut drastically by the Home Office. Children will no longer receive more (needed as they are growing): every asylum seeker will receive £36.95. At least £16 per week cut per child. Children's health will suffer as a result. Say no to this amendment to asylum support and ensure basic conditions are met for these vulnerable children.

Please sign our petition to help us get this issue sorted as soon as possible, we need 250 signatures by July 31st to get this moving, please help us help these children. Hundreds of children are being forced into mainstream schools that have little to no resources to cater to their special needs. There are very few staff members with the correct training to help theses children & the members who do have the training are already overwhelmed with the amount of children with special needs attending the schools.There are specialist units/schools all over Glasgow which are decreasing their intake numbers until they are virtually empty & will be closed. This is unfair to not only the children but also to their families and the overwhelmed staff members at all the mainstream schools. P.A.C.T - Parents And Carers Together For Autism

In some areas, children's annual bus passes for September on wards are rising by a staggering 25%, for instance in Kent, a child's annual pass last year was at £200, this is now going to £250. Kent County Council also says it has to save £209 million over the next three years and so will increase the cost of its bus pass for 11 to 16-year-olds from £200 to £250 in September, a year after the price doubled from £100. The chairman of the Local Government Association’s Children and Young People’s Board, David Simmonds, told Schools Week that financial pressures were forcing many councils to scale back to meet their legal obligations “rather than go far beyond that – which is what they did historically”. For children under 8, councils are obliged to provide transport for pupils living more than two miles from the nearest suitable school. For those aged between 8 and 16, the statutory duty is to provide transport for those living more than three miles away. In rural areas, councils had traditionally provided free transport, although it was not a legal duty. It's now being eroded because of yet more cuts. This is going to affect so many people all over the country with Kent County Council being hit with the steepest rises with the best explanation being due to cuts needed in a council letting down not only the most vulnerable but the many people that are working so hard just to pay the bills and put food on the table that will have to not only find money for uniform and school essentials but also £250. The only legal obligation being kept nationwide is that to provide free travel for the over 65's Free school travel for children will have huge positives. - Attendance will be higher - Congestion and traffic will be minimised - Less road related accidents to children who walk near schools due to less traffic. Examples of how this is promoted in councils that RECOGNISE that free school buss pass's are the way forward; LONDON Children under the age of 11 only need a 5-10 Zip Oyster photocard to travel free on Tube, DLR, London Overground, TfL Rail and some National Rail services if they: Travel without an adult Look older than 10 A 5-10 Zip Oyster photocard isn't needed for your child to travel free on buses and trams or to buy child-rate paper tickets. If you think your child doesn't need a 5-10 Zip Oyster photocard, find out more about travelling with children. Children aged over 10 years and 11 months and under 16 on 31 August can get an 11-15 Zip Oyster photocard to travel free on buses and trams, and child rate on Tube, DLR, London Overground, TfL Rail and most National Rail services in London. CITY OF BRADFORD "Where walking/cycling is not possible, please consider public transport before using the family car on the school run, public transport is miles better for the environment and cuts down on traffic and pollution. Many secondary school pupils travel to school by public transport and the journey to a new school is often the first step your child will take toward independent travel; Bus services provide a safe and reliable way to get to school. Instead of giving your child a lift all the way to school why not consider dropping off at a bus stop or train station so that your child can continue their journey by public transport with friends?" All pupils in full time education are entitled to purchase a weekly School Plus Metro Card or for those occasional bus users pay half fare on public transport; please contact Metro for more information. Bus services run to or close by many local secondary and primary schools. To find out which buses serve your school and get up to date information on school travel please visit the Generation M website. Bradford Council is committed to reducing car travel which is a major source of pollution and congestion around school gates and encourages schools to produce a School Travel Plan setting out their commitment to sustainable school travel. Please ask your headteacher for more information on your School's Travel Plan Your child needs you to show them the way to sustainability. Reduce your car use and improve their quality of life. PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE ~ Together We Can Make A Difference ~

People seeking asylum do not have permission to work in the UK. Unless they have their own savings – and many have used any resources they possess to get to safety – they are forced to rely on support provided by the Home Office. This consists of accommodation and, for a single adult, £5.28 per day to cover food, clothing, toiletries, travel, communication and all other necessities. This is simply too low to cover anybody’s basic needs, remembering that the living wage is £7.85 per hour! This forces asylum seekers to live in poverty and isolation. The plight of asylum families is somewhat better as children are given about £3 more per day (the actual amount depending upon the number of parents and children in a family). However, on 16th July 2015, the Government introduced a new statutory instrument that reduces support for all people seeking asylum to the single flat rate. This will substantially reduce the amount given to children seeking refugee protection, as the current supplement they receive will be removed. This is a devastating blow. The internationally recognised poverty threshold, or ‘poverty line’, is defined as living on less than 60% of the median UK household income. The Child Poverty Action Group has calculated this at £346 per week after housing costs for a couple with 2 children. The Government’s decision means an asylum couple with two children will soon be forced to live on £147.80 per week, 58% below the poverty threshold.

Too many residents with dementia are denied regular access to outdoor spaces, eg gardens, patio areas, around the nursing home. The barriers I come across are "they feel secure inside"; "they may fall and hurt themselves" Sadly these residents only feel secure indoors because they have been locked in under DOLS regulations, for months and years , on end; the same could be said of prisoners in Belmarsh ! they would feel insecure outside after being locked away for ages ! The only way some of these residents with dementia experience the outdoors is if family or friends take them out; due to age and infirmity , family sometimes cannot manage this. People with dementia are no different from others in their need for sunshine and Vitamin D; in their need for emotional and spiritual uplifting by experiencing wind in their faces, hearing birdsong; looking at flowers and colours; in their need for mental and sensory stimulation; in fact they need these benefits more so than others who have the liberty to go where and when they please. people in nursing homes are prone to osteoporosis, (fragility of bones) , partly because they do not have exposure to sunshine, and also to exercise. I see them languishing in wheelchairs often for the whole day; pale certainly; apathetic often, in need of sensory and mental stimulation; Half an hour twice a day in the garden in the company of a care assistant would make a big difference to their lives. My husband is in a lovely nursing home, with kind staff and carers; he is fortunate that I can and do take him out regularly ; even in inclement weather; not everyone has the same opportunity.

No American has ever been extradited for a crime allegedly committed physically on US soil - so if the alleged crimes Lauri has committed took place in the UK, should his trial not also? The judicial frameworks for due process in the United Kingdom exist to process these cases. The UK-US extradition treaty, used to uphold a so called "special relationship", has been historically one-sided. There is absolutely no guarantee Lauri will receive the standard of healthcare he requires in the United States. In the spirit of what has been an cruel and underhanded case, the prosecution responded to concerns regarding Lauri's well documented health problems both mental and physical by continually seeking to undermine the opinions of medical professionals who state extradition is not in Lauri's best interests. Theresa May pardoned Gary McKinnon in 2012, blocking his extradition to the United States on the grounds of Human Rights. What is so different about the Love vs USA case? As McKinnon said in 2015, "It would be tragic if the ladder used to rescue me from extradition was kicked away from the next person who needs it". "Lauri is adamant he will not come to the US to be prosecuted. One need only look to the cases of whistleblowers and activists such as Jeremy Hammond, Barrett Brown, Aaron Swartz and Chelsea Manning to know the US legal system is not about justice, but about retribution. Lauri is also concerned about the extensive use of solitary confinement as punishment in the US legal system. The prolonged use of solitary confinement has been ruled torture by every major human rights group, and yet is still used as a routine form of punishment for even the most minor infractions without concern for the mental health of the prisoner. It is clear from recent examples that there is no potential for anything remotely resembling justice to come from an extradition order to the US in a case such as this." -- freelauri.com

In the UK we already have an epidemic of homelessness, if this policy is allowed to go through parliament the numbers of homeless people will increase drastically and child poverty will spiral out of control.

Everyone has the right to participate in the struggle for social and environmental justice, without fear of persecution, objectification, or interference in their lives. However, many campaigns and individuals have been targeted by Britain’s undercover police for decades, undermining efforts for social justice that should be welcomed in a democratic society. Citizens have been spied on, psychologically and emotionally manipulated, and abused by officers for being part of, or simply knowing people who were part of, such campaigns. We welcome the announcement of a full public inquiry into political undercover policing, but it must be truly transparent, robust and comprehensive. In particular the inquiry must: * Be willing to hear evidence from those affected by undercover policing including: - the women deceived into long-term intimate relationships by officers - the family justice campaigns for those bereaved at the hands of the police and those challenging the efficacy of police investigations in relation to the deaths or assaults of loved ones - the construction workers blacklisted with the help of undercover police - the families whose dead children’s identities were stolen by officers - all campaign groups spied on * Protect police whistleblowers from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act and encourage current and former officers to give evidence. * Cover all undercover police units from 1968 to the present day. * Ensure the police fully cooperate with the inquiry and do not obstruct its operation though the use of their ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ stance. * Hold senior police officers past and present, especially former Met Commissioners and Special Branch Commanders, to account for any wrong doing attributed to the units under their command. * Investigate officers sharing or selling information and experience acquired through undercover policing to the private sector. * Make recommendations to change the law, especially the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), to prevent these abuses from continuing.

Did you know right now, in 21st century Britain, there are thousands of people imprisoned for life for crimes committed by others? These men, women and children - some as young as 13 - have been convicted of murder, despite the fact that prosecutors know they didn’t kill anyone. This epidemic is known as Joint Enterprise and was highlighted in Jimmy McGovern’s BBC drama, Common. What if we told you that people (including politicians) know all about it, that it is widely discussed and widely criticised, yet this government has failed to act. Joint Enterprise has been left largely unchecked and unregulated until our campaign brought the government to account. This petition will help us to force the government to abolish this unjust law and replace it with a fairer form of justice for everyone. This petition will also seek to reform the tariff system in Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This denies judges the discretion to sentence on the basis of genuine culpability and results in unfairness, particularly to defendants convicted under the doctrine of joint enterprise. Please sign JENGbA’s petition and help stop hundreds of people per year being convicted and condemned to life sentences for crimes committed by other people. Also Joint Enterprise will be challenged in the Supreme Court this October which will be the first time they will be considering the question of the harm Joint Enterprise causes secondary parties. This is a real opportunity to change the law and so if you are able to donate funds, please pledge today via: https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/changing-the-law-on-joint-enterprise/ Please don’t forget to SHARE!