View previous topic | View next topic

E-Petitions and the Death Penalty

Page 4 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

exnihilo
838241.  Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:16 am Reply with quote

That's because so many 'disgruntled yoofs' now have new laptops and could sign it.

 
bobwilson
839505.  Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:53 pm Reply with quote

Quick clarification post 838168

It was in the Spectator 13th August in the column headed “Ancient and Modern” on Page 21 ascribed to Peter Jones

Quote:
Romans would not have given a second thought to doing away with the Timothy McVeighs, Shoko Asaharas and Anders Breiviks of this world. What is it that has happened in the last, say, hundred years to make us so reluctant about such cases? Not that parliament will ever tell us. In 1998 it agreed, on EU orders, to make even discussion of the issue in the House illegal.


(My added emphasis).

Despite what Mike said about me being quite amenable in the flesh – I can be a real bastard when matters of truth are involved..

I have a crude system – but it has worked brilliantly in the past. Things I’ve learned – newsmen don’t particularly like being followed and photographed everywhere they go (funny that?); alky’s aren’t disincentivised by threats of arrest; cameras are cheap; the police are reluctant to pursue “conspiracy” charges (particularly when the only witnesses are alcoholics).

So if someone else will do the research that demonstrates that “Peter Jones” and the Spectator are spouting utter crap then I’m more than happy to do the donkey work that will make them print a retraction of that statement. If someone can give me something a bit more substantial than suze’s
Quote:
I don't think that can be right - Parliament can discuss anything it chooses to
I’ll quite happily arrange for myself and other “like-minded people” to squat alongside “Peter Jones” or (in his absence) the editor of the Spectator until they print a retraction

 
suze
839517.  Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:55 am Reply with quote

bob, consider the challenge accepted! I'm pretty much at leisure for the next week or so, so I shall devote some part of that time to investigating whether or not there is any substance to what Mr Jones says there.

 
'yorz
839521.  Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:48 am Reply with quote

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/human_rights/human_rights_in_third_countries/r10106_en.htm
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/10015.en08.pdf
Haven't found anything so far.

 
exnihilo
839523.  Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:09 am Reply with quote

I suspect there's not. There's almost certainly no "order" that it cannot be debated, but an understanding that to do so would be pointless as any return for the death penalty would be precluded by treaties and accords we've entered into since so it would be an utter waste of parliamentary time - like debating the repeal of the laws on slavery.

 
'yorz
839533.  Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:44 am Reply with quote

Sounds reasonable. Am looking forward to bob's sit-in at The Spectator.

 
Neotenic
843033.  Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:59 am Reply with quote

Now that the initial furore over e-petitions has died down a bit, I thought it would be fun to have a bit of a scan through what We The People think is worth petitioning over.

To narrow things down a bit, I've searched for the term 'abolish' - and here's a quick list of the things that some people would like to see the back of;

- VAT, Income Tax, APD, corporation tax, road tax, council tax, National Insurance and the HMRC
- Wirral
- Islam, halal food preparation (also described as 'ritual slaughter' and 'al al') and faith schools
- bus lanes
- UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, election deposits and MPs expenses
- the Human Rights Act
- the Green Belt
- first class rail travel
- Leasehold for flats
- parole
- hereditary 'peer-ships' in the HoL (about a decade out on most of that one)
- the Monetary Policy Committee, the Bank of England and Fractional Reserve Banking
- OFSTED, SATs and school league tables
- BBC 3 and the licence fee
- the monarchy
- the welfare state
- the Barnett formula
- the dangerous cartoons act (no, me neither)
- compulsory car insurance
- cheques, cash and - most fabulously - money

So it does rather seem that if you can think of it - especially when it comes to taxes - someone wants to abolish it.

The abolition of money entirely is surely my favourite so far - here's what the chap has to say;

Quote:
I would like the Government to commit itself to publishing a Green Paper on the feasibility of abolishing money in favour of a universal system of free access in which people could freely avail themselves of all goods and services without having to pay for them in any way. The benefits of such a system would be enormous, and would hopefully be rapidly adopted by other countries around the world (See http://andycox1953.webs.com/ for more on this). In due course, it is to be hoped that the Establishment of Socialism/Communism Act will be passed by Parliament.


Bless him. If you're going to have a completely tonto idea, then you may as well put an awful lot of effort into it.

 
samivel
843034.  Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:19 am Reply with quote

Has anybody started an e-petition to get the e-petitions website abolished?

 
'yorz
843037.  Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:25 am Reply with quote

I think someone has indeed.

 
soup
843045.  Fri Sep 02, 2011 6:56 am Reply with quote

The no money option would be OK if we were all EE Smith's greylensmen but we are not.

 
Neotenic
843048.  Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:24 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Has anybody started an e-petition to get the e-petitions website abolished?


Looking through the 'rejected' pile, many people have.

Someone, splendidly, has also started one suggesting that all petitions written ENTIRELY IN CAPITALS is rejected automatically.

 
exnihilo
843051.  Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:34 am Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
Someone, splendidly, has also started one suggesting that all petitions written ENTIRELY IN CAPITALS is rejected automatically.


How does he/she feel about ones which randomly change tense? ;)


Neotenic wrote:

- UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly.


So we'd just be left with Stormont? That should work.

 
Neotenic
843052.  Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:48 am Reply with quote

Quote:
How does he/she feel about ones which randomly change tense?


I thought that they is all going to have be OK with these. Or at least he were.

 
dr.bob
843068.  Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:56 am Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
- halal food preparation (also described as 'ritual slaughter' and 'al al') and faith schools
- Leasehold for flats
- the monarchy


To be honest, I'd be in agreement with all of these.

Quote:
- BBC 3 and the licence fee


Provided the licence fee was replaced with taxation, and another channel was found to broadcast Being Human, I'd probably be quite happy with those too.

 
96aelw
843089.  Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:18 am Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
- the dangerous cartoons act (no, me neither)


Well, there isn't a Dangerous Cartoons Act as such. But that would appear to be the name that some people have given to elements of Part 2, Chapter 2 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which, in the course of defining what does and what does not count as "prohibited images of children", declares cartoons to fall within its scope. Accordingly, under that Act, any cartoon which depicts children in a way defined by the Act as pornographic is illegal (of course, in the context of cartoons, as well as the problem of how you define "pornographic", there is the additional problem of how you define "child").

 

Page 4 of 5
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group