http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/openadoption/
 
Considering some of the unreasonable demands made in petitions on the Number
10 site I would like to see this simple straightforward one get as many
signatures as possible, its not my petition but I agree whole heartedly with
what it says and have signed.

Not sure how much good petitions do in the end particularly online ones, but
as this one is on website organised  10 Downing St, perhaps it will at least
be looked at before a response is issued. There is no harm in lending moral
support, that I can see.
 
Robin
 
*

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2392EA5.125EB%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/openadoption/
>
> Considering some of the unreasonable demands made in petitions on 
> the Number
> 10 site I would like to see this simple straightforward one get as 
> many
> signatures as possible, its not my petition but I agree whole 
> heartedly with
> what it says and have signed.
>
> Not sure how much good petitions do in the end particularly online 
> ones, but
> as this one is on website organised  10 Downing St, perhaps it will 
> at least
> be looked at before a response is issued. There is no harm in 
> lending moral
> support, that I can see.

There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.

Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
promises made by that Government.

In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
million certainly will.

Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
notice.

So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
Don't be disappointed.

Don

Don Moody wrote:

> 
> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
> 
> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
> promises made by that Government.
> 
> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
> million certainly will.
> 
> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
> notice.
> 
> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
> Don't be disappointed.
> 
> Don 
> 
> 


Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/

I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition 
thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed 
in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'. 
We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will 
never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind 
of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been 
withheld will find their way to Google etc..


Robin

*

in article 4613b1e8$0$17993$6c4959f3@news.easynews.nl, Robin Harritt at
bastard@in.the.uk wrote on 4/4/07 15:10:

> Don Moody wrote:
> 
>> 
>> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online
>> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for
>> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be
>> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
>> 
>> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers.
>> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who
>> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other
>> promises made by that Government.
>> 
>> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next
>> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be
>> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000
>> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said
>> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government
>> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their
>> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes
>> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a
>> million certainly will.
>> 
>> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly
>> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing
>> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take
>> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no
>> notice.
>> 
>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible
>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just.
>> Don't be disappointed.
>> 
>> Don 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?
> 
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
> 
> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition
> thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
> in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.
> We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will
> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind
> of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been
> withheld will find their way to Google etc..
> 
> 
> Robin
> 
> *


Oh dear no, what a terrible blow for democracy, the Custard petition has
been rejected already, ' It was outside the remit or powers of the Prime
Minister and Government'.

Was it be blowed!

Robin

*

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2398558.12601%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that 
>>> sensible
>>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and 
>>> just.
>>> Don't be disappointed.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, 
>> Don?
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
>>
>> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole 
>> online petition
>> thing can become.

Doesn't matter how ridiculous the petition is. It's the numbers that 
count.


 However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
>> in the next budget
Not enough to change the mind of a chancellor who raids pension funds 
and then tries to con the public into beleiving that taking cookies 
out of the jar will NOT leave fewer for them to collect later. In that 
case he did make an error of timing. If the market had gone on rising 
pensioners m might have got a large enough pension to stop them asking 
why it wasn't larger. But sooner or later the market would turn down, 
the theft would be revealed, and so long as the chancellor was long 
gone there would have been no redress against him. There will be now. 
And by the way I predicted all this in a letter to my MP the day the 
raid on pensions was announced.


and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.

Instead of being pushed through on the nod it has been held back 
because at 2 million votes it would wipe out the government majority. 
They'll try and sneak it back in when they think attention is 
diverted, it will not achieve the desired objective, but it will 
provide totally unproductive jobs for jobsworths. Just like VAT which 
is monstrous in principle and ridiculously costly in collection.

Sooner or later we will have to get rid of all laws of Byzantine 
complexity which are vastly costly to enforce. We will have to stop 
nitpicking to try to be precisely 'fair' in individual hard cases only 
to do injustice to everybody through costly and incomprehensible 
complexity.

So, for example, if we are really interested in the environment we 
would scrap income tax, VAT, inheritance tax, mileage charging and all 
the other complex nonsenses and replace them with a resource tax 
levied at very few places of large production of basics. Renewables 
might attract 100% but non-renewables could go up to 10,000%  If a 
litre of petrol cost you £10 but there were no car taxes, licence 
fees, or any other complexity. people would buy more economical cars 
and would ask every time 'is this journey really necessary'. There 
wouldn't be the congestion, and there would be vast savings in not 
administering anything and not building more roads. There would not be 
more than a dozen places paying tax on the oil.

Likewise the stupidity of having a national taxation system and a 
local council tax, maintaining two complex bureaucracies to run both, 
and having all taxpayers pissed off with the incomprehensible 
complexity. Given a high enough resource tax there would be no income 
tax or council tax. Different levels of government would be allocated 
a percentage of the pot and told to get on with it.

But adult adoption issues will
>> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect.

And ditto adoption laws and all other laws to do with family matters. 
In all cases the principles can be written in understandable English 
on one side of a sheet of A4. Any administrative argument should not 
go to a court of law but to a court of equity. That is to say not be 
judged according to technicalities of complex rules but judged 
humanely on general ethical principles and common sense..

How much space would it take to write: 'All medical genetic 
information relevant to an adoptee shall be passed in confidence to 
that person's GP.' And if somebody having that information didn't pass 
it on or blocked its passage, a judge in a court of equity on being 
asked if that is fair would take all of a minute to say 'It is not 
fair. You will pass it on within 24 hours. Or be fired from your job 
with loss of all salary and pension rights.' The equity being that if 
you mess with the life of another you are going to get your life 
messed with. It wouldn't take many cases in a court of equity for folk 
to learn the lesson. Problem over. Law is not justice and justice is 
not law. Powerless individuals don't want or need law in their 
personal affairs. They want and need justice. It always surprises and 
heartens me at how much ordinary folk will endure if they think they 
are being treated as justly as circumstances allow.

Don

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2392EA5.125EB%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/openadoption/
>
> Considering some of the unreasonable demands made in petitions on 
> the Number
> 10 site I would like to see this simple straightforward one get as 
> many
> signatures as possible, its not my petition but I agree whole 
> heartedly with
> what it says and have signed.
>
> Not sure how much good petitions do in the end particularly online 
> ones, but
> as this one is on website organised  10 Downing St, perhaps it will 
> at least
> be looked at before a response is issued. There is no harm in 
> lending moral
> support, that I can see.

There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.

Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
promises made by that Government.

In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
million certainly will.

Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
notice.

So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
Don't be disappointed.

Don

Don Moody wrote:

> 
> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
> 
> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
> promises made by that Government.
> 
> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
> million certainly will.
> 
> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
> notice.
> 
> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
> Don't be disappointed.
> 
> Don 
> 
> 


Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/

I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition 
thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed 
in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'. 
We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will 
never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind 
of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been 
withheld will find their way to Google etc..


Robin

*

in article 4613b1e8$0$17993$6c4959f3@news.easynews.nl, Robin Harritt at
bastard@in.the.uk wrote on 4/4/07 15:10:

> Don Moody wrote:
> 
>> 
>> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online
>> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for
>> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be
>> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
>> 
>> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers.
>> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who
>> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other
>> promises made by that Government.
>> 
>> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next
>> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be
>> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000
>> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said
>> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government
>> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their
>> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes
>> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a
>> million certainly will.
>> 
>> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly
>> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing
>> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take
>> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no
>> notice.
>> 
>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible
>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just.
>> Don't be disappointed.
>> 
>> Don 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?
> 
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
> 
> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition
> thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
> in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.
> We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will
> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind
> of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been
> withheld will find their way to Google etc..
> 
> 
> Robin
> 
> *


Oh dear no, what a terrible blow for democracy, the Custard petition has
been rejected already, ' It was outside the remit or powers of the Prime
Minister and Government'.

Was it be blowed!

Robin

*

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2398558.12601%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that 
>>> sensible
>>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and 
>>> just.
>>> Don't be disappointed.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, 
>> Don?
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
>>
>> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole 
>> online petition
>> thing can become.

Doesn't matter how ridiculous the petition is. It's the numbers that 
count.


 However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
>> in the next budget
Not enough to change the mind of a chancellor who raids pension funds 
and then tries to con the public into beleiving that taking cookies 
out of the jar will NOT leave fewer for them to collect later. In that 
case he did make an error of timing. If the market had gone on rising 
pensioners m might have got a large enough pension to stop them asking 
why it wasn't larger. But sooner or later the market would turn down, 
the theft would be revealed, and so long as the chancellor was long 
gone there would have been no redress against him. There will be now. 
And by the way I predicted all this in a letter to my MP the day the 
raid on pensions was announced.


and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.

Instead of being pushed through on the nod it has been held back 
because at 2 million votes it would wipe out the government majority. 
They'll try and sneak it back in when they think attention is 
diverted, it will not achieve the desired objective, but it will 
provide totally unproductive jobs for jobsworths. Just like VAT which 
is monstrous in principle and ridiculously costly in collection.

Sooner or later we will have to get rid of all laws of Byzantine 
complexity which are vastly costly to enforce. We will have to stop 
nitpicking to try to be precisely 'fair' in individual hard cases only 
to do injustice to everybody through costly and incomprehensible 
complexity.

So, for example, if we are really interested in the environment we 
would scrap income tax, VAT, inheritance tax, mileage charging and all 
the other complex nonsenses and replace them with a resource tax 
levied at very few places of large production of basics. Renewables 
might attract 100% but non-renewables could go up to 10,000%  If a 
litre of petrol cost you £10 but there were no car taxes, licence 
fees, or any other complexity. people would buy more economical cars 
and would ask every time 'is this journey really necessary'. There 
wouldn't be the congestion, and there would be vast savings in not 
administering anything and not building more roads. There would not be 
more than a dozen places paying tax on the oil.

Likewise the stupidity of having a national taxation system and a 
local council tax, maintaining two complex bureaucracies to run both, 
and having all taxpayers pissed off with the incomprehensible 
complexity. Given a high enough resource tax there would be no income 
tax or council tax. Different levels of government would be allocated 
a percentage of the pot and told to get on with it.

But adult adoption issues will
>> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect.

And ditto adoption laws and all other laws to do with family matters. 
In all cases the principles can be written in understandable English 
on one side of a sheet of A4. Any administrative argument should not 
go to a court of law but to a court of equity. That is to say not be 
judged according to technicalities of complex rules but judged 
humanely on general ethical principles and common sense..

How much space would it take to write: 'All medical genetic 
information relevant to an adoptee shall be passed in confidence to 
that person's GP.' And if somebody having that information didn't pass 
it on or blocked its passage, a judge in a court of equity on being 
asked if that is fair would take all of a minute to say 'It is not 
fair. You will pass it on within 24 hours. Or be fired from your job 
with loss of all salary and pension rights.' The equity being that if 
you mess with the life of another you are going to get your life 
messed with. It wouldn't take many cases in a court of equity for folk 
to learn the lesson. Problem over. Law is not justice and justice is 
not law. Powerless individuals don't want or need law in their 
personal affairs. They want and need justice. It always surprises and 
heartens me at how much ordinary folk will endure if they think they 
are being treated as justly as circumstances allow.

Don

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2392EA5.125EB%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/openadoption/
>
> Considering some of the unreasonable demands made in petitions on 
> the Number
> 10 site I would like to see this simple straightforward one get as 
> many
> signatures as possible, its not my petition but I agree whole 
> heartedly with
> what it says and have signed.
>
> Not sure how much good petitions do in the end particularly online 
> ones, but
> as this one is on website organised  10 Downing St, perhaps it will 
> at least
> be looked at before a response is issued. There is no harm in 
> lending moral
> support, that I can see.

There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.

Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
promises made by that Government.

In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
million certainly will.

Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
notice.

So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
Don't be disappointed.

Don

Don Moody wrote:

> 
> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
> 
> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
> promises made by that Government.
> 
> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
> million certainly will.
> 
> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
> notice.
> 
> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
> Don't be disappointed.
> 
> Don 
> 
> 


Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/

I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition 
thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed 
in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'. 
We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will 
never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind 
of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been 
withheld will find their way to Google etc..


Robin

*

in article 4613b1e8$0$17993$6c4959f3@news.easynews.nl, Robin Harritt at
bastard@in.the.uk wrote on 4/4/07 15:10:

> Don Moody wrote:
> 
>> 
>> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online
>> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for
>> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be
>> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
>> 
>> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers.
>> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who
>> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other
>> promises made by that Government.
>> 
>> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next
>> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be
>> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000
>> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said
>> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government
>> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their
>> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes
>> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a
>> million certainly will.
>> 
>> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly
>> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing
>> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take
>> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no
>> notice.
>> 
>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible
>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just.
>> Don't be disappointed.
>> 
>> Don 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?
> 
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
> 
> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition
> thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
> in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.
> We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will
> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind
> of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been
> withheld will find their way to Google etc..
> 
> 
> Robin
> 
> *


Oh dear no, what a terrible blow for democracy, the Custard petition has
been rejected already, ' It was outside the remit or powers of the Prime
Minister and Government'.

Was it be blowed!

Robin

*

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2398558.12601%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that 
>>> sensible
>>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and 
>>> just.
>>> Don't be disappointed.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, 
>> Don?
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
>>
>> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole 
>> online petition
>> thing can become.

Doesn't matter how ridiculous the petition is. It's the numbers that 
count.


 However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
>> in the next budget
Not enough to change the mind of a chancellor who raids pension funds 
and then tries to con the public into beleiving that taking cookies 
out of the jar will NOT leave fewer for them to collect later. In that 
case he did make an error of timing. If the market had gone on rising 
pensioners m might have got a large enough pension to stop them asking 
why it wasn't larger. But sooner or later the market would turn down, 
the theft would be revealed, and so long as the chancellor was long 
gone there would have been no redress against him. There will be now. 
And by the way I predicted all this in a letter to my MP the day the 
raid on pensions was announced.


and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.

Instead of being pushed through on the nod it has been held back 
because at 2 million votes it would wipe out the government majority. 
They'll try and sneak it back in when they think attention is 
diverted, it will not achieve the desired objective, but it will 
provide totally unproductive jobs for jobsworths. Just like VAT which 
is monstrous in principle and ridiculously costly in collection.

Sooner or later we will have to get rid of all laws of Byzantine 
complexity which are vastly costly to enforce. We will have to stop 
nitpicking to try to be precisely 'fair' in individual hard cases only 
to do injustice to everybody through costly and incomprehensible 
complexity.

So, for example, if we are really interested in the environment we 
would scrap income tax, VAT, inheritance tax, mileage charging and all 
the other complex nonsenses and replace them with a resource tax 
levied at very few places of large production of basics. Renewables 
might attract 100% but non-renewables could go up to 10,000%  If a 
litre of petrol cost you £10 but there were no car taxes, licence 
fees, or any other complexity. people would buy more economical cars 
and would ask every time 'is this journey really necessary'. There 
wouldn't be the congestion, and there would be vast savings in not 
administering anything and not building more roads. There would not be 
more than a dozen places paying tax on the oil.

Likewise the stupidity of having a national taxation system and a 
local council tax, maintaining two complex bureaucracies to run both, 
and having all taxpayers pissed off with the incomprehensible 
complexity. Given a high enough resource tax there would be no income 
tax or council tax. Different levels of government would be allocated 
a percentage of the pot and told to get on with it.

But adult adoption issues will
>> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect.

And ditto adoption laws and all other laws to do with family matters. 
In all cases the principles can be written in understandable English 
on one side of a sheet of A4. Any administrative argument should not 
go to a court of law but to a court of equity. That is to say not be 
judged according to technicalities of complex rules but judged 
humanely on general ethical principles and common sense..

How much space would it take to write: 'All medical genetic 
information relevant to an adoptee shall be passed in confidence to 
that person's GP.' And if somebody having that information didn't pass 
it on or blocked its passage, a judge in a court of equity on being 
asked if that is fair would take all of a minute to say 'It is not 
fair. You will pass it on within 24 hours. Or be fired from your job 
with loss of all salary and pension rights.' The equity being that if 
you mess with the life of another you are going to get your life 
messed with. It wouldn't take many cases in a court of equity for folk 
to learn the lesson. Problem over. Law is not justice and justice is 
not law. Powerless individuals don't want or need law in their 
personal affairs. They want and need justice. It always surprises and 
heartens me at how much ordinary folk will endure if they think they 
are being treated as justly as circumstances allow.

Don

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2392EA5.125EB%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/openadoption/
>
> Considering some of the unreasonable demands made in petitions on 
> the Number
> 10 site I would like to see this simple straightforward one get as 
> many
> signatures as possible, its not my petition but I agree whole 
> heartedly with
> what it says and have signed.
>
> Not sure how much good petitions do in the end particularly online 
> ones, but
> as this one is on website organised  10 Downing St, perhaps it will 
> at least
> be looked at before a response is issued. There is no harm in 
> lending moral
> support, that I can see.

There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.

Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
promises made by that Government.

In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
million certainly will.

Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
notice.

So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
Don't be disappointed.

Don

Don Moody wrote:

> 
> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
> 
> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
> promises made by that Government.
> 
> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
> million certainly will.
> 
> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
> notice.
> 
> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
> Don't be disappointed.
> 
> Don 
> 
> 


Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/

I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition 
thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed 
in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'. 
We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will 
never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind 
of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been 
withheld will find their way to Google etc..


Robin

*

in article 4613b1e8$0$17993$6c4959f3@news.easynews.nl, Robin Harritt at
bastard@in.the.uk wrote on 4/4/07 15:10:

> Don Moody wrote:
> 
>> 
>> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online
>> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for
>> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be
>> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
>> 
>> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers.
>> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who
>> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other
>> promises made by that Government.
>> 
>> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next
>> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be
>> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000
>> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said
>> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government
>> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their
>> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes
>> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a
>> million certainly will.
>> 
>> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly
>> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing
>> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take
>> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no
>> notice.
>> 
>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible
>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just.
>> Don't be disappointed.
>> 
>> Don 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?
> 
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
> 
> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition
> thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
> in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.
> We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will
> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind
> of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been
> withheld will find their way to Google etc..
> 
> 
> Robin
> 
> *


Oh dear no, what a terrible blow for democracy, the Custard petition has
been rejected already, ' It was outside the remit or powers of the Prime
Minister and Government'.

Was it be blowed!

Robin

*

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2398558.12601%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that 
>>> sensible
>>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and 
>>> just.
>>> Don't be disappointed.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, 
>> Don?
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
>>
>> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole 
>> online petition
>> thing can become.

Doesn't matter how ridiculous the petition is. It's the numbers that 
count.


 However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
>> in the next budget
Not enough to change the mind of a chancellor who raids pension funds 
and then tries to con the public into beleiving that taking cookies 
out of the jar will NOT leave fewer for them to collect later. In that 
case he did make an error of timing. If the market had gone on rising 
pensioners m might have got a large enough pension to stop them asking 
why it wasn't larger. But sooner or later the market would turn down, 
the theft would be revealed, and so long as the chancellor was long 
gone there would have been no redress against him. There will be now. 
And by the way I predicted all this in a letter to my MP the day the 
raid on pensions was announced.


and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.

Instead of being pushed through on the nod it has been held back 
because at 2 million votes it would wipe out the government majority. 
They'll try and sneak it back in when they think attention is 
diverted, it will not achieve the desired objective, but it will 
provide totally unproductive jobs for jobsworths. Just like VAT which 
is monstrous in principle and ridiculously costly in collection.

Sooner or later we will have to get rid of all laws of Byzantine 
complexity which are vastly costly to enforce. We will have to stop 
nitpicking to try to be precisely 'fair' in individual hard cases only 
to do injustice to everybody through costly and incomprehensible 
complexity.

So, for example, if we are really interested in the environment we 
would scrap income tax, VAT, inheritance tax, mileage charging and all 
the other complex nonsenses and replace them with a resource tax 
levied at very few places of large production of basics. Renewables 
might attract 100% but non-renewables could go up to 10,000%  If a 
litre of petrol cost you £10 but there were no car taxes, licence 
fees, or any other complexity. people would buy more economical cars 
and would ask every time 'is this journey really necessary'. There 
wouldn't be the congestion, and there would be vast savings in not 
administering anything and not building more roads. There would not be 
more than a dozen places paying tax on the oil.

Likewise the stupidity of having a national taxation system and a 
local council tax, maintaining two complex bureaucracies to run both, 
and having all taxpayers pissed off with the incomprehensible 
complexity. Given a high enough resource tax there would be no income 
tax or council tax. Different levels of government would be allocated 
a percentage of the pot and told to get on with it.

But adult adoption issues will
>> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect.

And ditto adoption laws and all other laws to do with family matters. 
In all cases the principles can be written in understandable English 
on one side of a sheet of A4. Any administrative argument should not 
go to a court of law but to a court of equity. That is to say not be 
judged according to technicalities of complex rules but judged 
humanely on general ethical principles and common sense..

How much space would it take to write: 'All medical genetic 
information relevant to an adoptee shall be passed in confidence to 
that person's GP.' And if somebody having that information didn't pass 
it on or blocked its passage, a judge in a court of equity on being 
asked if that is fair would take all of a minute to say 'It is not 
fair. You will pass it on within 24 hours. Or be fired from your job 
with loss of all salary and pension rights.' The equity being that if 
you mess with the life of another you are going to get your life 
messed with. It wouldn't take many cases in a court of equity for folk 
to learn the lesson. Problem over. Law is not justice and justice is 
not law. Powerless individuals don't want or need law in their 
personal affairs. They want and need justice. It always surprises and 
heartens me at how much ordinary folk will endure if they think they 
are being treated as justly as circumstances allow.

Don

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2392EA5.125EB%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/openadoption/
>
> Considering some of the unreasonable demands made in petitions on 
> the Number
> 10 site I would like to see this simple straightforward one get as 
> many
> signatures as possible, its not my petition but I agree whole 
> heartedly with
> what it says and have signed.
>
> Not sure how much good petitions do in the end particularly online 
> ones, but
> as this one is on website organised  10 Downing St, perhaps it will 
> at least
> be looked at before a response is issued. There is no harm in 
> lending moral
> support, that I can see.

There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.

Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
promises made by that Government.

In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
million certainly will.

Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
notice.

So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
Don't be disappointed.

Don

Don Moody wrote:

> 
> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
> 
> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
> promises made by that Government.
> 
> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
> million certainly will.
> 
> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
> notice.
> 
> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
> Don't be disappointed.
> 
> Don 
> 
> 


Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/

I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition 
thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed 
in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'. 
We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will 
never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind 
of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been 
withheld will find their way to Google etc..


Robin

*

in article 4613b1e8$0$17993$6c4959f3@news.easynews.nl, Robin Harritt at
bastard@in.the.uk wrote on 4/4/07 15:10:

> Don Moody wrote:
> 
>> 
>> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online
>> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for
>> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be
>> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
>> 
>> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers.
>> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who
>> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other
>> promises made by that Government.
>> 
>> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next
>> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be
>> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000
>> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said
>> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government
>> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their
>> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes
>> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a
>> million certainly will.
>> 
>> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly
>> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing
>> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take
>> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no
>> notice.
>> 
>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible
>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just.
>> Don't be disappointed.
>> 
>> Don 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?
> 
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
> 
> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition
> thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
> in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.
> We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will
> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind
> of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been
> withheld will find their way to Google etc..
> 
> 
> Robin
> 
> *


Oh dear no, what a terrible blow for democracy, the Custard petition has
been rejected already, ' It was outside the remit or powers of the Prime
Minister and Government'.

Was it be blowed!

Robin

*

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2398558.12601%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that 
>>> sensible
>>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and 
>>> just.
>>> Don't be disappointed.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, 
>> Don?
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
>>
>> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole 
>> online petition
>> thing can become.

Doesn't matter how ridiculous the petition is. It's the numbers that 
count.


 However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
>> in the next budget
Not enough to change the mind of a chancellor who raids pension funds 
and then tries to con the public into beleiving that taking cookies 
out of the jar will NOT leave fewer for them to collect later. In that 
case he did make an error of timing. If the market had gone on rising 
pensioners m might have got a large enough pension to stop them asking 
why it wasn't larger. But sooner or later the market would turn down, 
the theft would be revealed, and so long as the chancellor was long 
gone there would have been no redress against him. There will be now. 
And by the way I predicted all this in a letter to my MP the day the 
raid on pensions was announced.


and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.

Instead of being pushed through on the nod it has been held back 
because at 2 million votes it would wipe out the government majority. 
They'll try and sneak it back in when they think attention is 
diverted, it will not achieve the desired objective, but it will 
provide totally unproductive jobs for jobsworths. Just like VAT which 
is monstrous in principle and ridiculously costly in collection.

Sooner or later we will have to get rid of all laws of Byzantine 
complexity which are vastly costly to enforce. We will have to stop 
nitpicking to try to be precisely 'fair' in individual hard cases only 
to do injustice to everybody through costly and incomprehensible 
complexity.

So, for example, if we are really interested in the environment we 
would scrap income tax, VAT, inheritance tax, mileage charging and all 
the other complex nonsenses and replace them with a resource tax 
levied at very few places of large production of basics. Renewables 
might attract 100% but non-renewables could go up to 10,000%  If a 
litre of petrol cost you £10 but there were no car taxes, licence 
fees, or any other complexity. people would buy more economical cars 
and would ask every time 'is this journey really necessary'. There 
wouldn't be the congestion, and there would be vast savings in not 
administering anything and not building more roads. There would not be 
more than a dozen places paying tax on the oil.

Likewise the stupidity of having a national taxation system and a 
local council tax, maintaining two complex bureaucracies to run both, 
and having all taxpayers pissed off with the incomprehensible 
complexity. Given a high enough resource tax there would be no income 
tax or council tax. Different levels of government would be allocated 
a percentage of the pot and told to get on with it.

But adult adoption issues will
>> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect.

And ditto adoption laws and all other laws to do with family matters. 
In all cases the principles can be written in understandable English 
on one side of a sheet of A4. Any administrative argument should not 
go to a court of law but to a court of equity. That is to say not be 
judged according to technicalities of complex rules but judged 
humanely on general ethical principles and common sense..

How much space would it take to write: 'All medical genetic 
information relevant to an adoptee shall be passed in confidence to 
that person's GP.' And if somebody having that information didn't pass 
it on or blocked its passage, a judge in a court of equity on being 
asked if that is fair would take all of a minute to say 'It is not 
fair. You will pass it on within 24 hours. Or be fired from your job 
with loss of all salary and pension rights.' The equity being that if 
you mess with the life of another you are going to get your life 
messed with. It wouldn't take many cases in a court of equity for folk 
to learn the lesson. Problem over. Law is not justice and justice is 
not law. Powerless individuals don't want or need law in their 
personal affairs. They want and need justice. It always surprises and 
heartens me at how much ordinary folk will endure if they think they 
are being treated as justly as circumstances allow.

Don

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2392EA5.125EB%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/openadoption/
>
> Considering some of the unreasonable demands made in petitions on 
> the Number
> 10 site I would like to see this simple straightforward one get as 
> many
> signatures as possible, its not my petition but I agree whole 
> heartedly with
> what it says and have signed.
>
> Not sure how much good petitions do in the end particularly online 
> ones, but
> as this one is on website organised  10 Downing St, perhaps it will 
> at least
> be looked at before a response is issued. There is no harm in 
> lending moral
> support, that I can see.

There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.

Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
promises made by that Government.

In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
million certainly will.

Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
notice.

So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
Don't be disappointed.

Don

Don Moody wrote:

> 
> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
> 
> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
> promises made by that Government.
> 
> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
> million certainly will.
> 
> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
> notice.
> 
> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
> Don't be disappointed.
> 
> Don 
> 
> 


Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/

I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition 
thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed 
in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'. 
We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will 
never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind 
of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been 
withheld will find their way to Google etc..


Robin

*

in article 4613b1e8$0$17993$6c4959f3@news.easynews.nl, Robin Harritt at
bastard@in.the.uk wrote on 4/4/07 15:10:

> Don Moody wrote:
> 
>> 
>> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online
>> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for
>> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be
>> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
>> 
>> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers.
>> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who
>> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other
>> promises made by that Government.
>> 
>> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next
>> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be
>> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000
>> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said
>> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government
>> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their
>> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes
>> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a
>> million certainly will.
>> 
>> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly
>> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing
>> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take
>> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no
>> notice.
>> 
>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible
>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just.
>> Don't be disappointed.
>> 
>> Don 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?
> 
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
> 
> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition
> thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
> in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.
> We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will
> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind
> of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been
> withheld will find their way to Google etc..
> 
> 
> Robin
> 
> *


Oh dear no, what a terrible blow for democracy, the Custard petition has
been rejected already, ' It was outside the remit or powers of the Prime
Minister and Government'.

Was it be blowed!

Robin

*

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2398558.12601%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that 
>>> sensible
>>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and 
>>> just.
>>> Don't be disappointed.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, 
>> Don?
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
>>
>> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole 
>> online petition
>> thing can become.

Doesn't matter how ridiculous the petition is. It's the numbers that 
count.


 However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
>> in the next budget
Not enough to change the mind of a chancellor who raids pension funds 
and then tries to con the public into beleiving that taking cookies 
out of the jar will NOT leave fewer for them to collect later. In that 
case he did make an error of timing. If the market had gone on rising 
pensioners m might have got a large enough pension to stop them asking 
why it wasn't larger. But sooner or later the market would turn down, 
the theft would be revealed, and so long as the chancellor was long 
gone there would have been no redress against him. There will be now. 
And by the way I predicted all this in a letter to my MP the day the 
raid on pensions was announced.


and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.

Instead of being pushed through on the nod it has been held back 
because at 2 million votes it would wipe out the government majority. 
They'll try and sneak it back in when they think attention is 
diverted, it will not achieve the desired objective, but it will 
provide totally unproductive jobs for jobsworths. Just like VAT which 
is monstrous in principle and ridiculously costly in collection.

Sooner or later we will have to get rid of all laws of Byzantine 
complexity which are vastly costly to enforce. We will have to stop 
nitpicking to try to be precisely 'fair' in individual hard cases only 
to do injustice to everybody through costly and incomprehensible 
complexity.

So, for example, if we are really interested in the environment we 
would scrap income tax, VAT, inheritance tax, mileage charging and all 
the other complex nonsenses and replace them with a resource tax 
levied at very few places of large production of basics. Renewables 
might attract 100% but non-renewables could go up to 10,000%  If a 
litre of petrol cost you £10 but there were no car taxes, licence 
fees, or any other complexity. people would buy more economical cars 
and would ask every time 'is this journey really necessary'. There 
wouldn't be the congestion, and there would be vast savings in not 
administering anything and not building more roads. There would not be 
more than a dozen places paying tax on the oil.

Likewise the stupidity of having a national taxation system and a 
local council tax, maintaining two complex bureaucracies to run both, 
and having all taxpayers pissed off with the incomprehensible 
complexity. Given a high enough resource tax there would be no income 
tax or council tax. Different levels of government would be allocated 
a percentage of the pot and told to get on with it.

But adult adoption issues will
>> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect.

And ditto adoption laws and all other laws to do with family matters. 
In all cases the principles can be written in understandable English 
on one side of a sheet of A4. Any administrative argument should not 
go to a court of law but to a court of equity. That is to say not be 
judged according to technicalities of complex rules but judged 
humanely on general ethical principles and common sense..

How much space would it take to write: 'All medical genetic 
information relevant to an adoptee shall be passed in confidence to 
that person's GP.' And if somebody having that information didn't pass 
it on or blocked its passage, a judge in a court of equity on being 
asked if that is fair would take all of a minute to say 'It is not 
fair. You will pass it on within 24 hours. Or be fired from your job 
with loss of all salary and pension rights.' The equity being that if 
you mess with the life of another you are going to get your life 
messed with. It wouldn't take many cases in a court of equity for folk 
to learn the lesson. Problem over. Law is not justice and justice is 
not law. Powerless individuals don't want or need law in their 
personal affairs. They want and need justice. It always surprises and 
heartens me at how much ordinary folk will endure if they think they 
are being treated as justly as circumstances allow.

Don

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2392EA5.125EB%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/openadoption/
>
> Considering some of the unreasonable demands made in petitions on 
> the Number
> 10 site I would like to see this simple straightforward one get as 
> many
> signatures as possible, its not my petition but I agree whole 
> heartedly with
> what it says and have signed.
>
> Not sure how much good petitions do in the end particularly online 
> ones, but
> as this one is on website organised  10 Downing St, perhaps it will 
> at least
> be looked at before a response is issued. There is no harm in 
> lending moral
> support, that I can see.

There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.

Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
promises made by that Government.

In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
million certainly will.

Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
notice.

So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
Don't be disappointed.

Don

Don Moody wrote:

> 
> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
> 
> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
> promises made by that Government.
> 
> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
> million certainly will.
> 
> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
> notice.
> 
> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
> Don't be disappointed.
> 
> Don 
> 
> 


Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/

I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition 
thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed 
in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'. 
We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will 
never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind 
of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been 
withheld will find their way to Google etc..


Robin

*

in article 4613b1e8$0$17993$6c4959f3@news.easynews.nl, Robin Harritt at
bastard@in.the.uk wrote on 4/4/07 15:10:

> Don Moody wrote:
> 
>> 
>> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online
>> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for
>> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be
>> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
>> 
>> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers.
>> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who
>> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other
>> promises made by that Government.
>> 
>> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next
>> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be
>> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000
>> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said
>> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government
>> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their
>> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes
>> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a
>> million certainly will.
>> 
>> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly
>> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing
>> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take
>> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no
>> notice.
>> 
>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible
>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just.
>> Don't be disappointed.
>> 
>> Don 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?
> 
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
> 
> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition
> thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
> in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.
> We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will
> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind
> of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been
> withheld will find their way to Google etc..
> 
> 
> Robin
> 
> *


Oh dear no, what a terrible blow for democracy, the Custard petition has
been rejected already, ' It was outside the remit or powers of the Prime
Minister and Government'.

Was it be blowed!

Robin

*

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2398558.12601%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that 
>>> sensible
>>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and 
>>> just.
>>> Don't be disappointed.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, 
>> Don?
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
>>
>> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole 
>> online petition
>> thing can become.

Doesn't matter how ridiculous the petition is. It's the numbers that 
count.


 However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
>> in the next budget
Not enough to change the mind of a chancellor who raids pension funds 
and then tries to con the public into beleiving that taking cookies 
out of the jar will NOT leave fewer for them to collect later. In that 
case he did make an error of timing. If the market had gone on rising 
pensioners m might have got a large enough pension to stop them asking 
why it wasn't larger. But sooner or later the market would turn down, 
the theft would be revealed, and so long as the chancellor was long 
gone there would have been no redress against him. There will be now. 
And by the way I predicted all this in a letter to my MP the day the 
raid on pensions was announced.


and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.

Instead of being pushed through on the nod it has been held back 
because at 2 million votes it would wipe out the government majority. 
They'll try and sneak it back in when they think attention is 
diverted, it will not achieve the desired objective, but it will 
provide totally unproductive jobs for jobsworths. Just like VAT which 
is monstrous in principle and ridiculously costly in collection.

Sooner or later we will have to get rid of all laws of Byzantine 
complexity which are vastly costly to enforce. We will have to stop 
nitpicking to try to be precisely 'fair' in individual hard cases only 
to do injustice to everybody through costly and incomprehensible 
complexity.

So, for example, if we are really interested in the environment we 
would scrap income tax, VAT, inheritance tax, mileage charging and all 
the other complex nonsenses and replace them with a resource tax 
levied at very few places of large production of basics. Renewables 
might attract 100% but non-renewables could go up to 10,000%  If a 
litre of petrol cost you £10 but there were no car taxes, licence 
fees, or any other complexity. people would buy more economical cars 
and would ask every time 'is this journey really necessary'. There 
wouldn't be the congestion, and there would be vast savings in not 
administering anything and not building more roads. There would not be 
more than a dozen places paying tax on the oil.

Likewise the stupidity of having a national taxation system and a 
local council tax, maintaining two complex bureaucracies to run both, 
and having all taxpayers pissed off with the incomprehensible 
complexity. Given a high enough resource tax there would be no income 
tax or council tax. Different levels of government would be allocated 
a percentage of the pot and told to get on with it.

But adult adoption issues will
>> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect.

And ditto adoption laws and all other laws to do with family matters. 
In all cases the principles can be written in understandable English 
on one side of a sheet of A4. Any administrative argument should not 
go to a court of law but to a court of equity. That is to say not be 
judged according to technicalities of complex rules but judged 
humanely on general ethical principles and common sense..

How much space would it take to write: 'All medical genetic 
information relevant to an adoptee shall be passed in confidence to 
that person's GP.' And if somebody having that information didn't pass 
it on or blocked its passage, a judge in a court of equity on being 
asked if that is fair would take all of a minute to say 'It is not 
fair. You will pass it on within 24 hours. Or be fired from your job 
with loss of all salary and pension rights.' The equity being that if 
you mess with the life of another you are going to get your life 
messed with. It wouldn't take many cases in a court of equity for folk 
to learn the lesson. Problem over. Law is not justice and justice is 
not law. Powerless individuals don't want or need law in their 
personal affairs. They want and need justice. It always surprises and 
heartens me at how much ordinary folk will endure if they think they 
are being treated as justly as circumstances allow.

Don

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2392EA5.125EB%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>
>
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/openadoption/
>
> Considering some of the unreasonable demands made in petitions on 
> the Number
> 10 site I would like to see this simple straightforward one get as 
> many
> signatures as possible, its not my petition but I agree whole 
> heartedly with
> what it says and have signed.
>
> Not sure how much good petitions do in the end particularly online 
> ones, but
> as this one is on website organised  10 Downing St, perhaps it will 
> at least
> be looked at before a response is issued. There is no harm in 
> lending moral
> support, that I can see.

There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.

Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
promises made by that Government.

In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
million certainly will.

Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
notice.

So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
Don't be disappointed.

Don

Don Moody wrote:

> 
> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online 
> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for 
> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be 
> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
> 
> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers. 
> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who 
> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other 
> promises made by that Government.
> 
> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next 
> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be 
> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000 
> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said 
> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government 
> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their 
> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes 
> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a 
> million certainly will.
> 
> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly 
> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing 
> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take 
> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no 
> notice.
> 
> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so 
> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible 
> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just. 
> Don't be disappointed.
> 
> Don 
> 
> 


Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/

I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition 
thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed 
in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'. 
We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will 
never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind 
of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been 
withheld will find their way to Google etc..


Robin

*

in article 4613b1e8$0$17993$6c4959f3@news.easynews.nl, Robin Harritt at
bastard@in.the.uk wrote on 4/4/07 15:10:

> Don Moody wrote:
> 
>> 
>> There is indeed no harm, but there is also no good. The whole online
>> petition thing was and is a cynical exercise. It provides a place for
>> activists to let off steam, which means they can subsequently be
>> ignored because they have not been prevented from having their say.
>> 
>> Changing any predetermined Government position is a matter of numbers.
>> Specifically the number of present supporters of a Government who
>> would vote against it on the single issue and regardless of all other
>> promises made by that Government.
>> 
>> In round figures, up to 250,000 votes on the single issue at the next
>> election  folk will be ignored. At 500,000 their views will be
>> considered and may or may not result in a change. At 1,000,000
>> Government policy will be changed regardless  of what has been said
>> before. The numbers arise out of the simple notion that any Government
>> in power wants to stay in power, and its big beasts want to keep their
>> elevated salaries and perks. A shift of a quarter of a million votes
>> will not put the Government out of power, half a million might, and a
>> million certainly will.
>> 
>> Do note that the logic and justice of the view petitioned are wholly
>> immaterial if the numbers are not obtained. People in 10 Downing
>> Street already know that. So they already know they don't have to take
>> any notice of what the petition says. Therefore they will take no
>> notice.
>> 
>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that sensible
>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and just.
>> Don't be disappointed.
>> 
>> Don 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, Don?
> 
> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
> 
> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole online petition
> thing can become. However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
> in the next budget and many more than that signed against the 'mileage tax'.
> We'll see I suppose what happens with those. But adult adoption issues will
> never attract enough attention for a petition to have an effect. But it's kind
> of a way of protesting and each petition and any 'signature' that has not been
> withheld will find their way to Google etc..
> 
> 
> Robin
> 
> *


Oh dear no, what a terrible blow for democracy, the Custard petition has
been rejected already, ' It was outside the remit or powers of the Prime
Minister and Government'.

Was it be blowed!

Robin

*

"Robin Harritt"  wrote in message 
news:C2398558.12601%a.bastard@home.in.the.uk...
>>> So if readers want to go ahead and sign the petition, then do so
>>> because it will make you feel better. But don't imagine that 
>>> sensible
>>> and just change will follow because you are being sensible and 
>>> just.
>>> Don't be disappointed.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Do you reckon they might have more chance of success with this one, 
>> Don?
>>
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/custard/
>>
>> I bring it to attention just to show how ridiculous the whole 
>> online petition
>> thing can become.

Doesn't matter how ridiculous the petition is. It's the numbers that 
count.


 However 124231 have signed to have inheritance tax removed
>> in the