Prisoners and Clothing

The petition is entitled allow all prisoners there basic human right to wear underware that has not been worn by anyone befor and the explanatory notes say

"At the present time what is happening those that don't have the money to buy their own underwear, they have to wear prison issue. and What happens is this underwear has to go in the same wash as the sheets and blankets. So when they get them back they don't know who has been wearing them befor i feel this an infringment of there basic human rights and thing need to be changed"

I feel that I really shouldn't feel that someone who can't write correct English should be ignored. However, it's hard to take a petitioner who writes like this entirely seriously - which is, I feel sure, very wrong of me.

So what about the content of the petition? I suspect that in most senses it's not all that much more insane than many of the ones I pass by for insufficient madness. Having said which, it is moderately clearly mad. According to that great reliable resource Wikipedia,

Where it has been adopted, legislation commonly contains:

• security rights that protect people against crimes such as murder, massacre, torture and rape;
• liberty rights that protect freedoms in areas such as belief and religion, association, assembling and movement;
• political rights that protect the liberty to participate in politics by expressing themselves, protesting, participating in a republic;
• due process rights that protect against abuses of the legal system such as imprisonment without trial, secret trials and excessive punishments;
• equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law and nondiscrimination;
• welfare rights (also known as economic rights) that require the provision of education and protections against severe poverty and starvation;
• group rights that provide protection for groups against ethnic genocide and for the ownership by countries of their national territories and resources.

Nowhere in there do I see anything about personal underwear rights.

I grant you the thought of wearing someone else's pants is a bit icky. A while ago while I was having trouble sourcing the kind of pyjamas I like wearing I tried Ebay, but found myself unable to cope with the idea of second-hand pyjamas, though I'll happily wear second-hand trousers, shirts, etc., etc.. (Should you be wondering, and of course I'm sure you're all dying of curiosity, I was of course able to search Ebay for "new" products only and thereby locate what I sought.) A strange objection, I thought at the time. So - I don't like the thought of these poor prisoners in each other's pants. But, um - on the scale of things, I don't see that it's really terribly important. I can't help feeling there are bigger and more important things to worry about.

And I really, really, really don't think this is a basic human right ...

Children and the Internet

The petition is entitled Introduce emergency legislation to protect children in online chat rooms and the explanatory notes say

"Every day children are going on line and entering chat rooms. This can be harmles but we should all be aware that people are often not who they appear to be. I appeal to the Prime Minister to introduce emergency legislation so that all people logging into any chat room must produce proof of age/address etc. Although not foolproof, I believe this would be a step in the right direction. Also, the maximum penalty for online 'grooming' should be increased dramatically."

Two things, Mrs Woman. One: this is completely and utterly technologically infeasible. And two: protect your own sodding kids!

One network I inhabit is small enough that we can prevent under-sixteens from joining us: if they appear, we ban them. We're not ... child-friendly, necessarily. But for most online fora, this simply isn't practical. Nor yet is there any way at all for most technologies to restrict people's joining by proving who they are and where they live - and why the hell should they have to?

Parents (and guardians) need to take responsibility for the children they're responsible for. If you don't understand the technology well enough to install NetNanny software and the like, then don't let the kids have access to it at all unless you're in the room. Don't make it everyone else's problem, when it's your problem.

Of course, I can't quite see what good it would do to know exactly how old everyone was, and where they lived. I suppose that would make it easier to track them down after grooming and nastiness had occurred, but surely prevention by responsible parents is better than such a post-dated cure?

(I really, really, really need a "Nanny State" category. Only I hate the phrase "Nanny State" and can't think of a better nice snappy tag thing. Ideas welcome ...)

M27 Traffic Lights

The petition is entitled Remove the traffic lights at the exit of the m27 onto the m271 and there are no explanatory notes.

As a consequence of the latter, I am left once again crying whyyyyyyyy?

I have even gone so far as to look at Wikipedia, which tells me that the M27/M271 junction is J3 of the M27, and further, that congestion occurs both ways on the M27 between J3 and J4. It seems possible, therefore, that this is why they want the traffic lights removed (there are currently 14 signatures). But who knows?

This petition has at least made me start to laugh again after the last one got me all cross.

Child Benefits Again

The petition is entitled stop all tax credits and child benefit and make parents behave responsibly from the outset and the explanatory notes say

"Having children is entirely optional so there is no reason why anyone should choose to have a baby they are unable to support.

We ask the government to stop paying benefits and tax credits to parents and making all the responsible people who choose not to have children support all those who have them regardless of thier own ability to support the child.

Many of this countries problems would go away if people were more responsible about thier children (anti-social behaviour to name but one). So we ask you to make the parents think before producing babies they know they cannot afford.

If they are so irresponsible to have children when they cannot afford them, then why should the rest of us pay them to keep on doing it."

Yet another petitioner unable to think and unable to search. I covered this precise concept in Restricting Child Benefits. I suppose the petitioner could argue that she isn't duplicating that other petition, because after all she wants no one to get benefits, rather than allowing benefits for up to two children - but really, they're saying the same thing, and neither petitioner has used their brains in the least.

People like this make me cross.

Health Records

The petition is entitled create a national clearing house for patient data in the NHS and the explanatory notes say

"The NHS data system is a shambles. One hospital cannot see any records from say a GP or a hospital at the moment & if they can get them it's pure luck.

The airline industry has SITA, which connects together the disparate systems of all airlines & airports in the world, translating data into a known format to the recipient.

We petition the PM to impliment a similar system to this for the NHS & abandon any dramatic redesign & rollout of new systems to GPs, Hospitals etc. This will cost much less (if not botched) & work much better"

It would appear that the petitioner has not heard about the NHS "Spine" project. I have, and what I've heard I don't like. I've requested that my records not be included, and written to the health minister and my MP accordingly.

Other people have explained better than I could the whys and wherefores of objecting to this project: The Big Opt Out looks like a splendid explanation.

I have every sympathy with people with unusual problems needing to be able to communicate these to different medics. Medic-Alert bracelets are an excellent solution for some people; others may wish to have, perhaps, letters from their GP to carry with them when away from their usual carers. Other individual solutions are possible, without invading all of our privacy for the sake of nominal convenience for a few.

Two further points: one, the petitioner himself identifies that this might only work "if not botched". Since the government's track record on IT projects being unbotched is so very ... splendid ... I am loath to trust them with any more. And two - a personal anecdote from a practice nurse. Some mini-version of this was wheeled out and staff were requested to test it. An enormous proportion of the searches were on "David Beckham". Mmmmm, trust-worthiness! Respect for privacy! Yummy!!

(I have tagged this as "ID Card" relevant, because of my mental connection between these different projects to database-ise us all.)

Energy Efficient Light Bulbs

Recent news about a possibly-EU-wide regulation about the use of energy efficient light bulbs has generated some consternation among our diligent but search-incapable petitioners.

The first thing I did upon noticing so was to look for actual news reports on what the actual regulations were or were going to be. This proved remarkably difficult; oblique references on the BBC site were singularly uninformative.

I can, in fact, find only two articles online on the subject: one from the Independent and one from the Scotsman. Both articles agree that a group of EU leaders had "called" for the phasing out of incandescent bulbs in favour of energy-saving bulbs - though there is not description of the official nature of this "call". A BBC Magazine article mentions "plans" to phase them out "by 2011", but again, does not describe the legislation thus involved.

All the same, this apparent absence of officialness has not stopped our petitioners.

We have a range of petitions demanding that the plans be stopped:

• The petition is entitled Save the traditional light bulb and retain freedom of choice
• The petition is entitled make the UK public aware of the environmental, safety, security and practical problems associated with energy efficient light bulbs
• The petition is entitled not allow the EU to refuse use of proper Edison lightbulbs, replacing them with energy efficient bulbs
• The petition is entitled Not force everybody to use energy efficient light bulbs
• The petition is entitled continue the availability of incandescent light bulbs

Now to be fair to these petitioners, they are asking for marginally different things for marginally different reasons. Ish.

Then we have two counter-petitiono, entitled Ban the sale of non-efficient light bulbs in the UK and entitled Ban non-energy efficient light bulbs, plus a related one, entitled Ban the sale of light fitting which cannot accept low energy light bulbs which would have, in the long term, much the same effect.

And finally we have two more government-specific ones on a related topic: entitled legislate for local authorities and housing associations to provide at least one energy efficient lightbulb to its tenents and entitled Make ALL councils change street light bulbs to energy efficient ones, so that they are also doing their bit for the environment, without charging us extra for the privilege!

I'm by no means convinced of the rights and wrongs of the case. On the one hand, energy efficient bulbs are good, and for general lighting I wouldn't use anything else. On the other hand there are more specific usages - I have a very nice angle-poise-style light which is quite recent and won't take CFL bulbs; it would be a shame to have to throw that out in a couple of years, and wouldn't be terribly energy-efficient, or environmentally friendly, either! My mother says, too, that with her not-great eyesight for close work CFLs just don't output good light for needlework and so on, yet. They may do in the future, great strides are being made, and indeed there are possibilities for LED bulbs in that way as well, I think - but they're not quite up to scratch yet and little old (and middle-aged) ladies all over Europe are going to be put out by this, by the look of things.

But mostly I'm pissed off by people's inability to search, dammit!

Fund-raising for the NHS

The petition is entitled hold a fundraising night for the NHS and the explanatory notes say

"We raise alot of money for places abroad when WE need money to help us. I think we should have a night like the comic relief night to help the NHS which is in desperate need of money."

This is a very noble, at-first-glance-sensible plan. I admire the innovativeness. (Is that a word? My spell-checker thinks so ...)

The Official Red Nose Day website tells me that the 2007 Red Nose Day raised a whopping "£40,236,142 million" - but unfortunately, I think that's a lie. I think they've accidentally added an extra "million" there - the Wikipedia page about it only references £40,236,142, and that's in line with previous years' results, too.

So a very nice £40 million raised.

The Budget 2006 (warning, PDF file) says that in 2007-2008, annual spending on the NHS should be about £92 billion.

So the amount raised by Comic Relief is less than one-twenty-fifth of one percent - is four percent of one percent - of the cost of the NHS ...

So even leaving aside all the political implications of fund-raising for the NHS this way (it's rather contrary to how the NHS is supposed to be funded, after all - but at the same time, it's not new. For years I got my Christmas cards from the cancer unit that treated my grandmother, to help their fund-raising) unfortunately, it's hopelessly impractical.

I remember a quote, and I cannot think where from, that says something like: "Oh, for a beautiful day in the future when hospitals and schools can buy all the medicine and books they need, and the RAF and Army have to have bake-sales to buy guns". Of course, given the recent reports about ill-equipped soldiers in the gulf, we seem to have got the less-good bit of that without the good bit ...

Joint Accounts and Credit Cards

The petition is entitled Abolish joint bank/credit cards etc accounts &/or make the banks take responsibility for the misuse of these accounts from either party and the explanatory notes say

"It is becoming an everyday occurance where people are taking & stealing from joint accounts or trying to gain money by putting the other party into huge debts, & getting away with this. It seems that people who are honest are having to pay back the money, when it should be the person who is responsible for causing all the problems. The banks & the government should also take responsibilty for what is happening, as well as education the public of this"

We all make mistakes. We all, sometimes, trust someone we shouldn't trust. We all, sometimes, have our trusts abused.

I'm not quite convinced that this should be solved by preventing all people from having shared accounts. You know, couples who've been married forty years or so ...

The possibility of making banks liable if one of the parties misuses the account/card is probably more viable, though I'm not completely sure.

But I definitely don't think that just because some people are not trustworthy, all people should be prevented from trusting.

Rewards for Those Without Cars

The petition is entitled reward people who don't have a car and the explanatory notes say

"Why not reward people who don't have a car (through poverty or through choice) with an annual benefit that would make using public transport more affordable? Paying people £500 or £1,000 a year for not having a car may make it easier for people to give up their vehicle if they don't use it much and reduce the temptation to travel short distances."

There's a lot to be said for a carrot-rather-than-stick culture. The only thing is - this is only going to be an encouragement to people who really can practically get rid of their cars. Most people really, really feel they can't. So while this would be a nice inducement to people like me (who already don't have cars!) it's not going to do a thing to encourage people like my mother (who needs her car to work) to use public transport more often.

Surely a better use of the money would be to make public transport cheaper for everybody, to encourage people who need cars some of the time to minimise their use?

Asthma and Prescription Charges

Apologies for the hiatus. I have been feeling singularly non-venomous. Fortunately for you, the electrics blew earlier and upset my computer, so now I'm in a bad mood. :)

The petition is entitled Recognise athsma as a life threatening condition and as such provide free athsma medication for sufferers of the disease and the explanatory notes say

"Presently, people with life long and life threatening illnesses get their prescriptions free. Athsma is both life long and life threatening and yet we have to pay at least £6.75 per inhaler to survive. I, for example, get through on average 6 a month, so you do the maths..."

There's nothing as such wrong with this petition. Not all life threatening and/or life long disorders get free prescriptions, however - the PDF leaflet about "Help with Health Costs from the Department for Health lists only hypoparathyroidism, hypoadrenalism for which specific substitution therapy is essential, diabetes insipidus and other forms of hypopituitarism, diabetes mellitus except where treatment is by diet alone, myasthenia gravix, myxoedema, epilepsy requiring continuous anti-convulsive therapy, a permanent fistula requiring continuous surgical dressing or an appliance, and any continuing physical disability which means you cannot leave home without the help of another person. So not all life threatening and/or life long conditions, then.

Furthermore, if you are using six inhalers a month ... the Department of Health also notes that

"Patients who have to pay for more than five prescription items in four months or 14 items in 12 months may find it cheaper to buy a pre-payment certificate (PPC)."

You can buy them online from the Prescription Pricing Division at a cost of (as of 26th March 2007) £34.65 for four months or £95.30 for twelve months. The prices are changing on the 1st July 2007.

I have a sneaking suspicion that I've heard an asthma nurse say that using that many inhalers is a sure sign of the asthma being inappropriately controlled, but that may depend on which kind of inhaler is being used. At any rate, the petitioner need not be spending on each prescription independently.

Knighthoods

The petition is entitled award mediawatch the knighthood it deserves and there are no explanatory notes.

Who wants to break it to the petitioner that you can't knight a pressure group?

Protecting Children

The petition is entitled save our precious children from all the evil paedofiles and the explanatory notes say

"We need laws and legislation that once the police have caught any paedofile, and they are found guilty they are then locked up for the length of their life. We need harsher sentences and life should mean life with no appeal. Our children should not be abused in any way - they should all have a happy life without evil peering round the corners of our streets."

To be honest, while I don't particularly agree with the sentiment in its entirety (or the spelling, for that matter), I'm most taken by the idea that there are "evil" paedophiles and "precious" children - the implication being that the non-precious children need not be protected from anyone, and that the precious children only need to be protected from the evil paedophiles, not the non-evil ones!

As far as anything else goes I shall merely point out that the petitioner has fallen for the hype; that the same proportion of children are subjected to sex abuse and to stranger sex attacks as ever were, and that the vast majority of sex attacks on children are by people known to them.

ID Card Costs

Three petitions I broadly agree with but that annoy me by their similarity here ...

The first is entitled Supply the first ID card free of charge and the explanatory notes say

"I object to ID cards on the grounds they are just another money making exercise for the UK Government. I believe that if the government really believed in them they would issue the first one for free. If I then erased mine by my own error then I have no objection to pay for it to be replaced."

I object to ID cards (and most particularly the NIR) on a whole range of grounds - but this is a damned fine one to start with. Of course, I suspect the Government's answer will be that the things have to be paid for somehow and if the cost isn't explicitly to the purchaser, then it'll be carried by all tax-payers. And since they're nominally not going to be compulsory (at least at first) why should everyone carry the cost, etc. But still - it's a good spirited suggestion.

The second is entitled Issue the first National Identity Card free of charge and the explanatory notes say

"By the time National Identity Cards are required to be carried the issuing system will have been paid for through taxes. On that basis, as we have already paid for it, the first National Identity Card should be issued free of charge."

I imagine that the answer is going to be that the issuing system may have been paid for initially through taxes but that these costs should be recouped to be fair to those who aren't getting one, or something along those lines.

The third is entitled remove the cost of ID cards, should they be compulsory and the explanatory notes say

"Sould everyone over the age of 16 have to have an ID card then the cost of this should be nothing, as people do not have a choice."

Again, the response is obvious: the funds have to come from somewhere, even if they are compulsory. Additionally, we can expect a good deal of blether about how they will not (to begin with) be compulsory, that it will simply be "convenient" to have one.

Drug Patents

The petition is entitled Extend the period of Patent for drug companies and the explanatory notes say

"To enable the companies to have more time to make a smaller profit per item, but over a longer time. This would result in lower prices for perscription drugs and stop the practice of the Goverment insisting on the use of inferior drugs that cost less but have adverse affects on the patients."

This would be marvellous if you're naive enough to think that the companies would actually charge less per-dose as a results ...

The petitioner also seems to have a strange idea about alternative drugs, too. To the best of my knowledge, a doctor can prescribe whatever drug he/she likes (assuming it's in the BP or whatever it is, and licensed for the relevant condition, etc.). If the thing is out of patent and there is a generic product available, then this must be used - but that's a generic that's exactly equivalent pharmaceutically, to the best of my knowledge.

In short, naivety, madness, or both. Probably both.

Beer Tax

The petition is entitled Scrap the tax on pints of beer and the explanatory notes say

"If you enter a public bar, you pay zero rate tax on beer sales."

Yet another "But why?" Why beer? Should this apply to all drinks bought in pubs? What about restaurants? The supermarket? What about packets of peanuts? But above all - why? What's wrong with paying a tax on something that is - no, really, it is - a luxury, not a necessity?

I'm beginning to think I need to create yet another category: WHYYYYYYY?

New Tax System

The petition is entitled Abolish ALL individual tax's and replace with a fair single bill system and the explanatory notes say

"Our system of paying various & numerious tax's, many based on income or expenditure rather than benefit recieved, is completely unfair to all (particularly the people who are prepared to work hard for a living). This taxation should be replaced with a system where everybody in the UK, be them permenant or temporary, is given a single, detailed, bill for what it costs to live in the UK. Having a detailed bill will also allow the people of the UK to see where our money is spent, and can make informed choices about our leadership. Using this system would dramatically reduce the number of government bodies and employees who currently collect various tax's and therefore further reduce costs."

Apparently the petitioner doesn't like living in a moderately socialist society - doesn't, perhaps, believe in living in a society at all.

We do not pay our taxes for our benefit. We pay them that society benefits. In a very tiny way, the tax and benefit system is based on true communism: from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs. This is justice. This is society. Action for the benefit of all.

And an insurance plan, of course, if you are entirely incapable of altruism. You pay your taxes to support the ill, the redundant, the elderly - and if/when you become ill, or redundant, or elderly, other people will pay their taxes to support you.

I wonder whether the petitioner is suggesting that the bill be based purely on the benefits to self (how on earth would you calculate road-use, library use, defence spending, for pity's sake?), or on a bill simply consisting of the total expenditure on societal things divided by the number of people in the UK (in which case - children? Do their parents pay?). Either way, it's sheer madness, as cim commented in response to my post Benefits and the NHS.

It astonishes me how few people have given thought to the purpose of the tax system as serving society. Perhaps they haven't thought about society at all. They need a good fwapping. I wish I thought that whoever writes the response to these petitions would provide one - but I fear that is over-optimistic in the extreme.

Administrative Affairs

The petition is entitled Establish a dedicated government department aimed at improving the efficiency of the government machine. The Minister for Administrative Affairs be a cabinet level figure to ensure concern with good governance is shared at the highest level and the explanatory notes say

"There is a pressing need to improve efficiency at the highest level of government. This department would create a dedicated team, led by high calibre civil servants with a nose for detail, who could seek out maladministration and nip it in the bud. This dynamic hub of activity should be seperate to the Cabinet Office and number 10, being it's own fully fledged department."

I do hope the civil servant who let this through in spite of the clear position from the EPetitions site that "We decided it was impossible to justify this use of Civil Service time, or to come up with clear guidelines as to what amounts to good or bad taste. Reluctantly therefore we have decided no longer to accept petitions which are obviously intended as jokes."

For the benefit of any hopelessly naive teenagers who happen to be reading in bewilderment (hello, Will), I suggest a brief perusal of Wikipedia's page on Yes Minister, followed by perhaps a chat with your parents and, if at all possible, some watching of the show or reading of the books.

Police and Tacos

The petition is entitled place taco cards in all police cars and the explanatory notes say

"we are worried about the speed through streets by police cars. they should have taco cards for over the speed limit. Also an independent check on taco cards to see if speed was warrented more often police cars speeding unwarrentd. its a danger to the public"

From Wikipedia, "A taco is a traditional Mexican dish comprised of a rolled or folded, pliable maize tortilla filled with an edible substance." I thought it was doughnuts police officers were particularly supposed to eat?

One assumes they're actually meaning to suggest the installation of a tachograph. I have a vague feeling, based possibly on watching "The Bill" fifteen years or so ago, that police cars tend to have some kind of positioning system so that the central station knows where they are all the time, and I can only think that if so this could be modified for the purpose, and for all I know might be already. But this is only vague haphazard thinking.

Mostly I'm just imagining the police with their tacos.

Cars per Household Again

The petition is entitled Limit every household to just two cars and the explanatory notes say

"I am asking the Prime Minister to make it a criminal offence for every household in the UK to have more than two cars, regardless of the number of individuals living in the property. We need to take urgent action to stem our road use, ease congestion and protect the environment."

This is a far more sensible petition than the similar one I talked about in Cars per Household. So much so that I'm not about to label it a duplicate.

The only real flaw is defining what a household is. Are my five random stranger housemates and I a household? What about one family I used to know, who a few years ago consisted of two elderly but active parents and one middle-aged developmentally disabled son - who holds down a job as a mechanic very happily but isn't really capable of living alone (gods only know what'll happen to the poor chap when his parents have both died - as it is, he and his increasingly frail, now-widowed, mother lean on each other most touchingly!). It would have been hopelessly impractical for them to be restricted to two vehicles - and why on earth should three adults who choose to share a house have to be counted thus? We're forever being told that adult children (as it were) can't afford to leave home because of house prices - preventing them from having vehicles as well is inviting a world of unjust trouble!

Cash for Teenagers

The petition is entitled Give each British child from the age of 13 up to 18 £10 a week and the explanatory notes say

"The only money available to teens at the moment is the EMA and this only applies to those post 16 and in education. If this petition is passed then each child once turned 13 shall recieve £10 a week which will be collected at the post office so there is no need for a bank account.At the moment there is no personal source of income for a child if they do not work or are not 16 or over and in education. This money will stop parents beeing bugged for money."

I can't decide what order to take the possible objections to this in ...

Since I've decided on my arbitrary use of ONS statistics which show that from 1991 until 2000 at least there were a reasonably consistent approximately 12,000,000 children between 0 and 15. Ergo there are roughly 750,000 young people per age - so about 4.5 million kids between 13 and 18 (inclusive). At a cost of £520 per year per kid, that's about £2.34 billion. Now, according to the Department of Health the NHS's running costs for the financial year 2003-2004 are something like £61 billion. So not counting the administrative costs for this project (which I'd guess would be substantial), it would cost about the same per year as the NHS costs for a fortnight - which sounds like, well, lots.

Other objections can be expected to include a profound resentment of encouraging children to depend on government handouts, and complaints about a reduction of parental control (money can be both carrot and stick in childcare; this would reduce that for parents).

Then there's the most important question: why? "To stop parents being bugged for money"? This really doesn't sound like a good reason to me ... and the sort of kids who'll bug their parents with any persistence will probably continue to do so. What's a tenner?