Hundreds of thousands of Tenants across the United Kingdom who pay their rent on time and without arrears are being indirectly discriminated against by the credit reference agencies who do not treat tenants rental payments the same as mortgage payments made by the landlords and those who own their own homes. This means that Tenants who later would like to get onto the property ladder often find themselves with a much lower credit score than someone who has paid exactly the same in mortgage payments over the same period of time which puts them at a disadvantage when applying for credit with a bank or building society.

The National Minimum Wage is currently set at £6.70 per hour for anyone over 21, which will go up to £7.20 (for over 25s) in 2016. This is calculated by the Low Pay Commission and is the lowest amount any UK employee can legally be paid per hour. The Living Wage is a term defined and set by the Living Wage Foundation and is calculated according to the real cost of living, including food, fuel, childcare and more. This amount is determined by independent academics. The UK Living Wage is currently set at £8.25 per hour nationally and £9.40 per hour in London. (in recognition of the fact that the cost of living is higher in London). Across the UK, one in five working people currently earns less than the Living Wage. While the introduction of the National Minimum Wage has been almost universally acknowledged as a significant step forward for the lowest paid in society, it still falls way short of the amount people actually need to live on. The chancellor has announced that the National Minimum Wage is due to rise to £7.20 per hour for over 25s in 2016, while at the same time, in a deceitful sleight of hand, he is attempting to rebrand this as the "National Living Wage". While that 50p per hour increase over the current National Minimum Wage will be welcomed by the several million people who are currently paid the National Minimum Wage, it will still be £1.05 per hour less than the UK Living Wage and £2.20 per hour less than the London Living Wage. If the Government were proposing to increase the National Minimum Wage to the amounts the Living Wage Foundation have deemed to be what people actually need to live on, then they would be entitled to re-name it as a "National Living Wage", but if not, then they have no right to hijack the term Living Wage and it should instead be referred to as what it actually is - an increased National Minimum Wage. It seems they are attempting to deliberately muddy the waters and steal the clothes of the true Living Wage, in order to deceive the public into thinking the increased National Minimum Wage will be an amount people can live on, when that is not the case. This petition urges the heads of news at BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky, as well as the editors of national newspapers, to recognise their responsibility to the British public to communicate accurately and transparently and so to only use the term "increased National Minimum Wage", as that is what it is. We also expect news presenters, correspondents and columnists to challenge any attempts to use the misleading term "National Living Wage" and to explain to viewers and readers why that term is inaccurate and misleading and to explain what the true UK Living Wage and London Living Wage are and to make it clear that they are set by the Living Wage Foundation, as opposed to the National Minimum Wage, which is set by the Low Pay Commission. But why does it matter what it is called? It matters because Britain remains an extremely unequal society, in which there are millions of people in fuel poverty and an increasing number reliant upon food banks for basic necessities. However an increasing number of these people are in work, yet they are not paid enough to sustain their basic needs. A growing number of employers are voluntarily opting to pay all their staff at least the true UK Living Wage and this is to be commended - as they really are ensuring their employees are paid enough to live on and they should be recognised for doing so. It may well seem like a semantic and technical argument, but the widespread mis-use of the term "National Living Wage" is intentionally misleading and is giving people the false impression that once it is introduced, every employee will be paid an amount they can live on, when in reality there will still be several million of the lowest paid people who will welcome the 50p per hour pay rise, but who will be receiving an increased National Minimum Wage, not a National Living Wage. The more people sign this petition, the more difficult news organisations will find it to ignore this issue and the more likely it will be that we can stop the misleading misuse of an important and meaningful term, which affects millions of the lowest paid workers in Britain. Thank you for your support and please forward this to people you know.

The development and use of renewable energy sources is required to protect the future of all who live and work in Gloucestershire from Climate Change. The current strategy of the Pension Fund administered by Gloucestershire County Council Pension Comittee to invest many many £millions in large fossil fuel companies is compromising the future of those of us who live in Gloucestershire and those who contribute to or are receiving GCC pensions.

The 567% increase in fees payable to the Care Quality Commission for Primary Care registration will financially cripple many Primary Care Providers and will negatively impact upon service provision. Practices could find themselves in a position where they are closing branch surgeries in order to move down a bracket in the fee structure, i.e. pay less fees for one site rather than two. This will adversely affect the quality of care we provide, as practices will have no option but to cut services and personnel in order to meet the extortionate fee currently being suggested. Such an action would be damaging to the patient/doctor relationship and would discriminate against patients with disabilities/those unable to travel to other branch sites. This would conflict with the CQC commitment to ensure “that people receive safe, effective, compassionate and high quality care”. We respectfully request a review of the Primary Care Registration Fees structure, as we do not feel that a rise in fees of 567% is justified in any way.

As pointed out recently by the 2015 Lancet Commission on Health and Climate Change, the global health improvements witnessed in recent decades risk being undone by climate change.. We also know that most of the existing coal, oil and gas reserves must stay in the ground if this is to be avoided. However, the energy sector’s continued exploration for new fossil fuel reserves makes clear that they will only respond to market forces. The ethical and financial case for fossil fuel divestment is thus well founded, and widely supported by, amongst others, the President of the World Bank and Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO)- both public health physicians. Whilst we commend the Gates Foundation Asset Trust’s recent decision to divest $765.9 million worth of shares from ExxonMobil, we feel that this does not go far enough. By failing to divest from the major fossil fuel companies, the Gates Foundation is implicitly providing moral support to companies that continue to obstruct meaningful action to reduce GHG emissions. Just as important, it sends the wrong signal to many governments who continue to frame their energy policies under the influence of the fossil fuel industry. It also misses the opportunity to support a transition to a safer and healthier world through transfer of investment to the renewable energy sector. Constructive engagement with the fossil fuel industry is important, but the Gates Foundation is better placed to support the transformation of the energy sector if it does not simultaneously signal that it is morally acceptable to profit from industries that cause global warming and threaten the health, biodiversity and security of the planet. Yours sincerely, Dr David McCoy, Medact, UK Prof. Hugh Montgomery, University College London Prof Sue Atkinson and Dr Robin Stott, on behalf of the Climate and Health Council, UK Dr David Pencheon, Director, Sustainable Development Unit for the Health and Social Care System, UK ----------- If you are from outside the UK then please email [email protected] with the following details, and we will add you to the petition manually: Full name, Email, Job title, Country and whether you work in the health sector.

It is important to the economy and confidence in Sierra Leone that British Airways reinstates flights to Sierra Leone. When the Ebola crisis hit Sierra Leone major airlines stopped flights. This led to the loss of thousands of jobs. It is now 10 days since Sierra Leone was declared Ebola free but British Airways have yet to re start flight http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/destinations/freetown/flights-to-freetown?clickpage=destinations-en--africa--index&kmtag=c&ban=||ACC|1|LNK15|||||CampID||||L2||||||| S/Leone in talks over London-Freetown flights Par KC/as/APACréé le 2015-11-23 16:22:17 The authorities in Sierra Leone are reportedly in talks for a new flight linking their capital Freetown and London as repeated requests for British Airways (BA) to resumes its services remain fruitless. BA first suspended its flights to Freetown on August 2014, claiming fears of a possible transmission of the Ebola virus. That followed reports of cases where the disease was reported in foreign countries through air travel. However, over two weeks after Sierra Leone was declared free of the virus, the airline is reluctant to resume flights to the country. The new flight in the pipeline, according to the pro-government Torchlight newspaper in Freetown, which on Monday criticized the British government over BA`s continued reluctance, will be provided by Kevin McPhilips Travels. About seven airlines subsequently suspended flights to Freetown during the peak of the epidemic, but almost all of them, with the exception of BA, have since resumed flying to Freetown. BA has been a major concern because it was the only one linking directly the two cities. “Sierra Leoneans felt abandoned by the former colonial masters when even an attempt by Gambia Bird Airlines to resume direct flights was met with stiff rejection from the British government,” the Torchlight said in its Monday editorial. The paper said if all goes as planned, the new airline is scheduled to commence flight between Lungi International Airport in Freetown and Gatwick in London in December. But, Tony Rogers, who in February 2015 worked at the British-built Kerry Town Ebola Treatment Center in Freetown, finds the suspension of the flights as an “unjust” attempt at isolating the country. Rogers therefore set up an online petition on the site 38 Degrees. “I understand that there has been an enormous economic impact of loss of tourism and commercial trade by the airlines such as British Airways. “I understand that some airlines have returned but British Airways remains sadly reticent regarding reinstating flights,” the UK nurse told APA in an emailed statement. KC/as/APA - APANEWS

People who "contracted out" will receive less than the new full basic pension from April 2016. The Government claims they paid less into the system during their contracted out years and that money will give them a private pension. This is unfair in several ways. Annuities are so low that some people will receive less Private pension provision than the amount being deducted by the DWP. Many of those who contracted out were forced to do so by their employers, but the understanding at the time was that it would not affect their basic final pension. Many have paid more years of NI than is required - 18 years in my case. I paid 11 more years than the seven when I was contracted out. Yet my pension will be reduced because, according to the DWP "I paid in less so I will receive less." This is unfair and untrue. The DWP refuses to allow those who contracted out to make up the difference now in order to receive the new basic pension.

Over 50 farmers have now lost their farms to Acorn Finance. It is described as Fraud in Parliament - see: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141111/halltext/141111h0001.htm Please see what happened to Mr Atkinson of Birks Farm, Cumbria: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-32326704

Negative official interest rates make it more likely that retail banks will pass on the negative rate to you. When they do, you’ll no longer earn interest on your savings. You’ll pay interest. And because you can’t take your cash out in the form of banknotes, you have a simple choice: spend your digital cash, or watch it whittle away bit by bit. Do you see how negative interest rates and a cashless society could be seen as the ultimate tool of economic coercion? Changing the general rate of interest changes incentives. But for central bankers, merely changing incentives isn’t working. If you’re a central planner, you have to force action. If you still possess your cash, you don’t have to do what other people want you to do with your money. With cash, you still have choices. You can plan for a rainy day and choose to take possession of some of your savings. If it’s still in your hands, the choice is yours. But if there’s nothing to possess, no cash to put under the mattress or in the freezer, how much control do you have left? Not much, I’d say. And that’s precisely the idea.

It appears that the Government are attempting to make a two tier system that will benefit some more than others. They want existing pensioners to contribute a set amount to top up their pension if they wish to bring it in line with the new rate. This is a ridiculous scenario which has not been properly thought through and will create a situation where some will feel very let down.

Having a job and earning a decent wage is a necessity if we as a society are going to address some of the biggest concerns facing our generation. Poverty has a devastating effect on families across Scotland and in-work poverty has no place in the 21st century. There is no excuse for low-pay, when time and time again it has been shown to be not only an ineffective means of employment, but also a hindrance on long-term sustainable economic growth. Low wages result in poorer services, higher staff turnover, increased absences from work and a lower quality of life for staff stuck in low pay. We have not only an opportunity, but a responsibility, to tackle poverty and eradicate the blight it puts on people’s lives once and for all. Addressing low pay will not put an end to hardship overnight, as it is only part of a much wider and more complex picture of social justice, but it is a start, and it should be our goal to achieve it.

Other countries are using this fund to support their steel industries. Here’s a giant pot of money into which Whitehall should dip its fingers. Please do. Jobs, communities and a vital industry should be supported.