"Unfortunately, the Scottish Parliament’s e-petitions website is currently experiencing technical difficulties and is temporarily unavailable. We are working on a solution to resume the service as quickly as possible. Once the service is back online, users will be able to sign e-petitions as normal. Please accept our apologies for the inconvenience caused."
This statement appears on the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee's webpage. The e-petitions website has now been unavailable for at least thirty hours. The Justice for Megrahi e-petition opened for signatures on 8 October. The closing date is 28 October. Disappointed supporters can sign by following the procedure suggested here.
The coverage of the issue in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here.
The latest bulletin reads:
"UPDATE 22/10/10: 16:30. Work is still ongoing to resolve the technical difficulties we are experiencing. Those wishing to access the e-petition site may wish to return and try to access the link periodically should the problems be resolved over the weekend."
So the Scottish Parliament's e-petition website is "currently experiencing technical difficulties and is temporarily unavailable"!
ReplyDeleteThree months ago my BBC News daily emails suddenly stopped arriving. When I asked why, I received this reply dated 29 July 2010:
"Thank you for your email.
"I'm afraid the daily news email has been turned off for now, due to technical problems with updating it. We don't know at this stage when the service will be resumed - please accept our apologies for any
inconvenience caused.
"Regards
"BBC News Website"
I'm still waiting for the BBC service to be resumed.
How long will it take for the technical difficulties with the Scottish Parliament's e-petition website to be resolved, I wonder?
Dear commentators,
ReplyDeleteJFM deals in verifiable facts only. The facts concerning the current difficulties on the Scottish Parliament Petitions Site are at present:
1 The site crashed in the early hours of 21/10/10.
2 BT is still working on a solution.
One must assume that the Parliamentary contract is one of BT's most prestigious ones and that they are doing all they can to both identify the cause of the crash and remedy it so that all the petitions can go back online as soon as possible. The fact that BT seems to be taking an inordinately long time to rectify this state of affairs would seem to indicate that they are encountering considerable difficulty. JFM's immediate concern is to get the petition up and running again post haste.
Once the petition comes down on the 28/10/10, we will be able to assess any impact this breakdown may have had. However, given that the JFM petition went online on the 8/10/10 and was around the 1,500 mark at the time of the crash, there are good grounds for concluding that it had already broken existing records for the number of signees over time.
Taking into account the spike of Maltese signees, resultant from a single piece in the Sunday Times of Malta, and the fact that there may also be a number of spoof signees to be extracted come the end of play, JFM feels it safe to assume that the average number of signees per day has been around a steady 100 plus. Therefore, out of a possible 100 individuals per day who attempt to sign up when the site is down perhaps 50 of them will either forget to try again or not be bothered to. This is clearly disappointing both to those who wish to sign and to JFM. Nevertheless, the phenomenal response to the petition has already made a very significant point, and one which cannot easily be ignored, even if the site remains down right up to the 28/10/10.
Following the Malta input, the Government's 'international fig leaf' has begun to slip. It is regrettable, however, that the site crash has occurred just when JFM had launched yet another international media campaign seeking support for the petition.
Speaking personally, I do not hold with the contention that those whom JFM is confronting on the Lockerbie/Zeist case are attempting to sabotage the petition. There are far more effective methods of dealing with us, also including the tried and tested 'just-ignore-them' tactic. To do something as blatant as this would simply present JFM with yet another weapon to use against them.
So, what good has accrued thus far? JFM has been campaigning specifically to have Mr al-Megrahi's conviction quashed for around a year now, and today it has a committee of 6, a signatory list of 33, 66 Friends of JFM and, last but very far from least, around 1,500 JFM petition signees. I believe in sporting circles that could be described as something of 'a result'.
JFM wishes to offer its most heartfelt gratitude to all those who support this cause. Without you we are nothing.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Forrester (JFM).
22 October, 2010
That's all very well, Robert.
ReplyDeleteThe point I was trying to make above is: if the e-petition website remains down for weeks or months, the JFM petition is in a sort of limbo. None of the petition's signatories can be retrieved or verified, and it can't therefore be submitted to or actioned by the Scottish Parliament.
What then?
Mr Forrester,
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your conclusion that the intelligence services could use 'far more effective methods of dealing with us, also including the tried and tested 'just-ignore-them' tactic.'
You yourself state:
'It is regrettable, however, that the site crash has occurred just when JFM had launched yet another international media campaign seeking support for the petition.'
So I must conclude the crash is damaging your campaign.
Then you say:
'To do something as blatant as this would simply present JFM with yet another weapon to use against them.'
No it wouldn't. There would be no evidence that the intelligence service did it.
Bit by bit over time the security services will chip away at your campaign until people get tired of it and their interest dies.
The matter is so sensitive, both the trial and the release, that the state wouldn't risk 'the just-ignore-them' tactic.' because at the moment there is strong public feeling about the case.
The idea of taking over the appeal will not work because this relies on Megrahi dying soon.