The petition is entitled take a measured and whollistic approach to the justice system and stop introducing knee-jerk, opportunistic measures in criminal law simply to capture the current "buzz" of topical news items and there are no explanatory notes.
How I wish, wish, wish I thought anyone was going to pay attention to this idea! (I wish the petitioner had checked how to spell holistic, too - just to be even-handed and criticise the petitions I agree with as well as the ones I don't!)
I have an awful, pessimistic, cynical feeling that the biggest problem with this petition is that the majority don't agree. Obviously "people submitting petitions to the PM's petitions site" are a self-selecting group with goodness-knows-what strange biases, just as "people I know and talk to about news and politics" are also self-selecting and with a strong liberal/libertarian/fluffy/common-sense bias. But while the latter group would whole-heartedly support this idea, the impression given by the petitions submitted is overwhelmingly, well, knee-jerk. All the many petitions wailing about immigration, benefits, crime - from people who know nothing about the subject with so few nice liberal sensible petitions on the subject. So I can't help thinking that perhaps by knee-jerking away and "capturing the current buzz" the government is maybe doing exactly what the majority want. A singularly depressing thought.
Monday, 12 March 2007
Scrap ID Cards
The petition is entitled Scrap the idea to introduce ID cards and the explanatory notes say
There are two problems with this petition. From an ID-card-opponent's perspective it's unfortunate that no mention is made of the NIR - the National Identity Register - database on which the cards are to be supported. In effect, ID cards in themselves are not a problem necessarily, whereas the NIR without the ID cards could still be a dangerous tool.
The other fundamental problem is that there has already been a petition on the subject, to which the PM has written (apparently personally) a response. It is unlikely that any new petition will have any more effect than the earlier one - especially since the new petition doesn't mention any of the flaws in the initial petition's response.
"Its totally unnecessary, we already have passports and photo driving liciences. An extra card is extra cost to public and not needed."
There are two problems with this petition. From an ID-card-opponent's perspective it's unfortunate that no mention is made of the NIR - the National Identity Register - database on which the cards are to be supported. In effect, ID cards in themselves are not a problem necessarily, whereas the NIR without the ID cards could still be a dangerous tool.
The other fundamental problem is that there has already been a petition on the subject, to which the PM has written (apparently personally) a response. It is unlikely that any new petition will have any more effect than the earlier one - especially since the new petition doesn't mention any of the flaws in the initial petition's response.
Benefit Claimants
The petition is entitled ensure stricter qualification criteria for people claiming benefits! and the explanatory notes say
I think the petitioner should go back to school and learn about how "I", when used as the first person nominative singular pronoun, is capitalised.
Going on from that, the petitioner - and all the other people posting similar petitions, of which there are many to which I may well come in due time - should do firstly some research to see how many people are claiming which benefits, and secondly, should talk to some people who are on benefits to find out just how few of them want to be or think it's a "soft touch".
I am sick far beyond the back teeth of idiots who have jumped on the bandwagon of benefit fraud without the least idea of what being on benefits is like or how many people are in the unpleasant position of needing to claim. Gaah!
"i feel that i, like the majority pay my dues to this country in terms of tax and insurance only to find the minority of this country being given free handouts. i feel that a lot of these people think "if this country is a soft touch then why should i work". this attitude to me is disgraceful and i would like to see greater checks and stricter criteria to those offered money, as it seems anyone with a good act of a limp will be signed off. i feel the truly genuine cases would not mind being quizzed or greater indepth checks conducted. we will see the response that this survey generates and hopefully save this countries nhs service and save millions if not billions in fraud. i have had enough of people coming into this country claiming millions in benefits, free housing, disability allowances, and what do we get...........nothing just higher taxes and 6 hour waiting times at hospitals."
I think the petitioner should go back to school and learn about how "I", when used as the first person nominative singular pronoun, is capitalised.
Going on from that, the petitioner - and all the other people posting similar petitions, of which there are many to which I may well come in due time - should do firstly some research to see how many people are claiming which benefits, and secondly, should talk to some people who are on benefits to find out just how few of them want to be or think it's a "soft touch".
I am sick far beyond the back teeth of idiots who have jumped on the bandwagon of benefit fraud without the least idea of what being on benefits is like or how many people are in the unpleasant position of needing to claim. Gaah!
Sunday, 11 March 2007
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
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 ..
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
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
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?
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?
Motorway Lighting Again
The petition is entitled switch off lighting on motorways and main arterial routes and the explanatory notes say
Fascinating petition - I thoroughly agree with it. Distinct contrast (and this is the only reason it's actually fascinating) to the petition I talked about in Motorway Lighting which demands more motorway lighting.
Now, it's true that my mother, whose night-sight isn't good, does try to time the drive home (to Gloucestershire) South from here (Co. Durham) so that, if at all possible, the only bit she does in the dark is the bit past Birmingham, where the motorway's lit up. But I'm fairly sure that's as much to do with familiarity as lighting (rats, why didn't I ask her on the phone earlier?)
At any event, I agree with the sentiment and mostly am only posting about it to highlight the interesting contrast.
"in France the motorways are unlit they do not have more accidents just less light polution and usage on the national grid thus saving energy and tax payers money while reducing light polution"
Fascinating petition - I thoroughly agree with it. Distinct contrast (and this is the only reason it's actually fascinating) to the petition I talked about in Motorway Lighting which demands more motorway lighting.
Now, it's true that my mother, whose night-sight isn't good, does try to time the drive home (to Gloucestershire) South from here (Co. Durham) so that, if at all possible, the only bit she does in the dark is the bit past Birmingham, where the motorway's lit up. But I'm fairly sure that's as much to do with familiarity as lighting (rats, why didn't I ask her on the phone earlier?)
At any event, I agree with the sentiment and mostly am only posting about it to highlight the interesting contrast.
Microchipping Again
The petition is entitled Ensure That The Public Will Never Be Subjected To Any Kind Of Human Micro-Chipping and the explanatory notes say
Oh, look, someone else who can't do a simple search to see if there are duplications ... I talked about this in Microchipping a few weeks ago. The two petitions are fundamentally identical. Why? (The major difference is this petitioner's fascinating use of capitalisation.)
"A Petition That ,The Public Will Never Be Subjected To Any Kind Of Human, Micro-Chipping Device Implants, Such As The Veri Chip, Or ANY Other type of Tracking Device, Which Would Ultimately Take Away Our Civil Liberties."
Oh, look, someone else who can't do a simple search to see if there are duplications ... I talked about this in Microchipping a few weeks ago. The two petitions are fundamentally identical. Why? (The major difference is this petitioner's fascinating use of capitalisation.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)