syne Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I think what this may come down to is the pathetic 'man' thinks it won't affect him or benefit him in any way, which means he doesn't care about society and thinks only people who it affects should take part. I take part because my future depends on it, especially in these times where I'm a student, no job, lacking in experience and depending on £30 a week (which is getting scrapped) to get me to and from college, as well as paying for study books, food etc. Obviously it wasn't down to me, it was down to the household owner - my parents - but I still did it, as they're out working all day and night and didn't have time. It's about not caring, he simply doesn't care what happens to him, or anyone else, or society, or peoples futures. Your future in no way depends on a census, you have never filled on in before and have only been mentioned on one previously. you were; born, registered, recognised for tax purposes, you were schooled, and used several public systems and utilities .BEFORE your name was even mentioned on a census. depend upon you definately do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydeebee Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Your future in no way depends on a census, you have never filled on in before and have only been mentioned on one previously. you were; born, registered, recognised for tax purposes, you were schooled, and used several public systems and utilities .BEFORE your name was even mentioned on a census. depend upon you definately do not. Maybe depend was the wrong word, but it could be greatly affected by the census. The point I was making is everyone including myself is affected in some way, be it education, health service or any other government funded service that uses the census for funding etc. I said future because I meant future, who mentioned my schooling and past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syne Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I don't really have anything against the Matrix, I just remember talking to a conspiracy theorist who informed me "we're all part of the matrix really". And he was being serious, he'd lectured me for an hour about how he knew the twin towers collapsed due to planted explosives. Yes CCTV could be used evilly if it got into our homes instead of filming scraps outside pubs, if we had a Generals takeover but let's face it... I know about corporate this and CIA that and yes there are and have been some dodgy goings on. I find the idea of grand international plans far too much. This may all be irrelevant in the case of the census. The census exists for simple reasons and I expect they make projections on the information gained. We can debate its use forever but since none of us work on it it's all academic. I just find the idea of grown men, not doped up students refusing to fill it in unbelievably childish. When one of them calls me brainwashed for going along with it then it says it all. I tend to agree (bolded). But you have to admit its not beyond the realms of imagination or possibility. As for brainwashed. we are, we have been conditioned/brainwashed manipulated since birth and if you know what these terms mean(which I know you do) then you have to admit it. In some form or another we have been subject to them for a long time We are condititioned to conform from an early age and generally its for the greater good. It happens to smarter and stronger people than you and I. so, you are brainwashed as am I but as its a derogority term we tend to deny it and so make its use laudable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syne Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 the ironic thing here is. I'm arguing the toss but I couldn't be bothered to fill it in or to stop my details being put on it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure it's the census act 1920... That'll be a statute, not a law;). but if the census act isn't law, what is it? It's a statute (very different to a law). it's been made into a law No it hasn't. It has been written into the statute books. You have already proven yourself to be slightly mad As have you, when you tried to link me with the words typed by another user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydeebee Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 That'll be a statute, not a law;). It's a statute (very different to a law). No it hasn't. It has been written into the statute books. As have you, when you tried to link me with the words typed by another user. Ok clever guy. It's not 'VERY' different to a law. It's a written code that you have to follow. In a lot of countries there is no difference at all between statute law and case law. In the UK there isn't a massive difference, it's still a law, just a statute law and not a case/common law. The only difference is that a common law has been decided upon by higher courts and the lower courts must treat that principle as law. As an example, in England no Parliament and no monarch has ever made a law that it is illegal to murder someone. Instead, that principle of law has existed in the courts as case law since before records began. So yes, it IS in fact a law, it's a specific type of law and is not 'common' law, but it's still law. Law is just a general reference to a set of rules comprised by different laws INCLUDING statute law. Remember law is a very light word to use, it's more generic, 'laws of physics' for example. Is that a common law? No. It's nothing to do with law in the sense that you mean, but it's still called that. Just a quick reference point for you Three types of UK Laws: statute law—laws made by Parliament (or Congress) (all crimes and some civil matters fall under statute law) common law—inherited law that is not written down as legislation but is recorded as case law case law—judges' decisions in particular cases, both criminal and civil. I know hardly anything about law, but I'm pretty sure simple things like people drunk on the streets causing problems, people selling drugs, and other crimes like that are statute law (don't hold me to that) I only say that cos I'm sure that statute law is the only one that uses the legislation (like Section 45 of Lb under the misuse of 'whatever' act) and when you do see people getting arrested for stuff like that the police always read out what the offence is in that way. I've learnt a few things from this thread, mainly that there's more loons than I thought but I hope you've learned from this too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 It's not 'VERY' different to a law. Actually, it is very different. Illegal is very different to against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydeebee Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Actually, it is very different. Did you actually read my post? It's as simple as looking on the government sites for justice and legislation, it outlines it there. How is it different to a law? (which is impossible anyway because again, law is a general term and can be used in loads of situations for many different things) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 So how are laws ever meant to be changed if no one stands up and says I am sparticus? A few points for your high and mighty defence of kow towing to consider, women-vote homosexual- everything slavery sunday trading window tax whichcraft laws racisim,ageism,sexism,discrimination... oh and your favourite poll tax etc etc and you think there's no comparison between the above and the census thats not the point its about what some one thinks is worth making a stand about. Your outright derision of others opions is why your opinion imo should be ignored. Interestingly you have not ignored my opinion. I find linking the census to the above and Rosa Parks in particular as Cavegirl did quite disgusting. Not even in the same ball park. No one's rights are being taken away by the census. Even if you subscribe to demented views about the UK state being evil the census is not. Alternatively perhaps you can give me some examples of the harm it does that is worth fighting against? If you do I'll concede that binning it on 'principle' is intelligent. I have also derided one opinion, if we were arguing about God, the universe or the general election I would disagree not deride. To me binning the census is worthy only of derision. If you can't differentiate then that's your problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Your future in no way depends on a census, you have never filled on in before and have only been mentioned on one previously. you were; born, registered, recognised for tax purposes, you were schooled, and used several public systems and utilities .BEFORE your name was even mentioned on a census. depend upon you definately do not. No one is saying society will collapse without it but it has to be said that mass completion of them gives the state a picture of how to allocate. Before her name was mentioned on a census planners will have allocated resources based on previous takings of the census and growth projections therein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.