• P I P assessment and its treatment of CSE/CSA Survivors
    Extremely vulnerable and broken people are being treated as though they’re consumer products by non qualified assessors. Its unfair and the harm being caused could cost lives. Survivors have been through hell and they are faced with having to go back their again with these inconsiderate, unprofessional and non consistent interviews - the fallout could easily tip someone over the edge - i know because it nearly did me. People could take their own lives having to go through this unfair hell !!
    106 of 200 Signatures
    Created by Carolyn Robinson
  • Building on the Green Belt
    This field is a sanctuary for a diversity of many small animals, moles, hedgehogs, birds and bees, but is also one of the top 10 sites in the County for its listed varieties of dung beetles. If the machines come on the field to bore the holes through the old landfill base of the field they may also release and spread methane and toxins of many sorts into the air and the old branch of the river Thames which runs along it. Because of the cost of clearing the landfill, any houses built here would be very expensive, not the affordable houses we need. Maintaining an easily accessible green belt is essential for people's mental health. #saveRedbridgeMeadow
    978 of 1,000 Signatures
    Created by Nuala Young
  • No child should go hungry during the holidays!
    I think this is so obvious that it is a bit insulting to say. Hunger is hunger. Malnutrition is malnutrition. No kid deserves this. There is increasing evidence that poor kids go hungry in the summer holidays because they don't get their school dinners. This is a disgrace. We are the sixth richest country in the world. I imagine the best way to do this is to give emergency money to local government and voluntary organisations but if it takes putting the army on the streets running soup kitchens then let's do it.
    110 of 200 Signatures
    Created by Andy St John
  • Sexual harassment: a demand for urgent change at Essex
    The recent BBC investigation into sexual harassment has put Essex has highlighted a system that is seriously failing students. It is totally unacceptable that complaints of sexual harassment can take several months to be investigated, leaving students that have been directly affected to suffer enormously. The toll this has taken on the students affected cannot be overestimated and cannot be undone. We owe it to every student that has ever been affected by sexual harassment to take this moment seriously. So on behalf of our 16,000 Students’ Union members, today we’re demanding that the University of Essex introduces the following urgent and fundamental changes: 1. INTRODUCE PROPER SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS THROUGHOUT THE 'REPORT AND SUPPORT' PROCESS Students must no longer be left unsupported or uninformed at any part of the process 2. URGENTLY UNDERTAKE A DETAILED REVIEW OF THE EXPERIENCE OF STUDENTS AFFECTED BY SEXUAL HARASSMENT As a Students’ Union we called for this action to be taken in May this year – now demand that this must be acted upon urgently 3. ALL INVESTIGATIONS INTO SEXUAL HARASSMENT MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 60 DAYS Currently only 80% of complaints are resolved within the timescale recommended by the Independent Adjudicator – this needs to be 100% 4. INTRODUCE TRANSPARENT REPORTING OF ACTION TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT The University must report regularly to students on the number of cases, the length of time these have taken and summaries of actions taken 5. INTRODUCE COMPULSORY CONSENT AND BYSTANDER TRAINING FOR ALL UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX STUDENTS Online training modules are not enough. These sessions have to be in person and must happen in the first week of the new academic year 6. INTRODUCE COMPULSORY SEXUAL HARASSMENT RESPONSE TRAINING FOR ALL FRONTLINE STAFF AND PERSONAL TUTORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX Before the start of the new academic year, all members of staff in student-facing positions must be properly trained on how to respond to reports of sexual harassment and provide support to students in these circumstances 7. ALL OF THE SERVICES THAT OFFER REPORTING OR SUPPORT RELATING TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT MUST BE PROPERLY COMMUNICATED TO STUDENTS From the start of the new academic year, support services such as Student Support or SU Advice can no longer be hidden away or not clearly visible to students that need to access them 8. ESTABLISH A SINGLE PROCESS BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND THE STUDENTS' UNION FOR MANAGING INCIDENTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT Immediate changes are needed as the current two-tier system is disjointed and confused and leaves students lost and unsupported 9. PRIORITISE CASES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT OVER MINOR CONDUCT OR ACADEMIC ISSUES The University owes it to those affected to prioritise cases of sexual harassment over minor conduct or academic issues 10. RECOGNISE THAT THE UNI IS GROWING QUICKLY AND SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS NEEDS TO GROW WITH IT Additional support cannot afford to be a short-term fix: it must continue to grow in order to keep pace with Essex’s growing student population It is critical that all of the above actions must be applied equally to all three University of Essex campuses in Colchester, Southend and Loughton – this is an issue that affects all students equally and no campus should be unfairly prioritised. HOW YOU CAN HELP: We believe strongly that we have to act now to address the issue of sexual harassment at Essex and we’re committed to working on all of the above actions. You can show your support and help us demonstrate how many of our members care about this issue by signing our petition calling for urgent action to be taken.
    1,179 of 2,000 Signatures
    Created by University of Essex Students' Union . Picture
  • Age Gap Tax: Stop Pensioners in Hastings & Rye Missing Out
    From 15 May 2019 a pensioner whose partner has not reached State Pension age yet will no longer be able to claim Pension Credit and Housing Benefit. This could affect many ‘mixed age couples’ in Hastings and Rye, which has a higher than average older population and, as we know, is also one of the most deprived places in England. Some mixed age couples could lose up to £7000 a year which would push many below the poverty line. We are asking our local MP, and Work and Pensions Secretary, Amber Rudd, to stand up for pensioners in her constituency and protect them from the Age Gap Tax
    275 of 300 Signatures
    Created by David Hannam
  • Make maternity pay fair for those with multiple jobs
    To cut a long story short, I could loose out on £1337.70 of maternity pay because I have two jobs! I am not alone in this. We need a transparent system that allows all mothers to take their full income into account when calculating maternity pay, no mater their working situation. Currently, if you are eligible for statutory maternity pay through an employer, you are not eligible for maternity allowance- even if your income from your employer is a small fraction of your total earned income. This means that many new mothers are missing out on thousands of pounds in maternity pay simply because the system does not provide an option to take your full income into account. For those on a low income already, this is the difference between eating and not eating, at a time when the health and wellbeing of new mothers and and babies are hugely vulnerable. It presents unnecessary stress for pregnant women, which can effect the health of an unborn child. After celebrating the news of my pregnancy with my employers, I was soon shocked to discover how complicated and unfair the maternity pay system is. Along the way I came across these responses from people I went to for advice (I am paraphrasing): Citizens Advice Bureau - 'Oh no, I hate maternity pay, it's so complicated. I'll have to ask my supervisor'. My employers (who have been extremely supportive)- 'I've asked for advice from other HR and finance people I know, but no one could help as they were worried about misadvising'. HMRC- 'yes, you do seem to fall into a bit of a loop hole' and 'I don't really know what to suggest' IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS HARD! Maternity pay for working mothers falls into two categories: Statutory maternity pay (for employees earning over £118/week) and Maternity allowance (for self employed people and those who do not qualify for SMP due to low earnings or not being employed for the minimum term). As far as I am aware they both pay up to £145/week for 39 weeks, and all of this money comes from the government (not your employer) through national insurance contributions. If you earn less than £145/ week you can claim 90% of your earnings. This doesn't seem too bad... However, I discovered that because I qualify for SMP through my part time job ( just £5/week over the threshold, ) I cannot apply for Maternity Allowance, which would allow me to take my other earnings into account. So I would get £110.70 /week rather than £145. To cut a long story short, I could loose out on £1337.70 of maternity pay because I have two jobs! This seems wildly unfair, but I can imagine that my circumstances are the tip of the iceberg. There will be people out there who only only just hit the threshold, in the same trap but losing more of their entitlement because the system doesn't recognise their situation. We need a system that allows all mothers to take their full income into account, no mater their working situation. This could be a system that allows SMP to be topped up with MA, or one calculation method to fit all. Here are some tips for those in my position: *I AM NOT AN EXPERT So lease check out your facts before you make any rash decisions* ACT FAST! your employer can do the maths to work out roughly what you might be entitled to before your 'qualifying period'. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER and it may come down to the difference of 1p. HMRC had the most accurate advice and YOU CAN CALL THEM to ask questions, check your qualifying period etc. My employers were great, but many would not bother to do the digging that they did and it helped me understand the situation. HMRC employee help line 0300 200 3500. Your 'QUALIFYING PERIOD' is the 8 weeks/2 months from which they take your average income. It is not so easy to work out- for me it was 4 and 5 monthly pay days before my due date, approximately week 17-25 of pregnancy (before you are obliged to tell your employer) but it may depend on a few things like how you are paid and when you are due. I worked out that I either needed to have my pay cut by £50 during my qualifying period (so I don't qualify for SMP- seems bonkers, right?), or earn about £350 more (so I qualify for more)- your employer may be supportive and let you adjust your hours accordingly. If you DO NOT QUALIFY FOR STATUTORY MATERNITY PAY then you can take income from multiple jobs into account through MATERNITY ALLOWANCE including self employment. CHECK YOUR NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS online, you may need to set up an account to do this. For maternity allowance you need 13 contributions in the 66 weeks before leave- if like me you're trying to work all this out before you've done your tax return(for my self employment), you won't be able to see the current year, but you can pay at the end of the year- I also believe your can back pay some contributions, so check it out ASAP but don't fret. DON'T TAKE THE FIRST ANSWER you are offered, digging about may make your maternity leave a lot less daunting. Try not to stress out (I did not manage this one). I do not know anything about shared parental leave but I'm sure that's a whole other barrel of fun!
    135 of 200 Signatures
    Created by molly Barrett
  • Stop sending misleading letters to GPs
    The department for work and pensions (DWP) are sending doctors misleading letters stating that their patients do not need a “fit note” anymore because they’ve been found fit for work. This letter will leave severely ill and disabled claimants unable to obtain Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) to which they are entitled pending appeal. This threatens the doctor – patient relationship and puts patients at risk of damaging their health further and leaves them in serious financial difficulties. Case Study Like thousands of others, Louis* was too ill to work and needed the vital income ESA provides – but his claim was refused. Louis was blocked from claiming ESA as he awaited his hearing, due to a misleading letter sent from the DWP to his doctor without Louis’ knowledge. Louis had to rely on food-bank vouchers, went into debt, accrued rent arrears and faced an increased risk of eviction. It took moving GPs and relying on new evidence from a clinical psychologist stating how his mental health would deteriorate further if he did not obtain the fit note, and therefore the benefits he needed to survive. Louis is not alone. These letters are sent to the GP of every person after they have been refused ESA - before they've finished the appeal process. 88% of our clients win their appeal and are entitled to ESA again. It is not for the DWP to interfere with the GP and their patient. Sign the petition today.
    118,637 of 200,000 Signatures
    Created by Ella Abraham Picture
  • Save St Neots (HDC) Customer Service Centre
    Many residents of St Neots will have no easy access to local benefits, council tax and housing queries. Without a local District Council Office anyone who has no transport, has mobility difficulties, no access to the internet or simple can’t afford the bus fare to Huntingdon will be unable to contact the District Council in a timely and convenient manner. Huntingdon District Council have in the past said they will keep the office open. Now they have reneged on their decision. Please sign to let them know how important this facility is to the town
    853 of 1,000 Signatures
    Created by Michelle Edwards Picture
  • High Beech School transport, our children's lives are worth more.
    This change in service is endangering the lives and safety of the children that are being forced to use the service. This change is also endangering the children not using the service by causing greater traffic volumes outside the school.
    219 of 300 Signatures
    Created by Ellen COOPER
  • No one moving onto Universal Credit should be left worse off
    The government have said that no one should be made worse off by moving onto Universal Credit. But people, like me, who are moving onto Universal Credit due to a "change in circumstances" aren't getting any protections. And are losing hundreds of pounds a month in income. I moved onto Universal Credit two years ago when my wife sadly lost her battle with cancer. I had to quit my job to look after my two young children and I was left waiting for weeks before my payment came through. Basic rights are put in jeopardy such as food, water, and a roof over your families head. The government aren't doing enough to address this. Please will you sign my petition calling on them to make sure no one moving onto Universal Credit is left worse off?
    205,504 of 300,000 Signatures
    Created by Carl Johnson
  • Manchester Demands a Winter Homelessness Plan
    When Andy Burnham was elected Mayor of Manchester, he promised to end homelessness in the city by 2020. But, there is still no concrete commitment or plan in place that says exactly how this is going to happen, nor that this commitment will continue following his first term. Hundreds of people across Greater Manchester are living on the streets in temperatures that are unbearable. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority have released an article stating official figure has fallen, due to the A Bed Every Night scheme, however this alone isn’t enough. Without a proactive and preventative Winter Plan, this crisis will not end by 2020. As the GMCA continue to develop the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, the 10 boroughs should set a long term sustainable strategy that addresses the cause of homelessness, as well as offers solutions to those who are at risk and in need of housing.
    1,403 of 2,000 Signatures
    Created by Ess Bee
  • ‘Weekly Payment Now’ on Universal Credit
    The current design of Universal Credit is one of the evils of our age. The design of Universal Credit was supposed to make it easier for people on benefits to move into employment. A key feature is that it is paid monthly and wraps all benefits into one payment including rent. There is a huge problem with paying benefits monthly. Because of the often chaotic nature of the finances of people on benefits, most poor people run out of money long before the month end. The result is that children go hungry for days, even weeks at a time and food banks proliferate. Moreover paying claimants the money needed for their rent, which they are supposed to pass on is folly. 73% of Universal Credit claimants are now in arrears on their rent, this is causing real strain on housing associations. Basically housing associations and landlords have become the lender of last resort to those on Universal Credit. But there is a sensible quick fix that will make Universal Credit work. It is repackaging an old idea. Pass a law that anyone in employment paid under £20,000 pa has the right to be paid weekly. Admittedly that will cause a short term cash flow issue for many employers. But that could easily be overcome if the Government lent every employer the right amount of money to move people to weekly pay. They already know all this information due to the HMRC real time submissions that employers are obliged to make to HMRC any time any payment is made to any employee. It would be dead simple to work out exactly the cash flow shortfall an employer would face, this could be advanced as a Tax and NI Credit and it could be repaid over an agreed period again by an adjustment to the amount of Tax and NI an employer has to make. Then simply, pay Universal Credit weekly and pay any rent element direct to the housing association or landlord. Then insist that ATMs and point of sale equipment in the supermarkets use fingerprint recognition technology and give access to benefit accounts using the ID God has given us all. At a stoke of legislation this would reduce the problem of running out of money for too long. Basically claimants are likely to be able to budget better on a weekly basis and if they make a mistake like drinking too much it only impacts their family for a week and not a whole month. So join me in asking Parliament to pass legislation to achieve this. It is so simple and sensible that it is quite remarkable that it has never been suggested. Adrian Hill
    226 of 300 Signatures
    Created by Adrian Hill