|
Right To Reply Denied By Downing Street Petition Site
The 10 Downing Street petition web site team have rejected a petition calling for petitioners to be given a right to reply.
The issue is as follows:
A PETITIONER creates a petition on the 10 Downing Street web site and invites signatures from SIGNATORIES.
When a signatory signs a petition it is explained by the Downing Street web site how their email address will be used. This use includes a maximum of two emails from the petitioner.
When petitions close 10 Downing Street usually sends an email to all the signatories.
Petitioners are DENIED the right to communicate with signatories.
We the petitioners have been denied the right to even petition for a right to reply!
This action is polemic to the fundamental democratic principle of 'open debate'.
Safespeed proposed a new 10 Downing Street petition to highlight the issue - but 10 Downing Street refuse to host the petition, claiming that: "This petition has been rejected because: It was an issue for which an e-petition is not the appropriate channel."
Obviously the excuse for rejection is spurious and emails requesting a proper explanation for the rejection have been ignored.
10 Downing Street web site says [1]: "What will you do with my name and address details if I sign a petition?
Nothing, unless you expressly ask to sign up for other services available on the Downing Street web site (e.g. email updates).
We will use your email address to confirm your signature and, unless you ask us not to, we will also send you a maximum of two responses to the issues raised in the petition and a maximum of two emails from the creator of the petition."
Ed] This is the style of democracy of this government, which is a direct copy of EU ideology. Not only do they refuse to listen, but they refuse to conduct a fair debate. They won't even accept a petition to address their failure to conduct the debate fairly.
No doubt when the 23,000 signature petition to 'scrap speed cameras' closes at the end of June they will also be denied the right to email their signatories [Safespeed]. But, Downing Street can be relied upon to send misleading propaganda to support the governments failed road safety policy.
Surely we're entitled to much more honesty, integrity and openness from government than we're getting. Let’s face it that was what quisling Blair promised when he swept into No.10.
More than interesting it would be, to hear the team behind the 10 Downing Street petition site explain their claim that: 'It was an issue for which an e- petition is not the appropriate channel.', because I would have said it was an absolutely ideal channel. Could it be that they are scared of the results? But then that is just conjecture on my part ain’t it?
[1] http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/faq
The rejected Safe Speed official petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/righttoreply
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to respect the moral right of petitioners to communicate with signatories when a petition closes."
Previous similar rejected petitions:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/DemocraticRights
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/rightofreply
Previous PR, issued when Peter Roberts was denied the right to reply to 1.8 million anti roads pricing petitioners:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/308
The Daily Express should be especially interested in the issue, because they have been DENIED the right of reply to their own 128,000 signature petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ihtcrusade
|
