Frank James Hospital:

IWC rejects another online petition, blocking its discussion at council meeting

Last month the Isle of Wight council refused to accept an online petition opposed to changes in parking charges at Puckpool Park. According to the Council’s Constitution signatures collected through online petitions cannot be recognised.

Frank James signatures dismissed
The same situation has now occurred with over 1,200 (of the 2,800) signatures collected in support of protecting the former Frank James Hospital in East Cowes.

Although it was made clear when the petition – calling for the council to issue an Urgent Works Notice – was presented at County Hall last week that 1,208 of the 2,802 signatures formed part of an online petition (printed out and attached to the printed version), the online signatures have now been rejected.

Friend of Frank James, Tanja Rebel, told OnTheWight,

“When the petition for the Frank James Memorial Hospital was handed over to Councillor Whitby-Smith last Friday, 6th June (in presence of Andrew Turner), it was clearly stated that 1,208 of the 2,802 signatures were online. These signatures are from a reputable online petition site – 38 Degrees – and have e-mail addresses + post code, which I had been told by various sources would suffice. Deem therefore my surprise when I was told that the signatures online do not count as they do not contain “real” signatures.”

Call for council to move into the 21st Century
Tanja went on to explain,

“The online signatures had all been printed out by our champion Josh Aitken who – together with a number of dedicated Friends of Frank James – has spent a lot of time and energy, as well as money (paper and printing costs) to make this hand-over come true.”

Country-wide support
The online petition managed to attract signatures from around the country. Tanja went on to say,

“The people who have signed online come from all over the country, several of whom are from Heritage Preservation groups. Is their concern for this building now going to be discarded simply because the Isle of Wight Council insists on quoting a law-paragraph from a Stone Age Constitution or will we now move into the 21st century for real?”

The Friends of Frank James urge the Isle of Wight Council to “direct all its efforts to saving this building. This should no longer be a matter of bureaucracy, but of urgency. Let’s stop the rot and show that we truly care about our Heritage!”

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
33 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
barbara green
10, June 2014 9:49 am

I was one of those people that signed the petition online
I have signed several online petition and there has never been a problem until now
come on IW council move with the times

davidwalter
10, June 2014 9:55 am

I’ve been through this having carried out the Moa Place Freshwater Car Park petition. In our case, only the minority were online and the online comments were clearly very local – i.e. extended families and FB ‘friends’ would not have had the local knowledge in such diversity. a) 2500 is far too high a hurdle for the Isle of Wight where we have historically shut ourselves up… Read more »

Steve Goodman
10, June 2014 10:14 am

This item appeared as I was composing the following response to a question elsewhere; it’s also relevant here:- There seems to be mixed messages from our Council. Many individual councillors & employees are sympathetic, helpful, & frustrated by the harmful effects of the government budget cuts which make action on this issue very much more difficult than when it should have happened years ago. Sadly (but unsurprisingly?)… Read more »

davidwalter
10, June 2014 10:23 am

Steve Goodman — I share your frustration. Of course it removes the ‘people’ from the democratic process by removing their power to exert any binding pressure. Across British politics we hear that ‘they’ are ‘listening’, “I get that” and so on. Weasel words, often because they carry on in their intended way. I don’t know what you or I can do about it without letting it become… Read more »

Jess
10, June 2014 10:24 am

Well theres a simple solution – get 2500 + people to email Councillors of officers individually.

I think attitudes will change when, if, their inboxes become full when the logon!

davidwalter
Reply to  Jess
10, June 2014 10:26 am

Jess, it’s very easy to set a filter on your inbox to segregate or trash any message containing a word — In this case you’d put in Frank James Hospital and never see the protest.

cers121
10, June 2014 10:26 am

I too signed the Petition online as I do all campaigns be they local or further afield. This is an access issue for me as a Disabled Person I find it easier and more Accessible to do this online also as a Disabled Person I have the Right to Choose my Means Of Communication and I choose e mail & online Access which should be the right… Read more »

Stephen
10, June 2014 12:24 pm

Perhaps IWC should explain why they reject online petitions. but nationally Her Majesty’s Government positively encourages such things.

More at
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/how-it-works

Should an ostrich – head in ground – feature on IWC regalia & signage?

milly
10, June 2014 2:04 pm

Some people seem to think that it is fine to simply think that politics and organising can be done sitting in their armchairs or making revolution from their beds. Well hard luck you have to get of your backsides and go out into the real world. A virtual petition is not the same as standing on a street corner collecting signatures.It is no wonder that the powers… Read more »

Margie
Reply to  milly
10, June 2014 2:15 pm

As pointed out by cers121 above, some people have no choice but to remain in their Armchairs or Beds, Milly. They might be housebound for a reason but still want the ability to take part and have their say through online petitions or websites.

By the way, who are the St James Hospital campaigners you refer to?

stephen
Reply to  milly
10, June 2014 3:54 pm

Individual letters/emails to the leader of the council may have even more effect as each shows individual effort on the part of the writer.
Planning Inspectors at public planning inquiries have been known to say that a petition should only count as one signature and that is of the person who organised the petition and fully understands its purpose.

milly
10, June 2014 2:13 pm

Sorry I meant Frank James.

Josh Aitken
10, June 2014 5:04 pm

The council need to stop living I’m the stone ages and move into the 21st century! To many people like myself have put so much Into Frank James over th past 2 years and throughout the past 2 months! 2,803+ people have signed online and on paper! Don’t let abit of missing information ruin the whole thing!

A fighter till the end!

Michael Douse
10, June 2014 5:41 pm

The American government agencies were swayed recently by on line petitioning to restart the search for the lost yachtsmen so why can’t the IW council do likewise?

Black Dog
10, June 2014 5:46 pm

The independents are acting just like the last lot and look what happened to them. Does not give much hope to current and future consultations, does it?

tryme
Reply to  Black Dog
10, June 2014 10:43 pm

A constitution is a constitution, Black Dog, and by definition can’t be summararily overthrown. There have to be procedurally correct steps taken.

I wonder if anyone got a petition together to present to the previous administration, or whether we were just too demoralised by their silences and bullying (not at the same time, obviously), to think it was worth bothering.

Black Dog
Reply to  tryme
11, June 2014 5:58 am

Hiding behind the constitution highlights just who is in charge at county hall. The Officers and Directors.

Ignore or treat the electorate like fools will only end badly for them.

Where are the comments from the usual suspects?

kevin martin
10, June 2014 7:52 pm

come on IW council,step up and stop living in the past…before it’s too late for FJH

Island Monkey
10, June 2014 8:25 pm

I suspect the problem is that this council is advised by the same legal team who advised the last lot?

So, I think we know where to point the finger? Another should point in the direction of the weak elected councillor’s – who appear to do as they are told, instead of thinking for themselves.

steve s
10, June 2014 8:57 pm

The current administration is reviewing Council policy in relation to online petitions.

Albert Street
Reply to  steve s
11, June 2014 8:04 am

Ingratiating as ever

Island Monkey
10, June 2014 9:24 pm

Steve – just tell Davina you will accept them. I dare you!

steve s
Reply to  Island Monkey
10, June 2014 9:47 pm

It’s often difficult to work out quite what it is about a comment that deserves down arrows.

In the light of recent developments in relation to the refusal of online petitions, we are planning to bring forward a constitutional amendment which addresses this issue.
I hope that’s more helpful than my previous comment.

sam salt
Reply to  steve s
11, June 2014 7:13 am

Steve I noticed the down arrows yesterday evening although these seem to have changed to up arrows this morning. I do not think the arrows were aimed at your comment but aimed more at the failure of the IWC to accept the internet petition. Personally I believe that some of the senior officers giving advice need to get a reality check. However, the advice does seem to… Read more »

steve s
Reply to  sam salt
11, June 2014 7:33 am

Jalo, Yes, thanks, the up arrows are (on this occasion, at least) a relief! This situation is infinitely more complex than it appears on the surface. Liquidations and Crown Estate ownership of parcels of the estate has meant that IWC has been unable to take the desired course of action. My understanding is that there may have been some recent developments in this area and that there… Read more »

steephilljack
10, June 2014 9:26 pm

Rejecting this petition on a technicality does not, in any way, remove responsibility from the County Council to deal with the problem.
If they cannot afford to take responsibility, they should say so and engage with the residents to find a solution.

happy daze
10, June 2014 9:31 pm

The people who signed the on -line petition are probably all voters who expect their democratically elected Council to respond to their feelings.
These people will be wondering who to vote for at the next election.

retired Hack
10, June 2014 10:37 pm

My advice to anyone considering petitioning the Council should read the simple rules (on the website) and follow them. It’s not rocket science. If you think the rules need to be changed then lobby to change them. You’ll be pushing at an open door, as Steve Stubbings has said here.

retired Hack
Reply to  retired Hack
10, June 2014 10:38 pm

“is that they should read” etc.

Josh Aitken
11, June 2014 12:09 am

Yes the Isle of crappy Council won’t do anything for the building and couldn’t care less if it did fall to the ground! They have had the past 12 years many chances to do something and especially SAY something to the owners! They have powers of which they can SAY you need to do this but everytime in the past they have had a chance to do… Read more »

Cynic
11, June 2014 8:47 am

“The Isle of Wight council’s Constitution states that petitions require over 2,500 signatures (made in person on paper)” Really? I can’t find anything in the current Constitution that prohibits petitions of UNDER 2500 signatories having to be on paper. Thus if IWC rejects 1208 of the signatures out of the 2800 supplied, would not the remaining1592 constitute a valid petition? (Note the Constitutional statement below “We will… Read more »

Cynic
Reply to  Cynic
11, June 2014 9:07 am

Ooops- double negative.

What I meant to say was “Really? I can’t find anything in the current Constitution that insists that petitions of UNDER 2500 signatories also have to be on paper.”

Steve Goodman
12, June 2014 9:02 am

Money & effort created buildings for use, not waste. Listing gave additional protection to the exceptional. Local & national government assumed powers & responsibilities, and take our money & restrict our activities for the common good. In practice the contract has been torn up, and not by the responsible taxpaying citizens. If talking & gardening fails to get us back on course, what follows? FJ was a… Read more »

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined