Terry Pratchett is the most accomplished British writer of the late 20th and early 21st century. His novels and their contained philosophy have had a huge effect on popular culture and the Discworld exists in the hearts of millions of loyal readers. Terry's tireless work at the end of his life confronting the prejudice and fear surrounding dementia and the choice to die with dignity mark him out as a truly extraordinary human being and one deserving of a day in his honour.

The huge scale of meat consumption in the west is not sustainable for much longer as the population of our planet continues to grow. It is very inefficient to get second-hand nutrients from livestock as it can take up to 16kg of grain to produce 1kg of meat. In turn this leaves less room for edible plant life to grow because we are overbreeding our livestock and they need to somewhere to graze. In terms of Glastonbury festival it is quite shocking to see how many people habitually gravitate towards the stalls which serve meat for every meal. There seems to be a great disparity between the ethos of the festival and the actions of the organisers when it comes to catering. Lets call on the organisers of the festival to stop serving meat, or at least to drastically reduce it's availability on site, and making it a less desirable option. This will not in any way affect ticket sales of the world's biggest performing arts festival. I'm in no doubt that feeding the population of Glastonbury festival (twice the population of the Isle of Man) with just vegetarian options would send a huge message to make people think twice about eating meat so frequently but also will save many hundreds of tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.

We should show solidarity with the men and women of Sousse who protected tourists during the gunman attack. The are a credit to Islam and to their nation.

Out of date suncream can have ether no effect or potentially can even have a damaging effect which can potentially mean people have a greater risk to skin cancer. Currently manufacturers are not required to put a use by date which means people may use until empty but this is very risky.

It is wrong for taxpayers, who will surely stand to lose substantial amounts in any such fire sale. It is wrong for small businesses, as ministers and voters will lose whatever grip they had on directing lending to hard-pressed companies that are facing bankruptcy or big losses thanks to the harsh financing terms extended by high-street banks. And finally, it is wrong for the British economy, which is struggling to emerge from a severe recession caused by banks running wild.

Following the recent massacres in Egypt, France, Kuwait and Tunisia it's time for real action by world governments. Irresponsible governments and regimes must understand that the people of the world can't watch more bloodshed in silence. If we don't see real action to bring about peace in the world we will act.

I want a representative in parliament that reflects the views and feelings of myself and all the other constituents. To think that this can be achieved by a single vote every 5 years is ludicrous, things move much faster than that these days. Continuously, I and other people I know, write to our MP with our views and problems only to have the exact party line thrust in our faces. This is not democracy !

Because it's someone brother, sister, dad, uncle, etc. They are human beings and should not be treated like that

Why is this important? Scotland is tied to a Union with England we never wanted, never asked for and which has never benefitted us in any way. The UK Government refuse to let Scotland go because we subsidise them financially. Reclaim our own resources, our own revenues and free Scotland to provide a thriving nation for our own people, not Westminster!

The EU seems to be up for it, but for some unknown reason George Osborne is against it! WTF is going on here?! Every year our budget as a nation of taxpayers is denied billions of pounds of legitimate revenue because the Tory Government is too spineless to tackle this issue. Or are they simply in cahoots?! If they are, this is corruption at the highest level... This is a well documented issue. Many big multinational companies find ways to evade corporate taxation by allegedly basing their operation in tax havens such as Luxembourg. This is the oldest dodge in the book and it has run out of credibility. If these companies are doing huge amounts of business with UK taxpayers, they should pay their dues to HMRC. This should be an open and shut case, but it's not, mainly because they are not being brought to book by the government.

We all now how important Human Rights are in the 21st century. We fight for the equal employment rights for women, we fight for the equality in regards to different races and cultures, however we sometimes forget to fight for ourselves. Yes, I am aiming this at you: young generation living in the United Kingdom. Car insurance companies in the UK are claiming that young drivers are a much higher risk to other road users, thus they deserve to pay premiums, which 90% of us can not pay. Did they test your driving skills? Do they know how well aware and careful you are when driving on the road? No! I believe this means that we - younger generation are being discriminated against based on our age, despite the fact that the majority of young drivers are much more careful on the road than perhaps the older generation. I, my self have been driving in this country for 5 years now - I am 23 years old, which means that I have 5 years of No Claim Bonus's. However, I still somehow end up paying over 3.000 pounds per year for my car insurance. And no - I do not drive a BMW or a Mercedes; it is a Toyota. The Government, despite knowing about the situation does not seem to be doing much about it, so I believe it is time for us to stand up and fight for our rights - just like the others do. We just simply want to drive! Just like the others. It is our right, given by the Government to be able to own and function a vehicle, and the only forces that stop us from doing so are the insurance companies.

Whilst the original scheme was for one of the most beautiful structures ever proposed – and had already affectionately earned the nickname ‘the helter-skelter’ – the new tower is incredibly mundane at best. Not only is the new design entirely uninspiring but it is completely out of scale with its surroundings. Over the last decade a collection of iconic towers each in proportion to the other has arisen in the city. The new tower’s boxy form is not only boring but the way it hulks over its surroundings completely detracts from them. Now the developers maintain that the redesign was necessary as the curved panels which formed the beautiful summit of the original design were too expensive. Given the fact that rental rates in the city are soaring and the fact that there are significant costs associated with redesigning the scheme, demolishing the current works and delaying completion by several years, it would hardly seem worth it even if the focus is solely on the bottom line. However, whatever the scale of the impact on the bottom line, its absolute minimization cannot be the sole focus regardless of any aesthetic costs when it comes to a structure of this size that will completely dominate views across London for well over a century. Obviously I am against the current design and will sound like an anti-development campaigner. However, nothing could be further from the truth. I am a skyscraper enthusiast as I believe high density design is environmentally friendly and can create an exciting skyline. I just fear that the scheme will turn public opinion in the city against the development of further high-rises. While I argue that bad designs should not be approved, I believe the government should use all resources available to actively encourage good developments. When presented with a scheme of such high quality design as the original Pinnacle proposal, the government should do everything within its power to ensure that it comes to fruition. If, as the developers claim, the original design was too expensive, the government in its capacity to both encourage business and beautification of the cityscape, should have found ways in which to increase the financial return on the structure. For instance, permission could have been given to extend the tower by another forty meters or so. Not only would this have provided another ten stories of rentable space, but it would have, at 328 meters, secured the title of tallest building in the European Union and maintained it in 2020 when the Hermitage Plaza towers open in Paris. I know that some will say that chasing records is a wasteful egotistical exercise, but I am sure the majority of Londoner’s would rather host the tallest structure on the continent than play second-best to Paris. I do believe there is an inherent benefit in pursuing beautiful, record breaking projects. If an attitude of always settling for the mundane – such as this new proposal – is allowed to propagate, it eventually feeds through into the psyche of the surroundings. Meanwhile, an environment where the boundaries are forever being pushed has an invigorating atmosphere that stimulates achievement and aspiration throughout the population. I do not believe that when Britain produced the fastest locomotives at the end of the 19th century, when America launched its moon missions and the Classical world constructed its glorious monuments that each of these was merely a product of its countries technological leadership at the time. Rather, I believe pushing to develop world beating structures is inspiring to the population and drives further progress back into society. I therefore think government must encourage good design, not only by denying permission to ugly buildings but by doing everything possible to encourage the development of great ones. Now I know that one or two people may complain that slightly extending the height of a tower would make it overbearing. But I do not think it would be more than two as I do not think there are many people who would be perfectly content for a building of 288 meters to be constructed by their property but not one of 328 – hardly anyone would be able to tell any difference at all. In fact the vastly more noticeable impact of increasing the height of a skyscraper is that the extra capacity it would yield would allow for the demolition of an entire crumbling tower block somewhere else and its replacement with a park. I am aware that the very earliest proposal for the Pinnacle was for a tower of 307 meters and this was vetoed by the Civil Aviation Authority. However, I really do not think that we should be allowing poor airport planning to spill over into poor city planning – especially in the heart of the United Kingdom’s economy. Rather than stunting the development of this city, the CAA should be looking to address the utter inadequacies of its infrastructure with a new hub airport that would eliminate flights over central London.