Recycled Toilet Roll

The petition is entitled require all toilet rolls to be made from recycled paper and the explanatory notes say

"Does anyone need their loo roll to be manufactured from pristine new paper ? Probably not, so why not require all loo rolls to be made from recycled paper ?

To answer the first question, why, no, I don't think so. But then, I don't suppose you need the computer you typed this petition on, do you, and yet the plastics it's made of and the electricity it's using are probably damaging the environment more than the damage done by using pristine new paper for toilet roll. (I say "probably" - perhaps I should research the matter, but instead I'm going to shrug and say I'm sure I remember reading, more than once, that recycled toilet roll was damaging to the environment because of the amount of nasty bleaches and things required in processing the paper into it. Something like that. Proof by handwaving.)

If it comes to that, who needs toilet roll? Keep a wet sponge in a bucket of disinfectant by your loo and use that - isn't that how it was done at one time? Got to be less damaging!

Come on, folks, think about what your requests mean ...

Nepotism

The petition is entitled look into nepotism in all branches of British Society and the explanatory notes read

"Specifically: The BBC, the city, politics. To include the awarding of honours and contracts to friends and relatives."

Very, er, clear. Again, it's probably unfair of me to mock - perhaps nepotism is rife, and I just haven't noticed.

(Incidentally, I have recently read some excellent SF novels which have a tangential reference to "nepotism" in the broad sense of favouritism based not only on family but also friendship and so on. The "hero" of David Drake's RCN Series of novels rather approves of "interest" and expresses that he wouldn't wish to be part of a society that didn't have it. I don't entirely agree with him, and certainly there are characters in the novels who deserve better than they are getting, when all they lack is the "interest" of a more senior figure, but he makes a compelling case in some ways. The first two novels are available, incidentally, as ebooks in the Baen Free Library, and the subsequent novels are also available as ebooks from Baen's Webscriptions service. The books are good classic "hard" SF, with strong characters and interesting political plots interspersed, of course, with space battles.)

Call Centres

The petition is entitled outlaw call centres and it is another of these splendid petitions with no explanation, no justification, no nothing.

Now, I, too, know the irritation of ringing a company and getting some poor kid in a call centre who has no idea what's going on.

But I like this better than the alternatives, my word I do. Let's assume we've banned call centres. Let's assume we've also banned companies contracting to call centres in India. Let's assume we've somehow managed to enforce this. Now what? Let's say I have a problem with my gas bill. I wish to ring my company to discuss it. But - how can I? Who, exactly, can I ring? Perhaps I should ring their main switchboard operator, who can put me through to whichever deparment is actually appropriate. But there are hundreds of other people trying to ring, too - the poor thing is overwhelmed with calls. OK, they should employ more switchboard operators. Who will, no doubt, all sit in a room with their headsets on, answering calls dutifully and putting people through to appropriate numbers. Lo, and behold, we have reinvented the banned call centre ...

Dressing up as School Girls

The petition is entitled Stop grown women like Girls Aloud from dressing up as school girls, thus putting real school girls lives/wellbeing at risk and the explanatory notes say

"Grown women in the public eye, such as Girls Aloud, should not be allowed to put school girls and young women at risk by dressing up as school girls. The men who look at these pictures are very often sick and depraved men, who may cause real girls harm or even death.

Men like Ian Huntley, and the more recent group of three internet chat room men, relied on this kind of filth to feed their thoughts; and had the police not intercepted their internet communications, the two young sisters they were plotting to rape and murder would almost certainly be dead now."

A fine sample of Green Ink madness. There's evidence that presence of pornography increases incidence of rape and sexual assault, and evidence that it decreases it - but I know of no evidence at all that "this kind of filth" "feeds the thoughts" of "sick and depraved men".

(The men the petitioner refers to certainly (according to this BBC article)shared pornographic images of children but I've found no reports of anything else.

The other aspect of the petition - aside from the fact that it appears to be based on no evidence whatsoever - is the ludicrousness of the ban, of course. How would it be regulated? How enforced? How loudly would papers like the Sun squeal ...?

"Humain" animal slaughter

The petition is entitled Stop Killing Animals For Meat- Or Kill Them More Humainly! and the explanatory notes say

"i vow that animal killing is wrong no innocent living thing should lose its life for another- its like murder! I know many people love meat and wont do away with it which is why i have also put to be killed more humainly if they have to be killed! - so by changing the way they are killed for the better i think is a start!"

The author is clearly quite sincere and very well-meaning, so it's grossly unfair of me to take the mick. On the other hand, it's classic Green Ink Brigade, the spelling and grammar are atrocious, and most of all, it's termed such that it's asking Tony Blair personally to stop killing animals for meat.

Sorry. But it's funny.

Referendum

The petition is entitled Call a Referendum on petitions with over 75,000 signatures and the explanatory notes read

As the policies of the 2 major parties continue to mirror each other, we are left with little choice every election.

If a petition raises enough votes it should be put to a public vote and then implemented by our politicians.

Lets have multiple democractic votes rather then 1 vote for bundles of the same policies.

This is an astonishingly appealing proposal. I know it's my students' union background speaking that makes this feel like a fantastic idea. I know there are all sorts of flaws. But, in principle, it Feels Good. Not, admittedly, the 75k, per se. That is, after all, only about 0.125% of the UK's population, so doesn't seem enough, to me. There's only one petition above that level on the site as I write this (it's about inheritance tax), but referenda are expensive and complicated and I'd want them to be more unlikely. Then there's the fact that most of the petitions are worded so badly that making a referendum of them would be impossible - though, of course, the badly worded ones are less likely to get many votes.

Still, this idea appeals to me. I'm not signing it, not yet, but I'm flagging it for me to think about. (It's got a year to run. I've got time to think.)

(I'm tagging it "sensible". Perhaps I should be tagging it "mad but appealing", but until and unless more such petitions show up, "sensible" will do ...)

10 Downing Street

The petition is entitled Give 10 Downing Street a name such as 'Britannia House' and the explanatory text reads

"Our elected head of government's official residence should have an official name and not just an address. Other nation's heads of government have official residences with names and so should ours. In broadcast items referring to the Prime Ministers Official Residence the whole world would know where 'Britannia House' is and know who lives and works there. When referring to the USA president’s official residence correspondents have no need to refer to it as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington DC, referring to it as the 'White House' is sufficient to convey the full meaning of where the USA president lives and works."

I have this astonishing feeling that "10 Downing Street" conveys quite clearly to anyone interested "residence of the British PM". (Canada's PM also has an official residences which is merely number-and-street - where India's PM's official residence has a "proper name" but is known by number-and-street anyway. According to Wikipedia, anyway.)

Renaming things to make them sound more imposing is a good way of looking like an idiot. A few years ago the University of Durham re-named their central admin building "University Office" - it having been called Old Shire Hall for the previous hundred years or so. I happened to notice on an invoice just recently that their own Treasurer's Department forms are still calling it Old Shire Hall ... Dooomed, doomed, DOOOMED I tell you.

Stick with calling it 10 Downing St.