On 12 Aug, 23:37, Martin wrote:

First they suspend it's use whilst they look to see what evidence there is that
it is harmful and then if there is evidence that it is harmful it will be
banned. That seems to be a reasonable approach to me.

Oh, aye. But along with scientific evidence there is the weight of
public opinion to consider. It seems perfectly proper in a democracy
to take the opportunity to express that opinion during the evidence
gathering phase, and rather more responsible than waiting until the
decision is made to make a less effectual fuss

I've signed, even though I doubt the efficacy of these No 10 petitions.