Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

Declining Democracy by Refusing Registration ?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Ymgyrchoedd - Campaigns
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Er ... try one ...

The Electoral Register is simply not just a list_
It is The Social Contract - just let me explain the gist :_
If on " Y Repwblic " I published YOUR name - and declared that of me you are a fan_
And that like me you hated The Democrats - and described yourself as " Repwblican "_
And constantly - without your permission - would you not be oft' pissed ?

... still not quite sorted ...


Last edited by dai on Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I ought to be writing a bit more on this thread given that here in Wales we now have both Local Elections and a snap General Election called - and of course my name has been fraudulently entered into The Electoral Register again ... but I am not keen to continue with this posting of letters into ballot boxes : I want no risks of further scenes in polling stations having done the correct thing and stated in person to the faces of those using my stolen name that they are doing the incorrect thing ... I need to sit down and clarify the arguments as to why The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 is not merely potentially harmful but actually illegal i.e. that it abrogates so many other laws which depend upon people being in control of their own names that the introduction of this corrupt principle of filling up The Electoral Register is a potent threat to laws which have stood for over a thousand years - quite apart from having utterly destroyed the basis upon which political society has to rest : consent ...

It is no use The Demockerats arguing that only a few ardent extremists like me are concerned about this : if there is no opportunity to say " NO - I DO NOT CONSENT ! " then de facto " consent " is not possible even if 99.999% of those entering willingly accepting their names being placed onto The Electoral by The Demockerats are saying " YES - I DO CONSENT ! " because if you can not say " NO " then that is meaningless ... I do not understand why The People in Wales are slow to understand this given The History of Dissent in Wales : it used to be part of the identity of being Welsh that our nation was defined by our being Non-Conformists - ah ... but all of the history being taught in Wales' schools is now written from the point of view of Conformists - who are the hypocritical descendants of those whose ancestors resisted The United Kingdom's Established Churches demands for tithes ( = taxes to support The United Kingdom's Hierocrats whose job was to propagandise from their pulpits the politics of The Aristocracy ) ... Children are taught about the hundreds of thousands of The People in America who had left Wales " because of their religious convictions " but they are not told why : it was not just about their beliefs but because as Non-Conformists they were forced to pay taxes to support the very people who persecuted them for saying " NO - I DO NOT CONSENT ! "

For those who do not even think about this issue - and for those who say " YES - I DO CONSENT ! " - and for those who are utterly perplexed and alarmed that anybody should even question their belief in Democracy - let me tell you a story ... Twenty five years or so ago my partner of the time walked straight out of the rain into the lobby of her university building ( for the record this was the Centre for Applied Social Studies in Swansea ) and slipped in her posh patent shoes ( I keep lecturing my partners about the merits of a sound pair of brown boots but ... ) and she twisted as she fell and whacked her head on the sharp corner of a metal filing cabinet ... Being the kind of person she is she then worked all day taking a lot of paracetemol and keeping a waste paper bin next to her to throw up in. Then rang me to drive her home again and got very upset when I insisted on taking her to Cardiff Royal Infirmary where they wanted to keep her in overnight ... you do understand that throwing up is a sign of a swelling within the skull ? ... Apparently when the nurse came to take down her details she asked which religion and my partner said " Quaker " and since the nurse could not find this on her (con)form she then announced with a big bright smile " Oh - well - I'll put you down as Anglican." ... Anglicans persecuted Quakers for centuries : this was like somebody who is a Jew being lumped in with the Nazis - get it now ?

I am a Pure Republican - I am not just against The United Kingdom but also against Democracy : I am an extremist and I am damn proud of it.

So : here is a bit of writing which I did recently - about my political Non-Conformity.

PART OF - http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=5075#5075

... you can immediately guess why : I am the lone survivor of a community wrecked by The Labour & Cooperative Party ...

... and as far as I am concerned they have wrecked our nation with their political incompetence - especially in Devolution.

Their attempt to wreck Republicanism in Wales however will not work because their behaviour simply resurrects it again.

All of The Democrats in Wales are united in their support of The United Kingdom - and their opposition to Republicanism.

The reason why I borrowed from the right-wing arguments in America is because they suit our left-wing purpose in Wales.

We desperately need a Constitution and The Court in Wales to defend it with the power to determine all The Law in Wales.

We desperately need to expound a simple version of Republicanism in Wales which is intelligible to The People in Wales.

That version must be acceptable to many different kinds of Republican but no more simple than is necessary for this task.

The People in Wales lack political education beyond the notion of " Left V Right " and they treat ballots as lottery tickets.

As you know I started out advocating making a distinction between Democrats and Republicans as pro-/anti- status quo.

My analysis is based upon reports from my friends in all parties and none : everybody is frustrated by the political system.

Most think that not having enough Democracy is the problem - but my analysis is that The Democrats despise politicos ...

... in other words The United Kingdom is an anti-political system - and that is why it is radically different from any other ...

... you can argue that everything is relative - and therefore The Republicans' in Wales stance is only relatively extremist ...

... but this is not true : the stance of The Republicans' in Wales is normal and The United Kingdom is extremely abnormal.

The Democrats in Westminster explicitly place themselves beyond the laws which they make i.e. they practice " Ultraism."

Thus I have dubbed them " The Demockerats " because they claim The Sovereignty of The United Kingdom for themselves.

No other kingdom in Europe has such a Constitution : this is a Republican argument and it is not against The Royal Family.

The United Kingdom has been claimed to be a Constitutional Monarchy - but it has neither a Constitution nor a Monarchy.

The United Kingdom has been an Aristocracy since 1688 and its apologists agree that its Sovereignty rests upon violence.

Political Authority does not rest upon violence but upon facts and arguments - and Sovereignty has its origins in Theology.

There is no such thing as Sovereignty other than created by The Law : imaginary things can not be made to exist with laws.

The Democrats' " Vox Populi Vox Dei " argument for The Sovereignty of The People is invalid : this is not Political Authority.

Political Authority only rests upon The Agreement of The People which can only be arrived at by understanding - not voting.

The Political System rests upon facts and arguments and so voting for representatives who decide by voting is not political.

That is the hard-line Pure Republican argument which I dubbed " White " and which the logic of Republicanism dictates.

Rousseau only vaguely implied how " The General Will " would be arrived at but there are some obvious implications in it.

The Mob Rule licenced by Democracy is excluded - Republicanism includes minorities by insisting on facts and arguments.

Republicanism was damned for favouring the educated and being slower and Democracy praised as inclusive and quicker.

In the mid 18c they were combined to provide a check and balance to each other and critical for this is " The Rule of Law."

The Rule of Law provides that legislators must consent to be ruled by the laws which they make for all ( = Republicanism.)

The Rule of Law provides that no laws can be made that are not consented to by all those whom they rule ( = Democracy.)

In The United Kingdom neither of these two basic criteria are met - yet its supporters claim that we have The Rule of Law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FROM - http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=5145#5145

UK General Election 8th June 2017 - oh ... gawd ....

I suppose that the question lurking in my mind is whether The Labour and Cooperative Party can win The General Election ... Yes - I think that they can - but of course I will not be voting for The Democrats in Westminster because I am " voting against The United Kingdom " -

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=689 -
Declining Democracy by Refusing Registration ?

- because I have become very concerned about the anti-political system whose supporters do not call it " The Dis-United Kingdom." ... In this political system the vast majority of political opinion - both of " The Left " and " The Right " - is unrepresented because of The First Past The Post electoral contest whose outcome is determined by a minimal number of floating voters who typically are the least politically informed and most susceptible to bribes and threats and weather conditions and what they have either just seen on television or hope to see on television that night. The actual variety of political opinion founded upon the our diverse lives is not represented and so this non-political system deliberately excludes the facts and arguments which are the proper basis of political authority - not " Sovereignty " - ! ... The Labour and Cooperative Party are sadly talking themselves into defeat because they keep on harping on about the likelihood of it : the floating voters are those kinds of dull wits who want to be on the winning side to give their deflated egos a little puff and also having spent months attacking Jeremy Corbyn they have conveyed the message to even their usual electorate - " Do not bother to come out and vote - we are going to lose : it simply is not worth bothering ... "

But it is : I know that they have The Hierarchy in The Media to deal with but if The Labour and Cooperative Party could come to their senses and remember that a party is not the leader and that policies are not merely soundbites then they would have a chance if the re-presented themselves as a team, a family - a movement of diverse and mostly moderate opinion. The trouble is that not just The Labour and Cooperative Party but The Conservative and Unionist Party forgot this in the 1980s : so many of us who are interested in politics were driven out of our parties by those who went on to turn The United Kingdom into this non-political system which has no contact with those it governs because the hundreds of thousands of activists who used to go out and knock on doors collecting facts and listening to arguments were vigorously attacked for bringing those facts and arguments to the attention of those whose vested interests in both their egos and pockets were in maintaining tight control over their parties. Quite simply : political debate has ceased to exist in Wales and Westminster and The People in Wales withdrew their consent to the non-political system by ceasing to vote ...

... The Demockerats in Wales and Westminster think that the remedy for no longer having their consent to be governed is to transfer the basis for establishing their consent to The Electoral Register instead of basing it upon The General Election : their remedy for their lack of The Democratic Mandate is to steal names from every list that they can find to subscribe to The Electoral Register ... as it were merely a laundry list ... but The Electoral Register is not merely a list : it is not like having your name recorded in a school register - but imagine if you will what would happen to a school where the teachers substituted filling in any name which they could find onto the attendance registers and then when more than half of the children were missing at each roll call claiming it did not matter ... or if more members of a household or company were recorded to avoid taxes or obtain welfare benefits : we would call it fraudulent ... The Electoral Register is the one place here The People in Wales can peaceably register their the fact that they do not approve of the non-political system which is harming them - yet there is no means to say either " I consent " or " I do not consent " to " The Social Contract " - because their names have already been subscribed there already and the question is " Do you consent to tick the box which agrees to your name being stolen by the government ? " ...

... The Electoral Registration and Admimnistration Act has no tick box for " Do you not consent ? " but it does have a warning as to the harassment, fines and imprisonment waiting if you do not tick that single box provided. The fact is that if there is no possibility of " No - I do not consent " then it does not matter how many people willingly say " Yes - I consent " because the mere presence of coercion to prevent Dissenters saying " No " invalidates the answer " Yes " being given by Assenters. The use of coercion and threats invalidates the testimony of witnesses given in court rooms and if jurors are found to have been subjected to these are disqualified from participation - prosecuted ... Again - The Electoral Register is not a laundry list nor a shopping list nor a convenient list of names made to alleviate the burden of registering to vote : it is " The Social Contract " and as such requires the positive affirmative action of saying " Yes - I agree with The Political System " but that will not be a valid contract if it is not possible to refuse to have your name on The Social Contract it by saying " No - I do not agree with The Political System."

This is not Revolution : it is not about rejecting every other relationship with The State but about registering dissent in a more constructive way than not-voting, spoiling your ballot paper or vandalising the polling booth - political actions are not tantrums but are defined by having a political argument attached to them. The Supporters of The United Kingdom however do not want to know the facts and arguments of this widespread antipathy towards their non-political system but rather would suppress them : this is anti-political behaviour which is building up undisclosed anger within our society about the failures, manipulations and corruptions being practiced by The Demockerats and pretended by them to be Democracy ... But Democracy is defined as being governed by Consent ... In a political society there would be a strong concern to provide the means to articulate and express Dis-Content in a constructive way such that the level of it generally and its varieties are accepted as facts and arguments - which is the true source of Political Authority ( not electoral majorities.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2017 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes - two elections due in five weeks : No - I am not tempted to vote ... and it is agony to have the first openly declared anti-militarist leading any Democratic party which is electable and deny myself the opprtunity to try to put The Pacificator in Power ... But not even Jeremy Corbyn is offering us the most crucial thing necessary which is to secure the future of our society by getting rid of The United Kingdom : he does not recognise that it is but a useless heap of paper which yet binds the hearts and minds of tens of millions to those who exploit and abuse them by substituting the private interests of The Aristocracy for The Public Interest i.e. The Democrats in Wales and Westminster are compelled to maintain this non-political system constructed in the 19c for the purposes of pretending to be a Democracy by substituting voting - " Demockery."

________,

Yes - two elections due in five weeks : No - I am not tempted to vote ... and it is agony to have the first openly declared anti-militarist leading any Democratic party which is electable and deny myself the opprtunity to try to put The Pacificator in Power ... But not even Jeremy Corbyn is offering us the most crucial thing necessary which is to secure the future of our society by getting rid of The United Kingdom : he does not recognise that it is but a useless heap of paper which yet binds the hearts and minds of tens of millions to those who exploit and abuse them by substituting the private interests of The Aristocracy for The Public Interest i.e. The Democrats in Wales and Westminster are compelled to maintain this non-political system constructed in the 19c for the purposes of pretending to be a Democracy by substituting voting - " Demockery."

------------
You just dropped in and think that my talking of The United Kingdom being constructed by The Aristocracy in the 19c to create a " Demockery " is archaic, eccentric, loony ?

Elsewhere recently I defined Democracy in terms of The People consenting to the laws being made by the legislators i.e. if The People in Wales have no means to say " NO ! " then even if they are all positively united 100% in saying " YES ! " then it is still not consent. Likewise the minimal definition of Republicanism is that the legislators - however chosen - must be bound by the laws which they make : otherwise any kind of government is literally un-lawful. The United Kingdom was re-founded in 1688 on the principle of " The Crown in Parliament " i.e. " Sovereignty " became the sole possession of The Aristocracy when they hired William of Orange to supplant James II but gave him The Crown on conditions laid down by Parliament. But The United Kingdom did not thereby become a Constitutional Monarchy because it has had neither a constitution nor a monarchy ever since : we just have mess compared to other countries. " Sovereignty " should be disregarded as an idea o: look at the facts - Parliament makes laws for us which it declares itself not to be bound by and it deals with those who criticise this state of affairs as criminals : to try to say " NO " to " Sovereignty " has been a crime since 1848 and in 2013 their remedy for not having a mandate in terms of the majority of electors no longer voting was to make The Electoral Register the basis of their mandate and then to ensure that everybody's name is subscribed to it i.e. to finally end any possibility of saying " NO ! "

The Democrats in Wales and Westminster have now made advocating " government by consent " illegal and this must be challenged because it is potentially very dangerous : this was the very issue which led to The American War for Independance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39565288

Council and mayoral elections: Are they being forgotten ? By Daniel Wainwright

... More than a million additional people joined the electoral register in 2016, the year the UK came to a historic decision to break ties with the European Union. .... Across the country, the number of people on the electoral roll grew. The largest rise in Britain, for example, occurred in Colchester, where there was a 9% increase in registered voters. ... Experts are in no doubt the increase was driven by the referendum. Neil Park, of the Office for National Statistics said it was a "key driver". ... But experts do not expect this new-found enthusiasm for the ballot box to translate to local polls. ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point surely to consider in the light of the practices being promoted by The Electoral Registration And Administration Act 2013 is where did these voters come from ... a million extra voters suddenly materialised in the middle of the EU Referendum campaign ? ... 17,410,742 for Leave - minus - 16,141,241 for Remain = 1,269,501 ... As you know I think that the whole thing is a mess - and registering voters unchecked at the last minute is inviting trouble ... I have no energy for this tomorrow : they are taking our names and they do not give a damn so protest is futile - as it always will be in a non-political system indeed an anti-political system ...

... So ... perhaps I can just stay in bed and write them a protest letter ? ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... But in many depressed areas people have even forgotten to allow the government to steal their names ...

" The Brexit boost was not apparent everywhere, however. Manchester, where people will be able to vote in the Greater Manchester mayoral election, saw the biggest percentage fall of any area with an election in 2017. There were 14,000 fewer registered voters by the end of 2016 compared with the year before, a drop of almost 4%."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SO : WHY WOULD THEY BOTHER TO PROSECUTE INDIVIDUALS WHO REFUSE TO AGREE TO THEIR NAMES BEING STOLEN WHEN THEY HAVE FAILED TO STEAL A MILLION OR MORE NAMES AND WHEN NUMBERS ON THE ELECTORAL REGISTER FLUCTUATE SO WILDLY WHY WASTE SCARCE FINANCIAL RESOURCES ON PROSECUTING, FINING AND IMPRISONING PROTESTORS OR INDEED ANYBODY ELSE E.G. SOMEBODY FORGETFUL ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally I am having a bad century - and it is only 2017 ... perhaps I can be excused protest duty at the mo ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This I think is particulary pernicious - and demonstrates how the non-political system called The United Kingdom is actually constructed to serve the private interests of those who actually control it - The Aristocrats i.e. the inheritors of the wealth of the medieval bandits who went on to create the empire and built it upon slavery whose profits from over two hundred years ago are still the basis of the capital invested in The City of London ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39907534/the-electoral-registers-hidden-benefits

" If you're planning to vote in the general election on 8 June you'll need to get yourself on the electoral register. ... To be eligible to have your say you must be signed up by midnight on Monday 22 May. ... There are other "hidden" benefits to registering - it could help you get a loan or a mortgage. ...A credit score is what banks, credit card companies and other lenders look at when deciding if they will let you borrow money, for how long and at what interest rate. ... Lenders use electoral roll information to help confirm your name, address and where you have lived before. ... This info usually has to be up to date before they are willing to offer a mortgage, a loan or any other form of financial account. ... Not being registered could cause a delay when you apply for credit, while the lenders confirm your details some other way. ... With some lenders it can even hurt the credit score they give you, and some applications may even be turned down. ... "

NOW I OUGHT TO HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT THIS - MILLIONS ARE MISSING FROM THE ELECTORAL REGISTER BUT NO ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICERS ARE BEING THREATENED WITH PROSECUTION ... YET IF ONE NAME IS REFUSED TO THEM THEY WILL PROSECUTE US !

In late 2015 the government made changes to the way in which you register to vote. ... Previously, a family member or your university could do it for you. But now the Individual Electoral Registration (IER) has been introduced and it means you have to do it yourself. ... Research found this led to hundreds of thousands of people dropping off the electoral register overnight. ... "About one in 10 people were not automatically transferred to the new list of voters. This seems like a pretty big error to me," says former NUS president Megan Dunn. ... "Some of these people may not even know their vote has been taken away from them."

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/03/08/now-theyre-on-a-roll-how-to-get-the-missing-millions-onto-the-electoral-register/

Now they’re on a roll: how to get the missing millions onto the electoral register

" ... Before the Lords voted against Brexit yesterday in the House of Lords, the government was defeated on another important democratic issue: voter registration. This passed largely without comment by the media (and went unmentioned in the BBC’s Yesterday in Parliament, for example). It is unsurprising that voter registration rarely receives the same level of coverage as Brexit, but it is nonetheless a vital issue. Up to 8 million people were thought to be missing from the electoral register in 2015. Research shows that citizens were turned away from the polls at the Brexit referendum because they were not registered to vote. ... Registration levels have been declining for a long time. It was long forecasted that this decline would continue under individual electoral registration (IER). The introduction of online voter registration and voter outreach work from organisations such as Bite the Ballot did much to address this in the run-up to the EU referendum. But now the referendum is past, we should expect the completeness of the register to slide away again. ... "

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David B Lawrence
Sent: 15 May 2017 21:16
To:
Cc:
Subject: I WOULD LIKE TO CHALLENGE DEMOCRATIC AUDIT TO RECONSIDER WHAT THE ELECTORAL REGISTER IS NOW BEING USED FOR.

Dear Democratic Audit,

I have just been culling some quotes from this article -

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/03/08/now-theyre-on-a-roll-how-to-get-the-missing-millions-onto-the-electoral-register/

I WOULD LIKE TO CHALLENGE DEMOCRATIC AUDIT TO RECONSIDER WHAT THE ELECTORAL REGISTER IS NOW BEING USED FOR.

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=689 = Declining Democracy by Refusing Registration ?

Democracy is not about voting but about consent to be governed : The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 ended it.

If we can not say " NO " then there is no possibility of saying " YES " - even if the names on The Electoral Register are volunteered.

If Democratic Audit and other such organisations are not advocates of consent then in my opinion you are advocates of Demockery.

Yours Sincerely,

David B. Lawrence
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How meaningful then is The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 if millions of electors suddenly materialise to register : is their casual non-registration somehow lawful whereas my deliberate refusal to endorse the taking of my name without my consent is to be considered not lawful ?

Besides that are the electoral registration officers not to be held responsible at law for not registering - sorry, stealing - all of these millions of names ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39922798

General election 2017: The mystery of the three million 'extra' voters

By David Cowling - King's College London - 17 May 2017

" We know that almost three million extra people turned out to vote in the EU referendum. Saying who they are - and what happens if they reappear - is where it gets difficult. ... One of the most striking features of the June 2016 referendum on EU membership - apart from the decision to leave itself - was the substantial increase in turnout. ... Broadly speaking, 2.9 million more people voted in the referendum, compared with the May 2015 general election. ... Turnout in England in the referendum was the largest since the 1992 general election; and in Wales since the 1997 general election. ... Yet we know absolutely nothing about who these millions are.
Their gender, age and socio-economic background are all a complete mystery. ... So too is how they voted. ... There was a clutch of on-the-day polls among people who had turned-out. ... But none of these questionnaires was designed to record the unexpected arrival of a great host of additional voters. ... "

[ BUT GIVEN THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM TENS OF MILLIONS OF THE VOTES CAST ARE NOT ONLY MEANINGLESS - BECAUSE THE POLICIES WHICH ARE VOTED FOR CAN NOT DEFINED BECAUSE DEMOCRATIC MANIFESTOS ARE NOT CONTRACTS WITH THE ELECTORATE - BUT INEFFECTUAL BECAUSE FEW CONSTITUENCIES HAVE MAJORITIES SMALL ENOUGH FOR THEM TO CHANGE HANDS ... BUT HOW MANY MILLIONS OF VOTES ARE WASTED ? ]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39655379

The seats that could decide the election

By Peter Barnes - Senior Elections and Political Analyst, BBC News - 24 April 2017

THERE ARE 110 CONSTITUENCIES WHICH COULD EXCHANGE HANDS ... HERE ARE TEN -

Gower - 16 votes
Derby North - 41
City of Chester - 93
Croyden Central - 165
Ealing Central - 274
Berwickshire - 328
Ynys Mon - 229
Vale of Clwyd - 237
Brentford - 465
Bury North - 378

= 2,000+ IN TEN CONSTUENCIES ~ SAY 300,000+ HAVE A MEANINGFUL VOTE IN THE UK GENERAL ELECTION = 5% OF THOSE REGISTERED TO VOTE = 95% OF THE VOTES CAST ARE MEANINGLESS AND THEN IT GETS WORSE BECAUSE ABOUT 33% OF REGISTERED VOTES ARE NOT USED ... WHY DO PEOPLE NOT BOTHER TO VOTE OR EVEN TO REGISTER ? ... VOTING CONTAINS NO INFORMATION AND THEREFORE MEANINGLESS AND NOT A POLITICAL ACTIVITY AT ALL ... VOTING IS AN EXERCISE IN DECEPTION : A CONJURING TRICK TO LAY CLAIM AT BEST TO CONSENT ...

WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE THEREFORE DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF ELECTIONS ? THOSE WHO ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO BRIBES AND THREATS : THAT IS WHY OUR POLITICS SWINGS FROM ONE EXTREME TO ANOTHER.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2017 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[ I DECIDED TO SEND THIS TO SOME UNIVERSITY ACADEMICS AS WELL - ASKING THEM TO CONSIDER THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE - no : I do not normally spam them.]

Dear Electoral Commission,

I would like you to read the following - and what is above where it is posted at :

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=5367#5367

David B Lawrence,

From: David B Lawrence
Sent: 20 May 2017 10:27
To: thetimes.co.uk; sunday-times.co.uk; telegraph.co.uk; telegraph.co.uk; independent.co.uk; inews.co.uk; theguardian.com; theguardian.com; walesonline.co.uk
Subject: I forward this to you to also think about - Fw: If you are going to tell people how to register to vote in order to uphold this non-political system - also tell us how not to please !

Dear Newspapers,

I forward this to you to also think about : The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 is a threat to civil society.

David B. Lawrence,


From: David B Lawrence
Sent: 20 May 2017 10:15
To:
Subject: If you are going to tell people how to register to vote in order to uphold this non-political system - also tell us how not to please !

Dear BBC News,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-39663004/general-election-2017-how-do-i-register-to-vote

If you are going to tell people how to register to vote in order to uphold this non-political system - also tell us how not to please !

http://repwblic.informe.com/declining-democracy-by-refusing-registration-dt689.html

I have come to object not only to The United Kingdom as a non-political system refusing facts and arguments but to Democracy.

In particular this was crystallised by The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 which enforces a supposed consent.

In many constituencies the total of votes cast in elections is less than 50% and this indicates that there is no consent to The UK.

Political systems are a means to process facts and arguments and voting is a vacuous exercise which involves bribes and threats.

In First Past The Post ballots the majority of votes are meaningless and general elections are decided in marginal constituencies.

Those of us who oppose the continued existence of The United Kingdom have no legal means to refuse to continue to endorse it.

Refusing to agree to the systematic theft of our names to create the appearance that we endorse The UK has been criminalised.

In contrast The Electoral Registration officers who fail to steal millions of our names for the government face no legal penalties.

For a government to criminalise political dissent is not reconcilable to the basic premises of Democracy : The UK is a Demockery.

The basis of Democracy - representative or otherwise - is not voting but that there is continuing consent to the political system.

On the basis of the lack of voting in many elections The United Kingdom is not consented to : this is my fact and my argument.

It is not a political response to remedy this lack of consent by stuffing The Electoral Register with names not given by consent.

This is like applying a plaster over an infected wound and leaving it to fester : it will poison the body politic and may well kill it.

If you want to continue with voting as the means of participation in politics then participating in it must be made meaningful.

There are many political systems but The United Kingdom is not one of them : in the 19c it was developed to be non-political.

I am opposed to Democracy but in favour of political systems which compel politicians to address the lives of those they govern.

The Democrats in Wales and Westminster continually ignore the facts and arguments which The People in Wales bring to them.

The most basic of all facts and most readily established is the number of The People in Wales who do not consent to The UK.

Establishing the continuing level of consent is of fundamental importance to any political system - Democratic or otherwise.

I am an advocate of " Pure " Republicanism i.e. as it was before it was compounded with Democracy in the middle of the 18c.

Political systems should correspond to human relationships : their objective is to create laws which describe good relationships.

Good laws make for good relationships which make for good societies : they are the result of good politics - Republican politics.

To steal people's names to subscribe them to The Electoral Register as a remedy for the lack of consent to The UK is not lawful.

The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 is not lawful : it contradicts and undermines the whole basis of civil law.

If individuals do not have control of their own names then all contracts are invalidated : The Social Contract becomes impossible.

Quite besides that : the number of names on The Electoral Register is fluctuating wildly and many of the " electors " are suspect.

The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 not only threatens the viability of good laws it is now entirely discredited.

As is the obviously non-political system which produced it : surely we can replace The United Kingdom with The United Republic.

If we do not - we can anticipate that The People in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales will be at each others' throats.

dai repwblic

David B. Lawrence,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2017 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

... and later the same day ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/39987278

General election 2017: Two million register to vote

More than two million people have registered to vote in the month since Theresa May said she wanted to hold a snap general election on 8 June. ... The highest number of registrations so far was on 18 April, the day the prime minister made her announcement, when just over 150,000 people applied. ... The number of young people registering is the highest of any age group. ... The deadline to register online through the official website is 23.59 GMT on Monday 22 May. ... The latest official figures published in March, before the election was called, showed that 45.7 million people were registered to vote in a general election as of 1 December 2016. ... The Electoral Commission have warned that approximately seven million people across Britain who are eligible to vote are not registered, including 30% of under 34s while only 28% of home movers in the past year have registered. ...

SO MUCH FOR THE ELECTORAL REGISTER THEN AS THE BASIS OF MAKING THE CLAIM FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM BEING CONSENTED TO : SEVEN MILLION PEOPLE IS MORE THAN TEN PERCENT OF THE ELECTORATE - TEN PERCENT WHO DO NOT POSITIVELY ENDORSE THE UNITED KINGDOM YET NONE OF THEM PROSECUTED FOR NOT COMPLYING FOR THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 2013 ? ... PRESUMABLY THE ONES WHO WILL BE PROSECUTED ARE WE FEW HANDFULS WHO ARE CONCERNED ENOUGH FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO TRY TO GETTING THIS LAW OFF THE STATUTE BOOKS - AND ARE HONEST ENOUGH TO POSITIVELY REFUSE TO ENDORSE THIS FARCE ?

I CAN NOT THINK OF ANY OTHER UNJUST LAW SO DISLOCATED FROM REALITY.

POST SCRIPT - http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=5375#5375
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=5446#5446

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40146544 -

Banksy makes election print-for-vote offer

Secretive artist Banksy has offered fans a free print if they vote against the Conservatives in a move which could land him in legal trouble. ... The Electoral Commission warned voters against taking pictures inside polling station's after Banksy's website offer ... The political graffitist posted on his website offering a print to voters in six Bristol area constituencies. ... Applicants have to send him a ballot paper photo showing a vote against the Tories to get the limited edition work. ... This would contravene laws designed to ensure votes remain secret, and could break rules against bribery. ...

... The artwork, which he has also put on his Instagram page, reprises his well-known "girl with a balloon" motif, this time with a Union Jack in the balloon. ... It will be released on 9 June, Banksy said on his website. ... In a "lawyer's note" disclaimer, it adds: "This print is a souvenir piece of campaign material, it is in no way meant to influence the choices of the electorate, has no monetary value, is for amusement purposes only and is strictly not for re-sale. ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have of course been following the elections in 2017 and to be honest it haunts me that I am unable to cast a vote for the first leading politician to properly oppose war and must put this business first i.e. of challenging the corruption of the existing laws by the re-introduction of this corrupting principle now incorporated as the stealing of names in The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2017 which has ended even the pretence of The United Kingdom as a non-political system being founded upon Consent. Trivial though this may seem to many this is a disaster but on these two recent occasions I have not made the protest of substituting a letter for my illegally issued ballot nor have I written any letters to The Electoral Registration Officers. I have been physically ill on both occasions not to mention deeply depressed at this mess i.e. millions of names suddenly materialising out of nowhere whereas probably millions of names already on the registers are doubtful : they go unreprimanded for this mess yet they threaten to prosecute those of us who conscientiously protest against it ?

OH THANK GOD ! THE EXIT POLLS PREDICT A HUNG PARLIAMENT - ABSOLUTELY THE BEST POSSIBLE RESULT : THEY WILL HAVE TO BARGAIN FOR BREXIT - FAR BETTER THAN ANYBODY HAVING A MAJORITY.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As if it is bad enough that they are ruining the basis of politics by destroying Consent by stealing The Names of The People Who Do Not Consent - they are even losing The Votes of The People Who Do Consent : what a farce - yet they have legislated to fine and jail those who object to their behaviour ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-40232776

Labour MP Luke Pollard's fury as votes left out of result

Thousands of votes were not included in the result for a newly-elected Labour MP, Plymouth City Council has said. Luke Pollard won Plymouth Sutton and Devonport with 23,808 votes. However, the actual figure including the missed votes cast in his favour was 27,283. ... Mr Pollard said the votes from the Efford and Lipson ward were counted in his constituency, but they were not included in the result. ...

----------------

Elsewhere there have been arguments about how a mere couple or thousand odd votes in marginal constituencies would have resulted in The UK General Election 2017 being won by The Labour & Cooperative Party. There are many faults with diverse voting systems but the basic one is that that all political systems are about decision making i.e. processing information and in any which use votes they convey no information. Voting is only about winning i.e. just about getting your own way, of seizing power and doing so by making claims and promises that are never binding upon those who make them but the result is supposedly binding upon those who cast a vote - yet ... in Democratic theory political authority is inalienable from The People yet The Demockerats claim that somehow in casting their votes this political authority has somehow been transferred from The People to The Politicians ... The way out of this confidence trick is the Republican argument : political authority rests upon the facts and arguments which are inseperable from The Life of The Person - not some fantastically conjectured " People " who opinionate about Lives that they know nothing about and therefore vote without caring about the consequences. The basis of political authority is personal experience and The Democrats can not be given this by " giving " them votes : the claims made The Democrats are demonstrably false and they can not obtain political authority by either counting votes or stealing names.

The Republican conception of politics reflects its central conception " The Rule of Law " in which The National Court ( The Nomocracy ) is like The King on a chess board -
unable to make laws but empowered to defend all those laws already made especially The Constitutional Laws such as The Bill of Rights - to prevent The National Assembly ( The Democrats ) from creating laws which violate The Constitutional Laws - and likewise to prevent other forms of power such as The Media ( The Modern Hierarchy ) The Corporations ( The Modern Aristocracy ) and The Military ( The Modern Monocracy ) ... In a Pure Republic the government is conducted solely by the methods of Nomocracy i.e. as if in a court room where the popularity of a political proposal or its advocates counts for nothing : only facts and arguments decide The Law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z48nmbhn2Vg - In Our Time - Hitler in History

It begins with a discussion of Mussolini's definition of " Totalitario " - " All within The State. None outside The State. None against The State.' - Where The State is seized by one political ideology and where the claim is made by those who profess it to control not just The State but the bodies but the minds of The People and where not only no Consent is sought but no refusal of Consent is tolerated, where those who peacefully refuse to endorse their claim to an absolute right to totally control The State are criminalised.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

"... many scholars from a variety of academic backgrounds and ideological positions have closely examined totalitarianism. Among the most noted commentators on totalitarianism are Raymond Aron, Lawrence Aronsen, Franz Borkenau, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Conquest, Carl Joachim Friedrich, Eckhard Jesse, Leopold Labedz, Walter Laqueur, Claude Lefort, Juan Linz, Richard Löwenthal, Karl Popper, Richard Pipes, Leonard Schapiro, and Adam Ulam. Each one of these describes totalitarianism in slightly different ways. They all agree, however, that totalitarianism seeks to mobilize entire populations in support of an official state ideology, and is intolerant of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of business, labour unions, churches or political parties. ... " WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING.IN THE UNITED KINGDOM WHERE THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS HAVE BEEN ENFORCING BUSINESS MODELS OF ORGANISATION AND ACTIVITIES UPON THE CHURCHES AND CHARITIES, COOPERATIVES AND TRADE UNIONS, REFORMING AND POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS TO MAKE US CONFORM TO THE CONCEPTUALISATIONS OF OURSELVES HELD BY THE ARISTOCRACIES WHICH HAVE OBTAINED CONTROL OVER THE POLITICAL SYSTEM AND THEREFORE CAN MAKE THE LAWS OF THE STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR IDEOLOGIES.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another reason to be horrified that The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 criminalises those whose only peaceful means to register our not consenting to The United Kingdom is by refusing to subscribe our names to support this non-political system which is making us into the property of The State thus inverting our proper relationship to The State which is in any other country deemed to be collective public property - i.e. that The United Kingdom remains now as it became in 1688 the means by which The Aristocracy manage its territorial possessions as a farm in which we are treated as livestock to be exploited for profit and slaughtered when ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

.... The notion of totalitarianism as a "total" political power by the state was formulated in 1923 by Giovanni Amendola, who described Italian Fascism as a system fundamentally different from conventional dictatorships. The term was later assigned a positive meaning in the writings of Giovanni Gentile, Italy’s most prominent philosopher and leading theorist of fascism. He used the term “totalitario” to refer to the structure and goals of the new state, which were to provide the “total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals.” He described totalitarianism as a society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens. According to Benito Mussolini, this system politicizes everything spiritual and human: "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." ...

The United Kingdom may not yet look like Mussolini's Fascist state but what The Electoral Registration and Adminstration Act 2013 did was to introduce into this already lousy unconstitutional mess the non-political principle that those who register our protest against it by refusing to register to vote - which should harm nobody except ourselves in that we do not cast votes because we deem voting to be not only a futile activity but also a deeply harmful substitute for the real political activities which as earnestly political people Republicans are deeply engaged in i.e. collecting facts and making arguments - are criminals ... Think of it this way - if The Democrats start rounding us up for their next war those who object to being slaughtered or slaughtering others are respectfully accorded the status of Conscientious Objectors provided they continue to support The United Kingdom which is the non-political system which enables them to sanction their wars - as is The United States of America despite being claimed to be a republic - but if we are Conscientious Objectors to The Democrats themselves for doing this and identify their non-political system as an Ultraistic one which is being worked upon the basis of creating sectarian hatreds in order to manipulate The People in Wales and The World to divide our own nation and prepare us for wars against other nations ... then we are disrespectfully accorded the status of criminals - as Conscientious Objectors to having our names subscribed without our permission to something which we vehemently disagree.

To put it another way - if you object to war on the basis that you might be killed then you are not a Conscientious Objector but certainly this is an admissable objection in a society which is not enslaved : if you are a free person and not the property of The State - which if it is a Republic is created as our collective property to serve our ends and not vice versa - then being forced to go to war by The State is akin to being told to enlist in the armed forces by your kitchen cabinet ... Think about it ... You pop into the kitchen to make a cup of tea and whilst wondering whether there are any Hob-Nobs left to your total surprise and without even opening the door your kitchen cabinet announces that there are none left because you neighbours stole them all - probably because they are Germans or Communists or Muslims or Women - and therefore you must go and stab them to death with the rolling pin for the sake of everybody else in the household : it is your patriarchal duty - and what is more it was probably your wife who encouraged them in the first place by chatting to his wife next door over a cup of tea and a plate of Hob-Nobs ... Now if you found me at your front door violently prodding you with a rolling pin and accusing you of violating our household by seducing my wife to steal my Hob-Nobs because the kitchen cabinet had told me that it was my patriarchal duty to wage war against you - what would you make of such a situation ?

Obviously - I think - you would either declare me to be insane ... or you might suspect ventriloquism ... The State is a dead thing : basically it is a heap of paper - The Law ... Advocating " The Rule of Law " however is not the same thing as saying " The Law must be obeyed at all times." ... " The Rule of Law " in The United Kingdom is claimed to mean that The State is the sole source of authority - but it is a dead thing, like a kitchen cabinet - this is Legalism not Republicanism which is based upon The Natural Law i.e. upon the continuing debate about Justice and when The Law results in Injustice then by definition it is not lawful - the reason why we make laws is in order to create Justice, primarily by collectively publishing account of how to conduct successful relationships and creating agreed social interventions for unsuccessful relationships which involve such things as counselling, fines, imprisonments and marriages ... Anybody who has witnessed a contested divorce knows that The State is a dead thing : The Law is only as good as those who interpret it - and who created it.

The Republican definition of " The Rule of Law " is that it means " The legislators must be subject to their own laws." You rarely hear this mentioned now - not even in The United States of America - definitely not in The United Kingdom where a whole bunch of political apologists in the 19c concocted a ridiculous argument to explain why The People in Ireland could not vote to leave The United Kingdom and why " The Constitional Monarchy " which was neither a Constitution nor a Monarchy ( and was in fact an Aristocracy ) could not tolerate Democrats unless they had money and and ... And why The Aristocrats in The House of Commons were entitled to be make laws that did not apply to themselves ... And why The Democrats in The House of Commons in the 20c having got rid of The hereditary Aristocrats from The House of Commons and replaced them with selected - not elected - Aristocrats in The House of Lords in the 21c were entitled to continue to make laws that do not apply to themselves - and to argue that they can make laws specifically targeted at anybody whom they do not like e.g. people who criticise Democrats.

Now the next time that you hear your cabinet giving out orders please have the good sense to tear the door off and look inside of it in order to discover who scoffed all of your Hob-Nobs : The Democrats may get elected by obtaining your votes but they need money in order to do so which they have to obtain by courting The Aristocrats who are the private interests which they therefore have to represent - and amongst The Aristocrats in modern Britain you must look at who puts money into this non-political system which includes trade unions and foreign governments : if we are to get rid of the non-politics of The Democrats who present their manifestos as the basis for The People in Poverty to vote for as if their ballots were hopeful entries in The National Lottery then in the first instance we have to recognise that politics is about collecting facts and making arguments and that doing this is in The Public Interest and is an ongoing process which has to be conducted to involve all of those who can contribute facts and arguments - and has to exclude all of those who can only contribute prejudice and opinion -

- this can not be done on the basis of trying to get an equal number of women elected or the token inclusion of a few disabled people as representatives elected for constituencies - it does not work because this is like getting a few Welsh speakers into The House of Commons in order to persuade hundreds of others who entirely lack any understanding of the issues - who in the past have proven to be lazy prejudiced bigots - to address urgent issues as the language declined decade by decade ... The Sacred Cow of The Democrats in Wales has to be slaughtered and urgently : votes convey neither facts nor information - votes only convey away The Power in The People ... or rather voting is a confidence trick in which The Political Authority is vested in The State - but it is a dead thing ... The Political Authority of The People is inseparable from them - but it is not a collective authority : facts and arguments about each Life belong solely to that person and qualify their individual political authority - yet The Democrats claim that they obtain political authority by the use of bribes and threats in order to get a " mandate." ...

.... Democrats keep telling us that their system is not working because there is not enough Democracy yet ... No - it is not working because it never has worked and never will work : Democracy is not a political system - political systems are decision making processes which rely upon facts and arguments and have to be Altruistic in order to succeed in creating well-functioning societies ... Hierocracy, Democracy, Aristocracy and Monocracy are the successive stages of descent into the dysfunctional decision making processes of Ultraistic non-political governments which refuse facts and ignore arguments and eventually fail even to use violence to govern which results in civil wars, foreign invasions and the collapse of society - Chaos and Death ... Choose Life - Choose Nomos - Choose " Y Repwblic."


Last edited by dai on Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=5805#5805

Roger Scruton abusing the idea of Natural Law and " The Religion of Human Rights " -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b092gkks

The Religion of Rights - A Point of View

"European society", says Sir Roger Scruton, "is rapidly jettisoning its Christian heritage and has found nothing to put in its place save the religion of human rights".

But, he argues, this new "religion" delivers one-sided solutions since rights favour the person who can claim them - whatever the moral reasons for opposing them.

He says Europe needs to rediscover its Christian roots.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.roger-scruton.com

From: David B Lawrence
Sent: 09 September 2017 10:12
To:
Subject: Dear Roger : I hope that in " A Point of View " you were not advocating " Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

Dear Roger Scruton,

I am going to post this message beneath what I wrote last night - http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=5817#5817

I listened to your recent " The Religion of Human Rights " contribution to " A Point of View " with both pleasure and horror.

I share your diagnosis that there is a religious i.e. moral deficit in The Public Discourse but my remedy is Republican : Civil Religion.

In other words there needs to be a recognition that religion is the necessary human activity of creating and transmitting moralities.

Far from having withered away over the past decades the religious life of our society has become more diverse and experimental -

- but not more critical which is I believe the point that you are trying to reach for in advocating a return to traditional Christianity -

- which would plunge us back into the kind of society which was sundered by political intolerance driven by religious prescription.

The kind of society devoid of the intellectual inquiry which fosters The Public Discourse which fosters our mutual understanding.

The kind of society where authority does not rest upon the facts and arguments but is asserted by those who control The State.

The kind of society that I desire has a Civil Religion which propagates those necessary values perennially rediscovered by religion.

The State should not be prescribing religious activities but should be proscribing anti-religious activities i.e. " private religions."

The Public Discourse in my original argument is a dialectic between Religious morality and Political ethicality to keep each healthy.

My developing argument is that The Public Discourse encompasses Economics, Spirituality, Religion, Politics, Science and the Arts.

The main flaw in my argument is evidently that " Y Repwblic " is not working as I first conceived it - as a " Republic of Letters."

Hundreds of thousands are apparently turning up just to gawp at my recreating the archaic arguments of " Pure Republicanism."

If you can find the time I would like you to read what I wrote last night and reconsider what you are now presently advocating.

It sounds to me rather too close to Mussolini's - " Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=5816#5816

Thank you if you have been so kind as to read this far - !

Yours Sincerely,

David B. Lawrence,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[ MENTIONING THE MATTER ]

For those I this afternoon I think that I need to explain a couple of other features of Repwblic (a) Moritz [ Daf ] dai & Marianne are three members of a group that we usually refer to as The Cardiff Illuminati dating from 1984 - shortly after the trial of " The Reds " i.e. The Welsh Socialist Republican Movement who were accused of Conspiracy : Abigail Leonard proposed the name arguing that if we were going to be made to confess to a conspiracy it ought to be the biggest & best one going (b) I wanted everything about Y Repwblic to be openly conducted to refute the allegation that Republicanism is a criminal conspiracy & as an Internationalist-Pacifist I reached for The Open Conspiracy as the once well known political theory which led to The Open University, The Open Society etc i.e. " THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY ! " (c) The Electoral Registration & Administration Act 2013 outraged me : in many constituencies even if The Democrats pooled all of their votes they could not claim a " Democratic mandate " so they turned to The Electoral Register to claim legitimacy for The UK but found the same situation there - did they accept that The UK as a political system had lost The Consent of The People ? No - they decided that as long as The Electoral Register was full of names that would count as a substitute : in ER&AA 2013 they licenced themselves to stuff it with as many names as they could find i.e. " The Democrats in Wales & Westminster " no longer believe in one of the fundamental ideas of Democracy - Consent !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2017 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now as I understand it the common convention_Is to pray at these moments for divine intervention_By a God which I do not believe in and - since I don't want His interference -_As a Republican Quaker I must insist upon suffering in silence_Well - except for making up poems about my voting by abstention ... dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : author asserts moral right not to sue for copyright = http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=5849#5849

Now as I understand it the common convention_
Is to pray at these moments for divine intervention_
By a God which I do not believe in and - since I don't want His interference -_
As a Republican Quaker I must insist upon suffering in silence_
Well - except for making up poems about my voting by abstention ...

dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : author asserts moral right not to sue for copyright = http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=5849#5849

___________

Post Script

When I wrote that earlier I really should have re-worked the last line as " Well - except for making up proems about my declining registration " ... But that still does not seem to work ... However another thought later was that The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 goes right to the heart of why Parliamentary Sovereignty is rubbish : once again The Democrats in Westminster have invoked - or at least assumed - the right to disregard the existing laws concerning entering other people's names into contractual documents without their even knowing about it let alone obtaining their permission. If you or I did this we might be fined or jailed under various established laws that have been around for centuries and in some instances have been statutory laws made only recently. If this principle is admitted then it will soon be extended for use by the various corporations which The Democrats serve - yet this is the very principle which has been rejected in e.g. the P.P.I. scandal ... and the whole business of breaking the cartels controlling gas, electric, telephones etc was to do with people being trapped and unable to exercise any meaningful consent - still the case with water.

Sovereignty is about being unaccountable before any court
and therefore unconstrained and so free to behave in an arbitrary way : this is not Liberalism but Libertinism and in effect it means that in 1688 The Glorious Revolution that is so much vaunted as having constrained The Monocracy in effect transferred its Sovereignty to The Aristocracy which has ever since behaved in the same way that Charles I did which led to him being put on trial for breaking The Law. Now it is The Democrats who break The Law in serving their masters The Aristocrats - but who can put Parliament on trial when they claim their Sovereignty overules The Supreme Court ? - " Who guards the guards ? " is the usual cry ...

... The answer is to state the obvious - " Sovereignty " is created by law and a law which licences law-breaking is a nonsense : therefore " Sovereignty " is not compatible with The Rule of Law ... There is only The Law and it must be consistent with itself - and not in the possession of any private interest because it is our agreed description of The Public Interest - De Res Publica - so any claim being made to be not subject to The Rule of Law can not cite The Law : it is an arbitrary assertion made upon the basis of implied threats by those who have obtained control of The State in order to use it for their own ends by re-defining The Public Interest as their own private interests. The laws which are created which are not in The Public Interest are easily identified : they contradict the existing laws which have stood for centuries because they are good laws which nobody in their right minds would seek to overturn - nobody except The Democrats in Westminster who believe that they have " Sovereignty " and can do as they please.

Now as I understand it the common convention_
Is to pray at these moments for divine intervention_
By a God which I do not believe in and - since I don't want His interference -_
As a Republican Quaker I must insist upon suffering in silence_
Well - except for making up proems about my declining registration.

dai repwblic = Dai Saw = David B Lawrence : the author asserts his moral right - not to sue for copyright !


Last edited by dai on Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:39 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From: David B Lawrence
Sent: 18 September 2017 00:05
To:
Subject: I am not trying to enter into a correspondence with you here are two items that you may want to think about - possibly ?

Dear Roger Scruton,

I am not trying to enter into a correspondence with you here are two items that you may want to think about - possibly ?

A paper has been on sale recently here invoking the memory of The Newport Rising 1839 again and it irks me that the memory of Chartism seems never to get beyond a few sensational incidents when The Chartists were overwhelmingly peaceable, sociable and constructive in their activities. I presume that you are aware of the deeply Conservative character of many Chartists but I wonder whether you are deeply aware of their efforts to return people to the land - partly of course in order to obtain the voter qualifying £10 of property - partly out of the kind of vision which you advocate : could you contemplate that theme of radical Conservativism ?

For my own part as a Liberal Centrist Leftish Republican and Nontheist Nomostic Hylozoist Quaker I have been rehearsing an argument about Sovereignty being a dangerous myth - that there is only The Rule of Law and that politics consists solely of facts and arguments and that political systems should be designed to obtain these because politics is essentially a decision making process not an exercise in obtaining power without knowing how to use it. My arguments for Nomocracy as an Altruism and against Democracy as an Ultraism along with Hierocracy, Aristocracy and Monocracy churn away in my partially educated mind but you might find something in them. Here is a specimen of this kind of churning which I wrote earlier today -

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=689&start=60

Presently I am arguing for the right not to register to vote i.e. I strongly object to The Electoral Registration and Adminstration Act 2013 which is stuffing The Electoral Register with names harvested from data bases and I am facing a £1000 fine or imprisonment for refusing to endorse this by ticking a box. It is a rather weird situation to be in having always voted until that Act was passed but in finally removing any element of consent this has in my opinion laid an axe to the tap root of The Public Discourse : we have been here before again and again with various laws over the centuries and thousands died or were transported in resisting this.

Yours Sincerely

David B. Lawrence
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Being no academic entrenched in an ebony bunker I make notes as to what I might write about scribbled on various bits of paper, old diary pages or the back of my hand as I limp around doing other things ... I have lost some marvellous ideas by absent mindedly washing my hands ... This thread needs a little less general sentiment and a little more close analysis of specific situations e.g. if The Democrats were to extend the principle of signing our names to endorse what they do then why should they not do what the police did to " The Reds " back in 1982 during Operation Julie when they rounded up The Welsh Socialist Republican Movement and had them sign confessions that had already been written for them ? There would be no need to bring any of us into court rooms - Reds, Whites or Greens - they could do to any of us - Blue, Yellow, Orange, Purple etc colors of every hue, tint or shade - what The Western Mail did to me in 2012 when they published my photo and quoted beneath it the opinions from The Blacks which I found obnoxious ...

... The Democrats might put my name to such opinions in a statement before a judge and obtain a warrant to search my home i.e. smash the door off its hinges, drag me out of bed and dump the contents of my filing cabinets on the floor whilst ripping open the furniture and building fabric before walking off declaring nothing found ... it was not actually that bad when they burst the front door open breaking the lock after I got tired of being repeatedly grilled on my front door step and said that enough was enough - that I did not know where the person whom they sought was - but The South Wales Police did so without a warrant and left me bruised and traumatised to pick up the pieces ... So picture that behaviour with me being dragged into a court being conducted in secret because my name has legally been subscribed to opinions which I actually disagree with ... The Electoral Registration and Admimistration Act 2013 does exactly that : it takes my name and subscribes it to an opinion which I actually disagree with - that I consent to the non-political system called " The United Kingdom."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2669

PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am normally banging on about why people should not so much passively " obey the law " but more actively " support the law " i.e. to recognise that the source of authority in The Law is not because The State presents a series of coercive threats if you do not obey a law but because The Law is our collectively agreed understanding of how to behave and is therefore primarily advisory and we are wise to be advised by centuries of recorded opinion about how to conduct our lives. But what if The Law or rather a law or in the case of The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 a minor part of a law is unwise and - given the non-political system called The United Kingdom - can not be corrected by conventional means quickly enough whilst it does harm i.e. spreads disorder in society disturbing the peace - wholly contrary to the object of any law - unjust and therefore not a law at all ?

In other words - what do you plead when you are dragged into courtroom to answer for your actions when for conscience's sake you have taken an action to demonstrate that the law in question is already breaking the law - that you are upholding The Rule of Law by advocating for Justice ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdict#Special_verdict

... In English law, a special verdict is a verdict by a jury that makes specific factual conclusions rather than (or in addition to) the jury's declaration of guilt or liability. For example, jurors may write down a specific monetary amount of damages, or a finding of proportionality, in addition to the jury's ultimate finding of liability. In the words of William Blackstone, "The jury state the naked facts, as they find them to be proved, and pray the advice of the court thereon". ... ... Special verdict forms are common in civil cases. However, many courts disfavour their use in criminal cases. This is because juries traditionally have the power to issue a one- or two-word general verdict in criminal cases, simply pronouncing a defendant "guilty" or "not guilty." By this means, criminal juries are never required to explain their verdicts. The right to issue a general verdict in criminal cases is thus considered one of the great protections of trial by jury. ... Because of the jury's historic function of tempering rules of law by common sense brought to bear upon the facts of a specific case, for this reason Justices Black and Douglas indicated their disapproval of special verdicts even in civil cases.

In cases where political protestors go into court to plead that the moral grounds for their actions justify rejecting the ethical grounds of the laws or policies which they are opposing the Americans have a distinct advantage in that they have a Constitution, A Bill of Rights and The Rule of Law ... American juries can debate the meaning of the laws cited by their judges and determine both the facts of the case and the application of the law which acts in a small way to check judicial prejudice or amnesia about which laws should be applied : I am not sure why this is called " jury nullification " but it used to be part of English Law too - until it got nobbled in the early 19c because it was dangerously Democratic -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

Jury nullification in the United States has its origins in colonial British America. Similar to British law, in the United States jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return. ...

[ INTERESTING STUFF IN THIS - SEE LINK TO - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Camden_28 ]

... In criminal cases, jury nullification arguments sometimes focus on the precise language of the jury instruction on the burden of proof. Many jury instructions on the issue of the burden of proof invite nullification arguments. According to these instructions juries must find the defendant not guilty if the case has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely the jury should find the defendant guilty if the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The permissive language "should" arguably allows juries to consider nullification arguments. It is also possible to receive a specific jury instruction on nullification, though most judges simply avoid the topic and do not tell jurors of their power to judge the fairness of the law and how it is applied as well as to judge the facts of a case. ... The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S., written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge. ...

... A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the power of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.

" We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision."

Nevertheless, in upholding the refusal to permit the jury to be so instructed, the Court held that:

" ... by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to ensure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed."

Hence when you decide to protest against a bad law by not complying with it - hopefully in a humerously harmless way - you need to be careful not to break any good laws whilst demonstrating that the bad law is indeed already a broken law and that it is that which is doing harm and not you ... You have to support The Rule of Law by going into a court room and respectfully making your case - you can not go breaking laws and running off without giving an account of your actions and call that a " political " act because such acts are criminal unless they are publicly argued for ... and supporting The Rule of Law demands that you accept the authority of court to fine or imprison you - even apologising to you as they do so : you have to play Socrates and accept that the life of the individual must be sacrificed for the good of society - the cure for our political discontentent being as for all our other illnesses ... Which is why Socrates jokingly asked for his cock to be sacrificed to Asklepios ...

https://classical-inquiries.chs.harvard.edu/the-last-words-of-socrates-at-the-place-where-he-died/

"... §3. So, what does Socrates mean when he asks his followers, in his dying words, not to forget to sacrifice a rooster to Asklepios ? ... It is the fact that the hero Asklepios was believed to have special powers of healing—even the power of bringing the dead back to life. As I point out in H24H 24§46, some interpret the final instruction of Socrates to mean simply that death is a cure for life. I disagree. After sacrificing a rooster at day’s end, sacrificers will sleep the sleep of incubation and then, the morning after the sacrifice, they will wake up to hear other roosters crowing. So, the words of Socrates here are referring to rituals of overnight incubation in the hero cults of Asklepios. ... §7. So, Asklepios is the model for keeping the voice of the rooster alive. And, for Socrates, Asklepios can become the model for keeping the word alive. ... before Socrates is forced to drink the hemlock, his followers are already mourning his impending death, and Socrates reacts to their sadness by telling them that the only thing that would be worth mourning is not his death but the death of the conversation he started with them ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uvY3VWe4O4k

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z808yclxfQ

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=380KSdkV6zY
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Ymgyrchoedd - Campaigns All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 :: 
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games