1. Mandating safeguarded 24/7 on-site helipad access across all Major Trauma Centres and specialist hospitals. 2. Embedding hospital helipad provision within NHS standards and commissioning. 3. Strengthening national and local planning policy to recognise and safeguard hospital helipads as critical infrastructure.   4. Ensuring consistent national application of the UK Civil Aviation Authority safety and operational standards.    5.  Establishing a National Emergency Hospital Helipad Infrastructure Contingency Fund to support helipad builds or upgrades where demand exceeds the HELP Appeal’s capacity, or where urgent intervention is needed.  6. Undertaking an independent national review of the UK’s hospital helipad infrastructure. When someone is seriously injured or critically ill, air ambulances provide urgent care at the scene and help transport patients quickly to Major Trauma Centres or specialist hospitals. But what happens when they arrive at hospital is just as important as getting there. Across the UK, many Major Trauma Centres and specialist hospitals do not have safeguarded 24/7 on-site helipads. This means air ambulances are often required to land at alternative off-site secondary locations, with patients then transferred by road for the final stage of their journey. These additional steps can introduce avoidable delays in accessing specialist treatment and, in some cases, put lives at risk. Air Ambulances UK’s research shows that over half of Major Trauma Centre and specialist hospital sites are either unable, or not consistently able, to support full operational capability for 24/7 on-site access. In some cases, these critical hospitals do not have an operational helipad at all. The UK’s air ambulance network is made up of 21 independent charities. They operate separately from the NHS and receive no day-to-day Government funding, relying instead on generous public donations to deliver pre-hospital emergency care. However, they still depend on NHS hospital infrastructure to complete the patient journey into definitive care. Where 24/7 on-site hospital helipad access is not available, patients not only experience delays in reaching specialist treatment, but this also places additional pressure and cost on ambulance services and hospital teams due to the need for additional transfers. This campaign is about ensuring that the NHS system is fully prepared to receive air ambulance patients directly on-site, without avoidable delay, at any time of day or night. Major Trauma Centre and specialist hospital helipads should be protected and recognised as essential NHS infrastructure, so that patients can be transferred directly to the care they need in critical situations.

It’s so cruel, just think of something you love being ripped apart and that’s what these poor foxes have to put up with. Because I love all animals and they have a right to live without fear and death 

We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned about the proposed closure of Cylch Meithrin Nawmor at Ysgol Cenarth. The Cylch provides essential childcare and wraparound provision for local families, supporting children’s early development and enabling parents to work. There are currently no suitable alternative childcare options available in the local area. The facility used by the Cylch was developed with public funding specifically to support childcare provision for the community. The loss of this service would have a significant impact on families and raises important concerns about access to childcare locally. We respectfully call on all relevant parties to: • reconsider the decision to remove this provision • explore all possible alternatives to maintain childcare at this site • ensure that the needs of local families are fully considered Please support local families and children by signing this petition. As someone directly involved with Cylch Meithrin Nawmor, this issue matters deeply to me because I see every day the difference this provision makes to children and families in our community. For many parents, the Cylch is not just childcare—it is what allows them to work, to study, and to support their families. Without it, some will be left with no viable childcare options locally, facing difficult choices about employment and family life. For the children, this is a safe, familiar, and nurturing environment where they take their first steps in learning, build friendships, and grow in confidence. The thought of losing that, and the disruption it will cause at such an important stage in their development, is incredibly concerning. What makes this situation even more difficult is that there are no suitable alternatives in the area. Families are not just losing a service—they are losing a vital part of their daily lives and support network. This is about more than a building. It is about a community, its children, and ensuring that families are not left without the childcare they depend on.

Over the last few weeks, American company WAYMO has been testing autonomous vehicles in Harlesden and across London. On 22 April, a WAYMO vehicle drove through a live police cordon on Harlesden High Street while officers were investigating a double stabbing. We, the undersigned, call on the Mayor of London and Transport for London (TfL) to immediately suspend the trial and roll out of Waymo autonomous vehicles on London’s streets. We further request a police investigation into near misses and other incidents where public safety was at risk.  REASONS FOR THIS PETITION The current rollout of Waymo autonomous vehicles (AVs) across London, and specifically within the Harlesden area, is proceeding without adequate democratic oversight or proven safety protocols for complex urban environments. Our concerns are based on the following: 1. Breach of Police Cordons: Footage has emerged of a Waymo vehicle in Harlesden breaching a live police line. Such actions constitute "wilful obstruction" of the police. If a driver of a regular vehicle had committed this act, they would likely be under investigation and could face criminal prosecution. We cannot allow a "two-tier" justice system where corporate AI is exempt from the laws that govern Londoners. 2. Unresolved Safety Risks: Autonomous vehicles are struggling to navigate the "edge cases" of London’s busy streets, including responding to emergency sirens, physical police barriers, and the unpredictable movements of pedestrians and cyclists in high-density areas like Harlesden. 3. Lack of Community Consent: Residents in Brent have not been adequately consulted on this trial. Public streets are being treated as a laboratory for unproven technology without a clear framework for liability when things go wrong. 4. Extra traffic on our roads: if Waymo or any other autonomous vehicles are allowed on the streets of London, that will lead to extra traffic on our roads. It will further compromise the Mayor of London's traffic reduction aims, led by Sadiq Khan, focus on reducing overall traffic volumes by 10-15% by 2041 and cutting car kilometres by 27% by 2030 to meet Net Zero and health targets. We need more accessible and affordable public transport, instead of more cars on our roads. 5. Vision Zero Compromise : The Mayor’s "Vision Zero" strategy aims to eliminate road danger. Introducing vehicles that fail to recognise and respect police cordons is a direct contradiction of this safety goal.

As a local GP, I am increasingly concerned by rising cancer diagnoses, especially in younger people. While no single cause explains this, we should reduce avoidable exposure to chemicals in the everyday places where people live, walk, and grow up. Glyphosate (Roundup) is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, used in streets, parks, pavements, and playgrounds. It has been classified by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer as a probable carcinogen, linked to numerous cancers particularly  non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and other serious neurological illnesses including Parkinson’s Disease and infertility. This concern is reinforced by major US litigation, where Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) has faced over 100,000 legal claims relating to glyphosate exposure and cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with billions of dollars paid or set aside to settle cases. At the same time, we are facing a serious biodiversity crisis. The UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, with around 1 in 6 species at risk of extinction. A major study published in Nature identifies pesticides as a key driver of biodiversity loss. Glyphosate removes far more than weeds, it destroys wildflowers that support bees, harms aquatic life, and disrupts the soil ecosystems that healthy environments depend on. Evidence also suggests it may persist in the environment longer than previously claimed, lasting months in soils and up to a year in some pond sediments. In 2025, the UK’s first glyphosate-resistant weed was identified, raising concerns about long-term reliance on chemical weed control and diminishing effectiveness over time. We have raised this issue with Stockport Council on numerous occasions, asking for glyphosate use to be stopped. The response has repeatedly referenced cost as a barrier. We do not believe this is an acceptable reason to continue widespread chemical use in public spaces, particularly given the potential risks to health and the environment, and the availability of safer, proven alternatives already being used by other councils. Many councils across the UK and Europe, including several London boroughs, have already stopped using glyphosate. Public spaces can be managed effectively without chemical herbicides using safer, practical approaches. We are asking Stockport Council to: 1. Phase out glyphosate use within 3 years Publish a clear plan to fully end its use on council land, with immediate removal from playgrounds, schools, and children’s areas within 6-12 months. 2. Change how public spaces are managed Replace chemical spraying with mechanical removal, heat treatment, mulching, and planting schemes. In suitable areas, allow low-growing plants and wildflowers to remain instead of being removed, where safe. This supports wildlife, reduces cost, and improves urban nature without affecting safety. 3. Protect health and inform residents Reduce exposure to herbicides in shared spaces and clearly explain changes so residents understand that natural plant growth is intentional, safe, and beneficial. 4. Support biodiversity Protect pollinators, soil life, and urban wildlife by reducing chemical use and restoring natural green spaces. We ask Stockport Council to act now and commit to a glyphosate-free future within three years. References: https://www.pan-uk.org/pesticide-free/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35562999/ https://www.iarc.who.int/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00255-3/fulltext  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/17/glyphosate-weedkiller-sperm?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721004654 2021 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56732-x https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/443405/silent-earth-by-goulson-dave/9781529114423

Our park. Our community. Our responsibility — together. We love Kilburn Grange Park. Every morning, this small patch of green holds our community together — dog walkers, families, runners, children, elders, friends. It's where we breathe. Where we belong. But every summer, the same thing happens: 🗑️ Bins overflow and aren't collected regularly 🦊 Foxes and crows scatter rubbish across the park overnight 👶 Children play next to waste on their way to school 😤 We're told to "report it on an app" that doesn't even recognise our park as a location Meanwhile, Hampstead Heath and Primrose Hill get larger bins, more frequent collections, and better infrastructure — even though most of their users are tourists, not local residents. Over 99% of Grange users are local residents who pay council tax. We deserve equal care. With the combined population of the surrounding wards growing by over 21% (adding more than 5,000 residents) in the last two decades, the current infrastructure has simply not scaled to meet this surge in demand, making the reliance on small, inadequate bins increasingly untenable. WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR: ✅ Daily afternoon rubbish collections — so waste doesn't sit overnight ✅ Larger, animal-proof bins — like the ones in Hampstead and Primrose Hill ✅ Transparency — how much is Veolia being paid, are they paying for using park land for their operations, and where is that money going? ✅ Fair treatment — our park attendant cannot manage 2 acres alone with substandard facilities ✅ A proper reporting system — not a broken app that shifts responsibility onto residents THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT RUBBISH. It's about whether our community is valued the same as wealthier neighbourhoods. It's about a park that has served this community for over 100 years — and deserves to be treated with respect. "The most radical act in a metropolis is simply to leave a piece of ground unbuilt. The next most radical is to care for it properly." Clean the Grange — because we all walk on the same ground.

All bona fide building companies must pay for this insurance via the scheme before they can be allowed to practise, and will cover their clients for up to five years from the date of a formerly agreed handover for any problems, such as (but not limited to) subsidence or ingress of damp arising as a result of their work. This insurance scheme will cover customers of building companies of all types  after work has been completed at a customer's domestic property.  The guarantee must also include any company used by the builder as a sub-contractor, and any architect involved with the planning of new work or upgrade work for the builder. This insurance scheme will form a guarantee for the customer and will enable them to knowingly choose a builder or architect who is regulated and insured.  They will still have a cast iron guarantee covered by the scheme for any post handover remedial work required for any reason, and particularly in the case of a builder retiring and closing down the company.  People will still have the choice to choose a properly regulated and insured builder over one who is not. I had an extension built and concluded three years' ago which has developed damp issues through walls and ceilings.  Different subcontractors were used by the builder, example, a roofing company to fit roof tiles and lead flashing between the existing and new buildings, a flat roofing installer to fit a new flat roof over both new and existing buildings, and a patio door/window company to fit a new system to the new extension. Three years since handover, there is ingress of damp as mentioned above.  The builder has subsequently decided to retire and close the business and is not at all interested in these issues. The builder's son has become a builder (he worked with his father in his company); the son has started a new company and is not at all interested in the issues.  I have contacted the architect, who has made enquiries with the sub-contractors, none of whom seem particularly interested in these issues and have implied that they will not necessarily pay for the remedial work.  It is therefore incumbent on me to pay which, I firmly believe, should not be the case.

I was trying to play basketball but couldn't because the court was smashed up.

JUST ONE EXAMPLE! March 30th 2026 A& E in next town (nearest) On arrival - It was absolutely packed to standing room only and the screen said there was a waiting time of 6 and a half hours. Around 7pm on a Monday night. I explained at reception that the doctor had insisted my husband attend A&E with some stroke symptoms. After about an hour my husband was triaged – blood pressure and heart rate and some basic checks taken by a nurse. After a couple more hours, he had blood taken. Meanwhile, the suggested waiting time slowly rose on screen from to almost 10 hrs. Elderly people were waiting with carers desperately trying to get taxis for them. People kept going to ask the staff when it was likely they would be seen. I spoke to someone who had been waiting longer than us who had brought his dad as an emergency after being told the ambulance would be a 5hr wait – he was told he would be seen on arrival. I saw him STILL in a cubicle when we were finally leaving. In that time his dad had fell off his seat and cut his arm in the waiting room and staff had to dress it. 5hrs passed. Around midnight, an announcement was made to say that they were moving over to night staff so there would be less staff and very few doctors. They said it had been an extremely busy night and ambulances were queueing and trollies filled the corridors. One nurse intimated that there were absolutely no beds available for anyone who needed admitting. We were asked to form a queue if we wanted to make an appointment to come back in the morning. We were told some may not be suitable for this – we presumed due to urgency – and some were knocked back. So we didn’t look at this option because we felt my husband was sent with a degree of urgency and also we had to get a lift there and would have to get one home then back. I can’t drive and my husband can’t presently with a numb right foot. On the TV screen spouting corporate adverts mostly – there was a campaign ad telling you to ACT FAST on stroke symptoms – sick with irony. Just after this announcement and with a packed waiting room, the screen showing waiting time was switched off. At 2am, my husband was called into the back of A&E and placed in another room with about 6 other patients and one relative allowed each. We were given water or a hot drink. It was an airless, windowless room with chairs and now contained around a dozen tired people. Most in pain – awaiting results, MRI and CT scans and to see a doctor. Between 2am and 9am NO ONE was called for anything and no more drinks or information was brought to us. A young nurse came in on 2 occasions to take blood pressure and heart rate. In that room were people who had been waiting since 8am the previous morning and others who had been there since lunchtime. Once all the staff came to work at 9am things started moving. We were the last ones to be called. At 9.30am I asked when we would be seen – I was told we were next. At 9.45 when I asked again, I was snapped at and told pestering won’t make it quicker and made to feel I should consider more important cases being seen! At 10am we were seen by a young doctor who said the blood tests were fine and who did some basic exercises with my husband. She then said she believed it was Diabetic Neuropathy and not a stroke and so no need for a EEG or brain scan. We were sent home at around 10.30am after being sat in the A&E since 7pm the previous day. To add depth to this horrific tale another lady who was in the room with us actually went home after waiting hours in A&E. She received a phone call in the early hours to tell her it was suspected she had had a heart attack and to come back immediately. She was then put in the room next door and later moved to our room. She was in the same boat as us between 2am and 9am with minimum monitoring and no bed or treatment. She was still waiting for a bed as we left. To conclude – we had been placed in a small room, away from main A&E under the premise we were closer to being attended to. Yet for the whole night – between 2am and 9am, we were ignored apart from occasional blood pressure/heartrate checks. We did not even have drinks provided. Mostly, the staff were running around trying to do their best but we couldn’t help but notice many at computer terminals. We have no idea why we were contained in a room waiting for services that the hospital did not have available during night hours. All of A&E looked like some third world clinic. If it is overwhelmed now, what will it be like when the thousands of new families move into the thousands of new-builds in the area?! As this is a relatively new hospital, why on earth was it not given a much bigger A&E considering the enormity of the area it has to serve?! I have witnessed similar before myself – and it is a dangerous situation. Patients AND staff deserve a better situation.

The levels of toxic fire retardant chemicals are double those required in Europe. (Firms like IKEA make two separate types of sofas for Europe and the UK). We are breathing these chemicals in everyday whilst in our homes and despite knowing about this for many years the Government has done nothing. This is a scandal because governments have a duty to keep us safe.

I grew up in Nepal, surrounded by some of the world’s most breath-taking natural landscapes—from the Himalayas to rich forests filled with wildlife. These places are not just beautiful; they are part of people’s daily lives, culture, and survival. But today, they are under threat from climate change, melting glaciers, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity. Watching Sir David Attenborough’s work helped me understand that these challenges are not isolated—they are part of a global crisis that connects countries like Nepal and the UK. His storytelling has shown how fragile ecosystems are, from mountain regions to oceans, and why protecting them matters to all of us. Now living in the UK, I see how his voice has influenced awareness and action worldwide. But awareness must lead to continued leadership. If we fail to recognise and support those working to protect nature—especially in vulnerable regions like Nepal—we risk losing not only wildlife, but entire ways of life. Establishing an annual award in his honour would highlight and support environmental leaders across the globe, including those working in regions most affected by climate change. It would ensure that his legacy continues to inspire not just admiration, but real, lasting action for our planet.

Think about the times where you have just landed that dream trick and you go to record it and its way to dark to see you land it! WE NEED LIGHTS.