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.

People are dying. Adults teenagers and children. My daughter Molly was diagnosed in 2013. Our life saving injection consists of 3 pieces. A glass vial containing liquid medicine. A syringe. And a 2 inch needle. Patients are expected to draw up the medication in a syringe, attach a needle and then intramusculary inject it into the thigh. All whilst going into a coma because their organs are shutting down. This is not acceptable. My daughter cannot do this. Others have failed too, some resulting in death. Schools and workplaces will not give the old fashioned style injection leaving patients with their lives in the balance. Since I started this petition hundreds of adrenal patients have died. I now have a pharmaceutical company and a pen developer. We just need the British government to help us make this happen. This below is the original text. My little girl who is 14  has been diagnosed with hypopituitarism, thus meaning her pituitary gland is not  working affecting many glands in her body. The most serious being her adrenal gland, she is now cortisone dependent which means she needs to carry a life saving emergency injection everywhere she goes. Because this condition is quite rare there is not a quick pen injection like the epi pen or diabetes pen. This means that in a time of crisis a small glass bottle containing cortisone is snapped opened a syringe is drawn up with the medication, a sterile needle is taken out of the packet and then attached to the said syringe. This is then injected intramuscular in to the leg. I am very sure that my little girl in a close to unconscious state would not even be able to take the top off the little glass tube let alone draw it in to a syringe and then inject it in to herself but this is  what she would HAVE to do to save her own life if she were alone. I'm terrified to let her out of my sight. Even I worry that in this situation as a parent I would not be able to calmly do this. I know many other mothers and sufferers also feel this way, it seems that it is not viable  because there are very few people with this condition which gives the impression that their lives are not as important as those who suffer with diabetes or fatal allergy sufferers.  Ultimately I would like my little girl to finally have a normal life, she has suffered with very poor health for the past 14 years, she has gone through so much and come through so much I think now she deserves the right to a more  healthy life with the safe knowledge that no mistakes can be made in saving her life in an emergency situation.  She needs to fly the nest eventually like her brother and sisters will, she cannot go out in to the big wide world by herself without an easy to use pen, consider if this were yourself or a family member she deserves the right to an independent life. This injection pen could mean life or death to all of these people. Please consider listening to my plea, I will do anything personally in my own power to make it happen, everyone deserves the right to life. All other petitions and campaigns have fallen on deaf ears. So please everyone get behind me and show your support. Using a 3 three year olds words (her words) 11 years ago whilst suffering double pneumonia in hospital on Christmas Eve. 'Mummy its not fair any more like this' It hasn't been fair since then with her health and this situation is not fair either, her words may be in the right places now but she is still my little girl and i love her so much. Please listen this time Yours sincerely Rachel Pegler. IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR NON UK RESIDENCE please sign this one they will all be counted together http://www.change.org/petitions/pharmacutical-companies-health-chiefs-develop-a-life-saving-injection-pen For more info on how you can help click here https://www.facebook.com/rachelpeglersavinglivesforsterioddependants?notif_t=page_new_likes http://www.change.org/petitions/pharmacutical-companies-health-chiefs-develop-a-life-saving-injection-pen# A MESSAGE PLEASE READ From Audrey another mum from Northern Ireland who's daughter Victoria suffers from Addisons, we are in this together now all of the way . please sign for her too and many others like her, ' I know some of you have already signed this petition and I'm extremely grateful. If you haven't already signed and shared it will only take 30 seconds of your life to add your name to this petition. Many of you know my daughter was diagnosed with Addison's Disease last year along with a few other illnesses. It is a life long and life threatening condition. She relies on family members to inject her if she goes into Adrenal Crisis, but this isn't a straight forward ready made injection..it consists of a syringe, 2 needles and 2 vials...would you be comfortable preparing that and injecting your loved one when they are dying in front of you. I've no doubt it will be extremely hard to keep my emotions at bay and think clearly. Victoria isn't well again, we're waiting on further test results to see what is happening with her body now. Although this petition isn't Victoria's story, this young girl needs the same treatment. Please sign and share this to try and get an epi-pen manufactured for people like Victoria and Molly. Many thanks

As you may be aware, there are already numerous methods of blocking access to pornography where parents wish to do so. A block at the ISP level takes what is and is not blocked out of the control of parents, with potentially dangerous results. Video chat sites aimed at teenagers and certain social media sites are (as identified by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, CEOP) some of the places paedophiles go to prey on children, but as these are not 'adult' in nature they will most likely not come under the block. Parents being told their internet connection is being filtered for adult content to protect their children will therefore believe their children are 'safe' when they are in fact being left exposed to serious risks. The emphasis should be on educating parents about dangers like these, helping them to set up their own restrictions so their children are protected, and highlighting the fact that no blocking software or filters are a substitute for parental supervision. Restricting access to information based on blacklists and filtering at the ISP level represents a severe curtailment of civil liberties. Such practices are typically employed by governments wishing to restrict access to information and ideas they find threatening or undesirable (the aforementioned People's Republic of China being a good example). Prime Minister Cameron took the opportunity to also state that certain 'extreme' fantasy material (involving no illegal acts) would now be made illegal in all of the UK, signalling his intent to restrict access to material that is currently legal. Sure enough, one week later it was revealed that the ISP filtering may cover far more than just pornography; categories of materials that may be blocked include violent material, extremist related content, anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide related websites, alcohol, smoking, and even web forums and so-called "esoteric material" (see http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall). I would urge you to carefully consider these points when and if these issues are debated in the house. The CEOP previously identified other priorities for protecting children from abuse such as finding ways to monitor hidden and encrypted networks, and greater inter-country law enforcement cooperation. I believe these approaches should be selected in preference to the measures mentioned by the Prime Minister, measures that will ultimately fail to catch the most serious perpetrators and are themselves open to serious abuse.

Given the recent revelations about GCHQ's 'Tempora' programme UK citizens are facing the greatest threat to their civil liberties in this country's history. Indiscriminate surveillance is being collected on the populace on a massive scale with no public mandate or accountabilty. This is being allowed through a legal loophole which would have been legitimised with the Snooper's Charter. If this kind of system is allowed to exist at all at the very least it should have a mandate from both the public and parliament - with external accountability and auditing. No publicly accountable body currently exists to audit this programme.

Boaters who move every fourteen days are acting legally and should be left in peace. No one should have to endure the fear and trauma of being needlessly threatened with homelessness. No charity should be in the business of harassing and threatening members of the public, and boaters should have the same rights as all other travelling people. It is not an acceptable use of public money to spend it taking people to court to try and take their homes from them. Many boaters are retired and have limited funds. There are boaters who are key workers and cannot afford to live in regular accommodation. Some boaters are disabled, others have families. Those who move every 14 days are entitled to live and travel on the canal, and do so perfectly legally, yet The Canal & River Trust harasses such people regularly. They threaten to take away the boat license, then to take the boater to court and take their boat from them. If your boat is your home and your only major asset, this is a terrifying prospect. If they take your boat, they can sell it for a profit and you get nothing. The Canal & River Trust pressures liveaboard boaters to take permanent moorings. Most moorings do not have planning permission for residency, so if you live on your boat, a mooring is mostly something you cannot use. The Canal & River Trust owns many of the available moorings and benefits financially from pressuring boaters into taking moorings. In other circumstances, using threats to pressure someone into paying you for something they do not really need and cannot use, just to avoid some threatened outcome, is called a protection racket. This hardly seems like good, charitable activity.

There are up to three in one thousand people currently suffering from NEAD. It is a very debilitating condition, and one that usually means the person requires a carer 24 hours a day. There is typically a long delay in getting a diagnosis, which is partly due to insufficient knowledge, both of GP's and Specialists, but also a tendency for the condition to be labelled a 'pseudo' condition, that is, an assumption that it is not really a medical condition. This condition affects both men, women and children, and as awareness slowly increases, partly through the efforts of self funded groups such as the NEAD Trust, based in Sheffield, more and more cases are being confirmed. There is no official national organization, and in most cases, no local support. Sufferers, and their carers often have great difficulty in obtaining their benefit entitlements, and in some cases are suffering severe hardship and well as being marginalized by the health service and others. When you are caring for someone who may have multiple fits each day, causing falls, injury, loss of memory and the inability to carry out normal activities of daily living, it can take it's toll on both sufferer and carer. All we ask is that the condition is better publicized, that health professionals are better trained to diagnose and support sufferers, and a health service funded external national support organization is set up to help with ongoing advice and support. Thank you.

Ilford police ran co-ordinated raids on homeless people in Redbridge on the night of the 23rd of May. One of the men targeted, Adam Jaskowiak, reported that the police swooped in on the group he was sheltering with, bundling all their belongings into the back of a car: “They were just taking the sleeping bags and chucking out everything. I asked to keep it and the food, but they said ‘no’. I just grabbed as many of my things as possible and put them into a bag and ran.” Ilford chief inspector John Fish has been quoted as follows:- "The public rely on police to reduce the negative impact of rough sleepers.' This strongly suggests that Chief Inspector John Fish sees Rough Sleepers as something other than 'the public', and the actions of the Ilford Metropolitan Police, in confiscating these items, are surely the most despicable form of bullying - taking from those who have nothing. Indeed, Chief Inspector Fish states, with no apparent regret, that:- 'This includes the need for us to assist in the removal of temporary structures, tents, and bedding from public spaces and other inappropriate locations.' It is reported that nine of the men were taking refuge in the former Ilford Baths - do Chief Inspector John Fish and the Metropolitan Police realise that rough sleeping is not a lifestyle choice? Where would they suggest these men sleep? The police claimed they carried out this raid in the name of public. Well, we are the public - so let’s show them this isn’t what they want. Sign the petition now and help make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

UK coroner Sir Robert Owen, under pressure from Foreign Secretary William Hague, has said a legal inquest will exclude material implicating either Russia's state agencies or the UK security services. Seven years after the death of her husband, Marina Litvinenko is no closer to knowing the truth about his death. This is a travesty of justice at the heart of Westminster and a disgrace to the people of Britain. Many other lives were also put at risk - in London, Moscow and Hamburg and on planes and vehicles in which the Polonium was transported. The public deserves an answer too. see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22579463 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/17/alexander-litvinenko-widow-slams-william-hague?INTCMP=SRCH

Refuge supports a number of families who have lost loved ones to domestic violence. Rachael Slack and her two-year-old son Auden were killed by Rachael’s ex partner Andrew Cairns in June 2010, after Rachael had reported Cairns to the police for stalking and threatening to kill her. Derbyshire Police failed to tell Rachael that she and Auden were at high risk of serious harm or homicide from Cairns. An inquest found that police failures contributed to Rachael and Auden's deaths. Maria Stubbings was murdered by her former partner, Marc Chivers – a man already known to the police for killing a previous girlfriend – in December 2008. In the days leading up to her death, Maria called the police to ask for help, but none came. When the police attended the house, they took Chivers at his word when he told them she had gone on holiday. By the time they carried out a thorough search of the house on 19th December, Maria was already dead. The IPCC found that Essex Police made a catalogue of failures in their response to her. Rachael Slack and her two-year-old son Auden were killed by Rachael’s ex partner Andrew Cairns in June 2010, after Rachael had reported Cairns to the police for stalking and threatening to kill her. Derbyshire Police failed to tell Rachael that she and Auden were at high risk of serious harm or homicide from Cairns. An inquest found that police failures contributed to Rachael and Auden's deaths. Sabina Akhtar was stabbed to death by her husband in September 2008, two months after she told the police he had assaulted her and threatened to kill her. Malik Mannan had been arrested less than a month before her death for assault, but the CPS released him without charging him. Social services had received three separate referrals relating to Sabina and her two-year-old son – but closed the case without even doing an initial risk assessment. An inquest found that serious failings had been made by Greater Manchester Police, Manchester Social Services and the Crown Prosecution Service which may possibly have contributed to Sabina’s death. Cassie Hasanovic was killed by her estranged husband in front of her two young children as she attempted to flee to a refuge. An inquest into her death found that Kent Police had failed to arrest Hajrudin Hasanovic for breaching his bail conditions, and that the CPS did not take a number of steps to safeguard Cassie’s life, including failing to apply for Hajrudin’s bail to be withdrawn and failing to inform Cassie of the special measures that might have been available to assist her in giving evidence against him. The inquest also found that Sussex Police officers were inadequately trained in domestic violence. Numerous investigations into the handling of domestic violence have shown recurring failings across the country. Many women using our services also tell us that they feel completely let down by the police, and other state agencies. We urgently need a public inquiry to investigate why these failures keep happening. Individual reports put the spotlight on individual police forces and local agencies – but no-one is looking at the national picture. A public inquiry will make links between different cases and help improve the state response to domestic violence across the country. Refuge, along with families who have lost loved ones to domestic violence, are determined to create real change - for Maria, Rachael, Sabina, Cassie, and countless other women. Please add your voice to this campaign. Find out more about domestic violence and our campaign for a public inquiry at http://refuge.org.uk/publicinquiry

Affected borrowers will pay substantially more than they believed they would be paying. If one lender is allowed to get away with changing mortgage terms in this way what's to stop other mortgage lenders copying them? You may not be affected by this change but stopping Bank of Ireland might prevent your mortgage lender imposing unfair terms on your mortgage in the future. No borrower with a tracker rate mortgage can afford to allow Bank of Ireland to get away with this.

For two and a half years we have been trying to find out the circumstances surrounding the death of our son, Andrew, in France in September 2010. Throughout the process of organising a post mortem, trying to work with the French authorities to understand what happened, and trying to work with the Foreign Commonwealth Office we have been faced with many struggles and barriers in gaining access to all the answers we, as a family, need about Andrew’s death. We are currently at the third stage of appeal, desperate to understand the circumstances of our son’s death, but the Foreign Office is refusing to release this information as they claim it could damage relations between France and the UK. Andrew was living in France with his French girlfriend. He was heavily medicated without choice, for a degree of paranoid schizophrenia. He wanted to return home to the UK but his partner prevented him from doing this. The day before he was found dead he told his partner that he wanted to return to the UK. Even in the weeks before he died he had spoken to family members about returning home. Andrew could talk to anyone, he saw everyone as a friend. In the UK he always enjoyed people’s company and this was denied to him in France. From the age of 12 he played chess and before and after he studied Maths at Leeds University he played at County level. He worked at PGL activity centres and loved his guitar. His company will always be missed. As a family we not only feel we have a right to this information, but that any family in the future who may go through similar circumstances in finding out about a loved one’s death in the UK or abroad should have access to all information in the case. The Foreign Office should only be able to withhold information if it’s in the interest of national security, not because they want to prevent embarrassment as seems to be the case in our terrible situation, a situation many families find themselves in. We therefore ask William Hague to please appeal to the Information Commissioners Office to rule in our favour and finally release to us all the details of Andrew’s death. We want him to stop allowing the Foreign Commonwealth Office to use the broad language in Section 27 of the Freedom of Information act to refuse to release information to grieving families who need to understand the details of their loved ones death. The UK government’s need to save face should not be put above its citizen’s need for answers during such a traumatic time.