Keep Liberal Democrat Conference Liberal

Signatures 256 total

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 6 › »

1. 1
   Name: Zoe O'Connell on Jun 2, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Daniel Furr on Jun 2, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Reuben Thompson on Jun 2, 2011

   Comments: Sometimes liberty is more important than security. And sometimes that which the police see as a threat isn't one. We welcome protestors. We encourage dissent. Why should w e go along with someone else's agenda and suppress it?

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Alexandra Robyn White on Jun 2, 2011

   Comments: This system is utterly illiberal and frustrating, its also buts under 16s at a disadvantage. It must be urgently looked at.

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Jason Lower on Jun 2, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Zadok Day on Jun 2, 2011

   Comments: I started to support this party for its positions on foreign wars and civil liberties. Both now seem to be broken for no good reason. Why are the police allowed to determine who may attend a political gathering? Why should liberals have to put their personal information into a seemingly permanent database merely to talk to other liberals? Why is so-called security trumping valid concerns over the suppression of liberties? Essential liberty > temporary security.

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Matthew Doye on Jun 2, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Lisa Harding on Jun 2, 2011

   Comments: You can read more on my views on the issue here. I am not impressed at all at this illiberal stance. http://spiderplantland.co.uk/?p=6623

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Adam Bernard on Jun 2, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Councillor Sarah Brown on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: Freedom of association, and freedom to participate in the political process, without the police being able to veto it for any individual is a fundamental civil liberty issue. This is not subject to negotiation or compromise; it is basic and needs to be recognised as such.

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Emma Brownbill on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Richard Curtis on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Rory Ellwood on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Jonathan Calder on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: Jennie Kermode on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: I am not a party member; I'm a journalist and try not to be partisan. I am, however, appalled by this attack on the right to political participation - at this illiberality accepted by a party which ought to have liberalism at its very core. Why should people be subjected to such intrusion just so that they may speak and represent others? I have friends who are considering leaving the party over this and I can't say I blame them, but it's very sad. What can the party possibly claim to stand for if this is how it treats its own people?

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Caron Lindsay on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: The proposed measures will make nobody safer. Giving the police power to decide who takes part in the political process is wrong and FCC must think again.

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Penny Goodman on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: I am deeply disquieted by this - particularly the requirement to allow the police to store and share my personal details indefinitely (included in the terms and conditions).

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Ian Morton on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: The police have no right to have a veto on who attends our conference.

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: David Allen Green on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Jesse Boucher on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: It stinks of hypocrisy we campaign against indefinite storage of peoples personal info, and it is left to a third party to decide who will and won't be able to attend this is unconstitutional. If I attend it will be to ensure that the views of the more moderate element in the party are heard but it will be under protest at the security measures

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: A C McGregor on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: I am NOT giving this information, I AM a voting rep, and if this stops me from attending conference and setting the direction of our party there WILL be hell to pay.

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Ben Hutchings on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Sylvia Knight on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Jonathan Paxton on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Krissie Pearse on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: Seriously... are you TRYING to be known as the ilLiberal Democrats? So many party members have supported the party through bad times since the coalition, and stood up for the party as it's been increasing lead to the right through a host of coalition policies that will promote illiberalism by disenfranchising youth with the political process and making the lives of the sick, disabled and unemployed that much more difficult. They've done so by explaining the nature of the party - that it's not a left or a right wing party and in fact has members from both sides of the spectrum... ... all united by an overriding passion for civil liberties, to stop the erosion thereof, and to roll back the clock on that point. Isn't this a bit unfair to those party members? It's anti democratic, and giving the police the right to say who can and cannot attend the party conference is a good firm step towards a police state! ... that's without the issues of deeply unnecessary detailed personal data being held on file and shared around. That's without the fact that it excludes young liberal democrats, and without the fact that it excludes those that cannot afford the pre-requisites for this screening to even ~apply~ to attend the conference. ... and if you, as a party, don't much care for any of this after all, in spite of the members who have defended you on this basis, how long until the media latch on to this? Perhaps you care about that!? Do you really need any more bad publicity? Especially of such an avoidable nature!

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Kelly-Marie Blundell on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Luke Bosman on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: If there were evidence that these measures are effective and reasonable then it would be hard to argue against them. However, most members of this party believe that a person should be found guilty of a crime before losing their right of free association. If the party or the police has evidence to suggest that a member is planning to attack or illegally disrupt the conference then that evidence should be presented in a court of law and the member should be ejected from the party. That, surely, is a liberal response.

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Edis Bevan on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Derek Young on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Greg Foster on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Chris Boyle on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Colin Rosenstiel on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: Party members must not be denied access to their conbference by the police. Only the party should decide who attends its conference.

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Neale Upstone on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Anonymous on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Dan Ellis on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Paul Barker on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: the police are just being silly about this . tell them no.

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Eleanor Sharman on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Keith Martin on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: Seriously, just how deep DO you want to bury your principles?

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: Christopher Mills on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: As the newly elected chair of East Hampshire Lib Dems I am utterly opposed to the Federal Party bowing to police pressure and imposing illiberal restrictions on party members attending their conference.

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Stephen Mullen on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: Steven Ratcliffe on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: I can hardly believe that this petition is even necessary. shame

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: David Parkes on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Kirsty Syder on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Anna Martin on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Alex Marsh on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: This is absolutely outrageous. I certainly won't attend, on principle, unless these requirements are dropped. On one of the issues we were unambiguously absolutely different in our beliefs from the other parties we're in danger of screwing up. Nice one.

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Andrew Page on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: Are we a liberal party, or aren't we? Why are these illiberal and authoritarian security measures necessary?

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: Michael O'Hagan on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: Peter English on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Sadie Smith on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Stephen Glenn on Jun 2, 2011

    Comments: There are various potential members of the Northern Ireland that may have difficulties passing a mainland police forces 'security criteria'. These measures are more draconian that any I have encountered in living through the troubles in Northern Ireland and working in a NI Government Department before devolution. The requirement to provide details of all passports in something I have never had to do. The two I possess would flag up all sorts of warnings. As MDO of the Northern Ireland party I know I'm upset that we as a party of liberty are restricting access more than was ever the case in 1970s Northern Ireland.

    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 6 › »