UFO and Extraterrestrial Disclosure

by steven mulheron

Responsible department: Ministry of Defence

We petition the Government to set up a Public Enquiry for the enquiry into the UFO phenomena and any possible extraterrestrial involvement. All relevant documentary, physical, and eye witness evidence, held by, or known to the government, should be disclosed and made available to the public enquiry.
Any private entity or foreign government involvement, in the above subject known by HM government should be made available for scrutiny and possible disclosure to the public.

Right. You’ve read that, right? On the surface I actually think it sounds like a fairly reasonable if slightly silly request, worded intelligently by someone who, we can presume, was probably kicked in the head by a horse just hard enough to give him the urge to write this petition but not hard enough to damage his grasp of the English language.

Which is a bit suspicious when you stop to think about it, because the people who actually think it’s worth mashing their requests into the keyboard for the Prime Minister to summarily ignore usually aren’t the sort of people who are capable of stringing together a sentence in a meaningful manner. Over the last few years Andrew and I have seen people fail spectacularly to construct their asinine requests coherently.

Were we wrong? Are the British public actually very, very intelligent? Is this a grand conspiracy to keep people like Steven Mulheron out of the public view and instead elevate dullards and nincompoops to the public eye?

Well, no. As it turns out this is all part of a marketing campaign by EA Games to promote BioWare’s new video game, Mass Effect 3 – a marketing campaign designed to get people talking about, I don’t know, aliens or some shit. My rather cynical urge not to pay them any bloody notice is tempered somewhat by the knowledge that this blog is currently read by, at most, four people, so we’re not doing EA or BioWare any favours by talking about it. Or ARE WE…? (No.)

Nothing affirms my lack of faith in humanity quite like the efforts of marketing people.

In our defense, it’s not entirely our fault. The ePetition site doesn’t currently allow you to sort petitions by creation date, so it’s difficult to see when a new petition has been created. It sort-of fell off of our radars for a while. I’ve actually emailed them to ask if they can implement a “Sort by Creation Date” feature, but they’ve ignored me. I can’t say I blame them.

Anyway, for the new year I’m going to try and make at least one post here every weekday, starting from tomorrow (or today, if this post counts). Let’s see how well that goes.

Absolute right to self-defence within ones home

by Alan Young

The law regarding self-defence should be altered to make explicit that a householder is entitled to use any and all measures against an unlawful intruder within their home without fear of prosecution or any requirement to demonstrate proportionality or ‘reasonableness’ of response.

I am inexplicably reminded of a bit from Terry Pratchett’s “Hogfather” (I’ll quote from the TV version, here):

Lord Downey: You nailed Sir George’s dog to the ceiling.
Teatime: I couldn’t have it barking while I was working, sir.
Lord Downey: Some people would have drugged it.
Teatime: Oh! But I definitely fulfilled the contract. I checked Sir George’s breathing with a mirror, as instructed.
Lord Downey: Apparently his head was several feet from his body at that point.
Teatime: That was all right, wasn’t it, sir?
Lord Downey: It lacked elegance.

Right, what else have we got?

End mass immigration

by mark predeth

We the undersigned call on the government to restrict immigration to the United kingdom to a fixed numer of 50000 people per year and no more

Why?

Bring back the death penalty

by Peter Stephen Andrews

I would like the death penalty brought back. I’m sick of soft sentencing. I’m sick of criminals scoffing in the face of the law, our country and communities!

Wrongful convictions though, eh? Rather difficult to pardon someone you’ve just injected with poison, isn’t it? That is to say nothing of this very valid point.

NO CHILD BENEFITS FOR MORE THAN TWO CHILDREN

by David Moss

The government needs to stop paying people child associated benefits once they have had two children. Not only do more tax credits have to be paid, more child benefits but also housing benefits, NHS costs for birth and through life, education costs etc etc. Stopping benefits after 2 children will make people think more carefully about having large families and their huge tangible and intangible burden on the state. They will no longer be incentivised to have a lot of children, get more benefits and never work. More worringly this culture is passed onto the children and they adopt the same approach until it becomes totally unsustainable.

“Sorry Susan, but as your father and I just lost our jobs and the government will only pay child support for two of our children I’m afraid you’ll simply have to starve to death.”

Of course, we get into the rather sticky legal territory of what to do when someone accuses someone else of making a false accusation only for us to discover that the accusation of false accusation was itself a false accusation.

Sort out Pelican crossings

by Ben Spiller

The Prime Minister should make an announcement saying that there are no cameras on any pelican crossings in the country. Then, tell everyone that if the light is on red, and there is nobody on the crossing, just GO! This would save Billions of pounds to the economy, increase our standard of life and reduce carbon footprint.

What, Ben, is your problem? Is your schedule so important that being held up by a red light for a fistful of seconds is enough to throw your entire day out of whack? Here’s some advice – if you find yourself at Pelican Crossing while there’s a red light and nobody waiting to cross the road, just take a deep breath, count to ten, then… ah, fuck that. Just write another angry note to the Prime Minister. Your inability to cope with minor delays is exactly the reason he got into politics, after all.

On balance, this sounds a rather sensible idea. However the logical progression from this is that everybody wears a “safety hat” all the time forever because, I don’t know, someone somewhere might get home from work one night, slip on a bit of carpet and fall over and crack their head open on the radiator. After all, most accidents happen at home, or so an episode of Red Dwarf once told me.

Don’t listen to idiots signing e-petitions.

by Joseph Blurton

We, the people, are idiots. Please, for pity’s sake, ignore us more often.

Hello, anyway! It’s all go in epetitionville! The coalition have finally got round to installing the new epetition website, which I can only assume has taken this long thanks to their increasingly bewildering policy of never knowingly reusing a back-end. The e-petition website crashed almost immediately under the pressure of anywhere up to a hundred people flocking to sign as many as eighty petitions, so it’s safe to assume their server-farm has been hit pretty hard by the austerity measures or they took the latest dumb pigeon-versus-broadband stunt a mite too seriously.

To make things more exciting, any petition that gets over 100,000 signatures will be debated in Parliament, unless it isn’t. Also, we’re taking out the bell so you can buzz in as soon as you’ve dismissed the idea out of hand.

Anyway, there’s something of a bumper batch to get through here, so I’m going to leave the ‘rejected’ pile for now and stick my favourites after the fold…

It’s refreshing to know that all the old standbys have returned: life-should-mean-life, me and prison-should-mean-prison, metapetitioning…

The politicians must do what the people demand!

by tony

We apparently live in a democratic society yet we have politicians’ own views seemingly overriding that of the british public and disregarding sensitive issues for what can only be deemed as ‘bottling it’. This cannot be right as they are put there for a reason – to be the VOICE of the British public!
This being the case if a any petition reaches 1 million plus signatures, there should not only be debate in the house of commons but if the proposal is thrown out, there should be an explanation published from each and every MP that voted against the motion.

…’solutions’ to the expenses scandal nobody cares about any more that totally fail to understand that an MP in the Shetland Islands probably needs more expenses than one in Putney…

Abolish MPs expenses

by Edward Whitfield

Divide the sum total of expenses claimed by MPs in the last fiscal year by the number of MPs and add the sum calculated to each MPs salary by way of compensation for the total abolishment of expense claims.This to run in perpituity, and end all need for costs of running the expense system.

…racism from Keith Jones, who is delightfully still calling himself “of” despite the new form not having that field…

Limit Incomers’ Entitlement To Human Rights

by Keith Jones of Maerdy

Introduce legislation to limit the access of foreigners arriving in this country to the range of laws and entitlements, such as the Human Rights Act and access to the Legal Aid Fund, until they have been legally resident and contributing taxes to the country for at least 20 years. This is what we the electorate want our elected representatives in the House of Commons to do – accede to the wishes of the people who put them there.

…blunt calls for resignations, solutions to problems I can’t possibly imagine exist…

Mobility scooters shoulds require a license

by Robert Sleight

A law should be introduced to reduce the overwhelming amount of mobility scooters on our public footpaths. Users should require a license, given by a medical professional, stating that they are in need of a mobility scooter. This should count for rental and sales.
Currently, in the streets of Bridlington (just one example) people are encouraged to ride mobility scooters whether they need them or not. Resulting in hazardous footpaths, congested shops, blocked roads and general nuisances.

…non-racist insanity from Keith Jones…

Take Judges Out of the Loop

by Keith Jones of Maerdy

Because they continue to demonstrate that they are completely out of touch with the population in their sentencing of criminals we want you to introduce legislation to remove judges from the criminal justice system once any person has been found guilty of an offence. At that point of a trial the usefulness of the judge (in maintaining the legality of proceedings) is redundant. Sentencing needs to be more in keeping with the opinion of the public opinions of this country so panels of ‘sentencers’ consisting of randomly selected taxpaying individuals need to be established round the country so that sentencing is appropriate to the part of the country the crime is committed. Judges demonstrate most admirably that it is not possible for them to see that as far as the public is concerned ‘the punishment MUST fit the crime’.

…requests for permission to murder…

Absolute right to self-defence within ones home

by Alan Young

The law regarding self-defence should be altered to make explicit that a householder is entitled to use any and all measures against an unlawful intruder within their home without fear of prosecution or any requirement to demonstrate proportionality or ‘reasonableness’ of response.

…various calls to leave the EU or the Human Rights Act, Baby P stuff, and of course a disturbing number of “bring back the death penalty” petitions — disturbing not least because the team is supposed to screen for duplicates and there are about forty.

Disturbing also because of how many people specify hanging as their state-sponsored MO.

Stereoscopic 3D Educational Programmes “Stereocate”

by Saif Chaudhry
31/03/2011 12:44 PM GMT

I would like to use the power of stereoscopic 3D technology to educate students at all levels of academia. The idea will include 3D content production, 3D hardware rental/supply/installation and effectiveness research.

Stereoscopic 3D is the technical term used to describe the experience that is commonly referred to as 3-D film, television or gaming. The technology tricks the brain in to creating “cyclopean images” which are used for human optical depth perception. This gives the illusion that the viewer is looking in to the real world and not on to a flat screen. Many short studies have found this to increase attention, emotion and engagement levels. It is because of this that I think its use in education should be a priority.

I believe that a new model for creating and distributing educational content could be creating by seeking a mixture of public and private funding. A publicity based model could be adopted allowing companies and organisations who fit a strict ethical and social criteria to fund the production of the educational content in exchange for PR and logos placed in any assets produced. In this way it would be possible to distribute video content at cost (cost of the 3D Bluray) to UK schools, colleges, universities and other educational establishments that have the necessary 3D facilities. I understand business is about making money but I believe that educating should not be solely about profits but about the progress of our country and next generation. We would retain all copyright and be free to sell the content to schools outside of the UK. We would also provide supporting written material in an electronic format that would allow schools to print and use when necessary. If a school lacks the necessary hardware we can rent, supply and install the needed technology.

I have been unable to find a comprehensive set of figures that details the spend on textbooks but this spend could be drastically reduced by creating and distributing content in this way. I also propose to create an online portal where pupils of registered schools could view the 3D content at home for no additional charge (online) or purchase a set of 3D Blu ray’s.

Traditionally educational content has lacked the cinematic and directorial quality when compared to standard entertainment content. I would like to create the content using the same techniques and principles as mainstream content, meaning it is more engaging, entertaining and therefore more likely to deliver effective teaching.

I propose to take a topic from the GCSE syllabus of one subject and creating a 3D lesson. The teaching would be delivered to two classes of equal academic ability either using 3D or traditional methods. At the end we would ask pupils to complete a short test and questionnaire. Upon completion this lesson would act as a demo.

Initially the new company would focus on consumer content, however from personal experience, I believe there are uses for similar technology within the defence industry.

In case you wisely couldn’t be bothered to read all this, it boils down to:

• Books are expensive.
• People pay attention to 3D things.
• We could sell adverts in school lessons.

I’m pretty sure my school already has a 3D lesson-delivery system. This sounds like something from an 80s vision of the near-future where class sizes are around 150, and everything is holograms sponsored by PepsiCo.

Incidentally, it’s worth pointing out that the one 3D image available on this company’s website is the single worst attempt at 3D photography I have ever seen. If they used two cameras, they weren’t correctly synchronised. More probably they used only one, and in any case, presumably knowing that they couldn’t take the photos simultaneously, they chose a scene that moves around. If they’d picked a tree or a building they’d have got away with it, but no, they had to go with fountains. How is this going to work with a teacher trying to give a lesson while their cameraman shuffles from side to side resetting his tripod?

Surely it would cost more money to train “ALL Government staff in all departments” to negotiate stuff – keeping in mind this also includes Job Centre staff, cleaners and whathaveyou? What you’re effectively asking for here is “Please give Karrass Worldwide a big bag of money to train a bunch of people in a skill that almost all of them will never have to use.”

Advertising Revenue.

by ANDREW STONEY
30/03/2011 05:41 PM GMT

Making revenue from Google advertising that target specific videos that relate to different websites & my own videos.

Here, genuinely, is his latest video:

I think we can all agree that this would be fantastically lucrative.

Anyway, as with all the other ones since the ePetition site closed, this new one is focussed on only one goal, in this case as a way for companies to pitch business ideas they think will help the government save money. Sort of like a public-sector Dragons’ Den. But as we all know, the British public won’t sit by and let some nanny-state website apparatchik dictate to them what they can and can not submit, so they have simply phrased their petitions in the form of a business pitch and got on with the job of vomiting reactionary nonsense into their computers:

Compulsory Voluntary Work For Jobseekers

by Sally Metcalfe
31/03/2011 08:36 AM GMT

We all know that the UK has a reputation for being “easy to get benefits” and many Governments would like to change/reform it. I believe that people claiming Jobseekers Allowance should be required to undertake voluntary work in order to qualify to get the benefits. The type of voluntary work projects which could be arranged are limitless, with countless charities and PUBLIC SERVICES that need help. Not only would it give unemployed a sense of self-worth, but they could gain valuable skills and references to enable them to gain meaningful employment.

You wouldnt need a heirarchy of Managers to operate the scheme,just the Managers of charities/services to confirm attendance, commit to support the individual. The benefits to public services could be endless, beach cleaners, groundsmen, painters and decorators, assistance for the elderly, social support services, teaching assistants…..the list is endless and could save the public purse hugely.

Just an idea!

Yep, you’re onto a winner when you’ve contradicted yourself two words in. It’s voluntary, except that you have to do it and you get paid. You have invented jobs. Congratulations.

I have news to share with you. The ePetition site has once again tweaked its introductory page to read:

As stated in Parliament by the Leader of the House of Commons, Sir George Young, on 2 December 2010, online petitions to the Coalition Government will be moving to DirectGov in 2011.

DirectGov exists over here, but as yet I can’t find anything suggesting any sort of petitiony section on their site. Still, they have nine months in which to get it up and running, so I’m sure we’ll have some suitably batshit insane petitions to share with you at least before we all get fried by solar flares in 2012.

Larry Cavelle 21 December at 23:29
do you run www.wetheundereducated.com?

What’s happening? We’ve certainly never posted a petition from a Larry Cavelle. We posted one by Angela Cavelle once, could it be about that? Best get to the bottom of this.

Anyway, the conversation is long and ongoing, and therefore hidden behind the fold.

Andrew Taylor 21 December at 23:37
I don’t *run* it. Me and Ben work on it together. Why do you ask?

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 00:16
It’s actually ‘Ben and I’, rather than ‘Me and Ben’. Pretty bad grammar for someone who likes to slate other people so freely don’t you think?……

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 00:27
I disagree. Use of “me and” in that context is so widespread as to be quite proper. It is the prescriptivist grammarians, who believe they can derive the usage of an evolved, living language by applying rules they invent in their heads, who are wrong-headed and ignorant.

But since we’re correcting each other, there should be a comma after ‘freely’, and the ellipsis, which should comprise only three full stops, should be before the question mark. And your first message should have started with a capital letter. And personally, I wouldn’t have capitalised ‘me’.

Did you have a point at all, or did you just want to exchange writing tips?

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 00:50
That’s fascinating, you really are a fountain of knowledge!

I just wondered why you set out to abuse people on your pikey little site for a spelling mistake. Is it because you are a complete tosser and have no life?

I’m guessing it’s a fabulous concoction of both.

At around this time, he posted these comments which let us track down his petition:

It was a a call for “Gordan” to resign. It was hard to find because he called himself “Lawrence” rather than “Larry”. And misspelled his own surname. I’m amazed he found me on Facebook. I expect it’s taken all year for Andre Tyler to explain to him that he’s got the wrong guy.

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 00:58
I don’t think I do set out to abuse people. Granted I was perhaps unusually harsh on you, but you didn’t give me a lot to work with. Your petition was, in all fairness, really more suited to shouting at the television than submitting to the government for serious consideration.

The site gets a decent readership. Not huge, but respectable, we think, and follows in the vein of successful sites like Speak You`re Branes and features like Colemanballs, so I don’t think it does imply misanthropy or sociopathy that we write it.

And please don’t call the site ‘pikey’. I spent a lot of time on the layout and happen to think it looks rather snazzy. Did you check the alternate backgrounds? Unfortunately we don’t have a version of Gordon’s Office that uses your preferred spelling so I suggest you stick with the default one.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 01:36
You do abuse people on your pikey (definitely not snazzy!) site, even though you don’t seem to think you set out to do so.

It’s really funny that you’re asking me to not call it pikey, yet you have abused me over the internet for the last year by saying ‘I don’t know anything about anything’! An educated man would not be so shallow.You even go on to abuse me here with you last comment on this message.

I’ll be honest, it does look a pikey website and I’ve built far superior ones myself. Yes, someone who apparently doesn’t know anything about anything knows more than you.

Take down the completely unjustified abusive text on myself immediately and I will leave it at that.

Is that a threat? Gosh, the standard of threat around here is dropping like a lead fly.

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 09:42
I think the site is at least a bit snazzy. Did you try shrinking it until the two background images overlap? They do so quite gracefully, I think you’ll agree. And all (if I recall correctly) with valid and semantically accurate HTML and CSS. Could I see some of the ‘far superior’ websites you’ve designed, please? I ask partly because observing a truly great website would help me improve, but mostly because since you still haven’t demonstrated that you know anything about anything, I’m still inclined to dismiss your opinion out of hand, as one might the opinion of a lettuce or a Daily Mail reporter.

But mostly my question to you is, or you’ll leave what at that? So far all you’ve done is to insult me and criticise my writing, which according to your own definition constitutes “abuse”. I must therefore demand that you cease your abusive and threatening campaign regardless of any action or inaction on my part.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 09:57
You really are a tosser aren’t you. I need not prove anything to someone who spends their days abusing people on a pikey little site.

Enjoy wasting your little life abusing people on your pikey little site and not making any money from it. What a twat you are, ha ha ha ha!

Now go fuck yourself you little pompous twat.

This message is more fun if you read it like this.

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 10:04
This is brilliant, this is the sort of batshit hate-mail Richard Dawkins gets.

I have, however, taken on board your observation that But, Sir… is only a hobby and makes no money, and have therefore resolved to monetize the project by selling buttons, stickers and clothing bearing the slogan “Larry Cavelle Is A Nobber”.

Since you are apparently the design expert of the two of us, what font do you think I should use? I thought maybe American Typewriter, but I feel it’s becoming overused lately.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 10:10
This shows what a twat you really are little man. You can promote me as much as you want. You clearly no any press is good press

Again, I have some advice for you: Go fuck yourself little man. Let’s be honest, you wouldn’t say this to someone’s face, you have to hide behind a keyboard. Ha ha ha ha ha! What a twat.

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 10:22
Thankyou for authorising my “Larry Cavelle Is A Nobber” product line. I think with that in mind I will brand them “officially licensed Larry Cavelle merchandise”. I’m also thinking of selling mouse-mats reading “Larry Cavelle uses tables for layout” and mugs reading “Larry Cavelle is a mug”.

If we met in person I am not sure if I would say this to your face. It may be that you are physically intimidating, or that your face is unpalatable and I would prefer to say it to your forearm. In the former case I would not hide behind a keyboard as I feel it would offer precious little protection, but I may use its length, hardness and sharp corners offensively in any ensuing fisticuffs.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 10:26
Well done Andrew! I’m glad that I get to take time out of your life by promoting my name, this really is fantastic news!!

I know you wouldn’t say this to my face, because you have admitted to being a coward.

Right, must crack on with making money, as a productive member of society. Enjoy wasting your life

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 10:38
Thankyou. I shall have the online shop up and running as soon as possible. I only wish you’d contacted me sooner so we could have hit the lucrative Christmas market.

As regards wasting our lives, I plan to spend the next two weeks on Christmas holiday with my family and friends, having a lovely time. It is my firm belief that a life enjoyed is never wasted. You, on the other hand, imply that you are about to embark on a day’s slog at the coal-face of web design, a curious vocation for a man with such a unique inability to write legible copy. Oh, well, I imagine they employ someone else to tidy up your inept prose, so at least you’re creating jobs in this hard economic time. God bless you, Larry Cavelle.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 10:46
I know you really like arguing with people, as it makes you feel inferior. It’s very childish really.

The fact is you have abused me on your site, when you know nothing about me. You abuse people on a regular basis on your pikey little site. This is not a positive way to lead your life.

Karma is coming your way little man

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 10:57
Since karma does not exist, and given your history in the vowel selection stakes, I can only assume that you intended to tell me that korma is coming my way. That is excellent news; I do like a good curry. I think I’d prefer a jalfrezi, but a korma will do just fine, thankyou very much.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 10:58
I’d stick to being a pompous twat if I were you. Comedy is not your strong point

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 11:06
Thankyou for your advice. Allow me to reciprocate: since you are unable to string together a coherent sentence, you should get out of the web design game. Your strong suits appear to be unimaginative swearing and repeating yourself, so I suggest you become a drugs cop in Baltimore.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 11:07
No problem, feel free to hit me back for advice when you need it.

Here’s some free advice right now. Go fuck yourself. I think you’ll enjoy that little man.

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 11:09
I don’t see what that has to do with my “Larry Cavelle Is A Nobber” font dilemma.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 11:39
Dear oh dear Andrew. You really are a sad little man hiding behind a keyboard aren’t you. Putting people down seems to be your favourite thing. It’s very sad, you sad little man. I even feel sorry for you now, as you clearly have nothing else to do.

Maybe this shows what society has become, when people go out of their way to abuse other people that they know nothing about. Well done on being such a negative member of society.

He’s quite right, I don’t know anything about him. I don’t even know how to spell his name.

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 11:46
Actually I’m typing this on a touchscreen smartphone, do if anything I am hiding behind the lack of a front-facing camera and Facebook’s sluggishness in implementing video chat.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 13:11
My hero!

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 13:39
Unfortunately, your latest message did not make any sense. Perhaps you meant to send it to somebody else, say, a newspaper editor who published a snarky riposte to your latest ranting letter. I thought I should say something, because I would hate to think that my inaction led to somebody missing out on being called a hero, even by you, or a lettuce, or a Daily Mail reporter.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 13:46
ha ha ha, you do really have no life don’t you. I now feel VERY sorry for you. There are people who can help you know. You need not feel alone…..

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 14:01
Indeed there are people who can help me know. Teachers, for example, or librarians. However, I have no need for their services since I am a fountain of knowledge. Their precious time would be better spent helping someone who did not already apparently know anything about anything, such as (according to Google) you.

Possibly you meant to add a comma and tell me simply that there are people can help with the loneliness that you have invented and spuriously ascribed to me. Since this malaise is fictitious, I do not require help. In fact, far from being lonely, last night I made a lovely new friend who diligently sends me silly Facebook messages to entertain and amuse me.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 14:03
Bless you little man cotton socks! Awwwwwwwww!

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 14:16
“Bless you little man cotton socks”? What the hell is that supposed to mean? I think you may have hit the wire between two sub-par insults.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 14:18
awwwwww didn’t you like that little man? awwwwwwww bless you!

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 14:19
I have no strong feelings about it as thus far I have been unable to decipher it and rather doubt that the problem is on my end.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 14:29
awwwwwww, bless you.

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 14:55
Thanks and all, but how on Earth did you know that I’d sneezed?

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 15:35
awwwwwww, did you sneeze little man, awwwwwwwww bless you!

Christ, no wonder Stewie invents death rays.

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 15:55
In order to save you typing, I have built my own Larry Cavelle Simulation Device, capable of holding conversations with humans and totally indistinguishable from the genuine article. If you would like to see the blueprints and build your own — and finally get the chance to enjoy your own scintillating company — you can download a copy from http://twitgoo.com/1sbd37

I can give you instructions on how to use it when you have finished assembly.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 15:56
awwwwwwwww did you have a little drawing time with your little pens did you? awwwwwwwww, your mummy will be very proud! Bless you!

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 16:57
Gosh, that’s almost exactly what my simulator said. I mean, not word-for-word, but it certainly got the gist. Anyhow, yes, since you ask I did have a little drawing time. How you deduced this when your only clue was the drawing I sent you I have no idea, so I won’t hold it against you that you misidentified the tool. (In fact, I used a pencil.)

I like drawing. The But, Sir… backgrounds are my handiwork. The original one is my favourite as it has not only a recognisable Houses of Parliament in it, but I also managed to spell ‘Gordon’ correctly, without a spell checker. I know that sounds easy, but believe it or not, some people don’t manage it even when writing to the Prime Minister.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 19:32
awwwww did you really?! That’s a very clever little man. I expect Mummy is very proud of you! Bless you, you’re just such a clever little man! Well done, your Blue Peter page in is the post!

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 19:39
My “Blue Peter page in is the post”? Are you just sticking a pin in the dictionary at this stage?

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 19:43
awwwwww, look at you, so clever picking up on that one! Clever clever little man! Bless your little golden silk socks!

Even I’m proud of you now little man, awwwwwww! Bless you! *pinches cheeks* I’ll make sure they send you two badges now, such a clever little man!

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 20:02
Are you enjoying this? It seems like it must be very tedious, tapping out the same response over and over. Or have you set up keyboard shortcuts? I suppose a man of your unique lack of imagination could set up maybe eight shortcuts, one for each of your witty put-downs, and never really need to type again. I expect an experienced web developer like you would have thought of that.

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 20:12
Awwwwwww, do you? That’s fascinating!

I’m having the best time ever speaking with you little man, it’s just so much fun! You’re just so clever and witty with your responses! Awwwwwwwww, bless you, such a clever little man!

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 20:41
[sarcastic response]

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 20:44
No!!!! Really??!?!?……….Such a clever little man aren’t you!

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 20:51
[sarcastic response]

Larry Cavelle 22 December at 21:01
No!!!! Really??!?!?……….Such a clever little man aren’t you!

The sad thing is that I can’t be sure he realised those messages were identical.

Andrew Taylor 22 December at 21:44
I’m not that little. I think I’m about average.

Larry Cavelle 23 December at 01:54
Well at least that’s one thing that we can agree on then….You being extremely average that is! Little man.

Andrew Taylor 23 December at 16:39
So your assertion is that I am a little man of “extremely average” height? Can something even be “extremely average”?

Larry Cavelle 23 December at 17:23
And I quote: ‘I think I’m about average.’

I completely agree! Come on now, you were doing so well in coming across as a clever little man. Bless you, awwwwwwww!

Clearly something can be extremely average, as you have demonstrated to me today. Well done little average man!

Andrew Taylor 23 December at 17:33
You are not making any sense. Not making any sense is a very poor way to make the point that my saying that your petition did not make any sense is unfair. In fact, it does not make any sense.

Larry Cavelle 23 December at 17:39
Awwwwwwww, little average man all confused! Well not such a clever little man so it seems…..Mummy will be most upset! Bless you, awwwwwwwwwww!

Andrew Taylor 23 December at 17:46
Do you realise I’m going to post this conversation on the website so that everyone can laugh at you again?

Larry Cavelle 23 December at 17:50
That really is fascinating! I’m sure then all your readers can see that you abuse people that you know nothing about, you little average man. If you can remember back that far, this is how it all began. Bless you, awwwwwwwwww!

Andrew Taylor 23 December at 19:30
Well again, I don’t think I did abuse you. I simply observed that your petition didn’t offer any evidence that you possessed any knowledge on any subject. And I stand by that assessment. Your follow-up correspondence has done nothing to improve my opinion of you. Now can we please assume from here on that I am by now sufficiently blessed and have a discussion that my Larry Cavelle Simulator couldn’t manage?

Larry Cavelle 23 December at 20:30
Well little man, again I must point out that what you thought and what you did are worlds apart! You do abuse people for speaking their minds over a minor spelling mistake. Very similar to what a child would do. Hence me calling you little man. I thought you would be clever enough to work that one out. I really do feel very sorry for you though, in all honesty, that you cannot see that and still stand by my offer of seeking help for you. Let me know, as there really are people that can help. Don’t feel you are wasting their time, that’s what they are there for! Bless you!

Andrew Taylor 23 December at 21:42
No, I did figure it out from that bit where you explicitly stated it several times. I thought you’d assume that without my reiterating it. I didn’t want to acknowledge it in case you thought I agreed with it. I’d hate anyone to think I was the kind of person who agrees with you about things.

Larry Cavelle 24 December at 01:10
What a strange, average, little man you are. You still don’t think you are abusing people on your site for speaking their mind on the PM’s website. I mean, they’re not even writing to you and you go butting in thinking your PM. It’s really funny/sad! You clearly have no life to be involved in others so frequently.

Once again you have proved yourself to be a complete and utter sad little man. Well done, I’m sure Mummy is so proud of you!

I bet you can’t wait to get your badges in the post. Wow, won’t you look a smart little man, ha ha ha!

Andrew Taylor 24 December at 08:35
Our point — I mean, a really huge part of the point we make with But , Sir… — is that a petition to the Prime Minister is not supposed to be an opportunity to “speak your mind” (or brane). It is an opportunity to propose new policy or protest an unjust one. Yours, as I say, should have been shouted at the TV and forgotten. Leave government to the grown-ups, please.

Larry Cavelle 24 December at 16:44
…….sorry, I fell asleep there for a moment!!

The fact that you spend your life doing a website on this, again, makes me feel very sorry you little man. You seem to have a fixation with thinking actually give a dam what you write. It’s very amusing/sad. Bless you little man, you really do need help/a girlfriend/a boyfriend. Bless!!!

To think that ‘grown-ups’ know how to run the country anyway, that’s hilarious! To the general public, they seem like a bunch of snobby school boys shouting away at each other in the house of commons! Probably what you’d love to do, but will never have the opportunity to do so as you are a little average man. Bless your silky smooth cotton socks!!

I think he forgot to customise this message after it came out of his keyboard shortcut.

Andrew Taylor 24 December at 17:58
I am glad that you feel sorry. That was very much our intention. You should feel sorry: sorry for wasting the government’s precious time with your ill-thought-out ranting. This is what I mean by “grown ups” — not MPs, but those members of the public with sufficient imagination to conjure up an idea, and the language skills required to express it without vomiting up horrendous run-on travesties like “a fixation with thinking actually give a dam”. Your skills would be better employed writing greeting cards to give to illiterate people with mild cold symptoms who you hate.

Unfortunately, however, my cotton socks are not “silky smooth” because they are made of cotton.

Larry Cavelle 24 December at 22:31
Oh well done again little average man!! You really are outdoing yourself aren’t you!! Picking up on the grammar of us ‘normal’ folk! Awwwwwwww! Mummy is going to have such a proud Christmas with you!

Even with your silky smooth cotton socks! Awwwwwwwwwww!

Bless you, you really do have nothing better to do than put people down. What a sad little VERY average man you are. I’m sure you will continue to prove that with another pointless message that no one really gives a toss about.

Go ahead……

Andrew Taylor 24 December at 22:42
What? No, as I explained in my second massage, I have no quarrel with the grammar of normal folk since it is, by definition, correct. I have a problem with the grammar of semi-literate numbskulls such as you. Your sentences, such as they are, are unclear and badly constructed, not conforming to any consistent set of rules. Maybe your petition should have read “we the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to improve the school system since some useful members of society who fancy themselves as web developers are unable to string together a coherent sentence, aww, bless your cotton socks little man mummy will be so fucking bored.”

The new product line is available now from the Official Larry Cavelle Merchandise Store now. Okay, some of the tat says “ry Cavelle is a nob” but I don’t know Ry Cavelle so it may still be true. Heck, it might yet turn out to be the correct spelling of Larry’s name.

Larry Cavelle 28 December at 15:03
That’s brilliant work little man!! You really do have nothing better than to abuse people! Ha ha ha ha ha! You’ve proved to us all what a loser you are and that you clearly have no life, it’s so funny!

Andrew Taylor 28 December at 15:06
I should doubt that anyone has anything better to do than “abuse” (read: gently rib) you. It really is most entertaining.

I notice you have taken to referring to yourself as “us all”. Should I be concerned for your mental health (more so)?

Larry Cavelle 28 December at 15:13
I should doubt you’ve lost your virginity, that’s for sure little man! I must say it’s amusing to think you’re trying to wind me up! Have you really been trying??…… Such a little average man, bless your silky smooth cotton socks, awwwwwww!

Andrew Taylor 28 December at 15:24
Mostly I have been trying to make you appear foolish, however I have not been expending much effort, since you have been providing all the material I could ask for. I half expect you to imply that I’m gay next, and act like you’ve insulted me, but then I was genuinely surprised you turned out to have the imagination to come up with that amazing ‘bet you’re a virgin’ quip that I haven’t otherwise heard since high school. Actually I wonder if you have someone else there helping you think of this dross, which would also explain why you say “us all” when you mean “me”. Say ‘hi’ to them from me.

Update:

Larry Cavelle 28 December at 17:52
Bless you! Such a smart cookie would have remember that you were going to post the conversation up for everyone to see on your pikie site, hence the ‘proved to us’ bit. Bless, you needed that explained! awwwwwwww!

Why would I call you ‘Gay’ to abuse you? Do you think that is an abusive term? Children generally do and when you post this up it shows that you are a homophobic as well as an abusive, negative member of society.

Such a darling little average man, aren’t you!

To think I have asked for help in answering you back when clearly it is the easiest task I have had to endure. Bless your little Christmas cotton socks! awwwwwwwwwwwwww!

Andrew Taylor 28 December at 17:58
Oh, I see. Sorry, I assumed you were talking about events that had taken place in the past, because you used the past tense. In future I shall not assume you know anything about anything.

For example, I might assume that since you consider me simultaneously homophobic, abusive, negative and average, that you are a misanthrope, but instead I shall assume that you don’t know what ‘average’ means.

Maybe you should ask for help. There’s no shame in it.

Update II:

Larry Cavelle 28 December at 18:08
Bless you! Did I offend you by pointing out the truth there?? Awwwwww!

Well, would you like to explain the ‘Gay’ bit, as you seemed to have dodged the question, which makes you look a little guilty…..

Infact, all you seem to do is hide behind pointing out Grammar and spelling mistakes. Very sad little average man! I truely believe you are now past the point of getting help! Bless!!!

PS – Seriously though, don’t you have any friends and family to chill with over this festive period? Would you really rather spend your time abusing people and being negative? My heart genuinely goes out to you man, life must be bad.

Andrew Taylor 28 December at 18:21
I note with regret that I am now “very sad” and “little”, despite being “average”. Presumably this means there is one really miserable dwarf bringing down the average. I’d hate to be that guy.

I don’t know what you want me to tell you about “the ‘Gay’ bit”. It seems to me that I mocked your argument skills and you decided I was a homophobe. I can’t explain that.

As I explained earlier, I in fact did spent Christmas with friends and family, whereas you apparently spent it unwittingly writing lorem ipsum in Dreamweaver (except without the representative word lengths).

Once more unto the breach, eh?

Firstly, I’d like to show you my email signature.

Ben Paddon
Writer
Jump Leads • But, Sir… • Game Journalists Are Incompetent Fuckwits • BenPaddon.com • Twitter

Keep an eye on this, as it’ll be making an important appearance later on.

Our last conversation with Mr. Guidera ended on December 5th when he emailed us to say:

I am torn in two directions. Obviously, I would like the personal emails you published to be taken down, but at the end of the day, free speech is something I would defend rather than attack.

I have talked to your hosting provider, made legal threats and they are understanding, but are following current U.S. law. so can do nothing. But you are British and I could contact the British police and file a police report against you as you have broken U.K. laws with your religiously aggravated online ‘bullying / harassment’. The police would then wish to speak with you when you stepped foot into this country as you would become wanted for questioning. But I won’t mainly because my lawyer says action we take could cause you serious problems with your immigrant status in the USA which is taking this far too far but also because what a lot of hassle for something so trivial.

So, merry Christmas, and a happy new year.

I emailed him back to say this was “exceptionally charitable” of him, and then proceeded to post the entire conversation up on our little blog here, including his email signature which he said prohibited the dissemination of his emails.

Obviously he didn’t like that because on December 12th, four days after we posted the conversation, he sent this:

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL, IN BIG LETTERS SO EVEN YOU CAN UNDERSTAND BEN.

There was I, ready to let it go (and yes it was gracious of me) but you still want to keep going.

I suggest you read this carefully and if you struggle, get a friend to help you.

You have freedom of speech but like everything, rights come with responsibilities and your ‘responsibility’ as a US resident is to ‘not break the law’. By publishing my emails (particularly with a non disclosure) you have broken the law. And I am the owner of the copyright. Your assumption was wrong.

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum44/1500.htm

The legal liablilty (in the United States) is found in Title 17 of the United States Code Chapter 5. You could get hit for actual damages, or in some cases statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement. They can also get an award of court costs and attorney fees that can be just as onerous as the damage award.

I am therefore instructing my lawyer (yes, the link I sent to you, who DOES work with individuals as well) to prepare to take action against you for the publishing of my private emails (to which I own copyright). This action may take place in the USA as that’s where the law was broken. At the very least, your hosting provider now has everything they need to take down your site. Previously they asked for non disclosure agreements in my emails or they could do nothing. Now they can! So thanks Ben! Oh, and Google.co.uk have blocked access to your page about me. And .com defaults to .co.uk. I have emailed them about your new page so it’ll be gone soon too so no-one in the UK will ever see your webpages about me. Just gotta email Bing. And the more you link to my name, the more I have to build up a case of online harassment against you.

You don’t have to bother replying to this email. I have made my requests previously and they have been laughed at by you. You are predictable though so I’ll expect some kind of entertaining comments, after all, you think you’re a comedian.

Finally you’ve stitched yourself up (British phrase in case you forgot).

Mocking as many people as you have, what were the odds that you would eventually meet your match? You do the math… Oh, how embarrassing. I forgot you said you have a D grade at a 16 year old level so you can’t do math!

The lawyer will be in touch in the new year if ixhosting haven’t already ended your reign as the funniest male on the internet.

Enjoy.

Francis Guidera.

This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action taken in reliance of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then permanently delete what you have received.

Oh dear. I mean, Google UK have taken us off of their listings! No, I’m not kidding - they actually have done:

In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.

We’ll come back to this later, although it does make my response to his email at the time seem a little silly now:

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Hello again Francis.

Whatever happened to that holiday spirit you had not one week ago? We posted your emails on our site in good faith, based on your last email to me. You yourself referred to this as “something so trivial”. I figured based on your forgiving nature you’d have no problems with us sharing this email conversation on our little blog, which has limited readership regardless of whether or not people can find us on Google or not (currently searches for your name on Google.co.uk still show us in the results, but it is the holiday season and Google may not get around to removing our listing until January).

If I thought that posting the emails would get us in any actual legal trouble I would never have posted them at all.

If you are concerned about actual damages I would be happy to discuss this with you here, via email. Andrew and I have have done some research since last week. If you want to discuss this amicably the door is always open for you to do so.

~Ben

Ben Paddon
Writer
Jump Leads • But, Sir… • Game Journalists Are Incompetent Fuckwits • BenPaddon.com • Twitter
By replying to this email you grant But, Sir… an irrevocable, unlimited license to reproduce and publish any correspondence, past and present, received from you.

And there’s my email signature. Can you spot the difference? Andrew suggested that, and I’d considered translating it into French, but that seemed like a step too far.

Fun fact: I check my email on a number of devices and have this signature set up for almost all of them. Some email clients prefer to place the signature at the very bottom of the email, underneath the email conversation itself. This usually doesn’t matter because GMail will hide quoted text by default.

As it happens, Frank did respond to the email:

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

You published the emails addressed to you and ccing Andrew in ignoring the legal notice at the bottom. It was there for a reason. You have willfully broken US law.

As for actual damages? Talk to my lawyer in the new year (if your host hasn’t shut you down in which case I’ll consider the matter closed).

As you have shown I have no expectation of privacy at this point, I wont be sharing any further information with you.

As you may notice, I have cc’d my lawyer in at this point. Any emails you send to me will be forwarded to him.

Francis Guidera.

This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action taken in reliance of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then permanently delete what you have received.

He did indeed CC a lawyer in. He also CC’d his lawyer in on this second response to that same email:

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

And… If you remove all of our email conversations, and reference to my petition request I will drop the legal action.

So that option is open to you.

This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action taken in reliance of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then permanently delete what you have received.

My response needs no introduction:

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

I’d like to thank you for responding to my email, although you needn’t have done so twice – once was more than enough to constitute agreement of the legal footnote at the very bottom, but it’s certainly a load of my mind to know that you agree so wholeheartedly to our reproduction and redistribution of your emails.

I am thankful that this has brought our discussion of this matter to a close. If you’ve any questions feel free to get in touch, although as a reminder anything you email to us can be redistributed and/or published as per the agreement.

Yours in good faith,
~Ben

I think the best thing about this is not the email I sent, but Frank’s response to it:

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

No permission was granted. Your footnote is not legally binding. Neither is mine, but mine is a claim to expected privacy and useable in court.

Do not email me again.

And he stuck his legal disclaimer in there again, just for good measure.

Early this morning (or late in the afternoon, UK time) Frank sent me this latest and last email:

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: Done

Expect no further action. And no further emails. I will inform my lawyer that I will not be proceeding.

Enjoy your Christmas, and please do not email me again. To be in an argument with a total stranger is a ridiculous situation.

Francis.

So, for the second time, Mr. Guidera has decided to back off. Is it the Christmas spirit? I’d sure like to think so, although I’m perhaps more inclined to believe that he realised demanding that we take down a petition posted on a public forum in which he called for the prosecution of people lawfully protesting the arrival of an alleged paedophile protector probably wasn’t legal. I don’t know. I’m no lawyertician.

And now, concerning the Google UK problem. This is obviously something we need to discuss with Google as no legal action has been taken nor, if Frank keeps his word this time, is it going to be taken. That means there’s no legal grounds for Google to remove our listings and, as such, we’re obviously entitled to get ourselves back up on their site.

Concerning Mr. Guidera’s copyright notice, Andrew actually made an interesting observation:

“As for actual damages? Talk to my lawyer in the new year”? If the actual damages are non-zero, that must mean he plans to collate his email into a book and sell it for $19.99 in all good bookshops. A strange act indeed, for a man so concerned with confidentiality.

But by a mile my favourite part is that his disclaimer says “any … action taken in reliance [what?] of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited”, and so actually forbids us from taking down the posts.

Hopefully Andrew won’t contact me demanding I take that quote down. I don’t think I could handle another internet argument like this.

Yay fun!

Actually, so far it’s been disappointingly sane, but as non-party-members get wind of it I’m sure it’ll liven up. Well, a bit sure. Ish.

That to be eligible to stand for office you will need to achive or be working towards a qualification in public service. There could be higher qualifications to be a junior or senior minister in the particular department they seek to serve. Justification would be that Civil Servants who implement and administer policy need to meet personal specifiations, so should those who make the decisions.

Higher Education should be free. It’s the duty of the older generation to pass on the knowledge to their young without conditions. It has been that way for 200,000 years. Every other successful species on this planet seems to have grasped this concept. It is greedy,selfish and shortsighted for our generation to make the kids pay for something that was gifted to us.

Is this a good idea?

Put forward some new ideas to stimulate the economy, specially to get more employment.Ordinary people don’t know how to do this and nor do the Con/Libs

Labour should have the courage to admit that it’s impossible to “put power in people’s hands”. There are 44m voters, there’s no way all their views can be heard. An MP can’t even truly find out the views of his constituents, there are too many of them.All mechanisms put in place to give people a real role will inevitably be hijacked by a vocal minority.

Let’s hope, eh?

At the end of November, he reemerged from the murky waters of internet vilification and continued his campaign of scaring us with big legal threats, and so we continued to make fun of him.

I will be honest: I felt a little out of my depth responding to these emails as I wasn’t entirely certain about our legal grounding. With that said, some of my responses to Frank’s emails lose their comedy edge very quickly into the conversation replaced instead with genuine seriousness. Andrew, on the other hand, was far more confident about the whole thing, and in retrospect I wish it had been him who had continued the conversation – he’s much better at this sort of thing.

Let’s read on.

Frank’s first email was super super serious and came with an OMNIOUS LEGAL WARNING. And then it came again, four minutes later.

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: Final request

Please take note of the copyright notice at the end of this email.

___________________________________________________________________________
I have spoken with an American lawyer based in the UK today and he is quite happy to assist me in taking legal action against you.

I will ask again, please take down the page containing our private email conversation and also the page containing my e-petition and remove all references to my name from your website. If you do we will leave it there and chalk it up to a bad experience for me and a bit of fun for you.

If not, expect a letter in the new year from my lawyer.

Francis Guidera.
___________________________________________________________________________

This email and any files transmitted with it are copyright of the sender and confidential, intended solely for viewing by the individual to whom they are addressed. You, the recipient of this email may not disseminate, print or publish using any form of media, any part of the content of this email. If you have received this email in error please reply with ‘received in error’ and delete the email. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

Blimey, kids. Doesn’t that sound serious! And look at that legal text at the end, there. That strikes me as incredibly binding and not at all something I should ignore. Certainly it’s not something I should be making fun of.

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject:  RE: Final request
Hi Frank.

We here at But, Sir… Enterprises (a division of Edible Ham Productions, itself a division of a larger corporate entity owned by several anonymous, sinister agents) take all legal matters incredibly seriously. I can assure you that my associates and I have stared at your email long and hard, often while furrowing our brows and stroking our chins. I believe someone – and I’ll name no names – may have sipped at a small glass of brandy during the proceedings.

If you’d like to start by telling us exactly what your legal challenge is, we will begin muttering incoherently to one-another and will upgrade the small glass of brandy to a large decanter of another alcoholic beverage of equal or greater refinement.

Many thanks,
Ben
____________________________________________________________________________________________
IMPORTANT NOTICE: this email is for your eyes only. It is not to be shown, forwarded, copied, read aloud or performed to anyone else under any circumstances. This includes but is not limited to friends, colleagues, roommates, parents, teachers, houseplants, wicker baskets, firemen, swarms of bees, the 1966 England football squad, or combinations and/or variations thereupon. Failing to comply with this notice will be swiftly punished by the full extent of whichever laws we are able to come up with. This sender accepts no responsibility for any negative reviews that may appear in any local, national, or international publications as a result of performing this email to an audience (which, you are reminded, is expressly forbidden).

Fair question, I think – he hasn’t told us what we’ve done wrong, so it makes sense to establish his legal grounding before my fictional cohorts and I make a final decision as to whether or not to take down the posts. To ensure he doesn’t show this clearly very important email to anyone else I drafted an airtight legal footnote which must be taken 100% seriously at all times. Even now.

I can only assume that Mr Guidera is an upstanding citizen, as he did the best he could to oblige. Or possibly he just danced around the issue. What do you think?

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: RE: RE: Final request

Ben. This is no joke. Please don’t laugh this off.

I’ll forward this on to the lawyer.

You have until the end of December to comply. If it’s not gone by then, I’ll instruct him to proceed.

This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action taken in reliance of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then permanently delete what you have received.

Oh no! The end of December? That’s a month away! Oh, hang on, he sent another email:

And just to be sure, I’ll check with the lawyer to make sure I can legally show him this email before doing so as you have a ‘disclaimer’ at the bottom of your reply.

This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for use by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action taken in reliance of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then permanently delete what you have received.

Quick, I’d better think of something clever to say. No? Well I guess I’ll get paranoid and become incredibly tense instead:

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Well then! I’ll be super serious from here on out.

I once again request that you state your actual legal challenge so that I may run it by my lawyers and see if any action is necessary on our part. No content can be removed from the website until we can establish actual legal grounds for doing so.

Fondest regards,
~Ben

Fun fact: I don’t actually have any lawyers, but I have seen “Liar Liar” six times.

Frank continued to tip-toe around the request (In the interests of readability I’ll be ommiting his little legal text from his emails going forward.):

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Any content CAN be removed as you are the administrator.

I will ask my lawyer to contact you directly.

He’s got a point – I’m a site administrator and I can do whatever I want! What I don’t want to do, though, is anything Mr. Guidera tells me to do.

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Well using that logic we could take down the entire site if we wanted to. What I am trying to establish is if there is any legal need to, and to that end I need to know on what legal grounds you make that request.

I like to think I’m pressing hard and firm now. Mmmm.

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Perhaps you should. I seriously doubt the petition site will be opened again.

The situation is this. If you don’t feel you need to take the things relating to me down (and I have asked) the only option left to me is to prosecute you and that is why I have involved a lawyer who specialises in internet law both in the UK an USA. I am not going to go into the specific law as that is up to my lawyer.

Like I said, I will talk to him tonight via email and ask if he will communicate with you via email.

Anyhow, I’ll just ask again nicely. No sarcasm. Please take the stuff off the net.

Francis.

Y’know, he actually does have a point here – the ePetition site probably won’t be relaunched despite promises to the contrary. It’s saddening – depressing, even. What will we do with this blog? How will we spend our times if not trawling through the petition site looking for examples of idiocy? Well, if nothing else, this conversation is evidence that if you wait long enough the idiots will come to you.

Again, Frank’s attempts to avoid telling us exactly what his legal challenge is continue, although he did tr being sort-of reasonable. Which is nice. It’s also fruitless.

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Until you’ve outlined the legal reasons for us to pull the posts we’ve no obligation to do any such thing. So far your entire side of the conversation has been “Take it down or in telling” but you’ve yet to tell us the legal grounds for doing so. Whiter you choose to get a lawyer involved or not you can’t expect us to just yank the posts without telling us why.

It’s worth mentioning at this point in the story that I have been responding to Mr. Guidera’s emails on my iPhone, where auto-correct has caused my last sentence to wilt.

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Is your website is so important to you that you would risk criminal prosecution in the UK?

I will leave it up to my lawyer to explain how serious this is and how it may affect you.
He will contact you but it may not be until January.

And just so you know I am not bluffing, here is his firm’s website.

http://tehays.com/Services.htm

I am quite happy not to proceed if you will just comply with my request and remove my details and writings from your website.

Francis.

Oh no, an actual firm of solicitors! They’ve been named! They have a website and everything! Let’s have a look at their “About Us” page (emphasis mine):

Our practice covers all areas of the law applicable to developing technologies, governmental regulation, corporate transactions and finance throughout Europe, North America and Asia. This includes patents, trademarks, design rights and copyright, information technology, e-commerce, and media, life sciences, alternative energy and climate change, competition and anti-trust, commercial contracts and international trade. We act for clients ranging from small start-up businesses to long-established multi-national groups.

Alright then.

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

If I were to receive a criminal prosecution as a result of a civil lawsuit I imagine it would be a landmark case with far-reaching repercussions on UK law.

Let me ask you a question: is your claim (or case, if you like) so important to you that you can’t disclose to us what your legal basis is? So far this conversation has consisted of you telling me you’re going to sue, followed by me asking you what for, followed by you flat out refusing to tell us what it is you feel we’ve done and repeatedly demanding we take down entries from our site with your name on them. We feel no compulsion to comply to a request which ends “…or I’ll sue!!” when you haven’t even told us what it is exactly you’d be suing us for.

If you wish to tell us what your legal grounds are for making such a request I assure you – I promise you – that your request will be seriously considered.

I was 100% sincere about that promise, too. Pity Frank had no interest on taking me up on it.

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Nobody said it was going to be a civil case.

I can’t give you details because I myself am unsure of the legalities. But the lawyer is.

So, I will have him contact you. He is very sure and as you can see, specialises in this field.

So we finally have an answer, in the form of “I don’t know, I’ll let my lawyer get back to you on that”.

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Surely you must have some idea of what, legally speaking, is objectionable about the content in question. You must understand it from our point of view – so far you’ve requested we take down the pages with your name on, or you’ll sue. You’ve not stated what you find objectionable about those pages and you have yet to tell us the grounds on which we are legally obliged to drop them.

I’d hope I’ve been reasonable during this conversation. I’ve asked for specific information that Frank has been unwilling to provide, and then he’s finally provided an answer which isn’t really satisfactory and so I’ve pressed him on it.

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Everything you have published relating to me invades my right to privacy. Again, I have talked to a lawyer who will be able to point out why he feels we can go after you on this.

Now, until I speak to the lawyer I can tell you no more as I know nothing more.

Surely thst’s the sort of thing the lawyer should have told him before he contacted me to say “Take it down OR ELSE!!!11!1″. I mean, that strikes me as a piece of basic but vital information in these sorts of proceedings.

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Two points of interest:

1.) You submitted your initial petition to a public forum – the ePetition website. Reproducing that petition and providing a link to the original is not, as far as I am aware, infringing upon your privacy as the information contained in the petition was already available.

2.) As far as I am aware – and I’m sure Andrew can do a better job of confirming this as I’m not familiar with the specifics – correspondence becomes the property of the recipient and not the sender. If the opposite were true you’d see legal cases popping up as a result of the display and/or publication of letters. Additionally I’d like to refer you to SomethingAwful.com who have a history of posting legal threats on their website without repercussion.

Everyone who has even a passing interest in law will cite Something Awful during a case sooner or later. it’s a well-documented phenomenon. I’m actually still unsure as to whether the second point is in any way accurate – I remember hearing it second-hand somewhere a long time ago. It sounds reasonable, but then so does a lot of things prohibited by law. At the very least I’m quite confident that there’s no legal right to privacy on personal correspondence, and his petition remains on the government’s website.

As it is, I think I make some interesting points. Frank doesn’t seem convinced, though.

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject:  RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Ben. Live in the real world. You are not a lawyer. Andrew is not a lawyer as far as I am aware (and almost certainly not a lawyer who specialises in EU & EU law). My lawyer, funnily enough, is a lawyer who specialises in EU & EU law as well as internet law and defamation (did you see how this time I didn’t fall foul of spell check with that word) and he is American as well!

And my lawyer says we can almost certainly get a judgment against you in the UK with little effort.

It’s up to you.

And don’t waste any more time coming up with your layman’s interpretations of the law.

Either do as I asked, or expect legal action after in January. I am fed up with trying to reason with you.

Francis.

Reasoning with me? Is that what he’s been trying to do? It sounds more like bullying to me, but hey, what do I know? I bite the heads off fish.

Nearly two weeks pass without further contact from either him or his lawyer, who was supposed to get back to us soon about what Frank’s case actually is. And then, a couple of days ago, I received this email:

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject:  RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

Hi Ben.

I am torn in two directions. Obviously, I would like the personal emails you published to be taken down, but at the end of the day, free speech is something I would defend rather than attack.

I have talked to your hosting provider, made legal threats and they are understanding, but are following current U.S. law. so can do nothing. But you are British and I could contact the British police and file a police report against you as you have broken U.K. laws with your religiously aggravated online ‘bullying / harassment’. The police would then wish to speak with you when you stepped foot into this country as you would become wanted for questioning. But I won’t mainly because my lawyer says action we take could cause you serious problems with your immigrant status in the USA which is taking this far too far but also because what a lot of hassle for something so trivial.

So, merry Christmas, and a happy new year.

Wow. What a guy, selflessly giving up on his crusade against the Big Bad Internet for the sake of lil’ ol’ me, a Brit living in LA. Granted, almost all of his given reasons in this email are absolute bollocks – I don’t think responding to his emails in a humorous manner constitutes bullying, and certainly nothing we’ve done counts as harassment. There’s definitely nothing religiously-charged about the whole thing other than the fact that it was sparked by his petition against people protesting the Pope which, let’s be honest, is a bit ridiculous considering the Pope has gone out of his way to protect Catholic paedophiles ostensibly in his employ both in the UK and worldwide. But hey, whatever floats your candle, Frankie.

I sent him a lovely email to say thank you, just in case it turns out he went away and become a fully-qualified lawyer who specialises in EU & EU Law:

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Final request

his is exceptionally charitable of you, good sir. Thank you for your kindness.

I will be spending Christmas at my stepsister’s house in Palmdale. They’re an odd lot – Americans usually are – and they have a number of little Christmas traditions chief amongst them being the naming of the Christmas turkey. I will do everything I can to ensure that this year’s turkey is named Frank, in honour of your exceptional kindness over this matter.

I will also have the yams named Percy, but that’s over another dispute our little blog has caused and I’m sure you don’t want me to bore you with the details.

Have a splendid Christmas (or indeed, whatever winter festival you may choose to celebrate).

~Ben

GAWD BLESSUS, EVERYONE.

December 1, 2010 at 4:34 pm

GARY PAUL says:

TOO MUCH RED TAPE,AND ONE DEPARTMENT NOT SPEAKING TO ANOTHER,PHRASE”LEFT HAND NOT KNOWING WHAT RIGHT HAND DOING” SPRING TO MIND,BIGGEST PROBLEM IS BANKS NOT LENDING TO SMALL BUSINESS,GRANTS ARE NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND,ITS WORSE IN SCOTLAND,GOVT AGENCIES ARE NOT MUCH HELP,DESPITE WRITING TO GOVERNMENT FEEL SO LET DOWN AS WANT TO START BUSINESS AND CANT GET FUNDING!!!!!

The Your Freedom website is now closed

Your Freedom has now closed. We are in the process of archiving the site content to The National Archives however you can view all the material that has already been archived. Once the archiving process is complete, the content of Your Freedom will be available.

With both Your Freedom and the government ePetitions page currently down, that rather impacts the flow of content going up on this blog. Which, frankly, is a bit of an embuggerance. If I were one of those crazy Glenn Beck-esque conspiracy theory types I’d be inclined to believe that the government had done this intentionally just to show Andrew and I what-for. Fortunately I both live in and have a firm grasp on the real world.

Mostly.

I have thought about it and I’ve concluded that you are a crazy person.

BRING BACK BRITISH LAW CANCEL HUMAN RIGTHS LAW

by roypitt on September 10, 2010 at 03:21PM

THE CURRENT HUMAM RIGHTS LAW IS NOT WELL THOUGHT OUT IT CANNOT WORK

IT IS BEING ABUSED TO THE DERIMENT OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE AND BRITISH LAW   .  ILLEGALS & CRIMINALS CURRENTLY USE THESE LAWS TO PREVENT THIER REMOVAL FROM BRITAIN

THE LAW  IS BEING TWISTED TO FAVOUR THE UNDESIRIRABLES AND LAWLESS WITH THE HELP OF  LAWYERS WHO SEE BIG MONEY TO BE MADE OUT OF THIS

BRITAIN HAS NEVER TURNED ITS BACK ON THE TRUE NEEDS OF DESPERATE PEOPLE FLEEING TYRANNY AND  OUR RECORD STANDS ALONE WITHOUT REPROACH AS BEING THE BEST IN THE WORLD OUR  LAWS HAVE BEEN ENSHRINED IN BRITAIN SINCE THE MAGNA CARTA  .   THROUGH THIS WE HAVE THE LAWS TO PROTECT PERSCUTED  PEOPLE &  THE PEOPLE OF BRITAIN

Why is this idea important?

ANY FOREIGN  { EU } LAWS PASSED NEED TO EMBELLISH BRITISH LAW NOT SEEK TO UNDERMIND IT

THE HUMAN RIGHTS BILL WAS CREATED TO STOP OTHER COUNTRYS FROM BEING HOMOPHOBIC AND TREATING OTHERS BADLY BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE OR CREED

IF IT WAS WELL THOUGHT OUT AND BETTER THEN THE BRITISH LAW OF THE LAND I WOULD WELCOME IT BUT IT IS NOT IT WORKS AGAINST THE VERY HEART OF WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO {

THAT IS TO  PROTECT THE INNOCENT & FIGHT FOR THE GOOD OF OTHERS IN REAL NEED

OTHER COUNTRYS are so racist.

pub smoking

by roypitt on September 10, 2010 at 01:50PM

ITs REDICULOUS  TO FORCE CUSTOMERS OUTSIDE JUST BECAUSE THEY SMOKE IN THE EARLY DAYS  PUBS HAD DIFFERENT ROOMS FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE IE BAR / LOUNGE / SNUG / THE SMOKE  etc

SO WHY WONT THE GOVERMENT ALLOW SUCH THINGS NOW A SMOKE ROOM COULD BE SET ASIDE IN MOST PUBS TODAY AT LITTLE COST TO THE PUBS THEY COULD HAVE LARGE INTERNAL GLASS WINDOWS TO MAKE CUSTOMERS PART OF THE PUB WITHOUT IMPOSING THEIR SMOKE ON OTHERS

Why is this idea important?

MY IDEA IS IMPORTANT TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO HAVE A FOCAL PIONT FOR VILLAGES & TO MAKE THE LOCALS SOMEWHERE TO MEET WITHOUT OSTRACIZING OTHE PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR HABITS

I do love the idea of a glass box in pubs. It’d really bring home just how smoky they were before.

PROHIBITION LAWS

by roypitt on September 10, 2010 at 02:31PM

LAWS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DOING THINGS THAT ARE  PERMITTED WITHIN THE LAW IS WRONG

FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT SELF DISCIPLINE & BEING TAUGHT RIGHT FROM WRONG  IT IS NOT BEING DICTATED TO BY  GOVERNMENT OR  INDIVIDUSLS 

PROHIBITION ONLY DRIVES THINGS UNDER GROUND INTO THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS YOU ONLY HAVE TO GO BACK A FEW YEARS AND REMEMBER THE SILLY PROHIBTION LAWS OF AMERICA

HIDING CIGARETTE DISPLAY UNITS  WILL DO THE SAME HIDE IT AND THE YOUTHS OF TOMORROW WILL WANT TO TRY IT JUST TO SEE WHAT ALL THE FUSS IS ABOUT SMUGGLERS WILL HAVE A FIELD DAY  { ALSO  IF ITS NOT ON DISPLAY HOW WILL ANYBODY KNOW IFTHE DUTY HAS BEEN PAID }  & DON’T FORGET THESE SMUGGLED TOBBACO ITEMS MAY BE MANY TIMES MORE TOXIC THEN LEGAL BRANDS

Why is this idea important?

LAW BREAKERS DON’T CARE WHAT LAWS THEY BREAK ITS IN THEIR NATURE  , WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH PROHIBITION IS THE CURTAILMENT OF SOCIAL INTEGRATION & THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL ELEMENTS TO PROLIFERATE  {IE SUPPLE & DEMAND}

The theory seems to be “if we make it slightly inconvenient to buy cigarettes people will turn to criminal fag-dealers who will cut the tobacco with rat poison”.

I’m not really buying it.

“Brian, go put a dent in a tin of beans.”
“Why?”
“Because a tin in the Dublin branch got dented and they’re selling it for 5p less and legally, we have to match it.”

No. Look. This would me a massive ballache for everybody involved and the only benefit would be that you’d feel less like you’re being ripped off. Meanwhile, franchises would be untenable, the same item would still be 8p in Aldi and £3.50 in Waitrose, and my new “Supermarket Supermarket” website idea would be dead before it got started.

America has 52 states. Who knew?

1,200 hours? Madam, what have you done to merit your citizenship? Because I’m reading this petition and, in all honesty, you come across as the sort of self-involved dick too busy or disinterested to bother herself with volunteer work. 50 hours is a perfectly reasonable amount of time. Don’t be such a dick.

Also, explain to me why “people who are not elligible to vote ought not to be canvassing for political parties” because I’m just not seeing why a person’s voting eligibility should factor in where political volunteer work is concerned.

You can’t argue with that. You really can’t. Not because it’s accurate in any way, but because doing so is like volunteering to have your frontal lobe slowly sawn off with a piece of rusty barbed wire.

Moderation on an internet forum = GOVERNMENT TRAMPLING OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH. See? It’s maths. You can’t argue with that.

Every charity everywhere, shut down in an instant. Nice. Well done, jiina.

Translation: “I went into London and all the jobs were being done by dark-skinned people! This is a travesty!”

Yes, having inappropriate comments on a privately-run website removed is exactly the same as the government silencing dissenting voices.

Let’s look at such a person:

Child Benefit – Time to pay for your own progeny

by elliott
on August 23, 2010 at 09:18AM

Isn’t it about time that those among us who wish to perpetuate the species, pay for their upkeep.

In a modern society it is unthinkable that those tax payers who do not have children, (for whatever reason), should be asked to pay towards their maintenance.

If you can’t afford to support them – don’t have them!

One would not ask a neighbour to help pay towards ones mortgage or the car service, or even towards maintenance of ones wife – so why their children?

The idea of paying people to replicate is outdated – unless of course the government are anticipating another world war.

Why the contribution is important
The amount of tax payers money expended children, whether as benefit or free milk etc should be shouldered by those who want them.

If you’re poor and you can’t afford kids, don’t have them! And if you can’t afford birth control, simply stop giving in to that primal, carnal instinct! Those urges, those deep urges, the temptation of the flesh, the curve of the breast, soft skin of the inner thigh… Mmmm. No. Stop it. Great, now I have twins.

It’s batshit insane, it’s based on logical fallacies, and it isn’t particularly grounded in reality. In short, the perfect petition.

Repeal or Amend SOCPA 2005

by rgriffin
on August 16, 2010 at 03:08PM

Hi Goverment,

I love this guy already.

Hi Government,

I would like a change or a full repeal of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act of 2005. Part of this act involved designating sites by order of Secretary of State, such as nuclear power stations, which, if trespassed, incurred servere penalties.

In a one-man protest against the way the government was handling the economy prior to the G8 meetings of May 2009, I climbed over the railings into the front lawn of the Houses of Parliament following a peaceful march through the city. I sat peacefully on the lawn and when approached, stated “This is the people’s parliament, and I am one of the people”.

I was arrested and eventually cautioned for “Trespass on sites designated by order of Secretary of State. Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 S.128.”

My point is this: how can sitting on the lawn of my own government’s meeting place be as bad as breaking into a nuclear power station? Clearly, making a stand for democracy should not be penalised in such a way. Please amend or repeal the law. Thank you.

Why the contribution is important
I believe my idea is important as it will remove an unnecessary restriction on the valid right to protest by the people of Britain.

Right. So… you don’t see a problem with trespassing on property occupied by people who run the country? Okay. Just checking.

Or, “Women having babies get paid too much, and men shouldn’t get paid just because their women have babies.” Wow, corsalover. You’s a dick.

Your “society status” has bugger-all to do with it, you pompous git. You’re earning an income and regardless of what it is you’re doing to earn it you should be taxed upon it. If you’re not earning enough of an income, do what rhe rest of us lot in the unwashed masses do and get a second job or something.

Also, a lot of people have “moral objections” to how taxpayers’ money is spent, but oddly enough that argument doesn’t quite stick when the Revenue send someone over to bust your kneecaps.

Oh, and one more thing:

Matthew 5:42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Romans 13:7: Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Seems pretty clear where your God stands on the matter, doesn’t it Neil?

This guy sees the total amount of fines and instead of thinking, “Wow, the British public are really bad drivers,” he thinks “These CCTV cars are an outrage, I’ve decided!”

Yes! This sort of thing just wouldn’t happen if it weren’t for all those damned laws enabling it to be so!

Yes, that seems to be an honest, entirely non-hyperbolic comparison.

Let’s have a look, then:

Repeal licensing

by Debra
on July 28, 2010 at 09:42PM

Repeal all licensing.

Licensing serves no purpose other than control. Treating people like dogs with animal tags.
This is obvious. Then we must consider who are the “owners” who are doing this to people.

People have a right to govern themselves by Laws given to them by God. Not serve others.
Compassion and kindness is built-into God’s Law, unlike man-made laws lacking fairness.
There is no licensing in The Law, inherent to every single individual, anywhere in the world.
The Law is The Law of God for the people and not by the people, to rule fairly, with justice.

Gov’t is clearly not working, nor serving the public by licensing and making made-up laws.

Please view my other contributions explaining the serious issues, and the consequences.

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/right-to-repeal/idea-view

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal.-custody-of-children.-divorce/idea-view

http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/restoring-civil-liberties/repeal-british-parliament-sovereignty/idea-view

Why the contribution is important
Government is to serve the people. Licensing serves the government.

Licensing serves no purpose! Besides, y’know, making sure people are able to comply with the law. Fortunately for us that first petition she links to in her petition has that base well and truly covered:

Right to Repeal

by Debra
on July 07, 2010 at 09:44PM

There is no need for legislation. Legislation is the concrete wall that actually makes living by God’s Law illegal. People have been conditioned to think gov’t laws protect, but they enslave.
They enslave by enforcing (allowing) corruption and depravity, and controlling everything else.
Notice the inequality that occurs/goes unchecked because of obedience to people, not God.

Following God’s Law is not only disagreed with, and has become a reason for imprisonment.

http://mtrial.org/introduction

Those who do not want to follow God’s Law have no right, by opinion or otherwise, to rule.
It has become apparent that this world cannot be made a better place by altering the law.
All legislation needs to be abolished, and one person, who is chosen by God, can do this.

Why the contribution is important
Freedom.

(Update: Whoops, Andrew covered the above petition in his last post. Feel free to spin on.) Right, so now anybody can drive a car regardless of experience and you can only rule the country if God chooses you to do so – read: if you’re fucking batshit bonkers insane crazypants (not to be confirmed with Sir Wesley Strantham Batshit Bonkers Insane Crazypants of the New Hampshire Crazypants).

What other crazy shit do you want, Debs?

Repeal. Custody of Children. Divorce.

by Debra
on July 22, 2010 at 01:10PM

Repeal women’s un-Lawful legal right to custody of children, and all un-Lawful legal divorce.

A woman bears children “for” the husband. Lawfully children are under the rule of the man.

3:16 Unto the woman He (God) said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy
desire [shall be subject] to thy husband, and HE (thy husband) SHALL
RULE OVER THEE. – Genesis.

Each case of divorce should be viewed individually and placement of children determined.

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ;
and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is]
God. – 1 Corinthians.

The only Lawful reason to divorce is fornication. Clearly stated in the Bible. Matthew 5:32.

5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:
and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. -
Matthew.

HMG and Gov’t world-wide claim to be based under God, yet reality proves this to be false.
Followers of Christ, who want to follow all The Law in The Torah, are not being allowed. At this time, there is not a place for judicial recourse for us, and we want a single court room.

Why the contribution is important
People’s God-given rights are not being served in any court-room.

Women and children become little more than property, then? Lovely. Brilliant idea. Wait, no. Sorry. Not “Brilliant”. The other one. Bloody stupid. Oh, and your claim that you and your fellow loonies are currently unable to operate under the current judicial system is bollocks because you can still get your Crazy Person divorce under the current system.

Also, “HMG and Gov’t world-wide claim to be based under God”? Since when?

Alright, one more before I decide to shuffle off this mortal coil:

Repeal British Parliament sovereignty

by Debra
on July 23, 2010 at 10:18PM

Repeal British parliament sovereignty to restore civil liberties (and more).

Parliament has passed laws that limit parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament can repeal any of these limitations. Therefore, they continue to create and end any law, lacking Lawfulness.

It is quite clear, regardless what millions say, that no authority was granted to Parliament
to repeal and create new laws if they follow God as the queen and parliament attest to do.

5:17-20 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass
from The Law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break
one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be
called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and
teach [them], the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the
righteousness] of the lawyers and politicians (who were also priests
because the church and the state were one at that time), ye shall in
no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven. – Matthew.

Based on this proof (and there is more), the people who choose to live by The Law of God, have every right to do so. Parliament is forbidding followers of Christ, by all their legislation.
Hence the contribution, challenging (again) the British Parliament to relinquish sovereignty.

On 13/June/1988, 40 years from the Fig Tree putting forth its new shoots in 1948, Christ served a High Court Writ upon the British Parliament, at court in the City of Sheffield, where his new body hadbeen born in 1948, as prophesied, demanding that he be acknowledged by
Parliament as the Rightful British-Israel King.
http://jahtruth.net/emmau2.htm

Why the contribution is important
To increase recognition of The Rightful British Royalty.

I think we’re done here. Blimey.

This was filed under “restoring civil liberties” as, in a wonderful display of lateral thinking, was this:

Restoring the Liberties Taken by the UK Banking Industry

by ifitaintbrokedontfixit on July 11, 2010 at 12:03AM

This is a suggestion under the heading of Restoring Civil Liberties. 

It relates to the bank bailout and the liberties the Financial Sector took in excessive risk taking with money that was not truly theirs to gamble with.  This became a Civil Liberty when we all had to bail them out.

My suggestion for restoring this liberty is that the laws on Government company ownership should be changed such that, before the Government is allowed to sell off the shares they have acquired in these institutions, all UK tax payers should be given first option on buying a modest stake. 

Restoring the liberties in this way could then mean that we as taxpayers and share holders could have a say in future salaries and bonus payments and the level of risk we wanted our banks to take. 

Further variations on this concept could be that all young people (say under 16 or 18) who have had their life chances affected by the cuts to the School Building Programme, child tax credits, and child trust funds could be given a small stake, say £200, to introduce them to the concept of share ownership and an interest in how commerce works.  I would not be adverse to the idea of this being funded through a small levy on the public subscriptions (if we paid slightly over the odds then fewer people would be tempted to sell off their stake as we all did with the 1980′s sell offs!)

Alternatively pensioners could be given the opportunity to be given shares in lieu of a portion of index linked pension allowing the Government to reduce its cash liability for future pensions.  Pensioners could gain more from the dividends from the banks than they will from the limited rises likely from the state pension in future years.

Another option would be for prisoners detained at HM pleasure could be paid for working inside in shares.  Convicted criminals would then be able to vote on bankers bonuses – which has a kind of poetic justice about it.

Why is this idea important?

Restoring the liberty taken by the banks is really important to the future social cohesion of the UK. 

Given the grievous harm done to many ordinary citizens across the UK through the economic collapse, the eventual sale of the businesses we have all helped to bail out should be seen as a just means to restoring the National reserves.  Doing this in a way that offers the benefits of the future profits from the protected business to the widest sections of the community could help reconcile the intense anger and bitterness felt towards the banking sector.  Wider share ownership could redistribute the gains (often ill-gotten gains taken from us through excessive banking charges) directly back to the taxpayers of the UK who kept the bankers in business. 

It may be argued that pension funds and other similar institutions would be ready to buy up any holdings the Government may sell off and they will return profits to individuals through pension and savings products.  While this may account for a proportion a greater level of ownership in private hands would be better as the pension funds seem to do little to limit excessive directors salaries or bonus payouts.

This one is about civil liberties, but ones that we still have:

Religeous Freedom for Christians

by mbrooks on July 10, 2010 at 10:24PM

As this is a Christian country, the Christian way of life should be respected and should not be ‘brushed under the carpet’ just to accommodate other religeons so as ”not to offend them”.  Most other religeons are happy to worship alongside Christians in the same community, but I believe it is wrong that for example Christmas cards depicting the birth of Jesus Christ, Easter cards depicting Christian symbols, etc should be barred from being on display and replaced by pictures of easter eggs, bunny rabbits and unreligeous symbols on Christmas cards or even not displayed at all  incase non Christians are offended.  This is a Christian nation and as such we should be honoured to display our beliefs and not have others be ashamed of us when it comes to religeon.

Why is this idea important?

We as a nation should be able to be open with our religeous beliefs – we allow others to worship freely, so we should be happy to be open in our religeous beliefs.  I fully accept that some do not have any religeous connections with any church and I respect that, but for those of us who do, we should be allowed to stand up publicly for what we believe and not feel we have to hide our beliefs. If our religeon means we want to wear a crucifix symbol to work on full view we should be allowed to. I personally prefer not to wear such a symbol but I respect those that do.  If I want to read my scriptures on the bus/train, read them while I am eating my lunch at work, etc, then I should be allowed to without any backlash from anyone.  Thats my choice and I should be allowed that freedom. Religeous freedom is for everyone, not for other religeons and never mind the Christians of this country.  Get things on a fair balance.

And now, a pedantry break:

Do Police Ever Patrol In Groups Of Less Than Two?

by Warwick on July 10, 2010 at 03:17PM

Police seem always to walk the streets or attend ordinary events in groups. You see them in twos, threes and more. Why is this? Ordinary members of the public routinely walk about at all times on their own, so why do police need to be in large groups? If we are a civilised society, do police really need to go mob handed at all times?

My idea is that police should patrol singly unless there is a pressing operational imperative to go with more than one person to attend an incident or event.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is important in social terms in that groups of police are intimidating and look confrontational. People wonder why they need to patrol in protective groups when most of the public go about on their own. What are police frightened of? In terms of cost, the groups represent a doubling of manpower and administration costs and more. To patrol in this way is to drive up costs at all times. It is probably the reason police absorb so much overtime and then spend so much time off sick. It is also a possible reason why they retire early and so drive up public costs in this unethical way.

Police pay and overtime is linked to innapropriate and excessive use of personnel in this wasteful way. we do not get full service from police and the organisation must be reviewed and reformed very soon.

Er, groups of fewer than two?

To Remove The Concept of the University Degree

by ianrmillard on July 10, 2010 at 02:28PM

To remove the concept of a “degree” and to make organizations of employers, professional bodies etc justify rigorously any requirement which they may have which excludes those without a “degree”.

Why is this idea important?

The very concept of a “degree” is a basically late mediaeval/Renaissance one (also see the use of “degrees”  in Freemasonry, etc). This is apparent in the idea of the first degree, followed by the “Master’s” “degree” and finally “Doctorate” “degree”. The whole idea is outdated, yet has taken hold in the UK even more over the past 40 years than previously.

When I was at school in the early 1970′s, for example, barristers did not need a university degree (they did a much longer Bar School course and more exams there instead). Now they do, yet the quality of the Bar is certainly not higher than it was in, say, 1970. Many occupations “need” a “degree” now, which never did before about 1980. The process became even worse during the Blair-Brown years and the huge expansion of poor-quality “university” education, complete with “degree inflation” and dumbing-down, much discussed.

We see now that there are 69 new graduates chasing each and every job/career opportunity. Time for a change.

Employing organizations should have to justify any requirement for a “degree” in candidate applications. Companies and the civil service should take people on as probationers on a p/t basis, allowing the young employees to earn money while studying part-time if and only if necessary. The outcome not to be a “piece of paper” but work experience which the population will accept and respect as including an element of academic and also general intellectual/cultural/vocational training.

Universities should be radically cut back and shoould attract those who wish for knowledge, not a piece of paper giving a meal-ticket at the end of three years. And why three years anyway? Could be 4 (as in the USA and Scotland), 5, 6 or just one year.

This is discriminating against the unqualified!

dee daar & not SCREAMING US style 999 sirens please.

by askinlad on July 10, 2010 at 12:06AM

No new equipment is needed, just a flick of a switch with modern 999 vehicles.

Why is this idea important?
No new equipment is needed, just a flick of a switch with modern 999 vehicles.

I believe they’re more correctly known as “SCREAMING US 911 style sirens”.

Scrap laws that condone sex with children.

by inappropriate on July 09, 2010 at 01:18AM

We have laws that define “a child” as anyone “under 18.” And yet, the age of consent is 16. Therefore, such laws condone sex with “children.” That’s sick! “Children” should not have sex – full stop – and we should scrap any laws that suggest otherwise! The age of consent should be the same as the age at which you become an adult – if it is any lower, then we are condoning sex with children!

Why is this idea important?

Surely, sex should be something only for adults! We should get rid of any laws that suggest otherwise.

How many inverted commas does this guy need to use before he notices he’s being an idiot?

I WAS PUT IN PRISON FOR BEING A CON ARTIST – I HAVE PRESENTED SOCA EVIDENCE I WAS ADVISOR TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PORTUGUESE MINISTER OF ECONOMY

by bayliner123 on July 08, 2010 at 10:25AM

THAT MY CASE SERVES AS EXAMPLE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF WHAT THE POLICE DID TO PEOPLE

Why is this idea important?

I HAVE RECENTLY PRSENTED SOCA A DOCUMENT – AN E MAIL FROM HIS EXCELLENCY THE PORTUGUESE MINISTER OF ECONOMY – WHERE THE PROJECTS I WAS SENDING FROM ENGLAND WERE BEING REVIEWED BY HIS EXCELLENCY’S TEAM OF ECONOMISTS

I WAS JAILED BY A CRIMINALLY INSANE DETECTIVE THAT ACTUALLY SENT A PROSECUTION WITNESS AN E MAIL SAYING HE WAS JAMES BOND…

SOCA IS NOW DECIDING IF I WAS JAILED OR WAS KIDNAPPED

I WAS TAKING MY EMPLOYER – A MAGISTRATE – TO THE EMPLOYMENT TRBUNAL – MY EMPLOYER TOLD THE POLICE TO ARREST ME SO I COULD NOT PROCEED WITH THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL CASE AGAINST HIS COMPANY

MY EMPLOYER HAD MOTIVE TO JAIL ME – AND THE POLICE HELPED

THIS IS A TRUE SNAPSHOT OF WHAT THE POLICE ARE AND WHAT THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICES ARE

IF YOU SAY SO.

NEVER AGAIN A POLICE FASCIST STATE MANNED BY MADMEN AND PSYCHOPATHIC LIARS

by bayliner123 on July 08, 2010 at 10:16AM

THE CREATION OF A WATCHDOG TO A. DISMANTLE THE POLICE FASCIST STATE AND B. NEVER ALLOW THE POLICE AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF JAILING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE

THE CREATION OF A STRUCTURE WHICH WOULD BE WATCHFUL OF THE RISE OF ANY SUCH GROUP

Why is this idea important?

THE POLICE ARE CORRUPT AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION IS CORRUPT

MORE SERIOU S, DRUNKED WITH POWER, THEY FELL ON TOP OF EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD UNDER THE EXCUSE OF SUSPECT AND TOUGH ON CRIME AND JAILED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE

WE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SS NAZIS AND THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS – THE BRITISH POLICE DO THE SAME

WE HAVE THIS STUPID CONCEPT THE ENGLISH ARE HUMANE AND TOLERANT – THEY ARE NOT – JUDGE ANDREW GEDDES OF WORCESTER CROWN COURT GAVE A SHOPLIFTER 8 YEARS IN PRISON

A LAD THAT SMEARED A HOT POTATO ON HIS WIFE’S CHEEK GOT 4 YEARS IN PRISON

THE PEOPLE BEHING THE PRISON SYSTEM ( POLICE, PROSECUTION, MAGISTRATES ) ARE MANY OF THEM REALLY CRUEL AND EVIL – THEY REALLY WANT TO HURT – MANY OF THEM ARE COMPLETE PSYCHOPATHS THAT SHOULD BE IN AN INSTITUTION

FURTHER THE CROWN PROSECUTION RE ENGINEERED THE TRIAL PROCESS SO THEY ALWAYS WIN AND THE DEFENDANT ALWAYS LOSES

THE BROWN-STRAW CONSPIRACY WAS A SOCIETY OF SELECT CHOSEN FEW THAT HAD ALL THE PRIVILIDGES WHILST THE MASSES WERE LEFT TO COUNT THE PENNIES TO DECIDE ON EATING OR HEATING

THEY LEFT THE COUNTRY IN BAKRUPTCY AND MISERY – WE THAT WERE ONCE THE 4TH RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD

PSYCHOPATHS, LIARS, CRIMINALLY INSANE AND MINDED TO HURT AND HARM AND CRIPPLE – 90% OF THE ENGLISH JUDICIARY INCLUDINGTHE POLICE AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION

OKAY – THAT IS ENOUGH.

Right to Repeal

by Debra on July 07, 2010 at 09:44PM

There is no need for legislation. Legislation is the concrete wall that actually makes living by God’s Law illegal. People have been conditioned to think gov’t laws protect, but they enslave.
They enslave by enforcing (allowing) corruption and depravity, and controlling everything else.
Notice the inequality that occurs/goes unchecked because of obedience to people, not God.

Following God’s Law is not only disagreed with, and has become a reason for imprisonment.

http://mtrial.org/introduction

Those who do not want to follow God’s Law have no right, by opinion or otherwise, to rule.
It has become apparent that this world cannot be made a better place by altering the law.
All legislation needs to be abolished, and one person, who is chosen by God, can do this.

Why is this idea important?

Freedom.

I’m writing this at twenty to two in the morning. I shall check this in the morning and see if it starts making any fucking sense on a good night’s sleep.

Jonestly, if an 8 year-old schoolboy hasn’t figured out how to cross the road by now he deserves to be hit by a car.

Shut down all public services for 1 year

by c0ntax
on July 14, 2010 at 12:53PM

Like the title suggests. Just don’t pay anything for a year. On anything. Public spending for the fiscal year 2008–09 was £618.6 billion. Stop spending it. Yes, it’ll hurt in the short term (for about a year) but then the United Kingdom will emerge as an economic powerhouse, ready to weather any financial storm in the future.

How the idea could be implemented
Make all public sector workers redundant and hire them back a year later when they’re despearate for work at a reduced rate. Obviously, we’ll have to make do with houses remaining on fire if ignited (which should help to keep the elderly warm in the winter and help stimulate the housing construction industry).

Cancel all NHS operations and reschedule a year later (would anyone actually notice given the waiting lists? It will also give doctors a chance to read up on how to run hospitals now that they have to do that as well as keep people alive).

Give every child a gap year. Before, such a luxury was only ever afforded to the children of middle/upper class people as they went off to find themselves (or relive a scene from The Beach).

Keep all prisoners locked up in their luxury appartments. The one remaining at the end of the year will be awarded a pardon and a games console. (A small price to pay for keeping the prison population down). It’d be a return to good old fasioned values of survival.

All people on benefits to have housing benefit stopped. They’ll loose their homes, thus creating more affordable housing for the returning public sector workers next year, and what doesn’t kill them will make them stronger (although it will most certainly result in death for most of them).

Stop taking away people’s rubbish. If no one removes it, then there’s no one there to fine you if your bin’s a little full. That’ll be an easy sell to a lot of people that view this as a life-or-death matter.

This isn’t going to be popular for everyone, but with a bit of grit, determination and a lot of personal wealth, we’ll pull through this as one. It may even foster the ‘Blitz’ spirit that helped define us as a nation all those years ago.

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!

Right to Life for Unborn Children

by AndyCC
on July 03, 2010 at 01:01AM

Someone decides to have sex, they should live with the concequences. Abortion should be banned for all social economic reasons.

Life is a sacred thing, whether you believe it is from God or not, people these days think that you just pop-out of the womb on the day you are born, but it starts before that within the womb.

If people disagree with banning Abortion for social economic reasons, could they please explain why it is differnt to killing a 5 year old because they are not an Adult yet?

Abortion is just legalised mass murder, wrapped up to make everyone feel good about it.

Why the contribution is important
Why should an innocent unborn child be murdered simply because of a “bad” choice to have sex?

Why should the taxpayer pay for this? And for the clumsy decisions of others not to use protection?

The legalisation of abortion should be repealed.

by ngreer
on July 06, 2010 at 11:51PM

Why the contribution is important
The right to life is a fundamental human right. The unborn are human. At the moment of conception they become, by any reasonable definition, human. They are genetically members of the species homo sapiens, and between that moment and birth, there is no clear dividing line when a change occurs. If there is no clear dividing line, then no change occurs (if it is illegal to kill at some precise moment and not before, that must be because a significant change occurs at that moment).

It follows that to kill the unborn is murder, and the clear denial of that unborn child’s right to life. We will not execute murderers and rapists because of this principle, but we will inflict a particularly brutal killing on defenceless, innocent children. This is unnacceptable in any society that aspires to be civilised.

let’s ignore all of the bollocks pseudo-science and half-arsed presumptions in these petitions and jump to the crux of the matter: making abortion illegal.

What about where protection is used? What about rape? What about incest rape? What about instances where the baby won’t survive childbirth? What about instances where the mother won’t survive childbirth? What about where the baby will be born without a brain? Or, rather simply, what if the woman simply isn’t ready to be a mother? It’s her body, her choice, and she shouldn’t be forced into motherhood against her will, be it because she was attacked in the park or because she just doesn’t want to have kids.

Even taking all of these variables out of the picture, making abortion illegal isn’t going to help. The women that want abortions are still going to find ways of getting them, being it going abroad to somewhere else in Europe where it’s still legal. Or, if that’s not an option, they’ll seek out a “back alley abortion” where statistics show they will, in fact, wind up dead.

So, long story short, it seems AndyCC and ngreer hate women, they don’t think a woman is entitled to ownership of her own uterus.

Long story short: you’re getting another big bumper post.

A TAX SYSTEM FOR THE DIGITAL AGE… ‘The George Tax’

by LIFETANK on July 06, 2010 at 01:52PM

 

THE GEORGE TAX

Current taxation systems throughout the world were developed for a physical currency transaction, this means it is a tax system that can easily be avoided and is inherently corrupt in that the richest can avoid tax through highly paid Lawyers and Accountants finding loopholes in the system, and cash only business can avoid tax by not declaring transactions.

A digital age taxation system would allow the Government to collect tax electronically at a centralised point of transaction, and would also allow the government to deploy algorithms to calculate a ‘Real Time’ tax rate which could adjust dynamically to the expenditure requirements of government, rather than the government being forced to go cap in hand to the bond markets or raise taxation retrospectively on budget day.

IMPLEMENTING THE GEARGE TAX

The starting point for a digital age taxation system would be to abolish the entire UK taxation and cash transaction system and start from scratch.

Algorithms would need to be formulated (A.) to determine the value of all financial transactions carried out in the UK and between the UK and Overseas and (B.) Projected governmental expenditure for the year calculated in real time.

To collect THE GEORGE TAX,  centralised electronic transaction hubs would be built and developed throughout the UK and each of these would be connected in a network to each other and to a master hub connected to the banks where tax is collected as a percentage of each transaction passing through the hub.

THE GEORGE TAX is essentially a transaction tax. Whenever a financial transaction is carried out, a percentage of that transaction is taken as a tax, the tax percentage is calculated in ‘Real Time’ and would be variable by miniscule percentage movements using an algorithm calculating government spending requirements for the tax year against projected UK financial transactions for the tax year.

All financial transactions including share dealing, bank to bank transfers etc.. would have to pass through the hubs by law, with serious penalties for non compliance.

For small transactions, pre paid cash cards containing say £10 in value could be purchased ‘TAX PAID’ at shops and supermarkets etc.. these could then be used to pay for small purchases in store and at temporary outlets and outdoor events etc. where terminal connections to the centralised transaction hubs cant be made.

The cards could possibly be top up cards or disposable depending on security issues, but this would negate the need for cash in today’s society, it would also mean that transactions could be carried out without a need for a connection to the main hubs or to a power source as payment tills could be battery or solar powered and would not need a phone line, all transactions taken through these cards would then be uploaded at a later date through a connected terminal to the main transaction hubs.

The benefits of THE GEORGE TAX, are that it is a simple one tax system, it can be collected at the time of transaction, it will reduce business costs significantly, would increase tax collection to near 100%, would be 100% fair, would reduce government expenditure significantly, and would reduce the overall tax burden on the individual significantly, cutting red tape and tax loop holes to pretty much zero.

THE GEORGE TAX is a progressive digital age tax system, that is simple and effective, it just needs a progressive and visionary government to implement it in its simplest form.

The basic rule is to keep it very simple, tax the transaction at a single real time rate, a one tax system.

I can envisage an extremely low tax rate of a percentage of 1% using THE GEORGE TAX , every single financial transaction in the UK and between the UK and Overseas would be taxed at the time of transaction, this amounts to a staggeringly huge sum of money available to be taxed against.

Because the tax is a transaction tax, both sides of the transaction are taxed, therefore a transaction of £1.00 is actually worth £2.00 for taxable purposes.

The benefits to society and the UK economy would be immeasurable!

THE GEORGE TAX – Should be this governments legacy to this great nation, i give my idea for FREE, in the hope that somebody with the vision of progress will take it forward.

Why call it the  THE GEORGE TAX?

Well its my last name, its my idea, so why not! 

Why is this idea important?

My idea will revolutionise this country, will increase profitability, increase  productivity, decrease red tape, will reduce individual taxation, will simplify the tax system, will make tax fair for all, will allow great britain to become a global financial power again, will increases competitiveness, will encourage entrepreneurs and business.

Do i really need to go on ?????,  anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the massive positive consequences that THE GEORGE TAX would bring to the table.

Lets get on with it, our children depend on it!

BE QUIET.

Liberate purchase of “prescription drugs”

by tjmurp
on July 11, 2010 at 01:29AM

Many medicinal drugs can be purchased in this country only with a prescription. They should be freely available.; The purchaser should be the judge of whether he needs a drug, and nobody else.

Why is this idea important?

There are those of us who detest the NHS, that masterpiece of socialism with its catastrophic costs, its inefficiency and its dictatorial methods and attitudes. We cannot afford private medical practitioners. We know a great deal about our bodies and their needs and are perfectly capable of deciding what we need in the way of drugs.

If we had a bit of encouragement, or at least less discouragement, the saving on the national budget could be substantial.

Exactly which law(s) need to be repealed I do not know. The Medicines Act?

This is all well and good, but next week it’ll be ‘if people overdose on former prescription drugs they shouldn’t get free treatment’, and the week after you’ll be all, ‘ban medicine!’.

Restor MY civil liberties

by Plm
on July 11, 2010 at 08:40AM

Repeal the civil rights legilation introduced by the previous government.

Introduce new legislation advising citizens that have responsibility for themselves and for the safety of others.

Ban homosexual and lesbians from advertising that their lifestyle is normal. It is not normal and they should not be allowed to tell our children that it is.

Stop anyone who does not have a national health number or who does not speak English from benefiting from Free treatment in our health service, take a leaf out of the rest of the worlds health systems for ALL non residents.

Stop anyone who cannot speak english from receiving benefits. No English NO CASH

Send failed imigrants/asylum seakers back to where they came from and that includes France. We dont want them and cant afford them.

Stop supporting the rest of the world. We have a cash crisis and we need the money.

Allow the banks to fail as they should have done at the start of all of this. We have The Bank of England, it can arrange loans mortgages and fulfill all of our banking needs without the money grabbers and gamlers being paid huge amounts to loose our money.

Why is this idea important?

England needs to be seen as a power in the world not as a mamby pamby nanny state where the goverment and the people are ripped off by the rest of the world.

Stand up for yourselves and more importantly snat up for us.

I a foreign country objects tell them its none of their business.

Oh, snat up.

Amend the Smoking Ban to boost the Economy

by kburns
on July 11, 2010 at 12:29PM

When the Health Act 2006 became law on the 1st of July 2007 in England it banned smoking within indoor public spaces. It was a totally undemocratic law because it did not ask the general public (smoking or non-smoking) through a referendum or the like what their view was on this change. Because of high taxes, the smoking ban and the recession about 35 pubs a week close along with clubs and restaurants.

I would suggest that all private premises that allow the public to drink or eat there should have smoking and non-smoking areas to reflect both sides. This should include Hotels, Airports, Pubs, Clubs, Resturants etc.

Why is this idea important?

The people who used to visit these premises now stay at home and buy alcohol from supermarkets etc. If there were designated spaces for smoking then people would be encouraged to use these facilities.

At the end of the day the cost to the NHS from illegal, uncivil or unlawful activities such as binge drinking, drug use, fighting or crime should be financially punished by charging them for treatment and also for overnight stays.

People that do smoke are doing a lawful thing and by default pay large sums of money in taxation (cigarette duty/VAT etc) to the treasury in the process. Do drug dealers, users or criminals pay their taxes when they commit unlawful acts?

By allowing smoking back into the normal areas it would generate extra tax revenue, boost the economy by keeping local pubs and shops open and create less social division. It would also mean that less rubbish would be discarded outside pubs and other buildings such as cigarette ends, matches and packets etc. There would also be less noise nuisance and the premises owner will keep their guests within their contained area which helps with disorder problems outside the venues.

Apparently, “amend” is like “repeal” but more insane.

All official answers must be committal not noncommittal

by tern on July 09, 2010 at 02:57PM

This applies to every answer given by a government minister or office, civil servant, MP, councillor etc, other public office or commission of any nature, or business answering an enquiry about problems with its product, inclduing lawyers.

Everything stated in every answer given in an official capacity, i.e. as part of these folks’ jobs, must be definite about all facts involved. if total factual certainty does not exist, the extent to which it does must be stated definitely. The words “unfortuately”, “regrettably”, and all synonyms used similarly, should be banned. Phrases like “you feel” or “you consider”, that take the committal factuality out of a sentence, should be banned, and provision made for any new such phrase that bureaucrats are seen to coin and use, to be banned too upon its existence being demonstrated.

If the recipient of the answer perceives that any statement in it is noncommittal, s/he will be entitled to write back stating and explaining how that is, and to demand, as an enforceable right, a reply where the writer of the statement has to show, word by word, that it is watertightly committal and definite.

Why is this idea important?

The present custom that all answers tend to be noncommittal is deliberately intended, by its perpetrators, to frustrate accountability and public access to fair play. It keeps the solving of problems unaccountable and in officals’ hands instead of being publicly inclusive.

As such, for elected politicians’ answers to their constituents to tend usually to be noncommittal frustrates the spirit of democracy and the whole point of them being representatives. It frustrates the factual record too. It is cynical.

Eh, maybe.

Erosion of the majorty’s civil rights by the PC Brigade

by kneegood on July 08, 2010 at 12:40PM

Often we hear about the so called PC brigade asking for things to be changed because they MAY cause offence to some sections of our society, examples that come to mind are the removal of all images of Jesus from Christmas cards/items, and a publican asked to display another flag along with the flag (St Georges) he was flying as this may cause offence to anyone seeing just the English flag.We are in England for heavens sake, if people are offended by the above then they not the PC Brigade should object, then way we would have some idea of the number of people who are actually offended, not some view of some annonymous person. I am one of the people of is offended by the PC Brigade making changes to my way of life, without anyone asking me if I am offended by whatever they are thinking of changing.Who takes MY views into consideration?

There should be a proper government office/forum where we can go and say that something is offending us and for that office/forum look into the effect on the whole of our society that a request, if granted, would have on the society as a whole not just change something if one person in say 10,000 is offended as this means that 9,999 are not offended, so why change?

Why is this idea important?

I get very offended when I read then some annonymous person has taken upon themselves to decide that something of our way of life should be changed, no consultation just change!!!!!

It think its important that we, as a whole, should have a say in how our society is developing from what it has been for hundreds of years, not some annonymous person deciding that because he/she thinks it should develope by changing something then it should be changed.

We as a country are very tolerant and rightly give safe haven to people from countries that are persecuting them BUT we shouldn’t change our society because of this, anyone who comes here should adapt if they want to stay here or if they feel that they cannot adapt then they should go to a country that is close to their way of life.

The Great in Britain is an epic wall of copy-paste errors I’m not willing to paste into this already long post.

Stop musicians paying VAT on their Agent’s commission

by SusieP on July 07, 2010 at 06:54PM

Musicians who don’t earn enough to register for VAT have to pay VAT on the commission they pay to their Agent’s. This needs to stop. Most Agent’s are VAT registered so they have all the complicated paperwork set up anyway. We have to pay a 15% commission fee to our Agent on every fee we are paid and they charge us 17.5% of that 15% as well.

Why should we have to pay their VAT? Please put a stop to this. Let them charge us a commission for getting us the gig and for doing the paperwork etc but make them pay their own VAT.

Why is this idea important?

It affects millions of jobbing musicians in the UK who are already struggling to earn a living after the smoking ban closed a lot of live venues and after the credit crunch affected bookings for private functions.

Because, that’s what VAT is.

Repeal the Law that Allows Foreign Interest to Takeover British Companies.

by bmv3850 on July 03, 2010 at 09:50PM

Repeal the ruling that allows foreign interests to takeover British assets. Especially the companies that are potentially vital to the country’s well-being. With so many manufacturing companies having been lost over the past 13 years it is going to be more difficult to climb out of the financial mess we are now in. This is where wealth creation happens – not by shunting everybody’s money around making (or losing!) a fast buck here or there.

We are now importing far more products that we used to manufacture and ship all over the world. This is high-tec product – not mass produced. We are not making money for Britain like this.

Why is this idea important?

This is important because our nations security of supply for energy is at stake. With several of our utiliy services now in foreign hands there is always a risk that we are on the wrong end of supply and probably pricing. Gas, electricity, water and rubbish disposal are now in the majority of instances owned by foreign companies. This really is not healthy.

There are not many counties that allow foreign ownership of their nations prosperity.

It does not bode well for our future with our key businesses having our nations wealth being administerd from outside our shores and at the whim of the Board being removed entirely from here.

 

I thought this was dumb at first, but it turns out this is how all British legislation works. It was a great day when we finally repealed the law specifically allowing murder.

Replace benefits with a -ve Income Tax

by kdw on July 03, 2010 at 08:52PM

There are so many benefits handled by so many departments.

The complexity causes fraud on a huge scale.

the -ve income tax could be handled by just one department the Inland Revenue who would be responsible for their delivery.

Why is this idea important?

It could probably save $bns in staff costs and administration.

Bonus feature: the money you receive would be inversely proportional to how much money you need.

SAVE BILLIONS

by patrioticenglishmen on July 03, 2010 at 08:34AM

WITHDRAW FROM THE TRAITORS EU SAVING £40 BILLION+ AND PAY OF THE LEFT WING DEBT, WITHOUT CUTS (5YRSX£40 BILLION= £200 BILLION). BINGO!! THEN WE CAN GET BACK THE JOBS THAT THE TRAITORS EU HAS COST US AND REDUCE THE LARGEST TRADE DEFICIT EVER WITH THE COUNTRIES(REGIONS) OF THE TRAITORS EU.  

 

Kind regards

Paul Voce

Why is this idea important?

There  is far too much backdoor treason going on in this country. It is time to decide whether you believe in and support this country or you believe in and support the EU. You cannot do both!

Kind regards, there.

Great. Lovely. Everyone would be able to call up utilities, cable providers, phone companies and what-have-you and say that they’re the customer but really they’re not, leading to situations where, for example, an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend calls their ex’s phone company and asks to close the account down. But hey, you don’t get asked security questions to confirm your identity anymore. Possible identity fraud is a small price to pay for ease of use, am I right Shenden?

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: Your remarks on your But Sir website.

I just googled my name, for fun, only to find you have my name on your website, remarking on my rejected petition.

I demand that you remove my name from your website, because your website claims by it’s title that I, as someone listed on your website, am under-educated, which in more simple terms means you are accusing me of being not educated enough to form a valid opinion, essentially saying I am stupid.

I am going to speak to a union solicitor on Monday, and will find out if I can sue you for deformation. I am happy not to take this course of action if you have removed my name and links to my rejected petition from your website by 23:59 on Friday 9th of July 2010. If not, I will attempt to take legal action against you and will seek damages.

Fun fact – I live in the US, which is also where this website is hosted. I forget about the specifics of the UK’s archaic libel laws, but here in the US you can’t claim libel based on someone else’s opinion, whether the opinion is factually based or not. So when I express my opinion that Mr Guidera is a slaw-jawed dunderninny and that this email only serves to underline his inherent dunderninnity… well, there’s really not a lot he can do.

Still, I decided to talk some reason into him. Sort of.

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject: RE: Your remarks on your But Sir website.

Hello Frank.

The title of our website is “But, Sir…”, which to me doesn’t seem to be implying or suggesting anything. Yes, alright, our slogan is “We the undereducated petition the Prime Minister…” which is a sort of a pun, or play on words.

You’re also rounding down “undereducated” to mean stupid, which is a little bit silly. I mean, I myself am comparatively undereducated when you consider the jobs I’ve held over the last few years. I mean, Project Coordinator for the broadcast division of a large multi-billion dollar entertainment company? I got a D for my Mathematics G.C.S.E, for Glod’s sake. Such things should not be allowed to happen, but there we are.

While you’re at it you may want to consider talking to your solicitor for me concerning McDonald’s “I’m lovin’ it” slogan. I’ve been to McDonalds and I didn’t “love it” at all. Indeed, I found their food to be barely tolerable. If you’d run that by him to see if I have a potential case I’d be very grateful.

Turrah!
~Ben

He wasn’t happy with that at all.

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: RE: RE: Your remarks on your But Sir website.

Your URL is wetheundereducated.com

Your statement at the top of the webpage says, we the undereducated petition the Prime Minister to…

And your ‘about this site’…

The British Government, bless their little cotton socks, have a website where any member of the public alert enough to operate a computer can start an online petition to the Prime Minister. This blog charts the dumbest of them, as they are submitted.

All of this indicates that you have picked out what you feel are petitions by people who are ‘alert enough to operate a computer’ and have submitted the dumbest ones.

I have asked nicely. I am now contacting your hosting provider, to complain that your site that they are hosting attacks me personally, and many others too. The last time I had to do this for some colleagues that a customer decided to publicly insult, the website was down within 24 hours and the user was banned.

You can always beat me to it and take it down yourself, You may not think this is serious, but hopefully your hosting provider will see things differently.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Oh, shit. Frank has actually had sites taken down before. He means business.

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Your remarks on your But Sir website.

Hey Frank.

I have to ask: Did you watch last week’s Doctor Who? It’s airing two weeks behind here in the US but everybody back home who’s seen it tells me it was the dog’s bollocks. WHich is good. I had my doubts about Matt Smith but he’s been fantastic this series and I can’t wait to see what else he’s capable of.

Anyway, back to business.

I’ve been doing a little research in the ladybird Big Book of Law, and it turns out that what we’re doing on our precious little website is based on what lawyerticians like to call “opinion”. The great thing about opinion is that everybody is entitled to one. So if I think, for example, that your petition about giving Christians the right to discriminate against homosexuals is dumb then I’m well within my rights to say so! Isn’t that grand?

That said, I did get that information from a book. I inherently distrust books (did you know books outnumber us 35,000-to-one? It’s true! I read about it in a… waaaaait a minute…) so I’m inclined to want to run this one by our legal council, Sgt. Andrew Theodore Taylor (Retired), whom I have copied in on this email. He’ll probably be asleep right now as it’s the start of July, but he’s usually awake by the 5th or 6th. Then begins his grueling hike up Ben Nevis to plant a single flower for his fallen comrades in World War II, which he claims ended in 1957. That always seemed odd to me, but then he does have medals, and he tells some strange, oddly-specific stories about the war that don’t quite line up with reality. Although, he was born in the 70s. I’ve never really asked him about that, nor about that strange device he keeps locked away in his legal cabinet…

…Anyway, I’m sure you’ve got a lot more Googling to do, so I’ll leave you to it.

Take care!
~Ben

Andrew’s still a lawyer, but now he’s a time-travelling soldier. It’s true! Or maybe I made it up. Honestly, it’s difficult to keep track. Despite that wonderful email, Frank was undeterred:

To: Ben Paddon
From: Frank Guidera
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Your remarks on your But Sir website.

Done and done.

Contacted your hosting provider with my complaint.

Now, you have a top 10 list of people posting petitions. Some might say that is stalking… I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable with someone monitoring my postings to a government website purely to take the proverbial out of me on another website. Stalking is definitely is against the t’s and c’s of IX Webhosting. And then there is the defamation. That is also against the t’s and c’s of IX Webhosting.

You have posted many defamatory remarks… and I quote your website…

One word: Vigilantism. That one word (five syllables, eleven letters) is reason enough not to put this information out in the public.

I think the government should give out the details of everyone who posts a stupid petition on the ePetition page, for “lawful safety reasons”. I mean, what if they’re going to do something stupid that could cause me harm? By putting these palpably idiotic peoples’ details out there I can be sure to avoid them and thus avoid injury.

Mmm… so the petitions you select are some of the dumbest, therefore the persons posting them are ‘palpably idiotic people’.

Now, it’s late here in blighty, and I can’t spend the rest of my evening chit chatting with you on here. I am sure you are busy too, managing trillion dollar projects whilst entertaining the masses at the expense of others.

See, you forget, we British folk are ALL masters of sarcasm. And whilst it is the lowest form of wit, for some reason, we all seem to get a kick out of it, don’t we?

It was great chatting with you, but from this point onwards, let’s not waste each other’s time any further. I have asked, you have replied with sarcasm, I have contacted your hosting provider, now it’s up to them.

Yes, it is up to them. And considering Frank emailed them on July 3rd (the date the above email was sent) and they’ve yet to contact me about it, I’m going to go ahead and assume that our wonderful hosts – IX Webhosting, should you be curious – have decided not to uphold Frankie’s claim on the grounds that he is quite evidently two letters short of a Countdown Conundrum.

Still! I had one more reply for him:

To: Frank Guidera
From: Ben Paddon
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Your remarks on your But Sir website.

Sarcasm? I think you’ll find what i was doing was banter, sir. As a Brit myself, I was trained from the age of 2 to spot the difference.

Incidentally that list is a number of the Top Ten people we’ve mentioned on our site. It’s automatically generated based on the number of times a post is tagged with a person’s name. If that’s stalking then what do you call it when I peer through the window of the people over in apartment 309?

Enjoy your weekend. It’s July 4th tomorrow and my building is right next to the park where they’ll be doing a fireworks display, so I don’t expect to get much done.

Love and kisses,
~Ben

It’s been nearly a week and I’ve not heard from him. Presumably his team of Big City Hot Shot Lawyers™ are putting a case together as we speak.

Rather than sit there bitching to the government about your problem and making unsubstantiable claims about what insurance providers may or may not do under any particular set of circumstances, why don’t you do some actual research like, oh, I don’t know, asking a solicitor what you’re supposed to do under the circumstances?

Well obviously it doesn’t benefit the British public, because the British public aren’t being mercilessly chased by a pack of slathering dogs. I bet the foxes are pretty damned happy about it, though.