In UK an estimated 400,000 elderly people are lonely on Christmas Day. If John Lewis decided to spend £7 million on providing a party for them instead of advertising, it would mean an immediate £17.50 per head ... and even more than that if other large chain stores would get involved. The free publicity they would get from this wonderful gesture would encourage perhaps more people to feel like buying Christmas gifts from them.

Britain First is hate speech. Its activities violate Facebook's community guidelines and are deliberately divisive and misleading. Hate speech must not be given a platform no matter if it has 1 or 1million likes. It is Facebook's responsibility to ensure that thier platform is not abused by hate preachers.

Flying is not just for business travel, it is also about family visits/reunions/meeting loved ones. Changing nearly double the price to depart from China is keeping families apart because visits become too expensive. No matter the date, no matter the time, no matter the airport, it is always significantly more expensive to start the journey from China than to depart from the UK.

Amazon has more than enough money to pay its workers (both permanent employees and contracted agency workers) the Living Wage. This is the wage needed to support a basic standard of living. With UK sales in 2012 of £4.2billion, you'd think Amazon could afford to pay its workers enough to be able to feed and clothe themselves and their families. And unacceptably low pay isn't all Amazon does to demean its workers: A sack-if-you're-sick policy that sees you turfed out if you take 3 sick breaks in a 3 month period Giving workers 15 minute breaks that start wherever they are in the giant warehouses 10 hour days Compulsory overtime Monitoring and timing toilet breaks Half-a-point if you're 1 minute late or more (3 points and you're out) Paying the minimum wage or just above it, when it could well afford to pay the Living Wage A 'performance console' that tracks and logs workers' activities so they can be released if their 'pick rate' is too slow I don't know about you, but I find it pretty disgusting. It's time for Amazon to listen up and listen hard. It can't ignore us forever. Paying the Living Wage will be a big step in the right direction. Do what's best for your workers (permanent and agency), Amazon: become an accredited Living Wage employer across your UK operations. God knows, you could do with a good news story. You can read the stories from Amazon workers across the UK at http://www.amazonanonymous.org/ and check out the alternatives to Amazon on this 'Amazon-Free' shopping guide here!

I recently bought £90+ worth of clothing and the only wrapping on offer was a 5p plastic bag! I am happy to pay for paper, but surely we ought to be getting rid of plastic, not being trapped into buying yet more? The arguments about a 'bag for life' or reusable still do not take the plastic out of circulation. We need a national campaign. This is about non-food large stores, selling clothes, shoes etc. The food stores have sorted their packaging over the last few years, because they sell consumables It is an environmental and social responsibility matter. We need to use our resources carefully ,so for me that means avoiding plastic whenever possible and instead using and re-using paper based wrappings and bags.

In a world traumatised by acts of terror, we should only ever divide ourselves into those people who live their lives in love of their fellow man, woman and child and those who live by hate and fear. Never by colour, belief or geographic location. We are strongest if we stand together, side by side, against those who would divide us with extremism and terror. Those who would break us will often attempt to turn their victims against each other. Let's remember that we're in this together. And together, as one people is the only way we can win.

Iain Lee was sacked by the BBC after arguing with a Christian Legal Centre lawyer Libby Powell, when she stated that according to the Bible, homosexuality was a sin. Iain stated, correctly, that this was homophobic.

Most houses still have a landline which is controlled by BT and therefore there is no real competition except for Virgin who seem to increase prices in line with copper wire providers. Consumers have no option but to pay and that includes many pensioners on fixed incomes but who may need the landline because it is required for their link to emergency services.

Butter is a product of milk. The more butter that is used will help the UK dairy farmers. Palm Oil is imported and using that oil does not help the UK balance of payments. It could also help reduce the loss of tropical rain forest.

Many people feel that companies make enough money from us already purchasing products from them, using our income in banking to invest, or tying us into long term contracts with phone companies ensuring future income for said company etc.. therefore public and private companies or corporations should not be able to sell our data without individuals permission. This should be passed as a law under the data protection Act 1998. They should also ensure, that, allowing the use of our data is not a requirement for being provided services as this is entirely undemocratic and is in effect bribery and coercion. Companies should honour us when they say the will not use our data for any other purposes than managing our trading account with them. In addendum to this request, The "information commissioning" officer , Christopher Graham and his department needs to ensure a more thorough investigation is undertaken and enforce the policies below until decisions are made regarding the request above of a change to the Data protection act. Many of the below principles in the Data protection act 1998 are being broken regularly. and we are not informed if a company is making money form us. These principles need to be amended to ensure our data is not sold without our permission or personal benefit outside of the original agreement we have made with said company. Data Protection Act 1998 summary of rules below - Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless: at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and - in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met. - Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes. - Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed. - Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date. - Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes. - About the rights of individuals e.g.[10] personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects (individuals). - Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data. - Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data. These principles need to be amended to ensure our data is not sold without our permission or personal benefit outside of the original agreement we have made with said company.

There has been growing concern about the damaging impact of sugar on health - from the state of people's teeth to type-2 diabetes and obesity. To put this in context, a typical can of fizzy drink contains about nine teaspoons of sugar How many do you put in your tea/coffee?

Scientists working for ExxonMobil had suspicions about the existence of climate change in the 1970s, and by the early 1980s they had conducted research projects, validated their theories and concluded that man-made climate change was real and would raise global temperatures by between two to three degrees. Evidence suggests that ExxonMobil continued to fund the work of climate sceptics as late as 2009, and possibly beyond, which is after the date that the Rome Statute entered into force. Rather than alert the world to these facts, Exxon Mobil used this knowledge to increase their profits, whilst also setting up and funding various organisations to deny the existence of climate change. Exxon Mobil's policy of aggressive climate change denial has caused irreversible damage to the environment. As the mandate of the International Criminal Court is to try individuals rather than corporations, we ask the ICC to charge all individuals at ExxonMobil who conspired to cover up the existence of climate change with crimes against humanity. We believe that ExxonMobil's actions constitute an inhumane act which has intentionally caused great suffering. We want the ICC to take this action both in order to hold ExxonMobil to account for their actions, and to prevent other corporations from taking similar actions in the future. It needs to be established that large scale destruction or pollution of the environment, whether intentional or through negligence, will constitute a crime against humanity, and that individuals responsible for such crimes will be pursued by the ICC.