General Chat

There is a thread on here about a petition that is currently circulating. I don't generally sign petitions although I might sometimes add to one in the spirit of casting a vote.

Our parish clerk, a woman with immense knowledge of the workings of local and church government, once explained the futility of signing petitions to me.

A certain Mr M Mouse signs almost every petition that appears and his signature joins those of many others on a neat pile of paper that can be delivered, wrapped into a neat parcel which can be put in a corner and forgotten.

Although Mr Mouse is not a frequent member of a protest march, that is just a column of people who are usually moving in a fairly orderly manner along a road and are not much more that an annoyance.

However, if you can inspire people to write a letter, or even sign a pre-written letter, pop it in an envelope, stamp it and post it, then you are creating inconvenience.

Letters need to pass through the postal system and be delivered. Each needs to be opened because none can be discarded with the content unknown. They should also be acknowledged and answered.

Now, that all gets you noticed, that gets your point across.

Hmmm never thought of that....so in this case would we write to the Queen or dear Miss MT as PM...or.....oh no hang on I don't care if he visits so won't bother..in this case.... :-D

Sharron, your parish clerk might be generally right but petitions do sometimes work and we have a local example.

For a couple of years we have been having a right hoo-haa over our town bus station. It would take a book to go into all the details but the Council decided it was going to move the bus station to another site, which local people could see was wrong in so many ways. But of course the people making the decisions neither lived in the town nor used the buses.

There were a number of very well attended public meetings, people wrote to the Council, to our MP, to the papers and opposition to the plan was voiced in every possible way but it was ignored and a planning application put in.

Then someone got up a petition. It was signed by well over 6000 people, out of a total population of about 22000. It was presented to the Council and shortly after the planning application was withdrawn.

Get enough signatures and petitions can work :-D

The Government wants everything done by t'intenet now - even though it's quite happy that a vast amount of this 'first world' country doesn't have access.
Signing a petition shows how the 'people' feel - and they (the Government) can access the 'troublemakers' ie: those who oppose them.
I have to admit to signing things I'm opposed to, in full knowledge that the Government want to see who alleged 'opposers' are, but the same frigging Government is unwilling (unable according to them) to stop that bl**dy cold call about PPI every evening.

There's one just starting up on the Government site, asking that all visitors prove they have health insurance before they can enter the country........request sounds fair enough to me.......would any of you travel to the US for instance without insurance?

The trouble with many of those petitions is that although they sound reasonable they may be difficult to implement or have implications that are not obvious. One can easily sign in good faith without knowing the full details of the subject.

True but this one sounds straight forward.

The proof might be difficult as it would involve insurance companies from other countries. What level of insurance would be required? I suppose they are things for the MPs to debate though.

Couldn't it be like it is now when you buy a plane ticket for US they ask you to get insurance....or easier still you can't get into the country without showing it with your passport. Sure some countries will have false documents then you warn that country you won't let anyone in unless they clean up their act.
Even with insurance for yourself right now you often have to pay with your credit card then claim off your insurance when you come home.

Possibly, I am not familiar with procedures. It could be that the cost of the extra bureaucracy would be more than the NHS saving.

If the petition is the one I just looked at (parliament.uk/petitions/170532), it is not doing too well as it has only 2311 signatures and finishes on 1st May.

It wouldn't cost the UK much if anything as the onus would be on you to either pay up front on your credit card or you arrange for your insurance company to pay up front for you if it's too much for your credit card. The most the UK end does is provide a cost minimum procedure especially with everything on computers.

As for not many signed it yet, still plenty of times and proves "rent a mob" aren't hijacking it :-D

Very strange, I looked a few minutes ago and it was 2338 and now it has reduced to 2304.

It's 2477 right now...not sure what's going on with it.

overnight it has gone to 2772. This morning's news is probably going to help it.

However the NHS budget last year was £116.4 billion and they expect to recoup £500 million by charging "benefit tourists" so it would not make a huge difference to NHS financing.

It could make some difference. As they're talking about non-urgent treatment, it could free up resources for others on the waiting lists.

It should cover ALL treatment received other countries don't treat you for free depending on how urgent it is or otherwise. The US some hospitals will treat you most won't without insurance but I'm pretty sure they then try and get the money back.
There seems to be a trend right now from a certain country where the IVF treatment is not as responsible as the UK, then actively encouraging them to give birth in the UK....and they have no means to pay......one of a very long list of problems.