Damocles said:I agree with Gorman's point regarding the futility of e-petitions in Government thinking, and in fact all petitions on any issue whether electronic or not, but he makes his point badly. The two that were rejected were rejected for common sense reasons - what he actually seemed to do was find one that was falsely accepted but instead of using that as the thrust of his argument that they were accepting TOO MANY, he spun it around as a rhetoric device and showed rejected ones in comparison to the accepted one.
Ironically, it's a rhetoric device that many politicians and especially the print media use in spades too. He took his examples and twisted them to meet his point by comparison rather than using them to support his point.
In regards to the UK Government's e-petition site, it isn't really there to effect change but instead is there to get a specific reply to a question from the relevant Government department for which you only need 10,000 signatures. If the reply doesn't satisfy and the signatures grow to 100,000 they will pass it to the relevant department for consideration.
There's a group in Parliament called the BackBench Business Committee which gives an opportunity for any backbencher to submit potential debates into the Commons. This is where e-petitions go and why it's not an automatic thing that goes straight through to the Commons. The Committee has a set amount of time per week and they can't promise that they debate everything that has possibly passed, though most e-petitions get there.
The system is one prong of influence to get your agenda on the floor of the House and not a one stop solution. That's fine, it's healthy in our democratic process to have things like this even if most of them are a bit daft.
stonerblue said:Damocles said:I agree with Gorman's point regarding the futility of e-petitions in Government thinking, and in fact all petitions on any issue whether electronic or not, but he makes his point badly. The two that were rejected were rejected for common sense reasons - what he actually seemed to do was find one that was falsely accepted but instead of using that as the thrust of his argument that they were accepting TOO MANY, he spun it around as a rhetoric device and showed rejected ones in comparison to the accepted one.
Ironically, it's a rhetoric device that many politicians and especially the print media use in spades too. He took his examples and twisted them to meet his point by comparison rather than using them to support his point.
In regards to the UK Government's e-petition site, it isn't really there to effect change but instead is there to get a specific reply to a question from the relevant Government department for which you only need 10,000 signatures. If the reply doesn't satisfy and the signatures grow to 100,000 they will pass it to the relevant department for consideration.
There's a group in Parliament called the BackBench Business Committee which gives an opportunity for any backbencher to submit potential debates into the Commons. This is where e-petitions go and why it's not an automatic thing that goes straight through to the Commons. The Committee has a set amount of time per week and they can't promise that they debate everything that has possibly passed, though most e-petitions get there.
The system is one prong of influence to get your agenda on the floor of the House and not a one stop solution. That's fine, it's healthy in our democratic process to have things like this even if most of them are a bit daft.
If only the lad had had some pointers off you. Instead of selling large amounts of books, dvd's and tour tickets, as well as a successful tv career, he could be modding a footy forum and be right but boring all the time.
Damocles said:stonerblue said:Damocles said:I agree with Gorman's point regarding the futility of e-petitions in Government thinking, and in fact all petitions on any issue whether electronic or not, but he makes his point badly. The two that were rejected were rejected for common sense reasons - what he actually seemed to do was find one that was falsely accepted but instead of using that as the thrust of his argument that they were accepting TOO MANY, he spun it around as a rhetoric device and showed rejected ones in comparison to the accepted one.
Ironically, it's a rhetoric device that many politicians and especially the print media use in spades too. He took his examples and twisted them to meet his point by comparison rather than using them to support his point.
In regards to the UK Government's e-petition site, it isn't really there to effect change but instead is there to get a specific reply to a question from the relevant Government department for which you only need 10,000 signatures. If the reply doesn't satisfy and the signatures grow to 100,000 they will pass it to the relevant department for consideration.
There's a group in Parliament called the BackBench Business Committee which gives an opportunity for any backbencher to submit potential debates into the Commons. This is where e-petitions go and why it's not an automatic thing that goes straight through to the Commons. The Committee has a set amount of time per week and they can't promise that they debate everything that has possibly passed, though most e-petitions get there.
The system is one prong of influence to get your agenda on the floor of the House and not a one stop solution. That's fine, it's healthy in our democratic process to have things like this even if most of them are a bit daft.
If only the lad had had some pointers off you. Instead of selling large amounts of books, dvd's and tour tickets, as well as a successful tv career, he could be modding a footy forum and be right but boring all the time.
Do you think the two are related somehow?
Think of this one; you're not even modding a footy forum or right but boring all of the time. You've managed to actually be below that incredibly low standard of living, so well done there.
A new nadir in our nation's social history.JoeMercer'sWay said:over half a million signatures now, Clarkson must be rubbing his hands at the power base he's now got.
Clarkson a Chelsea fan!? I thought I saw him on the Paris train.foxy said:Did you see it? Contact 02036151866 or emma.glanfield@mailonline.co.uk
Read more: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2988412/Top-Gear-s-Jeremy-Clarkson-suspended-BBC-fracas-producer.html#ixzz3U6q9MuSl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3U6q9MuSl</a>
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Anybody up for some wumming?
If the lad Oisin got a bit "saucy" he deserved a slap.masterwig said:Let me get this straight, he allegedly punched a colleague and people think it's a big injustice he may lose his job?
Am I missing something?