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.

Maggie* won't have had much of a Christmas. She has been living rough since she was brutally evicted and her boat and all her possessions seized by the Canal & River Trust in late November 2013. Her home was towed away by a team of 20 bailiffs, Canal & River Trust officials and police. She was left standing on the towpath with only the clothes she stood up in. Maggie suffers from schizophrenia. She hasn't been seen for weeks; friends, family and even the Police are concerned for her safety. They fear that the frightening nature of the eviction has affected her already fragile mental state. A friend who witnessed the eviction said "Maggie's illness contributed to the situation that led to the eviction. But what an appalling and distastefully unnecessary dispossession of a schizophrenic's home. Canal & River Trust should have helped this vulnerable woman to resolve the situation. They should not have waded in with this draconian show of force. Their behaviour is a disgrace". He continued: "Maggie needed support and as a charity, they should have acted with compassion, not sent in the troops to remove an eight-stone sick lady from her home. This is just one of many examples of Canal & River Trust's bullying of live-aboard boaters. Canal & River Trust is a charityless organisation. If Maggie has come to any harm I will personally hold Canal & River Trust responsible". Derek's* Christmas was almost as cheerless. A pensioner, he has lived on boats for more than 30 years. He became seriously ill several years ago. He needed regular medical treatment and had to stay near the hospital and doctor. Without a permanent mooring, the law states that under normal circumstances he should travel to a different place every 14 days. But in exceptional circumstances such as illness, he is entitled to stay for whatever longer period is reasonable. This did not stop Canal & River Trust pressuring him to take a mooring and then taking court action to evict him and seize his boat. He stands to lose his home in early 2014. Harry* is terminally ill. He needed to moor his boat near the hospital for extended periods while receiving treatment. Threats by Canal & River Trust to seize his home unless he took a mooring have forced him to pay for a mooring that is a long distance from the hospital, even though he has the right to stay longer than 14 days in one place if it is reasonable to do so. Canal & River Trust won't drop their enforcement action against him because they claim his past record of boat movement is poor. The reason he couldn't travel much was because of his terminal illness, but Canal & River Trust don't seem to care. They are legally a charity, but their actions are uncharitable. Harry deserves better in the remaining months of his life. There are many more disabled, elderly and vulnerable boat dwellers like Maggie, Derek and Harry who are being threatened with eviction and seizure of their homes by Canal & River Trust. These boat dwellers have rights under the Equality Act to be protected from losing their homes; rights that Canal & River Trust refuses to recognise, in breach of the law. A report by Bath and North East Somerset Council condemned Canal & River Trust's failure to meet its equality obligations. The report, published in July 2013, stated that the Council "met with senior executives of the Canal & River Trust and were disturbed both by their lack of awareness of equalities issues, and by their use of draconian powers to enforce the conditions of the licences they issue..." Boats can be licensed to use Canal & River Trust's waterways without a permanent mooring under Section 17 (3) (c) (ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995. For more information about the rights of boat dwellers without permanent moorings on Canal & River Trust's waterways, see this 30-minute film by Wiltshire Council http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYsBn5xABEc The report, Boat Dwellers and River Travellers: Housing and Major Projects Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel: a Task and Finish Group Review, by Bath and North East Somerset Council is online here at page 19 http://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/documents/g3691/Public%20reports%20pack%2023rd-Jul-2013%2017.30%20Housing%20and%20Major%20Projects%20Policy%20Development%20and%20Scrutiny.pdf?T=10 *Names have been changed to protect these vulnerable people.

On the 4th December, 2013, the government announced that children who were in foster care would be allowed and supported to remain with their foster carers until they were 21 years of age. There was much celebration amongst campaigners when the announcement was made. However, those celebrations did not extend to children and young people in children’s homes. Children in residential care are not included in this change even though arguably the residential sector cares for possibly the most vulnerable and disadvantaged young people who may be unable, or indeed choose not to be fostered. ECLCM is a campaign group, without funding or political affiliations with any other group, formed to stop Government discrimination against children in residential care who want support to 21, the same as those in foster care. One young 15 year old in residential care said: Just because foster children are settled in a family environment does not mean that young people in residential are not. I would love to live here until I am 21.' Children in children’s homes will still face being discharged from care at 18 (or even younger) and facing the savage disadvantages that life can bring. We know from the feedback we received that these young people were not celebrating last week. It is our view that increasing the care leaving age for fostered children and not those in other residential settings will have unintended consequences. It will: • create a ‘two tier’ care system, in which children in foster care receive longer aftercare support than those residential settings; • create an ‘underclass’ of children in care who have to leave care at 18; • reduce real choice for children as they will be compelled to accept family care in order to gain better aftercare; • create serious issues for social workers when family placements are breaking down. Instead of considering a residential care option, they may repeat family placements in an effort to protect aftercare; • have an impact on the self-image and confidence of children in residential settings other than foster care, who may feel undervalued and discriminated against by a change which excludes them through no fault of their own. We welcome the change in leaving age for fostered children to 21 years of age. We congratulate the campaigners who achieved this and acknowledge work that took place over several years. However, we feel that to accept this change whilst excluding other children in care is discriminatory and not sufficient. We ask that the government support all children and young people in care to 21 years of age. We ask all those who share our view to support our campaign for equality. It is the least we can do for our children. Petitioners: BEN ASHCROFT @AshcroftBen IAN DICKSON @IDickson258 ROSIE CANNING @RosieCanning1 ED NIXON @EdNixon2 LISA CHERRY @_LisaCherry PAOLO HEWITT @PaoloHewitt1 ALEX WHEATLE MBE @brixtonbard DR JOSIE PEARSE @angelstrand DR GORDON MILSON @gordonmilson HELEN WILLIAMS @coralhels MARY CAMPBELL-WHARAM @insight_mary RAYNE O'BRIEN @rayne_obrien DANIELLE McLAUGHLIN @Dmamclaughlin ROSE DEVEREUX @RoseDevereux1 PHILOMENA HARRISON IVOR FRANK, LLB, Barrister-at law

Access to Work isn't a benefit and doesn't incur a cost to government - in fact it brings money into the treasury, yet Deaf and disabled people are having their support allowance capped or cuts made (meaning they can no longer afford to use qualified interpreters or the support they need). This places jobs at risk and has already resulted in job losses and demotions. People currently in work are potentially being forced out of work and onto benefits, which goes against everything the government is telling us they are trying to achieve. Deaf and disabled people bring a vast amount of skill and talent to our workforce that we can't afford to lose. We want to ensure that full support is provided, and people are enabled to gain, maintain and progress in their chosen careers. Personal choice and control needs to be handed back to the experts on Deaf and disabled access needs in the workplace - the individual Deaf and disabled people who use the scheme We want to ensure Deaf and disabled people are not subjected to a glass ceiling due to lack of support.