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.

1. Davies Commission Hub Fallacy The Davies Commission report recommends expansion of Heathrow on the fallacious conclusion that because London is an international business hub it needs a hub airport. As a hub airport facilitates flight transfers for people whose destination is not London, the benefits of this activity to London as a whole are limited. It is much more important that London is a widely accessible destination than that one of its airports is a convenient place to change planes. In any event, Heathrow is never going to be as convenient a hub as the larger purpose-built hub airports in Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris. 2. Vulnerability to terrorist attack Not only is concentration at a single hub airport for London unnecessary, in the present climate it is in terms of national security most unwise. A terrorist attack could seriously disrupt or curtail operations at Heathrow. The more flight capacity is divided among all London’s airports, the more resilient London would be against the effects of such an attack. It makes no sense to give Heathrow a third runway when all the other airports serving the capital have a single runway. 3. Anti-competitive to favour Heathrow at expense of smaller airports Heathrow is no longer a nationalised industry, but a private sector company; its success should depend on competition with other airports serving the same market. It should compete for traffic with other airports serving the London area, not be given a privileged trading position. If you agree, please sign the petition.

Anti women and anti renewable energy

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.

There are no parking spaces for motorcycles in Pinner. I cannot park my bike in front of the shops. Got stung with a PCN (Penalty Charge Notice). The parking spaces for cars are always full all the time. I cannot park in the disabled parking spaces (I am profoundly deaf, which therefore makes me disabled so I should be able to park my bike in these spaces - the chances of a wheelchair user needing the space to park his/her car is very slim), I parked my bike in the disabled bays and got stung twice withe the PCN both on the same day which is just way way way beyond ridiculous. There's nowhere to park my bike in Pinner if I need to do some shopping in Pinner. If I cannot park my bike in front of the shops, the car spaces are always full and I cannot park in the disabled spaces, then where am I going to park my bike if I want to do some shopping in Pinner????? I don't want to get stung by the blasted PCN yet again! They already have parking spaces for bikes in Harrow and Uxbridge. Why should Pinner miss out? The shopkeepers in Pinner will want to attract and encourage business to Pinner. Plus bikes are greener than cars. If Harrow Council wants to claim it has green credentials, then they should consider setting aside some parking spaces for bikes in Pinner so that bikers and scooter riders (I ride a 125 c.c. motorised scooter) can park their bikes in Pinner whenever they want to go shopping in Pinner. Not every biker is a Hell's Angels-type biker.

National security, humanity and a moral obligation

Because it's a really bad idea. Everyone is appalled by the terrorist acts in Paris instigated by ISIS and the easy reaction is to back the idea of bombing ISIS in revenge. If I beleived it help stop ISIS I would agree with it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately the reality is trying to bomb ISIS would play right into their hands and act as recruiting agent. Jürgen Todenhöfer one of the only journalists to speak to ISIS know the reality of this. Your heart will say back the French and attempt to bomb ISIS. Your head should say it's the worst idea posible.

The UK should not be involved in air strikes in Syria. We should have no military involvement as a country. The UK should only be involved as a member of the UN and contribute an even military action etc evenly with all other members. What good did out involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya achieve.

Hundreds of thousands of Tenants across the United Kingdom who pay their rent on time and without arrears are being indirectly discriminated against by the credit reference agencies who do not treat tenants rental payments the same as mortgage payments made by the landlords and those who own their own homes. This means that Tenants who later would like to get onto the property ladder often find themselves with a much lower credit score than someone who has paid exactly the same in mortgage payments over the same period of time which puts them at a disadvantage when applying for credit with a bank or building society.

It is important because the British army has killed millions of people in Iraq and taking part in bombing the innocent civilians in many places in the world. Also the UK government is selling arms to the ugly regime of Saudi to supply the Isis terrorists groups with weapons in order to terrorise, kill and control the people in Syria and Iraq and the ISIS killed 100.000 in Syria and Iraq , also 130 people in Paris because the UK and US make them strong with supplying them with weapons al along their best friend Saudi that financed them.

Not only is bombing a country wrong on moral grounds surely we are doing exactly what ISIS / ISIL want? Not only would we be killing thousands of innocent people but air strikes would also promote division between the West and ISIS / ISIL supporters. ISIS / ISIL WANT a holy war. Bombing Syria is leading to a holy war in their eyes. Air strikes will only create more martyrs and increase terrorist acts by ISIS / ISIL. Surely this is obvious?

Imagine seeing your home destroyed and being forced to flee your country. This is the reality facing millions of refugees this year, as we continue to see in the news. The journey is only part of the story. After the trauma of fleeing their home, refugee families can find themselves divided across countries, even continents. In UK law we have something called Refugee Family Reunion, which can unite families again having found sanctuary from conflict. Whilst family reunion is vital for those that get it i regularly encounter heart-breaking cases the rules simply don’t cover, resulting in the trauma of separation. Like the Syrian-born Palestinian refugee who wished to bring his wife and children to join him in the UK. The family had fled Syria to Lebanon. Unfortunately, their eldest son was aged 20 at the time of making the application. His wife and younger children were granted visas, but his elder son was refused due to his age. The family are now divided. I want the rules widened so family members including children over 18 years old, dependent parents and grandparents, and siblings with no other family can apply. A new clause tabled to the Immigration Bill, due to be debated on 1 December, would do just that. It would also strengthen an existing safe and legal route for refugees, helping avoid potentially life-threatening journeys across Europe. But to make this happen I need your help. Please email your MP asking them to vote for Refugee Family Reunion. Everyone has the right to live in safety with their family and loved ones