These E-Petitions for the British Government Are Equal Parts Hilarious and Demoralizing

We all have that Facebook friend who thinks signing e-petitions is a Good Thing That Makes a Difference. You know: the ones who watched Blackfish once and really want you to sign this petition about it, guys. The 1 sign = 1 respect lot. Maybe it's you. Maybe you're that person. We all do it. We all fall for the folly of online petitions.

And the government knows this, which is why it has the petition.parliament.uk website: ostensibly a place where you, the scum, can start a movement that, 100,000 signatures later, will be debated in the House of Commons, but in reality a front to keep us all feeling like we're making a difference even though we're not. As of the last official count in March, 27 petitions have reached the magical 100,000 signature debate mark: none of them have resulted in changes to the law.

This results in an odd mix of causes. You'll remember the cannabis petition promoted by Russell Brand et al that ultimately achieved very little bar a few headlines—a hollow victory. Then you've got the "get home trashed and start an e-petition for a laugh" crowd: I've counted 120 including the terms "David Cameron" and "sack, resign, or fire", and 140 for "Jeremy Hunt". People seem to be really pissed off about Swegway boards being banned, but not as pissed off as they are about immigration. My search brought 430 cannabis-based petitions—just ten over the magic number.

But what about the rest of them? What does Britain actually want? Mostly bollocks, it turns out. Here are four petitions that didn't make the cut, but maybe should have:

Fact: "World in Motion" is a 100 percent, certified, so-good-it's-technically-underrated-because-even-though-people-say-it's-good-they-don't-say-it's-good-enough banger, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. Fact: John Barnes' mellifluous flow is the closest the UK has come to a genuine, Hall of Fame-level rapper. Fact: New Order are playing the Warehouse Project in Manchester on the December, 5 2015. John Barnes will not be there. Barnesy won't be there to do the rap.

The tyranny. One angry Barnes fan thought the issue of his absence so pivotal to the enjoyment of his New Order experience that the government should intervene, but didn't get the requisite signatures. In a way, that's good: the government, no matter how powerful, are not responsible for John Barnes' rapping career. And in a way that makes me sad. What's the point of a central government if it can't force a former Liverpool winger to rap on stage with New Order? What kind of world do we live in where John Barnes is not subject to the whims and wefts of the British public and its government? No world at all. No world at all.

This gem of an e-petition was rejected because, apparently, "It's not clear what the petition is asking the UK Government or Parliament to do." Read it again, civil servants of parliament.uk: it's exceptionally clear and well reasoned. "We are already aware that these Muslims have Sleeper Cells here in Britain," the petition says. "We demand to be rearmed for protection."

There are complexities and nuances within the UK gun debate, yes—but, essentially, the whole thing can be boiled down to: anyone smart enough to be trusted with a gun doesn't want one, and anyone who wants a gun should absolutely not be allowed to have it and should probably be fast-tracked to jail.

You cannot help but imagine the gestative moment of this e-petition, after six beers and an extended session on various pro-UKIP Facebook groups, some dude in a vest with strong loud opinions about cyclists paying road tax sitting down and deciding that he and the rest of his mates are best equipped to deal with "these Muslims," and more specifically deal with them with guns. It's not clear from the petition where exactly the gun:Muslim situation would go from there, but you assume there'd be a touch of clumsy attempted mass slaughter and quite a few arrests.

§

So, friends, what have we learned? Well: it's quite clear that these people were either joking or unreliably informed about what constitutes an issue for government debate. A petition titled HEY GOVERNMENT!!! Start treating these petitions like they actually matter!!! pretty much sums up their effectiveness.

The fight for online social justice is, apparently, futile at best and a waste of time at worst. Emma Howard in the Guardian isn't wrong when she says that if you "are ever provoked enough to start your own petition, please don't put its future in the hands of those it holds to account." You'd be better off contacting your MP directly about getting your mate back in the Golden Hind pub in Stockport. In the meantime, though, keep the zingers flowing!

Follow Elliott on Twitter.