"www.GymRatZ.co.uk" wrote in message
...
On 12/02/2020 08:12, Jeff Layman wrote:
Every ten years I have fun trying to (legally) make it as difficult as
possible for the coders/OCR equipment to read my census return. For
example, many years ago the requirement was for it to be completed in
blue or black ink. That year I used the palest blue colour I could find
- it was almost indistinguishable from the background, but it /was/
blue. The next time it was a requirement for the ink to be black, so I
used a square font (like the one here
https://www.dafont.com/squarefont.font) with the lines of the letters
entered without spacing between them and the edges of the black boxes.
But the ink /was/ black.
I wonder what the requirement will be next year?
I don't remember the wording on the last census form but for at least
the last 12 to 15 years I've declined the "invitation" to be part of the
"electrol roll" or to name others at the address.
The form of lies is always addressed to "the occupier" which is not a
name I am familiar with at the address to which it's posted so it always
gets returned ANR RTS.
I think most people who had their brain switched on and not in bloody-minded
mode would regard "The Occupier" as a "matches-anything" wildcard name. They
can't address the form to the last known occupier by name, because he may
have moved out and someone else moved in since the last time they got the
info - and anyway, there may not *be* a name registered at that address if
it was someone who refused to return the filled-in form.
I think the offence is failing to provide *any* information as well as
returning false information, so you should expect it to be chased-up (if
they have the time, which is what you're banking on).
Likewise, even if I were to open it I still couldn't complete it as the
box that requires a signature also requires the ALL CAPITALS NAME to be
entered and a signature bonding the signatory to the fact that they then
become liable to a £1000 fine should something not be correct.
That's not a contract that benefits me and I can't sign it under a false
NAME, that's fraud.
You mean, because you think you have to sign your name as "The Occupier"
(since that's who it was addressed to) rather than the name that you fill in
at the top of the form? Use a *little* bit of common sense.
Bloody council canvasser scum just get a "no thankyou" and the door shut
on them, to which they say "so I'll take that as a refusal then"
No joinder no problem.
No vote, though, for you or anyone who lives there. Maybe that doesn't
bother you. I wonder what happens if the head of the household refuses to
fill in the form but someone else who lives there (wife, children) wants to
vote. Is there a mechanism for someone who is not the head of the household
to submit just their name, to secure their right to vote.
I'm obviously just too much of a goody-goody. I've never felt the slightest
inclination not to do what I regard as my moral (as well as legal) duty by
adding myself to the electoral roll and the census. I want my details
excluded from the publicly-viewable electoral roll, but only because spam
merchants are legally allowed to use this information as a mailing list. If
I had my way, I'd bang up every single person who sends any unsolicited
mail/phone-calls/email, irrespective of whether it was fraudulent or
honest - the sin is the mere act of sending it.