dubmeup wrote: Is that because you are against Direct Democracy, Change, or is it based on your idea of Communism?

wake_up_bomb wrote: So how long have you been off the Voter Register, do you pay Council Tax?

Guevarista wrote: I've never filled in the voter register, I've never responded to a census, I've never had a TV licence, I do pay Council Tax. Only two things are inevitable; death and taxation.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Unless you're a corporation sole

Guevarista wrote:
Do I only get 3 choices?
None of those choices would match my reasons and tbh even asking if I am against change is a tad insulting.

Communism is just not up to the task and neither is revolution. This is why I wouldn't support a Communist revolution.

I'd be rather more inclined to support community evolution

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Hi WUB,
Can you help me out with this one please?
As I saw 'spoiling' my voting paper with 'non of the above' as a complete waste of natural resources and my time, I chose earlier this year not to complete the electoral role. I got the usual visitation from a man from the 'council' who wanted me to complete the form.
Besides my own choice, chosing not to want to vote, both my girls names were on the said paper too. As I explained to the man I could not complete the form in 'all honesty' as my daughters were at university (same one) and I would have to check with them that they had not already registered where they now lived. He waffled on about registration being used for credit searches too, to which I replied for financial reasons I wasn't even eligable to apply for credit...so no point filling it in for that reason.
Anyhow I was adamant I was not going to 'break the law' by registering my daughters at my address. I suggested I completed his little box. I completed his little box saying once I had confirmation from my daughters I would complete the form 'truthfully', as I still had the original.

Lo and behold what do I get next...voting cards for all 3 of us.....mhm....and the girls had already registered themselves where they now live!!......So I have been forced to having the privelege to vote for a system I don't believe in, and worse still my girls are now 'breaking the law' because they are entitled to vote TWICE!


Jane

angelchemuel wrote: AFAIK you can only remove a name from the register once a year in Autumn when they send you the poxy cards and so forth. I don't have any particularly great strategies for staying off the register, as I just ignore them completely. But I did accidentally answer the door once, and there was a young woman there related to the electoral register. I just told her that I was moving in about a week because my landlord was a twat, and that she should put the property down as vacant or empty. She did as she was told and that was it. It's a bloody pointless bureaucratic exercise because the government can easily get all this information anyway. They can go through all your bank accounts, freeze them if they want to, they can do whatever the fuck they want, so why they need me to tell them what my name is, when they already know, I have no idea.

Haha! Thanks WUB. I'm more concerned about my daughters situation being registered twice at two seperate addresses. Guess it will make it a bit more confusing if 'they' ever want to get hold of my girls I guess!


Jane

dubmeup wrote:
Yes it does.

Just one example...see that ''cookie law'' that you agree to abide by every time you log into SZ? Well the EU imposed that there law on you...

...It doesn't necessarily apply to themselves however...

diamondgeezer wrote:
Tbh I think we are arguing semantics. That is a European 'law'. Not a British 'law'. Ultimately the result is the same though of course. And ultimately that result is enabled by people voting in the British system of representative democracy and receiving governments which then choose to go along with the EU.

This is a UK registered and owned website dubs....subject to those EU 'directives' .

So in effect, those 'directives' that have been imposed by people we didn't elect are now British law.

And its just one example...there are many more.

Again DG it's a semantic issue but as you're sticking to your guns, so will I.

It's not a British 'law'. It's an EU 'law'/directive that applies to Britain as a result of the British Government signing all these stupid treaties which hand over 'Sovereignty'. And what empowers the British Government to sign those treaties? British voters.

dubmeup wrote:
I would say that makes it, in effect, a British law.

That sentence should be in the past tense in order to be factual. Treaties already signed, sovereignty already handed over, damage already done...

Well the british do insist on voting libdem/tory/labour despite everything thats happened they keep on doing it.
The way I see it, thats the publics own fault for being morons.
Fair enough the elite have created such a dumbed down population but the info has been staring them in the face for long enough now.

My own view of the future as things pan out is very pessimistic indeed.
Idiocracy ™

diamondgeezer wrote:
"In effect" being the operable phrase and why I referred to this being semantic

I'll grant you that one but the point remains the same. It was British voters that allowed that to happen and it's British voters that continue to support the system which means those treaties are adhered to by Britain.

EDIT: "It’s not a British ‘law’. It’s an EU ‘law’/directive that applies to Britain as a result of the British Gov­ern­ment sign­ing all these stu­pid treaties which hand over ‘Sov­er­eignty’ "
That does seem to refer to the treaties being signed in the past

Although I haven't voted for years I will be registering to vote on the issue of Scottish Independance and also to say NO to the conservatives .

Yes they are all as bad as each other but the conservatives are the worst and annoy me so much that it actually makes me want to vote just to be able to tell them to eff off

andyh wrote: That's why I find you such a pleasant person to be around
I think the decline for Nationalist parties at the last election contradicts that somewhat.
On your point, the Labour party hasn't always been as worthless as it is now and won't always be so, of the 3 it at least has potential imo, more people are beginning to vote for the Green party aswell which is going to force the major parties to change and adapt.

diamondgeezer wrote: There is nothing to stop us from using this kind of platform to develop a EU Think-Tank, lobby group or NGO, the success of which could be large or could be small depending on our efforts toward a common objective.

If i;m not mistaken did EU Laws on Human Rights over turn the ancient law against Criminals being unable to vote, i personally think that's a good thing.

Guevarista wrote:
The labour party has potential?

Bwahahaaaa!!! Nice one, lol!

andyh wrote: I'd rather be mocked for an optimistic statement and know what I said is true, than be welcomed into the position of nihilistic pessimism with open arms.

Of course it has potential as an mass organization of Labour, shit if it didn't have potential it wouldn't be so thoroughly corrupted by bourgeois reformists, opportunist professional politicians trying to make a name for themselves, even Noam Chomsky isn't as condescendingly arrogant as you to suggest Organized Labour doesn't have potential.