But, Sir... » That’s SO UNFAIR! I HATE YOU!

Safety Third

Ben — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:11:05 +0000

Traffic lights – abolish “Red and Amber”

by ChurchCrawler
on July 10, 2010 at 07:58PM

Abolish the “Get Set” stage of our traffic lights, leaving Red (On your marks) and Green (Go!) operative only. Amber will only light to signal the lights are changing to red.

Why the contribution is important
This increases road safety, and stops those idiots from gambling by starting to pull away at Red & Amber whilst other idiots are speeding through at solid amber from another direction.

I can’t wait to see all of the accidents that pop up as a result of people reaching the junction just as the light turns red and slamming the breaks on.

Abolish the National Speed Limit

by TJ102
on July 10, 2010 at 04:17PM

The 70 mph speed limit on motorways and dual carriageways has been in force since December 1965.

Over the time since it was introduced, there have been substantial improvements in vehicle and road safety measure

According to the Association of British Drivers, in 1965, 70 mph represented more than 80% of the maximum speed of average cars, wheras now it represents only 60%. They estimate that at present, 56% of car drivers exceed the motorway speed limit.

Why the contribution is important
Drivers know their own limits and the limits of their vehicles. They should be concentrating on the quality of their driving, rather than an arbitrary 45 year old speed limit.

We should abolish the speed limit and concentrate on preventing dangerous driving.

Seriously? Are you serious? How can you be for “preventing dangerous driving” but against the speed limit? Are you daft or something?

speed restrictions

by appleton306
on July 13, 2010 at 05:34AM

WE WANT TO USE THE FULL POWER POTENTIAL OF THE VEHICLE WE BUY!!

AUTOBAHN IN ENGLAND!

INTRODUCE TOP SPEED LANE ON MOTORWAY!!!!!!!!

Why the contribution is important
SAFER AND FASTER

SAFER= NOT SHITTING YOURSELF CAUSE THERES A SPEED CAMERA UP AHEAD CAUSING YOU TO BREAK SHARPLY AND UNNECESSARY!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

David Skinner is a Cunt

Ben — Sat, 01 May 2010 07:14:40 +0000

remove those parts of the 2006 Sexual Orientation Regulations which are forcing Mike and Suzanne Wilkinson to run their private, family guest house, in such a way that it violates their moral conscience and undermines the distinct Christian ethos of their business.

by David skinner (rejected)

Though in no way wishing to take away the liberty of homosexuals to access homosexual friendly guest houses, of which there are many, we believe that to force Mr and Mrs Wilkinson to conform to the tastes and lifestyle of homosexuals is discriminatory and is a blatant contradiction of the Equality Bill. Our British inheritance to be able to live and speak, according to our conscience, privately and in the public sphere, without harassment or the fear of civil or criminal penalty, is a freedom that once distinguished us from all other nations. This liberty did not come cheaply but cost the lives of our forebears and ancestors. Sadly today it is treated with such contempt by a government that continues to bind us in an ever growing cancerous growth of legislation.

As people from all walks of life, political parties, religious faiths and none , but still broadly speaking, citizens of a Christian country, we the undersigned have joined together to stand foursquare with Mr and Mrs Wilkinson in defence of their beliefs and civil liberties.

There’s a sort-of wonderful, ignorant irony in David bringing up the Equality Bill when Mr and Mrs Wilkinson are sort-of contravening the Equality Bill themselves by forbidding homosexuals from using their establishment.

He obviously feels very strongly about this, considering he submitted this and two other near-identical petitions about this very subject. He seems to think that the ideals of people who believe in a magical space wizard are more important than the ideals of people who happen to be in love, irrespective of what their genders may be. In fact, looking at a previous petition of his we featured some time ago, he seems to think that religious ideals (specifically his ideals, which happen to be Christian) trump all other ideals, beliefs and lifestyles. For that reason, he is a cunt.

That’s not a word I use often. It’s not a word I even like using. I have a particular disdain for that word, but then I also have a disdain for people who think that their imaginary friend is more important than… well, than anything else. That makes him a cunt. He is a cunt. David Skinner, who is a cunt, is a cunt.

I honestly can’t understand how someone can think that their God, whom they believe in despite the lack of any evidence, is more important than the love between two people of the same gender, which they refuse to believe in despite the overwhelming evidence presented.

Also every student should be given a bag of Werther’s Originals.

Ben — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:24:51 +0000

make public transport free for all students in full time education.

by Miss Lucy Smith

Getting to and from school or college should be free as OAPs are free and we don’t even get pensions.

That’s true. You don’t.

On the books

Ben — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:25:52 +0000

introduce legislation to ensure that payment for books and other documents authored by retired or otherwise terminated Prime and other Government Ministers as well as ex Members of Parliament, within 10 years of last occupying a post in public office, are to be passed to the public purse.

by keith jones of taxpaying pensioner with neither political nor religious affiliation

The information contained in these books, which is invariably based on their activities while public employees, was gained while they were being paid by the taxpayer for their services. It is only right, therefore that any profits arising out of books written containing that information should be passed to the public purse. It is their information, it does NOT belong to the individual ex-employee.

So does that mean if I write a book about what it’s like working in a call centre I’d have to give a portion of my money to Virgin Media? That’s a bit shit, Keith.

I Deserve Special Treatment Because My Precious Little Snowflake Is Melting

Ben — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:41:41 +0000

better treatment for women who misscarry.

by gemma

sepearate scanning areas in the hospital for women who have misscarried, its seems like a sick joke when you have lost your baby to be sent to sit in the maternity block for your scan to confirm the worst! to have to sit in a room full of pregnant women talking about how many weeks/months pregnant they are and weather its a boy/girl even tho you are happy for them it still kills you listening to it and thinking about your baby your never going to meet its terrible! surely women in my situation have felt the same and being in a different part of the hospital would help slightly!

when the goals start scoring / it becomes less boring

Ben — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:33:11 +0000

I’ll never get tired of using lyrics from Adam & Joe’s “Football Song” as the title for petitions to do with football. Anyway, here’s a self-entitled whinging bastard’s bastard’s bastard.

make it law that some football matches are available on free channels.

by Richard Garland

I think it’s a disgrace that to watch the likes of the English Premier League football matches, that we have to pay a ridiculous fee to a large corporation. I’m not saying that every match should be free, but on average there’s mostly at least ten matches a week in the Premiership, why can’t even one of those matches be given to a free channel? It’s ridiculous that certain companies appear to have a monopoly on this, why can’t the government intervene, and tell these companies to either stop being so tight or face sanctions? It’s simply nothing short of price fixing because they know fine well there’s no competition. Football should be for everyone.

Clime Change Denier Deniers

Ben — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:25:42 +0000

stop describing members of the public who question the veracity of Anthropogenic Global Warming as climate change deniers.

by John Catley

The Prime Minister has chosen to give his full backing and support to the case for Anthropogenic Global Warming. That is his right as an individual and that right is part of the constitution of this country. The Prime Minister does not have the right to insult millions of British people by describing them as “deniers”, a particularly hateful and emotive insult, because they do not share his view. Recently Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir John Beddington, said “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.” In spite of this, and significant evidence to show that there is indeed much in doubt, the Prime Minister continues issue his insults.

There’s a difference between “I’m not sure if climate change is happening” and “It’s definitely not happening.” One is stating a feeling of uncertainty, and the other is outright denial – and when I say “denial” I don’t mean the psychological “I’m not listening la la la la” denial, I mean the literal denial. Most people labelled as “clime change deniers” aren’t raising questions about whether it’s going on or not – they’re outright saying it’s not happening. The label is apt.

I’m a Self-Employed Construction Worker – I Built A Baby

Ben — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:47:26 +0000

allow self employed fathers to have the same rights to bond with their baby as employed fathers.

by Philippa Cunliffe

Currently employed mothers have 39 weeks paid Statutory Maternity Pay, self-employed mothers have the same – 39 weeks paid Maternity allowance. Employed fathers have 2 weeks paid paternity leave but self-employed fathers have no Paternity Allowance. This is very unfair as it means a lot of self-employed fathers cannot afford to spend time bonding with their new baby. Self-employed people pay tax just like employees, as well as often creating jobs, so why are they treated so unfairly?

People who aren’t self-employed are paid by their employers during time off, not by the government. I don’t see how that’s unfair, personally. If it were me I’d spend the nine months of the pregnancy putting money aside so I could afford to take a couple of weeks off, but that’s just me.

Niceland

Ben — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:58:58 +0000

veto Iceland’s application to join the EU unless it refunds all money owed to the UK and the Netherlands.

by Simon Haigh

Iceland must repay the £2.3bn owed to British taxpayers which was loaned to the country by HMG following the failure of its banking system. Until the loan is repaid, the UK and Dutch governments must veto Iceland’s application to join the EU.

If every country with debts owed to another wasn’t allowed to get involved then the EU wouldn’t get anything done.

…Oh.

Cheque Yourself Before You Wreck Yourself

Ben — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:25:13 +0000

pressurise the Payments Council to reverse their decision to abolish cheque payments by 2018.

by Sue Cherry

Over 4 million cheque payments are made each day and many people not only prefer to pay for goods and services in this way it is the only way, other than cash, that some services can be paid for. Some of Britain’s most vulnerable people, including many elderly, disabled and housebound people, rely on cheque payments as a means of goods and service payment and will be greatly marginalised. Many small businesses, charities and local community organisations do not have electronic facilities for payment receipt and will be at risk.

One could argue that this is why they’re making the change in nine years’ time as opposed to, say, killing cheque payments overnight.

Richard Moore Hates Your Television

Ben — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:08:35 +0000

Oh dear, we have another “scrap the TV license” moron in our midsts. And this one is armed with misinformation! Let’s get this over with…

Scrap the BBC TV License.

by Mr Richard Moore

Why should the BBC be given free money, whilst other TV channels gain no funding from the BBC TV License?

Why also is it satisfactory for the BBC to outsourse it’s published programs to e.g. BBC Americas for viewing abroad.

Why also is it satisfactory for the BBC to use UK License holders money to spurn products for their own profit from the UK public, i.e. childrens toy product etc…?

With the current economic state the country has been placed into, would it not enable families with a lower income to utilise the monies used for a TV License on more benificial items, i.e. feeding their family?

Is it not fair to the other broadcast network’s such as ITV, Channel 4 etc… to not recieve monies from the TV License.

Support the scrappage of the BBC TV License, sign the petition!

Okay, let’s dissect this one, shall we?

Why should the BBC be given free money, whilst other TV channels gain no funding from the BBC TV License?

Because the BBC is a public broadcasting service, and ITV, Channel 4, Channel Five, Sky etc. are businesses supported by advertising.

Why also is it satisfactory for the BBC to outsourse it’s published programs to e.g. BBC Americas for viewing abroad.

Actually, haha, they don’t. What happens is this: BBC Worldwide, the business arm of the BBC, is given the rights to distribute the shows to other territories. What happens then is that BBC America has to bid for those rights, and if they succeed then they get the show. You probably don’t know this but until recently BBC America didn’t have the first-to-air rights to Doctor Who – the American SciFi Channel (now called SyFy) outbid them for the rights to series one through four, and they let those rights lapse this year for the one-off specials.

Additionally, BBC America (which, I need to reiterate, is a business much like ITV and British Sky Broadcasting) actually co-funds some BBC productions such as Robin Hood.

So, y’know. Research.

Why also is it satisfactory for the BBC to use UK License holders money to spurn products for their own profit from the UK public, i.e. childrens toy product etc…?

Again, this is stuff that is all handled by the BBC’s business arms and is not funded by the money they get from the TV license, you frog’s gusset.

With the current economic state the country has been placed into, would it not enable families with a lower income to utilise the monies used for a TV License on more benificial items, i.e. feeding their family?

Considering that television is a luxury item and not a utility, they could always put the TV in the loft if they can’t afford their license.

Is it not fair to the other broadcast network’s such as ITV, Channel 4 etc… to not recieve monies from the TV License.

There is some debate about this, but once again it’s worth noting that ITV, Channel 4 etc. are supported by advertising. The BBC is not.

Thanks for playing.

You Never Give Me Your Money

Ben — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:52:21 +0000

Pay politicians and Government employees a fair wage.

by Alexander Petherick-Brian

A member of the Government should be there primarily for the benefit of the people – not their own wallet. We should pay Government employees (including civil servants, members of Parliament, etc) a wage not above the national average. This will encourage them to help increase average earnings, rather than increase their own paycheck.

Keep the greedy out of the government. “by the people, for people”

Basically, your argument is “Politicans make more money than us, and that’s not fair!”

Every Little Helps

Ben — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:39:30 +0000

scrap the plans to tax phone lines to subsidise other peoples broadband.

by Tony Humphreys

I request that the Government scraps any plans to add 50p a month tax to phone lines to subsidise further broadband roll out. It is wholly unfair to tax my phone line to pay for someone else’s broadband, and it is as simple as that. It is recognised that rural areas do suffer a slower connection and higher costs, but they have fantastic views, clean air and a safer environment – its a choice people have to live in the country – and a decision they take. Please see sense, and stop this poll tax – broadband is not a vital service.

We’ve gone over this before – it’s 50p. All that means is you get to yam one less Kit-Kat in your gob every month. Can you really be so hard-off that you can’t make do without that extra £6 a year?

Speed Queen

Ben — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:05:08 +0000

create legislation to prevent Traffic Police from ‘sniping’ in order to punish speeding drivers.

by Mr Timothy Tiernan

We believe that the practice of Police Officers hiding behind bushes or on bridges above roads etc is unfair and, especially with the latter, there can often be no way for the driver to confirm the speed he or she was driving (by seeing the read-out on the ‘Speed Gun’) before being issued with a fine. This requires the driver to take the Officer’s ‘word for it’ which is unfair and goes against their Human Rights. At the least, any evidence should be supplied to the driver before a fixed penalty notice is issued and enforced. We believe that Traffic Police should be a visible deterrent, not a hidden punishment and finance gathering system.

Surely the better, simpler solution is to not go over the speed limit. It’s really easy – you just take note of the posted speed limit, and then make sure your car doesn’t go above it.