Reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery is a very divisive, volatile, potentially violence-prompting issue. Journalists have a special duty to be balanced in their reporting on such issues, especially when they involve high profile public figures whose views attract significant attention and can excite strong feeling. A journalist and publisher myself, I am fully aware of the commercial and temporal imperatives that constrain news coverage. I recognize the competitive challenges that social media and other technological developments have presented for the Guardian and other publications. But these challenges do not relieve journalists and publishers of our social responsibility. By what journalistic measure or standard could Ms Mason's claim that Mr Cameron's speech "struck a defiant note" be justified? Why does the article focus on an agreement or talks between the UK and Jamaica about UK funds for prison building and the repatriation of Jamaican prisoners to Jamaica when this apparently was not even mentioned in Mr Cameron's speech? Is this responsible journalism? Persons reading a transcript of the actual speech (found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-to-the-jamaican-parliament) after reading Ms Mason's report could be excused for thinking that she was employed by leftist ideologue Jeremy Corbyn or that the Labour Party that Corbyn leads owns the Guardian. Mason's reference to Corbyn, proper in itself, thus risks being misinterpreted. Guardian reporters should leave the politicking to the politicians, or else, state their political agenda plainly. Your readership - especially Caribbean readers like myself - deserve better! The Reverend Gerald Seale of Barbados, a white Barbadian who apologized for his ancestors' role in the slave trade, deserve better. Pan Africanists like David Comissiong and professor Sir Hilary Beckles who apparently rely heavily (perhaps too heavily) on media reports for their analysis of current affairs deserve better. Doesn't the Guardian's "spiritual father" C.P. Scott deserve better? Wikipedia informs us: "In a 1921 essay marking the Manchester Guardian's centenary (at which time he had served nearly fifty years as editor), Scott put down his opinions on the role of the newspaper. He argued that the 'primary office' of a newspaper is accurate news reporting, saying 'comment is free, but facts are sacred'. Even editorial comment has its responsibilities: 'It is well to be frank; it is even better to be fair'. A newspaper should have a 'soul of its own', with staff motivated by a 'common ideal': although the business side of a newspaper must be competent, if it becomes dominant the paper will face 'distressing consequences'. Does Ms Mason's patently slanted report on PM Cameron's speech reflect Guardian dominance? Whatever it reflects needs to be reined in. (Ms Mason's reckless report can be read at this link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/30/jamaica-should-move-on-from-painful-legacy-of-slavery-says-cameron)

On Thursday the 22nd of October, the Metropolitan Police arrested Chinese democracy activist and Tianamen Square survivor, Shao Jiang, on 'suspicion of conspiracy to commit threatening behaviour'. His crime? He was holding up Amnesty International signs which read; 'End autocracy' and 'Democracy Now', as the Chinese President's, Xi Jinping, cavalcade drove past London's Mansion House. The arrest appears to indicate that the British government is willing to kowtow to China's wishes to suppress any criticism of the Chinese government. Unchallenged, these arrests could represent a very dangerous precedent and could be just the tip of the iceberg in eroding the democratic freedoms that British people have enjoyed for centuries. We urge you to sign this petition in order to protect our lond-held freedom to protest and express freedom of speech.

This planning proposal was voted out by Fylde Planning Dept. earlier in October by a very narrow vote. The Councillors voting against the proposal do not see the value of green, pollution free energy, which we, in the western world, need desperately. The Councillors voted narrowly against this proposal in the face of overwhelming public support, and I consider this very undemocratic. They did not seem to listen to the arguments that the land would get double value by producing energy and still be able to be used for grazing as it has for the last 30 years, This seems to be nimbyism, short sighted and not willing to encompass new technology.

Currently to be entitled to employment rights (tribunals etc) you need to be employed by the same company for 2 yrs. This means that if for whatever reason you are unfairly dismissed within those first 2 yrs of service you are not entitled to employment rights, including tribunals, which in essence means the company has no consequences for unfair dismissals etc Often people are losing their jobs just before their 2 yrs is up, meaning they have nothing to fight back with (even with a union!) and companies get away with it.

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?

The BBC is one of the most admired and respected media outlets in the world. To attempt to force it into private hands through undermining its financial base is verging on the criminal. The organisation is neither marxist nor threatening to our national culture. It is portrayed as such by those who wish both to silence it for political reasons and to benefit financially by its privatisation.

If a citizen lies to the police it's Perverting the Course of Justice and has serious consequences. If a citizen lies in Court it's Perjury and has serious consequences. But when Politicians tell lies in order to get themselves elected it's just 'Politics'. Politicians must be held accountable for the lies they tell in order to get elected and the only way to do that is to force them to be as good as their words by making the breaking of election campaign promises, such as David Cameron is doing right now with cutting tax credits, akin to a form of Perjury that is punishable by them being removed from office as a minimum.

In June 2014 my boyfriend whom I lived with for over four years, died very suddenly. At the time I was 35 weeks pregnant with our son. Our son was conceived as a result of IVF and both of us were looking forward to becoming parents. Because our son was born after his dad died I could not register his father on the birth certificate. So whilst coping with loss and grief as well as adjusting to being a new mum, I had to go to court to get a declaration of parentage order. I was told that because we were not married parentage could not be assumed - despite presenting the registrar with proof from the IVF clinic My late partner's family and friends were very supportive and along with letters of support from them as well as a sworn statement from me that we had been in a monogamous relationship, a judge agreed to allow my son to have his father's name on his birth certificate. It is grossly unfair and unjust that an unmarried father is still treated as a virtual stranger to his own child. I should not have had to go through court for this! The registration laws are out of date and do not reflect modern demographics.

Will and Isaac Baker are brothers, aged 6 and 3, from Colchester, Essex. Their grandparents are active members of The Ark Methodist Church, and Will and Isaac's parents regularly bring Will and Isaac to Sunday School at The Ark. Both boys have a particular strain of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. PTC Therapeutics, based in the USA, have developed a drug - Translarna - which is the first drug ever to be developed specifically to treat the strain of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy which both Will and Isaac have. The drug has been approved in the European Union and in a small number of countries across the world. The drug has also been approved for a 6 month period for a boy in Scotland only last week. It is critical that NHS England approve this drug while the boys still have mobility and meet the prescribing criteria. Will, who is now 5 (his 6th birthday is next week), meets all the criteria to commence treatment immediately. Isaac is 3 yrs 7mths and hopefully will do so on his 5th birthday.

The commitment to purchase electricity from a future Hinckley C is eye-wateringly expensive. By contrast, the cost now for continuing our support for renewable energy is a tiny fraction of that amount. Britain's national interest is being sacrificed on the altar of Chinese-invested-and-profited but UK-taxpayer-funded nuclear power. We should take the opportunity to invest in renewable energy now, while borrowing costs are low.

The proposals in the Bill are designed to negate the ability of trade unions to effectively represent their members and hamper their support for political campaigns which can be used to defend vulnerable groups in our society. The Bill acts in contradiction to individual rights, fairness and social justice and therefore must be opposed.

* Steel is a strategic material. Without it we cannot exist on our own, supply our own industries, fight a war if the worst occurred. * Skilled jobs are being lost, these skills may not come back and our industrial future is in peril * Families are suffering, far better to assist the companies in the short term than pay dole to the redundant workers. * Britain needs to look to the long term industrial future like Germany and support its industries.