|
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
Some folks are unhappy that US arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin ("makes
Trident nuclear missiles, cluster bombs and fighter jets and is involved in data processing for the CIA and FBI... has provided private contract interrogators for the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay") has the contract to process the 2011 census data. Some of those unhappy folks are being a bit naughty and conspiring to diminish L-M's profits on the operation :-) http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-short-version/ and the long version http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-long-version/ -- John Stumbles |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
In message , John Stumbles
writes Forwarded to the mark-thomas list, brother John Some folks are unhappy that US arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin ("makes Trident nuclear missiles, cluster bombs and fighter jets and is involved in data processing for the CIA and FBI... has provided private contract interrogators for the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay") has the contract to process the 2011 census data. Some of those unhappy folks are being a bit naughty and conspiring to diminish L-M's profits on the operation :-) http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-short-version/ and the long version http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-long-version/ -- geoff |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:52:26 +0000, geoff wrote:
In message , John Stumbles writes Forwarded to the mark-thomas list, brother John Tell me about this mark-thomas list, comrade (Saw him here in Reading a few weeks ago doing his talk about walking the Berlin^H^H^H^HIsrael wall - excellent!) -- John Stumbles |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
John Stumbles wrote:
Some folks are unhappy that US arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin ("makes Trident nuclear missiles, cluster bombs and fighter jets and is involved in data processing for the CIA and FBI... has provided private contract interrogators for the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay") has the contract to process the 2011 census data. Some of those unhappy folks are being a bit naughty and conspiring to diminish L-M's profits on the operation :-) http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-short-version/ and the long version http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-long-version/ Hmm... 404 not found. Tim |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:23:33 -0000, Tim Downie wrote:
http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-short-version/ and the long version http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-long-version/ Hmm... 404 not found. Both 404... -- Cheers Dave. |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
On 22/03/2011 09:48, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:23:33 -0000, Tim Downie wrote: http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-short-version/ and the long version http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-long-version/ Hmm... 404 not found. Both 404... Works for me - did you copy the whole link? |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
nicknoxx wrote:
On 22/03/2011 09:48, Dave Liquorice wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:23:33 -0000, Tim Downie wrote: http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-short-version/ and the long version http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-long-version/ Hmm... 404 not found. Both 404... Works for me - did you copy the whole link? It's back up now. It just went AWOL for a bit. Tim |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
On Mar 21, 11:28*pm, John Stumbles wrote:
Some folks are unhappy Yawn... |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:41:08 +0000, nicknoxx wrote:
Works for me - did you copy the whole link? Yep. Ah works now... -- Cheers Dave. |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
On 22 Mar 2011 10:49:14 GMT, Huge wrote:
By all means protest against the census, but do it for justifiable reasons, rather than spoilt-brat ones. I'd rather not support an arms company. I'd rather support a UK company, there are plenty that could do the work. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a clause or three in the contract that allows Lockheed to surcharge the HMG for every form they can't automagically process. In fact I think Lockheed would be daft to have signed a contract *without* such clause(s). -- Cheers Dave. |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
|
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
Huge wrote:
So ****ing what? At least we understand their motives. Unlike the State, whose motives are unknown and unknowable. There is good evidence that the State abuses census data (just ask Japanese Americans from WW2). And German Jews, who would not have been so easy to round up and exterminate had it not been for a census and the use of Hollerith machines supplied by the ever-helpful IBM. By all means protest against the census, but do it for justifiable reasons, rather than spoilt-brat ones. And preferably protest in ways that matter, not just whining one's arse off on usenet or indulging in a Duhg Bollenesque beating of one's chest in public followed by a session of window smashing. |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
In message , Tim Downie
writes John Stumbles wrote: Some folks are unhappy that US arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin ("makes Trident nuclear missiles, cluster bombs and fighter jets and is involved in data processing for the CIA and FBI... has provided private contract interrogators for the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay") has the contract to process the 2011 census data. Some of those unhappy folks are being a bit naughty and conspiring to diminish L-M's profits on the operation :-) http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-short-version/ and the long version http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-long-version/ Hmm... 404 not found. Works here -- geoff |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
In message , Tim Downie
writes nicknoxx wrote: On 22/03/2011 09:48, Dave Liquorice wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:23:33 -0000, Tim Downie wrote: http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-short-version/ and the long version http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-long-version/ Hmm... 404 not found. Both 404... Works for me - did you copy the whole link? It's back up now. It just went AWOL for a bit. Prolly busy filling the form in ... -- geoff |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
On 21/03/2011 23:28, John Stumbles wrote:
Some folks are unhappy that US arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin ("makes Trident nuclear missiles, cluster bombs and fighter jets and is involved in data processing for the CIA and FBI... has provided private contract interrogators for the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay") has the contract to process the 2011 census data. Some of those unhappy folks are being a bit naughty and conspiring to diminish L-M's profits on the operation :-) OK, so L-M lose money, and don't bid next time. The bid goes to a more expensive company - and that bid will of course be higher, because they'll have heard about L-M's losses. Now think carefully - who is it that will pay that higher bill? Andy |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
On Mar 21, 11:28*pm, John Stumbles wrote:
Some folks are unhappy that US arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin ("makes Trident nuclear missiles, cluster bombs and fighter jets and is involved in data processing for the CIA and FBI... has provided private contract interrogators for the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay") * has the contract to process the 2011 census data. Some of those unhappy folks are being a bit naughty and conspiring to diminish L-M's profits on the operation :-) http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-short-version/ and the long version http://www.peacenewslog.info/2011/03...r-census-form- without-lockheed-martin-profiting-long-version/ -- John Stumbles We need trident missles and cluster bombs. You never know when we might have to do some serious killing. |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
In article , Andy Champ
writes On 21/03/2011 23:28, John Stumbles wrote: Some folks are unhappy that US arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin ("makes Trident nuclear missiles, cluster bombs and fighter jets and is involved in data processing for the CIA and FBI... has provided private contract interrogators for the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay") has the contract to process the 2011 census data. Some of those unhappy folks are being a bit naughty and conspiring to diminish L-M's profits on the operation :-) OK, so L-M lose money, and don't bid next time. The bid goes to a more expensive company - and that bid will of course be higher, because they'll have heard about L-M's losses. Now think carefully - who is it that will pay that higher bill? AFAIUI, this will be the last one. When the current gov came in they said[1] that the cost couldn't be justified and that they already had sufficiently accurate alternatives for planning of services. The only joke was that they said they couldn't stop the new one as it had already gone too far. [1] Can't find a cite for this anywhere so I may have dreamt/wished it. -- fred FIVE TV's superbright logo - not the DOG's, it's ******** |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
fred gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
AFAIUI, this will be the last one. When the current gov came in they said[1] that the cost couldn't be justified and that they already had sufficiently accurate alternatives for planning of services. The only joke was that they said they couldn't stop the new one as it had already gone too far. [1] Can't find a cite for this anywhere so I may have dreamt/wished it. Google for "Census 2021", plenty of references. They've said they will, but that's not sufficient. A "Census (abolition) act" would need to pass parliament and be adopted into law in order to repeal the existing legal requirement for a census every ten years. |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
In article , Adrian
writes fred gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: AFAIUI, this will be the last one. When the current gov came in they said[1] that the cost couldn't be justified and that they already had sufficiently accurate alternatives for planning of services. The only joke was that they said they couldn't stop the new one as it had already gone too far. [1] Can't find a cite for this anywhere so I may have dreamt/wished it. Google for "Census 2021", plenty of references. Ah, didn't think of that thanks. First few hits have quotes pretty much as I remembered them. They've said they will, but that's not sufficient. A "Census (abolition) act" would need to pass parliament and be adopted into law in order to repeal the existing legal requirement for a census every ten years. I hope they do, "expensive and inaccurate" pretty well sums it up for me. -- fred FIVE TV's superbright logo - not the DOG's, it's ******** |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
fred wrote:
I hope they do, "expensive and inaccurate" pretty well sums it up for me. The 1901 questions seem about right to me. "The 1901 Census for England was taken on the night of 31 March 1901. The following information was requested: Name of street, avenue road, etc.; house number or name; whether or not the house was inhabited; number of rooms occupied if less than five; name of each person that had spent the night in that household; relationship of person enumerated to the head of the family; each person's marital status; age at last birthday (sex is indicated by which column the age is recorded in); each person's occupation; whether they are employer or employee or neither; person's place of birth; whether deaf, dumb, blind, or lunatic." They already know the answers to all the other questions I looked at when ther form arrived on my hall floor. In fact, they already know most of the answers to the question I listed, otherwise, how did they get the form to me? All that isn't already on record is a list of people who will actually be on the premises on the date it's due. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:15:28 +0000, John Williamson
wrote: They already know the answers to all the other questions I looked at when ther form arrived on my hall floor. In fact, they already know most of the answers to the question I listed, otherwise, how did they get the form to me? All that isn't already on record is a list of people who will actually be on the premises on the date it's due. What annoys me is that they (rightly) go on about accuracy, yet they say that if you send the form(s) back before the 27th, and circumstances change you don't have to tell them. -- Frank Erskine |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:15:28 +0000, John Williamson wrote: They already know the answers to all the other questions I looked at when ther form arrived on my hall floor. In fact, they already know most of the answers to the question I listed, otherwise, how did they get the form to me? All that isn't already on record is a list of people who will actually be on the premises on the date it's due. What annoys me is that they (rightly) go on about accuracy, yet they say that if you send the form(s) back before the 27th, and circumstances change you don't have to tell them. Now, what should I do if the premises just happen to be unexpectedly empty that night? Maybe because the sole regular occupant is out of the country? That's what happened to me in 2001, just before I moved here from a caravan. And 1991, as I'd been called away to cover a tour to Paris. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:34:06 -0700, harry wrote:
We need trident missles and cluster bombs. You never know when we might have to do some serious killing. Maybe but we haven't got any, couldn't afford them and wouldn't be allowed to have them if we could. It's our guvvermint and the merkins what has got them and I wouldn't trust either of those as far as I could throw them. We'll be left with pitchforks and flaming torches as usual. They don't like it up 'em mister mannering. -- John Stumbles |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
In message , John Williamson
writes Frank Erskine wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:15:28 +0000, John Williamson wrote: They already know the answers to all the other questions I looked at when ther form arrived on my hall floor. In fact, they already know most of the answers to the question I listed, otherwise, how did they get the form to me? All that isn't already on record is a list of people who will actually be on the premises on the date it's due. What annoys me is that they (rightly) go on about accuracy, yet they say that if you send the form(s) back before the 27th, and circumstances change you don't have to tell them. Now, what should I do if the premises just happen to be unexpectedly empty that night? Maybe because the sole regular occupant is out of the country? That's what happened to me in 2001, just before I moved here from a caravan. And 1991, as I'd been called away to cover a tour to Paris. Without looking up the rules on it, isn't there something about is someone is away from their normal residence for less than a certain amount of time (30 days), they still fill in the form as living there? If you are away staying somewhere else, your name should go down on their form as being there that night but you also do your own form as well? -- Chris French |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
chris French wrote:
In message , John Williamson writes Frank Erskine wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:15:28 +0000, John Williamson wrote: They already know the answers to all the other questions I looked at when ther form arrived on my hall floor. In fact, they already know most of the answers to the question I listed, otherwise, how did they get the form to me? All that isn't already on record is a list of people who will actually be on the premises on the date it's due. What annoys me is that they (rightly) go on about accuracy, yet they say that if you send the form(s) back before the 27th, and circumstances change you don't have to tell them. Now, what should I do if the premises just happen to be unexpectedly empty that night? Maybe because the sole regular occupant is out of the country? That's what happened to me in 2001, just before I moved here from a caravan. And 1991, as I'd been called away to cover a tour to Paris. Without looking up the rules on it, isn't there something about is someone is away from their normal residence for less than a certain amount of time (30 days), they still fill in the form as living there? If you are away staying somewhere else, your name should go down on their form as being there that night but you also do your own form as well? Checks website If you are away in Census day (No time limit given.) your name must appear at your normal place of residence, as well as at the place where you are visiting. Apparently, you must fill it in either before you go away or as soon as possible after you get back. There goes *that* excuse, then. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
Census/DIY direct action against Lockheed Martin
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:06:47 +0000, chris French
wrote: In message , John Williamson writes Frank Erskine wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:15:28 +0000, John Williamson wrote: They already know the answers to all the other questions I looked at when ther form arrived on my hall floor. In fact, they already know most of the answers to the question I listed, otherwise, how did they get the form to me? All that isn't already on record is a list of people who will actually be on the premises on the date it's due. What annoys me is that they (rightly) go on about accuracy, yet they say that if you send the form(s) back before the 27th, and circumstances change you don't have to tell them. Now, what should I do if the premises just happen to be unexpectedly empty that night? Maybe because the sole regular occupant is out of the country? That's what happened to me in 2001, just before I moved here from a caravan. And 1991, as I'd been called away to cover a tour to Paris. Without looking up the rules on it, isn't there something about is someone is away from their normal residence for less than a certain amount of time (30 days), they still fill in the form as living there? If you are away staying somewhere else, your name should go down on their form as being there that night but you also do your own form as well? What I meant was if circumstances _unexpectedly_ change you don't have to tell 'em. -- Frank Erskine |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter