OUR RIGHT TO CALL A REFERENDUM

Signatures 52 total

Page: 1, 2

1. 1
   Name: Michael Wallace-Macpherson on Nov 29, 2003

   State:

   Country: UK

   Comments: Testing the ballot. Thanks to ipetitions for the service.

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Rian Devereaux on Nov 29, 2003

   State:

   Country: UK

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Ryan Gaffey on Dec 1, 2003

   State:

   Country: UK

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Derek Vose on Dec 1, 2003

   State:

   Country: UK

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Vladimir Rott on Dec 2, 2003

   State:

   Country: CZ

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Vladimir Rott on Dec 2, 2003

   State:

   Country: CH

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Eve Bevan on Dec 2, 2003

   State:

   Country: UK

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Sue Porter on Dec 2, 2003

   State:

   Country: UK

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Michael Partis on Dec 2, 2003

   State:

   Country: UK

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: John Henshaw on Dec 2, 2003

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments: Never surrender.

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Alison Parfitt on Dec 2, 2003

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Holly Ashley on Dec 3, 2003

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: John Foley on Dec 3, 2003

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Phil Hind on Dec 5, 2003

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: David Crookes on Dec 8, 2003

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: James DEROUNIAN on Dec 8, 2003

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: John Parry on Dec 10, 2003

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: John Roberts on Dec 10, 2003

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Martin Wilson on Dec 17, 2003

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: John Griffiths on Dec 17, 2003

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Chris Marriott on Dec 20, 2003

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Joseph Loveridge on Jan 5, 2004

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments: no government can ever give us freedom

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Andrew Moran on Jan 22, 2004

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Mick Angel on Mar 25, 2004

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Ricky Fleet on Mar 27, 2004

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Maurice Frank on Mar 29, 2004

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MEDIA AND PUBLISHING There are 2 separate reasons, simultaneously, why a constitutional claim has come into existence that the ordinary public have an automatic right to have any item that is not already recognised, aired in or covered by the media. I have notifed my MSPs, the Scottish Civic Forum, and a wide variety of autistic organisations of it. The claim through the hate crime issue applies only to Britain, but the claim through MMR applies in any country where public policy on it is affected by the science being in dispute, should include America and Canada. The constitutional claim for the ordinary population to have media coverage or publication by automatic right, of all not yet covered items on legal or public policy issues, is a claim that democrats have longed for 200 years to find a way of making. Firstly, the crisis over the MMR vaccine, with a legal case going on to discredit the researcher, sits alongside the government concurring to the Scottish parliament Cross Party Group on autism, which I attend, on Jan 29, that more research on MMR is needed. But vendettas and career penalties against researchers, have been described publicly and at the CPG. Now, you can't establish research should never have been published, without hearing all the details of those efforts to suppress it. Hence instead, the case establishes that claimed evidence of child harm can have its publication fought by vendettas and then formally challenged! This is now the situation, regardless of whether MMR research itself is right or wrong. That proves for all time that selective powers over what to publish can't be trusted with evidence on child safety. Hence, any evidence on claims of unrecognised details of bad outcomes to any policy connected with youth, such as in education, have an automatic right to be published. Then, by the argument of discrimination, why should this apply only to youth Secondly, a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels, has gone unpublicised by the media, nor exposed and stopped by any political party, since 1995. This scandal was a stripping of normal citizenship away from a stratum of population, any form of which is already against European Convention article 14 and is the starting point, from the precedent of Nazi Germany, of what the human rights concept is purposed to prevent. Yet the media, in a position of discretionary power over what to cover, failed in its democratic role to act as a check preventing a stripping of normal rights of citizenship from a stratum of population. Hence from now on, any democracy is only upholding the key starting point of the human rights concept if the ordinary public have automatic rights to media coverage and/or publication of any unrecognised evidence to do with any form of discrimination. I made this claim at the Civic Forum's seminar on discrimination and the Hate Crime bill on March 8, and in submission to the hate crime bill consultation. COURT CHANGE date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 13:00:32 to: ideas@datadata.org subject: Re: TELL BOB GELDOF ABOUT THIS. I TRIED TELLING THE ETHIOPIAN EMBASSY 6 MONTHS AGO. My name is Maurice Frank and I'm in Scotland. I have sent hundreds of copies of this worldwide. THE COURT CHANGE IN 141 COUNTRIES: judges' decisions are no longer final. I have been lobbying people in a series of political situations throughout the last 3 years, Genoa, Australia, Israel etc, to spread knowledge of the court change, whose shifting of power in favour of ordinary people ensures that it has been under a media silence. Nevertheless, it's on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments. Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are "open to open ended fault finding by all parties and recapitulation therupon" instead of final. This follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on an insurance scam of evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 97, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last inland decision stage was on 4 Aug 95. ECHR has made itself illegal, by claiming finality in issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time. It violates every precedent of member countries' laws recognising the chronology of cause and effect, in evidence. The European Convention's section on requiring a court to exist, now requires its member countries to create a new schismatic ECHR that removes the original's illegality, by its decisions not being final. It follows this requires inland courts to be compatible with open ended decisions and doing inland work connected to them. Hence inland decisions also cease to be final and become open ended, in the 44 Council of Europe countries. World trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open endedly. Open endedness is created in its system. The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further return faultable, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Christopher Morrison on Apr 19, 2004

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Charles Torkington on Apr 21, 2004

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments: Politicians and Government are not ellected to make decisions which will alter the democratic processes of the UK. They are ellected to manage the states affairs on behalf of the population. The EU Constitution will damage this countries democracy forever and the Government has no right to assume that the ellectorate is in agreement based on their votes given in the past when this matter was not an issue.

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Alan Moss on Apr 26, 2004

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Karl Elliston on Jun 13, 2004

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Shaun Clarke on Jun 30, 2004

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Mr T.J. Wells on Oct 17, 2004

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Mark Golding on Dec 18, 2004

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments: Several campaigns of a similar nature are running concurrently. Is there anybody willing to try unifying the whole movement

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: Mike Sone on Feb 8, 2005

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: John Davies on Jun 28, 2005

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Peter Pink on Dec 26, 2005

    State:

    Country: UK

    Comments:

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Simon Hopkins on Jul 1, 2006

    State:

    Country: GB

    Comments: The effective political process in the UK is fundamentally corrupt. We are all told countless lies each day by the absence of the whole truth and deliberate misrepresentation and spin. The public right to referendum on all issues is essential.

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Nyhvl Tdxr Nyhvl Tdxr on Jan 18, 2007

    State: AL

    Country: US

    Comments: giczak enxuzv znurpdgjq apxutk cojr kuaq xpgcs

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: Bill Bill on Jan 28, 2007

    State: FL

    Country: DK

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Fser1Ddero Fser1Ddero on Mar 19, 2007

    State:

    Country: BA

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: Cesadolfja Cesadolfja on Mar 29, 2007

    State: ND

    Country: TJ

    Comments:

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: FeoplfveG FeoplfveG on Mar 29, 2007

    State: NY

    Country: CX

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Welopssy Welopssy on Mar 29, 2007

    State: MD

    Country: FK

    Comments:

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Qwoeudit Qwoeudit on Mar 31, 2007

    State: SD

    Country: CR

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Fgphljje Fgphljje on Apr 1, 2007

    State: RI

    Country: TM

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Veloplifvje Veloplifvje on Apr 3, 2007

    State: ME

    Country: AL

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: Gkth Lwme Gkth Lwme on May 13, 2007

    State: AL

    Country: US

    Comments: hiolg srxwqnu ewqzn lnbfecxap tsvu adewtqhbp qclb

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: Richard Kendall on Jun 26, 2007

    State:

    Country: GB

    Comments: in europe/NOT RUN BY IT,.

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Max Max on Sep 23, 2007

    State: RI

    Country: PK

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: PETER DEMPSEY on Feb 12, 2008

    State:

    Country: GB

    Comments:

    Flag

Page: 1, 2