Poor integrity of online petitions

ONLINE petitions are notoriously abused. I haven’t seen the list of those 18,000 subscribers to the petition that Chris Webster relies upon for the ‘facts’ to ascertain how many lived beyond the Derbyshire Dales, nor the list of 10,000 that apparently opposed the first petition.

What we can be sure about is that there will be many who emailed their support for the first petition purely on the description of the ‘head’ as “an offensive and racist caricature.”

Had the petition properly described the ‘head’ for what it actually was - as a theatrical advertisement displaying the two faces of tragedy and comedy - and wearing a turban (not I suggest the habitual dress of African Americans, but of Turks and other Middle Eastern residents) then those same subscribers might have wondered what all the fuss was about.

But by ignoring the ‘facts’ those who drafted that first petition succeeded in whipping up a kneejerk reaction to a fashionable cause – much as the 17th-century public were persuaded that elderly women living alone were almost certainly witches.

There are of course several versions of the head’s provenance.

Another is the visit of an unknown man to Ashbourne who smiled on his arrival but was saddened by his departure.

I am not persuaded by this version if only because I cannot conceive that those who went to such trouble to carve this huge figurehead with its two faces would not have added the name of the man whose memory they sought to cherish – not even the dates when he came, and left.

The first petition was drafted for maximum effect and will be far reaching.

It is a matter of regret that all but one of the councillors who represent our interests on the Derbyshire Dales District Council voted for the motion that whatever else might happen to the gallows sign, the ‘head’ would never be returned to its former position.

In doing so they have ensured that their planning committee will be wholly biased when they come to consider the planning application to confirm the council’s decision to remove the ‘head,’ and a second application to confirm the council’s decision not to return the head to its original position.

And this is particularly difficult given Historic England’s declared position of ‘Retain and Explain.’

That is why I believe that the only way this matter will be resolved is by transfer of the decision to the Secretary of State.

Charles Swabey Osmaston

AFTER the article on October 27, bringing local people up to speed with the Black’s Head anomaly, already, opinion has been triggered in the ‘readers’ column.

With respect, comment has to be given to Chris Webster’s opinion (November 3), trying to ensure accuracy to certain statements by the News Telegraph! These were very dubious comments - it was said that the original petition was started by Ashbourne residents, branding the head as an ‘offensive and racist caricature.’ It cannot be taken that Ashbourne residents started it, the statement itself is misguided and erroneous.

It is not offensive, not racist and not a caricature, therefore that petition was flawed by its inaccurate ‘title.’ I realise this is all a matter of opinion, but one must not loose sight of the big picture. If it is not a caricature, how can it be offensive/racist !?

Why would anybody call an establishment after persons/ citizens in our populace who they regard as disparaging?

Haywood Ashbourne