a) EXTEND CLAUSE 12 TO COVER GROUPS AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS When Sun columnist Katie Hopkins referred to asylum seekers and migrants as ‘cockroaches’, ‘a swarm’, ‘a plague’ a ‘virus’ ; ‘vagrants’ ‘feral humans’ - who if they did reach our shores turned our towns into ‘festering sores’”, she did not in any way breach Press Organisation standards, according to the IPSO ruling, which was again defended by its chief executive Matt Tee a few days ago. “In terms of the Editors’ Code, there wasn’t anything that could lead to a successful complaint against that column.” he said in his statement. And that’s because the Code is inadequate. In its ruling, this Press self-regulatory body said it could not even CONSIDER the complaints under the element of its Editors' Code of Practice dealing with discrimination, (Clause 12) as, although this “specifically prohibits prejudicial or pejorative reference to individuals” its terms “do not restrict publications’ commentary on GROUPS OR CATEGORIES OF people”. (Emphasis mine) But on those terms therefore, the IPSO Code of Practice would allow publications to use similarly vile language, about the disabled, about any racial or religious group, about people of a particular sexual orientation or gender identity, just so long as the comment referred to the group as a whole, and not to any specific individual. At present, under the section headed Discrimination, the IPSO Code states : i) The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. We suggest that the words “or group’s” simply be added, between the words “individual’s” and “race” --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following publication of Hopkins' column, other newspaper columnists expressed their horror at her remarks, more than 300,000 people signed a petition calling for her to be fired, and the High Commissioner of the United Nations expressed his deep concern. GENEVA “. . . in the wake of a recent article in the Sun newspaper calling migrants “cockroaches,” the UN Human Rights Chief . . urged the U.K. authorities, media and regulatory bodies to take steps to curb incitement to hatred by British tabloid newspapers” UK LAWS dealing with hate crimes and hate speech, DO outlaw expressions of hatred against ‘groups’ of people (see below). And they state that a person is guilty of an offence if by his/her actions “(s)he intends to stir up . . . hatred, or . . hatred is likely to be stirred up. “ The Public Order Act 1986, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 all say “ . . hatred means hatred against a group of persons . . . (defined by reference to race, religion, or sexual orientation.) Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 a crime is considered to be ‘aggravated’ if the offence is motivated by [general] “hostility towards persons . . “ (plural) - who have a disability. Surely the wording of the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice, with reference to discrimination, should at the very least then, reflect the current standard of UK law. _______________________________________________________ Concern about free speech Of course there could be and should be concern, and continuous debate, about free speech, but the Code already insists that it must not be interpreted in such a way as to “infringe the fundamental right to freedom of expression – such as to inform, to be partisan, to challenge, shock, be satirical and to entertain – or prevent publications in the public interest. “ Nevertheless, it also says that this should be balanced with respect for the rights of the individual. ______________________________________________________________________ b) Urging IPSO to better ENFORCE its “Editors’ Code of Practise” Even as it stands, in HAVING a clause about discrimination, IPSO presumably intends to promote an atmosphere of treating with respect and dignity, (even if not making them immune to criticism), individuals belonging to those groups which the law deems to be in need of particular protection in this area. And its Code of Practice states “it is essential that an agreed Code be honoured not only to the letter, but in the full spirit “ Even if migrants and asylum seekers do not constitute an identifiable racial or religious group, (part of Matt Tee’s defence about IPSO’s ruling ) it is difficult to see how they would not be included within the SPIRIT OF a Code which says “The press must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual's race, colour, religion . . “ , within the spirit of a Code which seeks to protect children and vulnerable adults, and which affords particular consideration for those experiencing personal grief or shock. It may be too late to get a better ruling on The Sun/Katie Hopkins case, but the Press must regulate itself against allowing a proliferation of such hateful language about human beings in its publications, by extending its Editors’ Code of Practice in the way suggested, and by better enforcing the Code. That is, if its claim that it “sets the framework for the highest professional standards that members of the press . . .have undertaken to maintain” – is to mean anything at all.

Imagine the nuclear bombs in our country went off, leaving our nation a wasteland and we had to flee to mainland Europe or Africa, should they turn us away because we're refugees? Because we're of another faith or skin colour? Would other nations letting us die be okay? Chances are you said, no, so how is it okay for us to let thousands of people die every day trying to escape war. War that we created. They're trying to escape the IS, they're trying to escape the bombs that France, America and We drop on them. We need to do more. These are human beings and we are letting them die.

Restricting the times when alchohol can be purchased, does not deter the alchohol dependent from binge drinking in our streets or at home. It does however, discriminate against those of us who work long shifts and are unable to purchase their shopping during "normal" hours.

Darryl could be any one of hundreds of people in this city. He has clearly fallen through the cracks and is caught up in some Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare. He needs a home. He is not alone.

Small companies are already under massive strains with various levies/taxes/regulations compliance costs and often only make a small profit. When thieves steal goods from them they will struggle to replace those goods, which are often essential to trade and may force them to become unemployed through no fault of their own. Small businesses need support!

Thousands of people rely on Southern Trains to get to and from work everyday. The service in 2016 has been appalling. Season tickets cost thousands of pounds a year, and Southern aren't delivering. Season Ticket holders can claim money back for a delayed train but why should they? Sometimes for as many as 10 trains a week can be late. Yes, every journey to work. Having lost hours of their lives on crowded platforms or crammed in over-packed trains, why would customers then want to waste more time filling out a form accounting for every minute of their journey? Why should they record every moment of their crummy journey home? Just finally catching a train and finally making it home is a relief. Why make them relive it? This is causing strife to thousands. Thousands of late appointments, delayed starts, working lates to catch up. Missed bedtimes. Nurses and doctors unable to get to their patients on time. How do they get money back? Waste more of their time filling out a form. You can't even keep up with processing all the claims, so why try? Stop wasting money on a pointless paper chasing exercise and just give people their money back. Come on Southern Trains, you know your service is rubbish. You know your customers have suffered enough. Do the decent thing, give them a rebate on their season ticket, without them having to ask for it.

The issue of Red or Blue passport covers is not an important one, yet this politician wants to waste government time and people's money when we have more important issues, like Brexit negotiations, to focus on.

We are a nation that deploys millions of pounds in overseas aid each year, yet can't address this major problem immediately on our doorstep. After the Government was shamed into agreeing to take 3000 child refugees from Calais, no actual action has been taken despite the ongoing and continuous risk to these very young children. Three months on, nothing has been done. Let's bring about serious change in the way we treat children fleeing war.

We have had a coop store in Over Hulton since the turn of the last century. The store is the hub of the community, also housing the local post office. Other stores in the near locality have also been selected for takeover by McColl's, leaving residents without local access to a coop store. Residents do not want R.S. McColls, they do not provide the same range or ethical quality of goods that that Coop sells and do not provide the member services offered by the Cooperative organisation. A petition has been instigated by myself and Denise Sullivan another resident and over the course of just one week we have collected 15000 signatures in support of our cause, including our local MP who lives in the vicinity.

The public have the right to know whether Margaret Thatcher used her influence to secure a construction contract for her son. Clive Whitmore, Mrs Thatcher’s principal private secretary from 1979 to 1982, is quoted as saying in his book: “Mark was driven by greed and reluctant to pass up any opportunity.” The i Newspaper recently reported - Mark's files 'to stay secret until 2053' Downing Street files relating to the controversial business dealings of Sir Mark Thatcher in 1984 have not been released under official 20-year rules. Why, what is there to hide? It's not as if national security is threatened.

His final and lasting recommendations (including an award for his wife's stylist!) reek of croneyism and will only serve to diminish any reverence for, or belief in, the Honours System. It is time for a thorough review of the rules and practices governing these matters.

George Osborne developed and implemented one of the most devastating economic policies in modern history. Not only was the programme a disaster for the poorest Britons, his "austerity" economic policy was based on a lie. The policies he developed could not be supported by any sound economic theories and time and time again these policies were proven to be a disaster for the poorest people in the UK. The economic research used to push forward his programme was proven to be false as early as 2010. As a direct result millions of people in the UK were forced into a volunteer work scheme where they were forced to work up to 30 hours a week for free. This allowed large companies to benefit from free labour and increase their profits. The scheme collapsed after six months due to the public outcry. When Osborne became chancellor of the exchequer there were just over 61,000 people in the UK using food banks. After 6 years of his disastrous austerity programme there are now over a million Britons who rely on food banks to survive. The "bedroom tax" and other cuts to benefits lead to an increase in poverty amongst disabled people and the austerity measures undoubtedly had a bigger impact on women and the poorest of households. The austerity programme was hastily abandoned by Theresa May's government but the disastrous impacts will be seen for decades to come. The austerity programme implemented by Osborne pushed more Britons into poverty. Osborne should not receive any awards for making millions of people worse off.