Tuesday, 9 September 2008

2012 Olympic Spendathon

I submitted an e-petition to the 10 Downing Street website last week and received the following nonsense this morning:

Hi,

I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected. Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:
* Wording that is impossible to understand
Further information: Your title should be a clear call for action, preferably starting with a verb, and not a name or statement. If you wish to edit and resubmit your petition, please follow the following link:
You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions.

Your petition reads:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to: 'Ensure that the Chairman of the London Organising Committee for the 2012 Olympic Games, The Rt Hon. The Lord Coe KBE, the Chairman of the British Olympics Association, The Rt Hon. The Lord Moynihan, and the Minister for the Olympics and Paralympics, The Rt Hon. Tessa Jowell MP, will be jointly and severally responsible for any monies in excess of the public expenditure budget for the London 2012 Olympics confirmed by The Rt Hon. Tessa Jowell MP on 10 December 2007.'

This petitition will encourage proper financial accountability and rigour for a major public project at a time of unprecedented global economic hardship for hard-working British families. The three key decision makers named in the petition will be incentivised to make prudent long term decisions with other people's money.

-- the ePetitions team

Impossible to understand or the Establishment standing firm to prevent their own kind being surcharged for overspending the little people's money?

9 comments:

Deb Acle said...

Dear oh dear. Is there nothing that can bring these weaselly shites to heel?

Well done on getting the petition together. Hope you're going to resubmit.

CherryPie said...

What a stupid reply!!! I think we could have guessed it would be rejected... but I would have thought they could have come up with a more plausible excuse.

Deb Acle said...

Exactly Cherry. I'd be tempted to spell it all out in words of one syllable so that it is absolutely plain.

Mind you, the wording was plain. Blimey! They're all lawyers over there at No 10 - they can parse rathermore obscure wording than that!

Gallimaufry said...

Hey, Cherrypie, easy on the Pee-Em's Pixies (who are hopefully PCS members) who only have a limited number of categories (to make reporting easier) to place rejected petitions. I suppose giving Tessa Jowell the fright of her life wouldn't go down too well.

But I have resubmitted the petition with a slight adjustment.

Gallimaufry said...

Hi Deb, In my experience Civil Servants are trained to draft replies and public documents using a reading age of eleven - which shows how much faith HMG has in our schools!
What reply would I get were I to submit the Lisbon Treaty as a petition?

Deb Acle said...

Ah yes, the 'Clear English' brigade. Wish that applied to NHS and police!!

Gallimaufry said...

It's permissable to speak goobledigook within an organisation, indeed it proves worthiness for promotion, but one should always speak clearly without jargon to outsiders as proof that one actually understands what one is talking about. Sadly, many high achievers do not and their only talent is to knit buzzwords and mission statements together to give the impression of expertise.

CherryPie said...

easy on the Pee-Em's Pixies

I guess I should be really, but this pixie likes to use common sense too, my local Pixies irritate the hell out of me ;-)

Gallimaufry said...

I'm sure there's a one day training course available to unlearn common sense - vital to increase one's promotability! ;-)