For your information: Canvassers are on piece work. They have a target to reach. If they reach it they’re paid 60p per completed form. If not, they’re paid 40p per form … so when you get the aggressive ones, they aren’t aggressively trying to get your info because they think you have to supply it, they’re aggressively trying to earn big bucks ONLY! Remember that and keep the conversation in that area … for fun.
Consent of the governed?? Does anyone really believe that?
It’s within YOUR power to make that part of the definition of a statute a reality by, not filling in the voter registration form. It’s as SIMPLE as that!! You are taking away concent “physically” and by letting them know what you’re doing, make it a real “concept”, as opposed to just ignoring them. By ignoring them you fail to make them aware of the existence of the concept and so, it isn’t real to them and you haven’t removed consent in any meaningful way.
If no one knows about your “withdrawing” your consent, will it make any difference to the bigger picture? My brain processes say “not on your nelly”.
By not filling out of the the VR form you are retracting of your consent. By not registering you are making your lack of confidence in the “representative” known and also enforcing your chosen “removal” from the voting spectacle. So when and if you choose to register to vote, you will be governed by consent.
A state that FORCES a people to vote for governance is a tyrannical state. Threats of a fine for declining to “join in” is tyrannical. Threats of imprisonment for non-payment of the fine is tyrannical. Imprisonment for non-payment of the fine is tyrannical.
A new year, a new form, … and a new(ish) response:
… There is absolutely no doubt that sovereignty ultimately lies with the people of this country, through the sovereign and her coronation oath.
Mr. Flynn: The Queen?
Mr. Grieve: Yes, it lies with the Queen through her coronation oath to her subjects. That is what the oath is all about. It is worth re-reading.
Lastly, perhaps I may refer to an argument which has been developed more outside this House than it has inside; that is, to ratify this treaty would be both contrary to Magna Carta and a breach of the Coronation Oath, which sprang from the settlement of 1688. I find many of those arguments extremely persuasive. We are no longer being governed, as our constitution requires, in accordance with the traditional laws of England.
But I have to say to those who think that that is an insuperable bar to progress on this treaty: forget it. The courts of this country have always had an acute political perception. I am quite sure that if it was ever taken to court, the acute political perception of the members of our judiciary would ensure that, no matter what facts were laid before them, they would conclude that Parliament could do exactly what it liked, even signing its own death warrant. Of course this treaty is not Parliament’s death warrant. It is just another instalment on the way towards it.
“The Queen now compacts with her people, and before them, to govern according to the laws and customs of her realm …”
She solemnly promised and swore an oath to govern by the laws and customs of our land.
The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep, so help me god.
You know when you JUST KNOW that something is good and for the right reasons …
More … http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=cveitch&view=videos 8) 8)
I will document here the results of my query to each police force in Britain under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA), submitted on 14th May 2009, as to how many people have reported the government for the crime of treason starting from 1973 (Ted Heath’s government).
I came across a blog the other day and was surprised that the blogger didn’t know why the general public didn’t take an active interest in Parliament! Maybe I shouldn’t have been so surprised … but I was.
I didn’t think my reply would fit in the comment box so I sent Lord Norton (the blogger) an email: