For reasons that are not immediately apparent the Prime Minister has authorised his officials to make a full high quality video responding to the jokey petition from 49,447 people (including myself) who petitioned the PM to make Jeremy Clarkson Prime Minister but deemed the petition to the PM from 43,023 people (including myself) who wanted a geographic alternative to be made compulsory for all 084/7 numbers only worthy of a meaningless response which has not been honoured in the case of many governmental phone lines.

Perhaps some of you would like to watch the two fingers up from Gordon to Jeremy Clarkson video and comment on whether you think this is a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayer's money by the Prime Minister's Office or indeed if we might receive a more sympathetic hearing in governmental circles about the misuse of 084/7 numbers if Jeremy Clarkson was indeed made Prime Minister.[smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif]

Watch the Jeremy Clarkson 10 Downing Street UTube Video at:-

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNy1w4DV5Hw

and read their response to Clarkson petitioners by the PM at:-

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/PMClarkson/

You will also notice by the way the use of the Royal "We" in their video. :-?

Wow... what a waste of time when there are so many other worthwhile petitions on that site that don't even getting a second looking at...

Sorry chaps, I remember Jeremy Clarkson as the face of the TV advertising by BT to promote its so-called "Privacy" service that was launched in 2005 as a supposed solution to problem of Silent Calls.

In fact it was no solution at all, as BT itself was at the time the largest maker of Silent Calls in the UK.

The purpose of BT Privacy was
1) To tie in customers, who had to make calls through BT to get the Caller Display service for free.
2) To sell phones or boxes to provide the Caller Display.
3) To prevent BT's competitors from promoting their services by telephone marketing, as encouraged by Oftel, through automatic TPS registration.

Anyone who took Mr Clarkson's advice not to answer calls without CLI, was not avoiding Silent Calls as these were and are commonly made with false, premium rate or genuine CLI. They would however be avoiding calls from many organisations such as the BBC, which withhold it as policy and from friends calling from their place of work or hotels or overseas or who withhold their own CLI, as they are entitled to do under privacy regulations.

CLI does not identify the caller, the purpose of the call or whether it is likely to be silent, nor does the absence of CLI.


I regret that I could have no faith in Mr Clarkson as the champion of anything meaningful. He is however a great entertainer. I hope that the YouTube video is similarly entertaining.

Neither Mr Clarkson nor this issue should be taken seriously. Petitions to the Prime Minister can have a useful purpose, however they have no serious place in our democracy. Use of public money to fund PR gimmicks, such as the No 10 website, is however a serious issue that is perhaps worthy of discussion.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 19^th, 2008 at 7:47pm:

Neither Mr Clarkson nor this issue should be taken seriously. Petitions to the Prime Minister can have a useful purpose, however they have no serious place in our democracy. Use of public money to fund PR gimmicks, such as the No 10 website, is however a serious issue that is perhaps worthy of discussion.

Non serious petitions (for instance the one encouraging the PM to stand on his head and juggle) are no longer accepted by the 10 Downing Street website but they allowed those that were already running to continue to their original planned conclusion dates.

As to Jeremy Clarkson's face appearing on the BT Privacy advert I have no objection to the number of people who were TPS registered being vastly increased as ultimately any increase in the number of TPS registered UK homes would vastly reduce the propensity of telemarketeers to make any form of unsolicited telephone marketing calls.  I also most certainly preferred Jeremy's involvement in this camapign compared to that of a certain Carol Vorderman on the Channel 4 Countdown show and her continued promotion of dodgy consolidated lending schemes (IVAs) for those already badly in debt that may make them lose a home that was not formerly at any risk of being repossessed.

Finally can I encourage some of you from this website to consider signing the petition on the 10 Downing Street website encouraging the PM to upgrade the status of his e-Petitions website from only a Beta Test to a fully fledged and permanent feature of the UK democratic landscape.  The current Beta only status of the website has also recently been confirmed by the decision of 10 Dowing Street to refuse to accept the addition of any new petitions on the website while the PM is away on his summer holidays.  See http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/

Sign the petition urging that the website stops being only a Beta test at:-

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/EPetitionWebsite/

I'm still rather inclined to believe that the signatory known only as Matt could be Matt Peacock, the former Communications Director of Ofcom. ;)

One positive feature of our present system of democracy is that it grants suffrage to all adults, not just to those with access to the internet. Being representative, it enables elected Members of Parliament to determine which proposals are worthy of attention and to assess the potential impact of proposals on all those they represent before deciding whether to allow them to pass into law.

We elect a parliament, from which a government, led by a Prime Minister, is formed. We do not vote for a Prime Minister, but from a choice of candidates who put themselves forward to represent our constituency. Happily, most of us have a better choice than that between Jeremy Clarkson and Carol Vorderman.

Despite its many shortcomings, the present system offers some protection against undue influence by issue-focussed campaign groups and the adoption of undesirable but popular measures. Good government in the interests of the people requires a degree of wisdom and the protection of the interests of minorities and others less able to press their own causes.

There are innumerable examples of how the present system has failed to deliver good government, however many of these in recent times are due to excessive populism, rather than a failure to do what the people think that they want.

It is clear that not all will share these views. I offer them to a discussion forum in a spirit of friendly and proper debate.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 20^th, 2008 at 1:43am:

It is clear that not all will share these views. I offer them to a discussion forum in a spirit of friendly and proper debate.

And would appear to have gone completely Off Topic in the process? ::)

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 19^th, 2008 at 8:07pm:

... can I encourage some of you from this website to consider signing the petition on the 10 Downing Street website encouraging the PM to upgrade the status of his e-Petitions website from only a Beta Test to a fully fledged and permanent feature of the UK democratic landscape. Sign the petition urging that the website stops being only a Beta test at:- http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/EPetitionWebsite/

I think that this comment was fully "on-topic".

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Aug 20^th, 2008 at 2:11am:

[quote]I think that this comment was fully "on-topic".

But of course as I started the topic only I can know the true extent of its intended scope. ;) ::) :-*

NGMsGhost wrote on Aug 20^th, 2008 at 9:11am:

as I started the topic only I can know the true extent of its intended scope

It is right and expected that OPs will always take care to ensure that the comments they post are within the scope of the topic.

Does not the "scope" relate only to the matters covered, or does it also limit the views that may be expressed?

To return to the topic; The No 10 website, its petitions and the responses, the supposed political views of entertainers and use of FaceBook by political office holders are all part of the culture of "spin". Any use of public money to this end is rightly questionable. This has grown in scale and significance over recent years and therefore must be recognised and perhaps cautiously embraced. I believe however that it should be better understood for what it is so that its impact may be reduced, rather than being embedded more strongly into our democratic landscape.