Unlike many London councils, Lewisham says it does not accept online petitions and rejects the Playtower e-petition signed by 3,400 local people
Lewisham Council’s website says “an e-petition is a petition which collects signatures online. This allows petitions and supporting information to be made available to a potentially much wider audience than a traditional paper based petition”
It accepts that “e-petitions are part of the council’s ongoing commitment to listening to, and acting on the views of the public”.
However, despite these encouraging words, the council saw fit last week to reject the Playtower petition for council debate even though it has far exceeded the 3,000 supporter threshold specified in its own Petitions Scheme.
The council insists that petitions can only be launched via the its own petitions software and not on the most commonly used websites Change.org and 38 degrees (which are now accepted as valid petition mechanisms by most London councils – Camden, Islington, Kingston, Barnet, Kensington & Chelsea, Croydon, Haringey, Enfield, Richmond and Wandsworth included).
Perversely, the council insists that “petitions submitted to the council must contain the name, a valid address with postcode, and the signature of any person supporting the petition.” Clearly, no petition website (not even Lewisham’s own one) will provide for signatures!
Finally, and most worryingly perhaps, the council has been selective in applying its own rules. In July, the council’s Director of Law & Corporate Governancer recommended acceptance of a ‘Divest for Palestine’ petition even though that was an online petition without signatures run on an external website (no different in that respect from the Playtower petition)!
In his report the director wrote “there is a desire for the council to allow this petition to be debated.”
So what are local residents to think? That there is no desire to debate the future of the Playtower?
Why is it that the ‘Divest for Palestine’ petition, which, though important, has minimal practical bearing on the lives of Lewisham citizens, is treated as an exception. But a petition with substantial local support on a matter of clear and wide spread interest is rejected?
This is a massive slap in the face for local residents who now feel completely shutout of a debate on an important local issue. They want to see the council adopt a more inclusive and welcoming approach to local people and are desperate for it to live up to its declared “ongoing commitment to listening to, and acting on, the views of the public”.
Come on Lewisham. It’s time to stop ‘talking the talk’ and start ‘walking the walk’.
1 comment
How can you say using *our* money to fund genocide “has minimal practical bearing on the lives of Lewisham citizens”? You know the issue is all about the pensions of Lewisham council staff? I don’t think a discussion about an empty building has a more practical bearing on Lewisham citizens than how money that is being taken from all citizens of Lewisham is invested to pay the pensions of people working on behalf of those citizens- people who, most likely, are also citizens and will continue to be so once they become pensioners. I’m sure you wouldn’t just say “it’s got no practical bearing on my life whether I’ve invested my personal pension money in genocide”.
And you know there are plenty of people who have been directly affected in Lewisham? It’s a very diverse borough out there