Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Unsupported and Pointless e-Petitions

1 post in this topic

Discuss ... petitions/

Unsupported and Pointless e-Petitions

The petition to 'Save the Cheque'. The insecure and antiquated method of payment known as 'the cheque'. Yes, there literally is a petition for everything.

The problem with democracy is that everyone’s voice is considered ’equal’. Now that may sound a bit, well, fascistic, but it’s without question that a large percentage of this society is made up of insufferable wazzocks, fitting the old parable ‘empty vessels make most noise’. Most of the time, these people spend their days wanting to bang the worlds to rights, as they have all the answers to fix our crumbling society, just without the platform. So what better way for this lot to vent their nonsensical views than with online petitions; a way to directly lobby the government that, though it has a .gov web address and looks quite fancy, is not actually taken much notice of by Parliament itself. There have been some successful e-petitions, such as the 2007 petition against road charges that was signed by over 1 million people and caused the government to U-Turn on the issue. But then a petition signed by 72,000 people calling for Gordon Brown to resign caused the website to be taken down, questioning just how seriously the government take these things at all.

With modern society literally crumbling around our feet right now with wars, riots, phone-hacking, police bribery and the return of Celebrity Big Brother, e-petitions have become a prominent way for society to vent their spleens to the big-wigs in Downing Street. While some e-petitions have a serious point and are well supported (‘Support an Independent Kurdish State – 2,053 signatures’; ‘Stop the Death Penalty Coming Back to the UK – 1,471’), some are just downright pointless.

Jeff Lawson has e-petitioned the government for a ‘cashless society’. Currently racking up a hefty one signature (I assume it’s his own), Jeff argues that;

Eliminating cash eliminates whole sectors of crime, which has wonderful consequences: fewer offenders, fewer prisons, fewer wrecked lives and more resources available to benefit society. Crime sectors that would be impossible or severely curtailed by eliminating cash include: the illegal drugs trade, corruption, undeclared income (“cash in hand”, e.g. in the building trade), muggings, robberies, burglary.

For Jeff, cash has [edited by admin] everything up. Now he doesn’t use ‘statistics’ or ‘evidence’ to support this, he just knows. Why? Because he’s Jeff Lawson. That’s why. He argues that the illegal drugs trade would be curtailed by the lack of cash, because after all, that’s the only reason people do drugs; hefty supply of cash and nothing else to spend it on. It would also kerb muggings and robberies, because people only ever get mugged for cash, not phones, ipods and whatnot. After all, what’s a robber going to do with your mobile phone? Ring YOUR mates?

To achieve this wallet-lightening utopia, Jeff’s plan is;

A cashless society is achieved by the government introducing a free at the point of use payment system funded by a small fraction of the money saved in eliminating the Royal Mint and the reduction in crime. Creating a cashless society is a big win for honest folk and a big lose for criminals.

So the achievement of an impossible to regulate society is achieved by a fictitious drop in crime that wouldn’t realistically happen and the elimination of the Royal Mint of which any figures detailing the saving being made haven’t been provided. I can see this e-petition staying on one signature for the foreseeable future.

The Royal Mint; Evil Structure.

Jeff, like many others, is doing a petition against something he has an irrational hatred of, whilst believing that his bête noire is not actually irrational, but infact one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Similar e-petitions include ‘Spray Paint VAT’, ‘Tax on Caravans’ whilst possibly the finest is from Chris (he provides no surname. I assume it’s just Chris, like ‘Pele’), entitled ‘Investigate why those claiming benefits can afford SKY TV or the like’.

As a taxpayer I cannot afford to have a luxury such as SKY TV, but have noticed that there are those who claim benefits that can afford it.

Firstly, Sky is like £15 a month, or something. If you are paying enough to be taxed, you can afford Sky. Secondly, I like how he says ‘I noticed’, as if to say, ‘on my usual morning stroll through a nearby sink estate I couldn’t help but see a large proportion of satellite dishes hovering above windows’. For ‘notice’, read ‘was told by the Daily Mail’.

How hard would it be for the government to check the names and addresses of those claiming benefits with that of those who are registered for SKY TV or the like. If you are found to be claiming benefits and SKY TV, then the amount should be deduct from what you claim.

So, would you find out who had Sky, then deduct the money from their benefits? But then in a sense they’re paying twice, as they are paying Sky and the government for the privilege of Judge Judy repeats. Or would you just deduct the money from them, meaning they can’t get Sky? But then it’s just like a fine for getting Sky, which isn’t illegal, which would require legislative change on what those who are to benefits are allowed to spend their money on. But then, that brings in the question of [edited by admin], MY BRAIN HURTS!

N Jones wants a tax on footballer’s wages (I assume he means a ‘further tax’), because according to him;

Just as bankers are penalised for perceived exhorbitant bonus packages & wages, so should all Premier League footballers.

However, I don’t remember footballers causing the financial collapse. Though, hang on, was that the thing the Manchester United winger got the super injunction about? Was the whole ‘banging his brother’s wife’ story all just a ruse to save face? The plot thickens……

Bab Chiara Bailey (or as she typed it ‘BABS CHIARA BAILEY’) wants a ban on back garden bonfires, and is either really passionate about it, or her caps lock key is broken.


Terrifying. Babs, I mean. Not bonfires.

Steve Issacs, with 66 signatures, believes that ‘Hoodies Should Be Banned’.

They are clearly being used by thugs and criminals to try and hide their identity from law enforcement agencies. We need safer streets, so lets start by doing some simple things.

Yeah but Steve, then we’d have to ban hats, then scarfs, then what will happen in the winter? I’m not freezing to death because you believe that a gratuitous amount of cotton cause crime.

This is not how I plan to spend January. Not for Steve or anyone.

The majority of the petitions are against two things; Immigration and benefits. Usual ones entitled ‘Britain is full’ and ‘ban on immigration for 3 years’ appear frequently, with every half-wit with an internet connection believing that we must end benefits now in order to save our society. It is overwhelmingly awash with reactionary, ‘what about MY rights?’ types that wish to tell the world how to run itself. And why wouldn’t they? It’s the perfect arena for them; unchallenged, people unable to comment on the absurdity of their views, no spelling and grammar checks; ideal.

My two favourite anti-benefit e-petitions are firstly by Ed Parsons, whose campaign, ‘End jobseekers allowance and save hard working taxpayers a fortune’, has 7 signatures, and seems to not only confuse the reader, but also himself.

Even in these difficult times everyone and anyone can find a job and there is no excuse to be claiming benefits.

See that people – ANYONE can find a job. Those 2m unemployed in Britain just aren’t looking hard enough.

The jobseekers allowance doesnt provide anywhere near enough to live on.

But, I thought you wanted to cut it? No you say it’s not enough? Jesus Ed, pick a view and stick to it.

i claimed job seekers allowance for 2 weeks, it arrived in my bank account 2 months later then when I was out of work, and when I had actually found a new job so was of no use anyway

So you claimed the thing you wish to scrap, and your only issues were it wasn’t enough and didn’t arrive in your account soon enough? Ed, you’re hardly making a strong case for axing it.

I did this job [nursery worker] for 3 weeks in which time I found a job of similar stature to which I had been employed in previously and then commenced employment in my field again.

Ah well, at least the story had a happy ending! Congrats Ed! Champagne all round!

Not wanting to be outdone by Ed’s complete mess of an e-petition, Alan Hibbert weighs in with ‘End This Mindless Cycle of Rioting – End All Benefit Payments’. With a whopping 35 (thirty-five) signatures, Alan believes that giving people benefits, leads to riots.

Perhaps If Payments Were Ceased, All Vacancies Would Be Filled & Rioters Wouldnt Have The Time or Energy to Riot.


Why Can an Immigrant Find a Job in 24 Hours of Their Arrival In This Country When We Are Being Taxed to The Hilt to Pay For The Unemployed Who Say There Are No Jobs.

If I ever meet Steven Hawking, I am going to present him this sentence to see if he can make any sense of it. I’m not holding out much hope.

Alan is spouting the usual anti-benefit, anti-unemployed, anti-immigration nonsense that has become synonymous with the hand-wringers of the right wing in recent years. The issue with cutting unemployment benefits is that perhaps, just perhaps, there is the possibility that work just isn’t there for people. In Tottenham there is 50 unemployed for every one position in the area. And yes, people could looks elsewhere (especially in a London borough), but who’s to say that it’ll be better anywhere else? If someone has little chance of employment (because of poor qualifications, in a deprived area or have a criminal record), then they’ll invariably be dependent on benefits. If you abolish their benefits, then they are essentially [edited by admin]. You’re then – for all intents and purposes – leaving them to starve to death, like some sort of social cleansing. But hey, maybe Alan has a point in this case; if you leave people severely malnourished and unable to provide basic rations, they won’t have the energy to riot. By God, Alan has only gone and solved it!

However, as with any ‘speak your brains’ vehicle, it is often the one person that’s willing to go above and beyond what’s considered ‘mindlessly reactionary and extreme’ to really provide an opinion so archaic that one would be forgiven for assuming they’d stepped in a time-portal back to the 1500s. Michael Evans with his 8 signature wonder ‘To Stop Convicted Criminal Able To Be Defended / Advised In Court’ makes antiquated social policy and stupidity an art form.

If a male or female has been found 100% guilty, by way of rock solid evidence / proof such as: CCTV film, DNA, Fingerprints, Solid Witness Statements or in certain cases all of the mentioned positively proven types of evidences. They should not be able to be defended at all,nor have any lawful support or advisors in court, they should just have their penalty / sentance read out.

So removal of a fair trial by the process of convicting someone via the means used in a fair trial, only without allowing them to right to respond – astonishingly good e-petitioning from Big Mike.

In a sense, e-petitions are just a lot of virtual hot air. Used mainly for a bit of social pandering, with any petition that affects the harmony of government seeing the website pulled. Though, if you fancy a laugh, it’s a decent website to check out. Or if you fancy a cry at the state of large parts of the country, it also worth checking out. A website for all needs in that sense. Thanks, government

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0