Our dad, Andargachew ‘Andy’ Tsege from Islington, London, was kidnapped by Ethiopian security forces from an airport in Yemen in June 2014. He is now held in a brutal prison in Ethiopia. We're not able to speak to him, and we have no idea what is going to happen to him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqmqj0Pvmfg In 2009, the Ethiopian regime said that they would execute our dad for his political activism. Now they’ve kidnapped him - and they are even preventing British consular staff from checking on his welfare. Time is running out to save his life. Please, Prime Minister, tell the Ethiopians to let our dad come home. Andy made Britain (London) his home in 1979, after fleeing political persecution by the Ethiopian government. He is a prominent opposition activist, working towards a democratic Ethiopia. In 2009, the regime said that they would execute our dad if he ever returned. Since Dad’s disappearance, our family has been in agony. We still don’t know where our dad is being held, or how he is being treated. The only glimpse we’ve had of him was when he was paraded on Ethiopian state TV giving a forced 'confession' in July 2014. He looked thin and unwell. So far the Ethiopian government has ignored British requests for ‘assurance’ that our dad will not be executed. We also know that torture is very common in Ethiopia, and we are desperately worried about his safety in detention. Dad is a kind, loving and caring man – we are so worried about him and miss him so much. We need him home with us in London. Please, Prime Minister, tell the Ethiopians to let our dad come home. His kidnapping and detention is a serious breach of international law – please take firm action with the Ethiopian authorities and demand his return to the UK without delay. (This petition was written by Yemi Hailemariam, Andy’s partner, and their children: Helawit, Menabe, and Yilak.)

Someone who is a member of the Government should not hold discriminatory views. Read more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29628557

As winter draws nearer, temperatures will plummet making the rough sleepers of Hull even more vulnerable. A warm bed and a shower could could potentially save lives. Although there are other hostels in Hull, these do not provide enough beds to the rise in homelessness.

In July 2013 the government introduced fees for taking an employer to an employment tribunal. Their reasoning behind this was that it would stop people making bogus claims. In reality, all introducing these fees has done is made it financially impossible for the majority of people who have been treated unfairly to take action against their employer. The current fees for taking an employer to an employment tribunal are between £390 and £1200. According to research carried out by Citizens Advice, now only 14% of valid claims are being taken forward to a tribunal and from October 2013 to March 2014 there was a 73% drop in claims on the same period the previous year. Imagine the following: -your employer sacked you because you developed a long term illness or because you were pregnant. -your boss was bullying you because of your sexual orientation, your race or your religion. -you employer stopped paying your wages or stopped you from being able to attend maternity related appointments. All of these thing would be a breach of your employment rights so why should you have to pay to stand up for them? These rights are protected by law so how can it be legal for the government to charge you a fee to take action when these rights have been broken? We need to get these fees scrapped so people can have the ability to stand up for themselves when they have been treated unfairly, otherwise it will just become even easier for employers to treat their employees however they want without any consequences.

This is an issue that I have heard from some people in my own area, as well as this is repeated news stories of people losing their homes over this issue. A link to one such story is here http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Stoke-Trent-City-Council-forced-evict-25-tenants/story-23048087-detail/story.html The authority has confirmed that in the last year a total of 65 tenants were evicted, with many already in rent arrears before the introduction of bedroom tax in April 2013. But 25 of that number went into arrears purely because of the levy, after previously being able to afford their rent. Nobody should face homelessness over this all the while they are at least attempting to avoid it by moving.

Because Britain should provide an example to the world of how a legal system's first duty is to protect the country's citizens

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.

This plan is ridiculous, degrading and a breach of our human rights. Not allowing us to have any cash at all is an unwise and unworkable idea, because some things do require cash, e.g. travelling on the bus, buying fresh vegetables and fruit from a farmer's market, using vending machines, using a trolley at the supermarket, buying second-hand clothes from a car boot sale. The poor often buy second-hand goods in charity shops, car boot sales and Ebay. Many buy books and worksheets for their children, plus toys and Christmas presents, and benefit cards would take all of that away from them. Many parents are desperate for work but cannot find any. Some are so severely unwell or disabled that they are unlikely to ever work at all, even though they want to. Some are financially ruined in family courts while getting divorced. Anyone can fall into it. Almost 80% of middle class families are greatly helped by their parents and/or grandparents, but not everyone is so lucky. If, for instance, you were to tell a person who has worked all of their life, but has recently become unemployed through no fault of their own (e.g. redundancy), that they can't even buy a magazine or go for a coffee with a friend, it would be ridiculous, and being told what to do like a naughty child would be degrading. It would also be ridiculous, and degrading, for them to be dictated to by the government and be told "You can't have any cash, you can only spend money in these shops, you can have this but you can't have that, because we say so." Iain Duncan-Smith, whose idea it is, has not said exactly when he intends to push his plans through, and what worries me the most is how far he and the rest of the government intend to dictate to benefit claimants what they can and cannot spend their money on. Just what else, exactly, will the government define as irresponsible spending? Will they tell us that we can't buy a laptop, a t-shirt, an item of stationery or pet food, for instance? The bottom line is, benefit claimants do not deserve to be treated like criminals or naughty children, especially if they are sick or disabled and/or are doing everything the DWP ask of them. The whole idea needs a lot more thinking through before the government even think about rolling it out, so that benefit claimants can continue to live their lives in peace and dignity. All of the stereotypes you hear about in the media are rubbish - they are designed to blinker, divide and sway people. Being unemployed is not a crime, therefore we shouldn't be punished for it - we are no less deserving of human rights than those who are lucky enough to have a job. You can read more about the proposals here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/tories-prepaid-benefit-cards-welfare-poverty

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

Monmouthshire County Council have removed funding that helped pay for transport to college for 16 years + children with SEN. This means that the parents/guardians of these children are left with difficult choices. Pay themselves or use public transport. Some of these children have ADHD, Autism and Aspergers and for them, using public transport is impossible. One of the most vulnerable groups in our communities is suffering due to these cuts.

During the recent referendum in Scotland all 16 and 17 year olds were given the vote . They were very enthusiastic taking part in the campaign .As well as voting in large numbers. We have a general election next year.It is wrong to tell people that you were old enough to help decide the future of Scotland but you are to young to decide who should represent you at Westminster.I believe that the vote should be extended to ALL 16 year olds.

Recently, one local authority, Barnet Council, has consulted on requiring survivors of domestic violence to register as homeless before rehousing them. This will have the effect of removing their priority status on the housing waiting list, dropping from Band 1 down to Band 2 or 3. If these proposals are implemented, they will set a dangerous precedent for our society as well as the way we treat those who have survived domestic violence - who are often forced to choose between their safety and their own home. We should be looking to change the narrative about domestic violence - and that means recognising and taking steps to protect survivors' right to housing.