Our government is forcing schools to become academies against the majority consensus. They are ignoring parents, schools and local authorities. They are using bullying tactics to hand schools to academy chains, run by major Tory donors. They are not only forcing failing schools but good ones and allowing these chains to cherry pick good schools to give academy policy credibility. Parents all over the UK are starting to organise themselves. 'Parents Against Forced Academies' are calling for a public enquiry into the bullying and likely corruption endemic to forced academy process. Decisions about handing over our public schools to academy chains are being made behind closed doors without proper consultation or transparency.

Please join us in our fight for our Education system and our democracy.

The underlying anti-democratic nature of the Department of Education's handling of these matters points unequivocally to a hidden agenda of privatisation. This is fuelled by political self-interest, by party donations, lobbying and future job offers beyond parliament.

Privatisation will only serve the elite and the sooner it is challenged the better. And the rhetoric that Academies will solve all problems is based on very weak foundations. They are increasingly selective of pupil intake, channel funds to executive figures away from teachers, operate dangerously strict pupil codes of conduct and have increasingly fast teacher turnaround. As parents, this is not what we want for our children or our country.

This issue has largely fallen under the media radar and public awareness. It deserves to be front page news and brought to public attention. Education is our future.

We strongly believe that this issue mirrors the NHS privatisation which has fuelled much public outrage. The public deserves to know what is happening to Education too.

This is a serious request at a serious time, and we urge you to support us.

Parents Against Forced Academies

Lyme disease is frequently misdiagnosed, in the early stages as flu, cellulitis, rash, fevers; in the late stages as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME), fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease (ALS), lupus, glandular fever etc. Despite many of these latter syndromes having no diagnostic test or treatment, a diagnosis is made due to the lyme test being negative in many cases. Yet a paper by the former head of the lyme borreliosis unit showed 14% of screening tests do not pick up a borrelia infection (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21117376), without a positive screening test the NHS will not pursue further testing or diagnosis of lyme disease. In glandular fever, 3 negative tests aren't sufficient to rule out a diagnosis, yet in lyme the NHS/HPA refuse to accept the possibility that their current tests are inadequate.

In the lucky early cases identified by the erythema migrans rash or those detected by blood test between 7 and 28 days of antibiotics are prescribed. This is also insufficient (http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/43/6/704.full and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21117376) with documented cases of active infection continuing post treatment - these cases will not be treated any further by the NHS. Other cases may relapse many years after the original infection, this is not treated by the NHS either.

Lyme disease can be complicated by a number of co-infections including bartonella and babesia - non-classical presentations of these infections due to altered immune response from multiple infections are not accepted by the NHS either.

Testing, diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease and its co-infections are completely inadequate in the UK. NHS guidelines are based on flawed American guidelines, which suffered heavily from conflicts of interest by panel members, and are based on the American, not European strain of the bacteria; they need to be updated to reflect current research, European presentations and the interests of patients who have to leave the country to get proper treatment.

www.pop-campaign.co.uk and www.facebook.com/bottlestopnow are campaigning for glasses to be replaced with polycarbonate glass and glass bottles to be replaced with PET bottles in night clubs and late night bars in towns and city centres.

In the early hours of 4th April 2012, Phil Sherriff was the victim of an attack at a corporate event in London. He was stabbed in the left side of the neck with a bottle severing the two main arteries. He lost five pints of blood. Despite the Royal London Hospital team's best efforts, the blood loss caused severe brain damage, which, over four days, led to his brain dying completely and his ventilator being turned off in the early hours of 8th April. His death is devastating to his family and friends. His widow, Jane, wants to ensure that this tragedy cannot be allowed to happen again.

This issue is gathering steam, and was raised by Ian Lucas MP in Parliament this week. Jane's objective is to secure the necessary 100,000 signatures to trigger a Commons debate. Currently she and her fellow campaigner, Marjorie Golding, have 45,000 signatures.

The decimation of Equality of Arms by stealth.

So we have:

1)Secret courts -2)The end of legal aid for 650,000-3)A 77% cut in legal aid funding to the not-for-profit sector-4)The complete removal of legal aid across wide areas of law-5)An attack on the ability to challenge the state with restrictions to judicial review-6)Huge fees for Tribunals of up to £1,200 coming this summer-7)Real threats to criminal legal aid-8)Increase of the general unfair dismissal qualification from 1 to 2 years-9)Reductions in the consultation period for redundancy-10)Compulsory shares for the abandonment of rights-11)The end of crucial protections in discrimination such as questionnaires and protection from 3rd party harassment-12)The end of protection from discrimination across the UK with the reduction of legal aid providers from 179 to 3 and face to face advice only based in the North of England after going through a telephone gateway-13)The cutting in half of the funding of the Equality and Human Rights Commission-14)A breach of an undertaking to Parliament on legal aid in welfare benefits hearings on points of law-15)Threats to legal aid for prisoners-16)Threats to remove human rights protections

As of the 1 April 2013, reforms to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO) came into force, eliminating critical areas of law from the scope of civil legal aid. The cuts mean that individuals needing desperate advice in essential areas of their lives, such as social welfare, debt, employment, family problems, clinical negligence, divorce and housing problems will be denied help. e.g you will not now be able to get any family legal aid advice whatsoever unless there is evidence of domestic violence.

To add insult to injury, new proposals have just been issued to further annihilate the legal aid help that can be given to people in their hour of need.

Please sign this petition now to stop these further cuts being approved and to stop the devastation of our legal system and the protection of the vulnerable through Equality of Arms as we know it.

Money

To attempt to justify further cuts to the vulnerable where the government motto has become ‘rob the poor to feed the rich’ the government are pleading ‘the coffers are dry etc...these fat cat legal aid lawyers are taking it from us to help the poor...sob sob’ This is simply not true. These cuts will cost the public more and simply result in one type of justice for the rich; the rest be damned.

Lord Justice Neuberger told the BBC: "My worry is the removal of legal aid for people to get advice about law and get representation in court will start to undermine the rule of law because people will feel like the government isn't giving them access to justice in all sorts of cases.

"And that will either lead to frustration and lack of confidence in the system, or it will lead to people taking the law into their own hands."

Lord Neuberger also said another problem would be the increase in the number of people who represent themselves in court because they could not afford or get legal aid for a lawyer,

"This will mean that court hearings will last longer, the burden on court staff and judges will increase," he said.

"And you may find the savings the government thinks it's making in legal aid will be offset in other costs of courts and judges and court staff in supporting litigants in person."

New cuts

The new cuts propose to:

• only allow payment in judicial review cases after a judge has agreed a case is strong enough to proceed

To understand what this means- in 95% of homelessness judicial review cases if you send a good negotiating letter to your opponent setting out how they have breached the law/their obligations to your client, they will agree to settle the matter and the case will never go to court and your client and their children will be off the streets. If this cut comes in, either 1) clients will lose out as no one will get paid for taking on their case and their family will be left to rot on the streets or 2) there will be no point in trying to settle and more claims will be issued at court, resulting in higher costs and time wasted.

• Cut funding for criminal high cost cases by 30%
• the introduction of competitive tendering for legal aid contracts in a bid to drive down fees, undermining the tradition that clients can choose which lawyer represents them in court.
• stop legal aid for the majority of issues for prisoners.
• banish immigration advice for the majority of immigrants

No freedom of choice

Richard Miller, the Law Society's head of Legal Aid, said: "Client choice is widely regarded as an important driver of quality in the justice system. It is very concerning, and revealing, that the government appears prepared to sacrifice this vital principle." (through competitive tendering)

Lucy Scott Moncrieff, the president of the Law Society, said: "If it's not done properly then we are going to end up with miscarriages of justice, with people being stuck in prison far longer than they should be on remand, with witnesses not turning up, with cases not being properly prepared. It's a huge, huge risk."

Justice for all?!

Regarding the further cuts proposed, Shadow justice minister Lord Bach - the former legal aid minister told Today that, "at a time of recession and also at a time now of big welfare reform, to take away the ability of people to get free legal advice when they need it is absolutely scandalous".

Cuts should not be made "where you're attacking, frankly, the very poorest and the most disadvantaged in society", he added.

"Our whole system of justice is based on equality of law - if people can't get some access to justice then why should people believe in the rule of law anymore."

Please sign this petition now to stop these further cuts being approved and to stop the devastation of our legal system and the protection of the vulnerable through Equality of Arms as we know it.

This petition and its demands are not new and if Government has been viewing the hundreds of petitions on You Tube and Social Media they will know the British Public can no longer sit by whilst companion animals are raised in the most unsanitary conditions and then sold as meat. This is not about cultural difference; this is about basic respect – as set down and signed by Stephen Hawking at the 2012 Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness- of the right of all living creatures to a minimum standard of welfare.
The Korean Government by its own admission despite September protests by Dog Farmers in Seoul has not granted legalization of this industry. Yet they allow “ farms” to raise dogs who are kept in cages and fed on food not fit for human consumption and other dead dogs to continue. They allow transportation methods that flout all international standards. They allow markets such as MORAN MEAT market to flourish where Pedigree Dogs and Former Pets are electrocuted and boiled in full view of market visitors.
The government turned a blind eye to South Korea burying alive 8 million livestock in 2011 during the foot and mouth crisis. How can the British public attend the 2018 winter games with a clear conscience? Its time to address this issue and act!

Under new proposals, the government will force GP surgeries to hand over YOUR medical records to a central NHS database. Privacy campaigners say "this is the biggest data grab in NHS history".

Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at Cambridge University reported ‘Under these proposals, medical confidentiality is, in effect, dead and there is currently nobody standing in the way.’ Suggestions of third parties being given access to this data make the move even more sinister. There is even talk of selling your private medical data to third parties. Imagine insurance companies and finance companies even your employer, having full access to your private medical record . . . It sends Orwellian shivers down my spine.

Please do not be mistaken, this move the by government is not in the interests of your health, and I for one will not stand this attack on my PRIVATE medical records, what about you?

Further information

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272166/Big-brother-log-drinking-habits-waist-size.html
http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2013/02/patient-records-out-of-patient-control.html#more-5125

Most people still believe that one has to be considered 'innocent until proven guilty' in any criminal legal proceedings, but this is no longer true in practice. The Government would argue otherwise but this is only because they have redefined the word "prove".

The fact is that if somebody makes a false allegation against you, the Government consider that false allegation to be "proof" and you can be convicted solely on that person's word; all the prosecution have to do is make the jury choose to believe your accuser rather than yourself. "Proof beyond reasonable doubt" has now turned into "Who do you choose to believe?".

Appealing such convictions is extremely difficult because whilst convictions can be achieved on somebody's false word, appeals cannot be won without much stronger proof, based on fresh evidence, that the conviction is unsafe.

Being innocent is not grounds for appeal. An appeal cannot be based on the fact that the jury got it wrong. Most people do not realise this.

One clear example is when someone makes a false allegation of a sexual nature (often to obtain 'compensation' money, win a custody battle, or just 'get back' at someone they've fallen out with); Section 32 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 abolished the obligation on judges to give the jury a warning about convicting the accused on the uncorroborated say-so of someone else. So if someone says you did it, then that's now considered to be "proof enough", and you have no safeguards, and little chance if any of an appeal even being granted, let alone successful.

The safeguards which are supposed to protect the innocent are simply ineffective now. This is wholly wrong and we now need to introduce legal protection for the falsely accused.

We would call on the Government to consider changes in legislation including:

(1) Allow transcripts of jury deliberations to be made available to the defence so any errors made can be addressed.
(2) Introduce a Statute of Limitations so alleged victims cannot produce allegations many years later making it difficult for the defendant to obtain evidence to defend themselves.
(3) Allow appeals against conviction where it can be shown that the jury got it wrong.
(4) Re-oblige judges to warn juries about convicting the accused on the uncorroborated say-so of someone else.
(5) Grant anonymity to all those accused of a crime until the point of conviction

The number and range of environmental campaigns run by 38 Degrees reflects the fact that there is increasing pressure on the countryside in all sorts of ways. Government and Big Business seem to view it solely as the obvious place to put new infrastructure. Some is so unwelcome (eg underground nuclear waste storage, waste incinerators) that there is immediate and unequivocal outrage locally that everyone in the country can understand. Some (wind farms, runways, roads and railways) are trickier because they are seen as beneficial on a wide scale but are still disastrous locally.
But in the end all these things have to go somewhere and some campaigns against them will fail. In the case of Nuclear Waste Storage, it is now only a matter of time before the Government puts away the carrot and gets out the big stick.
When a major infrastructure project goes ahead the only recourse to compensation, unless you are one of the relatively fortunate people whose property is compulsorily purchased, is the 1974 Land Compensation Act. The Act was never designed to cope with modern infrastructure projects which often have many years between inception and completion. Even then it only compensates for physical detrimental effects such as noise, pollution, etc with no provision for blight or loss of amenity or, in the case of business, loss of trade or profit and in the case of tenants, private individuals or businesses, nothing at all. The 1974 Land Compensation Act is no longer fit for purpose and must be changed.
A revised Act should state that the cost of fully compensating everyone affected by an infrastructure project, financially or in quality of life, must be a) included in the forecast cost of the project and b) borne by the promoters and beneficiaries of the project. Environmental Impact and Business Case are automatically assessed for new infrastructure projects. By enshrining liability for compensation into the cost of the project we will ensure that three, instead of two, vital questions are asked whenever such a project is proposed:
Is it environmentally sound?
Is it financially viable?
Is it socially acceptable?

Theresa May has announced that, in an attempt to deport radical cleric Abu Qatada, the government is considering a temporary withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights.

May intends to appeal directly to the Supreme Court to overturn it's decision to not return Qatada to Jordan to face trial. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the potential for a trial based on torture-obtained evidence was a violation of his human rights, so he remains, for now, in the UK.

If May's appeal is rejected, a treaty between Jordan and the UK would come into play to deport Qatada. The temporary withdrawal of the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights is another option being explored by the prime minister.

This is completely unacceptable - even as a potential option it should be unthinkable, and the public should let this government know that human rights are not something we will compromise on.

It is unethical to 'temporarily' remove yourself from the European Convention on Human Rights. Either you stand up for human rights, or you do not. There is no 'temporary' removal. The people of the UK should take a stand. We believe in human rights. This government works for us, and we refuse to let them even consider taking that away, temporarily or otherwise.

Sanctuary for Mrs S and family

Home Office ref: S1391610/1

Mrs S and two of her children arrived in the UK in November 2007 after suffering 15 years of violence in Egypt. Her youngest daughter remained behind and was helped by the Home Office to be reunited with the family safely in the UK. Despite this her case has now been refused and all rights of appeal have been exhausted. The whole family is under serious threat of honour-based violence and possibly even death if deported back to Egypt.

Mrs S has been seeking sanctuary from an abusive and cruel husband whose acts endangered her and her children’s lives for over 15 years to the extent of death and rape. The Egyptian authorities ignored this domestic abuse as her husband has close links with police, judges and other officials.

Mrs S should be granted international protection under the UN Refugee Convention as she holds a real and well-founded fear of persecution of her own life and that of her family. We call upon the Immigration Minister to grant Mrs S and her children the right to remain in the UK on compassionate grounds.

http://www.facebook.com/SaveSalehFamily?ref=stream

The UK has more asthma per head of population than any other country. The WHO has linked damp building to asthma and mould.The government introduced Housing Health and Safety Rating System which classifies mould as a class 1 hazard in the same category as asbestos.Unfortuntely people are sick and dying from mould and related toxins but there is no acceptance or measurment available from doctors or NHS. Mould causes terrible debilitating illness including ME CFS and a host of skin respiratory symptoms. The UK apparently leads the world in ignorance and apathy.Help form a national concensus of the problem and route to prevention and safety.

NAPAC (NAPAC: National Association for People Abused in Childhood) is an organisation set up to help those who have been affected by childhood abuse.
We are very passionate students who have researched about this issue because it has come to our attention that there are many charities supporting children currently dealing with child abuse however not many tackle the issues of those currently dealing with post-trauma effects.
From the case studies available on the NAPAC website it is clear that many people have been affected by abuse that they received in the past as a child.
We want as many people to get involved, take action and raise awareness about the issue.

I am a member of the rapidly uniting and expanding None Of The Above movement. What we are trying to achieve, ultimately, is a simple, democratic pre-requisite: the inclusion of an official None Of The Above option on the UK ballot paper (NOTA). Without this option, it is impossible to register a vote of no confidence in all of the candidates and parties put forward at election time. Abstaining is not the same thing as it is simply excluding yourself, which can be interpreted as not caring one way or the other. Spoiling the ballot is not the same thing either as all such ballots are counted as 'spoilt in error' and never as the protest votes that they actually are, rendering any spoilt vote figure meaningless. It is necessary, and indeed essential, for the electorate to be able to officially register a vote of no confidence in this way if, as is now the case in the UK, the only possible winners at election time are bought and paid for candidates and parties inclined to represent corporate/special interests only and nothing else. In the UK, general elections are a two horse race where only two parties stand any realistic chance of forming a government, either with a clear majority or in agreement with much smaller parties in a coalition, and neither of these parties have any need or desire, in the current system, to represent the will of the people. As such, ours is now a fully corporatist system of government. Benito Mussolini is quoted as saying: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism since it is the merger of state and corporate power." He was right - the dangers of this are self evident. When government is only really answerable to corporate/special interests, it cannot possibly avoid becoming corrupt and totalitarian in its policy making. NOTA would offer a viable method for disaffected voters (not to mention the roughly 40% who currently see no reason to participate in elections at all) to register their discontent in a meaningful way and by its mere existence would represent the first small step (of many) towards fully democratising this country and removing the dangerous influence that corporate power currently has over our system of government. Answers to the most frequently asked questions regarding NOTA can be found in the about section of this facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/NOTAUK. Please also join and share this group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/164424433706365/

There have been multiple media campaigns against the Liverpool Care Pathway. This is NOT my experience and not the experience of nearly 10,000 Facebook followers of -

https://www.facebook.com/ISupportTheLiverpoolCarePathway

I have personal and professional experience of the “Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient”. My experiences have been positive. I believe that the Liverpool Care Pathway document is there to promote communication, care and comfort for someone who is dying. It helps healthcare staff monitor for symptoms that people commonly experience when they are dying and ensures these symptoms are managed properly to ensure comfort. The document highlights the
importance of communication between healthcare teams, patients and their loved-ones.

This is MY experience and I would like to give the public who also have positive experiences to support the Liverpool Care Pathway.

The media are not interested in good news story which has made the debate highly one sided. We feel that what people are campaigning against is poor care (as are we) and if they read the Liverpool Care Pathway document they would see that many of their concerns are addressed and in fact most people are asking for the guidance to be followed fully. See -

http://www.liv.ac.uk/media/livacuk/mcpcil/migrated-files/liverpool-care-pathway/updatedlcppdfs/LCP_V12_Core_Documentation_FINAL_(Example).pdf

There are many common misconceptions - For example:

-End-of-life medications are not medications to end life! They are called "anticipatory medications". They are to manage symptoms common when someone is in the process of dying (pain, breathlessness, restlessness, agitation, excessive chest secretions, nausea and vomiting). They are given at the lowest dose possible to achieve comfort and NO MORE. They tend to be injectable because the patient is semi-conscious and/or unable to swallow because of the extreme weakness they experience from dying. That is semi-conscious from dying and not semi-conscious from giving medication. Medication is written up on the prescription chart automatically in case it is needed with urgency, but they are not automatically given. They are given ONLY when they are needed. There is nothing worse than a patient in pain, a nurse present to give the pain medication but no prescription for that nurse to give pain medication. Without these medications a patient will still be semi-conscious to unconscious and/or unable to swallow but have no options available to them to ensure comfort. The Liverpool Care Pathway ensures medication is available AND prescribed when someone is in the process of dying and that is why I support the Liverpool Care Pathway.

- The Liverpool Care Pathway does not ask for food and drink to withheld or withdrawn. What the LCP actually asks for is the patient to be supported to eat and drink for as long as possible and that the patient receives receives fluids to support their individual needs

- In my experience, the LCP neither hastens nor postpones death and it is not code for assisted dying or euthanasia

- The LCP is to help a dying person and not help a person die.

- All medications, investigations and interventions are reviewed but not necessarily stopped. The benefit of an intervention is weighed up against the discomfort and harm it will cause. The LCP asks for all interventions be considered and a individualised plan of care to be designed.

The reason the LCP was developed was to transfer the excellent end of life care patients experience in a hospice to every setting whether it be home, hospital or care home.

Everyone dies and everyone deserves a comfortable death. What the public have read in the media is often factually incorrect about what the LCP says and does. I am not against those wishing to highlight poor care but I am against campaigns fueled by misinformation where those who experienced good care are totally ignored.

I support the Liverpool Care Pathway and MANY other people do as well... BUT WE HAVE NO VOICE!