STATEMENT OF WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED

ISSUED TO THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND AGENTS OF: THE UNITED KINGDOM of GREAT BRITAIN & NORTHERN IRELAND

PLEASE NOTE THAT ON THIS DATE: MAY 06, 2010
I; My Name (or yours) RESIDING AT My House, (or yours).

DID PRESENT MYSELF TO THE VOTE POLLING STATION IN THE VILLAGE OF (where I live).
I STATED THE FOLLOWING TO CLERK OF RECORDS:
” I WILL NOT VOTE.
I HEREBY RESCIND ANY AND ALL CONTRACTS BETWEEN MYSELF AND ANY GOVERNMENT THAT WILL RESULT FROM THIS VOTE.
I WITHDRAW MY CONSENT TO BE GOVERNED BY OTHERS.
I RECLAIM MY COMMON LAW RIGHT TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS A SOVEREIGN BRITON.
I WILL NOT ABIDE BY ANY FALSE STATUTE, RULE, OR LAW OTHER THAN COMMON LAW.
I WILL NOT DISTURB THE PEACE,
I WILL NOT CAUSE HARM TO OTHERS,
I WILL NOT ENTER INTO FALSE CONTRACT WITH OTHERS.
THIS STATEMENT IS HEREBY ISSUED TO ANY AND ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND AGENTS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM of GREAT BRITAIN & NORTHERN IRELAND.”
WITNESSED THIS DAY: _________________
NAMES OF WITNESS: ____________________ , ____________________
SIGNATURE OF WITNESS: ____________________ , __________________

When genocide occurs it is caused by the breakdown of normalised (ie non-violent) relationships and decision-making processes within human society.

Where wholesale violations of basic standards of non-violence continue the society crumbles to the point of collapse or is overturned whereby normalcy is reestablished.

Voting is a more reliable form of decision-making, but it is not the only one, nor does it necessarily result in decisions which reduce violence.

The right to vote is therefore included in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, not the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Even within the European Convention on Human Rights the right to regular, free and fair elections is included among the protocols, meaning it is not a human right in and of itself, but a subordinate right agreed as the most effective way of securing human rights.

Put it this way, the right to vote is not conferred immediately you are born. Anywhere.

That statement makes no sense. If human rights were only those things necessary for the existence of human society, then what are the human rights? Because, as history has shown, you can install a totalitarian government, and inflict mass genocide, and they’ll still be a human society for those left over.

Liberties, civic rights and human rights are easily confused, but that doesn’t mean they should be treated alike in all cases.

Voting is not a human right because the existence of human society does not depend upon it.

Nor is voting a civic right, because many communities do not organise votes for the participation of all their members.

The progression of human society does however depend on voting, because it is the only means of accounting for every participant.

So if we wish to account for the crimes committed by people behind bars we must also listen to their voices and extend votes to them (under certain conditions), but it is completely perverse to think that by silencing ourselves we will further this end.

The means are not justified by the ends, the means determine the ends.

@ 52

“Their poll of 1,807 people in England and Wales found 61% had committed one of a series of offences.”

mmmm. Its a poll actually, not a factual reality.

Who do you suppose they were polling, Ken Barlow? Bill and Ben? Lara Croft?

One study, by criminologists at Keele University, found that nearly two-thirds of Britons admitted to acts of dishonesty

Key term there, obviously.

The entire article can be found here – http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:t8CYbUcvg0wJ:www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus45/Law_abiding_Majority_FINAL_VERSION.pdf+%22british+journal+of+criminology%22+%22law+abiding+majority%22&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjzFgKSg_4ZnQrdeFp8R-jL0QOvW1ISflqt4ozxgPb1RwmPtBoRxGSnQlDHjeVsFqoWQOBd3-XG4I78uVKa4SfM6mqvylL8LkW4Y8bnuGu_aUZlT7krfnY537Jwgb3MREBc_XML&sig=AHIEtbTiq7IM7y2SV6zCckArUXV2PDK-NQ

I delineated between human rights, and other rights

I knew full well you had been referring to this part of what I said:

Many rights are known as “human rights” for a reason – you have them by virtue of being human, not by being virtuous. They are a minimum standard, which no government should contravene… else why aren’t you advocating that prisoners be defecated on by their guards? Aren’t you insulting their victims, if you grant prisoners their human right not to be shat on?

But look carefully at the start of that:

Many rights are known as “human rights”

i.e. not all rights are “human rights”. In other words, “I delineated between human rights, and other rights”.

Please learn to fucking read.

Re the other point – read the judgement. The judges clearly believe that denying some prisoners the vote as part of their punishment is consistent with the ECHR. It is the “blanket ban” where the issue lies

Again. Reading comprehension. Work on it. I’m well aware that denying some criminals the vote would okay from the ECHR point of view, but I was pointing out that using such a point as an argument against giving all prisoners the vote would be an argument from authority. Which is a logical fallacy.

My post was referring to where you said:

“Many rights are known as “human rights” for a reason – you have them by virtue of being human, not by being virtuous. They are a minimum standard, which no government should contravene… else why aren’t you advocating that prisoners be defecated on by their guards? Aren’t you insulting their victims, if you grant prisoners their human right not to be shat on?”

That sounds like an argument that no human rights should ever be denied to be.

But that’s by the by – you seem to accept that some human rights should be denied to prisoners. The question is about which ones.

Re the other point – read the judgement. The judges clearly believe that denying some prisoners the vote as part of their punishment is consistent with the ECHR. It is the “blanket ban” where the issue lies

If a miracle happened, would Neil then exercise his vote?

If you don’t go and vote or spoil your ballot paper with rude words, drawings, verses from the Koran, add and tick a “none of the above” box or whatever, the two main parties WILL assume you are too content to bother.

As someone who has a reasonably efficient LibDem MP and where there are Green councillors in surrounding boroughs, I know for a fact it is not a waste of time voting for non LabCon parties in many consituencies/wards.

I want to see the two party state completely smashed/undermined so that we stand some chance of more intelligent and engaged politicians in future – again pointing to a need to vote for non LabCon candidates.

Last but not least, a low turnout allows undesirables to be elected with very few votes – as we saw in the election of two BNP members to the EU Parliament. :<

People should either vote or – if they really have bothered to look at all the candidates in their constituency/ward and have decided they disagree with all of them (INCREDIBLY unlikely, I would have thought) – they should go to the polling station and spoil their ballot papers in whatever way seems appropriate.

(The candidates are obliged to look at all the spoiled ballot papers so this is not quite as pointless as it might seem.)

You are either lazy and pathetic, seriously depressed – or you are just a LabCon member/staffer desperately trying any ruse to stop people voting non-LabCon.

Absolutely pathetic. :<

“Please answer this question for me: do you really think that by not voting the country would suddenly gain conscience of the prisoners’ vote issue?

Or is it just gonna be more headlines about rising apathy?”.

It is a very interesting question. I have heard politicians going on about low voter turn out, and yet here they are preventing those who want to vote from voting! Neil has beautifully hit the nail on the head. This is not about voter apathy, nor the lack of choice between parties, nor about what prisoners have done to get locked up. It is about Jack Straw breaking the law. It is about Jack Straw, who as the so-called responsible Minister for Justice, has a duty to ensure Democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights to citizens. For this to be ignored on the scale that it has means too many people with their heads in the sand.

Because of all the implications and ramifications this is the story of the election but the MSM hasn’t cottoned on yet. The tabloid media and government have been caught out lying on a grand scale on this issue. It is either naked or suit of green. The Court said every citizen counts. Neil is making his vote count. There is about 3 weeks left to make the prisoners votes count. If this stunt or call it what you like works, I will personally put a blue plaque on Neil’s house.

At least with RON there is a number than can be attributed to apathy as opposed to incapability to fill out a form. Or, perhaps more realistically, a difference between those that honestly think that a better politician should be available, and those that don’t believe in the system and want to note that opinion

Gwyn: Glad you agree

But I find the moral condemnation on show pretty pathetic. Its the internet that brings it out in people partly, but I suppose its the irrational confidence that you’ll never be a law breaker, that you’ll never err that irks me.

Likewise, there seems little logic in the shouts against clemency from those who want prisoners to lose all their rights. (I refer you to the ferrous/speeding analogy above). I want a penal system that results in as little crime, how does depriving criminals of voting rights achieve this.

Perhaps I’ve not made it clear. Luckily, Chris posted on something relevant today.

Both fail to see what the law does. The law does not ban things – at least not directly – but rather changes incentives. And these changes might not have wholly desirable effects.

On average people commit crimes because they think the outcomes of committing the crime are preferably to not committing the crime.

One of the things that contributes to how expensive a crime is would be the likelihood of getting caught and the severity of the punishment if this happened. Losing the vote is not going to have anything other than a very very marginal effect on this because voting is going to be a very small part of their life.

One of the purposes of prison is to rehabilitate because 1) that’s cheaper than releasing someone only to lock them up again in a few years, and 2) its better for everyone involved because it will result in less crime. In the boring, mundane and repetitive life of a prisoner voting offers a connection to the outside world and an opportunity to engage constructively which I think will help rehabilitation.

Yeah, good call.

Actually wtf, I think it was because simplistic twats don’t understand the difference between a diminished-responsibility manslaughter committed 30 years ago by a now-reformed citizen, and a murder committed yesterday by a dangerous sociopath. Furthermore, said twats don’t think their ignorance of the criminal justice system should be a barrier to them speaking their brains about it at every opportunity.

It’s only warped if you accept the tabloid version of events at face value, and if you do then I’ve got no idea how you can cut it in the real world.

I repeat my earlier statement, though generally assume you’re one of the parachuted ignorants that seems to believe anyone who’s gone through the prison system is the spawn of the devil and has been since birth….

…A prisoner, when finished with their time, is an innocent ex-convict. They have done their punishment for their crimes and are therefore a “blank slate” in terms of participation in society. Unfortunately those like you would rather that these ex-convicts then found it harder to get jobs, harder to adapt to new skills, and (it seems here) harder to visualise themselves as part of the society that incarcerated them rather than an outsider.

By all means, if you’re actually *for* the burden prison’s put on our society, financially and otherwise, then continue to believe what you do….it is the surefire way of ensuring reoffending rates remain at their current levels or higher and to put our society and our economy under strain.

If however you understand the link between engagement with individuals, their health, the support they get for any past abuses or problems, and their prospects and aspirations and their likelihood to reoffend, then you might want to rethink your position.

I agree it’s a bit silly, but it’s also food for thought: if we have a right to vote for whoever we want, what happens when we don’t want anyone on offer? Should we have a right to vote to re-open nominations? It’s worth asking these questions, sometimes.

Or they could be unhappy that they are unable to vote, as they would be in many other countries.

If you love execution-happy Iranistan so much why don’t you go live there etc etc

Should people caught speeding be beaten with iron bars?

It follows logically (and perhaps hyperbolically) from what you have said.

They’ve committed a crime and have all their rights removed, including the one which prevents you from being assaulted with ferrous materials.

Do you want to modify your position slightly?

A prisoner is somebody who has not only demonstrated an inability to be an effective member of society but has further demonstrated that their presence in society is detrimental to the common good – why should they have a say in how the country is Governed?