East Lothian Council should not be able to dictate to their tenants what animals they can keep, unless the animal causes damage to the property or is a danger to the public. So if you have a GUINEA PIG, RAT, CHINCHILLAS, DEGUS, TURTLE, CHIPMUNK, SNAKE, LIZARD, GECKO, SCORPION, AFRICAN PYGMY HEDGEHOG, FROGS, TOADS, NEWTS, SALAMANDERS, STICK INSECTS, ANY INVERTEBRATE, TARANTULAS, SPIDERS, AFRICAN LAND SNAILS OR ANYTHING REMOTELY EXOTIC YOU WILL BE MADE TO GET RID OF THEM.

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.

My husband has an advanced prostate cancer. He wants to die at home, but he may not get what he wants, because there are inadequate services and support in the community; and if he runs into any medical problems there is little or no communication between the Hospital and those who work in the community. Whether you want to die in a hospital, a hospice or at home, you need the services to link together and support you. And you need seven days a week services. Research carried out ten years ago found that 2/3 of people want to die in their own homes, but only 1/3 do. Let's all work together to change this! It will be too late for my husband, but it will benefit everyone else. There needs to be an overall plan for each individual, as put forward in the End of Life Care Strategy. This is important for every one of us. Whilst there have been three pilot studies in Lincolnshire, Leeds and Somerset, the majority of Hospital Trusts and Clinical Commissioning Groups have failed to get their act together. Please sign my petition and show the NHS that people want action and they want it NOW!

On 22 May 2014 GP's are to vote on whether to introduce appointment charges (estimated £10 - £25 per visit). If this vote is passed it could mean the end of our NHS, free at the point of use. The NHS is currently being dismantled under the guise of an ineffective system and more consumer choice. Increased GP workload and patient demand driving this issue is largely as a result of government policy, hospital closures and privatisation. GP income has fallen by design and patient charges are not the answer. "How many times are we going to fall into the traps set by our political masters?" asks Gurdave Gill, GP Partner writing on the Pulse Today website. "Patient charges are NOT the answer. User charges deter the sick and poor as much as the 'worried well'. Expensive and bureaucratic to collect, evidence shows patients delay seeking medical advice when user charges are introduced. Delay in diagnosis can cause significant harm. If we know this to be fact, to introduce charges appears to suggest that our incomes are more important than any potential harm to the patients. Is this ethical? "The current crisis in Primary care has been manufactured to create a pressure from GPs for charges. [...] We should be demanding increased resources from Government and not our patients. The NHS returned £5bn underspend to the treasury in the last 3 years. The cost of the purchaser-provider split exceeds £10bn pa yet delivers absolutely no patient gain at roughly the entire cost of primary care! {...] We need to identify the correct target and demand our representative bodies are more effective rather than the incompetence/collusion with Government we have seen in recent past. The minority of pro-privatisation GPs leading the call for charges need to be recognised for what they are. We must not be persuaded by the 'greedy and dims' amongst us.” And how about that consumer choice? Right now we have the best of both, individual private healthcare and tax-payer funded. Both are a form of 'paid for' healthcare, one is paid for by the individual, the other paid for and negotiated collectively. If the asset strip continues we will only have the most expensive poorly-negotiated option open to any of us. That is no choice at all. UPDATE The BMA's current position on this motion as outlined to one of our members, obviously, it would be naive to rest on these laurels: "The BMA's current position is not in favour of charging patients for GP appointments. Introducing charging would undermine the basis of the NHS; that healthcare is free at the point of use, and patients receive care based on their clinical need. A fee charging system could require an expensive bureaucracy to collect money from patients. It is also possible that the charges may deter vulnerable patients from seeing their GP which could lead to delays in treatment. However, there will be a motion debated at the Local Medical Committee (LMC) conference in York later this month. If the motion is carried, this does not mean it will become BMA policy. BMA Policy is decided at our Annual Representative Meeting (ARM) in July [ed- It's actually Sunday 22 - Thursday 26 June 2014] and motions are proposed by individual branch of practice conferences (e.g. GPs, consultants, junior doctors etc) and submitted for debate by geographical divisions. It would require further consideration by the BMA's leadership and the BMA's Annual Representative Meeting in July. It is understandable that GPs are looking at raising these kind of ideas, given the enormous pressure on GP services. Many GP practices are struggling from a combination of rising patient demand and falling funding that ministers have failed to recognise. However, the BMA feels that we don't need a complicated and unfair charging system to be introduced for GP appointments. We need the government to provide the resources to enable GPs to deliver the care that their patients need. I hope this is helpful and that it clarifies the BMA position for you." Links: Facebook page that inspired this petition: https://www.facebook.com/healthcharge Pulse Today - GP leaders to vote on whether to support patient charges for appointments: http://bit.ly/1lrI1gg LMC Conference - Full Agenda: http://bit.ly/fullagenda BMC/GPC: http://bit.ly/bmcandgpc BMC Annual Meeting: http://bma.org.uk/working-for-change/arm-2014-info Wessex LMC: http://bit.ly/aboutWessex

It is, of course, right and proper that everyone should pay their due taxes, but by asking for these new powers it sets a worrying precedent. At the moment they can recover owed taxes once a court ruling has been obtained, but it seems they want to get rid of this restriction on their activity and be able to operate free from any legal ties. It is especially worrying that they are bringing this in under the Finance Bill 2015, mentioned in the Budget, but without any details. The government has issued a public Consultation Direct Recovery of Debts (DRD) seeking views on their proposals to introduce into the Finance Bill 2015 the right of HMRC to recover debts over £1,000 by direct access to the debtor's bank accounts. This Consultation paper reveals the full details and everyone should be very worried as this is an unbelievable threat to our civil liberties. At present, HMRC has to go to court to seize money owed and prove it is necessary. Under the new proposals, the 'debt' can simply be removed from the debtors account at the "click of a mouse" and the debtor will have just 14 days to appeal. The 'threshold' is stated at being £1,000 which can be made up over a range of smaller debts and can INCLUDE TAX CREDITS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE. But once power is included in the 2015 Finance Bill the threshold amount can be altered and could affect many thousands of individuals. More worryingly, this precedence could pave the way for other debts (eg council tax arrears) to be removed and for the period of debt to be shortened without further legislation; effectively giving HMRC free reign to raid our personal finances at their leisure. HMRC has a history of frequently making mistakes in their calculations and have to adjust and re-adjust tax assessments. If they have unrestricted access to bank accounts, there is a strong possibility they may well take out monies incorrectly. Please don't let this happen: it is too much power and no one, or government department should be above the law.

We need to change the unjust laws that are causing us so much suffering. We are an advantage to the UK, but we have to wait too many years for an answer to our asylum claims. We are not allowed to work in the meantime and have to survive on £5 a day. Many of us become ill, physically and mentally.

In 2014 and 2013 the reported cost of policing this group was £1million in Brighton alone. There were 27 arrests during the 2014 march, and several violent clashes bringing injury to bystanders and destruction to property. The Marchers and EDL members often stay in town once the march is over and create an atmosphere of intimidation, often resulting in further violence. It is clear that the people of Brighton do not want the March to take place, and make their presence known along the route. Free speech is important in our country, nobody wants to deny peaceful protest no matter how abhorrent the opinions of the protesters are to us. But when a protest consistently brings violence, stands for racism, hatred of minorities and scapegoating, AND costs the tax payer hundreds of thousands of pounds to police, it's time to put an end to it. They are disturbing the peace and inciting hatred, and we want to stop them marching through our town. To show how serious this cause is, I include a link to a short video. This shows one of the mass street fights which occurred during the march, which police were powerless to prevent. WARNING contains violent scenes. http://youtu.be/uU8TnvCgBqQ

Increasing research and global experience in both Nuclear Energy and Fracking highlights the profound danger of these energy sources to all Sentient Beings and the precious Earth that supports us. New Nuclear and the proposed storage of nuclear waste on threatened coastal sights is a potential environmental catastrophe of horrifying proportion; is a threat to human health and the Earth; has a huge funding legacy that will continue to increase all our energy bills for years to come; and is totally unnecessary in the light of viable, safer and more economic green alternatives. Fracking has profound implications environmentally for the safety of water supplies,the poisoning of land, air quality, atmospheric carbon levels and the potential to cause earthquake. There are now safe, economic and green alternatives which must be supported by Government alongside an energy conservation programme. If we are concerned with the future of our children, and care for the Earth that so lovingly supports us all, we will act now and encourage a potential Prime Minister to review energy policies. What we do unto this Earth we do unto ourselves. Thank you.

Your Choice Barnet, that provides services for adults with learning and physical disabilities. Your Choice Barnet Ltd (YCB) began operating as a Local Authority Trading Company (LATC) in February 2012 and 100% owned by Barnet Council. In February 2013 a year after its creation Your Choice Barnet, was in serious financial difficulties and as a result, it looked to make savings by cutting staff terms and conditions and reduce staffing levels in some of the social care settings. It also received a £1 million bail out from Barnet Homes requiring a 6% interest repayment. A significant number of loyal hard working care staff were made redundant last year as a result of this cut which has led to an increase in agency staff delivering services. In January 2014, Your Choice Barnet were still in a financial crisis and stated they needed to cut the staff bill by a further £400,000. It is obvious to everyone that the ongoing attack on the terms & conditions of care staff will ultimately lead to: • fewer stimulating activities in a safe environment for adults with disabilities in Barnet. • fewer staff to work with adults with vulnerable disabilities in Barnet. • less supervision of, training and support for remaining skilled staff. • loss of professional staff and lower morale and motivation among remaining staff. • negative impact on staff health and well-being, with a knock-on impact on service quality. Both the Francis Inquiry into Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and the Winterbourne View abuse scandal highlighted the shocking results of employing unskilled and unsupervised staff. I note in a recent article http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2014/03/maude-praises-the-barnet-formula.html you have been extolling the virtues of mass outsourcing “Our approach is already paying dividends, by allowing us to cut Council Tax bills to all residents next year.” Surely you must concede that instead of making a gesture of funding a tax cut, which will save a Band D taxpayer all of 26p a week; the money would have been better spent on ensuring safe and quality services for adults with disabilities. In another article http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/barnet_can_make_future_council_tax_cuts_due_to_one_barnet_outsourcing_says_westminster_finance_chief_1_3429038 you are quoted as saying: “We’ve made enough savings via the One Barnet programme so that we can meet our budget and distribute the money saved, back to the community.” In which case why are you not ensuring the savings you are referring to are redirected to Your Choice Barnet?

For close to a decade, Isabella cleaned ex-immigration MP Mark Harper's home for £22 per week - as well as a number of other politicians. When her undocumented status was revealed, she became a pawn in a political point scoring battle and the focus of a national media campaign which resulted in Mark Harper resigning. As none of the MPs that Isabella worked for were criminalised, the same spirit of kindness ought to be immediately extended to the hard working Acevedo family. We’re asking Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to do the honourable thing and grant citizenship to this lady and her family, whose lives have been turned upside down by this whole affair. Isabella Acevedo has since been forced into hiding, her family is being torn apart and they are facing destitution having lost their income. The hard working Acevedo family have spent close to 15 years in London - building a modest life. During this time, Isabella never had any sick pay, never had any holiday pay and earned less the minimum wage. Despite the difficulty, she was able to provide for her small family and create a home and life in London. All of this is now at risk of being destroyed as result of the damaging politics of Theresa May and Mr Harper. Please sign this petition and support the Acevedo family in their struggle to stay together, to keep a roof over their heads and food on their plates. More information: http://legaldefencefund.wordpress.com/about/ ** A campaign to stand with Isabella Acevedo and others in similar circumstances was collectively launched in February. Supporters include: No One Is Illegal; Campaign Against The Criminalisation Of Communities; National Coalition Of Anti-Deportation Campaigns; Tawantinsuyu Nation; Myrdle Court Press; Defend The Right To Protest; Precarious Workers Brigade; Unity In The Community; Movimiento Ecuador en el Reino Undio Meru; This Is Not A Gateway; 3 Cosas Campaign; Movimiento Jaguar Despierto; Justice For Domestic Workers; Latin American Women's Aid; El Telefono De La Esperanza UK

This petition is a direct response to the perception that we cannot change the system which already exists. Even if it isn't fit for purpose, up to date with the modern world, or representative of most of the electorate. We can! The promise of parliamentary debate on any petition which reached 100.000 signatures was a brave manifesto promise by the conservatives, but without some significant changes in the way the commons work, these petitions will fall on deaf (or absent) ears. We live in an age of technology and information, many embrace it, many fear it. It is an age where almost everything you do is done on line. Whatever your personal feelings about it, the internet is here to stay, and has the so far untapped potential to allow YOU unprecedented control over YOUR life, and the direction of politics in real time. We have social media which is acting as a lightning rod, by allowing us to display our righteous indignation at policy's which we don't agree with, but with no effect whatsoever. How many would bother to sign a petition which WOULD be heard by those that create all of our futures? Internet petitions are branded "slacktivism" by the press, and yet many of us who walk in the middle of the road, or the "silent majority" fear taking part in any more pro active activism, because of the disproportionate response by the state to peaceful protest. Also in these austere times many simply cannot afford to take the time to participate in politics, except by signing these e- petitions, and going out to vote once every 4 or 5 years. At these times you are faced with a choice; to support one of 3 main parties, because it supports something which you are passionate about, even though you do not support all of the manifesto, give your vote to a fringe party, or like 45% of the electorate, not bother at all. If these changes were implemented then that would no longer need to be the way. At present there is no record (accessible to the public) of attendance in the commons except for voting figures. This is not acceptable, as the public must be able to see whether their MP has attended any debate which they have petitioned for, and for general transparency, as promised by every incoming government. All MPs are public servants, paid by the public purse, and, as we're reminded when we call HMRC, DWP, or any other government body, we are all customers of the state, and as customers we are entitled be listened to, and served well. We demand a certain level of service for our taxes,and as customers, as voters and most importantly as Humans, we demand the right to determine how we live, and have our voice heard! Its time to accept your "invitation to join the government of Britain" (This was the title of the Conservative manifesto 2010) "People have been shut out of Westminster politics for too long. Having a single vote every four or five years is not good enough – we need to give people real control over how they are governed. So, with a Conservative government, any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament". "The Big Society runs consistently through our policy programme. Our plans to reform public services, mend our broken society,and rebuild trust in politics are all part of our Big Society agenda. These plans involve redistributing power from the state to society; from the centre to local communities, giving people the opportunity to take more control over their lives". "Big Society; our reform plans require a social response in order to be successful. So building the Big Society is not just a question of the state stepping back and hoping for the best: it will require an active role for the state. The state must take action to agitate for, catalyse and galvanise social renewal. We must use the state to help remake society". The above are all excerpts from the Conservative party manifesto, printed before winning the 2010 general election. They all seem to say very much the same as this petition, and yet more and more of the people I speak to, feel the same as me, that they have less and less freedom, power and control over the way they are governed. Apathy is a dangerous thing because it shows a lack of hope. A lack of hope is acceptance of that which makes you unhappy. Acceptance of unhappiness is surrender. Once surrender has been accepted, it is irrevocable.

The use of water cannon would be a violent and excessive use of force to combat protests on the streets of the UK. The right to protest is one of the most important aspects of our free and open democracy and I believe that the threat of this weapon will be an inhibitor to people of all ages from exercising that right. My concerns are twofold. 1 - ACPO's own report into water cannon states that: "the full-pressure jet from a water cannon is capable of causing serious injury or even death and says there are also possible injuries from the impact on the body of street furniture or other debris." http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/22/police-home-secretary-approve-use-water-cannon-austerity-protest We have seen all too frequently instances of police abusing their power, and using unnecessary force to break up protests. Be it the death of Ian Tomlinson, or the assault on anti-fracking campaigner Sean O'Donnell, elements of the police force would prefer to use violence and aggression to silence peaceful protest. I don't believe allowing them access to this weapon will lead to less unprovoked aggression, but more. 2. This leads to my second point. The police are not the government's armed guards, hired to subjugate the will of the people. Increasingly I fear they are becoming so. ACPO argue that they would like water cannon in their arsenal "because austerity measures are likely to lead to continued protest" http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/22/police-home-secretary-approve-use-water-cannon-austerity-protest For starters that is presumptive, and is not representative of their own report: "The report says there is no intelligence to suggest there is an increased likelihood of serious riots within England and Wales." If, however, they are right that increased austerity measures will need to further protests, then so be it. The people have a right to protest against the actions of the government that they do not agree with. It is not the job of the police to suppress this feeling with threat of serious injury, or even death, through the use of water cannon should people wish to protest. The police are for the protection of us all, not to maintain the establishment status quo. Water cannon are dangerous to the public and reinforce the notion that the police may use excessive force to quell the will of the people.