As consumers, we want to be able to make educated and informed choices about the products we use for our self-care and cosmetics. At present, the ingredient labels are confusing and misleading, due to the complicated scientific language used. Many products available in the British market are filled with harmful chemicals and toxins that given both education and choice, we may not use on our family's bodies. It is extremely difficult to understand the ingredient labels as they are written in complicated scientific terminology. Around 3 years ago, my mother was diagnosed with hormone-receptive breast cancer. Until that time, I had given no consideration to the ingredients in was using on my body or those of my family. But her cancer diagnosis triggered me to investigate the products we were all using on our bodies. I was horrified to discover that some of the ingredients in our trusted household brands were carcinogenic, hormone-disruptive and highly irritant. I am a mum to a blended family of 4 young children. We are conscious about the environment, eat well and stay fit. We do our bit for British society in any way we can. As a conscious mum, I know that there will be many other parents and individuals that given the correct information, would want to ensure they are limiting the dangers that they are exposing themselves to. There are a growing number of natural, harmful-chemical-free alternatives on the market. But with simplified labelling, society can be clear on what goes into a product and make an informed decision about whether they still choose to use that or opt for a safer alternative. There has been a movement in food labelling to highlight the known allergens in ingredient labels. This makes it far easier for consumers to make an informed choice. I am suggesting a similar movement with self-care and cosmetics products, whereby, known harmful chemicals or toxins must be highlighted.

This is important because people are easily misled into buying the same produce for an increased price, unless they have weighing scales close by, and the time to calculate the true values. It’s just another form of daylight robbery by deception that doesn’t have a place in a developed society.

The brand of Royal Bank whilst tarnished by events is far better known, recognised world-wide by all. The Natwest brand on the contrary has less than 40-50 years history and caused many of the problems which tarnished RBS image. The decision has more to do with corporate lobbying and is not reflective of history, heritage or moving forward with pride and passion. The Royal Bank of Canada has not considered such an audacious step and has not suffered from a similar brand identity issue. There are many past employees and customers who will be appalled by this move and when the Natwest joined the RBS family there was a positive welcome by the teams.

Gambling is a health hazard it causes misery when it gets out of hand. It wrecks families, destroys futures and can stain your whole life with debt. Advertising influences young people to join in with a click, promises status and quick riches which are not true. The impact on lives is as bad as cigarettes, please ban this unnecessary advertising.

The question of CHOICE should be ever-present. The intention is not to stop them selling BACON but to offer HALAL choices for those whose religion forbids them from consuming PORK or PORK-BASED items.

We all use the internet for Facetime, Skype etc to keep in touch with family & friends, or send videos & photos, play online games with friend etc, but to do this, it is the "uploads" speeds that are vitally important. They will advertise fantastic download speeds, but never address the all important upload speeds Sky is dependent on BT Openreach for their networks, but say that they can't do anything to improve the system. Please ask Sky to put pressure on Openreach to upgrade and provide an infrastructure that is fit for purpose in the digital age.

Peter Purves has been the much loved voice of Crufts for 40 years but now he's being unceremoniously dumped by Sunset+Vine the company who make the programme for Channel 4 for what appears to be purely ageist reasons.

This petition is very important for the Internet age because these Firms engage in a dictatorial fashion to deny their users the opportunity to voice their legitimate concerns to the United Kingdom authorities for legal redress to be implemented in terms of compensation and damages awarded to the users when they suffer at the hands of these companies through the process of interacting with the particular Social Media concerned.

How many children, adults and animals every year are injured by fireworks. How much does it cost our already overstretched NHS? Many animals are hurt and terrified of the noise. No matter how safe people are, accidents happen! Follow Sainsburys and stop selling them to the public.

The Problem: Negative SEO is the practice of using Google’s penalty system to attack your search competitors. It’s an unethical practice that’s against Google’s webmaster guidelines, but thousands of attacks take place every day, putting the search rankings of innocent bloggers at risk. Negative SEO is only possible thanks to Google’s penalty system. Competitors can use the penalties to ‘attack’ their opposition by manipulating the backlinks going to their opposition’s domain in order to land them a penalty. This is a terrible practice that needs to stop, and the responsibility falls onto Google to stop it. The Solution: Google needs to better protect ethical website owners and bloggers from negative SEO by changing their algorithm. Web owners shouldn’t be penalized for black hat SEO carried out by their competitors. If Google can’t sufficiently distinguish intentional black hat link building from fake negative SEO attacks, they should cease handing out SEO penalties for them immediately. Website owners will then be able to rest easy knowing that their ranking potential on the SERPs can’t be sabotaged by their competitors. Website owners can find out more about how to better rank for their target keywords on https://smashdigital.com/onpage.

Asda are trying to sack good people whom have given a lot for the company over the years. If they don't sign the new contact they will be sacked. The new contract consists of no paid breaks and will be expected to work hours that staff can't do due to family etc.

BBC Should be accessible to all fee paying licence payers