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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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

On Mar 21, 11:28*pm, John Stumbles wrote:
Some folks are unhappy

Yawn...

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.

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.

In article , lid
says...
So ****ing what? The Greens are melons; green on the outside, red in the
middle.

I think you'll find that's frogs.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 ********

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.

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 ********

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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