Wednesday, 27 October 2010
New closing date for Megrahi petition
In order partially to compensate for the more than five sign-up days lost by the crash of the e-petitions website, the Justice for Megrahi petition will now remain open for signature until 1 November 2010 without losing its place in the Public Petitions Committee's pre-election programme.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Since 28 October 2010 the number of signatories has been stuck at 1,649.
ReplyDeleteIs the petition really remaining open for signature until 1 November 2010?
"On Friday 29 October we will carry out essential routine maintenance to the e-petitions website. The e-petitions will continue to be visible throughout but some users may, temporarily, be unable to e-sign the petitioners. We are of course seeking to minimise any disruption to the site and ask for your patience. The work will be completed during the course of the day. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have removed a comment from Patrick Haseldine in which he purported to identify a blog commentator who, like many, chooses to contribute under a pseudonym. This is disgraceful behaviour. Any further comments posted by Mr Haseldine will be deleted as soon as I become aware of them.
ReplyDeletePatrick Haseldine
ReplyDelete"... should either drop all this cloak and dagger 'Rolfe' nonsense, or resign..."
Raving madness, dear Patrick! As long as
a: a person only use one pseudonyme
b: a pseudonyme is not chosen to be confused with any other name or pseudonyme
c: the person writes what he/she honestly believes in
d: does not misuse the anonymity to say anything inappropriate
it is perfectly OK.
In fact, using a pseudonyme may be an advantage for an unhindered debate, letting arguments speak for themselves. At other times not using your real name would be a wrong decision.
But this choice is the right of anyone, when a-d above are observed.
So anyone else doing the undoable act of revealing the identity of a person behind a psedonyme - whether it was a secret at all, or not - does something wrong.
While your other postings you mention raises valid points, which received ditto answers, this one was disappointing.
- - -
This was earlier posted before RB's last post, but it contained an error. I have deleted the previous posting, and instead posted this one, which is 99% identical.
Oops. First line in my posting is confusing. It should have been "Patrick Haseldine said:", not just "Patrick Haseldine"
ReplyDelete