We are calling on platforms to review and reform their moderation policies so women’s health information is treated fairly and transparently. Social media is one of the primary sources of health information for young people. When posts about menstruation, pregnancy, menopause, miscarriage, contraception, or chronic pain are removed or restricted, it silences vital education, reinforces stigma, and creates a double standard when compared to male health content. Censoring women’s health does not protect users it withholds knowledge, limits access to support, and disproportionately affects those who rely on online communities for care and understanding.

We train to save lives. But childcare cuts push us out. Thousands of NHS student nurses are leaving because they can’t afford childcare. This isn’t just unfair—it’s a threat to the future of the NHS. 👉 Sign & Share to demand change: To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to urgently request a review and substantial increase in childcare support available to nursing students. The current system is not only inadequate but is actively contributing to the ongoing workforce crisis by forcing capable, committed students out of training due to financial and practical childcare barriers. Childcare has been repeatedly identified as a major cause of withdrawal from nursing programmes. Recent reporting from The Independent highlights that “thousands of student nurses and midwives drop out or don’t train due to exclusion from free childcare schemes”. This is one of the clearest indicators to date that childcare inaccessibility is directly driving attrition within the profession. The Royal College of Nursing’s 2025 attrition research reinforces this, identifying several structural factors that disproportionately affect mature students — who make up a significant proportion of nursing cohorts. These include: • ​Long, inflexible placement hours • ​Lack of access to funded childcare • ​High childcare costs compared to student income • ​Unpredictable shift patterns • ​Limited family support, particularly for lone parents National attrition rates for nursing students currently sit between 21–25%, and childcare is consistently cited as one of the top financial and practical reasons for leaving.  The scale of the issue is undeniable: thousands of potential nurses are lost each year because the system fails to accommodate the realities of student parents. The inequity within current childcare policy is stark. For example: • ​Children aged nine months and older receive 30 funded hours only if both parents are in paid employment. Student nurses — despite working full-time hours on unpaid clinical placement — are excluded from this entitlement, even when they have a working partner. • ​Many students are deemed ineligible for the childcare grant due to household income thresholds that fail to reflect the true cost of nursery and wraparound care. • ​Students claiming Universal Credit cannot access the 85% childcare support available to working parents, as they are categorised as “non-working” despite undertaking mandatory full-time placements. • ​Even those who do receive the childcare grant often receive as little as £400 per year, an amount that does not cover even a single month of childcare for one child. • ​Previously, student parents could combine tax-free childcare (20% government contribution) with funded hours, but this support has been removed, leaving families significantly worse off. These policies create an impossible situation. Nursing students are expected to complete long, unpaid placement hours, often leaving full-time employment to do so, while simultaneously being denied the childcare support afforded to working parents.  Many attempt to work part-time alongside their degree out of sheer necessity, but this is neither sustainable nor safe — academically, financially, or in terms of wellbeing. In many cases, it is simply not feasible, particularly when employers cannot accommodate the unpredictable and inflexible nature of placement scheduling. The result is predictable and deeply damaging: students with children are being pushed out of training, not because they lack ability or commitment, but because the system is structurally incompatible with parenthood. This loss of future nurses directly undermines efforts to address national staffing shortages and compromises the long-term stability of the NHS workforce. I am therefore requesting that childcare support for nursing students be urgently reviewed and expanded. This should include, but not be limited to: • ​Eligibility for funded childcare hours equivalent to those available to working parents • ​A realistic and meaningful childcare grant that reflects actual childcare costs • ​Access to Universal Credit childcare support for students undertaking mandatory placements • ​Restoration of tax-free childcare eligibility • ​A national commitment to ensuring that no student is forced to withdraw from training due to childcare barriers Supporting student parents is not an optional enhancement — it is an essential investment in the future of the nursing profession. Without decisive action, the current system will continue to exclude those who are already balancing extraordinary responsibilities in order to serve the public. I urge you to address this issue with the seriousness it demands. Respectfully,  Matthew Jewitt Class Representative Speaking on behalf of the Practice‑Based Nursing Students University of Central Lancashire #CareForCarers #ChildcareForNHSStudents #SupportFutureNHS

Mr Starmer could also advise other European countries that have US interests on their land to do the same. The USA have threatened to invade Greenland, an ally of ours and a fellow member of NATO.  The USA has personnel, equipment, aircraft, ships, missiles and other weapons on UK soil, which would aid the USA to carry out its threat.

The 2026 World Cup is being framed as a celebration of peace, but the reality on the ground tells a very different story. We believe it is wrong for England to participate in a tournament that acts as a giant PR exercise for an administration that is currently making the world much more dangerous. First, there is the threat to our own security. The US government has recently made direct threats against the territory of Denmark, specifically Greenland. Denmark is one of our closest NATO allies. If we allow one ally to threaten another without any consequences, the whole alliance that has kept the UK safe for decades starts to fall apart. We cannot just send a football team to play games in a country that is bullying our neighbours. Second, there is the issue of international law. The recent military actions in Venezuela and the talk of annexing territory show a complete disregard for the rules that every country is supposed to follow. By turning up to play, the FA is helping to "sportswash" these actions. It sends a message that as long as there is a football match on, we will look the other way while global rules are broken. Finally, we have to look at the "FIFA Peace Prize" given to the US President. Many people in the UK see this as a hollow gesture that ignores the actual tensions being created. Football is supposed to unite people, but you cannot have unity when the host of the tournament is actively destabilising the world. Withdrawing is a hard choice, but it is the only way to show that our principles and our alliances mean more to us than a trophy. We are asking the FA to lead with a conscience and stand up for the security of the UK and its partners.

We want the regulation of the veterinary industry to become a matter for the Welsh Senedd (Parliament) and Government.   We want the Competitions and Marketing Authority to look at undertaking a more holistic review of the sector, beyond the boundaries used in traditional market investigations.  It is obvious that a market consolidation lens is a more appropriate way to see the effect the corporate's have had on families, animal welfare and the profession.  Rather than the traditional market concentration investigations.   Linda Joyce-Jones Mam Rosa, ymgyrchydd lles anifeiliaid. Rosa's Mam , animal welfare campaigner .  CatsMatter   Save Our Seized Dogs  Stolen And Missing Pets Alliance Noah's Ark Cat Rescue and Sanctuary (Tarleton)  Dr Louise Buckley phD SFHEA  RVN  Vets Get Scanning  Veterinary Client Complaints UK  Dogs Today Magazine  Caroline Osborne, K9ology - Dog Psychology & Training  The Union of Great British Breeders  Friends of Animals Wales  Ms Lisa O'Connor  Our Dogs Newspaper 

I am unbelievably chuffed that the Scottish Men's team, alongside England are qualifiers for the 2026 World Cup. Since childhood I have always loved a World Cup. My childish excitement however is being tempered by what that means in terms of matches being hosted on US soil. With the Trump administration increasingly flouting international law, issuing hostile military threats against the sovereign territory of our close European and NATO ally, Denmark, his increasingly authoritarian and dictatorial treatment of his own citizens, abuses of human rights and free speech - including the policing of 5 years of social media for any visitors to the country. I feel that we need to be wary of not only possible human rights abuses  against our own travelling support but also putting the players in an invidious position of having to weigh up their dreams since childhood of representing their country at a World Cup against potentially appearing to condone someone who may well become the next Hitler and the political leadership that may well become the fourth Reich. It is well known that Sir Stanley Matthews and his England team mates deeply regretted having to play against the German team in 1938 largely for PR purposes and against their better instincts. They looked upon it afterwards as a stain upon their otherwise illustrious careers. The British Government, the FAs and PFAs should mover heaven and earth to have FIFA (which has already stained its own reputation in relation to Donald Trump) to remove the US as a host and have the 2026 World Cup played in Mexico and Canada only. And failing that, boycott the World Cup. Do now, what you wish your counterparts in the 1930s with regard to Hitler's Germany and be on the right side of history.

Imagine waking up tomorrow and finding the UK government, your bank, or even our hospital systems suddenly offline. Not because of hackers, but because a foreign company, or a foreign leader decided to flip a switch. This isn’t science fiction. When President Trump wanted to punish the International Criminal Court, the US sanction regime forced Microsoft to block the court’s emails. That’s the reality of being dependent on foreign tech. This has happened in peacetime to an organisation, what happens if there is a war?  Other countries in Europe including Germany, France and Denmark are acting fast. They’re building “digital sovereignty” so critical systems can’t be controlled by outsiders. The UK is still sitting on the sidelines. What is the problem? The UK is dangerously reliant on a small number of foreign tech companies for critical digital infrastructure. These companies are mainly located in the US and include Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Palantir whose services are used across government and public services. But they also include companies based in Israel and China. MPs took action over Huawei’s collusion with the Chinese government but they need to do more to challenge the UK’s dependence on other foreign-controlled companies for the systems that underpin our democracy, economy, and national security. This has become even more urgent now that the US government is openly operating outside of international law.  Even “secure” systems are fragile when foreign powers can cut the plug. The solutions exist Open-source systems already exist, and Europe is investing billions to replace commercial software subject to US legal controls.  Using Open Source software does not stop governments from employing US companies, but it makes it possible to sever relations if necessary. This is good for competition, costs and sovereignty. The UK needs to: • Use open-source software that the UK can control. • Diversify suppliers – including more UK companies to help grow our economy.  • Make sure critical systems can’t be switched off by someone else. Take action now This isn’t just about technology. It’s about sovereignty, democracy, and safety. Join us and demand the UK government reclaim control of our critical systems. We can’t wait until it’s too late.

The Aquarium roundabout is one of the oldest roundabouts in Britain and has been faithfully serving this major tourist resort with minimal accidents and incidents for 101 years. Brighton and Hove City Council have now removed this roundabout against the wishes of the vast majority of residents without public mandate, having moved to a cabinet system of governance and rewritten the city constitution, also without public mandate. Many local businesses and residents have complained that the removal of this roundabout will create permenant gridlock and discourage visitors from our seaside resort. They have been ignored by a council whose public remit is to serve us. This unreasonable and city-damaging decision will lengthen a great many vehicle journeys, thereby increasing emissions, and needs to be reversed immediately. Removing the Aquarium roundabout will create permanent city gridlock, discouraging visitors from visting a once-prime tourist resort.  We have a patchy coach service and an unreliable train service so for most visitors the only viable option is to visit Brighton and Hove by car.  There has been no economic risk impact assessment undertaken and the council have ignored all protests from local businesses and residents. They don't even seem to care about public transport and emergency vehicles being obstructed. Or that many contractors are now refusing to work in the city as it is too difficult to drive their vans full of tools.  No one can afford to pay emissions charges either as a result of artificially created gridlock. There is no logic or majority public benefit in removing this roundabout.

The current weekly closure is causing severe disruption, isolating vulnerable residents, and damaging local businesses. Prestwich is a thriving community built on accessibility, independence, and a strong local economy. The ongoing regeneration works promise long‑term benefits, but the current closure of Fairfax Road, a major route into the village, is causing serious and avoidable harm. The impact is already being felt: 👵 Elderly and vulnerable residents are being cut off • Many older residents rely on short, direct routes into the centre for shopping, appointments, and social contact. • The long diversions and reduced parking options make it significantly harder for them to access essential services. • This risks increased isolation and reduced independence. 🍽️ Local bars, cafés, and restaurants are suffering • Reduced footfall due to access issues is leaving businesses quieter than usual. • Prestwich’s hospitality sector already recovering from difficult years is now facing another blow. • Some venues are reporting noticeable drops in trade directly linked to the road closure and parking disruption. 🚗 Traffic congestion and delays are worsening • The diversion routes are creating long queues, delays, and confusion. • Residents, workers, and visitors are spending more time stuck in traffic and less time supporting the local economy. 📢 What we are asking for We call on Bury Council and the regeneration developers to: Review the midweek closure of Fairfax Road and open every night to allow residents to access Prestwich village more easily and ease the damage to the local businesses  The full closure of Fairfax Road is having a serious impact on everyday life in Prestwich. This route is one of the main ways people access the village, and without it, many elderly and vulnerable residents are struggling to reach shops, services, and social spaces. Local businesses are also seeing a drop in customers due to long diversions, reduced parking, and confusion about how to get into the centre. Prestwich deserves regeneration, but it must be done in a way that keeps the community connected and protects the businesses that make our town vibrant. We are calling for urgent action to restore safe, practical access during the works.

Do you find yourself ‘fighting’ with your child to get their Sparx Reader homework done? Are you seeing a child who used to love stories now viewing reading as a stressful chore? You are not alone. ​As parents, we know that the journey to becoming a reader isn't always easy. For my own daughter, now 11, it took years of careful, dedicated work from her primary teachers and us as parents to help her find the 'spark.' We spent countless nights finding the right books and building her confidence until she finally saw reading as something enjoyable. ​Tragically, since starting Sparx Reader at secondary school, that progress has been undone. ​At just 11 years old, she now refuses to read, telling me: 'There’s nothing fun about it anymore.' When reading is reduced to micro-quizzes, algorithm-driven targets, and the constant fear of 'red flags' or missing a weekly goal, the magic of the story is lost. It has become a task of compliance rather than a moment of discovery. ​We are calling for a change. ​While we support the school’s goal of high literacy, the current app-based model is turning our children off books at the very age they should be falling in love with them. The research from the OECD (PISA) and the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) proves that 'reading for pleasure' is the greatest predictor of success—yet this system is making reading a source of anxiety. ​By signing this petition, we ask leadership at The Stanway School to: ​1. Acknowledge the negative impact Sparx Reader is having on student engagement and parental stress. 2. ​Trial research-backed, non-app alternatives (such as Reading Passports or teacher-led 'Book Talks') that prioritize the experience of reading over data points. ​3. Protect the progress made in primary school by fostering a culture where books are enjoyed, not just 'completed.' ​Let’s work with the school to ensure our children leave Stanway as confident, lifelong readers—not just students who know how to pass a digital quiz. ​Sign today to help us bring the joy back to reading.

With the current political chaos in the US and Trump’s failure to adhere to international norms, and given his apparent obsession with the Monarchy, calling off this visit would send a powerful message that his behaviour is not acceptable. A visit could also put the King and Queen’s lives in danger.

Across the country, ordinary people are being forced to pay thousands of pounds a year for public parks, roads and communal spaces on top of their council tax.  This happens on so-called unadopted estates, where councils approve new developments but never take responsibility for maintaining the public spaces created. Instead, the costs are passed permanently to residents through uncapped service charges. These parks and roads are: • open to everyone • promoted by councils as public amenities • part of the everyday fabric of towns and cities Yet the bill is quietly pushed onto a small group of households – families, key workers, pensioners and first-time buyers – many of whom are already struggling with the cost of living. Although initially well-intentioned, Councils are complicit in arrangements that have pushed costs onto some of the poorest in society, with the risk of pushing their constituents into poverty.  Case study: Elephant Park, Southwark Elephant Park is a major regeneration development with a large central park that is open to everyone and promoted as a public space. But local residents are paying for it privately. For a small one-bed flat in South Gardens, the typical 2025–26 service charge is £6,202. Around 15% of this goes towards public parkland and surrounding roads.  That means almost £1,000 a year paid by one resident towards public spaces, on top of their council tax. This is double charging: ordinary people paying twice for parks and roads that are meant to be public. This is a national problem, not a one-off Residents across the country are affected  from major regeneration schemes to new housing estates and garden communities. Examples raised publicly include developments in: • Elephant Park (London Borough of Southwark) • St Edeyrn’s Village (Cardiff) • Vickers Green (Crayford, London Borough of Bexley) • Garden City (Kent) • Church Meadows (Great Broughton, Cumbria) • Carleton Meadows (Penrith, Cumbria) • Elm Farm / Wymondham New Estates (Norfolk) • Brookdale Estate (Aiskew, North Yorkshire) • Queensgate Development (Stockton-on-Tees) • Wynyard Park (County Durham / Teesside) • Lodge Hill Development (Chattenden, Medway) • Hoo Peninsula New Estates (Medway, Kent) • West Myreton Estate (Menstrie, Clackmannanshire) • Greenbelt Estates – Kirkcaldy (Fife) • Greenbelt Estates – Kilmarnock (East Ayrshire) • Fairfields Estate (Milton Keynes) • Whitehouse Park (Milton Keynes) • Kingsbrook (Aylesbury Vale, Buckinghamshire) • Cranbrook New Community (East Devon) • Great Kneighton (Cambridge) • Trumpington Meadows (Cambridge) • Northstowe (Cambridgeshire) • Barking Riverside (London Borough of Barking & Dagenham) • Chobham Manor (Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London) • East Village (Stratford, London) • Newhall (Harlow, Essex) • Sherford New Community (Devon / Plymouth) • Poundbury (Dorchester) • Upton (Northampton) • Cambourne (Cambridgeshire) • Meridian Water (Enfield, London) • Kidbrooke Village (Greenwich, London) In every case, the pattern is the same: public infrastructure paid for by a small number of residents, with no cap to the their charges.  Parliament has heard the evidence In a recent House of Commons debate and evidence sessions on property service charges, MPs heard directly from residents paying for unadopted roads, parks and communal land. During that debate, Rebecca Paul MP made a clear recommendation: Councils should be mandated to adopt unadopted parks and roads.  This would end the practice of residents paying twice and close the planning loophole that has allowed “fleecehold” estates to spread. The evidence is clear. The solution has been stated publicly in Parliament. What’s missing is government action.  What we’re calling for We call on the UK Government to: • Mandate councils to adopt unadopted public parks, roads and communal spaces • Reform planning and Section 106 rules so public infrastructure cannot be permanently funded by residents • End double charging where people pay council tax and private service charges for the same services • Protect residents from uncapped, unaffordable estate charges Public spaces should be funded publicly, not hidden on household bills. Ordinary people should not be used as a substitute tax base.