The census is after me?

pmduk

Flyboy152 wrote: »

What are the reasons then? Because, for life of me, I can't see any.

You can't see them because they were all so ridiculous that he deleted them when he got told how foolish he was being.

Outpost

All this fuss over filling in a questionnaire?

Somehow I don't think refusing to fill in a census form is quite the show of defiance or 'fighting the government' that some people seem to believe it is.

jimmyriddle77

Ive read through these pages and....WOW. What a superb effort of trolling.

A word of warning. Unless your ready to loose everything, everything that you have registered with government, get ready to take a gun to a knife fight. TPTB play dirty.

Good luck.

flexrider

pmduk wrote: »

You can't see them because they were all so ridiculous that he deleted them when he got told how foolish he was being.

I decided to delete because of a few reasons pmduk.

1. It was not worth carrying on a point or my options when everyone was out to mock my Grammar and point on the matter.
2. Everyone seemed to want to start a agurement over nothing.When i came back after research and reading up online everyone attacked my educational status and background.
3. Whole post is troll-fested and pointless to comprehend a adult convosation on a public forum when everyone "nit-picks",So i make spelling mistakes and i chose not to write like if i was writing a letter to a official person for example or business clients in my line of work....Big deal!!
4. Everyone is Human,No one is perfect,We all make mistakes-and since the Op has not even replied back who my advice was originally for everyone attacked my comments.Why did you insist on carrying on a point i asked at first with good clarifaction and politeness to cease the remarks
5. I have more time Offline and online Running my own Business and focusing on that then some people on this whole option and internet have forming a option on who is behind my writing style of Literature of Education with their remarks.
6. Like my signiture states not everyone in the world agrees but if that is the case just move on and do not attack people,I do not know you,You do not know me. I show you respect i expect the same thanks!
7. As for the Census My whole point is that i do not wish to be on it.In the last census i was allowed to decide that option. They did the same tactic pretend to fine people who never comply to their law hence the prodigy song"***k em an their law"ONly 33 people out of 4.2 million were fined last time,Ask yourself if so many millions were Finded what happened to the money-As someone has pointed out already it is Not enforcable,No Contact No contract, The judicial system in this country would not be able to cope with more work when they are using The power they have to apprehend criminals,supposedly that is why Labour never bothered to round up the last people who wrote"Jedi" and harry eggcup or whatever else they placed as there names,
8. No one seem to concept that my wishes as a human being in 100 years time when i am dead and gone i do not want someone to know about me from my personal infomation,Any infomation is already their online Via the internet, By the Goverments Databases an whatever else i choose to share it with, Making the Whole Census Debate quite pointless.The Goverment already have linked their databases with insurance companies and DVLA with the new law to identify non-SORN declared,To catch people driving when their car is not roadworthy or fradulenty claim there car is offroad.As you may of heard the car can be crushed or impounded. and a fine just like the Census can be imposed,

It is my right as a human being to have that choice not a Parliement act to state to me that i have to be on it if i choose too to be on then i choose to share my infomation,Not The other way around.
Another fact is just like you is

1)I pay taxes being in business for my self and put to economy creating jobs for people.Unlike this Goverment are currently not doing at present time.
2) i commit to no crimes and get threated by this Goverement as filth,Just for some stupid form i do not wish to be involved with
3) As i have already stated Im free to choose-Not when the Lapdog of Camron and Clegg and their stupid ONS department state, Two world wars our forefather's died for that option to be free. Were this Free Country of Great Britan which i hear from so many today speak about? Magna Carta is a old set of laws? which in truth our laws of today is based on and judicial system, In the maga Carta it states all humans have rights...The right to choose and expression can be here also? No Goverment can impose a status act unless apporved by crown....Hence statutory law

also

Schedule

The Schedule to the Act lists the 'Matters in respect of which particulars may be required'. They are:

1. Names, sex, age.
2. Occupation, profession, trade or employment.
3. Nationality, birthplace, race, language.
4. Place of abode and character of dwelling.
5. Condition as to marriage, relation to head of family, issue born in marriage.
6. Any other matters with respect to which it is desirable to obtain statistical information with a view to ascertaining the social or civil condition of the population.

Religion was added at 5A in the Schedule by the Census (Amendment) Act 2000 (c. 24) in England and Wales, and the Census (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2000 in Scotland. In Northern Ireland the Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 already made explicit provision for asking about religion. The 2000 amendment also added a clause in Section 8 of the 1920 Act to make the provision of religion optional:
no person shall be liable to a penalty under subsection (1) for refusing or neglecting to state any particulars in respect of religion

also

The rule of law, as described in this treatise, remains to this day a distinctive characteristic of the English constitution. In England no man can be made to suffer punishment or to pay damages for any conduct not definitely forbidden by law; every man’s legal rights or liabilities are almost invariably determined by the ordinary Courts of the realm, and each man’s individual rights are far less the result of our constitution than the basis on which that constitution is founded. – A.V.Dicey, Law of the Constitution (1915)

census regalis [royal revenue]. – William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

Census means revenue eh!
There are a few things about law/rules and rights that I’ve come across over the past couple of years that when thought about, give the common man a nice little trump card to play when unacceptable demands are made of him by authorities claiming to have so called “authorities” to take away your “absolute rights”.
Bare in mind though, I’m not legally trained (and might have some detail !!!! about tit) but have just taken an interest because of the appalling “State” of things.
Please take your time to comprehend the quoted text laid out below because and understanding of what’s written is fundamental to your knowing what the law originally intended. You’ll also recognise how much its been perverted. Also, you’ll need this knowledge to make sense of what I’ll say later!

« Arrested for “running indoors”?.
The Reason Why and, How To Confirm a Judges INTENTION to Act Under His Oath … Or Not! »

The Census – The Law – Your Private Rights

March 9, 2011 by slimline66

The rule of law, as described in this treatise, remains to this day a distinctive characteristic of the English constitution. In England no man can be made to suffer punishment or to pay damages for any conduct not definitely forbidden by law; every man’s legal rights or liabilities are almost invariably determined by the ordinary Courts of the realm, and each man’s individual rights are far less the result of our constitution than the basis on which that constitution is founded. – A.V.Dicey, Law of the Constitution (1915)

census regalis [royal revenue]. – William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

Census means revenue eh!
There are a few things about law/rules and rights that I’ve come across over the past couple of years that when thought about, give the common man a nice little trump card to play when unacceptable demands are made of him by authorities claiming to have so called “authorities” to take away your “absolute rights”.
Bare in mind though, I’m not legally trained (and might have some detail !!!! about tit) but have just taken an interest because of the appalling “State” of things.
Please take your time to comprehend the quoted text laid out below because and understanding of what’s written is fundamental to your knowing what the law originally intended. You’ll also recognise how much its been perverted. Also, you’ll need this knowledge to make sense of what I’ll say later!
English law dictates that (while exercising a duty of care!) we the people are free to do what we like so long as there isn’t a law or a rule preventing it.
William Blackstone sums it up nicely.

The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. – William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

So there you go, from the big man himself (Vinerian Professor Of English Law And Solicitor General To The Queen (1765).)
Natural liberty being defined as above, and civil liberty defined below:

Political therefore, or civil, liberty, which is that of a member of society, is no other than natural liberty so far restrained by human laws (and not farther) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public. – William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

… and not further!!!

For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could no be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals. Such rights as are social and relative result from, and are posterior to, the formation of states and societies: so that to maintain and regulate these, is clearly a subsequent consideration. And therefore the principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple; and, then, such rights as are relative, which arising from a variety of connections, will be far more numerous and more complicated. These will take up a greater space in any code of laws, and hence may appear to be more attended to, though in reality they are not, than the rights of the former kind. – William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.

The aim of the law then is first and foremost to regulate human behaviour AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE so the we can enjoy our absolute rights and freedoms which don’t need regulating or the protection of the law.
Its our “absolute rights” that are most precious and to me what distinguishes freedom from slavery.
Absolute rights, private rights and inalienable rights it seems to me are one and the same concept within the laws definition.
If you don’t understand all that you’ve just read, re-read it until you do.
From here on end I’m talking mainly about statutes so I’ll refer to them as they are in their true nature as rules and regulations, or just “rules” for short, because they are NOT laws – see here.
The “rule of law” dictates that ALL are equal under the law and ALL are bound by the law (this INCLUDES those representing the State!). There isn’t “one law for them and one law for us”. The same law apples equally to all. I do realise that this isn’t always the case when “the corrupt” and “the tyrannically minded” abuse the system, but the principle stands, no one is above the law.

rule of law 1. The supremacy of law. 2. A feature attributed to the UK constitution by Professor Dicey (Law of the Constitution, 1885). It embodied three concepts: the absolute predominance of regular law, so that the government has no arbitrary authority over the citizen; the equal subjection of all (including officials) to the ordinary law administered by the ordinary courts; and the fact that the citizen’s personal freedoms are formulated and protected by the ordinary law rather than by abstract constitutional declarations. – Oxford Dictionary of Law 5th Edition Page 441.

As those “individuals” representing a “concept” called “the State” (think about that!) make rules preventing you from doing some thing (smoking in public buildings) or compelling you to do some thing (pay THEIR council tax), it stands to reason then that before the rule was enacted you had the (absolute) right and was free to do that thing or in the case of council tax not pay it because it wasn’t demanded of you.
If there is a rule preventing you from or compelling you to do a thing, it will be documented in the relevant Act and as such, that information will be retrievable. There can be no doubt when you have “physical proof” of such a rule existing and being enforceable.
Now, this lawful “authority” below is very encouraging because it IS LAW and it protects our private (absolute) rights and goes something like this – if a public authority interferes with the private rights the individual, the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO PROVE THEIR AUTHORITY (meaning that THEY have to show which Act of Parliament (authority) gives them the authority to interfere with those private rights. It must show by EXPRESS WORDS or implication that that private right is no longer there.)

“It is clear that the burden lies on those who seek to establish that the legislature intended to take away the private rights of individuals, to show that by express words, or by necessary implication, such an intention appears.” - Metropolitan Asylum District Managers v. Hill (1881) 6 App.Cas. 193.

So you see that when you question an authorities “authority” to interfere with your private rights, they are LAWFULLY BOUND TO SHOW PROOF OF THAT AUTHORITY (the Act). If they cannot produce the authority then CLEARLY they do NOT have the authority to make demands of you that interfere with your private right to do as you like.
Therefore they are !!!!!!!!ting and so legal obligation to comply!!
Now the juicy bit.
So long as it isn’t legislated against, you by default, have the absolute right to choose to do something AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE or NOT, as the case may be.
The phrase AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE is a good one because it has been documented only ONCE in an Act where, the Act compels a publisher to deliver a book to the library AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, therefore his absolute right to not suffer a loss was removed, EXPRESSLY.


i rest my case

Flyboy152

flexrider wrote: »

I decided to delete because of a few reasons pmduk.

1. It was not worth carrying on a point or my options when everyone was out to mock my Grammar and point on the matter.
2. Everyone seemed to want to start a agurement over nothing.When i came back after research and reading up online everyone attacked my educational status and background.
3. Whole post is troll-fested and pointless to comprehend a adult convosation on a public forum when everyone "nit-picks",So i make spelling mistakes....Big deal!!
4. Everyone is Human,No one is perfect and since the Op has not even replied back who my advice was originally for everyone attacked my comments.
5. I have more time Offline and online Running my own Business and focusing on that then some people on this whole option forming a option on who is behind my writing style,Education with their remarks.
6. Like my signiture states not everyone in the world agrees but if that is the case just move on and do not attack people,I do not know you,You do not know me. I show you respect i expect the same thanks!
7. As for the Census My whole point is that i do not wish to be on it.In the last census i was allowed to decide that option. They did the same tactic pretend to fine people who never comply to their law hence the prodigy song"***k em an their law"ONly 33 people out of 4.2 million were fined last time,
8. No one seem to concept that my wishes as a human being in 100 years time when i am dead and gone i do not want someone to know about me from my personal infomation,

It is my right as a human being to have that choice not a Parliement act to state to me that i have to be on it if i choose too to be on then i choose to share my infomation,Not The other way around.
Another fact is just like you is

1)I pay taxes being in business for my self and put to economy creating jobs for people.Unlike this Goverment are currently not doing at present time.
2) i commit to no crimes and get threated by this Goverement as filth,Just for some stupid form i do not wish to be involved with
3) As i have already stated Im free to choose-Not when the Lapdog of Camron and Clegg and their stupid ONS department state, Two world wars our forefather's died for that option to be free. Were this Free Country of Great Britan which i hear from so many today speak about?

You do not have the right to not obey laws that you don't like. You are not free to chose, you have to abide by the law. Suck it up.

flexrider

Flyboy152 wrote: »

You do not have the right to not obey laws that you don't like. You are not free to chose, you have to abide by the law. Suck it up.

I'd rather not thanks! I do not suck anything as you put it!

Please read my last post again! It is utter BS to come back without any backbone of a point just a coharrent sentence and :Do yes! suck it up!

and like i have stated to you before My troll friend!

If i Robbed a bank,Stole someone's car or murdered someone that is law i would be punished for and i obay the laws of the land on that note.

I pay taxes and have people working for me,I give alot every year to the ecomanary, They have all my details, Why do you want it again?

instead of nimpy-pimby bylaws of parliement that have no enforcement about the census, It is the same enforcement as the T.V licence people.Knock on door! "were is your census"!! Fined if not complete!!

No contact No contract


4.2 million never filled in census last time, 37 Fined in total in fact i have a check on the mantle peace waiting for them,:T:T been there 4 weeks now!

So you see that when you question an authorities “authority” to interfere with your private rights, they are LAWFULLY BOUND TO SHOW PROOF OF THAT AUTHORITY (the Act). If they cannot produce the authority then CLEARLY they do NOT have the authority to make demands of you that interfere with your private right to do as you like.
Therefore they are !!!!!!!!ting and so legal obligation to comply!!
Now the juicy bit.
So long as it isn’t legislated against, you by default, have the absolute right to choose to do something AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE or NOT, as the case may be.
The phrase AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE is a good one because it has been documented only ONCE in an Act where, the Act compels a publisher to deliver a book to the library AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, therefore his absolute right to not suffer a loss was removed, EXPRESSLY.

One last thing!

The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous). - There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.
- Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.
- Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.
- Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.
- The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.
- The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right – and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.
- A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance – but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.
- Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work). Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation. A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.
- If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.
- It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws.
- If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.
- Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.
- Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.
- Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.
- Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.
- Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.
- We are all equal in the eyes of the law.
- We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.
Law

- Law refers to common law.
- Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.
- Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.
- Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.
- Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.
- Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.
- Laws are used to keep the peace.
- Without law we have anarchy.
- The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.
- Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all.
- Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.
- Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.
- Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.
Courts, Judges And Juries

- If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.
- Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury. The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.
- Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.
- Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view… but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box – common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).
- The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.
- A jury can stand in judgement of anybody… nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)
- If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.
- A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.
- The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.
- Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution – they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment… which we must challenge.
- Magistrates Courts have become statute courts… mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights. We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.
- Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws – their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.
- Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically – the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.
- Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.
- If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.
The courts belong to the people – they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.

Money_User

Must be fun be the little guy to fight all the big guys!!!!!

Or you could just admit it's no big deal, no one knows any more about you than could already be figured out and just fill it in.

No thats far too simple isn't....must have your fight to make you feel good fighting all the bad stuff about the world that you conjure up in job head!

Yorkie1

Flippin' 'eck, there's a right load of tosh being talked on this thread, not to mention excessive use of copy and paste!

The statute which creates the power to take the census and for penalties for non-compliance is the Census Act 1920.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/10-11/41/contents

It is a specific offence to refuse / neglect to comply with / act in contravention of any requirement to answer certain questions. If you make a false statutory declaration or fill in false answers to the required questions, it is also an offence - i.e. forbidden by law. The penalty is a fine not exceeding level 3 i.e. £1000. This means that the penalty could be anything from an absolute discharge up to £1000, so may not even be a fine.

Just because there were about 37 prosecutions last time does not mean the same approach will be taken this time. I am not at liberty to say how I know, but I do know for sure that a different approach is being taken. The training to compliance officers is rigorous about securing the correct evidence to support prosecutions in the magistrates' court.

meer53

Flexrider, if you're a millionaire owning your own businesses then how much more information will you be disclosing that the government don't already have ? I assume of course that you pay taxes and employ other people ?

Blaming a keyboard for your spelling and grammar errors makes me very sceptical of your claims, you're making a huge mountain out of a tiny molehill. Why don't you just fill it in like most other law abiding people ?

flexrider

meer53 wrote: »

Flexrider, if you're a millionaire owning your own businesses then how much more information will you be disclosing that the government don't already have ? I assume of course that you pay taxes and employ other people ?

Blaming a keyboard for your spelling and grammar errors makes me very sceptical of your claims, you're making a huge mountain out of a tiny molehill. Why don't you just fill it in like most other law abiding people ?

They already have my details, In some way or foam,

If you have followed what i already stated i do not want to be a part of history when im dead leaving details 100 years from now behind, It's a matter of choice

Not making a mountain out of anything just defending my corner from the trolls who rather "nit-pick" and take pot shots at me over my personal persona and education.

Hence the signiture. I am trying to show respect to people but just so far form this whole post it's been about taking english lessons.
Will not be replying back now because the whole convosation was started by someone who has not been on and echoed on about myself.

Thank you for your comments.