Petition

[Robin Harritt]

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

*

[Don Moody]

Post by Robin Harritt
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

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Don Moody
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

*

[Robin Harritt]

Post by Robin Harritt

Post by Don Moody
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

*

[Don Moody]

Post by Robin Harritt

Post by Don Moody
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

Post by Robin Harritt
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

Post by Robin Harritt
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