- I'm very tempted to offer a bounty on Charles Clarke. If that big-eared, bestubbled waste of oxygen doesn't keel over and die soon, his fatuous, hypocritical bile is going to give me a hernia. It's him or me, and I'm not going down without a fight. He's a big lad, but I reckon I could take him. I mean, what the hell is this?
"I hope the Lords will recognise that this manifesto commitment, voted through by the elected chamber, should be respected"Listen Charles, you asinine moron - the precise wording of the manifesto was
"rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports"The opposition peers are actually helping you to stick to your sodding manifesto, you hideous waste of sperm. Now kindly crawl into a secluded corner and die (preferably taking Blair with you).
10 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm afraid I'm with Safety on this one. You're assuming that "on a voluntary basis" qualifies "as people renew their passports". But renewing your passport is itself a voluntary act: you could equally well read that sentence as saying that compulsory registration "as people renew their passports" is how the scheme will be introduced "on a voluntary basis".
Which doesn't mean that Safety's got a leg to stand on: the idea that everything that's in a governing party's manifesto has a democratic right to become law is monstrous, unless (a) the party does everything in its power to make sure everyone's aware of everything that's in the manifesto, and (more importantly) (b) the party doesn't make any laws which depart completely from the manifesto, let alone contradict specific pledges which are in the manifesto. Neither of which, obviously, applies here.
Do it, nosey. Whatever you offer, I'll match it.
there's form for this not being prosecuted (see Mark Thomas' bounty placed on the head of George Bush)
Type 'sweaty baboon' into google.
Me too:)
Personally nosemonkey, I think you are being rather restrained...
No Phil, having a
No, Phil, having a passport is actually compulsory for travel beyond the borders of this country.
You could say that such an act of travel is in fact voluntary, but then where do you draw the line? Suppose it was compulsory to register for an ID card to travel outside of your parish. Such travel is equally voluntary.
What distance of travel is "voluntary"? Five miles? Fifty miles? Maybe he has the right to reach the nearest hospital and no further.
Fundamentally the compulsion of the ID card has nothing to do with the distance a citizen will travel. It's simply a mechanism that fools a lot of gullible people into thinking its fair. That's exactly why they're using it.
It's worth remembering that when Nulabour came to power it wasn't actually necessary for a British citizen to have a valid passport to enter or leave the country; the passport was for when you were in the foreign place. Having made the passport compulsory they bolt the "voluntary" ID card to it.
It's their ID card strategy all over. First make everyone's daily lives that little bit more inconvenient by requiring multiple forms of identity when previously this was not necessary, then introduce an ID card to make everyone's lives easier.
How about: If you don't agree to having an ID Card we are going to withdraw your permission to travel abroad. When crims like me refuse to carry an ID Card I will be punished - not being able to go on holiday from this beleagered USK satrapy to recuperate is A PUNISHMENT, as well as having to pay a stonking fine, as we are being warned.
job = travel
travel = passport
passport = ID card
I could voluntarily quit my job?
Sign on?
Interesting test case maybe?
Post a Comment