The Election Thread

[Mark W]

Considering under PR the Conservatives would still have won (though not with a majority- not sure that's necessarily a god thing) and the big winner would've been UKIP I'm not sure it's the way to go.

It's about having more of the parties that people want to have a say, have a say. As an example, as I've mentioned it a few times the 'Snoopers Charter'. It was Theresa May's pet project and was something the Tories tried pushing through previously. It was massively unpopular within other parties, with privacy campaigners and with the public, but the only thing that really stopped it was the fact that the Lib Dems were able to block it going through due to their numbers. Now that block is gone, the Conservatives are able to breeze through with it again. Under PR, their majority would be almost completely gone so they can't pass legislation simply because they want to. It's also worth noting that the coalition that would be formed would again be more representative.

You've slightly misunderstood the way the PR system would work in that it's not a top-down system whereby the overall vote dictates who is where, it's still done in the same way things are now where a local MP is elected and that informs the overall result. There is one type of PR where that would work (I think it's called Closed List?) but it's unlikely to be the one chosen because it's fairly flawed in the sense that you do lose that local MP link, and it means that the parties can just parachute the members they want to keep into seats rather than having them be fairly elected in or out. For other PR systems, the difference is in how the MP is elected (or multiple MPs in constituencies if certain versions of the Single Transferable Vote were used - which it already is, in many countries around the world). At the moment your local MP is just the one with the highest votes, and that's that. With PR it's usually run under a system where there's a set 'finishing line' they need to pass, and where you'd have a form of ranked vote. If you were just electing a single MP then what would happen is that if you had, say, 4 parties, and they achieved a 40:30:20:10 split of the vote (with 50% being the finishing line), the second choice of the people who voted for the 10% party would then come into play. That would then bulk up the numbers of the other parties. If there was still no winner then the voters for the new lowest party (which would be the 20% party, most likely) come into play and so on until you have a winner. Overall it means less 'wasted' votes, and means that the person elected actually has the majority of support in that area rather than just a fraction more votes than the next party.

A good thing about it as well is that it means that election campaigns would be run in a better way. You can't really risk alienating all voters using fear tactics or just shit-talking opponents because you may rely on their secondary/tertiary votes. It means you have to campaign by pointing out your policies and their benefits, so people would then have more of an idea of what they were (theoretically...) voting for. It means less concentrating on the fact that Ed Miliband's got a weird face and more concentration on party policies. Arguably it'd also mean that the demonisation of Scottish voters by the Conservatives would have a negative affect because secondary votes could then count against them. As a result they'd probably be less likely to run that kind of campaign.

There's a bunch more info about the STV system here if you're interested, by the way. This article is relevant too. Something else to consider about this and the need for change in the system is that one of priorities the Tories have mentioned is that they want to reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600. That basically means more people fitting into those constituencies and consequently more people who would be under-represented. This election was the least proportional in history, so exacerbating the circumstances that created that situation won't really help deliver a fairer result in future - unless you're a member of a Conservative government.

[sharn]

Anybody who is interested in their Rights and Freedoms might be interested to watch this video (And the other two parts)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J9gRNPWf6s

& Heres a more in depth conversation about some particular things regarding her struggle against the system. Its more of an informal chat and may be a little long winded for some.

Theres loads of stuff out there for anyone interested. She's just one of many but has articulated some concepts well.

All the best guys.

Peace.

Edited May 12, 2015 by sharn

[AndrewEH1]

Anybody who is interested in their Freedom and Natural rights should watch this video (And the other two parts)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J9gRNPWf6s

& Heres a more in depth conversation about some particular things regarding her struggle against the system. Its more of an informal chat and may be a little long winded for some.

Theres loads of stuff out there for anyone interested. She's just one of many but has articulated some concepts well.

All the best guys.

Peace.

You do realise the whole Freeman thing is mince yeah?

[Mark W]

Is the script she's reading up online anywhere, or a transcript or something? I hate watching long videos on Youtube about stuff, I find I just don't really take much in, especially when it's that poorly presented too. Just knowing I could read the entire thing in a fraction of the time is why I don't really get on with using Youtube to research stuff.

[AndrewEH1]

Is the script she's reading up online anywhere, or a transcript or something? I hate watching long videos on Youtube about stuff, I find I just don't really take much in, especially when it's that poorly presented too. Just knowing I could read the entire thing in a fraction of the time is why I don't really get on with using Youtube to research stuff.

I wouldn't waste your time to be honest. A load of toss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-parasites-peddling-pseudolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/

http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21587804-american-style-anti-government-eccentrics-take-root-canada-freeloaders-land

...and if you're having trouble sleeping tonight:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

Edited May 11, 2015 by AndrewEH1

[sharn]

Well no, i don't know that... that's why iv'e asked people here what they know/think regarding this position. It seems fundamentally obvious to me that naturally you are born Free ( with no contracts or interactions with the fictional world of 'legalities').. As a natural process and creation of life, so it must occur at some point that you are contractually entered into such a thing.

How can it be that upon birth you are obliged to act according to 'regulations' made up (and arbitrarily changed) by another creature that is not for your own benefit? And to live in fear of harm if you decline. I'm not saying this sort of treatment cannot be imposed upon you ( Or that a group of people cannot even come to want to ruled in such a manner) but surely a person has the Right not to be subject to another's Rules? (Infact this is even stated In the Human Rights acts - No Person can be held in Servitude)

But what is being argued is that obviously it's not a natural 'Law' (Like the Natural laws of Life) and so you are not bound by it Unless you knowingly (or unwittingly) make an oath to be subject to that treatment.. Therefore to request to continue living naturally without these limitations is fair and understandable and infact your Right?

Could you please explain why you would think otherwise? Im genuinely interested in this and would love to hear your argument/evidence as to why it is 'mince' ( I'm assuming by that you mean it's nonsense?)

Is a Birth certificate offered and processed by a private organisation a natural Obligation of Life? And if it is not - what is it's purpose and for what benefit?

Because there are many people claiming it has status and implications in the 'Legal world' (which is undoubtedly a fictional creation).. And is infact a document that has been unwittingly submitted in order to document (you as) some sort of 'goods' or 'property' that can be Lawfully subject to any regulations that might breach Human Rights because it's not a living being - with Inallianable Rights to be free from such. And from that point on in the Legal (corperate) world it is presumed that whats being dealt with is not a (Free) Human Being but instead.. State owned Property.

It's seems reasonable and logical enough to me.. but i am very interested to hear what you have to say in contrary.

Thanks..

[AndrewEH1]

It's late, I'll try to answer the nonsense tomorrow if I have time at work. Maybe read though the links I posted above and see if that helps you form the correct answer.

[sharn]

Is the script she's reading up online anywhere, or a transcript or something? I hate watching long videos on Youtube about stuff, I find I just don't really take much in, especially when it's that poorly presented too. Just knowing I could read the entire thing in a fraction of the time is why I don't really get on with using Youtube to research stuff.

Totally understand your preference for reading a transcript over watching a video To be honest it is long winded and although there are some interesting and key points that i thought were articulated and dealt with well and could be of use for anyone interested in the argument - There are propbably better videos/writings that explain the position more clearly and objectively.

I've tried to outline my fundamental understanding of the claim in a few posts and have understood it is an 'open argument' which can be applied and reasoned by an individual in his/her own way..

But fundamentally it's a claim that; most often what we have come to think is 'our(true)selves' being addressed in Legal/Contractual instances.. Is infact a completely distinct and seperate entity documented and created solely to participate in the fictional corporate world of Legal commerce ( sort of like a buisness) but is not classified as Living and not due the same treatment as a Human being therefore and it is actually that 'person' who is bound by the statutes & regulations of goverment not You the 'Human Being' (Who Cannot be involuntarily bound by such things)

The claim is that we are constantly mistakenly identifying our actual selves as this 'Legal Person' and voluntarily accepting Regulations to be placed upon us that are in breach of our actual human Rights ( Like the Obligation to have licenses, to pay taxes, to not cross the road at certain places etc etc) -

It is claimed that Our Human rights not to be held in servitude to such rules & regulations ( which is basically slavery) is actually enlisted and Legally protected in the constitutions - if any Free Human Beings wants to actually claim them ( Which it is simply being argued that we don't!)) Like the right not to have someone demand money from you and threaten your life etc.. they can do it but it's up to the individual to claim thesse rights.

It is being argued that many acts such as showing I.D cards, Giving your 'name', obeying orders are all acts which Legally imply consent and therefore a 'standing under' the Regulations.

The claim is that no harm or breach of Rights (Obstruction to your right to enjoy Life, Liberty and Freedom) should come to You as a result of the Legalities imposed upon the 'Legal Person'. Unless you unwittingly identify yourself as being so and therefore become subject to treatment which conflicts with such rights. Basically theyre saying we do not realise that infact YOU are NOT Mr..........XXX! Which is the'Title' of the corporate entity.

Basically the argument is that Human beings are wrongfully identifying themselves as 'Legal Persons' and therefore suffering treatment as property rather than actual living flesh and blood beings with Fundamental & Inallianable rights (Which are not given to you by Government but are infact everybodies to claim and stand upon and demand they be upheld - and that the Justice system will indeed recognize and defend us on this only if it is actually asserted and claimed. )

The stuff about the Birth certificates being floated on on the stock markets as reserve for the money system since its no longer backed by gold - leads to the idea that your birth certificate is actual a bond that has Legally recognized value which can be discharged by you, and Legitimate payment can be issued off the back of it. ( Like the Promissory notes we use everyday)

I dont quite understand all that stuff but alot of people are recording success with the claim. Santos Bonacci is one the predominant cases claiming to do this.

There seems to be many arguments stemming from these basic notions by various people in different scenarios and it really seems to be an individual thing.

Obviously it is claimed that the PTB are resisting and de-faming such information, but it's clearly still a position many people feel is truth and are compelled to stand by.

I myself am simply researching this and as yet have never tried to stand by such claims legally but i feel there is a fundamental truth to the claim that we are (Or should be able to be) 'Free' men.

[sharn]

It's late, I'll try to answer the nonsense tomorrow if I have time at work. Maybe read though the links I posted above and see if that helps you form the correct answer.

Okay thanks.

Yes all this nonsense (aswell as all the other crap going on across the world) has had me up late alot over the years. Ive read through some of those things before - including parts of the mead Vs mead case. It seems that is now the predominant case law document addressing many issues regarding people using such techniques as he did ( Like all the strange wordings and markings he made on legal documents and claimed they had legal relevance - confusing the court etc) Even i think that guy was potentially just abit of a nutter!

Some of the more straight forward arguments and techniques and the fundamental principle seem to be worthy of attention however.

It seems to me it's a matter of avoiding (wrongfully) identifying yourself as the Legal fiction and thus wrongfully being treated as such. But rather asserting that you are the Human Being - with Human Rights under Common Law.

Straight away - It's interesting to me that Wikipedia is not inciting that the position is actually legally wrong. It does not state that : "Freemen" 'Wrongfully' believe that statute law is a contract'' Or after describing the argument state that it is infact Legally invalid. Surely if it was undoubtedly recognized as being Legally wrong it would be stated as such? It says that: '' None of the beliefs held by Freemen have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases'' - I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that no case has ever been abandoned or put-off indefinitely? Which is often what is claimed to happen.. The judge after realizing the futility of a Legal case basically abandons the case.

Just to re-itterate, I am not claiming this Is all infact the unquestionable truth - because i personally do not know. I'm researching and discussing it openly. I'm not interested in this because i have some desire or intention to take from others without contributing or something like that. Infact quite the opposite. I yearn to contribute positively to sociiety. I'm just interested to know if, when, where and to what extent people are being wrongfully manipulated - in order that if so, it be exposed.

[sharn]

As much as i love a dominant woman :wink2: - I agree that last video is a little bit personal and too specific and doesnt clearly outline the fundamental principles easily.

So instead heres a lovely chap with a much better, clearer and consice presentation of (what he claims are) some fundamental facts, arguments and principles regarding the 'Free Man' position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqHNBKM3B-w&index=5&list=PL-KtbtFy7OCd2Ggi0vhMztBdizYdRykr1

Andrew, Or indeed anyone else.. If you have the time to watch this video could you highlight to me any information you believe to be false and if you can.. direct me to evidence supporting it.

Again.. I'm just trying to understand this stuff correctly.

Cheerrs

Edited May 13, 2015 by sharn

[Mark W]

Back specifically to the government we've got now, they've appointed a woman who 2 years ago voted against allowing same-sex marriage to the role of 'equality minister'. I guess when you've already appointed a health secretary who wrote a book saying that the NHS should be abolished you've got to try and one-up yourself somehow.

[sharn]

Maybe shes got shares in a Wedding dress company?

I'd be curious to know whether on average same-sex marriages are more long term or less than opposite-sex marriages.

[Mark W]

Wow, stepping it up already. So - we've got the 'Snoopers Charter' they're trying to push through as well as attempting to outlaw encrypted messages, getting rid of the Human Rights Act and now David Cameron has said:

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.”

Concerning rhetoric, especially when they're just trying to use the amorphous term "Extremism" to justify the police being allowed to vet all of your online communications if they see fit. None of them have been able to explain how it would be defined or applied, so it just seems like more creeping surveillance/intrusion pushed through under the guise of "protecting us from terrorism".

[MadManMike]

What a huge bunch of c*nts they are.

If you're reading this, Cameron, you're a f*cking c*nt.

[Jolfa]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/as-long-as-you-obey-the-law?utm_term=.egazdqvWW

[Mark W]

That amused me.

This didn't:

GCHQ staff, intelligence officers and police have been given immunity from prosecution for hacking into computers, laptops and mobile phones under legislative changes that were never fully debated by parliament, a tribunal has been told. The unnoticed rewriting of a key clause of the Computer Misuse Act has exempted law enforcement officials from the prohibition on breaking into other people’s laptops, databases, mobile phones or digital systems. It came into force in May.

[Jolfa]

I was arguing with the Mrs about the whole thing yesterday, she doesn't disagree with it, because it will stop extremists ever getting close to carrying out terrible acts, fair enough.

She also however thinks I'm nuts for ever having googled how to make explosives because I'm a boy and it's interesting, which paired with my constant whining about those in power might land me a bit of surveillance and arrest under new rules.

[Mark W]

If massive surveillance did something then her line of argument might be valid (although definitely not with how things are currently worded/done), but historically it hasn't really worked out that way:

A new analysis of terrorism charges in the US found that the NSA's dragnet domestic surveillance "had no discernible impact" on preventing terrorist acts. Instead, the majority of threats over the last decade were detected by regular old intelligence and law enforcement methods—tips, informants, CIA and FBI ops, routine law enforcement.

[waybe2014]

If this starts happening I'll be flagged for sure. My paintball jersey is made by a company called anthrax

[Jolfa]

If this starts happening I'll be flagged for sure. My paintball jersey is made by a company called anthrax

That's even more vague than my reason for being flagged

[Mark W]

So there's going to be an 'emergency' Budget in July to spell out how they're making the £12bn in cuts they've said they're going to make. A quote from the Guardian:

Cameron spoke this morning of a “one nation” Toryism but he will know his £12bn of cuts will disproportionately hit the poor, young sick and​ disabled. The cuts will deliver more pain, fear and instability to those they affect. We can expect a rise in child poverty, a further decline in living standards for all but the most well-off, and more stupendous rises in productivity in the food bank sector.

A majority gives the Tories a mandate to begin seriously dismantling the welfare state, but Cameron – if not all of his party – will know this carries a political cost. Deliver social security cuts on this scale and many of those who voted for him yesterday may be surprised to find that it is they, and not the mythical scroungers and shirkers of Tory demagoguery, who will lose out.

[JD™]

You know I'm a friend Mark, but the ratio of your political posts before the election to post election has been ridiculous. Believe what you like, but it's done now. Make the most you can from it.

[Jolfa]

Tbf it's handy having the facts of what's going on to hand, I don't receive much UK news outside of the forums I use and Facebook.

It's good stuff to throw in the faces of the "I don't give a shit, I'm in good health and have a job, the scroungers should try harder" brigade

[JD™]

He says, while scrounging for information.

Go do some research for yourself, you're making this too easy for the "I'm in good health and have a job, the scroungers should try harder" brigade.

[Mark W]

You know I'm a friend Mark, but the ratio of your political posts before the election to post election has been ridiculous. Believe what you like, but it's done now. Make the most you can from it.

Not that it was quite in this volume, but I've made political posts before, but they weren't always in one thread so they wouldn't have been as obvious I guess. There also hasn't quite been this density of absolute bullshit for a while too in terms of decision/policy making thanks in part to the buffer of a Lib Dem coalition partner who could stop certain things in their tracks (see: Theresa May).

The reason there wasn't as much before was that I, along with everyone else judging from the polls (thanks to the 'Shy Tories' who, even when it was an anonymous poll pre-election, couldn't bring themselves to admit they wanted to vote Tory, unless there was some kind of incredible millions-of-people swing in voter decision making hours before the election), didn't think that we'd be breezing straight into a Conservative majority. I assumed that the past 5 years would have been indicative enough of their f**ked decision making processes - George Osborne being widely castigated for the level of austerity he plunged us into, causing a drop in growth that only started to turn around when he quietly lowered the level of austerity in 2013, for example - and the sheer cuntery of a lot of what they'd been doing (e.g. IDS, Jeremy Hunt, etc.) that people wouldn't just decide to sign us up for another 5 years of it, but with the added risk of not having that Lib Dem safety valve. Pre-election I couldn't work out how someone could just overlook all the harm they've caused to the country over the years, and post-election I haven't really seen anyone explain the good they thought that voting Conservative would bring save for Nick thinking that a couple of £bn in benefit fraud is more important than, say, the NHS being sold off, or Dave being keen on the £60m (from memory) that his industry would/had receive from the government.

I've been reading up more on politics for a few years now after first reading about the DWP, Jeremy Hunt (got stuff about that from 2013, so it's not like I just found out about it this week) and so on, and in the run-up to this election I almost volunteered for a fact-checking company who were looking for extra staff to do live fact-checking during the election campaign due to the usual levels of lying/deceit that goes on (I found out that I was missing a certain qualification/level of experience so I wasn't able to apply). I'm pretty sure that I've even said on here that my decision about when I'd GTFO and head to New Zealand would be affected to some extent by what happened in this election, and that's still the case now. It's also why I registered to vote for this election, which is the first time I've done so despite being eligible to vote for the past 2. I didn't really like what was being done, mainly because it's so easy now to get information about it and understand the things that are happening that won't necessarily be reported.

What I'm getting at is that it's not like I've suddenly become more politically motivated now - I've been reading various political commentators blogs, reading up on things and so on for a few years now. I just want people to know what they willingly chose to vote for, and consequently what they're now going to get. Things like the Human Rights Act being scrapped is a pretty big deal, and was a Tory manifesto piece. The increase in surveillance was another thing that's not exactly a great situation and was again a manifesto piece. The £12bn in spending cuts that they refused to explain (note the piece I quoted before from Portillo saying they wouldn't say pre-2010 what they would do to the election because people wouldn't vote for them if they knew - history repeats itself), which the Tory-led Local Government Association has now said can't be allowed to happen because it would "devastate local services and communities" despite it having virtually no impact on the deficit, was a manifesto piece and was something that people who voted Conservatives were apparently fine with. This is why people got shitty at people who voted Conservative then tried to downplay the backlash as just people being sore losers. That's also why I'm happy to point these things out because hopefully it might help some people bear in mind what actually goes on in the government rather than seeing the artificially created growth in election years (something that happens time and time again - note the huge drop post election last time when cuts were made, which were then lifted and brought the economy to life again, which appears to be about to happen yet again now) and buying into the hype that the largely right-wing media choose to propagate in the run-up to the election itself (which can be the only reason that benefit fraud and immigration are seen as such huge issues when their effect on the economy, the treasury, the deficit and so on are minimal compared to other more relevant issues).

It probably won't work but it's at least a little bit cathartic

EDIT: Some fun new stuff from today, these are the people 15 of you voted back in:

The United Nations has given its firmest indication yet that it is carrying out a secret, high-level inquiry into serious breaches of its disability convention by the UK government.

Disability News Service (DNS) revealed last August that the UK government appeared to have become the first country to face an inquiry by the UN’s Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), due to alleged “grave or systemic violations” of the rights of disabled people.

Source.