• STOP TWO LORDS FROM BUILDING 10,000 HOUSES ON RURAL SUSSEX LAND
    TWO DIRECTORS ARE LORDS AND THIS, I BELIEVE, IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THERE JUST ISN'T THE INFRASTRUCTURE, LET ALONE THE WATER SUPPLY TO DEAL WITH THIS MASSIVE INVASION OF OVER 30,000 PEOPLE. Vast areas of countryside where many Red Listed and Schedule 1 Protected birds live, as well as other rare species of wildlife including badgers will be concreted over, ruining the countryside forever. HS2 WILL BE BUILT TO FERRY PEOPLE FROM THE NORTH TO LONDON. THEY CAN BUILD THEIR SPRAWL NEAR ALREADY DEVELOPED TOWNS WHERE HOUSES ARE NEEDED AND BUSINESSES ARE NEEDED UP NORTH. - OR ON THEIR OWN DOORSTEPS. https://www.mayfieldtowns.co.uk/ I believe that Lord Borwick and Lord Mathew Taylor (housing ‘advisor’ to the current Conservative government) are potentially breaching a ‘conflict of interest’. Large donations were made to the Conservative party. Peter Freeman is a director of Mayfields - founder Argent Plc. Donations made to Conservative party from M FREEMAN (over £500,000) of Argent plc - Co founder of Argent - Peter Freeman who is now a director of Mayfields. Mr Freeman founded the property group Argent in 1981. He is Founder, Chairman, and Non-Executive Director of Argent Group Plc. Lord Borwick group of companies: http://companycheck.co.uk/director/900170909 http://companycheck.co.uk/director/900170909/GEOFFREY-ROBERT-JAMES-BORWICK/directors-shareholders ENSCO 946 LIMITED - Lord Borwick Director - Federated Investments LLP Lee Newlyn; Lord Matthew Taylor, Lord Jamie Borwick; Jacqueline Craymer - Mayfield, directors will be gaining, prospering and benefiting financially from this vast concrete sprawl.
    3,340 of 4,000 Signatures
    Created by V Hamilton
  • Stop the privatisation of child protection services
    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/16/child-protection-privatised
    732 of 800 Signatures
    Created by Rob Sage
  • Force Mobile Phone Copmpanies to allow a Usage Cap
    I am a parent that is continually under pressure to supply my children with state of the art technology in the form of these all singing all dancing smart phones. To be able to truly control my children's spending the only way I can do this is to overspend initially on a phone and go Pay As You Go. Then there is the problem of teenagers hassling for more credit. Pay as You go is expensive. The cost of these phones are extortionate and the tariffs are designed to maximise the income for the company and to encourage people to take out contracts. The contract price plans are attractive. You can get a decent phone and a decent price plan for a reasonable monthly outlay. It is an easy option. My daughters were signed up and on the whole it is fantastic. They choose the phone, they know they can't upgrade it for 2 years and they know how much they can use it. In theory. As parents it is perfect. We sign them up. We are responsible for the bill. That is the issue. We naively assume our children are responsible adults and will treat this service with respect. As parents we are giving our children, young children, this responsibility maybe a little too early. There are children out there running up huge bills for their parents through lack of understanding of the consequences. These children don't realise it can lead to family debt and they assume it only effect them. There is also the point where the whole account can be suspended for non payment. The whole family, where a job which relies on the phone, could be at risk. My daughter ran up a bill of £130. On contacting the provider we were offered no help. The phone company said what if in the case of emergency. With unlimited texts and 999 I don't see this as being a valid reason. They told me they don't offer a capping service and we were responsible for the amount. After all she used it. I believe this is purely profiteering on the part of the phone company. I believe it should be a shared responsibility between the phone company and the contract holder. I believe that if they offered a cap option then this would prevent children (and some adults too) from putting their families through financial hardship. It will teach our children limits. I, after all, do not want to be presented with another extortionate bill that I can't afford.
    13 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Keith Murdoch Picture
  • NHS Healthcare: No charge at the point of use
    On 22 May 2014 GP's are to vote on whether to introduce appointment charges (estimated £10 - £25 per visit). If this vote is passed it could mean the end of our NHS, free at the point of use. The NHS is currently being dismantled under the guise of an ineffective system and more consumer choice. Increased GP workload and patient demand driving this issue is largely as a result of government policy, hospital closures and privatisation. GP income has fallen by design and patient charges are not the answer. "How many times are we going to fall into the traps set by our political masters?" asks Gurdave Gill, GP Partner writing on the Pulse Today website. "Patient charges are NOT the answer. User charges deter the sick and poor as much as the 'worried well'. Expensive and bureaucratic to collect, evidence shows patients delay seeking medical advice when user charges are introduced. Delay in diagnosis can cause significant harm. If we know this to be fact, to introduce charges appears to suggest that our incomes are more important than any potential harm to the patients. Is this ethical? "The current crisis in Primary care has been manufactured to create a pressure from GPs for charges. [...] We should be demanding increased resources from Government and not our patients. The NHS returned £5bn underspend to the treasury in the last 3 years. The cost of the purchaser-provider split exceeds £10bn pa yet delivers absolutely no patient gain at roughly the entire cost of primary care! {...] We need to identify the correct target and demand our representative bodies are more effective rather than the incompetence/collusion with Government we have seen in recent past. The minority of pro-privatisation GPs leading the call for charges need to be recognised for what they are. We must not be persuaded by the 'greedy and dims' amongst us.” And how about that consumer choice? Right now we have the best of both, individual private healthcare and tax-payer funded. Both are a form of 'paid for' healthcare, one is paid for by the individual, the other paid for and negotiated collectively. If the asset strip continues we will only have the most expensive poorly-negotiated option open to any of us. That is no choice at all. UPDATE The BMA's current position on this motion as outlined to one of our members, obviously, it would be naive to rest on these laurels: "The BMA's current position is not in favour of charging patients for GP appointments. Introducing charging would undermine the basis of the NHS; that healthcare is free at the point of use, and patients receive care based on their clinical need. A fee charging system could require an expensive bureaucracy to collect money from patients. It is also possible that the charges may deter vulnerable patients from seeing their GP which could lead to delays in treatment. However, there will be a motion debated at the Local Medical Committee (LMC) conference in York later this month. If the motion is carried, this does not mean it will become BMA policy. BMA Policy is decided at our Annual Representative Meeting (ARM) in July [ed- It's actually Sunday 22 - Thursday 26 June 2014] and motions are proposed by individual branch of practice conferences (e.g. GPs, consultants, junior doctors etc) and submitted for debate by geographical divisions. It would require further consideration by the BMA's leadership and the BMA's Annual Representative Meeting in July. It is understandable that GPs are looking at raising these kind of ideas, given the enormous pressure on GP services. Many GP practices are struggling from a combination of rising patient demand and falling funding that ministers have failed to recognise. However, the BMA feels that we don't need a complicated and unfair charging system to be introduced for GP appointments. We need the government to provide the resources to enable GPs to deliver the care that their patients need. I hope this is helpful and that it clarifies the BMA position for you." Links: Facebook page that inspired this petition: https://www.facebook.com/healthcharge Pulse Today - GP leaders to vote on whether to support patient charges for appointments: http://bit.ly/1lrI1gg LMC Conference - Full Agenda: http://bit.ly/fullagenda BMC/GPC: http://bit.ly/bmcandgpc BMC Annual Meeting: http://bma.org.uk/working-for-change/arm-2014-info Wessex LMC: http://bit.ly/aboutWessex
    2,936 of 3,000 Signatures
    Created by Frank Coles
  • Force Amazon to pay its share of tax in UK
    It is completely immoral and unscrupulous to declare only 0.1% of your profit for tax when Amazon UK made over £4bn in sales last year. Other major retailers pay their fair share and this represents a completely unequal situation which is unethical and unfair. Just by claiming it is acceptable under EU tax law is no defence. By basing the business in Luxembourg allows amazon to pay a fraction of the tax it should pay as all of its turnover is generated in the UK. Starbucks did the same thing and they were shamed into action, largely thanks to public pressure.
    163 of 200 Signatures
    Created by James Rutherford Picture
  • Stop using the Angel of the North as a 'billboard' for commercial advertising
    The Angel of the North is an artwork. To abuse the Angel's placement for commercial advertising is as offensive as it would be to use any other artwork of national significance in the same way. Defacing our public art, whether through criminal damage or commercial advertising, is deeply offensive to the people of the North. We demand that the Angel of the North be treated as the treasure it is and no further defacing is permitted to occur in this way again.
    159 of 200 Signatures
    Created by Dee Wilde-Walker
  • No to blanket Apprenticeship reforms
    The Government are changing the way Apprenticeships are managed and funded; As an employer you will be asked to manage the funding for the delivery of training to apprentices resulting in more administration and complications for you and your business. As an employer you will be asked to contribute 20% to the cost of training even the youngest of apprentices when you already pay and support their salary costs and skills development in the workplace. In areas largely dominated by SMEs these reforms are set to restrict prospects of growth for these businesses whilst also taking away potential opportunities for young people to gain an Apprenticeship. Research by some large providers of Apprenticeships nationally have indicated that amongst small to medium sized employers, which often only have 1-4 apprentices active at any time, up to 80% of employers will withdraw this valuable opportunity for young people. This is due to the added burden of cost and the complexity of managing funding, for which they are to receive no training or support. In addition at this stage education providers will be obliged to charge 20% VAT for training services. The current system of grant funding is zero rated. This problem would require a change in the law to solve and if left as is being proposed, would dilute the funding going into Apprenticeship greatly. 20% of funding would be lost to VAT and much more into admin and paperwork trails created by the change. Say no to the blanket reforms, help to save the future of Apprenticeships in SMEs.
    7 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Stephen North Picture
  • Don't let Sizewell C trample Theberton and Eastbridge
    East Suffolk is a unique, fragile and internationally protected area, cherished by those who live here, and loved by visitors to the Heritage Coast and wild open spaces, including the famous Minsmere bird reserve and Dunwich Heath. In these beautiful surroundings the villages of Theberton and Eastbridge, with a population of fewer than 400 people, are facing the prospect of two new nuclear reactors being constructed; a process that could take 10 - 12 years and would destroy the peace and tranquility of the area, eat into the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and transform a rural parish into an industrial town.
    412 of 500 Signatures
    Created by Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Sizewell (TEAGS)
  • get DVLA to use recorded delivery and/or E-mails to confirm changes/ revokes to licenses.
    If my license was being revoked or an important change made to my license that could affect my legal right to be on the road! I could potentially be breaking the law without realising it, especially if I didn't realise DVLA had sent me an un-recorded letter that got lost during transit. Recorded delivery or email would prevent this.
    24 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Kris Crane
  • Support the European Accessibility Act
    Disabled people are often excluded from using products because they have not been at the forefront of designers' thoughts at the initial stages. The European Accessibility Act has the potential to eradicate barriers to independent living by encouraging the accessibility of goods and services when governments provide services. After initial positive hope on the Act after the European Disability Strategy was published, in 2010, progress has stalled. Aspire the national Spinal Cord Injuries charity wants to resurrect the Act and wants MEPs to apply pressure and get Europe moving on this issue again.
    24 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Krupesh Hirani
  • Bring Back British Leyland
    Lets look at Dacia (Renault). They've made a car, which has four wheels, some air bags and a little buzzing bag of bolts under the bonnet, on sale from £5995. These are selling where ever there's a Renault Dealer with them in stock. Supply cannot meet demand and more and more people are buying Dacia. All this is doing is funding Renault UK, who has these vehicles built in India. There's no benefit for the people. Introduce something as popular as the Metro was, sell it on the same sort of scale and enjoy the benefits of having a home engineered vehicle that people would be able to afford, giving more people reliable safe transport to use for work, which would in turn make more people accessible to work. British Leyland (Austin, Rover, MG) managed to built the Longbridge plant and implement technology relatively swiftly in order to produce the Metro (It was designed in '77, built in 1980). This isn't a long term project once the financials and commitment is on the table. So, lets put the Great into Great Britains motor industry!
    42 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Caeleb Thomas Young Picture
  • Eric Pickles: GIve Local Communities a true voice in the Planning System
    This petition calls upon Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make the planning system work for ordinary people and put an end to the way in which big business and its multitude of corporate lawyers can bulldoze over the wishes of local communities. There are far too many instances where the planning system and its officials are exploited by the powerful at the expense of the powerless. Planning policy appears to be a box of goodies from which big business, developers and the legal profession can pick and choose what they want, ignoring those pieces that they don’t like. Take, for example, the plight of myself and my neighbours. Back in 1983 I moved into my house on a large new housing development in St.Ives, Cambridgeshire, knowing that a large Co-operative supermarket and associated car park were to be built on land behind my house. Being somewhat surprised at the size of the car park, before committing to purchase the property I asked the developer for assurances that nothing else would be built on the car park and was given those assurances. In 1985 the first application for a Petrol Filling Station and associated shop on the car park was lodged by the Co-op. Years before completion of the housing development they were claiming that their car park was and always would be under-utilized. The Application was refused by both the town and local district council. In 1990 the second planning application was lodged and again refused by the local district council on grounds of residential amenity and highway safety. An Appeal by the Anglia Co-operative Society was refused in 1991. In 2003 a third application was again refused by the local district council on the same grounds. The Anglia Regional Co-operative Society launched an Appeal which took the form of a public inquiry lasting two days. The Co-op was represented by a top London QC instructed by their agent. The representatives of the local district council deserve credit but they were defeated by the greater resources of the Co-op. The Appeal was granted in 2004, establishing a new precedent. In 2009, the local district to their credit again refused a new application on the grounds of residential amenity and highway safety, despite advice from their own planning officers that the decision would likely again go to Appeal at a cost to local council taxpayers. The application was granted on Appeal in 2011 with 5000.00 costs awarded against the local district council. Thus, not only were the views of local residents and local councilors ignored but they had to foot the bill for this privilege In both 2003 and in 2009, local residents argued their case on legitimate planning grounds. Their ward councilors made every effort to support and present these to members of The Development Management Panel who were convinced by the validity of the arguments. So where has it gone wrong? The Planning Inspector said in 2011: ‘Planning Authorities are not bound to accept the recommendations of their officers…(but)…need to show reasonable planning grounds for taking a contrary decision and produce relevant evidence on appeal. The councils' concerns …are legitimate planning concerns. However… The reasons for refusal have not been supported by relevant evidence’ [para-phrased] The fact of the matter is that neither the local district council nor residents have the wherewithal to fund these appeals. Surely it is enough that the local community is in agreement that this is not an appropriate site for a Petrol Filling Station? What has happened to democracy in the planning system when outcomes can be bought? You will note that in all of this, the Petrol Filling Station has never been built though planning permissions have been granted and then allowed to expire. So we are back where we started, with yet another planning application under consideration and yet another situation in which we are hopelessly outgunned by the resources of the so-called caring, sharing Co-op (this time Central England C-operative Limited) whose barrister warns us that a refusal of the application by local councilors ‘would inevitably bring more uncertainty for neighbours and further delay development of the site.’ To claim that building a Petrol Filling Station and shop within spitting distance of residents’ homes and gardens would not be of detriment to ‘residential amenity’ is invidious given that even the possibility of this has had a detrimental effect on my own and my neighbours’ lives for nigh on 30 years. It is also unworthy of the Co-operative Society, which trades on its reputation for fairness and ethical behaviour. But the fact of the matter is that the planning system is not designed for you and me or for the multitudes of ordinary people whom it oppresses. Sign my petition which calls for a true change to the planning system, one which gives a real voice to local communities and doesn’t represent an electoral sound-bite.
    77 of 100 Signatures
    Created by Jean Eason