WHERE has the sudden plethora of online petitions come from?

It seems like you can't have a news story any more without some linked list of signatures being wheeled out.

The trouble with these petitions, however well-intentioned they are, is that in most instances they are utterly useless.

Two cases in point in the past couple of weeks: Jeremy Clarkson's BBC suspension and the confirmation Kanye West is to headline Glastonbury.

A million people have signed the petition calling for Clarkson to be reinstated.

Big deal.

Do we really think that the Beeb's bosses care one iota?

Is it likely to factor into their decision about the Top Gear presenter?

Nope.

Will the fact a meagre 60,000 have called for Mr West not to appear at Glasto cause festival proprietor Michael Eavis to launch a u-turn?

No chance.

And I expect most of the people signing the petitions (aka filling in their first name, surname and email address) know that already.

So why bother?

Well I wonder if it makes people feel they've done their best to make a difference.

It tallies in with the sense of an online community and people working together for a common cause.

I couldn't say for definite why these time-wasters bother.

In reality, these petitions are little more than PR puffs for the people who set them up.

They allow people to put their hands up and show off about their efforts to make an impact.

Let's be honest, filling in some details online isn't quite the same as marching in the streets for something you believe in.

I have to admit that not all of these petitions are complete duds.

Lucy Holmes' 'No More Page 3' campaign has gained serious traction and instigated a real discussion about the topic.

There are others which have also been a success.

Too often, they are started with no intention of effecting change.

We really need to stamp out those petitions that are created just for the sake of it.

Maybe I'll set one up for that exact purpose.