E-petition update
Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 15:23 Extraordinary.
Having rejected Antony Worrall Thompson's petition entitled Save Our Pubs and Clubs: Amend the Smoking Ban because "There is already an e-petition about this issue", the DH has just accepted a THIRD petition on the subject. Click here.
What I didn't tell you is that on Monday I emailed the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons to find out what had happened to Antony's petition because at that stage it had yet to be accepted or rejected.
Within two hours Antony's PA received an email that read:
Dear Antony Worrall Thompson,
Your e-petition "Save Our Pubs and Clubs: Amend the Smoking Ban" hasn't been accepted.
There is already an e-petition about this issue.
I immediately rang the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, which is in charge of the e-petitions website, to find out more.
To be fair, the people I spoke to were courteous and helpful. (They all sound remarkably young, or perhaps I'm just very old.)
I was effectively told that following receipt of my email Antony's petition had been recommended for publication but the DH had ignored that advice.
Now, three days later, the DH has seen fit to publish a third petition about the smoking ban with a fourth allocated, somewhat bizarrely, to Defra. Yet still they won't accept Antony's.
Anyway, I have just spoken to someone else at the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, following which I sent them another email urging the DH to reconsider Antony's petition.
They have promised to take it up with the DH but I'm beginning to lose the will to live.
PS. I have been exchanging emails with Joe Jackson on this subject and I hope he won't mind my repeating what he had to say:
"I think AWT's [petition] was rejected because it was the most eloquent and most likely to succeed."
I couldn't possibly comment.
Btw, the proposer of the latest petition is the enigmatic Chris F J Cyrnik who occasionally comments on this blog, but not always using his real name.
STOP PRESS: Good news, I think. Can't say anything yet (don't want to tempt providence) but watch this space.
Reader Comments (9)
My feeling is they want any petition on smoking and choice to be very low key so it attracts a handful of signatures and they can then claim that everyone loves the smoking ban and this settles it once and for all without giving anyone in the wider public sphere the opportunity to have their say.
The Dept of Health is corrupt. We know that. What was that I was saying a couple of weeks ago about only petitions which appear to back Govt policy will be accepted ...? No 10 petition site all over again.
Good luck to AWT - perhaps he can still make a noise to his friends in the media to complain about the DoH corruption on this issue and its attempts to block his petition as the most likely to win support.
Meanwhile the two petitions currently on the site stand at about 300 signatures and 43. We really must do better and without AWT, we are left with having to take out paid ads to promote them. Both petitions are up for a year. Perhaps we can make flyers advertising them to hand to smokers standing in the rain and cold in what has been yet another miserable summer.
Is this 'Public' or not? Who is DH? If it's the DoH, then what the hell are they doing having any say, whatsoever, in a 'Public' petition? What does it even matter how many 'petitions' there are over any subject at all?
Serious questions arising, here.
Simon – I suspect this third petition is the work of an ASH troll. I have read this blog for some years and have never seen this petition sponsor’s name in the comments section. I strongly believe he is in favour of the smoking ban, and this petition is merely there to divide votes.
Sorry ASH troll I will not sign your petition.
Well spotted Simon!
Helen, as far as I am aware Chris is "one of us" but with due respect I don't think his petition will attract much support.
Pat, plans are in place for exactly what you suggest but first I want to exhaust every avenue with the DH and the Office for the Leader of the House of Commons. We have to put in place the best possible foundations before we proceed.
Just a suggestion. If you aren't able to get AWT's petition put on the site, might it be a good idea to issue a press release, with heavy use of the Celebrity Chef reference to give a zingy attraction to the papers (sorry AWT, but you know how these things work ...!), pointing out many of the issues outlined here in your blog and comments section, and perhaps indicating - to those of us who would have signed AWT's petition - which is the next most favourable one to sign, so that the votes don't end up, as suggested by Helen above (regardless of whether the extra petitions on there are spoof ones or not), being divided so that none get the requisite number.
Misty, we think we have negotiated a solution. More info to follow but I would ask everyone to be patient until next week.
I wait with bated breath...
Me too. If I can be of help with my humble blog, or in any other way, let me know.
Don't give in. It was recommended for acceptance. It is by far the most likely to succeed. I agree with one the earlier commenters that anti tobbacco groups might propose petitions.