These advertisements are aimed at sections of society who are in dire financial need, or there would be no demand, and it is not likely that obtaining a 'payday loan' at exorbitant interest rates or gambling on-line will be to the benefit of individuals, their families and ultimately society as a whole. It is not difficult to imagine the distress that will ensue repaying loans of over 1000% APR. as advertised on billboard information for the same companies. We believe that a civilised society would not only end this type of commercial exploitation swiftly, but would legislate immediatley to close these industries down, review why they have been allowed to operate for so long and publish details of the individuals who have been profiting by them and defending them to Government.

Many pensioners live on a relatively meager pension supplemented by interest from their savings. Over recent years interest rates have been derisory leading to a poverty trap for many senior citizens. This must be urgently addressed.

Our tax system is open to massive abuse by individuals and corporations of all sizes. Whilst the government works very hard to target those who supposedly milk the benefit system, they are less than vocal in their crusade against those who defraud the taxpayer by avoidance and non-payment of tax. It is time to close the tax gap.

Fact 1. Londoners without property must pay a large and ever increasing proportion of their hard earned income to their landlord as rent. Fact 2. The market value of rent in London is generally far higher than the long term cost of property maintenance. Property owners in London therefore often have a rental income which is well above the cost of maintenance. How can that be morally justified? The rate of extortion from tenants to landlords has been steadily increasing for decades, to the point now where even middle income Londoners are increasingly being forced to leave their home town. Property ownership removes the need to pay rent, but why should it also give anyone the right to an unearned income? Limiting the maximum property rental in London to the average cost of maintenance would be a long term solution to the problem of accommodation costs in London. The incentive to buy would remain as the prospect of paying a large chunk of your salary every month into your own pocket rather than someone else's. The squealing which this would induce in rich win-win property investors would of course be deafening! FAQs for this campaign are listed here: https://sites.google.com/site/limitlondonrents/home/faqs

It's important as greater numbers of people are being offered these contracts and a higher percentage of these people are young. If we don't provide decent working contracts for young people they have no hope for the future, and this is detrimental to a feel-good factor in an economic recovery. It is also treating people as commodities.

For many self-employed people, they cannot operate without using a childcare provider. Eg. If you are a self-employed single parent who needs to meet a business client in their offices; why won't the HMRC accept that the childcare expense is wholly and exclusively for business purposes? The current position is an anomaly and indirectly discrimminates against women who disproportionately suffer a detriment under the current rules.

It is important for the people of this country to know that no one is above the law. The current situation where the tax payer is bailing out the financial institutions is intolerable. How did banks end up selling and purchasing unsustainable mortgages if no fraud was committed.

Vast numbers of people are frustrated by restrictions on cashing in small pension pots, forcing them to take incomes of less than £5 a week, or in my case £72 a year! Government rules restrict us to taking just a tiny slice of our money, when we could cash in an amount of £2,000 or more, making a real difference to our lives.

Banks and financial institutions can make millions from risky speculations. However, when these go wrong, as happened in 2008, billions of pounds of public money were used to bail out the banks and save them from the consequences of their risk taking. Since the 2008 crash the total paid in bonuses will this year pass through the £80bn barrier – some three and a half times the amount banks have paid in Corporation tax and the bank levy – and equates to around £1,250 for every man, woman and child in the Britain. This Tax is not intended to be punitive: nicknamed the "Robin Hood Tax" it is, like the folk hero, intended to redistribute wealth and help those in difficulty. If we, the public and the tax payers, must share the financial risks of banks' trading then it seems simply fair that, at other times, we should also receive some benefit. This money can be distributed and spent to the benefit of all - in the UK, abroad and for the environment.

Investor-state rules could be used to smash any attempt to save the NHS from corporate control, to re-regulate the banks and to curb the greed of the energy companies, to name just a few areas. See here for more details: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/04/us-trade-deal-full-frontal-assault-on-democracy The rules are not enforced by courts but by panels. The hearings are held in secret. The judges are corporate lawyers, many of whom work for companies of the kind whose cases they hear. Citizens and communities affected by their decisions have no legal standing. There is no right of appeal on the merits of the case. Yet they can overthrow the sovereignty of parliaments and the rulings of supreme courts.

‘The TUC in September 2012 passed the following motion by a large majority: "Congress accepts that the trade union movement must continue leading from the front against this uncaring government with a coalition of resistance taking coordinated action where possible with far reaching campaigns including the consideration and practicalities of a general strike." The TUC and it’s affiliated unions are therefore committed to consider the practicalities of launching a general strike in Britain. In the subsequent months the attacks on the working people of Britain have continued, with cuts in welfare, NHS privatisation, scapegoating of migrants, public sector job losses and restrictions on employment rights. We note however the lack of progress made in the terms of the above motion and in uniting the labour movement to mount a campaign of opposition against austerity. Therefore we the undersigned - trade unionists, workers, unemployed, pensioners, students, young people, and the disabled - call on the TUC to say YES to a general strike against all the cuts and name the day for it to begin. This should be done by no later than TUC Congress 2013.’

Peaceful protest is at the cornerstone of our democracy and threatening to prosecute protesters for exercising this fundamental right undermines that notion of democracy and what is a civilised society. Protesters scaled the walls of the cooling towers in a week long protest at West Burton, Nottinghamshire. They hoped to raise awareness of the continued use of fossil fuel based power stations and the damage they do to our environment. EDF Energy is trying to scare people from demonstrating against using fossil fuels for our energy needs. By making an example of the West Burton protesters they hope that they will be able to limit the damage to their public reputation and go on building new fossil fuel based power stations. The right to non-violent protest is of fundamental importance in our democracy. We cannot let corporations from silencing our democratic rights to protest. We need to demonstrate to EDF Energy that if they continue with the prosecutions they will damage their brand and cost shareholders money in lost profits. We as citizens and as consumers have the power to make EDF Energy think again and drop the charges.