Back in 2007 I sent one in to direct.gov's e-petitions page. Basically, there used to be a bloke named Brian Haw, who until his death stood opposite Parliament protesting the Government's Iraq policy and latterly the whole invasion and war. Well, I thought it unreasonable to expect him to keep up his protest all by himself, particularly since he was the only person in the country legally allowed to protest within a mile of the building due to misguided and misfired legislation intended to remove him. So I submitted this:
Very reasonable, I would have thought. However, the submissions team classified it as "Intended to be humorous, or has no point about government policy" with an option to edit and resubmit it. I thought I was being very serious, as I pointed out in this appended paragraph:
This time they reiterated the "humorous, no point about Gov. policy" line and also subcategorised it as "Wording that is impossible to understand". Rather poetically, I still find that impossible to understand.
Incidentally, an earlier petition of mine, "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make the buying and giving of clothing as presents illegal" foundered in much the same way.
Quote:We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to personally cover for Brian Haw as and when required
Mr Haw's presence outside parliament is a vital reminder to those individuals who work inside the building of an illegal war that nobody wanted and serves no-one, save those with vested interests.
Inevitably, however, it must be recognised that Mr Haw is a human being, and as such cannot be expected to remain in situ twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week - he is entitled to time off just like anybody else; e.g. sickness, annual leave, etc.
We the undersigned hereby call on the Prime Minister to take up Mr Haw's duties personally whenever said Mr Haw requires some time away from his post.
Very reasonable, I would have thought. However, the submissions team classified it as "Intended to be humorous, or has no point about government policy" with an option to edit and resubmit it. I thought I was being very serious, as I pointed out in this appended paragraph:
Quote:Incidentally, this e-petition has been drafted in all seriousness, although worded in a humorous way. I also intend it to make a very serious point about Government policy, with particular emphasis on the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and recent ominous sabre-rattling in Iran. An action such as this petition is calling for would enable Mr Brown to demonstrate to the country and the rest of the civilised world (and America) just where he and his Government stands on this extremely important issue. Unless he is content for us to be America's poodle, of course.
This time they reiterated the "humorous, no point about Gov. policy" line and also subcategorised it as "Wording that is impossible to understand". Rather poetically, I still find that impossible to understand.
Incidentally, an earlier petition of mine, "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make the buying and giving of clothing as presents illegal" foundered in much the same way.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
