I dunno about you but I think it's impossible to say anything derogatory about the Tory, fornicators under carnal knowledge'ers.
General / Off-Topic Free Speech in UK - discuss
- Thread starter X-Terminator
- Start date
- Status
I dunno about you but I think it's impossible to say anything derogatory about the Tory, fornicators under carnal knowledge'ers.
ROFL.
Oh god no please not this.
Do not peddle that dangerous crap.
Courts don't "give up" but sometimes decide it is in the best interests of justice to not prosecute, usually for obscure reasons which you will never hear about unless you read the full judgement.
If you're summoned to court you're on trial. As in you, the bag of meat standing in the dock, not your birth certificate. If you start going on about "not signing your birth certificate" you'll be told, in no uncertain terms, that you don't have a defense. I can't emphasize this strongly enough, the 'free man on the land' thing is absolute total and complete and utter crap.
Acts of Parliament are LAWS. They are not contracts. You WILL obey them, or not get caught disobeying them, or you will end up rotting in a tiny room at the pleasure of Her Majesty.
A woman in a simple custody case tried that freeman crap...
It got her nine months prison for contempt of court.
Last edited:
X-Terminator
Banned
She went wrong because she did not push forward that she will be held liable but ONLY IF certain questions have been responded to and at the appropriate times for burden of proof. She obviously failed to understand the system. This lady won!
[video=youtube;dNxvlr_OKyg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNxvlr_OKyg[/video]
[video=youtube;dNxvlr_OKyg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNxvlr_OKyg[/video]
Last edited:
That's snake oil. IF that lady did indeed "win" anything it was due to circumstances that they're not telling you in that idiotic video, of which I admittedly only watched a few minutes.
FMOTL "legal" arguments have NEVER been successful.
If you go to court, and actually ask whether or not statutes apply to you, you will be told that they do. If you try to argue that point you are by definition in contempt of court. If you carry on doing it then you are almost certainly going to find out that your tactic of listening to crackpots on the internet for legal advice is going to get you in trouble.
I am starting to see what all this "freedom!" crap is about, whether speech or otherwise. You CAN NOT opt out of societies laws.
If anyone else is reading this or decides to watch that video, please please please for the love of god do not try out this FMOTL crap on a cop or in a courtroom and do not take any advice from anyone who has anything to do with that ridiculous video. It is absolute horse doey. Even going to a family court and spouting this crap to be obstructive can get you a spell behind bars.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/B15.html
EDIT: My girlfriend has just told me speeding comes under "Strict Liability", which means the first question in that video is also complete crap. If you're speeding then you're speeding and liable for it whether or not you caused an accident or knew anything about it.
Last edited:
This is NOT public domain. Its private, and they way they can enforce rules that some do not agree with.
So you get to put up, or leave.
Ask the mods lol 
- - - Updated - - -
Not so private the posts can be viewed by anyone via google search plus usernames are farmed.
With great modding comes great responsibility.
- - - Updated - - -
Not so private the posts can be viewed by anyone via google search plus usernames are farmed.
With great modding comes great responsibility.
Indeed. The rules are pretty shoddily enforced around here, though.
Jenner
I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
The forum rules, which everyone who posts here has agreed to abide by when they made their forum account, states how to get moderation concerns addressed.
X-Terminator
Banned
Contrary to Law although to abide under Court Rules - all a person must prove is was anyone harmed for any injunctions to be put in place OR to prove beyond reasonable doubt. It is the reason we have Courts and NOT just a Police State.
This is how good and worthwhile Solicitors work.
This is how good and worthwhile Solicitors work.
One of the many reasons we need 'good and worthwhile Solicitors' is because there are far more people who think they know what the law is than actually do...
X-Terminator
Banned
We need our Courts to speak freely our own observations else you wouldn't need Courts nor Solicitors. There is a huge number of abuse of the Law and you should never trust any person that tells you that you're guilty if you do not feel it and just because it states there is such a law and tells you of you breaking it.
Take a speed gun which uses laser. It records a stationary vehicle is doing 4mph so add that to the already under calibrated tachometers and you already have a contradiction. Add to that: the laser can bounce off many surfaces before returning to give a reading. It gets wider a beam the further it is away. It does not factor in the difference in plate sizes for bike to cars. The road signs must be on both sides of the road for any new changes. They must ALL be lit if anyone of them is lit. They must have a lamp post within 50m if no lighting is provided. Any mobile speed unit must display warning signs of it being there. etc.
Just because you are told you have broken a law does not mean you should be liable when all factors must be considered for fair trial.
Take a speed gun which uses laser. It records a stationary vehicle is doing 4mph so add that to the already under calibrated tachometers and you already have a contradiction. Add to that: the laser can bounce off many surfaces before returning to give a reading. It gets wider a beam the further it is away. It does not factor in the difference in plate sizes for bike to cars. The road signs must be on both sides of the road for any new changes. They must ALL be lit if anyone of them is lit. They must have a lamp post within 50m if no lighting is provided. Any mobile speed unit must display warning signs of it being there. etc.
Just because you are told you have broken a law does not mean you should be liable when all factors must be considered for fair trial.
Last edited:
Minonian
Banned
No one is guilty until its guilt proven. In the eyes of law you are a suspect until your innocence or guilt is proven. What means, you have the right to accuse someone but if you accuse? You do better to make sure your accusations are well founded enough, otherwise? By falsely accusing you also break the law.
Edit; And also? To accuse someone with defamation, is a widely used process amongst criminals, to make the evidence & charge disappear. (preemptive strike) It they can actually forbid to spread lies? Even better! One danger less, one person condemned to silence, forbidden to speak the truth, because he speaking "unfounded lies" How many times we seen this happening in the politics, or the public?
For example? if i'm a black hat hacker and someone saying i'm a criminal, what's the best course of action to stop the whole process? If i charge him with defamation. And if there are no strong evidence i can actually win in the court.
The problem? If i self admittedly a hacker, than it's very hard to explain I'm not a criminal, not done any criminal activity. In this case either when the court saying the other falsely accusing, or when i admitted I'm a hacker must be false. lets say i'm lied about what i really did, what i'm. It can be said the other falsely accusing?
Nope! Because its based on what i said and / or did, by his knowledge. In this case his accusation is the result of my actions / lies.
Don't like it!? Dont say you did it.
Edit2; Now, let's say i lied about myself. what this makes me? Can i honestly say after it turned out i lied in this matters I'm innocent and newer did anything wrong?
Conclusion? It's a trap with no way out untainted, whatever the real situation is, it's impossible to say by the judge, he is clean of all accusation.
And now to place a point at the end of the sentence goes 11 years long? Switch (or not switch) the black hat hacker with game cracker, And I with him. and add up a long line of in game crimes and criminal / psycho behavior.
Edit; And also? To accuse someone with defamation, is a widely used process amongst criminals, to make the evidence & charge disappear. (preemptive strike) It they can actually forbid to spread lies? Even better! One danger less, one person condemned to silence, forbidden to speak the truth, because he speaking "unfounded lies" How many times we seen this happening in the politics, or the public?
For example? if i'm a black hat hacker and someone saying i'm a criminal, what's the best course of action to stop the whole process? If i charge him with defamation. And if there are no strong evidence i can actually win in the court.
The problem? If i self admittedly a hacker, than it's very hard to explain I'm not a criminal, not done any criminal activity. In this case either when the court saying the other falsely accusing, or when i admitted I'm a hacker must be false. lets say i'm lied about what i really did, what i'm. It can be said the other falsely accusing?
Nope! Because its based on what i said and / or did, by his knowledge. In this case his accusation is the result of my actions / lies.
Don't like it!? Dont say you did it.
Edit2; Now, let's say i lied about myself. what this makes me? Can i honestly say after it turned out i lied in this matters I'm innocent and newer did anything wrong?
Conclusion? It's a trap with no way out untainted, whatever the real situation is, it's impossible to say by the judge, he is clean of all accusation.
And now to place a point at the end of the sentence goes 11 years long?
Switch (or not switch) the black hat hacker with game cracker, And I with him. and add up a long line of in game crimes and criminal / psycho behavior.
Last edited:
I mean, the OP is expecting a private institution to enforce a law that scarcely exists in reality and only then extends so far as being a vague inference that government bodies won't strictly limit what you say in public beyond a few specific points.
The rest just seem to be reminiscing about the days when you could be a total end and be proud of it. Unless you were a minority mind you, then you just got bashed.
Last edited:
X-Terminator
Banned
Many abuses of 3rd Party enforcements are to argue against as they often step outside of protecting ones rights. This goes onto Parking Clampers Scam which is now illegal. The private hired council street team for littering scams when evidence can simply be placed immediately into a bin! Private Hired Mobile Speed units which use Police markings on their own vehicle and do not use signs down the road. I also want to mention Pub Landlords whom can attack any customer and use any means they feel which is often not appropriate but is not lawful for even an Officer to do so! If a Policeman grabs your arm without an arrest then it is actually an offence. If you then cause harm in a struggle to be freed then any injury to said PC is their own fault!
- Status