I think you're a bit mistaken. Per https://www.edf-feph.org/enforcement-toolkit-european-parliament-peti-committee/

"The Petitions Committee does not have investigatory nor enforcement powers and it can only adopt non-binding recommendations. Nevertheless, it can be a good tool to draw political attention to specific matters."

At most, it makes the parliament have to look at the proposal and decide if its worth looking into or not. It doesn't force anything.

Unless I'm looking at the wrong kind of petition to the EU Parliament?

Honestly I feel bad for the poor animals. But the guy? For 7 full years he couldn't be bothered to get the proper paperwork and licenses to own them? Didn't get them properly vaccinated and/or treated due to no paperwork. If he'd done right, this wouldn't have happened. But he's playing the victim when he's got the most blame on his shoulders.

While I agree with most of what you said. The John Ehrlichman quote is pretty suspicious.

It was released in 2014, 20 years after the interview. Because allegedly, despite the intense claims and weirdness reported (Ehrlichman suddenly bursting out with this monologue while pushing the interviewer out the door), the interviewer completely forgot about it until rereading his notes 20 years later, while also trying to promote a new book about Nixon. You'd think when interviewing someone that influential, and having them drop a reveal like that would've made it into his book at the time.

But there has never been any corroboration from anyone else about Ehrlichman making these claims, his friends and family say he never said anything like that to them. And somehow, not a single other corroborater to this big conspiracy has come forward.

Ehrlichman was long dead when this claim was released, and thus unable to verify he said it. Most news sources wouldn't even report on it until buzzfeed spread it around, and comedians like 'Adam Ruins Everything' spread it as fact. Not hating on you, just hate disinformation. Nixon did so many fucked up things, yet somehow one bullshit quote by an author desperate for attention gets all the hype.

I'm not sure if you read the article, but it's a $2 fee per month not 10, and current/past users are grandfathered in. New accounts made after Aug 21 will be charged. It's a stupid decision that will cost them a fortune from bad press alone, but they have done almost exactly what you've said.

Again you're failing to see the other side. Falling back into ignorance. Most of what you've said is horrifically arrogant. You've ignored my most important points. This response may seem angry but your response comes off as incredibly selfish. You seem to think war is a choice made by both sides. It honestly comes off entitled and selfish.

The thing is, I come from a different country, so it's natural for me to think "what about the other side? didn't they lose lives? wheren't those lives taken by Australians, same as the Australians where taken from them?"

My parents immigrated here as well. That doesn't really affect anything. Those people have monuments in their home towns and countries. Where they are from. Do you think every country should honour every person ever? Do you think those people want monuments in the countries they fought against? I highly doubt anyone would. Like I said and you've ignored, it's to honour their family and friends.

I don't have patriotism. Australian lives are as important as Turkish, Korean, Vietnamese, etc, etc. If there should be a monument for Australian lives lost, there should be a same amount for lives Australians took. There should be no monument for anyone taking anyone's lives in my opinion. I have the same opinion for my country of origin.

Again you're being seemingly purposefully ignorant. This isn't patriotism, although I was born here with my siblings, the rest of my family were not and they can still understand what memorials are for.

This is about real people, not the concept of a countries military. You refuse to separate the person from the soldier. You treat every soldier as if they're one single entity whose life only consisted of war. They are people, and it's rude of you not to treat them as people. The monuments are not for taking lives, but for lives lost. They're not posting kill counts and bragging. They're remembering their dead friends and family.

I would be upset if someone close to me died. But if he died going to a war to kill someone, I would never blame who killed him, but who made him go there.

Again, you're ignoring my point. These aren't blame to those who killed him. And what do you mean made him go there, do you believe every soldier is drafted? Or are you saying whomever starts a war is always wrong? The point was, if you lost a friend, you'd likely want to honour them.

There is a vilain and an enemy in these stories, but I think it's usually not the guy with the weapon. It's the guys behind them. Every soldier usually think he's fighting for something good (except a big part who just really enjoy killing).

You're just making up points to justify your feelings. There is villains and enemies on both sides in a war. Blood on all hands. There's complications to every aspect of life. It's just easier for you to call things black and white and call yourself smart for choosing a side. War is an unfortunate but real part of life. You're just imagining you're more intelligent and more evolved for not wanting violence. It's honestly quite arrogant. Sometimes there isn't a choice but to get a weapon when you're being fired at. Assuming a big part of soldiers love killing? Why because of a few Hollywood movies? No, you're just trying to justify your beliefs.

Unfortunately I can't make my question about the towns without exposing my reasons, my feelings regarding the issue. I do not plan to change anyone's point of view here (and I regret that I am debating, but how can I talk about it without expressing my reasons?), just trying to find how to live happily in a society with a few values I don't share. Every country will have that.

But you're not willing to change, so you expect society to change for you. You've made your mind, are ignoring all the points I've made, and refusing to see another perspective. All you've done is double down and brag about your pacifism. Quite frankly, I doubt there's a country in the world that will suit your ego.

And as I said in another post, I think the intentions of the memorials, if they are as you say, are not having the proper effect.

I've never seen a single opinion as narrow minded as yours. The effect is clearly just missed by you, because you don't want to see it. You're making yourself feel smart, superior, better than others for making choices with hindsight. Quite frankly it's arrogant and shameful.

Since you ignored my entire point of separating the soldier and person in my first post, I won't be responding again. You need to remember a person is more than their job. They were a brother, a son, a friend, a student, so many things to so many people. It's rude of you to boil down their existence to your narrow view of the world. Keep feeling superior for not wanting war and imagining the rest of the world is bloodthirsty and violent. Because with that much ego, you'll be alone a long time.

I'll be honest, I think you're going to struggle to find anything that suits you purely because you seem to be looking for ways to be upset and put your views of war onto others.

I think first of all, you're confusing remembrance, and honouring the loss of soldiers lives, for military worship. Many people have lost loved ones who've fought in wars to protect them. So they try remember that honour and sacrifice, to show respect for the lives lost and to remember what they fought for. You're viewing each soldier as a part of a collective, each war as something that could have been avoided. But many see them as friends and family lost forever. As people whom they loved and cared for. Would you not be upset if those close to you died? Would that change if they died fighting in a war? Most monuments and statues I've seen in Australia refer to WW1 and WW2 as well. We lost a lot of good people trying to fight against a powerful, violent enemy.

Military worship would be praising current soldiers and bowing and treating them specially. I've never seen that in Australia. We treat soldiers as regular people. In small towns you'll likely see some show for them, as they've likely been away from home at a military base for a long time and are now returning. They're not celebrating war, they're welcoming the return of family and friends.

Because you seem to dislike war, you're placing the values you see onto others. You need to gain perspective and realise the intent of why we honour the dead and remember our history. It is not to glorify war.

You say it should be like owning a gun and constantly proving you're not doing something wrong? I don't get what you mean by that. There are gun owners in Australia, and they aren't constantly made to prove they're not doing anything wrong. Our military history is far from perfect, especially in modern times. But statues and monuments and parks aren't to ignore that. You see praising the good as ignoring the bad, when that is not the intention.

I'm sorry you're getting down voted. I normally don't respond since this site is mostly power users who ban people who disagree and call them out.

I can't believe the toxicity of this site where if you don't make wild assumptions based on a single article, somehow you're in the wrong. I get people are anti corporation here but fuck me. There's so many possibilities that could inferred and be equally valid.

Manager had alerted head office and didn't mention it because they hadn't received a reply.

Manager hadn't alerted head office yet but did after the call.

Manager didn't explain themselves properly on phone and had contacted head office but didn't tell customer.

Manager did alert head office and told the customer, but that information wasn't relayed to the author of this article.

Manager did alert head office and told the customer, that information was relayed to the author of this article but they forgot to include or chose not to include it.

So many options but somehow you're in the wrong for not assuming the worst of someone because they're in a slightly higher position of power.