The Derby Diocese Board of Education want to increase our lease fees by 6 times, we cannot afford this. We are concerned that the site will be sold for housing development, the village needs a preschool more than a few more houses. Our preschool and after school club have nowhere else to go. Jobs would be lost and our children's education and school preparation adversely affected. A little bit of the village would die. As President of the Board you love Derbyshire, help us please. Willington needs you. If Willington Old School is lost, then so might the preschool and the after school club. They are both fully booked, they are needed. Where will people send their children instead? Nowhere! There is a national shortage of preschool places right now. Don't make that worse, let us stay open. Protect jobs and look after our children. Save our school

It would make situations where traffic lights have gone faulty safer and easier for drivers to understand. In many foreign countries - Europe and America for example, when traffic lights are either inactive or defective they change to a flashing yellow mode (as can be seen in the Disney movie Cars). This advises drivers that the traffic lights are either not active or defective and they should proceed with caution. In the UK however we have a system where defective traffic lights go to an 'all-red' mode and temporary traffic lights just turn themselves off when they're not active. This type of system however causes confusion for drivers - when the traffic lights fail and go to all red both sides are sat there looking at each other not sure who should make the first move or whether the light itself is just a bit delayed changing. Seeing a flashing yellow would give the drivers on both sides an indication that the lights have malfunctioned and therfore they should take it in turns. In addition to this it would stop motorists having to take the risk at faulty lights of disobeying the red light or waiting until someone arrives to fix the light. Also a similar thing can happen on temporary lights too - when a temporary light is turned off at present the light just goes fully off to indicate it is not in use, however on some occasions I have approached temporary lights and found the red light to be out even though the light is active. Now had drivers not noticed the other lights they might misconcieve the red light being out as the light being inactive - but again if the light is flashing yellow when it's inactive the drivers approaching a light with a red light out would be aware that the lights are actually active and that is just a blown bulb.

These student are our future workforce and deserve to not work themselves to the bone. It will help improve mental and physical health during the course and give them.the time to study properly rather than none stop bank shifts between university days.

Please support this campaign to protect the buildings of Dawlish from vehicle incidents, and to protect the local terraces of Dawlish. We call for road warning signs to protect road users as well as residents' property. On the evening of Wednesday 17th May 2023, for approx 3 hours a delivery van was stuck on Hoopern Terrace, in between the house on the corner of Frederick Terrace and the walls of the houses on Hoopern Terrace. The driver was unaware of the narrow road ahead, nor of the uneven road camber, and had merely been following the sat-nav and Google Earth maps. How many more incidents like this need to happen before caution and road restriction signs are in place on Penfield Gardens, and narrow road warning signs on digital maps and sat-nav systems? We have a small cul-de-sac junction sign at the foot of Hoopern Terrace, but there are no road restriction or caution signs on Penfield Gardens, either at the top of Hoopern Terrace, on the junction with Penfield Gardens, nor at the other end of Penfield Gardens at the junction with the back lane to Clifton Terrace, nor at the junction of Penfield Gardens and Old Town Street. Neither are there are any road restrictions signs on Sat-Nav systems that vehicles use, nor on digital maps, and there really does need to be, as soon as possible please. This evening’s incident has inconvenienced the delivery team, the road rescue vehicles, the local residents, the family in the house at Frederick Terrace corner, families in houses on Hoopern Terrace, and doubtless more people wanting to walk up / down Hoopern Terrace. The incident caused structural damage to the house on the corner of Frederick Terrace, when the vehicle tipped because of the uneven camber of the road. The campaign for road restriction warning signs has been going on for over 6 years - how many more incidents and damage to property has to occur before warning road restriction signs are installed on digital maps, sat-nav systems, and on these roads?

We believe that people seeking protection from war and persecution should be welcomed and that everyone’s claim for asylum should be treated equally and fairly. We believe that the UK should offer sanctuary to those who need it and we oppose laws which criminalise refugees. We defend the right of people to seek safety from war and persecution in the UK. We believe it is necessary to speak out against attempts to punish those who make their own way to safety. We reject anti-refugee laws which will risk the lives and well-being of people and we support a refugee protection system that treats all people with dignity and compassion.

This problem we have today has built up since privatisation 30 years ago. When the public owned water companies were privatised initially investment in water and sewage cleansing brought our water into a reasonable standard. The Government then set legal standards for water supply and sewage cleansing. They then set up Ofwat to overlook this. Sadly the standards set were to low and Ofwat's powers are negligible. As the spokesperson for the water companies said on radio 4 Today programme, the water companies kept within legal laws, but fully recognise the state of our water and sewage cleansing. Why should we pay twice for negligence of governments since privatisation? Please sign to get this brought up in the House of Commons

WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT TO EDGWARE RESIDENTS AND VISITORS: Why Edgware? Edgware has been chosen by Barnet Council for the vast bulk of the Mayor’s requirement for new residential development in Barnet Borough, allowing towns like Finchley, Golders Green, Hendon and Barnet itself with nothing like as onerous targets. Flats The majority of the redevelopment of Edgware Town Centre will be concentrated in new residential towers. A total of 19 or 20 new towers are proposed including those of up to 29 floors, with most being between 20 and 25 floors, and even the lower buildings are proposed at up to 14 floors. The proposal is for about 3,800 new units (including 460 student units) and this could be expected to house 7,000 people ( Ballymore’s estimate that we think unlikely) to 12,500 people ( suggested by Barnet Councillor Lucy Wakeley and not denied by Ballymore) to maybe even 15,000 people. To put this in context, this will more than double the number of people that live within reasonable walking distance of Edgware Town Centre and hence double the demand for doctor’s surgeries, school places, dentists, etc. etc. Precious little in the form of this essential Town infrastructure is being proposed to be provided, which can only have a hugely damaging effect on the availability of these essential services to existing residents. Parking The land which is to be redeveloped presently provides 1035 car parking spaces, including a 275-space dedicated commuter car park for those that drive to Edgware tube to continue their journey into Town on the Northern line, and also of course the priceless facility for those who need or want to drive into Edgware Town Centre for its current shops and facilities. Again, this is to be almost entirely swept away and replaced, we are told, by a total of 764 spaces, of which 250 spaces will be servicing Sainsburys (in itself, probably insufficient for a full-size food superstore) AND the remaining replacement shops and cafés in the Town Centre (if they are ever built). The other 514 spaces would be in a substantially less convenient Multi-Storey car park. Now we are told that it is currently a matter of negotiation with Barnet Council and other bodies as to the allocation of the remaining 514 spaces between the competing demands of the new residents, the daily commuters and existing local residents who want or need to drive to their Town Centre. The developers argue that because it is a Town Centre development almost none of the new residents will want or need a car, or even a visitors’ space, but even if that were substantially true, and a car was used by only one person per 10 flats, this will still imply 340 residents’ spaces (including about 100 spaces deemed necessary for disabled blue-badge-holders), taking up almost all of the meagre replacement parking leaving just 175 spaces for the commuters (in itself a reduction of 35% of the numbers they presently have) and nothing at all for local residents driving to the Town Centre, and so, predictably, are therefore very likely to be denied access to the new Multi-Storey car park. Timing Because of the huge scale of the proposed development, it is estimated that this development could take TEN YEARS to complete. Imagine that – 10 years of disruption, diversions, mess and misery swamping our Town Centre. How many residents wouldn’t be able to face this and prefer to move somewhere else – that is if they could find someone willing to buy their house and put up with all this! Summary If Barnet Council decide to grant planning permission for this development proposal, which is at a density far in excess of what they have already permitted in Colindale in recent years, and it does indeed go ahead, the suburban character of Central Edgware will be lost forever, and instead replaced with a mini-Manhattan, no doubt at great profit to the developers, but at huge cost to the standard of living of local residents. Action What can be done about this then? Sign this petition below! We need Barnet Council and the Mayor for London to be convinced that these proposals are in fact a gross overdevelopment, totally out of keeping with the character of Edgware and the maximum they should permit here is a development of about a quarter of this density, whilst insisting that the shopping facilities are replaced, that there is more parking, and provision of the necessary supporting infrastructure including schools, doctor’s surgeries, etc. and with buildings considerably lower than those proposed. If we can get enough signatures on this petition, then hopefully it will become clear to Barnet Council and the Mayor of London that the local-residents despise what is proposed and if The Council still chooses to ride roughshod over local residents’ wishes, then they will see the results at the ballot box at the next election.

There has been numerous times items have either been damaged or stolen off people graves. There has also been many times now I've had items either stolen or damaged on my son's grave and I've been contacted by other people who it's also happened to. Lydney cemetery should be made more secure to stop this happing.

We are repeatedly told that there is " no more money for..." The NHS Social Services Mental Health Services Schools Pensions and Welfare Benefits Libraries Youth Clubs Parks Swimming Pools ...and yet you can allow £4.5bn of our money to misappropriated and no-one is being held responsible?

Because it is simply wrong at a time when a lot of people are struggling to feed themselves and their families because of the 'cost of living crisis' that MPs should have their food and alcohol consumption subsidised from the public purse. At a time when public sector workers are having to resort to strike action to achieve a living wage, many people are having to choose between 'heating or eating', and there are an estimated 2,500 foodbanks in the UK, its Members of Parliament in 2023 enjoy an annual salary of £86,584, whilst members of the House of Lords receive a daily attendance allowance of £323, or £1,615 for a five day week In addition to their generous remuneration, MPs and Lords have access to no less than 19 catering facilities within the Palace of Westminster, all of which offer subsidised food - and alcohol. The terms "subsidised" and "subsidy" are used here and throughout in their commonly understood sense, of a commodity or service being made available at a discounted price that does not reflect their true value on the open market Following an Open Democracy Freedom of Information request last year, we now know, that that subsidy amounted to £17 million over the three year period up to 2021. It is reasonable to conclude, by taking the average annual cost of the subsidy of £5.6 million over that period, and adjusting for inflation, the equivalent figure for the period 2021 to 2024 is likely to be in the region £20 million. One can quibble about the precise figure but we know it is a sizable subsidy. This is not just about money though. The Open Democracy article about this can be seen here and should be read by anyone interested in this petition or contemplating signing it. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/food-poverty-parliament-mps-taxpayers-cost-of-living-subsidies/ As if the disparity between an arguably cossetted legislative assembly (generous 'expenses', subsidised travel, second homes, gold plated pensions etc), and those they make laws for, were not bad enough, matters are brought into even starker contrast when one considers the apparent callous indifference MPs show towards measures aimed at ensuring that those who do not benefit from food subsidies, receive adequate nourishment - not least schoolchildren. In January 2023 the Member for Coventry South Zara Sultana introduced a Private Members Bill to extend the eligibility for free school meals to all school children. This was prompted by evidence in her constituency and across the country as a whole, that children were coming to school hungry, (in response to which schools started Breakfast Clubs), and that additionally, many children brought in no lunch boxes, or if they did, their contents were nutritionally inadequate. The bill received its first reading in January 2023, and then came back to the Commons in March for a second reading. Prior to the vote on the second reading Zara Sultana wrote to the Prime Minister pointing out that it was estimated that four million children in the UK were in food poverty, and food inflation was at an all time high of 18.9%. Her efforts were in vain as the government effectively blocked the bill, with a second reading re-scheduled to June when Parliament is not even expected to be sitting. It appears therefore that whilst MPs, who are amongst some of the highest paid people in the country, are happy to receive a subsidy from the public purse for their culinary pleasure, including alcohol consumption, they are otherwise perfectly content to see children going hungry, but for a subsidy for school meals which would cost a fraction of the £20 million subsidy they benefit from. It has been argued that the subsidy benefits passholders and other groups working within the Palace of Westminster. However subsidised canteens are not standard for most workplaces, but in the case of the Palace of Westminster this does not include open access to the Members Dining Room which is restricted to MPs, and serves haute cuisine and fine wines at transport cafe prices - a recent menu for example featured "Oriental crispy lamb salad with plum dressing" for a mere £2.20 This contrasts very poorly with what most people have to pay in their workplaces for more modest fare. Nurses for example who have a much more physically demanding job nevertheless pay more for their meals than MPs as this article from Nursing Notes explains https://nursingnotes.co.uk/news/nhs-staff-pay-around-twice-as-much-as-mps-for-food-at-work/ There would appear to be an ethical and moral deficit in a legislative assembly, the ostensible purpose of which, is to serve the interests of the country rather than just their own, the sheer amount of the subsidy aside.

We are deeply troubled by the imminent closure of the Glasgow Bipolar Hub. The Hub is a ground-breaking and much-needed resource for individuals living with bipolar disorder in Glasgow and beyond. Since its launch in 2020, the Glasgow Bipolar Hub has served as a beacon of hope and healing for countless individuals and families. As highlighted in the recent article "Bipolar treatment hub launched in Gorbals becomes first in the world" published in the Glasgow Times on 29th June 2020, the establishment of this hub marked a historic moment as the first of its kind worldwide. It not only showcased Glasgow's commitment to mental health care but also set a remarkable precedent for other regions. The Glasgow Bipolar Hub has played a pivotal role in transforming the lives of individuals battling bipolar disorder by providing specialized treatment, support, and a nurturing community. The hub's holistic approach, which combines evidence-based therapies, medication management, peer support, and educational programs, has yielded remarkable results. Through comprehensive care plans and personalized interventions, the Hub has helped countless individuals regain control over their lives and fostered a sense of belonging and empowerment. Furthermore, the Glasgow Bipolar Hub has served as a catalyst for destigmatizing mental health conditions. By raising public awareness and engaging in community outreach initiatives, the Hub has played a significant role in dismantling societal prejudices and promoting acceptance, understanding, and compassion. However, we have recently received distressing news that the Glasgow Bipolar Hub is being closed due to funding challenges and resource constraints. This disheartening prospect has left us deeply concerned about the welfare and well-being of those who rely on the services provided by the Hub. Closure would result in a devastating loss for individuals with bipolar disorder, their families, and the wider community. We believe that mental health care should be a fundamental priority for our society, and the closure of such a vital institution undermines the progress we have made in advocating for mental health rights. We cannot afford to let this beacon of hope extinguish when the need for accessible and comprehensive mental health support is more crucial than ever. We cannot allow this essential facility to be shut down. It is our responsibility to ensure that individuals living with bipolar disorder have access to the resources and support they require to lead fulfilling lives. By signing the Bipolar Hub Closure Petition, you can play a crucial role in urging the relevant authorities and stakeholders to take immediate action to save this invaluable resource. Let us join hands and stand together to protect the Glasgow Bipolar Hub, preserving a lifeline for mental health care and ensuring a brighter future for all those affected by bipolar disorder. How You Can Help: Sign the Petition and add your name to the growing list of concerned individuals demanding the continuation of the Bipolar Hub's services. Share Widely: Spread the word about this petition through social media platforms, email, and personal conversations. Encourage your friends, family, and colleagues to join the cause and sign the petition as well. Contact Local Representatives: Reach out to your local representatives, politicians, and influential figures to express your concerns and ask for their support in preserving the Bipolar Hub. Highlight the positive impact it has had on the community and emphasize the urgent need for financial assistance. Time is of the essence, and we must act swiftly to prevent the closure of the Bipolar Hub. By signing the petition, spreading awareness, and engaging with local authorities, we can make a tangible difference in the lives of those affected by bipolar disorder. Together, let us advocate for the continued operation of the Bipolar Hub and ensure that the necessary support and resources remain accessible to those who need them the most. Thank you for your attention and your commitment to this vital cause.

If the vehicle entrance goes ahead, it will be meters from the very youngest children at Chestnuts school, leading to increased pollution and disruption to them every day, as they play in their playground, as well as an even busier road to cross on the way to and from school. Despite deputations from children, parents and governors from the school to the council, the plans for the vehicle entrance were still signed off. The school was not consulted properly on the plans, which, as a major stakeholder, they should have been. A vehicle entrance in this position poses a serious risk on an already busy road to child safety and health. The creation of a new vehicle entrance here is in direct opposition to Haringey council's Climate Change Action plan, which 'targets a borough-wide reduction on carbon emissions which will improve living standards for all residents'. In addition, the planned vehicle entrance is in the same location as a planned zebra crossing which has now been put off indefinitely, after years of being promised by the council to make a particularly treacherous crossing safer. There is already a vehicle entrance into the development that can be used for vehicle access, a second one is not needed.