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 ...

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.

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!

Compulsory Voting Twice

Joy for the duplicated lunatics!

The first petition is entitled Pass a Law making Voting compulsory and the explanatory notes say

"With the trend in low voting turnout becoming higher with each election, it should be made compulsory to vote at all elections, to get a true picture of the government that the british people want. None of the above should be included on the vote form so that those who do not hold political views are seen to be voting."

The second petition is entitled make it compulsory for all voters to vote in elections for government and the explanatory notes say

"Too many people in my opinion complain about legislation passed by elected officials of this country. Voting should be made compulsory to establish a true representative government of the people. For those uninterested in who wins ensure a new catagory is placed on every ballot paper stating "none of the above". Consideration should also be given to moving election dates to a sunday to allow maximum time for all to vote. A fixed penalty fine of £5.00 could be implemented for none compliance, to be given to charity."

Now, considering that if you click on the "Create a Petition" link you're told

"Before creating a new petition, please use this box to check whether a petition already exists which makes your point. If so, please add your name to that petition. We will not create duplicate petitions making identical points"

I suspect that at least two people have been idiots here. The creator of the second petition, and the Civil Service bod who passed it ...

It's not that I object to the idea, which does, after all, seem to work for the Australians. I just object to the duplication.

Car Engine Size

The petition is entitled reatly reduce road tax on bigger engine and the explanatory notes say

"surely road tax is in place to pay for fixing/replacing roads? then how come 6 months tax for me costs £100, where an almost identical car with a 1.6 engine costs much less, even though the damage caused would be the same? this extra money doesn't even appear to be used for carbon exchange projects, but on other ways to tax us using technology (pay per mile, speed cameras, congestion charges etc)"

Actually, since a larger-engined car is heavier than an otherwise-identical car with a smaller engine, I imagine they cause more road damage ...

Private Education Tax Rebate Again

The petition is entitled make public school fees income tax deductible and the explanatory notes say

"Whilst we support progressive taxation as a guiding principle of our social democracy, public school fees should be income tax deductible because of the tangible reduction to the burden on the public purse which results from sending a child to private school."

The petitioner clearly hasn't thought this through, just as the petitioner I wrote about in Tax Rebate on Private Education hadn't.

I, having no children at all, put no burden on the public purse by requiring them to be educated, but I pay my taxes towards that potential education all the same. I see a dentist privately but pay the taxes that support other people's NHS treatment, none-the-less.

Your taxes, petitioner, are for the education of society's children, not your children.

P.S. Ooh! I forgot to say - interesting that the petitioner only thinks this should apply to public school fees; only, that is, the "leading" private schools.

Prisons Abroad

The petition is entitled Build Prisons abroad where land is cheaper to accommodate long serving criminals and the explanatory notes say

"We need more prisons yet land is expensive in the UK so why not build prisons abroad to house criminals serving long sentences? This would then free up prisons in the UK so that criminals can be properly punished instead of having to release them early for good behaviour. This could save the taxpayer millions every year."

Why on earth should "abroad" want our criminals imprisoned on their land ...?

Slightly unsure about the "free up prisons in the UK so that criminals can be properly punished" - it almost suggests that only the shorter-term prisoners here would be "properly punished".

Then there's the question of who'd be employed as prison officers. Presumably not British citizens - you'd have to be paying enough for them to come and go from whichever bit of "abroad" was chosen, which would surely be filthy expensive. Or if you were employing locals - well - the UK would have to do things very carefully in order to have the right to dictate how prisoners were treated, and to keep up inspections, and so on.

There is also the issue - if one is concerned by this sort of thing, which many petitioners clearly are not - of the prisoners' rights. In particular I think of family contact ...

But mostly I think - no government with any sense would allow the UK to run a prison on its soil. Now, I don't know that governments normally have any sense at all, but I can't imagine them having that little.

Benefits for the Young

The petition is entitled Make Benefits Fairer to Young Single People and the explanatory notes say

"Stop unfairly favouring those with children in the benefits system. They choose to have children, and should not do so if they can't afford them. Stop increasing payments of benefits for 3rd and subsequent children. The world is overpopulated. Large families are a luxury, not a right. A woman with 5 children can get the equivalent of a £35,000 salary, when some single young people who work have to survive on £11,000 and repay student debts. Make rates of all benefits the same for those aged 18-24 as for over-25s; why is someone under 25 not entitled to the same standard of living? When calculating benefit entitlement, assume anyone over 18 does not wish to live with their parents - many young people can't afford to move out, and the state does not help them but happily saves on benefits at the expense of ordinary, hardworking parents. Introduce low-interest loans to assist young people on low incomes to pay for a deposit on accommodation."

For whom do you think child benefits are? Who is intended to benefit from these benefits? The key is in the name - the children.

I quite agree with the bit about those between 18 and 24 getting less benefit than over-25s, by the way - that's quite insane. And the "low-interest loans" to assist young people finding accommodation I'm ambivalent about.

But I really, really, really don't like the petitioner's assumption that innocent children should be penalised because their parents chose to have them ...

A Variation on Driving Ages

The petition is entitled enforce all under 25's to show a P-plate for two years after passing driving test and the explanatory notes say

"In order to reduce the risk of serious accidents involving young inexperienced drivers, there should be a compulsory "P" plate to replace the "L" plate on passing the driving test. This would indicate to other road users that a) the driver has passed the driving test b) the driver is young c) the driver is inexperienced. The "P" plate would only be available on "lower-powered" cars, say less than 1.2 lt. At the end of 2 accident free years, a further test could be taken and then the restriction could be lifted. If a culpable accident occurs then consideration would be given to extending the duration of the P-plate. Anyone who should be on P-plate use and caught driving without would have their licence withdrawn and would need to be put through the standard test again."

At least this petitioner hasn't decided young people have no right to drive at all. I suppose that's progress.

I don't think I'm inherently opposed to this idea, either - in its very broadest outline. I don't see why it should only apply to new drivers under the age of 25, and I don't know that having a second test is terribly practical, or yet restricting it to "lower-powered" cars. Also I suspect it's hopelessly impractical - how on earth would you enforce it?

You'd need to change the law about learners - currently (providing you can get insurance) you can learn to drive in any kind of car. It would hardly be fair for you to learn in you parents' high-powered thing and then not be able to drive it having passed your test!

But the idea's not bad. It's just that the specifics don't seem well-thought-out.

More on Junk Mail

The petition is entitled national database of addresses where people would prefer not to receive unsolicited mailings and the explanatory notes say

"The Prime Minister shall make it his responsibility to: 1 Set up a national database of UK addresses where the owner or occupier would prefer not to receive 2 Require the Home Secretary to administer said database by asking the Police and Security Services to address and to advise on issues of security, as and when they arise. 3 Require the Environment Secretary to inform the operation of the database so that it works at a national, local authority and local community level. 4 Categories of non-addressed mail should include, but not be limited to: a. Commercial advertising b. Appeals by bodies of a charitable nature c. Information from a local authority where it under no legal obligation to supply (i.e. information about new services, regular mailings or brochures, surveys etc.) d. Material circulated by political parties e. Newsletters, petitions, advance notice of social activities and similar which may on an occasional basis be circulated by volunteers to a locality"

This petitioner is even madder than the one I talked about in Stop Junk Mail, since s/he is clearly requesting something that already exists ...

Also, s/he has signed themselves "Lobster Blogster", which I must say made me suspect s/he wasn't for real. On the other hand, having located their blog, I note that someone has already mentioned this and s/he says

"OK, I admit it's not [my real name], but everyone I know personally knows my real name and that I blog as Lobster Blogster. I've had nicknames since I was plankton, and LB is no different form that. Incidentally I've signed four or five petitions in the name of Lobster Blogster, but I always give my real name and address. Er, and Tony Blair knows my real name and address, does it matter that you don't?"

So apparently s/he does mean it seriously and simply hadn't noticed the Mailing Preference Service. Oops.

Credit Card Interest Rates

The petition is entitled Regulate the Interest Rates Charged for Credit Card Balances and the explanatory notes say

"The government should strictly limit the rates of interest charged for outstanding credit card balances to at most 3X the going bank rate extant. This would assist in avoiding Personal Bankruptcy as being the only way many people can escape their credit card debts. With interest rates of 5 & 6 X the bank rate, i.e. at present some are charging 25%..29%, it then becomes impossible for a customer to clear their balances when so much has to be found to pay the interest charge, especially when their income may be fixed, or have even dropped."

Broadly speaking I cannot see why Person A should be prevented from making a commercial arrangement to suit themselves merely because Person B can't make sensible provision for their circumstances changing or their ability to pay!

I very much dislike any kind of legislation which aims to protect people from themselves - I want to run my life my way, thank you very much, not be restricted unless what I'm doing is impacting on the rest of society.

Pah.

Sunday Trading

At present, there are two open petitions asking for Sunday trading to be banned, plus one closed one requesting the same, plus another closed one wanting all Sunday trading restrictions to be cancelled. The PM's office has responded to one of the closed ones saying "After careful consideration of all the views and evidence we received on this subject, it was clear that there is no substantial demand for change to the present regime. Most respondents believe the current situation strikes the right balance between all the interests involved."

So why bother with the open petitions? And why two of them?

Admittedly, they're not quite the same. One is entitled Keep the Sabbath Holy. Shops should be closed and no professional games of sport played on that day and has no explanatory notes. The other is entitled Reintroduce a ban on Sunday trading and the explanatory notes say

"The country needs to chill out a bit. Sundays are now as manic as Saturdays, everyone needs some time to rest and spend with family and friends. Ban all shops from opening on Sunday except for small local stores."

So OK, they're coming from, ah, rather different perspectives. But given that the original petition on the subject only got 143 votes ... what do they think they're doing?

I love the idea of professional sport being a particular problem. Other people work on Sundays too ... if you're that fussed, perhaps you should be suggesting that factories that run 24-7 at the moment be stopped on Sundays, for example ..

Premium Line Phone Numbers Again

Two petitions substantially identical to each other and to a third petition I've already talked about ...

The petition is entitled make all premium rate numbers announce thier charges and ensure that there is sufficient time to disconect before charges commence and the explanatory notes say

"Many telephone users have been tricked into calling premium rate numbers that may charge ridiculous prices as soon as the connection is made. Telephone companies could be made to ensure that all premium rate calls are preceded by an announcement stating what the terms & charges for that number are. There could then be a sufficient delay that a user could disconnect before the connection is put through. Many of the premium rate numbers are nefarious in their primary task and many people who can ill afford the loss have been "robbed" by these "services""

As I said in Premium Line Phone Numbers, Ofcom makes it clear that where it's more expensive to call an 0870 number than to call a national number, they have to tell you so, for free, at the start of the call.

Then there are the "09" numbers, which I now realise are probably what the original petitioner meant. Ofcom also has information about them, but directs people to the industry-funded regulatory body ICSTIS for further information. These, it appears, one is expected to know are expensive. They pertain to "services" like TV voting, charitable fund-raising, horoscopes, etc. I suppose, therefore, that the petitioner asking for them to have a message like the 0870 numbers are required to is not being unreasonable.

It's a pity he didn't just check for similar petitions, though ...

Then we have the petition entitled Prohibit Premium Rate Phone Charges and the explanatory notes say

"One of the greatest exploitations of the British public today is the cost of Premium Rate Phone Charges. The telephone is a means of communication and should not be used as an additional revenue earner by anybody over and above the normal business of a telephone service providor. Ofcom has been negligent in this area judging by the numerous press disclosures."

Why "shouldn't" telephones be used for additional revenue generation, if it is mutually agreeable to both sides of the deal? And if Ofcom have been negligent, complain about Ofcom's negligence in some relevant forum, not try to ban the things altogether! And finally, as I say, the 09 numbers seem to be regulated by ICSTIS, not Ofcom ...

In short - why shouldn't people be able to call premium-line numbers if they want to - just because other people are too ignorant to know that calling a number can be expensive, and check what 09 means before dialling it? And why can't people blooming well check for duplicate petitions before making yet more new ones?