Boris Bajic
Guest
Interesting that this petition has a few hundred signatures and the one asking for compulsion (started some months earlier) has nearly 9,000.
This is not an issue that really strikes a chord with many people, apart from the 'really keen ones' at both ends of the spectrum.
I do not take the prospect of compulsion very seriously. I think the best outcome in terms of these e-petitions is that one or other of the signature lists reaches the threshold (it looks more likely to be the pro-compulsion one) and the matter is debated in the House one cold Tuesday morning.
If there is a vote (and they really will have to have sod all else to do) and if MPs are given a free vote (as surely they must be) then the anti-compulsion side will carry the day and it will be put to bed.
However, since any debate in the House carries some risk, it strikes me as odd that a group or individual happy with the law as it is should seek to raise the profile of the dispute by starting an e-petition. Why encourage debate (which on this topic is rarely factual - despite protestations from both sides that only the other side is denying the facts) if the status quo suits you perfectly?
I find it funny that it has only a few hundred signatories, even though it is a newish petition. It seems not to be the burning issue some took it for.
Grrrrrrrrrrrr....
This is not an issue that really strikes a chord with many people, apart from the 'really keen ones' at both ends of the spectrum.
I do not take the prospect of compulsion very seriously. I think the best outcome in terms of these e-petitions is that one or other of the signature lists reaches the threshold (it looks more likely to be the pro-compulsion one) and the matter is debated in the House one cold Tuesday morning.
If there is a vote (and they really will have to have sod all else to do) and if MPs are given a free vote (as surely they must be) then the anti-compulsion side will carry the day and it will be put to bed.
However, since any debate in the House carries some risk, it strikes me as odd that a group or individual happy with the law as it is should seek to raise the profile of the dispute by starting an e-petition. Why encourage debate (which on this topic is rarely factual - despite protestations from both sides that only the other side is denying the facts) if the status quo suits you perfectly?
I find it funny that it has only a few hundred signatories, even though it is a newish petition. It seems not to be the burning issue some took it for.
Grrrrrrrrrrrr....
Last edited:
