UK Government Petitions

[Dulloldfart]

Look what I found.

10 Downing Street petitions online, on the Prime Minister's web-site!

I usually ignore online petitions, as the signatures are easy to falsify and therefore meaningless. This OFFICIAL UK site requires the signer to give his/her full name and address and e-mail address. Only the name is published, and I believe even that can be left off if the signer wishes, as long as it is provided to the website admin people. One signatory is allowed per e-mail address. Ex-pats are allowed, I believe.

A "serious" petition is considered to have over 200 signatures, and will be submitted to the government minister concerned. Each signer will receive a copy of the e-mail sent out by the minister concerned after the petition has been submitted.

The creator of the petition has a few simple rules to follow, then clicks it in. Within five days, supposedly, assuming the petition follows the rules, it will be online (on the PM's site), with a unique URL that can be promoted by whoever is pushing the petition. It can stay online for up to 12 months.

Examples:

1. 4,671 signatures http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/-Scientology/
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Refuse any application submitted by the ‘Church’ of Scientology for recognition as a Religious Organisation."

2. 6 signatures http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/lsmall/
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to allow the Church of Scientology the religious status it deserves."

There is one other Scn petition with 27 signatures.

I am not really a Scn activist or I would start a new one on Disconnection or something, but if any Brit wants to stick his neck out maybe some good might even come of such a petition.

(By the way, if anyone is interested--Yoo-hoo Terril --the names of every single one of those 4,671 signatories is on that website).

Paul

 

[Mary]

This is great!

I've sent the link to all my family.

I sincerely hope that this link is widely advertised.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Odd choices for petitions since the decision is made by the Charities Commission who have set (and quite odd) criteria.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Odd choices for petitions since the decision is made by the Charities Commission who have set (and quite odd) criteria.

I wasn't promoting those petitions per se, although it is quite amusing that 6 people support the :shark: and 4,671 support the opposing view.

I was promoting the LINE.

Paul

 

[Tanstaafl]

I wasn't promoting those petitions per se, although it is quite amusing that 6 people support the :shark: and 4,671 support the opposing view.

I was promoting the LINE.

Paul

I got that Paul. I was just making the point that they seem pretty pointless.

Cheers

tanstaafl

 

[Dulloldfart]

I got that Paul. I was just making the point that they seem pretty pointless.

Fair enough.

But there is more to it than the obvious fact of presenting a petition to an entity that might not be able to fulfill the petitioners' request.

There is the PR value. Right now, this moment, we are discussing someone else's petition on a particular subject. It has our interest. I haven't signed this petition--although now I might--but having it online makes it easy to promote it and get it talked about, and the PM's site gives it added credibility.

Some journalist short of a story might find the numbers interesting, 800:1 against the :shark: on religious recognition despite all their paid-for scholarly expertises.

Whatever. I think this online petition line could be very useful.

Paul

 

[Jimmy Cricket]

This petition has been kicking around for a number of months. Last time I checked it was around 2,000. Nice to see it is still growing.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Fair enough.

But there is more to it than the obvious fact of presenting a petition to an entity that might not be able to fulfill the petitioners' request.

There is the PR value. Right now, this moment, we are discussing someone else's petition on a particular subject. It has our interest. I haven't signed this petition--although now I might--but having it online makes it easy to promote it and get it talked about, and the PM's site gives it added credibility.

Some journalist short of a story might find the numbers interesting, 800:1 against the :shark: on religious recognition despite all their paid-for scholarly expertises.

Whatever. I think this online petition line could be very useful.

Paul

Point taken, Paul.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I signed a petition last night, a non-Scn one, that a business contact had requested I sign, and how this whole thread started.

I received a confirmation e-mail that I had to send back before my signature was accepted--routine admin like subscribing to a mailing list.

It was rather neat to see an e-mail source in my in-box of "10 Downing Street".

Paul

 

[Bea Kiddo]

deleted by admin

I think that would be a great idea.

The unfortunate thing though, is that the staff are brainwashed and will protect the church. So they may find a few that complain, but it will be very few.

The rest would say that they are volunteering their own time (even though actual fact is that they are not. They have to follow that schedule of being on post 9 AM to 11 PM, sometimes longer or they will be in big ethics trouble).

Some people would leave per schedule and they were frowned upon. It was normal to stay extra, lose even more sleep. Alot of self sacrifice goes on with SO members.

But getting them to complain about it to a government inspector?

Nah.

I doubt that will ever happen.

They have to do it to free mankind. Its like that cult video on Tansy's thread.

 

[Tanstaafl]

deleted by admin

I don't have any uptodate info on that. In the early 90s, a typical Class V org staff member might pull-in £12-15 per week. ($25-30) Nowhere near enough to reach the lowest tax and NI thresholds. At that time I saw some CLO stat graphs and Brighton org staff received no pay for 10 weeks straight, possibly longer. Only Reg's receiving commisions earned sufficient that they could even call it a "wage".

I think very little has changed in the past 15 years or so. Only Birmingham Org has expanded.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Do the minimum wage laws apply?

The staff contract I signed around 1980, in the UK, and a couple times since in the US, said that pay was dependent on "the income and outgoings (of that org) for the period in question". It said it was some covenant or something. In other words, you are agreeing that they don't have to pay you squat.

I know in the US that Bridge staff and ASI staff were paid minimum wage (at least), out of which they had to pay their own room and board. This was because they were for-profit entities, unlike the regular SO orgs. This may have applied to other entities as well, like WISE. The point being that these staff were paid minimum wage.

And we all know (well, maybe Eamonn doesn't if he's still around after Mick's welcome) that the :shark: would not pay these wages if there was some way around it.

So I am guessing that there is no legal requirement to pay "minimum wage" in the US to regular staff, SO and non-SO alike.

The UK, though? Dunno, since they ain't got religious recognition here. Any lawyers around?

Paul

 

[Tanstaafl]

When I was on staff at a Class V org there were about 20 full-time staff working 6.5 days per work, say 9 hours per day with study taken off.

Round it down to 50 hours x 20 staff = 1,000 hours.
Current minimum wage in the UK for those over 22 is £5.52 x 1,000 hours = £5,520.

Typical weekly GI at the time was £2,000 and that included bookstore sales.
If there has been no expansion in the meantime, call it £3,000 to account for inflation.

Conclusion: the enforcement of minimum wage law on COS would bankrupt it in this country.

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

I'm curious, what do monks and nuns get paid? I know they get free room and board. Do CofS staff get free room and board in the UK?

Maybe they would all like to work for no-pay, purely voluntarily. If I were a despotic cult leader that would be my ploy. Oh, I would certainly have a compound for them to stay in, nothing fancy. Basic food too, again, nothing fancy.

 

[Jimmy Cricket]

Something to consider, Co$ staff do not sign a Vow of Poverty.

Regardless of any agreement Co$ staff members sign, there should be no legal loophole to escape Minimum Wage, if they do not also agree to a Vow of Poverty.

 

[Bea Kiddo]

I do know that somewhere in the 90's the SO members had to start signing 5 year contracts, cause the billion year ones dont hold up for crap (obviously). But that was only during one flap, then it got dropped again. (they would still sign billion year, but they also had to sign 5 year, which is what would be presented, if any request were made on the subject).

 

[Dulloldfart]

This UK Government site says:

The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 protect people from discrimination on the grounds of all religions and beliefs. The Act covers direct and indirect discrimination, victimisation and harassment in employment. For the purposes of the regulations religions, faith and life stances will be used to cover such things as:

* Collective workshop
* A clear belief system
* A profound belief affecting ways of living

The regulations will include less well-known religions, faiths and life stances such as:

* Druidism
* The Church of Scientology

I don't know if any of that applies to what we are doing here.

Paul

 

[Dulloldfart]

It would be illegal for the :shark: to refuse employment to a freezoner, for instance, on the grounds that he is not a churchie.

Hmmm. This could get interesting.

Paul

 

[hartley]

The petitions have all been discussed on ARS and OCMB.

For non-Brits, 'petitions to the Prime Minister' are well established publicity stunts conducted at the PM's official home in London, which unlike the White House is a small terrace house. Internet petitions is a neat idea, and we're having a lot of serious fun with it.

For those who can't resist signing their names, the UK has a new Prime Minister so he's got a new petition:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/scientologyno/

We demand that the Prime Minister, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, use powers granted to them in section 32 of the Companies Act to insist that the 'Church' of Scientology (England & Wales) be made to rename themselves to a more suitable trading name that will not mislead or harm the public as to the nature of the companies main business.

The Oxford English Dictionary states that a 'church' is "an official Christian religious organization". Since Scientology is not a Christian nor, more importantly, recognised as a religion in The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, it should not be allowed to mislead people by referring to itself as a "church".

No colonials, it's for British citizens and residents only. It will be up for a year. The last one did quite well:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/list/open?cat=6999

Mr Shane Moore, the petitioner, has a blog at

http://www.againstscientology.co.uk/

which has a certain ring to it.