But, Sir...

Ooh, ‘ello – a new rejected petition popped up on the Number 10 website

Ben — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:34:17 +0000

It’s not particularly insightful – a petition that cannot be shown by someone who’s name has been redacted – but it appears that there’s life on the old site yet. We were anticipating a relaunch at some point before the end of the year – is this the first sign of a resurgence? I bloody hope so.

Freedom by way of Oppression

Ben — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:48:51 +0000

cancel human rights law

by janet
on August 31, 2010 at 02:13PM

cancel human rights law, and get out of this e.u monstrous mistake!!!!!!!

Why the contribution is important
To give this country the freedom, and rewards, that the true British deserve. The “so called human rights, seem only to work for illegal immigrants, who are known terrorists, thieves, and gang members. You have only to watch documentaries, or read the national press to see what I mean. All the time, you can see “illegals” given housing, some of them, mansions, that cost thousands of pounds ,in the name of human rights. Benefits should only be paid to people who have paid into this country, i.e. tax, and national insurance . We are a laughing stock. The last government, (and I use the word government, loosly) cut funding to universities, so that HOME students only have very few places, the rest of the places, of which there is many, go to foreign students. Only if you are financially independent, can you get a place in university. Some-one I know of, gained the marks at college, which he was told, that last year, with those very same marks, he would have been able to gain access to university, but now, like the funding,every thing has been changed! The worst thing was, he was told ” It’s a pity you cant go to Africa, for three yearsbecause then, you could have come back to this(his own country of birth) as an overseas university student.

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.

You Can’t Say That On The Internet!

Ben — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:05:17 +0000

The government should encourage self-moderated forums

by govt_helper
on August 30, 2010 at 03:56PM

Many site users here including myself have had posts removed by the moderators for in our view inadequate reasons, based on other protests I’ve seen here.

Moderated forums in general present a problem, because the moderator is constantly asked to take sides – i.e. decide between somebody’s right to post, and the rights of somebody complaining about a post.

The best solution would be SELF-MODERATED forums, such as exist on the BBC 606 site, so that whoever starts a thread can delete abusive comments on it if they please, as the BBC put it “are in control of their space.”

Because otherwise we just have the constant DENIAL OF FREE SPEECH.

To put it simply, I want the right to say what I want on MY idea page without being abused, and I give in return the right to everybody else to do the same, say what they like on THEIR PAGE, and delete any comments they find abusive.

The tag system on this site is for example a major source of ANONYMOUS ABUSE, and once again, should be under the control of whoever starts the page, unless the site administrators are quite happy about the poster being abused, as appears to be the case on this site to date.

Why the contribution is important
Moderation is preventing proper free speech, not only here, but throughout many or most forums and message boards on the Internet.

Unless somebody posts defamatory material or abusive language (i.e. 4 letter words, etc) the public should be entitled to express themselves as freely as they please online.

Everybody is offended by SOMETHING, so there is no way that moderators can protect all posters from abuse, so naturally they are going to discriminate against some people in an unfair manner, based on their own personal prejudices.

Thus the only solution is either unmoderated or self-moderated forums.

Because if we don’t get true free speech, we’ll never solve these problems we face, by pretending things are other than they really are, just because somebody’s “feelings” are going to be hurt, because they have a problem facing up to the truth.

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

Charity begins, and ends, at home

Ben — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 02:01:52 +0000

22% of Charity money going to Charity

by jiina
on August 30, 2010 at 12:40PM

HI Their,

I just wanted to draw the attention on 22% of the charity money that the charities deduct saying as administration fees. I think this is utterly wrong and it put me off from doing charity. Charity has to be volunteer and should not be looked upon as a business or carrier.

A Simple Example how i was put of from donating even one pound a month is one day a guy walked into my work place and asked me to help a boy in africa get clean water. He said it can be done by giving just £1 a month. I just asked him out of this pound how much money goes to africa he told me 78p goes to africa an 22p is deducted as administration costs.

It was about this£1 very small amount but imagine this Charity would be Raising 1 Million Pounds in charity and Simply keeping £220,000 with them as adminstartion cost.

I think charities have to work voluntarly and they should not deduct any money from the charity money given by any induvidual.

Everyone involved in the charity business should just work as a volunteer and not take any money. Even the companies invoved like the money exchange comapny, The Banks, The business providing the materials should be free and should not incurr any costs.

I am sorry if anyone is offened but i think if we make it more clearer it will encourage more pleople like me to do some charity.

Regards to everyone.

Why the contribution is important
This idea put off lot of people from doing charity s i feel that UK might be raising nearly a Billion pounds in charity ever year but 220 million pounds are lost out. It can be used for better causes as it is a lot of money and can be nearly 80 times more in poor countries.

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

Dlee Darko

Ben — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:54:55 +0000

UK Jobs

by dlee
on August 29, 2010 at 09:14AM

After spending a weekend in the Capital London, I was dissmayed to find no UK citizens working at any of the hotel, theatre, resturant, train and taxis we used. As so many of our own children are now leaving school, college and university and cannot get work at all. I would like to suggest that all uk companies be required to employ at least 70% British and 30% others. All companies with jobs in the UK should be supporting our economy this would get our young people into employment and reduce the numbers on benifits from families that have worked and paid into the system, Foreign students/ exchange yrs students should not be taking all the UK service industry jobs.

Why the contribution is important
If all companies employing staff in the UK where to have to employ 70% british and maximum 30% others. This would eleviate the number of unemployed in the UK and give British students a start into industry. It would give british kids some self esteem back and hope for the future.

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

I can’t hear you.

Ben — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:22:04 +0000

something moderators find hard to grasp

by letsberesonable
on August 20, 2010 at 03:41PM

Freedom of speech

Why the contribution is important
I thought we had the right to freedom of speech

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

It’s my duty. My duty as a complete and utter bastard.

Ben — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:19:29 +0000

Sometimes, people hate. Sometimes, people hate other people. And sometimes, people hate other people they’ve never met on rather nebulous ground for reasons that, in the grand scheme of things, don’t actually make any bloody sense.

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.

Are you Kidding?

Ben — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:10:09 +0000

Repeal Child Pornography Laws to dramatically reduce child abuse.

by SAFARI
on August 15, 2010 at 03:35PM

We’ve lost our way with the issue of child pornography and too many costly resources are being used in trying to convict those who download these pictures instead of those who actually produce them in the first place.

In many cases, innocent people are also being convicted of downloading child pornography when they may not have been responsible for doing so.

Let’s remember it’s child abuse we need to stop; downloading indecent images does not directly create victims, but producing the images in the first place does, so we need to get rid of the current pictures and stop the creation of new ones.

So here’s the solution:

Repeal the law which criminalises the downloading of indecent images of children to allow such downloads on the strict conditions that:

Any images downloaded are reported on an official Government web site (the person would report details like the web address, file sharing site, FTP location, etc. as well as details of what the photos were.)

Such reports must be made within 24 hours of downloading (to prevent paedophiles just downloading and retaining pictures and claiming months later that it was their intention to report them)

The pictures must not be distributed to anyone else.

All images must be deleted either as soon as they’ve been reported, or (depending on MP’s preferences when changing the law) kept only until they are officially informed that they can be removed (this may be necessary as technically the pictures would be evidence and deleting them could be classed as destruction of evidence).

Set up the necessary Government Web site to enable people to report pictures found. It would be important that it could handle the demand because many people are quite rightly strongly against child pornography and will probably inundate the web site with reports.

Allow all adults to take part. It’s important to include those already convicted of sexual crimes because it means those who currently break the law by downloading such pictures and, therefore, who know where they are, could actually use their knowledge to help bring about the elimination of child pornography on the Internet.

Once evidence has been obtained by the Government web site, it could be passed to the police and Internet experts who will be able to use the information to track down the pictures on the web and either have the sites closed (and owners prosecuted) or, where the UK authorities have no legal right to do so (on foreign web sites, for example) to have them blocked to UK Internet users.

The idea could be suggested to other EU Member States and, indeed, outside the EU, and if rolled out around the world, it could eliminate child pornography on the internet for good as anyone even considering making such photographs available would not do so as anyone requesting copies from them may well be doing so for the sole purpose of reporting them using the new system.

The UK Government could even make the reporting web site available to the rest of the world, charging a small fee to each Government to mean the entire system would be self-funding. (Foreign reports would simply be forwarded to the appropriate Government by the UK site.)

If producing indecent images is no longer profitable then far fewer children will be abused to create such pictures.

Finally, one has to accept that unfortunately there are (and will probably always be) paedophiles in the world. It’s a sexual preference, which is not illegal in itself but can LEAD to the law being broken if a child is abused as a result. We therefore suggest that the Government also repeals the law criminalising PSEUDO (i.e. those created by computer or drawn where no child is actually abused) indecent images of children. This would mean paedophiles who might otherwise feel the need to actually abuse a child, could turn to pseudo images instead, thus protecting more children.

Why the contribution is important
This idea will massively reduce, and probably eliminate child pornography on the Internet. It would likely only take a few months as thousands of (unpaid!) members of the public will want to assist and the sheer volume of evidence provided as a result will mean the police’s job will be easy. (It could then remain in place to reduce the changes that new photos will be produced.)

Child abuse will be dramatically reduced as the market for indecent images will be shattered.

People will finally feel they are actually able to contribute to the reduction in crime against children.

The idea that the Government should ALLOW people to download illegal images might sound odd at first but it’s important to remember the goal: to stop children being abused.

Just think: By the end of 2010, The UK Government, with help from the people they represent, could have virtually wiped out a massive amount of child abuse.

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

Lawn Order

Ben — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:56:20 +0000

Sometimes, laws are confusing. People get confused! The best way to alleviate the confusion? Why, get rid of the confusing laws, of course! Like this one:

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.

Don’t be such a baby

Ben — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:44:32 +0000

Reduction of benefits burden on employers

by corsalover2
on August 10, 2010 at 06:29PM

STATUTORY MATERNITY PAY is now payable for longer than the period of pregnancy. Although employers are entitled to recover SMP, they still have the burden of paying it each week or month and then recovering it later.

Eventually it is the taxpayer who is funding this ridiculous benefit. We managed with shorted periods of SMP for many years and in the light of the present economic situation, the duration this benefit should be restored to pre-1997 levels – i.e. 18 weeks.

STAUTORY PATERNITY PAY should be abolished. Employees receive 5.6 weeks paid holiday already and it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that they take 2 weeks of their holiday when their child is born. At present, the taxpayer funds £250 for a fortnight’s extra leave.

HOLIDAY PAY ENTITLEMENT should not accrue during periods of Stautory Maternity Pay. At present, a woman drawing 12 months of SMP is also racking up 5.6 weeks-worth of Holiday Entitlement which is payable by and not recoverable by the employer.

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.

God doesn’t want me paying Income Tax

Ben — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 14:27:13 +0000

clergy taxation

by frneil
on August 05, 2010 at 02:45PM

Some years ago the Inland Revenue created a vast amount of unnecessary work for itself by starting to tax Catholic priests on their “income”. Most of us have very little by way of income (usually just the stipends for the Masses we celebrate) and given our service to people/society status, it seems a little unnecesary to tax us on the little we receive.

Why the contribution is important
It’s important to us priests because we have little enough income as it is without then being taxed. Also, to be honest, we may have moral objections to some of the purposes to which our taxes are applied.

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?

The British public should have the right to drive recklessly without fear of being caught!

Ben — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:05:10 +0000

CCTV cameras

by masson123
on August 06, 2010 at 12:52PM

Nearly 200,000 motorists have been fined a total of £8m in the past year after being caught on CCTV cameras, according to a new report.

The report, from campaign group Big Brother Watch, says that more than 50 CCTV Smart cars are patrolling 31 council areas and raised the equivalent of £322,789 last year for each town hall that uses them.

The cars are used to film motorists who use bus lanes or who are judged to be driving without due care and attention.

The 25 councils that released data said they raised a total of £8,069,715 from 188,000 motorists between April 2009 and March 2010.

Dylan Sharpe, Campaign Director of Big Brother Watch, said, “The CCTVa very dangerous escalation in Britain’s surveillance society.

£8 million is an eye-watering amount to take in fines in just 25 councils.

It is surely only a matter of time before more councils start using these cars. The Coalition Government must act now and prevent that from happening.”

Why the contribution is important
200,000 motorists have been fined by caught on CCTV

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!”

I thought the law and the law won

Ben — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:12:01 +0000

repeal any laws which allows british companies to be bought up, asset stripped and discarded

by chriswilson
on August 04, 2010 at 11:28AM

stop british companies from being asset stripped and then closed down

Why the contribution is important
it seems that when a british company is bought, it is asset stripped, moved abroad and the workforce made redundant. its one reason we have lost our manufacturing capability + its just wrong.

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

Moderating petitions? You monsters!

Ben — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 16:06:44 +0000

End Government repression

by ukdaw
on August 03, 2010 at 07:58PM

Why the contribution is important
We, the public, have been asked to contribute to the coalition government by suggesting areas for change.

It is wholly inappropriate for moderators of this site to repress the views of the people by determining that no further discussion shall take place.

This demonstrates the hypocrisy surrounding Government, and clearly shows that, as usual, we are free to do what we like, unless the government don’t like it.

This is why the coalition government are just as corrupt and controlling as the Zimbabwean government.

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

“Besides, everyone knows foxes can’t feel pain.”

Ben — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:02:12 +0000

Repeal the 2004 hunting act

by ctgodderidge
on August 04, 2010 at 03:33PM

The last Labour government introduced this act out of spite and perceived class hatred. It is not, and never was, anything to do with protecting animals.

Why the contribution is important
This act has been proven to be unworkable.

It is God’s Law that you sound like a total prat

Ben — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:47:55 +0000

Oh dear. Here we have Debra, a precious little dumpling who seems to think that all legislation is trumped by “God’s Law” – y’know, stone the gays, women to be used as a form of currency, that sort of thing. Debra’s brain exists in that special cerebral universe designed specifically for the sort of person who usually lives in America attending Tea Party rallies, only in this instance she (presumably) lives in the UK, and the only Tea Parties she attends are parties where she drinks tea.

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.

Variations on a Theme

Andrew — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 16:39:28 +0000

BAN CHRISTMAS ADVERTISING UNTIL START of DECEMBER

by marcuk2010 on July 11, 2010 at 01:48AM

Yip you have all seen it advertising by sad companies months before christmas and as soon as christmas finishes they are back to advertising for the next christmas

Why is this idea important?
because company directors are insane.

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.

It’s vehicular manslaughter. You know, for kids!

Ben — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:55:11 +0000

Lollipop Person

by simonanderson
on July 15, 2010 at 02:26PM

Are Lollipop people really needed?

How the idea could be implemented
Plenty of Zebra crossings and Traffic Lights for Children to Cross at.

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 it down

Ben — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:18:01 +0000

I’m fairly confident this one is a joke petition but here it is anyway, presented without comment:

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.

Safety Third

Ben — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:11:05 +0000

Traffic lights – abolish “Red and Amber”

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

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

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

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

Abolish the National Speed Limit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

speed restrictions

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

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

AUTOBAHN IN ENGLAND!

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

Why the contribution is important
SAFER AND FASTER

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

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

How is babby born

Ben — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:58:38 +0000

Abortion. Touchy subject. Touchy enough for at least two petitions on YourFreedom.

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.

So simple, it only needs nineteen paragraphs of explanation!

Andrew — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 22:42:39 +0000

Well. A day or two ago I discovered the Secret Fourth Category: “how can we rethink public services to deliver more for less”. Although presumably it wasn’t all that secret because there are already eleven fucking thousand “ideas” on it.

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.

Data, data, data

Ben — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:46:06 +0000

Data Protection Laws

by shenden
on July 01, 2010 at 07:26AM

Scrap the whole lot. Its a lot a red tape which does nothing to give any of us any protection.

I am so fed up with having to go through endless questions to check my identify every time I call anyone..(with the exception of banking who should have their own security protocols)

Why the contribution is important
Reduces buracracy and increased efficiency

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?

Correspondence from an Idiot

Ben — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 01:00:25 +0000

What is the world coming to when a couple of Honest Joes like me and Andrew can’t even mock someone’s intellectual level without being threatened with lawsuits, eh? Last week I received a wonderful email from Frank Guidera, whom you may recall objected to people objecting to the visit from the Grand Master Paedophile himself. Here’s the email:

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.

I don’t understand it, so bin it.

Ben — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:10:07 +0000

Why must I keep insurance certificates for 40 years

by deepinfen
on July 01, 2010 at 08:12AM

I run a very small business with two employees. I am required by law to have employees liability insurance which is just as it should be. To prove this I am required by law to display (for my employees to see) a valid copy of the pertaining insurance certificate which again is acceptable.

However, by law I am required to keep each year’s insurance certificate for 40 years. I am nearing retirement and my business will end with my retirement. As the law stands and for my particular circumstance, I will be required to keep the last issued certificate until I am 105 years old which is barmy. The chances of my living to this age are remote and what happens if I die before the 40 years is up I am not sure. Perhaps I shall have it stipulated in my will that the certificates be interned with me in my coffin so that those responsible will have to dig me up to get their putrifying paperwork.

Why the contribution is important
There are much simplier ways of resolving this issue such as making it a legal requirement for those companies that provide employees liability insurance to keep an accessible unified data base (of those employers they have insured) on the web for 40 years. Of course that would be too simple and something the insurance companies will fight tooth and nail against, for they know full well that many employers will ignore the 40 year requirement and thereby make it difficult for an employee to make a far back claim.

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?

She’s a clever fox, that Sophie Sheldon

Ben — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:01:46 +0000

Repeal the 2004 Hunting Act

by sophiesheldon
on July 01, 2010 at 08:13AM

Why the contribution is important
This law emerged in an attempt to restrict the activities of an imagined group of a particular social class while it has affected a wide range of people across the country. A restriction of civil liberties under the excuse of animal welfare despite the negative impact on animal welfare that the law can lead to.

One of the ultimate examples of bad laws made with a motive other than the benefit of the British public.

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.

Bringing Football Indoors

Ben — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:55:50 +0000

scrap ban on all seater football stadia

by rich2020uk
on July 01, 2010 at 08:14AM

I feel the law on banning standing in football stadia should be scrapped, and the alternative safe standing terraces which are used widley in europe can then be introcuced.

Why the contribution is important
Standing at football games is something that thousands of football fans feel passionately about, and in this day and age can be done in a safe manor. i.e the safe standing format by where each terrace has a barrier to prevent any kind of crush.

I’ve never seen someone so desperate to stand up for 90 solid minutes in my life. Also considering how larey the average British football fan can become do you really think it’s wise to put them in a position where other idiots could push them over or hurt them?

Also, “in a safe manor”? Ooh, so close.

New ‘petition’ site, “Your Freedom”, launched

Andrew — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 16:44:08 +0000

Removal of pointless government websites

by ArtySmokes
on July 02, 2010 at 02:42PM

To better use taxpayers’ money, the government should close down all of its websites that function merely as talking shops, since they are a waste of server space and everyone’s time. Asking people what laws they want changed is an open invitation to waffle at length about things of which we have little understanding. All that happens is that people are conned into thinking they have a stake in the decision-making process. They don’t. This is a waste of everyone’s time.

Wouldn’t it be better if – instead of participating here – people went back to work and did something to help the economy?

Why is this idea important?
The economy is going down the tube and the government’s solution is to get random uneducated people to suggest or vote for new laws? People should go back to to work instead of surfing the net.

That’s right, guys and dolls, the brand new coalition petition submission… er… magician is here! (Since several months of pent-up crazy have been splurged into the site in one day, please excuse a few bumper-length posts.) Users now have the option to ‘rate’ and ‘comment on’ ideas rather than simply sign a petition, and users are asked ‘why is this idea important’, but other than that nothing has changed. Oh, except that the Conservatives don’t want to discuss what policy should be, merely how it should be implemented, and so all ideas must be submitted to one of three libertarian-friendly categories: “cutting business and third sector regulations”, “restoring civil liberties” and “repealing unnecessary laws”. All the ideas in this post are from the first category.

In some ways, it seems to be working. The entire first category will be made redundant if “AT” gets his/her/my way, and z3r010 is promoting the tax policy Cameron would if he thought he could get away with it…

Abolish every single regulation that exists.

by AT
on July 02, 2010 at 06:35PM

Abolish every single regulation that exists. Here are just a few examples of the good things that abolishing regulations can do:

Abolish planning permission and state-controlled town planning

Town planning, as well as forcing businesses to move away from where they can best serve their customers, also raises the cost of housing. Redrow—a construction company—recently revealed that they spend more on planning permission than they do on bricks. Abolishing it might help us to create some housing that is actually affordable.

Abolishing the minimum wage

The majority of people do not have a problem with the minimum wage. However, I do. Raising the cost of labour is a burden on employers, many of whom are not big corporate enterprises “exploiting” poor people, but small businesses (the ones who all politicians claim to support). Introducing or increasing the minimum wage hurts people whose labour is worth less than what the minimum wage is. For an example, an employer wants to hire ten people at £2.50 an hour each; they cannot do that if there is a minimum wage of £5 an hour. Instead of hiring ten people, they will hire five. There is ample evidence to suggest that minimum wages hurt the poor. Youth unemployment is usually reported as higher than general unemployment. Why could this be? The answer is that young people have very few skills which justify a high wage. Because the law restricts young people from getting jobs at wages which justify their skills, they are priced out of the labour market. This is ethically wrong. If minimum wages destroy jobs, then so-called “living wages” are absolute destroyers of jobs. If you want unemployment to be low, abolish this regulation, the burdens of which fall on those who it is meant to help.

Abolishing anti-discrimination regulation

It sounds like such a good idea, doesn’t it? Without it, blacks, Jews and the Irish wouldn’t be allowed to enter any shop, because people are naturally racist and the state must use its force to stop this discrimination, right?

Wrong. Anti-discrimination laws are not necessary. Every time a business denies blacks, or Muslims, or any other minority group access to its services, it is only harming itself. Turning away customers who are willing to pay for their services means less money for the shopkeeper, or the baker, the butcher or greengrocer, or any businessman you can think of. This is called the free market’s “racist fee”. A racist shopkeeper who does not allow Muslims into his shop will lose out on the money those Muslims will over him.

Should we allow people the right to deny Muslims to their shops? Absolutely. Their business belongs to them and them only. They have the right to freedom of association – they must allow whomever they want (or don’t want) onto (or off) their property. As I have mentioned before, there is a “racist fee” in the free market for those who discriminate. Bigots go bust.

The real racists are trade unions and governments. It was government that enforced segregation and propped up slavery. It was the trade unions who were passionately opposed to the Davis-Beacon Act of 1931, with president of the American Federation of Labour saying that “coloured labour is being sought to demoralize wage rates”.

Why is this idea important?
The free market works best when there are no restrictions placed on it.

We can have zero unemployment if we stop forcing businesses to pay a “minimum wage” and force them to pay for National Insurance, which is a Ponzi scheme that must be abolished at once. (I really do want you to read this article by Lew Rockwell, explaining the evils of government intervention in the labour market.)

We can see our economy flourish if corporation tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax (among many other extremely burdensome taxes) are all abolished.

Remember: “the only “fair” is laissez-faire!”

One equal capped tax band – Make the poor pay their fair share.

by z3r010
on July 01, 2010 at 08:44PM

Bring equality into the tax system with every person paying exactly the same amount of tax regardless of how much they earn.

Why is this idea important?
The tax system massively discriminates against the hard working and wealthy, it’s about time the poor paid their fair share rather than letting the rest of us subsidise them.

On the other hand, in good news for fans of liberal and authoritarian crazy, the category system appears to have been largely ignored when someone has an idea that doesn’t fit any of them. Observe:

Death Pentalty

by pchapman
on July 01, 2010 at 09:41PM

Bring back the death Penalty for muder, rape and child sex offenders.

Why is this idea important?
These people cannot be rehabilated and are a danger to the rest of us, And its cheaper to execute them than pay for them to stay in prison

pchapman must be running a pretty messed-up company if this regulation is seriously impeding it.

MR. M. A. NICHOLLS. The right to roam insurance.

by grahamsonsett
on July 02, 2010 at 09:07PM

IT JUST DELETED MY SURGESTION FOR NO REASON. IT TOOK ME HALF AN HOUR TO WRITE. IT CONTAINED NO OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE AND WAS NOT AN EXPLOSSIVE POLITICAL TOPIC . SHAME ON YOU CON CON CON LIBS AND CON DOES NOT MEAN CONSEVITIVE IT MEANS TRICKED FOOLED

GET MR CLEGG TO PHONE ME [phone number]

Why is this idea important?
I REFER YOU TO THE QUESTION I MENTIONED SOME MOMENTS PREVIOUSLY.

Okay, let’s see what took MR. M. A. NICHOLLS (and/or grahamsonsett) a full half hour to write. I have highlighted the spelling errors:

MR. M. A. NICHOLLS. The right to roam insurance.

by grahamsonsett
on July 02, 2010 at 08:51PM

My surgestion is about the right to roam. My post code is Scottish but I live in England, This is IMPORTANT as different contries have different laws. I have a small farm in England ,and several footpaths and bridal ways run through it. I agree that people should have the privelage to walk around and see the beauty of the contry side . However I appose that I have to pay nearly £100 in insurance for other people to do this, + anohter 1% in insurance tax increase to be implemented after the June budget. If people whish to do this they should be made to take out their own insurance. I should not be liable for the county councils footpaths. To call out a rescue helecopter would cost several hundred if not thousand of £s to launch and rescue. Most other types of out door enjoyment like sailing , it would be the responsibility of the boats owner to take out their own insurance. Why not hikers? , Today has become an American claim and sue culture, you see many adverts on the tv surgesting you should . Say if I was in somebodies garden stealing apples from their tree and fell and hurt my self , nothing would be done. However if someone was blackberry picking on my land and the same happened they would try sue me .THIS LAW IS A FARCE. In fact the only place you can be done for tresspassing in England is on a military base or a railway line which used to encure a 40 shillings fine.

BY the way LIB DEMS what happened to your fair, Local income tax system to replace the council tax, I did not hear anything about it in the run up to the general elections. Have you ditched the idea.

Why is this idea important?
My idea is fair , those who enjoy their hobby , in this case, walking in the country side should PAY their OWN INSURANCE , not me PAY THEIRS. The cost of other insurance is crippling me already. The gready insurance companies have hiked car insurance by 33% by rasing the excess from £50 to £150. Very stealth hike. TAX FAIR – INSURE FAIR. Thats all I ask.

Okay, so there are some teething troubles with the new website and/or MR. M. A. NICHOLLS’ literacy skills, but maybe there are some good ideas out there.

Prison – Send prisoner’s abroad

by rsteele1953
on July 02, 2010 at 06:24PM

Why should criminals be incarcerated in prisons in this country.
We could buy land in Africa and put the offenders there.
Any criminal, who commits three prisonable offences within a two year period, not including the time they have spent in prison, will be sent there.
The cost of the airfare will be compensated by the cheaper cost of incarceration.

Why is this idea important?
It solves the idea of lack of prison places without letting criminals off with the easy options.

Or maybe there aren’t.

The following idea isn’t perhaps crazy but I’m including it anyway for the insight into what hilarymillswilliams might think a “bank holiday” is:

Withdraw 2.5 additional bank holidays from public sector workers

by hilarymillswilliams
on July 02, 2010 at 01:45PM

Public sector workers still get 2.5 more bank holidays than the rest of the working population. They get days for Christmas and the Queen’s Birthday and 0.5 for Maundy Thursday. No one else in the private or 3rd sectors gets these. They are outdated and yet another example of how the public sector is out of step with everyone else.

Why is this idea important?
Any additional 2.5 days work from every public sector worker would improve productivity and help cope with the impact of fewer jobs. It’s also patently unfair that some sectors should have different rules to others.

This one, on the other hand, is 100% die-cast crazy

Pay As You Play Tax for Footballers

by aidamikhail
on July 02, 2010 at 01:43PM

I think we should device a special taxation system for footballers. They should pay higher taxation if their teams lose matches. They get paid this large amount of money because they are supposed to be good footballers and if they failed to do so they should refund some of this money back as taxes.i.e if anybody did not supply a service which they were paid to supply, they should refund the money back. We can call it ‘pay as you play taxation’. This will really motivate them to train harder and try to perform well toI keep their wealth.If we did this here, the whole of Europe will follow. May be we could even extend the same concept to bankers and bosses of big organisations and we call it Performance Tax.

Why is this idea important?
Those players and managers earn obsene amount of money and they have no motivation at all to perform well. With this tax they will keep their money if they delvered and performed well. On the other hand if they played rubbish and their teams lost matches, they have to pay 80% tax on any earning above 1.5millions.They will just have to mange with this small amout of money.These taxes will return to serve their poor fans.

He’s also submitted a more general version of the same idea, but it seems like footballers are the main bane of his existence.

1p per week from every employed person in the uk

by dreadlocklover
on July 02, 2010 at 11:03AM

60 million people in UK. Say, 30 million work. 1p per week = 50p a year roughly.

£15 million per year to spend on charity.

£10 million for UK

£5 million for 3rd world.

Surely no one would object to 1p ? And, if they do, they can always opt out.

If the whole world did this, you would see an end to poverty.

Why is this idea important?
EVERY living being should have free access to clean water, sustainance, and education.

Congratulations, you’ve invented tax!

Create a modernized “opt-out” option for the DMCA Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

by fiscalpolicy
on July 02, 2010 at 05:04AM

The DMCA “Digital Millennium Copyright Act” is so overbloated and obtuse, that the following circumstances could make you a criminal:

A) If you download a song off the internet that belongs to someone else, who can claim they have proprietorship.

B) If you download something off the internet that may have at one time belonged to someone else, because they can claim you have “infringed” them.

C) If you sell something that is similar to something else, and because it is similar a famous music artist/corporation can point at you and say “they broke the law”

D) Because the DMCA is a modern day bureaucratic bumbling of epic proportion, and rewards bad behavior while punishing good behavior.

E) It has so many restrictions that anyone on the internet could become a potential felon.

Why is this idea important?
People need to make it clear that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is not binding to everyone, since none of us agreed to it; and there should be more than one option to opt out just as anyone chooses to opt out of someone’s campaign or newsletter.

The standards set forth by DMCA should never be outright taken as law, or else all man is made a criminal by default. It is plainly the definition of stupidity to attack people using the DMCA as a sword to beat over the head of whoever they wish.

I disagree with several aspects of the DMCA, such as “being made a criminal if you download a song that belongs to someone else”, and would therefore like to “opt out” of this inconvenient law. Luckily, though, the DMCA is US law and doesn’t apply here.

Reform or repeal the Freedon of Information Act

by jansilla
on July 01, 2010 at 01:50PM

Reform or repeal completely the Freedom of Information Act that allows access to details about the way organizations and individuals work. Only if certain criteria are met can a request be declined.

Why is this idea important?
In my experience in working in the public sector and related areas, many requests made under the FOI Act are mischievous – a trawl for information rather than a genuine need or requirement to gain access to information that is in the public interest.

In consequence, a lot of time and effort is expended in responding to such requests at the expense of getting on with the work itself.

When we should be concerned about getting more value for money out of the public sector, it would be extremely useful to help this by removing un-necessary obstacles to its achievement.

No.

Kill Human Rights Act

by MGF
on July 01, 2010 at 12:28PM

This act protects all but the law abiding and tax paying people of this country.

Why is this idea important?
I pay tax to support the country, therefore my say is just as important as a eurocrat

No.

Repeal the Summer Time Acts (1916, 1972, et al)

by CNMapletoft
on July 01, 2010 at 11:28AM

Stop the practice of changing the country’s clocks twice a year (from GMT to BST and back), by retaining GMT throughout the year.

Why is this idea important?
This idea is important because the bi-annual clock change is a huge, un-necessary burden, not only to industry but to each individual in the country.

Although it’s hard to quantify, the cost of changing from GMT to BST and back each year certainly amounts to hundreds of millions of pounds per annum and it includes:

the time spent in changing each and every clock and watch in the UK

the cost of re-scheduling computers’ overnight batch systems

the cost of special timetables for transport systems

the impact on national defences

etc.

The benefits of changing the clocks are hard to identify!

Today the sun rose at 4:47 AM. Had we been on GMT at the time the sun would have risen at quarter to four in the morning, and set at twenty to nine in the evening. Everyone’s still up at ten and it’s pitch black, while it’s blazing away merrily for hours while we’re all still in bed. The disadvantages of this are easy to identify. If you want to fix the clocks, fix them to BST. Indeed, there’s a bill to do exactly this already, which you’d have discovered with even a modicum research.

This is the problem with these websites: the public have a valuable contribution to make but only if they put the leg-work in. CNMapletoft hasn’t, and nor has Mark here:

POLICE TO DECIDE ON CRIMINAL CHARGES NOT THE CPS

by MARKHERE
on July 02, 2010 at 04:29PM

As things currently stand the Crown Prosecution Service has to authorise all charges before the police are allowed to prosecute. This creates an unecesarry and duplicate layer in decision making. Police sergeants and above should be allowed to authorise all charges, (save perhaps indictiable only – ie the most serious offences). Such officers are qualified by examination and by default will have significant experience. If it was a Custody Officer decision this would also provide an independent judgement (as defined by virtue of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984).

Such a proposal would allow the removal of CPS Direct, a massive organisation, costing millions per year. It would allow the CPS to then concentrate on prosecuting and restore some faith in our police service. it would also remove the nervousness of the CPS to only prosecute offences where they are almost certain to win at court (as created by virtue of their own KPI’s).

I would suggest a simple and effective suggestion which will save significant money and lead to a better society.

Why is this idea important?
The idea would reduce costs, increase efficiency and go some way to restoring the faith of the public in a system that is generally viewed as poor. In adittion it may help restore some faith internally within the police service, giving them the feeling that they are making a positive impact upon the society they serve by charging those responsible for crime.

So yes.

Next week, Restoring Civil Liberties and Repealing Unnecessary Laws. And a new background doodle.

The Government ePetition site will be relaunching later this year

Ben — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:57:46 +0000

From the ePetition front page:

With a new Government in place a review is taking place of online services, including e-petitions. We are committed to improving the e-petitions process and are looking at ways of ensuring that it functions as part of a cohesive approach to public debate and transparent government. A full announcement on how we plan to use these and other services across Government will be made as soon as this important work is completed.

Existing e-petitions, submitted to the previous administration, will not be carried forward to the new administration as part of this process. E-petitions that were live at the time of the election announcement on 6 April, when the e-petitions system was suspended, will therefore not be reopened for signatures. We will respond to e-petitions that had exceeded the 500 signature threshold as of 6 April 2010.

We will welcome resubmission on issues of concern to the improved e-petitions system when it is launched later in 2010.

Well there we are, then! I guess all we have to do is wait for the new site to go live, and then we can resume mocking the ignorant.

May, 2010: A quiet time for petitions

Ben — Fri, 28 May 2010 18:49:35 +0000

It’s been a wonderful month, hasn’t it? The ePetition site isn’t updating, but fortunately for me there’s a new American equivalent tset up for and operated by the sort of person who posts petitions we like to feature.

The site is American Speaking Out, and it’s a goldmine. Have a look at this example posted by the wonderful people at STFU, Conservatives.

Will we post stuff from America Speaking Out? Do you have an interest in the batshit insane stuff being posted on the cowboy hat-wearing side of the pond? Let us know!

David Skinner is a Cunt

Ben — Sat, 01 May 2010 07:14:40 +0000

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

by David skinner (rejected)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reject Ray

Ben — Sat, 01 May 2010 07:04:30 +0000

Welcome to May. We have some idiots for you!

allow the public identification of all paedophiles upon conviction.

by Nicola Davies (rejected)

To allow the public identification of all paedophiles upon conviction. Accepting that for lawful safety reasons, their addresses or home towns may not be “advertised”, but at least their image and name be in the public arena to give parents an advantage in the protection of their children.

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.

ask David Cameron why he always criticizes Mr Brown.

by Waseem Akhtar (rejected)

Any political news article I read, Mr Brown will say what he has to say, but moments later,David decides to criticize him, Can you please ask David why he always does this, why not for once support Mr Brown

Yeah, David. Be nice to your political rival.

Tie Voting to Claiming Benefits.

by john shanks of Twenty-2john.eu (rejected)

Legal condition and requirement, monitored and managed at polling booth

Wait, what? Why? How? Huh?

There’s one more coming, but it’s so fucked up I’m giving it its own post. Stay tuned.

Fruitful For Them And Our Future

Ben — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:39:42 +0000

Internet access to be like bank account.

by Jathindranath Arayath kooteri (rejected)

Dear Prime minister,

I believe that the safety of our children, community, society and business is more threatned by the use of internet itself. To make it more secure and make individual responsible for their act it is necessary to make the internet account as a bank account with individual to log on to access the web as a whole. In this way we can give a restricted web access to our children and protect them from unwanted elements and make the web experience much more fruitful for them and our future. I thankyou for the time you have taken to go through my thought. Thanking you once again

Yours sincerely

Jathindranath 26 j*** *** *** *** ***

07*********

This is deliciously ironic. Still, in the interests of not being a dick I have edited out Jathindranath’s address and phone number, even though it is still up on the original petition.

Facebook kills babies

Ben — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 02:12:20 +0000

Luke and Kirsti really don’t like Facebook.

stop social networking sites allowing people to target others.

by Luke Derbyshire (rejected)

We would like the Prime Minister and the Government to enforce some kind of ruling in what is done on social networking sites. People should not be allowed to target this and more rules should be put into place in order to avoid this.

What is this?

How many dead babies does it take to piss off an internet user?

Stop Facebook groups.

by Kirsti Wardil (rejected)

I would like facebook groups to be banned. I have recently noticed the increase in sick people on facebook there is people on the groups thinking it is right for babys or young children to be killed it is sick and why should people have to see this? Something serious needs to be done to stop this as it looks like facebook are doing nothing to stop these people and they dont make it easy for you to contact them either. These children should be left to r.i.p without people saying they deserved it.

You’re right. If I were a dead baby I’d be very offended and I’d hardly get any rest at all.

Achievement Unlocked: Deadbeat Gamer

Ben — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 02:06:17 +0000

stop microsoft from charging msp (microsoft points) for in game downloadable content.

by sam charleton of gameing comunity (rejected)

most games on the xbox 360 come with some sort of downloadable content which you have to pay for, we the people who buy and play theese games dont want to pay for this extra content considering we pay on average £40-50 for a game.

Yeah! Why should I pay money to have more stuff?

Keith Jones’ Big, Nasty Plan.

Andrew — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:05:53 +0000

By some margin, the most prolific nonsense-monger on the e-petitions website is a man called Keith Jones, the self-styled Taxpaying Pensioner Without Political Affiliation. He has submitted some 227 petitions so far, of which 196 were rejected for various reasons, and the rest garner signatories numbering between a paltry five and a slightly less paltry seventy five.

Here is one I discovered recently which is broadly representative of his mindset and language:

introduce legislation to put up laws so that when somebody is found to have committed a crime under the influence of illegal drugs, or alcohol, the person who provided them with the drugs and/or alcohol is also required to be found and charged with the same offence.

by keith jones of taxpaying pensioner without political nor relilgious affilation

Many criminal defences are based on the fact that ‘it happened because they took drugs before or were drunk at the time of’ the offence which found them in court. If that is the case then the person who sold or supplied the substance or alcohol were accessories before the event and are therefore also entitled to be put before the court and convicted. This is a lot to with being responsible for your actions, something which is not currently in the vocabulary of our society!

Pretty mental, right?

Following a comment posted on this site last night, I’ve done a little digging on Keith Jones. I’ve looked through 141 of his old petitions (the rest having vanished into the archive), and I have discovered that…

Keith Jones lives in South Wales:

appoint Keith Jones as the new Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Parliament.

by keith jones of taxpaying pensioner without political affiliation (rejected)

Now that the recently appointed Chairman has said he may not be able to fulfil the role, Gordon Brown has an opportunity to move away from the ‘establishment’ and to appoint someone who has no interest in become lorded, nor in making a fortune. Keith Jones will do the job diligently, always in favour of the taxpayer, honestly and with transparency and probity AND he will do it without being paid for it. His only fees will be travel costs between his home in South Wales and his office in Westminster, though why he has to have an office in Westminster is the first item on his review agenda.

Keith Jones votes BNP:

immediately rescind the order by the current Foreign Secretary that elected members of the EU who are members of parties which have ‘racist’ views should be refused the assistance of consular officials.

by keith jones of taxpaying pensioner without political nor religious affiliation (rejected)

This is a party political move which disenfranchises the thousands of voters who put these people into their seats – something our current political leader has yet to achieve – and it cannot be right that a member of an opposing political party can simply order civil servants – who are paid out of the taxes of those he is disenfranchising – to refuse their requests for assistance. Big Brother is here!

This is not surprising considering how frequently he parrots BNP lines about sponging MPs, immigration and so forth.

Keith Jones would like to work in the Government:

He has previously applied, via the unorthodox medium of petition, for two posts overseeing Parliament.

Keith Jones thinks standing for Parliament should not require a deposit:

immediately remove the deposit required when a citizen wishes to be put forward to be elected to be a Member of Parliament in this country.

by keith jones of taxpaying pensioner without political affilation

The number of people who have been left penniless because of government policy over the last 12 years means that many who wish to put themselves forward to challenge the corrupt Members of Parliament currently occupying seats in the House of Commons simply cannot afford to do so. There have been many utterances by socialist politicians about ‘lowering the bar’ so that more people can aspire to be MPs (some even argue that is why they were given tax free allowances and unrestricted access to taxpayer pounds in the form of ‘expenses’ in the first place) but the deposit – and the possibility of losing it – continues to put many people off. Removing the deposit is the only way that corrupt elected representatives being replaced by honest elected representatives is going to be achieved in this country.

In last night’s blog comment, Chris pointed out to us that the BNP’s candidate for the Newport East Parliamentary constituency is a man called Keith Jones. I wouldn’t say that they’re definitely the same man, but I’m pretty sure they’re the same man.

Now I know what you’re thinking. It can’t be him, because our Keith Jones doesn’t have a political affiliation. But campaigning with Keith Jones is John Voisey. Voisey is the BNP candidate for nearby Islwyn, and yet his blog states quite explicitly

This is an INDEPENDENT site. It is NOT an official BNP site, neither is it a puppet of the BNP.

and he is apparently keen not to use his real name too near that of the BNP. Make what you will of Keith’s equivalent declaration, but the lady doth protest too much, methinks, and apropos of too little.

Scroll to the top of the page and read his alcohol petition again, and then read more of Keith’s petitions. I particularly like the one where he suggests beheading Gordon Brown. Then, when you’ve formed an opinion about the kind of person the BNP would have represent you in Parliament, go ahead and vote for anyone you like.

Lastly, I’ve uploaded a zip file containing all 141 of the petitions I managed to download, so you can dig through them for incriminating, exonerating, or amusing examples.

We’re all angry about Jimothy Bulbous! Or whatever that kid’s name was!

Ben — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:00:17 +0000

And still the ePetition team rejects petitions! This is most irregular. Still, we have semi-literate scrotum wranglers submitting petitions about things that the papers have told them to feel very angry about. What is it? Oh yes, more James Bulger stuff.

justice for james bulger.

by james agius (rejected)

James bulger was killedd when he was 2 years old by 2 pieces of scum john venables and robert thompson His killers aged 10 at the time have since been released. Jame’s family has been let down by the justice system so much.Now one of Jame’s killers has broken one release rule by doing another crime!should he have been out in the first place?what they did was planned and they knew exactly that the little boy should die.Do you want this scum on a street near your child or grand son? put them back away now please help with this petition. Petition: With this petition I hope to gain as many signature,s to take away the rights of having so much privacy and protection for child killers. For The sake of James’ parents please stop wasting tax payers money by protecting the evil. Make them lose their right to keep the public informed of any future crimes they may commit.

Justice: Serving time for the crime you committed. Which, insofar as the James Bulger killing is concerned, I think has been fulfilled.

Fun fact: The British newspapers made a point of calling James “Jamie Bulger” in all correspondence because it made the youngster seem more innocent, as if him being a two year-old wasn’t enough. His parents never called him Jamie.

Still,a t least the papers got his last name right, unlike this bugger:

Reveal the identitys of James bunglers killers and let The british people vote what happens to them.

by jedd henry karl wallace (rejected)

I and many others are disgusted at The killers of James Bungler and believe justice should be handed to the people as we are a democracy and in a democracy the people have a right to decide

Firstly, if you’re going to be pissed off about something at least have the common decency to do the basic research first, otherwise you just come across as a bit of a tit. Secondly, everything else that’s wrong with this petition.

Presumably “jedd henry karl wallace” is one person with four names and not, say, the four members of a new, badly-informed and horribly illiterate boy band.

Furners

Ben — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:05:31 +0000

stop giving foreign aid to other countries.

by sandra john (rejected)

spend the money in britain and lower taxes thus increasing our stanard of living and helping the economy.

Why don’t people in the UK get foreign aid, eh Gordon? It’s discrimination is what it is.

Reject Rednesday: On time, under budget, but calling in sick just to game the system

Ben — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:12:44 +0000

Have a petition. Hey, I’m feeling generous – have three.

Make most state school teachers self-employed.

by Aleksands Halamins (rejected)

I am sick and tired of teachers using “sick pay” advantages not to come and teach at school. Moreover, we as a taxpayer finance these sick off days and instead we have to pay the supply teacher as well as the teacher who is “ill”. Making most state school teachers self-employed will make them realize that that’s the way it goes: if you don’t come to school to teach – you wont get paid, as simple as that! Making the teachers self-employed will have its own disadvantages, however as a self-employed you will pay less tax and also you could make claims. Making the teachers self-employed will improve their attendance. Furthermore, this decision will 100% improve education in BRITAIN!

Yeah! Teachers don’t come to school at all! All they do is lounge about at home watching Diagnosis Murder and raking in the cash. This’ll teach ‘em.

tell the electorate why he should not go the say way as the North Korean politician who has recently been executed for causing a financial disaster in his country.

by keith jones of taxpaying pensioner with no political nor religious affiliation (rejected)

Gordon Brown has created the worst financial situation in the history of people living on this island. There has to be some merit in considering what horrendous fate should befall somebody who has done more damage to this country than any other single person, living or dead.

Keith Jones there, politely asking the government to think about cutting Gordon Brown’s head off.

have Frankie Boyle return to ‘Mock The Week’.

by Mrs Theresa Thomas (rejected)

This is an official petition to have Frankie Boyle return to the quiz show ‘Mock The Week’. Frankie is an asset to the quiz show and British lives are not the same with out him.

The government have officially rejected your official petition, because it’s officially crap.

Reject Rapril

Andrew — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:14:35 +0000

I’m not sure what the rules are regarding what MPs and Parliament can and can’t do when Parliament is dissolved. I know MPs have rushed to change their Twitter names to ones without “MP” at the end so they can tweet during the campaign. I know MPs’ websites have frozen. And I know the ePetition website has replaced the ‘new petition’ form with a notice saying they won’t be updating.

So… why is it still updating? They haven’t approved a new petition since April 5th, but this monstrosity was rejected at 21 past midnight this morning (apparently):

provide data on the number of e-petitions he has read and the number that he has acted upon.

by Brian Riches (rejected)

recognise that the e-petition facility is pointless unless the Prime Minister and Government is seen to respond. Therefore the website should show the number of petitions received, the number the Prime Minister has read, the number where he or the Government has responded positively to the petition and the number that have been ignored. There should also be an end to platitudinous responses.

Because it’s the bread and butter of this blog, let me just quickly mock it.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to go through every single petition you bile-monkeys can vomit up every day? I do. Actually, it’s not all that long, because they’re so invariably worthless that you really only have to skim them. But even so I would rather the Prime Minister not waste his time reading drivel written up by self-important morons with no shift keys (unless the Tories win in which case I don’t want him getting any ideas).

Bonus points to the ePetition team for rejecting it as a “metapetition”.

Anyway. My point is that I don’t understand how rejecting petitions is any different to accepting them — they’re still published, and on exactly the same website. But then, anybody expecting Parliamentary procedure to make sense hasn’t read the response Parliament is giving to Freedom of Information Act requests during dissolution:

When Parliament has been dissolved there is no ‘House of Commons/Lords’ for the purposes of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, and there is therefore no ‘public authority’ to which the 20 day deadline under section 10 of the 2000 Act is capable of applying. The time limits do not, therefore, apply during the period of Dissolution.

The effect of the 2000 Act, including its time limits, resumes when the new House of Commons/Lords first meets.

“We can’t reply to your letter because we don’t exist, and if we did exist time has stopped, so we certainly couldn’t send you a reply even if we existed, which naturally we don’t. (This reply does not indicate that we received your letter or in any way prove we exist or the passage of time.)” Thankyou, Officer Todhunter.

In conclusion, you can’t get a peep out of the Houses if you want action or numbers, but they’re happy to continue rejecting people.

Ugh. This is like the high school disco all over again.

let’s go green! Wait, you’re charging me? I WON’T HEAR OF IT.

Ben — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 03:20:58 +0000

stop the telephone companies from charging the consumers for the issueing their paper telephone bills to the tune of £1.50 per month.

by James Magill (rejected)

At the moment everybody gets charge by the telephone companies if they have to issue a ‘Paper Bill’ but if you have a Computer and are connected to the Internet you can get this bill on line at no charge. What about the 1000s who have not got a Computer, eg our Senior Citizens and those of us who are unemployed to mention a few?

They get charged the £1.50 paper bill fee. Are you not paying attention?

Reject Rriday

Ben — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:39:45 +0000

I guess the ePetition team has a backlog to get through, because there have been a ton of rejected petitions posted today.

ban celery from all shops and supermarkets.

by Mr Dean Askew (rejected)

Celery is disgusting, please ban it forthwith!

This seems reasonable.

prosecute each and every person who signs the petition to discriminate against the visit of our Pope.

by Mr Francis Guidera (rejected)

The anti Catholicism in this country is palpable. It’s a growing hatred for morality, a hatred of Christian values. And the Nation Secular Society’s petition to publicly insult the Pope by snubbing him, is DISCRIMINATION on the basis of religion. Labour MADE these laws, so, it’s a bit rich for the left wing to them COMPLAIN about other people’s lifestyle and religious choices whilst lauding the benefits of anti discrimination laws!

It’s also a bit rich for the Pope to actively go about covering up the paedophilic actions of his ministers. So, y’know. Swings and roundabouts.

Michael & Kate Lee.

by Michael Lee of Retired (rejected)

That Baroness Uddin,Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe,Viscount Falkland,Lord Rosser,Baroness Neuberger,Lord Taylor of Warick,Baroness Gouldie of Roundwood,Lord Paul,Lord Sheldon,Lord Bhatia and Lord Clark of Hampstead. Have their titles removed for their expenses claims

Make it so.

Ban sexual and drug related music videos and lyrics in the United Kingdom.

by Adam Carr (rejected)

Children in the country are seemingly becoming more and more sleazy because of the influence of the huge music stars. Artists such as Rihanna, 50 Cent, Jay-Z, Hinder and many others are influencing children in the wrong way.

Such as on Jo Frosts program, a 13 year old girl dressing like a hooker to get boys attention, its disgusting!

Ban all of this music from being aired in the united kingdom on radio and video, and accessed on-line.

In the 80s a song with the lyrics “make me wanna come” was banned from being aired. Now you have people rapping about shooting each other, taking drugs and having sex for fun and you do not ban it, it is disgusting.

Sign up and help get this banned!

We can’t! Your petition has been banned!

Joe McGurk Reduce overcrowding on trains and tubes.

by Joe McGurk (rejected)

Trains and tubes need to have a standing limit the same as buses. At this time trains and especially tubes are so overcrowded that they present a serious hazard to passengers. In the event of a crash I am sure people will be severely injured. Control of overcrowding must be passed to Health and Safety Executive to ensure rules are not broken.

Joe McGurk I think that Joe made a mistJoe McGurkake with this petition. Joe McGurk.

Stop Handing Out New Identities to Criminals.

by Mr Joseph Cornforth (rejected)

Criminals, who have traumatised or killed others, denying their victims the human rights and lives that they deserve, are being given new identities so the government can pretend their crime new happened. Some of the most significant cases include Vanessa George sexually abusing toddlers and Jon Venables and Robert Thompson’s killing of toddler James Bugler, in which the former has been recently been recalled to prison. The government spend millions renewing their identities, and we, the public, have the right of knowing if a new employee or a new neighbour is a serious criminal offender. Everyone is entitled to a life, yes, but as long as they are alive, they have that right. The victims deserve all the help from the government, not the culprits. The government spend millions renewing criminal’s identities, and their doing is at innocent people’s expense. Overall, criminals do not deserve a new identity for the government. They only have themselves to blame, and it comes to show that new reward whatsoever comes out of doing harm to others!

The reason the government gives criminals of this nature brand new identities is because morons like you take it upon themselves to persecute these criminals after they’ve served their time and repaid their debt to society. Once they’ve served their time, they’re square. The balance is restored. No one has a right to interfere with their lives, no matter what their crimes were. Not you, not the government, not the justice system.

You just keep on trying ’til you run out of biscuits

Ben — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:15:33 +0000

educate the british public as to the difference between cakes and biscuits with special regard to Jaffa Cakes.

by Mr Dave Ashton (rejected)

There has long been debate about whether the Jaffa Cake is a true cake or is a misnamed biscuit.

Since it has been scientifically proven that Jaffa Cakes are in fact cakes we believe it is time that the British public are educated to this important distinction.

We believe it is possible to wipe out biscuit/cake confusion within a generation given the neccessary funding and support.

Allow me to solve your dilemma:

It’s a cake.

Glad I could be of assistance.

Stop fiddling with kids instead of fiddling with expenses! Wait, no, hang on…

Ben — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 05:09:23 +0000

Stop child pornography.

by Miss Amy Oddy (rejected)

Mps have time to do tv programmes etc & spend taxpayers money on whatever they please. Someone needs to set up a centre were researchers trawl the internet for websites/groups/people that find and remove all things with that content may it be pictures or words. Pay the researchers with the money thats wasted instead of on expenses!!!

Bonus Points: casual dismissal of expenses as a waste, planting this petition firmly in “Stop Spending My Money On Things I Don’t Understand” territory.

Charity Beheadings At Home

Ben — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 04:53:03 +0000

Fantastic URL on this one. “Bad pirates”. Like it’s possible to get kidnapped by good pirates.

allow citizens to contribute to a charity fund to raise the ransom to free Paul and Rachel Chandler.

by Dean Seabrook (rejected)

Your government won’t pay the ransom – I understand you’d endanger more people by setting a precedent, but this poor couple must be going through Hell. Allow people to donate a fiver, let’s see how much we can raise and maybe get them home. If I had the technical expertise to set up a charity website enabled for donations myself I would do it, but alas, I do not, and I’m not a registered charity myself. Your government should create this website.

Wouldn’t that, erm, endanger more people by setting a precedent?

Reject Rednesday has been banned

Ben — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 05:22:12 +0000

Now that the ePetition site is ore or less closed for the election, every day is Reject Rednesday! But especially today, which is Rednesday. Anyway, hello.

ban the TV shows Hollyoaks and Skins.

by John Mckay (rejected)

We urge the prime minister to ban the afformentioned TV shows urgently as they are encouraging an entire generation of young people to be stupid.

These show’s give young people the message that complaining about your feelings for hours on end is somehow socially acceptable, as is overreacting to fairly insignifigant events. They encourage young people to talk about nonsense while at the same time making fun of people who talk about anything even remotely interesting.

Please ban it now

I don’t think it’s the young people who are being made stupid.

ban the current “Go Compare” advert campaign.

by Spencer Steel (rejected)

The currently series of television adverts for “Go Compare”, a price comparison website, features a stereotypical opera performer, singing a parody of “Over There” – a song written in 1917 by George M. Cohan during World War I. Words cannot describe how painfully irritating and offensive to the ears this advert is. It is, by far, the most hideously annoying and obtrusive advert ‘jingle’ in the history of annoying and obtrusive jingles. This is not a subjective statement. This is fact. I also believe this advert provides a wider physical health risk to the general public. I’ve witnessed people leap from their sofa’s with no regard for safety, in a desperate attempt to ‘mute’ this audio nightmare before the main ‘song’ starts to play. I’ve watched hot coffee cups knocked over and unsuspecting guest catching flailing arms. I’ve witness grown adults screaming, babies reduced to tears and pets leaving home. Surely at a time when Labour are looking to heal ‘Broken Britain’, banning this intrusive and obnoxious style of advertising will restore peace and harmony back to the front rooms of Britain. And those merecats … they are treading on thin ice too.

How can you be so focused on an advertisement when people are showing strangers their dicks on the internet? Katie White has the right idea:

consider the banning of insecure websites such as www.chatroulette.com, which can be potentially harmful to its visitors.

by Miss Katie White (rejected)

www.chatroulette.com is a website that anyone can access. You do not need to register, and you are instantly connected to “random strangers” (their words) who then become your “partner”. As there is no registration there is no way of preventing minors from accessing the website. Whilst you can ‘report’ indecent content, users cannot get banned as they do not register.

Users are connected not just by instant messaging, but are also encouraged to use webcams and microphones.

This website is dangerous, and can and will be used for far worse things than innocent chatting.

Cocks! Big fat hairy cocks!

Create an extra day in the week …in between Sunday and Monday .. it should be called Mongday.

by jay phono of anti-rhino front (rejected)

Two day weekends are rubbish … the general population will agree … so sort it out .. we want an extra day and we want it now

Have a tattoo on his forehead which reads” I am a useless”.

by Joseph Priory (rejected)

He is a bonehead and a useless excuse for a human being

I was just thinking the same thing about you.

Sorry for thwarting your invasion. It won’t happen again.

Ben — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:06:11 +0000

apologise to the people of Denmark for the Anglo-Saxon slaughter of Viking invaders at Ridgeway Hill, near Weymouth about a 1000 years ago.

by Alison OLeary (rejected)

The passage of time cannot possibly have dulled the pain the Danish people must feel . It is imperative that we give solace and lots of money to them to say how sorry and wrong we were.

I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a Dane who actually gives anything even remotely resembling a shit about this. Besides which, they did sort of start it with that whole “invasion” thing. But then, I suspect you are anything but serious about this.

John Jenkins, Crusader For Gibberish

Andrew — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 22:32:04 +0000

I’d like to welcome a new member into our Top Ten Petitioners: John Jenkins. We’ve featured him before, demanding quantum metric currency and… well, it’s hard to say as his grasp on the English language is akin to that of a large metal claw on a stuffed bear. I suspect his grip on reality is little better but as I say, it’s difficult to be sure with him. But it turns out that, like Keith Jones, he’s a serial petitioner (although a far less prolific one than Jones) and not one of his petitions makes the slightest shred of sense as far as I can see. He’s had a few accepted onto the site, but the most popular has all of five signatures. Here’s a selection that jumped out at me. I think they illustrate a man’s decent into madness:

make 2 prime roles for 2 ministers.

by john jenkins (rejected)

A Prime Decision Minister and Prime Communications Minister might not be excluded from the informal constitution of the UK.
If thinkers fail on the airhead count of image, seemingly needed – so separate them.
First Lord of the Treasury might not need to turn up for PMQs

modulate the media to disseminate views to say that kids bodies are not porn.

by john jenkins (rejected)

Porn relates to descriptions of prostitution, assumed to be images, that prostitution being sex for payment.
I sincerely doubt that exploited children are consciously proclaiming themselves prostitutes or receive anything from those who beyond that treat them as prostitutes.
It is probably better to frame a charge on ground of intrusion into privacy with respect to sexual display for which there is a statutory age of consent, compounded with possible theft and evasion of taxation on any ‘monies’ nominally accrued.

make Law to be a struggle by logic from first principles.

by john jenkins (rejected)

This might more be considered Sharia than Western law, if along the lines of Anglo-Saxon Common Law.
At the same time any cultural case law hould be considered as suspect.
While representative democracy may be rejected in the modern world – as much as contrarilly the Royal Mail workers want to go on strike against broadband as a simmilar threat to custom and practice, to observe attentional voting efficiencies with institutionalised parties as compound personalities need not be incompatible with custom if representatives offer lectures in the chamber.,
Grouped and individual voting on positions taken in funded lawmaking discussions concerning dependant and exclusive positions might be hardware supportable in coming years and should not be ruled out as a development of western democracies applicable to Islamic cultures,

stop saving children – too many of them with respect to Malthus – let them die.

by john jenkins (rejected)

Migration
Coming through the groin
In exponential surges
Loins
Are girded for the battle
Where one man says ‘make love not war’
Another sees the offspring coming
As before
To assert a call over the planetary bounty
For nothing
But their petty evolutionary county
Just speck in a pixel
From so ‘far out’
There is nothing betwixt them
Failing to doubt
And so the rape of land and man
Is upholden as some godly plan
Delusions, fraud, belief and breeding
Forgetting ourselves as nothing but stars seeding
An element so heavy
Metallic rain falls
And the doom to avoid
Remains
All that bafalls

But there’s so less use crying so over every less mistake,
You so keep on try so there very less cake.

fund robot infantry.

by john jenkins (rejected)

No more – A better Snatch Landrover. I know the apes are cheap and they always wanted to be soldiers. So maybe the Generals don’t need all they want, particularly in respect of having wars to justify their own existence.
Mars Pathfinder technology with guns not science instruments might less motivate science. Less so is it arguable against so to do.

And so the science gets so to done,
And so you less make a so neat gun,
For the less people who so are to still aliiive.

And believe me I am still alive.
I’m doing science and I’m still alive:

T.R.I.P. the way out of the C.A.G.E.

by john jenkins (rejected)

With Totally Real Intellectual Property we need to escape from the Criminally Antisocial Gambling Establishment.
Currently the philosophy of value is based on psychology – game theory at best. This is more appropriately connected more ego neutral philosophies such as those of physics.
The abstract forms of objects of value may be evaluated in terms of the networks of attention (in terms of time and compound qualities) and energy (of formation and distribution) as fundamentally related, linked, measurable quantifications found in physics. The networks are based in the mathematics of graph theory.
This would allow a rational market to emerge free from the positive feedback herd psychology aspects found under current regimes.

Still alive…

stop my mind seeping away with time.

by john jenkins (rejected)

There needs to be a measure of thought to value our experiences.
We fade against breeding and fright from genocidal equilibrium enlightenment rebalancing against our losses.
Thought in IP needs to be measured and remunerated only but always in particular detail.

…still alive.

Reject Raturday: You Just Came Third In The Game.

Andrew — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:30:07 +0000

It’s getting to the point where I’m hoping these are serious because that they are separate attempts at humour is almost more depressing:

End "The Game.".

by Mr. Temptus Timus (rejected)

As many of you know, there is a game circulating around the world that can only be stopped if the prime minister goes on live TV and announces the end of the game.
All this is asking is for the Prime Minister to go on TV and say the short phrase "The game is up"

It’s almost word-for-word identical to Philip Ford’s version, and I for one suspect that Timus is Ford, simply because nobody is called Mr. Temptus Timus.

We’ve had a few petitions from people who’ve left out all the spaces in the title box, or written their own name in there, or written “Gordon Brown” as if the idea was that you have to specify which Prime Minister you feel best placed to evaluate your ideas, or whatever it was that this was supposed to indicate:

goverment.

by deanne (rejected)

I think that social workers should have the same power as a police officer, whereas ploice officers can search a resident so social workers should be able to aswell, if they are worried about a certain situation.

…but this may be the greatest failure to understand the role of the ‘title’ field I’ve seen yet:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/new.

by Phillip Layton (rejected)

This petition is to say no to the introduction of any compulsory dog insurance. We believe that the overwhelming majority who own dogs are responsible owners and should not be penalised by the few who are irresponsible.

That’s right, Phillip Layton has entered the URL of the ‘new petition’ form. Luckily his body text is more informative, which is better than Carl Roger Borresen of Nil managed:

Carl Roger Borresen.

by Carl Roger Borresen of nil (rejected)

be fair to everyone, what is good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander.

Mr John Smith is furthering political debate in this country:

wear an eye patch, a tartan cap, and a ginger wig for public appearences.

by Mr John Smith (rejected)

since the PM is a one eyed scottish idiot, this would suit him (and be quite funny as well!) Oh and resign while he is at it.

(By ‘furthering political debate in this’, of course I mean ‘a’.)

Why not just drive around in an open-top car with a harpoon gun killing all the old people?

Ben — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 05:37:33 +0000

make smoking 40 cigarettes a day compulsory for the over 40′s.

by Mr D Morris (rejected)

This policy would increase taxation so cutting the deficit, solve the problem of the aging society, reduce the state pension black hole, and enable private pension companies to increase their pensions due to the shortening of life expectancy, while protecting jobs in the tobacco industry.