Here are the white house terms of participation...
petitions.whitehouse.gov/about#termsAnd i believe and know they are a loada nonsense.
It says "Congress shall make no law" to prevent anyone from petitioning the government.
Rules, regulations and policys are normally only existing based on LAWS in the first place.. such as violence or abuse or general other laws like theft and basic rules in most establishments.
As for "etiquette" .. well thats just being polite..
That is like a clubs "Dress code" shoes only or suit only.
And you wouldnt stop somebody from petitioning just because they were wearing jeans and a T-shirt.
So we have only this "Language" and abuse, or violence and swearing policy....
And the LAW says.. that IF you need in a situation to use "reasonable force" to either defend yourself, or somebody else or to do something legitimate that you may use reasonable force. Verbal always being less force than physical force because it does not involve touching.
So... the MORE you are being blocked (unlawfully or illegally) like a dyfunkt complaints system or by ILLEGAL acts against you by the police & government... or they are OBSTRUCTING your RIGHT to petition... then the MORE FORCE is needed to achieve the desired result of what is needed lawfully to be done.
We first need to establish what happened in the first place... You were complaining peacefully & it didnt work..
your complaints & petition noticed got stolen. by Sgt Phil Tyson unlawfully...
So stage by stage you complaint to more any more places with less & less results in fact more obstructions so you have to take up the right to petition which is also being obstructed....
THE REASONABLE FORCE WILL ALWAYS EQUAL OR BE REQUIRED TO EXCEED THAT OF WHICH AN OBSTRUCTION IS BEING PLACED.
Thus no WONDER any situation has escalated to the need for shouting or raise in volume because regular peace was not effective...
Thus in LAW as long as there is OBSTRUCTION... you have ALWAYS the RIGHT to USE WHATEVER FORCE YOU NEED TO REMOVE THAT OBSTRUCTION TO YOUR LEGAL RIGHT>
Thats why you cannot be prosecuted for petitioning.
Its a little bit like the army... they only need GUNS and TANKS when the other country resists whatever thay want it to do & need to use FORCE. Thus give themselves licence to by declaring War....
And David Cameron Said I Quote...
not long before he left PM position...
To make THAT statement... means only 2 things...
1. There is something he/his civil group is being requested to do that they DONT WANT TO or WILL NOT do. thus are OPPOSED to doing it.
2. They ARE against something.
Thus Civil War is what happens when there is a conflict in a country between 2 groups. Or more.
They both TAKE UP THE RIGHT TO PHYSICAL FORCE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO WHATEVER IS REQUIRED TO PROECT THEIR INTERESTS OR WILL.
And that then exceeds LAW. Because in petitioning.. you are ignoring LAW... WAR IS beyond constraints of LAW.
Thus Camerons statement is.. basically.. "I wont do what you say. And I dont care if Im breaking the Law or not. Screw the Law, I wont do it."
Thus.. David Camerons "People" Peers have NO RESPECT for the LAW at all.. and should be NEVER graced with ANY position to EVER be able to MAKE a LAW or work in governing a country.. creating laws that they themselves cannot or will not follow.
Because they are literally... lawless. aloof and really... posh pricks. Sorry but its true..
They wanht to punnish you and take your money and not be answerable to law. And they will bloody war with you and break the peace to achieve domination and retain it.
They do not believe inm equality or fairness.
Theresa May is a self righteous uppity
I actually believe Cameron could be officially illegal by that statement as a side staring and declaring a war.