I've been swimming at Putney Leisure Centre for over 16 years. I'll be honest: the centre is run down and tired, and it badly needs modernising - I've more than once thought about coughing up for a posh gym with newer facilities. But I never have. The one thing that's kept me here all these years is the 33-metre pool. There aren't many pools like it left in the country. It's an increasingly scarce thing, and once it's gone, it's gone - because nobody builds 33-metre pools any more. But who cares about 33 metres? What's so good about it? For a start, it's simply more water to swim in. The pool gets busy, and those extra eight metres let everyone spread out and find a rhythm. Shrink it to 25 metres and that breathing space disappears. Places Leisure say they'll cap each lane at 14 swimmers in the new pool - so at busy times people will be turned away. And here's the thing: our 33-metre lanes comfortably take 14 swimmers as it is. Cram those same 14 into a lane eight metres shorter and it stops being swimming and starts being queuing. Modernise the centre - please do. But don't take away the one thing that makes it worth coming to for many people. A permanent change to a pool the public owns and pays for, decided behind closed doors and announced barely a month before it shuts - without consulting a single resident or member. This is our pool. We deserve a say in its future. Please sign, and help us tell the Council to keep our 33-metre pool and to ask us before they change it.

A battery fire every five hours. That’s how often UK fire brigades are now rushing into burning homes, fighting blazes sparked by cheap, unregulated electronics bought online. Giant marketplaces like Amazon, AliExpress, and TikTok Shop are flooding our homes with dangerous goods. But thanks to an outdated legal loophole, they dodge all responsibility when someone gets hurt — claiming they are just "platforms", not actual shops. Right now, the Government is rewriting the UK's product safety rules. It might not sound very exciting, but it's our best, once-in-a-generation chance to force these tech giants to take responsibility for the deadly goods they sell. Let’s storm the official consultation with voices from across the country. Sign this petition to tell the Business Secretary to stop the tsunami of deadly goods.

This is creating real difficulties for vulnerable customers, including: • Disabled people • Elderly shoppers • Parents with young children • People with visual impairments One example is Joyce, who is registered blind. Her guide dog, Star, struggles to safely help her locate her taxi when drivers are unable to wait nearby. No customer should be placed at risk simply because their taxi cannot safely collect them. We Are Asking For: • A clearly designated pick-up and waiting area for licensed taxis • Fair and reasonable enforcement for drivers collecting passengers • Better accessibility for disabled and vulnerable visitors • A review of current UKPC parking policies at Snow Hill Retail Park Please Support This Campaign By signing this petition, you can help make Snow Hill Retail Park safer, fairer, and more accessible for everyone. Sign today and help us bring about change.

Don’t price disabled people out of independenceStop the Motability VAT and insurance tax changes From 1 July 2026, the Government plans to change tax reliefs on Motability and other disabled vehicle leasing schemes. This could mean extra VAT on advance payments and Insurance Premium Tax on new leases. For many disabled people, a suitable vehicle is not a luxury. It is the difference between independence and isolation. Disabled people use Motability vehicles to get to medical appointments, work, shops, family, care, community life and everyday essentials. Many of us cannot rely on public transport because it is inaccessible, unreliable, painful, exhausting, unsafe, or simply not available where we live. The Government says protections will remain for vehicles designed or substantially adapted for wheelchair or stretcher users. But disability is wider than that. Many disabled people need a particular vehicle because of arthritis, chronic pain, fatigue, autism, PTSD, neurological conditions, falls risk, carers, medical equipment, seating position, vehicle height, boot space, automatic transmission, or inability to use public transport. This change risks creating a two-tier system: people with the most visibly adapted vehicles may still be protected, while other disabled people with serious mobility needs face higher costs. If the Government’s concern is luxury vehicles, then it should target luxury vehicles. It should not increase the cost of ordinary disabled transport for people who need a suitable car to live independently. This is also an equality issue. Before making changes that affect disabled people’s access to transport, the Government should publish the full Equality Act assessment, the modelling of how many disabled people may be affected, and the reasons why a targeted luxury-vehicle policy was not chosen instead. Disabled people are already facing rising care costs, energy costs, housing adaptation problems, inaccessible transport, and pressure on disability support. Adding extra costs to disabled vehicles risks pushing more people into isolation, dependency and crisis. We are asking the Chancellor and HM Treasury to: 1. Pause the Motability VAT and Insurance Premium Tax changes. 2. Publish the full Equality Act / Public Sector Equality Duty assessment. 3. Publish modelling showing how many disabled people may pay more, trade down to unsuitable vehicles, delay replacement, or leave the scheme. 4. Protect disabled people who need suitable vehicles for disability reasons, not only wheelchair or stretcher users. 5. Use targeted luxury-vehicle rules if that is the concern, rather than broad tax changes that risk harming disabled people. 6. Review the policy with disabled people, disability organisations and Motability users before it takes effect. Disabled people should not be priced out of independence. Please sign and share this petition.

For over 15 years, Kim has cleaned the streets of Dalston Square - and become a real part of the community while doing it. The local community and all the dogs adore her. She's a familiar, friendly face woven into daily life here. Now she's being moved elsewhere, with little warning. She's heartbroken about the decision, as are we. We understand the council sometimes needs to relocate staff, but we're asking Hackney Council to consider something in their decision that doesn't show up on their rota system: the deep ties Kim has built here over 15 years, and how much residents value her.  Please let us keep Kim. We love her dearly.

I am starting this petition because I want to speak for those students who deserve the right to perform to the best of their ability in a meritocratic system, where success is based on talent and effort rather than the ability to afford travel costs. I have seen many students struggle with the cost of travel to their place of study, and the impact this has on their education is often underestimated. For some, the daily or weekly cost of train and bus fares becomes a constant pressure that shapes their decisions long before they even start their course. In many cases, students are forced to narrow their choices of schools, colleges, or sixth forms based not on academic fit or personal ambition, but on what they can realistically afford to reach. This means that even when a student is capable of studying somewhere that could better support their future, the cost of getting there can stand in the way. This can also affect attendance and performance. When travel is expensive, I have seen some students missing classes, reduce how often they attend, or take longer and more complicated routes just to manage costs. Over time, this can impact learning, confidence, and overall educational experience. Education is meant to be an equal opportunity, but unequal travel costs create an uneven playing field. Students from different areas do not have the same access to the same institutions, even within the same country, simply because of transport pricing. We need to speak up for these students and work towards a system where education is truly accessible, and no one is limited in their potential because of where they live or the cost of reaching the place where they need to be.

Artificial Intelligence offers major opportunities, but without proper safeguards it could undermine jobs, creativity, dignity and meaningful human roles. Human contribution is not only economic - it supports identity, wellbeing, purpose and community connection. We are concerned that unregulated AI could enable manipulation, exploitation, misinformation and dangerous concentrations of power. In sensitive areas such as care, education and mental health support, human empathy, accountability and judgement must not be replaced by automated systems. We believe the Government should act now to: • protect human creativity, care and social connection, • ensure transparency and accountability in AI systems, • require human oversight where decisions affect people’s lives, • assess the social impact of AI before widespread deployment, • and ensure technology strengthens society while preserving dignity, opportunity and public trust. • AI should enhance human potential - not diminish it.

The nation seems plagued by the business model of on-line deivery couriers. They enter into contracts with vendors to deliver goods purchased from them.  The actuality is the creation of a "Safe spot" . They don't appear to have any obligation to place it in your possession simply in a safe spot convenient to them which can be anywhere on the property. They dont seem to have any obligation to tell you they're coming or when they've been. A photo of a purchase somewhere is sufficient to satisfy the contract apparently.  There are cases of stacks of purchases dumped in tower block entrance foyers claiming to be safe place which are immediately being stolen. There are cases of parcels being put in dustbins unbeknown to the purchaser with the consequence that the bins were emptied. Parcels being stolen from peoples doorsteps is common, but a safe place according the the business model of the companies.  Clearly the industry is not effective at self regulation. It needs a public inquiry to identify the legality, extent and the cost to the nation and recommend legislative solutions required to control it.

Young and new drivers across the UK are being charged excessive and unaffordable car insurance premiums, often exceeding £3,000–£6,000 annually, despite needing vehicles for work, education, and family responsibilities. 

Irvine is considered by many as one of snooker’s greatest ambassadors and a huge member of the snooker family.  Her depth of knowledge, attention to detail and outstanding broadcasting skills over many years have most certainly been of huge benefit to the game.  As well as other sports, Irvine commands enormous respect from players, officials and fans alike.  In a recent WST Snooker Club podcast, legend Stephen Hendry jokingly asked guest Abigail Davies if she wanted Irvine’s job – she replied: “You can’t replace God”.  Like the late John Virgo’s commentary – Irvine’s outstanding presenting at the World Championship and other majors has become somewhat of a snooker tradition. She is said to be "the face" of BBC snooker.  When Irvine was awarded an MBE in 2023, the World Snooker Tour reported: “In 2001 she [Irvine] joined the BBC’s snooker team, and remains the main presenter for the World Championship, Masters and UK Championship.” That’s now 25 years of service she has given to the sport.  Snooker Chat – a social media news brand with more 10 million post views this season alone – gauged public opinion on whether an inclusion was merited.  The X post on Snooker Chat went viral with more than 100,000 views and received more than 200 replies and more than 700 likes. It must be said several people indicated the Hall of Fame should be for players and officials only - that is a fair point. However, many of the replies favoured Irvine’s inclusion to the list – saying her dedication and service to the game warranted recognition. Among those to comment was twelve-times World Women’s Champion Reanne Evans. She retweeted our post and said:  “Now this is deserved. You can’t argue at all.” Other reposts from fans said: “What a great idea. Without a shadow of a doubt. H [Hazel] should be included.” And another said: “Hazel has been a great host for snooker over the last few decades.” After gauging public opinion, we feel it is only right to ask the snooker bodies involved to at least consider her inclusion.    

Pennington Common is the heart of our community — a beautiful green space used by families, dog walkers, and residents of all ages. But it’s missing something important: a dedicated outdoor fitness area for everyone. We propose installing a Calisthenics Park (outdoor street workout area) on the Common, ideally near the existing playground. This would include pull-up bars, dip stations, parallel bars, and bodyweight equipment — completely free to use. Why we need it: •  Provides affordable, inclusive fitness for all ages and abilities •  Supports physical and mental health in the fresh air •  Gives teenagers and young people a positive place to hang out and train •  Encourages community connection and active lifestyles •  Low maintenance and can be designed sensitively to fit the Common’s natural setting A modern calisthenics park would complement the playground and turn part of Pennington Common into a true community wellness hub. We urge Lymington and Pennington Town Council and New Forest District Council to support this proposal and help make Pennington fitter, healthier, and more vibrant. If you believe our community deserves better outdoor fitness facilities, please sign and share this petition. Together, let’s bring fitness and nature together on Pennington Common.

I’m calling for an end to taxpayer-funded bars in Parliament because politicians should live by the same standards as everyone else. Most people don’t work in buildings with subsidised alcohol on site, and Parliament shouldn’t be an exception. At a time when people are struggling with living costs and trust in politics is low, MPs should be setting an example — not defending drinking culture at taxpayers’ expense.