This matters greatly because every day we are giving a terrible impression of our country to incoming business people, tourists and other visitors by the shocking inefficiency of our airport checks and controls. Often they are staffed by illiterate and surly staff. One short example: on Sunday 18 May at 0700, there were enormous queues at Heathrow Terminal 5 as hundreds of people queued at border control after disembarking from incoming flights. There were not enough staff at the individual inspection booths. Even people on 'Fast Track' were made to queue beyond any reasonable duration. People were shouting at security (Mitie) and Border Agency staff and those staff in turn were rude or dismissive. The security staff were patently ill-trained to cope with the situation. Those being made to go through security and scanning again (despite just coming off flights) were subjected to another huge queue and lengthy wait. The majority of bags were being checked for explosives. One Muslim woman on her way to Bahrain was in tears having just received bad news from home: she was ignored by security staff. A businessman from South Africa said he would never, ever again fly via Heathrow. When politely challenged, the man wearing the "Supervisor" vest was also dismissive and said if there were fewer retail outlets, there'd be more room for security controls. What a terrible impression of the UK. What are we thinking of?

The introduction of fees into the Employment Tribunal system has reduced the access to justice of many deserving people. The large reduction in claims, as shown by official statistics, is not mainly, as suggested, the elimination of ‘vexatious’ litigation but rather the actual prevention of access to justice of vulnerable persons. In a civilised society this is simply unacceptable and must stop at once. It is against ‘natural justice’. We ask that this divisive decision be reversed by removing fees, thus restoring traditional ‘fair play’ into the tribunal system.

Save the government money. Substantial cut in dangerous dogs. Make dog owners more responsible. Protect the public from diseases spread by animal waist and foolish dog owners. And to protect true dog lovers and good healthy dogs.

Those people who live within TfL zone 6 who have London Freedom Pass are recognisable accepted to use all TfL transports and National. ENCTS pass is not. It is because some areas within TfL zone 6 are not managed by the London Borough Councils, As we live within Tfl zone 6 and pay council tax to Tanridge Council, those people who live in London have freedom pass take their granted for using our nearest railway stations for free travel to/from London that our ENCTS concessionary pass cannot. This is unfair. Have they met Equality Act 2010 regarding our concessionary passes that are limited use whilst people with London Freedom passes can be used everywhere in England including all TfL transports? I discovered that the funds for Tfl are partly from the Central Government Fund where we pay our taxes, why we don’t have this benefit?

There must be real accountability for the bad behaviour of individuals, not a counter-productive additional burden on the resources of our public institutions which is shouldered by the very public that have been badly served. It adds insult to injury.

The current 30mph limit is broken by a significant number of road users in this area who seem to treat the local roads as a race track. We have witnessed multiple collisions, acts of wreckless and dangerous driving and it's time that something was done before somebody is killed. There is a very high volume of pedestrian traffic in this area, particularly school children and quite frankly it's an outrage that nothing is being done to protect these members of the public and local residents.

Is life itself not important ? If so you need to vote for this

Our land is being abused by blood sport hunters, and in doing so much of our wildlife is being killed to facilitate this such as the trapping of small mammals which in turn are prey for larger mammals and the beautiful Red kite which is strangely largely absent from Ilkley moor!

○ free food for who ever wants it ○ free part of the five a day for the vulnerable. ○ engaging and educating young people about the origins of fruit. ○ assisting bee colonies by increasing pollen in parks.

Elections should require the individual candidates to make their case for being elected. There should be space for good local independent candidates to win on their merit. Local elections often become about national politics and nothing to do with local issues. Poor candidates often succeed in getting elected, not because they will be any good, but because they are the candidate for a given party. Candidates will still be able to stand as the candidate for a given party, but they will have to get their name known by going out out and campaigning, instead of relying on a party vote that can see candidates getting elected without having seen a single leaflet delivered, door knocked on, or telephone call made.

Micro-plastic particle abrasives are used as exfoliants in consumer products (e.g. toothpastes, body and face scrubs and gels). These particles, which persist in our environment for 100 years, are designed to be washed down the drain. They are too small for our country’s sewage systems to filter. The micro-plastic particles’ large surface area relative to their modest volume makes it easy for toxic substances, such as persistent organic pollutants (think PCBs and DDT for example), to stick to them, causing further toxic harm. Micro-plastic particles are now being found in fish, marine mammals and reptiles and their toxic overload is affecting plankton at the bottom of the food chain. • Consumers can CHECK products for plastics and REFUSE to purchase them (look for polythene and "PE", "PP" or "PMMA" in the list of ingredients). Please…get plastics off our bodies and out of our water!

I am a parent that is continually under pressure to supply my children with state of the art technology in the form of these all singing all dancing smart phones. To be able to truly control my children's spending the only way I can do this is to overspend initially on a phone and go Pay As You Go. Then there is the problem of teenagers hassling for more credit. Pay as You go is expensive. The cost of these phones are extortionate and the tariffs are designed to maximise the income for the company and to encourage people to take out contracts. The contract price plans are attractive. You can get a decent phone and a decent price plan for a reasonable monthly outlay. It is an easy option. My daughters were signed up and on the whole it is fantastic. They choose the phone, they know they can't upgrade it for 2 years and they know how much they can use it. In theory. As parents it is perfect. We sign them up. We are responsible for the bill. That is the issue. We naively assume our children are responsible adults and will treat this service with respect. As parents we are giving our children, young children, this responsibility maybe a little too early. There are children out there running up huge bills for their parents through lack of understanding of the consequences. These children don't realise it can lead to family debt and they assume it only effect them. There is also the point where the whole account can be suspended for non payment. The whole family, where a job which relies on the phone, could be at risk. My daughter ran up a bill of £130. On contacting the provider we were offered no help. The phone company said what if in the case of emergency. With unlimited texts and 999 I don't see this as being a valid reason. They told me they don't offer a capping service and we were responsible for the amount. After all she used it. I believe this is purely profiteering on the part of the phone company. I believe it should be a shared responsibility between the phone company and the contract holder. I believe that if they offered a cap option then this would prevent children (and some adults too) from putting their families through financial hardship. It will teach our children limits. I, after all, do not want to be presented with another extortionate bill that I can't afford.