Imagine the nuclear bombs in our country went off, leaving our nation a wasteland and we had to flee to mainland Europe or Africa, should they turn us away because we're refugees? Because we're of another faith or skin colour? Would other nations letting us die be okay? Chances are you said, no, so how is it okay for us to let thousands of people die every day trying to escape war. War that we created. They're trying to escape the IS, they're trying to escape the bombs that France, America and We drop on them. We need to do more. These are human beings and we are letting them die.

The public have the right to know whether Margaret Thatcher used her influence to secure a construction contract for her son. Clive Whitmore, Mrs Thatcher’s principal private secretary from 1979 to 1982, is quoted as saying in his book: “Mark was driven by greed and reluctant to pass up any opportunity.” The i Newspaper recently reported - Mark's files 'to stay secret until 2053' Downing Street files relating to the controversial business dealings of Sir Mark Thatcher in 1984 have not been released under official 20-year rules. Why, what is there to hide? It's not as if national security is threatened.

His final and lasting recommendations (including an award for his wife's stylist!) reek of croneyism and will only serve to diminish any reverence for, or belief in, the Honours System. It is time for a thorough review of the rules and practices governing these matters.

George Osborne developed and implemented one of the most devastating economic policies in modern history. Not only was the programme a disaster for the poorest Britons, his "austerity" economic policy was based on a lie. The policies he developed could not be supported by any sound economic theories and time and time again these policies were proven to be a disaster for the poorest people in the UK. The economic research used to push forward his programme was proven to be false as early as 2010. As a direct result millions of people in the UK were forced into a volunteer work scheme where they were forced to work up to 30 hours a week for free. This allowed large companies to benefit from free labour and increase their profits. The scheme collapsed after six months due to the public outcry. When Osborne became chancellor of the exchequer there were just over 61,000 people in the UK using food banks. After 6 years of his disastrous austerity programme there are now over a million Britons who rely on food banks to survive. The "bedroom tax" and other cuts to benefits lead to an increase in poverty amongst disabled people and the austerity measures undoubtedly had a bigger impact on women and the poorest of households. The austerity programme was hastily abandoned by Theresa May's government but the disastrous impacts will be seen for decades to come. The austerity programme implemented by Osborne pushed more Britons into poverty. Osborne should not receive any awards for making millions of people worse off.

This will provide the democratic legitimacy for firm political leadership and direction in order to turn round a failing economic system (see chart) in the Eurozone. With the UK no longer in a position to stop 'ever closer union' but (together with other non-Eurozone countries) wishing to see a strong and stable Eurozone, now is the time to take this initiative before other separatist movements can cause EU disintegration.

Philip Green's behaviour in relation to BHS has yet again highlighted the loopholes and weaknesses in UK law governing the handling of money and finance. Green's behaviour is not untypical and it is clear that there are people who will always seize opportunities to make themselves wealthy with no heed for the consequences to other people and to society at large. The law needs to be changed to take account of this inevitable human behaviour so as to prevent the damage that arises from it. Removing Green's knighthood may satisfy a need for revenge but it does not even approach solving the problem.

This matters to the people you have impoverished. It matters to the whole of the business community that you have disgraced. It matters to the nation which cares for its reputation as a global leader in corporate governance. It ought to matter to you that your name is vilified and is become a byword for amoral greed. It matters to me because it matters.

There is some concern that Facebook and Twitter are being manipulated in order to undermine political debate in the UK. Many people who suggest this are accused of being paranoid or conspiracy theorists. Facebook and Twitter have the resources and data to confirm whether or not this is true, and if it is true to confirm whether or not it is a technical breach of their Terms and Conditions. It is also within their power to indicate the likely source of such a campaign. By conducting such an investigation and publishing the results, 2 of the largest media organisation in the world have a powerful opportunity to send a message about what is acceptable behaviour in political discourse on social media, and more broadly to make a strong statement about the value of fairness and honesty in democratic society.

The Chelsea Farmers Market is one of the few remaining outdoor independent trading locations in the heart of Chelsea reflecting the great history that made the Kings Road and surrounding areas a place individual to the rest of London, a thriving village. Any plan to demolish this would remove a heart of the community that is different from any where else in Chelsea. Only this site offers a unique outdoor experience to diners and shoppers. The Kings Road has increasingly become like any other High Street in England, however The Chelsea Farmers Market offers an escape from this by providing relaxed outdoor experience all year round to the residents and visitors of Chelsea. It's a unique destination enjoyed by all walks of life. The loss of The Chelsea Farmers Market would be another nail in the coffin for independent traders and individual community space for the sake of the commercial and financial gain of the minority. We need the power of the local residents, visitors and Londoners to help prevent this change to an area that will be demolished and never be re-created. Your signature can help preserve one of the few existing open air trading spaces, save jobs and prevent another concrete jungle from being developed.

Many MPs have secondary interests such as investments, businesses they own or hold a stake in, or guaranteed jobs that they may return to once they retire from parliament. These and other conflicts of interest should not be permitted to affect the outcome of a vote. Currently MPs are required to declare such conflicts of interest, so that any bias of theirs is known prior to a debate, however there is currently no restriction on their ability to act upon such a conflict, rather than in the best interests of their constituents. For example, during the vote upon bombing in Syria and renewal of Trident, many MPs voting in favour of these have investment or involvement in arms manufacturing, presenting a clear bias towards anything that increases military spending. While these MPs should remain free to present their case, it seems only appropriate that they should be made to abstain, or to somehow prove that their intended choice represents the will of their constituents and not their own self-interest.

Voters in the UK need to be reassured that Parliament is provided with the full facts before agreeing to send UK armed forces into combat. Parliament should act now to hold Tony Blair to account for his misleading statements in the lead up to the war in Iraq in order to protect its integrity.

Keeping our society fair means that people need accurate information on which to make an informed decision about the issues they care about. In the recent referendum on the EU both Leave and Remain campaigns were supported by the press in spreading disingenuous information to suit an agenda. The news media spread misinformation and outright lies instead of reporting facts. Several retractions have since been made in tiny panels tucked away where they cannot be seen without a headline. To help the news media uphold the high editorial standards which they aim to meet I think it is important that there is a cost to them for lying to the public and that retractions, apologies and correction are clear and visible. The Editors' Code of Practice can be found here: https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/ It states that "A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator." We believe that 'due prominence' should impact upon the publication to a degree that encourages due diligence. Please sign the petition if you agree.