Thousands of jobseekers are wasting huge amounts of time, energy, and emotional investment applying for jobs, only to find out at the interview stage that the salary does not meet their needs. Phrases like "Competitive Salary" are misleading and hide the true seniority of a role. Transparency stops the unfair practice of low-balling candidates based on their "salary expectations" rather than the value of the job. It saves time for both the recruiter and the applicant. In 2024, I was made redundant after working for a large financial institution for 25 years in mid-senior roles. So far I have been unsuccessful at finding a new job, despite my experience and qualifications. For most applications, I am asked about my salary history or expectations. Even when I explicitly state I am happy to accept significantly less, sometimes £20-25k less I can tell employers are afraid I will 'walk' as soon as a better offer comes along. In several cases, I wouldn't have applied for a role at all had I known the pay wouldn't meet my financial needs. Listing the salary upfront would have saved everyone's time For example, one role required three days in the office. Because I have mobility issues and don't drive, the commute would have cost me £260 a month in taxis, but the employer was unwilling to negotiate on this. It was heartbreaking to receive a rejection email after investing so much time preparing, researching, and tailoring my CV for a job that was financially unviable from the start.

Public footpaths in Enfield and across the country are becoming dangerous to walk on. The uneven paving and broken concrete create serious trip hazards, especially for the elderly and infirm. As a pensioner, I am now afraid to leave my rented home unaided because I fear tripping on the uneven pavement and injuring myself. Going out for food shopping should not be a frightening experience. Everyone deserves to walk in their community without taking their life in their hands or fearing a fall due to careless maintenance.

Seasonal celebrations are meaningful because they are limited in time. When retailers rush ahead, they dilute the excitement, anticipation, and cultural significance associated with these holidays. Instead of fostering joy, this practice contributes to consumer fatigue and a sense that traditions are being reduced to marketing cycles rather than moments to be genuinely enjoyed.

To protect drivers from charges that could have been avoided by holding owners and car parks more accountable for ensuring correct, visible signage, and to prevent profiting from this.

What is the cause for concern? Recent amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill risk going far beyond the vital goal of safeguarding children and instead normalising the creation of permanent surveillance capability within personal devices used in the United Kingdom. Amendments tabled in December 2025 would: mandate tamper-proof system software on smartphones and tablets supplied in the UK, enabling on-device scanning of content to prevent CSAM; and require highly effective age-assurance for access to VPN services, meaning individuals would be required to prove their identity in order to use privacy-preserving tools. Protecting children is a shared and non-negotiable objective. However, these proposals would require surveillance and identity-linking capability to be built directly into consumer technology by law. Once such capability exists, its future expansion becomes a matter of political decision rather than technical feasibility, creating a serious and lasting risk of scope creep far beyond the original intent. The concern is not the existence of VPN services themselves. The concern is that accessing privacy and security tools would require users to surrender their identity, fundamentally altering the relationship between individuals, technology providers, and the state. This undermines anonymity, weakens digital security, and creates permanent records of lawful private behaviour. Of particular concern is that these measures are being advanced within a children’s welfare bill, rather than through the Online Safety Act framework, where changes of this scale and technical impact would reasonably be expected to undergo full public, technical, and civil-liberty scrutiny. Introducing device-level inspection and identity-binding powers in this way limits transparent debate and democratic accountability. The United Kingdom has long upheld the principle of policing by consent.   Mandating inspection-by-design and identity-linked access to personal technology replaces that principle with enforcement through architecture, where compliance is unavoidable, invisible, and no longer meaningfully contestable. This represents a fundamental shift in how authority is exercised in a democratic society. This petition does not oppose child protection. It calls for safeguarding measures that are targeted, proportionate, transparent, and subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny, without embedding permanent surveillance or identity-tracking infrastructure into private devices and everyday digital tools. We are calling on: 🔹 Lord Strasburger, a long-standing and respected critic of surveillance creep and technology-based overreach, to oppose any amendment that mandates on-device scanning or identity-linked access to privacy tools under the guise of child protection. 🔹 MPs and peers across all parties who have previously defended privacy, civil liberties, and the principle of policing by consent, to publicly challenge these proposals and ensure they are removed or fundamentally rewritten. We call on Parliament to: Remove or fundamentally amend any provision that mandates on-device scanning or surveillance-capable software; reject measures that require individuals to identify themselves in order to access lawful privacy and security tools; and ensure child-safety policy does not create permanent, expandable surveillance or identity-tracking infrastructure by default. Protect children — without turning personal devices or privacy tools into mechanisms of surveillance.

Everyone is aware of the atrocities that occur to marine life in Sea World and other marine parks all around the world. Please stop the UK from advertising these holidays and prevent the parks benefitting from the British people’s money.  These highly intelligent creatures should be protected and left in the oceans with their families and not forced to perform. UK banned animal circuses so why allow advertising SeaWorld or other animal entertainment holidays and activities? Marine life should be protected and left alone to play a very important role in the oceans and help protect us from climate change. All sea life has a vital role of protecting our planet and humans disturbing it is playing a catastrophic part in the global climate crisis. 

I am one of 62 former Vodafone franchisees who lost almost everything. I took out loans to franchise three of Vodafone’s shops, only to have the rug pulled out from under me when commission rates were abruptly slashed. The impact was devastating. My revenue collapsed, and the stress was so severe I ended up on a heart monitor. My family feared I would take my own life. I am not alone; many of my colleagues have faced financial ruin, depression, and the risk of losing their homes. For another Vodafone franchisee and lifelong supporter of the company, Adrian Howe, the pressure appears to have become overwhelming. He is believed to have taken his own life in 2018, leaving behind a devastated family. In the weeks before his death, his family have said he was deeply anxious due to severe financial pressure, having been required to secure what he believed was an unviable second store against the family home. Adrian should never have been put in that position - franchisees need better protections.  From coffee shops to the Post Office, thousands of local business owners have zero protection from this kind of corporate pressure. We take the risk, but the big brands hold all the power. Ministers have promised to look into these "harrowing stories." We need to make sure they don't just look, but act. Please sign to join our call on the Government to follow through on creating strong and robust statutory protections for franchisees.

It’s one of the most dangerous poisons you’ve probably never heard of – linked to cancer, fertility issues, and even birth defects – and now it’s everywhere. "Forever chemicals" (PFAS) don’t  break down in the environment. Instead, they build up over time, and are now found in our drinking water, food, blood, and even the human placenta. [1] But right now, we have a great opportunity to push for their ban. The EU is already racing to a full ban, and the UK government is holding a consultation asking for the public’s opinion. [2] Let’s flood the consultation with 100,000 voices to demand a ban on these poisons! This isn't just a petition. When we reach our target, 38 Degrees will submit our signatures to the official DEFRA consultation. Add your name and share -- before the consultation closes. These toxic chemicals are hiding in plain sight – in everyday items we use without a second thought: non-stick pans, waterproof coats, make-up, and food packaging. [3] PFAS are almost impossible to avoid. They seep into our daily lives, and stay literally forever.  But while Europe is banning the entire group of over 10,000 PFAS across industries, from food packaging to toys, the UK government is only talking about banning them in firefighting foam. British families deserve the same protection as those in Europe — and we have a window of opportunity to fix this. The government is deciding its "chemical strategy" right now. Let’s show them that British voters won't accept second-class safety, and push them to match the EU's ban. Add your name to the consultation, to tell Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds to ban forever chemicals in the UK. NOTES: [1] Newsweek: Forever Chemicals Disrupt Placenta, May Add Risk to Pregnancies [2] FieldFisher: PFAS Regulation in the UK and European Union: November 2025 Overview [3] The Guardian: Are PFAS in everything? What you need to know about ‘forever chemicals’

Traffic on Morton Way is becoming intolerable. At busy pedestrian junctions, none of which have any safety aids, such as pedestrian crossings, you take your life on hands to get across. That is for young able bodied pedestrians. Those of us not quite so mobile have very great difficulty crossing. It cannot be right that Barnet on a similar stretch of road have no fewer than four crossings. My husband, Chris Bushill, wrote to Enfield Council about Morton Way. Among other things, he asked how it could be justified that there were no pedestrian crossings on Morton Way when the continuation of the road, Hampden Way in Barnet, has 4 pedestrian crossings on a similar stretch of road. A reply has been received over a month later giving no hope of any action. We started to campaign in 2021, doing a series of traffic counts and writing to the council. All to no avail. Traffic is now much worse, especially at peak times which are, of course, peak times for pedestrians as well. This leads me to think extra pressure needs to be applied, hence this petition. Please support this petition. Note to be a valid signatory a home, work or study address with postcode in the London Borough of Enfield must be provided. It is planned to deliver the petition early in the New Year.

We believe that road safety should be given the highest priority.  We call upon Worcestershire County Council and West Mercia Police to work together to reduce the speed limits for vehicles on the Southern Link Road and to improve enforcement by introducing average speed cameras. Many residents living in Kempsey, Norton and St Peter's struggle to enter the roundabouts and there is a history of cars crashing off the roundabouts onto the footpaths. We call for the introduction of traffic light control and safety barriers to protect pedestrians. Local residents living in St Peter's have had to endure excessive road noise and fumes from the cars travelling at 60mph speeds. There are multiple crashes occurring on each of the roundabouts with many not being reported to the police as the drivers fail to stop.

This year, the average FTSE100 CEO took less than three days to earn what the typical UK worker will in all of 2026. In the case of Melrose, where the CEO earned 1509 times the median UK salary, it will take him just under 3 hours to do so. These disparities come in a context of long-term wage stagnation, falling living standards and a significant decline in worker trust in their employers.   It is clear that increased transparency has failed to keep extreme executive pay in check, with pay at the top of the corporate ladder having reached a record level for the third year in a row. To prevent such rampant inequalities developing further, companies should face a greater tax burden if they wish to pay their executives such exorbitant fees.   The ‘Fat Cat Tax’  This is why we are proposing a new ‘Fat Cat Tax’, whereby firms would pay a corporation tax surcharge on their yearly profits if single-figure remuneration for an executive director exceeds a specified multiple of the median UK worker’s salary. This would be a progressive system, starting with a small tax on those pay packages that exceed 10:1, before increasing in size at thresholds of 50:1, 100:1, 200:1 and 500:1.   Not only would this incentivise firms to scale back the levels of corporate wealth flowing to a small handful of individuals, but also raise funds to be invested in education and early years provision, helping to tackle inequality at source. While companies would not be prevented from continuing to pay sizeable fees to their leaders, increased tax receipts would help ensure that there is a shared societal benefit to such a model if it persists.  Why is this important?  The UK has some of the worst levels of income inequality in Europe. Not only do vast pay gaps have detrimental effects on the economy, but also societally through damaging health consequences, reduced workplace satisfaction and increased support for populist politics. Polling by the High Pay Centre and Survation demonstrates that 63% of people believe CEOs should not earn more than 10 times their low- and mid-level employees, reflecting the widespread support for an approach that seeks to reduce such gaps.  The tax could incentivise wage growth at the bottom, rein in excessive compensation at the top and help rebuild a model of fairness in how corporate wealth is distributed.  Next Steps  This petition will show strong public demand for reform. We will share it with government officials, MPs, business leaders, and campaign allies to help build pressure for meaningful change. The petition aims to keep pay inequality high on the political agenda and help generate momentum for stronger action. 

Rowans, a beloved North London institution, is under threat. Haringey Council is reviewing new plans that could see the iconic bowling alley bulldozed and replaced with up to 190 flats. The Council doesn’t own the land, but they’ve marked it as a possible housing site. The owner makes the final call - but if this goes ahead, Rowan’s could close for good. Rowans has been part of London’s nightlife since 1988. Before that, it was a dancehall where even The Beatles played! Losing it would be losing an incredibly special piece of our city’s history. We have no time to spare. We must strike while this story is in the news. Add your name today to show Haringey Council that Londoners want Rowan’s to stay.