There was no vote. As no other members stood for election, the board remained the same by default. We were all asked if we wanted to stand, but there were no takers. I'm no expert on the constitution, but my understanding is that only shareholders get voting rights. The free membership was only introduced last year, and there was no motion put forward to give them voting rights. A simple share purchase of £5 gets you those rights. That is the only restriction. I think your comments on this point are most unsatisfactory & unwelcome, btw. This is just more mischief-making on your part.
Agree 100% whitejock In any organization there is aset ofvoting shareholders and those that don't have voting rights. TC knows this perfectly well. The lust website makes this very clear All members received an email informing them of the agm and they each had the opportunity to be there. If people chose not to exercise that right and left the decision making to 100 fellow fans and members to vote on their behalf, that's all well and good and above board
Silly point. How many people live in the UK and how many vote in elections? Does a low turnout make the elected representatives any less legitimate?
Yes. Unless there's 100% turnout, a government which systematically steals from, orders around and hurts its civilians is illegitimate. LUST, however, does not use violence to achieve its desired ends, so legitimacy can be derived from the shareholders who met at the AGM. If it were given to free members, there'd be little incentive to put money into the Trust.
You heard of taxes and laws and arrests? Well they're the same as theft and threats and assaults, except men in hats undertake them, and men in suits ratify them, and the mob backs them.
Taxes, laws and arrests are equivalent to steals, orders around and hurts its civilians? Methinks you are soft in t'head. HLS
Taxes - taking money from people without their prior consent. Laws - directing people how to live, with threat of arrests if they don't comply, without their prior consent. Arrests - forcibly restraining, kidknapping and caging people up, without their prior consent. The only difference is that the ruling class use euphemistic codenames to make these hideous crimes sound acceptable and legitimate. And sadly, the sheep did the shepherd follow.
Couldn't agree more. As you're too young to remember, Exodus, look up the '40% rule' (aka 'Cunningham Amendment), with respect to the Scottish Devolution vote in the 70s. You begin to understand why Scots want independence. Basically, we got the referendum, but 40% of the voting population had to say 'YES'. It was never going to happen. Under the same rule, there wouldn't have been a UK Government for hundreds of years! Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you!
Your lack of economic argument stinks Jerel. Anarchistic codswallop. Tax is a method of income generation to either, in Robin Hood's times, take fro mthe poor to give to the rich, or in enlightened liberal democracy times, take from the population to supply a social and public requirement (however badly it is managed) Laws are the basic societal norms that the majority of society have signed up to in order to protect those that do no wrong. In all societies it sometimes goes wrong, but for 99.9% of the time, it is a force for the betterment of society. Arrests is the form of uphoilding the law in the first instance leading to the implementation of justice through the courts and the law. It is most definitely somehting that happens to people against their will - all but the smallest proportion want ot be arrested and locked up. The innocent are mainly proven so (with the odd cock up) and the police are generally good upstanding people who do a great job (with the odd dickhead) I have no idea what kind of society you propose, but in this great liberal democratic society we live in, you are at full liberty to persuade us your ideas are much better than the ones that have taken centuries to build up and develop. I'm sure we will all agree with you.
I can give you Friedman or Hayek if you want economics. I'm no anarchist - I believe people should live as they want, whether they be governed or ungoverned. The mafia would say the same. My point remains - it's forcibly extracted from unwilling people. Common law, yes. Statute law, that's just a load of ****e which oppresses people as they go about their everyday lives, only putting themselves in harm's way. If people don't have freedom to do that, they don't have freedom at all.
You are at full liberty to say as you wish, and you have done many times. Just don't threaten to blow somewhere up. You live in a gloriously liberal and free democracy where the statutes and common law are generally clear - stay on the right side of them and, unlike in the films, you will more than likely live a happy and peaceful life Milton Friedman was a great blue taxman economist - the original "conservative" - as opposed to the "fiery red" socialist John Maynard Keynes who really really loved his taxes (and public expenditure). Friedrich Hayek was a great believer of the State upholding and maintaining the rule of law, and he and his buddy Popper had lots of spats with Keynes, because they were from the more conservative end although they didn't like to admit it. Just bloody argumentative really, the lot of them. But all were economists who believed in the general tenets of economics, just different levels of them. That's what's good about theoretical economics -it doesn't work in the real world and you always have to compromise. That's why we have boom and bust cycles - the prats in charge never realise until too late when it is time to change, and the prats who vote only ever vote for change once the ****e has already hit the fan
Apparently all shareholders did receive said email re AGM, but not the email asking for their vote "'m a shareholder and I got an email about the AGM but it didn't mention a vote and apparently a few of us shareholders didn't get an email a month ago detailing that there was a vote and how to proxy vote. So I didn't know there was a vote on, even if I did I couldn't vote by proxy because I didn't know how to and even if I did would it of mattered because it was a vote from the floor by 50 people including non shareholders (who arnt allowed to vote apparently) that voted them in for three years" Seems as if LUST DID learn a thing or two from Sir Kenneth
There you go again ... I shall say this only once (again): THERE WAS NO FCUKING VOTE AS NO-ONE PROPOSED THEMSELVES FOR THE BOARD !!!!!!!!!!
No idea where you are getting your information from TC, but I'd question its veracity. Truly seems some disgruntled anti-LUST member/non-member/shareholder/non-shareholder who claims to be one has an axe to grind. Some people may also have changed their email address but not bothered telling LUST. But this guy/gal who didn't turn up knows that it was now 50 people (not 100 - hmmm) and also knows that some of those were non-shareholders (how please?) yet someone who was there (whitejock) states that there was no vote at all because no-one had put themselves up for going against any member of the current board. You story has more holes than one of my old footy socks EDIT : I'd guess - if I was a betting man - that you've been reading ****e on ja606
Not my story mate - but feel free to question side before self - he's been a LUST follower from day 1 http://www.thefootballnetwork.net/boards/read/s277.htm?447,13571091 You might want to dig out those old footy socks
You've added your own little out of context twist to it I see. This guy has a problem with only the shareholders being allowed ot vote, but that is the usual way of the world. He has a problem of using the members as numbers, but that is the way of the world. He has a problem with using the word "representative" but an organisation that represents another one in any context is still a represnetative of them. He has a problem that of the 100, only 51 votes were needed, but if the rules are a "majority" - rather than just the highest - then those are the rules. If he has not looked at the website that shows the date fo the meeting and that there will be votes and that no new shareholders will be taken until after the agm, then that is his own lookout and it is also the way of the world If he is shocked that there was no need for a vote because no-one stood against the current incumbents, then he is not wise in the ways of the world. If he has not told LUST of his change of email, that is his own lookout. All these "ifs" show that what he says is conditional on his own mind's interpretation of what is right or wrong. The facts are: his opinion means little against somethign that is clear as day and rightfully undertaken.
