lee123easy Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 dont see what the fuss is took literally 10 minutes to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 How's that? All I've done is state what the current government have said they would do. Do you not understand that it is the government that has said there is no need for a census? Statute laws can be challenged (I'll wait for my court summons, go to court, then ask the judge to grant permission for a JR into the government's decision to unjustly punish people). How do you think people "walk" from court free (even though it is obvious an offence has been committed and by whom)? Pointing out subtle differences to a judge makes all the difference. No you're not (unless you're tunneling through a variety of proxies and using an open connection). We both know what my full quote said and the government has said there is no need for another census. If they believe that about this one then I assume it was set in motion before they came in. Regardless of which they will want a census again it just won't be called a census and won't be done in the same way. People walk free from court when they or their defence teams cast doubt over the evidence of witnesses "but Sir the officer could not have seen me ignore the traffic signals on my bike because a leaf obstructed his vision" "Hmmm yes I can see that might be possible, what do you say to that PC31?" I used to work in the courts for years, Magistrates, County and Crown and witnessed people wriggling out of stuff. Never did they start throwing objections to statute law at the Magistrates. I would love to be on the gallery when the mighty scux asks for a JR into the governments decisions. If this happens let me know as I'd be genuinely interested. Not being sarcastic there either. Some of what I read on SF implies people are very confident of their views and I would be interested in seeing them tested. Well you're anonymous to ordinary people like me. Of course I'm sure some IT saddo can ferret around if he was that obsessed but unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 And society (or an individual from within) can remove consent by bringing a test case (doing this as litigant in person reduces any costs you may incur). While not wanting to be one of the joyless bores who come on SF demanding multiple sources of proof as if it were the Cambridge debating society and not a load of nobodies engaging in pub talk, I'd be interested in seeing some examples of this happening if you know of any. If I were a Judge or Magistrate I'd tell them to get lost and stand for election then put a private members bill through. If they were legally aided I wouldn't even listen in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 dont see what the fuss is took literally 10 minutes to do The fuss is that some on here who have had their education, health and protection and probably a lot more given to them by the state object to the state fining them if they don't fill it in. You'd think if they were freedom fighters they'd have something better to fight over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korl101 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I have seen people on the streets with Census bags. I think they may be going door to door to help individuals. I would just get it done and stop bleating about the fine. I did mine on-line and it took only a few minutes. Besides, the information is quite useful to government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I have seen people on the streets with Census bags. I think they may be going door to door to help individuals. I would just get it done and stop bleating about the fine. I did mine on-line and it took only a few minutes. Besides, the information is quite useful to government. those bags are for loot, they accept any spare change if you cant afford the full grand:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 If they were legally aided I wouldn't even listen in the first place. You don't need legal aid to bring a case to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 You don't need legal aid to bring a case to court. Good point, I do remember the occasional litigant in person. legal aid is great too but not when it's a couple arguing over who has access to the living room TV and at what times. That was a case I heard that left me depressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syne Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 LOL. You've just proved your argument absolutely pointless. Quote from you: "Statutes are, 'RULES given the power of law in a society that CONSENTS" A society has consented to be governed by statute law by putting the government who's laws they want...into power. Ooooo, sorry mate. Looks like you do consent after all. And even if, in some, bizarre world (which you do seem...to be in, to be fair) you still can't come to terms with the fact that you're in a society] which consents to be governed by statute. Read on. The thing that makes me laugh about people like you is, that, it doesn't matter whether you personally don't give your consent (which wouldn't matter by your definition anyway because you said society has to decide, and you as one person are not society)because...if you break statute...you'll get locked up. Sooo, your personal consent isn't needed anyway is it? Freemen call themselves freemen but when they start breaking statute and get locked up, they're not so free then are they? Stop being an oddball and get that massive chip off your shoulder. (BTW you can't win this argument so stop with your feeble attempts pls thnx) Your labouring under the assumption that society can include who it wants regardless. Ever hear of slavery? Firstly society doesn't decide what I do and don't do. Humans decide weather they want to be included, that is a choice. (without being asked usually though) Society isn't a thing that can function without its members, society doesn't have the power dictate to those who choose not to be a part of it. That's why your post is wrong. not my definition just the way it is and should be. You may believe that I have no choice but you are wrong, and judges and magistrates know this(or should do if they don't) and it doesn't take any kind of genius to put a judge right on the matter, and false imprisonment is also against the law, but that doesn't really bother you does it? Also which society do you think you belong to? can you even name the society your tied up in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaydeebee Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 It's going to far all this now, it's a frickin form that needs filling in once every 10 years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.