Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Voice

Jump to new
wayneL said:
Douglas is one of the best thinkers of our time, the man is a sage. Great article.
Click to expand...

He is leading by example, showing us that we should not be intimidated by others trying to stop us speaking our mind. The time has come for us all to speak out and share the knowledge of history and progress.

Another person that leads by example is Tony Abbott, listen at the 37.30 mark - IPA forum on the Voice to Parliament in Perth – August 2023
​
​
The IPA’s research has shown that the proposed Indigenous-only Voice to Parliament is risky, uncertain and divisive, with little detail available about its power and consequences. ​
​
There is a large and growing body of domestic and international evidence which demonstrates that the Voice will be more powerful and have a far greater impact on the way Australia is governed the activists and proponents claim. ​
​
​

.
 
JohnDe said:
Another person that leads by example is Tony Abbott, listen at the 37.30 mark - IPA forum on the Voice to Parliament in Perth – August 2023
​
​
​
Click to expand...
Abbott was cancelled years ago, the elites hammered him, no tact, no money, no breeding, unlike Malcolm. :roflmao:

I mean my god he even had a mortgage when he was the leader, at the time he didn't have a rental property, obviously he wasn't suitable.

He even stayed in the police barracks rather than a taxpayer funded Canberra mansion, such a lack of class tut tut.

www.theguardian.com

Canberra house Tony Abbott chose not to live in costs $120,000

Budget estimates committee confirms full cost of the ill-fated 12-month lease – including termination fees and legal advice
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
From the article:
Abbott won the election and declined to live in the $3,000 a week rental property. He instead opted to stay at the Australian Federal Police college when in Canberra – a decision portrayed at the time as a cost-saving measure.

Labor senators pursued the accommodation matter while also seeking to highlight increased funding for the prime minister's official residences of the Lodge in Canberra and Kirribilli House in Sydney.

The budget for the prime minister's official residences will increase from $1.61m in 2013-14 to $1.7m next financial year, rising to $1.77m, $1.81m and $1.86m in subsequent years.

Labor's Senate leader, Penny Wong, suggested to officials that the "end of the age of entitlement" did not apply to the prime minister's residences despite other Australians taking a hit from the budget.
 
sptrawler said:
Abbott was cancelled years ago, the elites hammered him, no tact, no money, no breeding, unlike Malcolm. :roflmao:

I mean my god he even had a mortgage when he was the leader, at the time he didn't have a rental property, obviously he wasn't suitable.

He even stayed in the police barracks rather than a taxpayer funded Canberra mansion, such a lack of class tut tut.

www.theguardian.com

Canberra house Tony Abbott chose not to live in costs $120,000

Budget estimates committee confirms full cost of the ill-fated 12-month lease – including termination fees and legal advice
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
From the article:
Abbott won the election and declined to live in the $3,000 a week rental property. He instead opted to stay at the Australian Federal Police college when in Canberra – a decision portrayed at the time as a cost-saving measure.

Labor senators pursued the accommodation matter while also seeking to highlight increased funding for the prime minister's official residences of the Lodge in Canberra and Kirribilli House in Sydney.

The budget for the prime minister's official residences will increase from $1.61m in 2013-14 to $1.7m next financial year, rising to $1.77m, $1.81m and $1.86m in subsequent years.

Labor's Senate leader, Penny Wong, suggested to officials that the "end of the age of entitlement" did not apply to the prime minister's residences despite other Australians taking a hit from the budget.
Click to expand...
Highlights every that is wrong with the current iteration of the (il)Liberals.
 
Part of the document that the Prime Minister has not read -


the Executive Officer to the Referendum Council, outlined the Referendum Council Indigenous consultations process of the 12 First Nations Regional Dialogues and a National Indigenous Constitutional Convention. provided a presentation on the Referendum Council members, its Terms of Reference, the Indigenous consultations held to date, the five proposals and the approach to the Regional Dialogues and National Convention.

led a group session on Treaty.
Following the presentations there was a broad ranging group discussion and several ideas were expressed:
  • We are not citizens, we are not currently recognised in the Constitution.
  • Various conversations on the proposals relating to Non-Discrimination and the Race Powers.
  • The need for an Indigenous voice to parliament - could be through designated Senate seats, the creation of a political party, or a constitutionally enshrined body.
  • Lengthy discussion on issues regarding a Treaty.

Treaty
The delegates of the Hobart dialogue are all firmly committed to pursuing Treaty. Treaty needs to recognise amongst other things sovereignty, a land and a financial settlement, and recognition of rights. A treaty-making process would need to have an agreed timeframe. There was agreement that a treaty proposal must be discussed at Regional Dialogues, included in the final report from the Referendum Council, and put into legislation, but not included in a referendum proposal.

Statement of Acknowledgement

It was a unanimous view of the Hobart Dialogue that a Statement of Acknowledgement, without being accompanied by substantive changes, would be unacceptable.

Law-making power

The delegates of the Hobart dialogue agreed it was preferable that the Federal Parliament be first required to seek consent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples before such laws are made. There was a pragmatic acceptance for ensuring that the Federal Parliament has the
power to make positive laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Provided that any amendment is accompanied by a limitation that protects against adverse use of the power, there was also strong support for the removal of the term ‘race’ and support for it to be replaced with ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’.

Racial non-discrimination clause

There was support expressed for a racial non-discrimination clause, although there was ongoing debate about whether a non-discrimination clause should protect all racial groups, or be limited to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The delegates recognised that a non-discrimination clause would need to be qualified by an exception for positive laws affecting Aboriginal and Torres Islander peoples.

Voice to Parliament

A powerful representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples protected in the Constitution was supported, and there was a consensus that the body must be stronger than just an advisory body to Parliament. There would have to be a process of selection to ensure the body is properly representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people/s, and therefore legitimate. A number of delegates also supported reserved parliamentary seats.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

These principles governed our assessment of reform proposals:
  1. Does not diminish Aboriginal sovereignty and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty.
  2. Involves substantive, structural reform.
  3. Advances self-determination and the standards established under the United Nation.Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
  4. Recognises the status and rights of First Nations.
  5. Tells the truth of history.
  6. Does not foreclose on future advancement.
  7. Does not waste the opportunity of reform.
  8. Provides a mechanism for First Nations agreement-making.
  9. Has the support of First Nations.
  10. Does not interfere with positive legal arrangements.
1. Does not diminish Aboriginal sovereignty and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty

Delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues stated that they did not want constitutional recognition or constitutional reform to derogate from Aboriginal sovereignty and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty. All of the Dialogues agreed that they did not want any reform to have consequences for Aboriginal sovereignty; they did not want to cede sovereignty: Melbourne,...

The Barunga Statement called ‘on the Commonwealth Parliament to negotiate with us a Treaty or Compact recognising our prior ownership, continued occupation and sovereignty and affirming our human rights and freedoms.’

The Expert Panel’s report in 2012 stated that the legal status of sovereignty is as follows: ‘Phillip’s instructions assumed that Australia was terra nullius, or belonged to no-one. The subsequent occupation of the country and land law in the new colony proceeded on the fiction of terra nullius. It follows that ultimately the basis of settlement in Australia is and always has been the exertion of force by and on behalf of the British Crown. No-one asked permission to settle. No-one consented, no-one ceded. Sovereignty was not passed from the Aboriginal peoples by any actions of legal significance voluntarily taken by or on behalf of them.’​

And the final report of the Joint Select Parliamentary Committee found that ‘at almost every consultation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants raised issues of sovereignty, contending that sovereignty was never ceded, relinquished or validly extinguished. Participants at some consultations were concerned that recognition would have implications for sovereignty’.

2. Involves substantive, structural reform

Delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues stated that the reform must be substantive, meaning that minimal reform or symbolic reform is not enough. Dialogues emphasising that reform needed to be substantive and structural....

This is consistent with Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: ‘Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’.

3. Advances self-determination and the standards established under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues referred to the importance of the right to self-determination as enshrined in Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In 1988, the Barunga Statement called for the recognition of our rights ‘to self-determination and self-management, including the freedom to pursue our own economic, social, religious and cultural development.’ One of the fundamental principles underpinning ATSIC’s report on the Social Justice Package was ‘self-determination to decide within the broad context of Australian society the priorities and the directions of their own lives, and to freely determine their own affairs.’...

4. Recognises the status and rights of First Nations

Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues wanted the status and rights of First Nations recognised.

5. Tells the truth of history

The Dialogues raised truth-telling as important for the relationship between First Nations and the country.

6. Does not foreclose on future advancement

Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues stated that they did not want constitutional reform to foreclose on future advancement. Constitutional reform must not prevent the pursuit of other beneficial reforms in the future, whether this be through beneficial changes to legislation, policy, or moving towards statehood

7. Does not waste the opportunity of reform

Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues stated that constitutional reform was an opportunity and therefore should not be wasted on minimalist reform: a minimalist approach, that provides preambular recognition, removes section 25 and moderates the races power (section 51(xxvi)), does not go far enough and would not be acceptable

8. Provides a mechanism for First Nations agreement-making

The obligation of the state to provide agreement-making mechanisms is reflected in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 37 proclaims, ‘Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such Treaties, Agreements and other Constructive Arrangements’.

9. Has the support of First Nations

A message from across the First Nations Regional Dialogues was that any constitutional reform must have the support of the First Nations right around the country. The Dialogues emphasised that constitutional reform is only legitimate if First Nations are involved in each step of the negotiations, including after the Uluru Convention.

The importance of First Nations’ support is recognised by the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states in Article 3, that through the right of self-determination, Indigenous peoples must be able to ‘freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’. The Declaration also recognises in Article 19 that, before any new laws or policies affecting Indigenous peoples are adopted, ‘States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent’.

10. Does not interfere with positive legal arrangements

Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues expressed their concerns that any constitutional reform must not have the unintended consequence of interfering with beneficial current arrangements that are already in place in some areas, or with future positive arrangements that may be negotiated.

Voice to Parliament

A constitutionally entrenched Voice to Parliament was a strongly supported option across the Dialogues. It was considered as a way by which the right to self-determination could be achieved. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples need to be involved in the design of
any model for the Voice.

There was a concern that the proposed body would have insufficient power if its constitutional function was ‘advisory’ only, and there was support in many Dialogues for it to be given stronger powers so that it could be a mechanism for providing ‘free, prior and informed
consent’. Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process. Any body must have authority from, be representative of, and have legitimacy in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Australia. It must represent communities in remote, rural and urban areas, and not be comprised of handpicked

Screen Shot 2023-08-21 at 11.51.49 am.png
 
JohnDe said:
Part of the document that the Prime Minister has not read -


the Executive Officer to the Referendum Council, outlined the Referendum Council Indigenous consultations process of the 12 First Nations Regional Dialogues and a National Indigenous Constitutional Convention. provided a presentation on the Referendum Council members, its Terms of Reference, the Indigenous consultations held to date, the five proposals and the approach to the Regional Dialogues and National Convention.

led a group session on Treaty.
Following the presentations there was a broad ranging group discussion and several ideas were expressed:
  • We are not citizens, we are not currently recognised in the Constitution.
  • Various conversations on the proposals relating to Non-Discrimination and the Race Powers.
  • The need for an Indigenous voice to parliament - could be through designated Senate seats, the creation of a political party, or a constitutionally enshrined body.
  • Lengthy discussion on issues regarding a Treaty.

Treaty
The delegates of the Hobart dialogue are all firmly committed to pursuing Treaty. Treaty needs to recognise amongst other things sovereignty, a land and a financial settlement, and recognition of rights. A treaty-making process would need to have an agreed timeframe. There was agreement that a treaty proposal must be discussed at Regional Dialogues, included in the final report from the Referendum Council, and put into legislation, but not included in a referendum proposal.

Statement of Acknowledgement

It was a unanimous view of the Hobart Dialogue that a Statement of Acknowledgement, without being accompanied by substantive changes, would be unacceptable.

Law-making power

The delegates of the Hobart dialogue agreed it was preferable that the Federal Parliament be first required to seek consent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples before such laws are made. There was a pragmatic acceptance for ensuring that the Federal Parliament has the
power to make positive laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Provided that any amendment is accompanied by a limitation that protects against adverse use of the power, there was also strong support for the removal of the term ‘race’ and support for it to be replaced with ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’.

Racial non-discrimination clause

There was support expressed for a racial non-discrimination clause, although there was ongoing debate about whether a non-discrimination clause should protect all racial groups, or be limited to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The delegates recognised that a non-discrimination clause would need to be qualified by an exception for positive laws affecting Aboriginal and Torres Islander peoples.

Voice to Parliament

A powerful representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples protected in the Constitution was supported, and there was a consensus that the body must be stronger than just an advisory body to Parliament. There would have to be a process of selection to ensure the body is properly representative of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people/s, and therefore legitimate. A number of delegates also supported reserved parliamentary seats.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

These principles governed our assessment of reform proposals:
  1. Does not diminish Aboriginal sovereignty and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty.
  2. Involves substantive, structural reform.
  3. Advances self-determination and the standards established under the United Nation.Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
  4. Recognises the status and rights of First Nations.
  5. Tells the truth of history.
  6. Does not foreclose on future advancement.
  7. Does not waste the opportunity of reform.
  8. Provides a mechanism for First Nations agreement-making.
  9. Has the support of First Nations.
  10. Does not interfere with positive legal arrangements.
1. Does not diminish Aboriginal sovereignty and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty

Delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues stated that they did not want constitutional recognition or constitutional reform to derogate from Aboriginal sovereignty and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty. All of the Dialogues agreed that they did not want any reform to have consequences for Aboriginal sovereignty; they did not want to cede sovereignty: Melbourne,...

The Barunga Statement called ‘on the Commonwealth Parliament to negotiate with us a Treaty or Compact recognising our prior ownership, continued occupation and sovereignty and affirming our human rights and freedoms.’

The Expert Panel’s report in 2012 stated that the legal status of sovereignty is as follows: ‘Phillip’s instructions assumed that Australia was terra nullius, or belonged to no-one. The subsequent occupation of the country and land law in the new colony proceeded on the fiction of terra nullius. It follows that ultimately the basis of settlement in Australia is and always has been the exertion of force by and on behalf of the British Crown. No-one asked permission to settle. No-one consented, no-one ceded. Sovereignty was not passed from the Aboriginal peoples by any actions of legal significance voluntarily taken by or on behalf of them.’​

And the final report of the Joint Select Parliamentary Committee found that ‘at almost every consultation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants raised issues of sovereignty, contending that sovereignty was never ceded, relinquished or validly extinguished. Participants at some consultations were concerned that recognition would have implications for sovereignty’.

2. Involves substantive, structural reform

Delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues stated that the reform must be substantive, meaning that minimal reform or symbolic reform is not enough. Dialogues emphasising that reform needed to be substantive and structural....

This is consistent with Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: ‘Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’.

3. Advances self-determination and the standards established under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues referred to the importance of the right to self-determination as enshrined in Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In 1988, the Barunga Statement called for the recognition of our rights ‘to self-determination and self-management, including the freedom to pursue our own economic, social, religious and cultural development.’ One of the fundamental principles underpinning ATSIC’s report on the Social Justice Package was ‘self-determination to decide within the broad context of Australian society the priorities and the directions of their own lives, and to freely determine their own affairs.’...

4. Recognises the status and rights of First Nations

Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues wanted the status and rights of First Nations recognised.

5. Tells the truth of history

The Dialogues raised truth-telling as important for the relationship between First Nations and the country.

6. Does not foreclose on future advancement

Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues stated that they did not want constitutional reform to foreclose on future advancement. Constitutional reform must not prevent the pursuit of other beneficial reforms in the future, whether this be through beneficial changes to legislation, policy, or moving towards statehood

7. Does not waste the opportunity of reform

Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues stated that constitutional reform was an opportunity and therefore should not be wasted on minimalist reform: a minimalist approach, that provides preambular recognition, removes section 25 and moderates the races power (section 51(xxvi)), does not go far enough and would not be acceptable

8. Provides a mechanism for First Nations agreement-making

The obligation of the state to provide agreement-making mechanisms is reflected in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 37 proclaims, ‘Indigenous peoples have the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of Treaties, Agreements and Other Constructive Arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honour and respect such Treaties, Agreements and other Constructive Arrangements’.

9. Has the support of First Nations

A message from across the First Nations Regional Dialogues was that any constitutional reform must have the support of the First Nations right around the country. The Dialogues emphasised that constitutional reform is only legitimate if First Nations are involved in each step of the negotiations, including after the Uluru Convention.

The importance of First Nations’ support is recognised by the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states in Article 3, that through the right of self-determination, Indigenous peoples must be able to ‘freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’. The Declaration also recognises in Article 19 that, before any new laws or policies affecting Indigenous peoples are adopted, ‘States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent’.

10. Does not interfere with positive legal arrangements

Many delegates at the First Nations Regional Dialogues expressed their concerns that any constitutional reform must not have the unintended consequence of interfering with beneficial current arrangements that are already in place in some areas, or with future positive arrangements that may be negotiated.

Voice to Parliament

A constitutionally entrenched Voice to Parliament was a strongly supported option across the Dialogues. It was considered as a way by which the right to self-determination could be achieved. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples need to be involved in the design of
any model for the Voice.

There was a concern that the proposed body would have insufficient power if its constitutional function was ‘advisory’ only, and there was support in many Dialogues for it to be given stronger powers so that it could be a mechanism for providing ‘free, prior and informed
consent’. Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process. Any body must have authority from, be representative of, and have legitimacy in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Australia. It must represent communities in remote, rural and urban areas, and not be comprised of handpicked

View attachment 161211
Click to expand...
The first statement in that shows how ridiculous and naive it all is.
  • We are not citizens, we are not currently recognised in the Constitution.
If that were so and they were not citizens, how could there be a department of both Federal and State Governments established to pay for them and supply them with infrastructure, Government assistance and welfare.
It is just getting silly, to have the PM parroting this, it is ridiculous and shows it's just a publicity stunt, jeez he needs to get on with fixing the electricity problem, the cost of housing problem, the inflation problem, the falling dollar problem, the mass immigration and subsequent rental problem.
The Government just needs to get a grip on reality IMO, or like last time they were in, it will be short lived.
Then after 10 years, they get back in to fix up the problems that were created last time, education and the NDIS. :rolleyes:

Let's be honest I came here from the U.K as a kid, therefore I would be considered as one of the colonisers, or invaders, so why if that is so did I have to apply for citizenship and they don't have to if they aren't citizens.
It's all too stupid for words.
Get the bloody Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander departments to just do their jobs, and kick out the ministers who oversee it.
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
The first statement in that shows how ridiculous and naive it all is.
  • We are not citizens, we are not currently recognised in the Constitution.
If that were so and they were not citizens, how could there be a department of both Federal and State Governments established to pay for them and supply them with infrastructure, Government assistance and welfare.
It is just getting silly, to have the PM parroting this, it is ridiculous and shows it's just a publicity stunt, jeez he needs to get on with fixing the electricity problem, the cost of housing problem, the inflation problem, the falling dollar problem, the mass immigration and subsequent rental problem.
The Government just needs to get a grip on reality IMO, or like last time they were in, it will be short lived.
Then after 10 years, they get back in to fix up the problems that were created last time, education and the NDIS. :rolleyes:

Let's be honest I came here from the U.K as a kid, therefore I would be considered as one of the colonisers, or invaders, so why if that is so did I have to apply for citizenship and they don't have to if they aren't citizens.
It's all too stupid for words.
Get the bloody Aboriginal and Torres strait Islander departments to just do their jobs, and kick out the ministers who oversee it.
Click to expand...

That’s what I thought. "We are not citizens" is a ridiculous comment and a lie, put out there to cause division.
 
Last edited:
I don't expect the Philistines here to listen to this but thought it would answer Rumps questions over the constitution and just how poor it all actually is.

Richard Fidler does some excellent interviews the one with David Sinclair an Australian biologist based at Harvard University will blow your mind if you actually think about science.

Anyway Kim Rubenstein lays it all out.

Kim is a constitutional expert and a professor of law at the University of Canberra.

Later this year, we'll be voting on a proposed change to the Australian constitution.

But many Australians are unaware of its existence; how it works and what it does even though it underpins so much of our way of life.

Kim explains how the constitution came to be and more about the underlying principles and assumptions of the people who framed it more than a century ago

www.abc.net.au

Conversations with Richard Fidler and Sarah Kanowski - ABC listen

Conversations draws you deeper into the life story of someone you may, or may not, have heard about — someone who has seen and done amazing things.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
Come on Prime Minister Albanese, it’s time.

Call the date so that we can vote. We are ready, the Australian people are ready to have their say.
 
IFocus said:
I don't expect the Philistines here to listen
Click to expand...


The Philistines were an ancient people who lived on the south coast of Canaan during the Iron Age. The Philistines originated as an immigrant group from the Aegean that settled in Canaan circa 1175 BCE. Over time, they gradually assimilated elements of the local Levantine societies while preserving their own unique culture.
There is considerable evidence for a large industry in fermented drink. Finds include breweries, wineries, and retail shops marketing beer and wine. Beer mugs and wine kraters are among the most common pottery finds.
 
wayneL said:
Hah! The fix is in.

Click to expand...
geez, why do it?
its not as if it is likely to change the vote either way, but why give the no voters more ammunition to fire at you as you struggle put your other foot in your mouth.
Why not put the two words yes or no on the paper and people can put any sort of mark they like next to the word that best suits them.
that way there can be no confusion , intended or otherwise.
Beaurecrats, they can always be relied upon to make a simple task as difficult as possible.

mick
 
mullokintyre said:
geez, why do it?
its not as if it is likely to change the vote either way, but why give the no voters more ammunition to fire at you as you struggle put your other foot in your mouth.
Why not put the two words yes or no on the paper and people can put any sort of mark they like next to the word that best suits them.
that way there can be no confusion , intended or otherwise.
Beaurecrats, they can always be relied upon to make a simple task as difficult as possible.

mick
Click to expand...
Got the pamphley or should I say episole in the mail today. Severa; anguages mentioned on it, wil there be a refeendum for them "yes" or "no" i wonder. What a load of rubblish
 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top