To put speed cameras in place with speed limit of 30mph so to reduce the danger of potential death in this residential area Rochdale rd Beeston hurst to Baiting Dam Ripponden. At the moment traffic is passing through from 70mph up to 100mph a place for motorists to speed. It is very difficult and dangerous for residents to cross the road or come out of their drives with the own vehicle the road is to fast to judge. 

In early August, a wildfire destroyed the ancient Dunwich Heath in Suffolk. This precious landscape, home to rare wildlife including nightjars, Dartford warblers and adders, and visited by 100,000 people each year, was devastated in a matter of hours. This is not an isolated incident. As climate change progresses, so does the risk of extreme weather. Wildfires are becoming more frequent and more severe across the UK, threatening communities, nature, and our future. In the hours that followed the fire at Dunwich, we saw the best of people. Farmers and neighbours supported fire crews on the frontline, local communities provided shelter and food for evacuees, charity groups rallied. And the same is true for fires that have raged across the UK this summer - from the Isle of Wight to the Mourne Mountains. People have done their bit. Now they need a Government response to match. Now, we are calling on the Government to make three commitments: 1. Make climate resilience a national mission led by a Cabinet-level minister with responsibility for preparedness across Government and long-term investment. 2. Invest in nature as essential infrastructure, including peatlands, wetlands, rivers, woodlands and heathlands that help communities adapt to climate change, reduce environmental risks and support wildlife. 3. Support Fire and Rescue Services with the funding, specialist skills, equipment and public awareness campaigns they need to prevent, prepare for and respond to wildfires and other climate hazards.

Growing up in Worcester, specifically on the west side of the River Severn, has always been a cherished experience. However, with the vibrant community's expansion, there is an urgent need for educational resources to keep pace. Christopher Whitehead Language College, currently accommodating a significant number of students from this region, is under substantial pressure. The potential population growth only heightens this issue, placing an increasing demand on existing school facilities. The absence of a second local high school west of the River Severn means that many families face the inconvenience of having their children bused to schools farther away, in areas such as Malvern and other parts of the county. This not only disrupts their routine but also disconnects these young learners from their immediate community. Establishing a new high school in this vicinity is not just a logistical necessity but a critical factor in fostering a cohesive, community-cantered educational environment. Implementing a plan for a new high school would relieve the current strain on Christopher Whitehead Language College and neighbouring institutions, providing a fresh start for incoming students. With proper planning and investment, we can ensure the new school opens within a reasonable timeframe to meet the educational needs of future students. Such an initiative would reduce travel times, increase local engagement, and ensure that the children of Worcester receive a quality education right in their community. Statistics underscore the urgency of this matter. According to data from the Worcestershire Education Partnership, student numbers west of the Severn River are set to increase by 10% over the next five years. This rise translates to hundreds more students who will need local school placements. Our children’s educational journey should be facilitated, not hindered, by overcrowded classes and needless travel to distant schools. We call upon Worcestershire County Council to identify a feasible location for this new high school, prioritizing the needs and convenience of Worcester's families. By investing in our educational infrastructure now, we can create a learning environment that nurtures our children's potential and supports their future. Your signature can help turn this vision into reality and ensure a brighter future for our community's youth. Please sign this petition to make your voice heard.

Tragically, Professor Jason Arday has died after a vicious and deeply personal campaign of press attacks over the last few weeks. The Government must urgently launch an inquiry into the culture and behaviour of the British press, and any role it had in the death of Professor Arday. Add your name now.

Changing hosepipe-ban exemption rules under the Water Industry Act 1991 (Section 76) via ministerial order/statutory instruments to end the automatic exemption for golf course playing areas (tees and greens) across England and Wales will save a huge amount of water: golf clubs should publish transparent water-use data and use only non‑potable water sources during declared droughts (except where strictly necessary for health and safety). One golf course can use as much water in a day as around 1,800 households.  England and Wales has over 2,000 registered golf courses, and roughly 60–65% of them rely on mains water for irrigation – that’s treated drinking water, not recycled or abstracted. A typical 18-hole course irrigating just greens and tees uses about 4,000–5,000 cubic metres a year (4–5 million litres). When you add fairways, that's 15,000–50,000 cubic metres per course annually (15–50 million litres). One widely cited estimate puts water use at around 16 billion litres annually for England alone. That’s enough to meet the daily household needs of well over 100 million people – in a country where millions are struggling to keep gardens and allotments alive with watering cans, crops are failing and parks are scorched. Although the law allows sports turfs to be watered for health and safety reasons on active playing areas only during Temporary Use Bans, most golf clubs actually continue to water greens and tees routinely, as evidenced by satellite photographs published by national media this summer. Well over half of the golf clubs in England and Wales are in areas classified as under official water stress. These are the regions where hosepipe bans hit hardest. They also usually grow the thirstiest grass species on both greens and fairways – fine turf grasses like creeping bentgrass and Poa annua on greens, and perennial ryegrass on fairways.  This petition isn’t about attacking golf. It’s about fairness and facing the future realistically. Exemptions from hosepipe bans were last codified sixteen years ago. In a climate crisis, everyone should share the burden – especially when all the scientific evidence suggests we’ll face ever more over-heated summers and weather uncertainty. 

Nigel Farage voluntarily resigned as the MP for Clacton on 7 July 2026, triggering a by-election in which he immediately stood again. His resignation came while the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was investigating whether he should have declared a £5 million gift from businessman Christopher Harborne. Farage denies any wrongdoing. By resigning as an MP, Farage caused that parliamentary investigation to be paused. After winning the Clacton by-election on 14 August, the investigation resumed. Farage therefore returned to essentially the same position he had been in before the election, but only after an additional taxpayer-funded election had taken place. Farage had promised that Reform UK would pay the estimated £250,000 cost of the by-election, saying that taxpayers should not have to bear the expense. However, the Government subsequently confirmed that Reform could not directly pay for the administration of a parliamentary election under the relevant election-funding rules. If Reform UK genuinely believes the taxpayer should not bear the cost of a by-election triggered voluntarily by its own leader, it should honour the principle behind Farage's promise. We are therefore asking Reform UK to donate £250,000 to NHS charities, equivalent to the cost Farage himself said Reform intended to cover.

Forest Poultry Ltd is trying to build a battery farm near Ripon capable of holding 360 thousand chickens. We call upon North Yorkshire council to reject this application Alongside the objections to battery farms, this proposal would land a small village with problems of air quality, traffic, and  the impact on the landscape  We call upon North Yorkshire to consider the inconsistencies and missing information within the planning application; the environmental and animal welfare issues this proposal  They don’t want the stench of the ammonia of 2.7 million chickens on their doorstep, polluting their water, and neither do us.  They don’t want cheap chicken grown through cruelty in their neighbourhoods compromising our way of life; neither do we. Join us in saying no to battery farms near Ripon.  North Yorkshire is full of small villages at threat of having their green fields turned into factories for big companies.  We don't want their cruelty or them damaging our land and water.

We all campaigned for a new doctors surgery in the south of King's Lynn, after the town centre surgery, St James, said it would move out of town. After the town centre surgery moved out, it was more difficult and more expensive to get to from South Lynn and the town centre,  if you do not have a car. Funding was found, from the NHS,  for a new Primary Care Surgery in South Lynn.  The South Lynn Health Hub was built at a cost of £11.5 million and opened a year ago. But  still has no doctors in it. Out Patients from the local hospital, first time physios, Mental Health, but no doctors.  Now Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Integrated Care Board says it won't fund doctors in South Lynn Health Hub. This is about access to doctors and to NHS Dentists and Diabetic Nurses, in a community that's among the 20% most deprived in England. For better health outcomes.

Petition: Stop Turning Ownership Into a Subscription Protect consumers' right to own what they buy To the UK Government, Parliament, Competition and Markets Authority, and consumer-protection authorities: At one point, my monthly subscriptions had reached 50% of my income, and something had to change. I simply couldn't afford it anymore. Once I cancelled them, I realised how much of my income had been going towards subscriptions, and I was left with almost nothing. My experience reflects a wider problem: the growing practice of turning ownership into permanent rental. We, the undersigned, call for stronger laws to protect consumers from being forced to pay recurring subscriptions for functionality they have already purchased. We believe that buying something should mean owning it. Consumers are increasingly paying thousands of pounds for cars, appliances, technology and other products, only to discover that some functions are controlled by software and can only be accessed through an ongoing subscription. Hardware may already be physically installed in a product, yet consumers can be required to keep paying to use it. This represents a fundamental shift from ownership to permanent rental. We recognise that genuine ongoing services can legitimately require subscriptions. Streaming, cloud storage, continuously updated navigation and similar services involve continuing costs. However, consumers should not be forced to pay indefinitely for functionality that is already physically present in a product they have purchased and does not genuinely require an ongoing service. We therefore call on the Government to introduce stronger consumer protections: 1. Consumers should own the functionality they purchase Where hardware or functionality is included in the purchase price, manufacturers should not be permitted to disable it solely because a consumer refuses to pay a recurring subscription. Where a feature can operate without an ongoing service, consumers should have the option of purchasing permanent access. 2. No "subscription lock" on paid-for hardware Manufacturers should not use software or digital restrictions to turn already-installed, paid-for hardware into a subscription-only feature without making this exceptionally clear before purchase. Consumers must know exactly what they are buying. 3. Permanent purchase options should be available where technically possible If a subscription unlocks functionality that does not genuinely require an ongoing service, consumers should also be offered a reasonable one-off purchase option. 4. Ownership should survive the end of a subscription Products should remain reasonably functional when a subscription expires. Manufacturers should not be able to make an expensive physical product unnecessarily useless simply because a consumer stops paying a recurring fee. 5. Second-hand ownership must be protected When a product is sold, the new owner should receive the functionality included in the original purchase, except where genuinely ongoing services are required. Digital restrictions should not undermine the traditional ability to buy, sell and use second-hand goods. 6. Subscriptions must require genuine, informed consent Consumers should not unknowingly move from a free trial, introductory offer or fixed-term purchase into an expensive recurring contract. The price, renewal date, minimum commitment and cancellation conditions must be clearly displayed before purchase. 7. Cancellation must be as easy as subscribing If a subscription can be started online in a few clicks, consumers should be able to cancel it online in a similarly simple way. Companies should not use complicated procedures, lengthy telephone queues, hidden processes or unnecessary obstacles to discourage cancellation. 8. Automatic renewal must not become an indefinite licence to take money Consumers should receive clear and timely reminders before significant renewals and price increases. Where appropriate, active confirmation should be required rather than assuming continued consent because a consumer forgot a renewal date. 9. Consumers must be protected from "dark patterns" Companies should not deliberately design websites or applications so that subscribing is easy while cancellation is confusing, hidden or unnecessarily difficult. 10. Regulators should investigate subscription-based ownership We call on the Competition and Markets Authority and other relevant regulators to investigate whether subscription-based access to already-purchased functionality creates unfair consumer practices, particularly in automotive, technology, software, appliances and digital information services. Why this matters The UK Government has estimated that approximately 9.7 million subscription contracts are unwanted, costing consumers around £1.6 billion every year. The Government has recognised subscription traps as a consumer-protection problem and introduced measures intended to improve information, reminders and cancellation. But the problem goes beyond unwanted subscriptions. It is about the meaning of ownership itself. We are moving towards a world where consumers can pay the full purchase price for a product while the manufacturer retains control over whether important functions can actually be used. This raises a fundamental question: If I have paid for the product, but must keep paying to use its functions, do I really own it? We believe consumers deserve a clear answer. BUY IT — OWN IT. A subscription should pay for a genuine ongoing service. It should not become a permanent toll booth between consumers and products they have already purchased. We call on the UK Government and Parliament to strengthen consumer law so that: If you buy it, you own it. If you subscribe to a service, you pay for the service. Companies should not be allowed to turn ownership into permanent rent simply because modern technology makes it possible. We urge the Government to act now to protect the fundamental consumer right to own and use the products we buy. Petitioner's principal demand Introduce legislation preventing businesses from using subscriptions to restrict functionality that consumers have already purchased as part of a physical product, while strengthening transparency, informed consent, automatic-renewal, price-increase and cancellation protections for genuine subscription services.

Wixams is entering a period of unprecedented change. The Town Centre is now progressing through the planning process, a new four-platform railway station is being delivered, thousands of additional homes are proposed around Wixams, and Universal’s UK theme park and resort is set to become one of the country’s most significant visitor destinations. These changes create both opportunities and challenges. The current Town Centre plans include a single dedicated Food & Beverage unit of approximately 2,000 sq ft, alongside a limited number of retail units that could potentially accommodate additional cafés, restaurants or takeaways. However, these plans were developed before the full implications of several major changes became clear: • The arrival of Universal UK and the millions of visitors it is expected to attract. • The delivery of a significantly expanded four-platform station. • The growth of surrounding communities that will increasingly rely on Wixams for services and facilities. • The evolving role of town centres as destinations for leisure, hospitality and social activity rather than simply places to shop. Specifically, we ask that the councils: 1. Undertake a Strategic Review Review whether the currently planned Food & Beverage provision remains appropriate in light of: • Universal UK and its anticipated visitor numbers. • The expanded four-platform Wixams Station. • Growth in Wixams itself. • Growth in surrounding developments that may look to Wixams for services and facilities. • Changing consumer behaviour and the role of town centres as social and leisure destinations. 2. Develop a Long-Term Food & Beverage Strategy Prepare a strategy that identifies: • The appropriate level of Food & Beverage provision for Wixams today. • The likely level of provision required over the next 10, 20 and 30 years. • The type of venues that would best serve residents and visitors. • Opportunities for independent businesses, local operators and Bedfordshire producers. • How Wixams can develop a distinctive identity that complements, rather than competes directly with, Universal. 3. Safeguard Land for Future Expansion Identify and safeguard land within or adjacent to the Town Centre that could accommodate future Food & Beverage development if demand grows. This land should not be allocated for housing until its future role has been properly assessed through an agreed review process. 4. Establish Formal Review Points Create a programme of regular reviews to assess whether additional Food & Beverage provision is required. These reviews should: • Be evidence-led. • Include meaningful resident engagement. • Consider visitor numbers, station usage, population growth and business demand. • Take place at agreed intervals, such as every five years. Following each review, safeguarded land should be: • Developed if demand is demonstrated. • Retained for future consideration if further growth is anticipated. • Released for alternative uses only if there is clear evidence that additional Food & Beverage provision will not be required. 5. Put Residents at the Heart of the Process Ensure that local residents are fully involved in future reviews and decisions regarding the future of Wixams Town Centre and its Food & Beverage offer. Our Request We support the delivery of the current Town Centre proposals. However, we believe they should be viewed as Phase One, not the final destination. We ask Bedford Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire Council to work together to establish a clear, evidence-based framework that: • Delivers the right level of Food & Beverage provision for Wixams today. • Plans for the Wixams of 2040 and beyond. • Responds to the opportunities created by Universal, the station and surrounding growth. • Safeguards future options before land is lost permanently to other uses. Good planning does not attempt to predict the future perfectly. Good planning ensures that communities retain the ability to respond when the future arrives. Deliver Phase One. Plan Phase Two. Safeguard the Future. The original vision for Wixams was that of a sustainable, self-sufficient community. Today, there is an opportunity to consider how Wixams can develop a distinctive Food & Beverage offer that serves residents, visitors and commuters alike. This does not mean building everything immediately. Instead, it means planning responsibly for future demand, safeguarding opportunities for future growth, and ensuring that decisions taken today do not prevent the Wixams of tomorrow from developing the facilities it may need. We therefore believe that Food & Beverage provision should be subject to a formal review process that reflects changing circumstances and allows future decisions to be based on evidence rather than assumptions.

I don't have an index linked final salary pension scheme which allowed me to retire at 55 like many public sector employees. As a well paid salaried employee of private companies, I took the decision to fund my private pension at the expense of nicer cars, a bigger home, more holidays abroad etc. I am still working at 70. I don't know whether my wife and I will live to 100, or drop dead tomorrow, but stupidly I have funded my pension to provide for us to whatever age. This reduces our potential burden on the state. All I ask is that anything unused from my pension can be transferred to my descendants free of inheritance tax as a pension, irrespective of the age that we die. If not, why bother saving at all? I should have just taken the income, paid a lower net rate of tax (40% at the time versus 72% for higher paid descendants now) and leave the state to pick up the costs of our care and support in retirement. My beneficiaries will have to pay their own tax on withdrawing contributions from their pension in exactly the same way as I do. They do not receive a further tax advantage. The Government does not lose tax, but more positively it does not incentivise people to not save for their retirement. More importantly this tax change is (commences April 2027) a fundamental breach of the implied contract between the state and its citizens. Having encouraged saving for retirement, the Government has simply spotted an opportunity to introduce a new death tax. If I had known that this was their intention I would not have saved for my retirement. This is fundamentally wrong, and is simply 'state theft' and deceit.

We ask that the local community is formally consulted; alternative community, charitable, heritage and pilgrimage uses are considered; the historic ownership and circumstances in which the church and land were provided are properly investigated; and the Friends of St. Rufin’s and other interested groups are given a reasonable opportunity to put forward an alternative to sale. St. Rufin's Church is a simple, peaceful and charming building, erected for community use by residents of Burston, and licensed in 1859 for worship. Based on or near the site of a previous ancient church, Pilgrims along the Two Saints Way continue to visit as they did in ancient times to the place which is historically claimed to have been the site of the martyring of Rufin, in the 7th century. As the only community building in the village, continually cared for by villagers during its existence, the permanent loss of this historic building would be mourned by visitors, worshipers, historians and the local community alike.