(PLEASE READ ALL OF THIS BEFORE POSTING ANY ANTI-LAMB COMMENTS)

Here's how it seems to me:

There is a guy on the radio a lot of people don't like.

Therefore those people should stop listening to him.

If after everyone who doesn't like him stops listening to him he no longer has any listeners he will doubtless be replaced.

If everyone who doesn't like isn't listening but he still has listeners then clearly a significant amount of people do like him (even if you don't) and, as their opinion should be considered as valid as yours, there's no reason for the BBC to get rid of him.

If enough people are listening for him not to be in danger of being sacked then either a lot of people are listening though they hate him (which is absurd) or any petition demanding his removal is the action of a vocal minority trying to force their will on a non-vocal majority and hence both arrogant and undemocratic.

Even if this petition got a million signatures it would only represent a sixtieth of the population and would not in any way suggest a majority of people want him removed.

Please therefore explain how you think a petitition, rather than not listening is justified.

PS Please do not answer this with "because George Lamb is a twat" or similar as you'll have just missed my point entirely and make yourself look a bit silly.