Aquind must be stopped. This project erodes our democratic rights. It is no longer simply a planning issue and goes beyond the significant impact it will have on local communities. Aquind's planning application must be refused on the grounds of an unfeasible route through a densely populated island city with unique wildlife areas and green spaces ending in a National Park. The negative impact on traffic, residents and wildlife is too great. The people of Portsmouth, communities along the route, Portsmouth City Council and Portsmouth’s Tory and Labour MPs unanimously oppose this project yet Aquind consistently dismisses these concerns. It is also unnecessary and surplus to the Government's own projected interconnection needs; by the time it is operational (in up to 7 years' time), it risks being redundant. The massive data cable it wants to lay alongside the high voltage cables falls outside the planning remit. There has been no proper scrutiny as to whether Aquind is an appropriate company for such a significant national infrastructure project. The Tory party has taken over £1.5 million in donations from Aquind-related sources. Nearly 1 in 10 Tory MPs took donations. The BBC Panorama and Guardian investigation into the Pandora Papers financial leak raised questions about the murky financial dealings of Aquind's owner, Viktor Fedotov – questions that the Tory party has not answered. The Business Secretary has even written letters of support to Aquind during the planning process. Any decision made can't possibly be impartial. Communities should not be cut off from decision-making by the cosy relationships business and ministers create with their political donations from opaque offshore companies, revolving doors and contracts for mates.

Signing this petition will help guide us Reservoir users towards shaping the future of Edgbaston Reservoir that WE want and take a stand against BCC's tokenistic consultation processes. The resa is a Local Nature Reserve loved by its users, and should be valued in terms of its huge contribution to our wellbeing, not something which can be repeatedly cited by the council for financial exploitation by developers. Together, we can look after and shape our reservoir. You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.

What is the Nationality and Borders Bill? On Wednesday 8th December, Government MP's including Philip Hollobone, Tom Pursglove and Peter Bone voted for the Nationality & Borders Bill. It has been described as an attack on refugee rights and criticised for breaching international law. The bill includes unlawful policy changes meaning that: - UK residents could have citizenship stripped without notification. - Asylum Seekers could be sent to offshore 'processing centres'. - People rescuing refugees could be prosecuted. - Refugees not entering the country by a 'safe and legal route' would punished and ignored. Why should we vote against it? Despite ministers claims that the Bill will help to save lives; it will do the exact opposite. The Bill fails to offer a safer route to the UK, putting refugees at further risk of exploitation by smugglers and traffickers. Why should we do more? Our government and the media give the impression that the UK are doing more than enough to help people fleeing war and persecution. But that is not the case. To put into context: - At the end of 2020 around 82.4 million people were forcibly displaced across the world. - Of these, 26.4 million were refugees. - Half of the world’s refugees are children. - 85% of refugees are being hosted in developing countries. The UK is home to approx 1% of 26.4 million refugees around the world, and significantly falls far behind our European neighbours when it comes to granting asylum (in terms of the number of asylum applications per head of population, the UK ranks 17th highest in Europe). In addition, it is our moral and legal obligation to uphold the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention - an agreement that the UK played a central role in drafting. We should be proud of our tradition of protecting refugees but given the scale of the global refugee crisis facing the world, we can and should be doing much more to help. How can I make a difference? We are calling on people of North Northamptonshire to sign this petition, and demand that our local Members of Parliament hear our voice and speak out against the Nationality and Borders Bill. North Northamptonshire is a beautifully diverse and culture rich place, and we are proud to embrace and accept refugees with open arms.

In the lea of the Lincolnshire Wolds, down a single-track lane, lies a tranquil haven. Deer, owls, bats, lapwings, skylarks and countless other wildlife depend on this rural habitat. Wide grassy verges are mini eco-systems brimming with native flowers and insects; it is an area rich in bio-diversity, enjoyed by countless tourists, cyclists, walkers and riders. Drilling for oil in this location is proposed by Egdon Resources. This industrialisation of our countryside will bring pollution in the form of noise, air, light and traffic to nearby residents and villages. It will adversely affect the well-being and safety of local people. Our country roads are not safe thoroughfare for numerous HGVs and other site traffic. If Egdon discover oil, the damaging exploitation may continue for up to 20 years, flying in the face of our international commitments to limit global warming. Despite initially being granted permission in 2014, and notwithstanding numerous time extensions, Egdon have not yet commenced work on the site. A dark cloud of uncertainty has already hung over local residents for seven years. This is unfair and unreasonable. It should not be allowed to continue. A group of local people keen to protect our community and our environment have come together. Through our collective conscience, and fully recognising our responsibilities to future generations, we oppose this development. The COP 26 summit drew global attention to the climate & ecological emergency. Lincolnshire County Council seeks to ‘lead the way’ through the implementation of its Green Masterplan which aims to, “find innovative solutions to global climate issues”. In this context, a proposal to embark on new fossil fuel exploration in our countryside is unfathomable. “Sustainable development” is defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Exploration for new fossil fuels does not fulfil that criteria; it brings immediate local harm and represents future global devastation. By signing this petition, you inform Lincolnshire County Council that you object to the development outlined in planning applications PL/0167/21 and PL/0168/21, and urge them to refuse permission. Anyone can sign our petition but please also tick the check-box if you live, work or study in Lincolnshire. Thank you.

Dumfries Infirmary can be a 70 mile journey there and back for most people in this area. This is not good enough. People have payed their National Insurance for decades. Where has that money all gone? Kirkcudbright Cottage Hospital needs to be reopened. A 70 mile round trip to Dumfries Infirmary is ridiculous and stressful. The Cottage Hospital had a nice homely feel to it, which I'm sure the patients appreciated.

We don't know exactly how many children in the UK experience child abuse. Child abuse is usually hidden from view. Adults in the child’s life may not recognise the signs that they are being abused and the child may be too young, too scared or too ashamed to tell anyone what is happening to them. By making our Social Services the 4th Emergency service and increasing funding, we could save many more children from abusive and hostile environments and prevent further tragedies from occurring.

UPDATE, MARCH 2023 Thanks to everyone who signed the petition to save the M&S building on Oxford Street. It has become an extremely high-profile case attracting national media attention and supporters including the actor Kristin Scott Thomas, the TV presenter Griff Rhys Jones and the writer Bill Bryson. Since we launched the petition a lot has happened, as you will know from our email updates. We made a video, we smashed our crowdfunder, we held a lecture at the Royal Academy, we issued a report documenting the campaign. And, of course, we fought a two-week public inquiry against M&S on heritage and sustainability grounds which could have far-reaching consequences for our demolition-first approach to development. The planning inspector’s recommendation is now with the Secretary of State who has the final say. His decision is expected “on or before 3rd May”. Find out more in our report, The Battle for M&S Oxford Street: Why This Landmark Case Matters, which you can download from our website. And thanks again for your support – we couldn’t do it without you! If you’d like to know more about our work and how to help SAVE Britain’s Heritage please visit our website. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The demolition and rebuild of this 6-storey building would pump 39,500 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. This handsome landmark building has characterised Oxford Street for almost 100 years, helping shape one of London's most famous and historic streets. In September this year M&S announced it was ramping up its ambitious green agenda, seeking to cut a third of its carbon emissions by 2025 and be fully net zero by 2045. Now the company board risks betraying its own carbon targets in the midst of a global climate crisis. According to M&S’s own planning documents, the projects carbon cost of 39,534 tonnes of CO2 would require the planting of 2.4 million trees to offset its impact. If the former Oxford Street department stores of House of Fraser, Topshop Debenham’s can all be refurbished for office and retail use, why can’t M&S follow suit? We therefore call on the Chairman and CEO of M&S do the right thing by history, and by future generations. Save and re-use this building and show your customers and investors that M&S is serious about sustainability and its own net zero commitments. M&S must seize this opportunity to boost their green credentials and keep this part of London’s heritage in the process. Built to a high specification, this prestigious building is ready for adaptation and repurposing to suit a variety of uses, and capable of lasting another 100 years. Under the proposals, designed by architects Pilbrow + Partners, the unlisted 1929 art deco landmark is set to be bulldozed along with two extension buildings to be replaced with a 10-storey retail and office building. Despite substantial local and national opposition, and a listing bid from the Twentieth Century Society, the plans were approved by Westminster City Council on 23rd November 2021, with a £1.2 million ‘carbon offset’ payment to be made by M&S to the council. It’s not too late for M&S to think afresh and respond to the concerns of Londoners and customers, through saving and reusing M&S Marble Arch. www.savebritainsheritage.org www.c20society.org.uk

Stop Incineration in the North East (SINE) is shocked that such an old-fashioned way of dealing with waste is even being considered. At a time of unprecedented threat to local air quality and the global climate, our Councils are pushing a scheme that will: · Pollute the local area, releasing deadly dioxins into the air, water and soil, plus furans, cadmium, and other particulates. · Concentrate all waste management vehicles in the region into one location creating traffic chaos and increasing air pollution · Emit vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that will contribute to climate breakdown. We don't yet have the technology to capture this carbon dioxide. Waste incineration in 2019 “gave rise to 13% of greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity generation, even though it produced only 2.4% of the UK’s electricity”. (Koppelaar, Guardian, 16.11.20) · Emit tiny particles of carbon into the atmosphere that lodge deep in lung tissue · Emit NOx and SOx into the atmosphere that also cause lung damage and asthma · Create a market for waste, incentivising waste production. This will drive down the value of recycled materials and act to reduce overall levels of recycling (as resources in waste can be burned instead) · Cost councils £millions more than they currently spend on waste management. The money will have to be found from somewhere. · Incineration Tax may be applied by the government, and is likely in such a long contract, but isn’t taken into account. The local health impacts created by incinerators are much worse for people on lower incomes as the facilities are normally sited in areas with high levels of deprivation - as is the case with the Redcar facility. Though modern incinerators are equipped with technology that reduces dioxin levels, they are not completely removed. Dioxins are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also cause cancer. What stage are the plans at? This climate-killing project quietly slipped through the early stages of planning unnoticed. It was granted Outline Planning Approval in 2010 through a delegated decision made by officers without public consultation and little scrutiny of any kind. Construction was due to start in December 2021, but delays have meant that companies have yet to put in bids to build the incinerator. What should be done instead? Once the incinerator is built your council will be locked into a 45 year contract, forcing us to keep paying, year after year, for the incinerator to pollute. In the future, any council that does the right thing and helps people and businesses cut their waste will face financial penalties. That’s just plain wrong! Stop Incineration North East supports positive ways forward to manage our waste in a safe and sustainable way. Food waste - There is a government requirement that food waste be collected separately from 2023/4, and anaerobic digestors with methane harnessed for energy already exist within the region; more can be built on a local, modular basis. A fraction of the cost could set up repair and re-use arcades in central locations. Recycling is going down in the NE, partly driven by the market for waste created by incinerators, but we can instead improve household recycling. Reduce packaging - Everyone has a job to do in cutting out unnecessary packaging, manufacturers, retailers and us, the consumers. The problem is that burning waste lets manufacturers and retailers off the hook, leaving us to pick up the bill. Repair and reuse - Products are often too hard to reuse or repair. We need products that are designed to be opened and fixed. What’s more, repair shops and spare parts should be zero VAT rated. Recycle - Only when something can’t be reused or repurposed should waste then move on to be recycled. This monster incinerator will burn through our plans for a more sustainable and safe future for the North East. We call on the Council Leaders from these authorities to cancel the planned build of the Tees Valley, Durham County and Newcastle incinerator at Redcar. We call on the Council Leaders to put our health and planet first and produce a Regional Waste Strategy designed around the need to transition to a circular economy. SINE is a group of organisations working together to stop the incinerator.

In previous years when Roots has been moved the University has ignored many requests from the society. We need you to show that you support these proposals and demonstrate the vitality of having a community garden on campus, for education, for biodiversity, for mental health.

Students that are female and non-binary in particular have been spiked with date rape drugs via injection in their arms at a college bop. I feel unsafe in my college and at this university. Procedures need to be put in place to punish the perpetrators and protect further students from harm in their university colleges. Help me make Cambridge University and Hughes Hall College a safer space for students that identify as female or non-binary.

Another (but much more expensive) option would be to widen the ramp leading to the mid-level parking area/main entrance and provide effective vehicle/pedestrian segregation. When approached, Tesco Management have said the closure is due to "incidents and undesirable behaviour" from people using the Carlisle St entrance. We appreciate that is a problem, but suggest that having a security guard and CCTV etc, at that entrance, plus effective co-operation with council and police, would solve the problem. (There is a security guard at the mid-level car park/main entrance; there should really be an additional traffic marshal ON the ramp.) We understand it saves money if you don't have to hire an extra security guard, but making your store basically difficult/dangerous to access for people without cars is not community- (or environmentally-) friendly. Keeping the Carlyle St entrance closed discriminates against the disabled and those with limited incomes. It also results in people taking risks that may lead to serious injuries or worse (it's just a matter of time), and favours people who use cars over those who walk or use public transport. To reach the other entrances, people must walk more than a third of a mile/600 metres (Googlemaps' estimated time to walk: 7 min) to get to the ONE pedestrian-only entrance (on the other side of a VERY large store) – or even further (at least half a mile/800 metres) to the lower car park entrance. (These pedestrian entrances are NOT signposted.) Note: If the lift is out of order and you cannot cope with stairs, there is zero pedestrian access (except via the "travellator" from the lower car park, also accessed from Savile St. – a commercial/industrial zone in which nobody lives). What people do instead is use the mid-level car park ramp (still an extra 250 metres/3 minutes' walk), which is intended for cars rather than people, and means that cars pass dangerously close to pedestrians (many of whom have small children with them), and at speed. This is very unsafe, yet there are no signs saying pedestrians should not use this ramp, nor that cars should beware or give room. Thus, keeping the Carlisle St entrance closed encourages people to visit Tesco in cars/taxis rather than on foot/by bus (not very green), and disadvantages those on limited incomes (who don't have cars/can't afford a bus let alone a taxi), the elderly, those who are visually impaired or otherwise disabled, those using pushchairs/prams/wheelchairs, parents with small children in tow, and/or those who are carrying heavy shopping. Here are some comments from people in the community: "As a wheelchair user it requires me to spend even longer in the road than the average pedestrian as I need to use the dip at the crossing, and it is out-and-out dangerous. Cars speed around that corner, often not indicating. The bit of the road, that I can only presume is the walkway, is often full of trolleys and signs and of course is so narrow it isn't even wide enough for two people to cross. I feel safer going down the centre of the road and treating it similarly to walking on country roads." === "Silly and unsafe. During lockdown no cars used the ramp. Now they do. My granddaughter nearly got run over by a car going round the corner on the ramp. My husband told the folk at Tesco. It seems from their staff that the Management has permanently closed the top pedestrian entrance. We would like to see their risk assessment. Hope they look at this again soon. We don’t shop there with kids until they do. Life is worth more than shopping at our local shop." === "With small children, one in a pushchair, and shopping I really really resent being forced to walk the long way round, or dice with death, when car drivers have 2 choices of entrance. It totally discriminates against local people who don’t have access to a car." === "......it is really annoying having to carry all the shopping up the road; it's too much for the elderly and for people with disabilities." === "I've seen mums dragging prams, small kids and bags of shopping up the ramp as cars whizz down. It's totally unsafe... and no way those mums will choose the other exit, with small kids in tow that could be a good 10 mins onto the journey, with heavy bags and toddlers. The design of the Spital Hill entrance was bad, they need to find design solutions to make it better – not shut it." ===

Better working conditions for HE staff makes for better education outcomes for students. A fairer HE makes for a fairer society.