All people contribute towards the National Insurance scheme under exactly the same rules.

All people qualify for their state pension under exactly the same rules, based on years of NI contributions.

When it comes time to pay the state pension different rules are applied depending on where you happen to live.

If you live in the UK and in 40 overseas countries, your state pension is uprated for inflation each year.

If you live in mainly Commonwealth countries your state pension is frozen at the rate at which it is first paid, or as at the date of migration. This means that over time the real purchasing power of the state pension in Commonwealth countries declines over the years, so that after, say, 25 years, it may be about a quarter of the current pension level.

To rectify this problem it would cost less than 1% of the total state pension bill.

Apparently there is an unwritten cross political party agreement not to fix this problem.

Pensioners who have chosen to go overseas to be with their children and grand children in retirement in Commonwealth countries are penalised for doing so, or disouraged from seeing their children and grand children again.

Overseas pensioners have been fighting this discrimination, based on country of residence, for over 25 years.

They could really do with a hand from people living in the UK to help them, to lobby on their behalf and to try to over turn this unfair, injust and inequal practice, which is based on historical accident and which even government ministers have admitted, has no logic to it.

On 13th of July 2011, the government published a consultation paper:"Options
for dealing with Squatting". The consultation period ends on 5th October
2011 so we need to act NOW to be heard.

The proposals outlined would affect a much wider community than those who
identify as squatters;

- tenants would be at risk from unscrupulous landlords,

- worker and student occupations would be illegal, as would peace and climate camps.

- Police discretion is considered as a way of determining who is or is not a squatter

- violent and forcible eviction of squatters would be legal

- Anyone who used a squatted social centre or venue could be labelled a squatter, regardless of whether they actually lived there.

And this is the last of our ancestral rights to go.

For hundreds of years, we have had the right to live in abandoned buildings. Just as the government took away our land and rights to use common land in the past, now they are attacking our right to shelter.

In 2009 there were 725,000 empty homes – the government estimate the number of squatters in England and Wales at 20,000: squatting is not the problem, it is part of the solution.

We have a problem fighting this. The consultation paper pretends to be
speaking for the normal, respectable person although it is clear enough that
the interests being promoted are those of big developers and property
speculators.

The negative images of squatters spread in the media in recent months make
it hard for us to convince people that this is not a 'squatter' consultation
but an attack on the human right to shelter that will impact most heavily on
the most vulnerable people in society. These are standard divide and rule
tactics.

please see:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/dealing-with-squatters.htm
www.squashcampaign.org
www.squattastic.blogspot.com

One reduction included in the coalition Government's budget cuts last week was the removal of the mobility allowance part of Disability Living Allowance for adult disabled people living in residential care.

Without mobility payments, getting out of the house for even simple things like going to the library or GP will be impossible for some disabled people, and their quality of life will be severly affected, in exchange for a relatively tiny sum of money being saved.

This is part of the Chancellor's proposed budget cuts and is not yet law. So there is still time to try and make Parliament change their minds on this!

Campaign to force the DWP (department of work and pensions) to release the software (LIMA) used by ATOS at benefit assessments for incapacity benefit, and ESA (employment and support allowance).

This software is owned by the DWP, and the DWP gets royalties when other companies use it.

Despite heavy critisicm of both the software, and the system in general, from many parties, the sick are routinely being denied benefits due to incorrect assessments.

We believe the software is not fit for purpose, and if it was made available to the public, for inspection, then it could be proved to be not fit for purpose.

The DWP will not allow the public, nor MP's, nor tribunals, not even the people who set benefit law, to inspect the software.

They claim it will cause contract problems, as well as other spurious claims.

One claim is it only runs on ATOS hardware, that is not true, it is standard software running on standard equipment.
Another that some people put forward is it could enable duplication of the software (commercial interests would be put at risk) - we argue who would want to copy something that is failing the sick in such great numbers?
The logic and protocols behind the software are all publicly available so it could be written from scratch anyway - the only reason for a copy of this software is to show it is not fit for purpose.

Obviously showing it is not fit for purpose WILL damage their commercial interests, but so what - do the commercial interests of the DWP and ATOS come before the rights of the sick and disabled, is money more important than justice?

This is software funded by the TAXPAYER and they should have the right to know if the correct means are being used to classify who is sick and who is fit for work.

The Government commissioned Liz Sayce to conduct a review of the provision of support for the employment of the disabled in the UK. Published in June the Sayce Review principle suggestion is the Remploy a NGD under the DWP is closed or moved into the private sector. This would effectively mean the closure of 54 factories and the redundancy of over 2,500 disabled workers.

The choice of Liz Sayce is surprising as she is known in the sector to be opposed to Remploy, and was signatory too an open letter to the Guardian Newspaper in 2007 calling for Remploy to be closed. Secondly the Government consultation period for this review has been timed to coincide with the Parliamentary summer recess. On the day the report was published, and before any consultation was begun, the Government published its response saying that “It was minded to accept its recommendations”. I would allow you to draw your own conclusions!