|
S10 GTA
2,489 posts
36 months
|
|
|
graphene
874 posts
24 months
|
Breadvan72 said: graphene said: Breadvan72 said: The coffees are ready, but could you run that one by by me again? Cheers. No problem. Which parts require explanation? The bit about the Shire, and stuff. PS: was yours the double grande half recaf semi frappecmocachino with extra passionfruit syrup? Ah, sorry, my failure in humour. All tongue-in-cheek, nonetheless. However, I'm suspicious that you have just got the better of it: 'You would say that... ': ...attempted sarcastic irony, given your stated profession. '...coffees..!!!' ...deliberately confusing barista/barrister for comedic effect, in order that I convey the fact that I'm not being entirely serious. 'A fool's Shire=>Hobbiton=> paraphrasing some quote re: the foolish behaviour of the chap that made the video.. p.s: I'll try most coffees, but please, no sprinkles!! p.p.s: It would be nice to hear some explanations for your assertions. Whilst the letter looks like legal mumbo-jumbo, the same could be said for many laws and statutes. I realise, that I am subject to laws that I have either never read, or am unable to fully comprehend. How long would it take me to read through all written UK law?
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,209 posts
32 months
|
About a bazillion years. Well, maybe not quite that long, but quite a long time. In general, laws are expressed more plainly than people tend to suppose (save in contexts such as taxation, and in some too many modern regulatory contexts). I got the Mandy Rice Davis reference, and the coffee maker bit, thanks; it was the Shirey and Helly bit that eluded me. I am not going to take time "proving" that manifest nonsense is manifest nonsense. To do that is to fall into the same error that many public bodies do when dealing with these fruitloops. It is for those who make unfounded, and plain daft, assertions, to back them up. The problem is, they can't. I refer to such notions as: all law is maritime law, a court is a ship, the state is a commercial company, we are not the persons named in our birth certificates, a birth certificate is some sort of debt instrument, we can all create money or evade debts by uttering some magical incantations, Statutes are contracts, and by filling in some ludicrous documents and posting them to the Queen, Elvis and Shergar on the moon we can exempt ourselves from the application of the law. They have many other bonkers ideas, but that gives a flavour of the nuttiness. All of this is piffle. Wibble is wibble, and does not cease to be so because the wibblist borrows some legal phrases which he or she does not understand and scatters them through some meaningless documents. Have a look here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
|
|
|
FunkyChucker
299 posts
60 months
|
Johna said: He lost the car then 
|
|
|
Somewhatfoolish
3,627 posts
55 months
|
It's actually quite sad isn't it. All the damage being caused to these people cause of their stupidity. Maybe I'm a softie liberal. Here's a very sad (yet still amusing) case: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/B15.h..." In addition to the matters that I have already considered, a number of court orders, including the relevant order by Baker J., were returned to the court defaced by Ms. Watson. She has put lines through most of the orders and written phrases on them such as "void", "no consent", "no jurisdiction", "no legal right", "no contract", "contempt of court", "offence against public justice", "not valid" and "return to sender". If nothing else, these childish scribblings make perfectly clear Ms. Watson has received the documents and knew exactly what was in the order made by Baker J. Equally plainly, in my view, they do not affect the right of the local authority to bring proceedings for contempt of court against Ms. Watson. As I have already stated more than once the proceedings are, in my view, lawfully constituted. I have to say, it does Ms. Watson no credit as a campaigner to deface court documents in this childish way, but I remind myself that this does not form part of the committal proceedings against her and therefore it is to the proceedings themselves that I need to turn."
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
long time lurker
229 posts
19 months
|
Somewhatfoolish said: Not really sad to me.... just need a few more to proceed like this and hopefully we will have less people "trying it on" and wasting the time of the courts (and the much under staffed social services as per the case in your link)
|
|
|
oobster
4,557 posts
80 months
|
Is the case above linked to the mother who apparently accused (wrongly) her husband of abusing their daughter?
Edit: Never mind, googles the name of the 'investigator' and have now read the whole story. What kind of woman accuses the father of her child of being a peodphile when he wasn't one. She must have had some ultra-deep hatred of her ex-partner.
|
|
|
Lunablack
2,839 posts
31 months
|
FunkyChucker said: He lost the car then That'll teach em........... Now that he has to walk everywhere..... He showed them eh
|
|
|
WeirdNeville
4,137 posts
84 months
|
long time lurker said: Somewhatfoolish said: Not really sad to me.... just need a few more to proceed like this and hopefully we will have less people "trying it on" and wasting the time of the courts (and the much under staffed social services as per the case in your link) No I think it's sad too. there are clearly some people with mental health issues who begin to believe the Woo. If you peruse the forums of FMOTL for example you find examples of more than one person who no doubt has been arrested when had they chosen not to believe they wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place. This is then compunded by people claiming to be experts in this area of the law turning up or calling the police station whilst they are in custody with "advice" and finally even turning up at court whilst these poor souls dig themselves even deeper in front of a Judge. If it was a gian piss-take I could see the funny side, but it has had real and lasting negative impact on peoples lives - not least by the way they encourage people to try and deal with problem debts (or even encouraging people to take debt on in the mistaken belive that they can never be held accountable for it). It's dangerous fluff.
|
|
|
Crossflow Kid
4,613 posts
60 months
|
Top marks all round to the BiB (with the possible minor exception of Sarge saying he used to go and kill people because the Queen told him to. I get the point but.....hardly helpful).
I thought the first officer deserves special mention. Seemed to click on to "Dave" and his issues pretty quick and came across as really trying to win the bloke over or at least contain the situation, with carefully placed comments like "I know you don't agree with it, Dave, I just want to make sure you understand it" and "I'll put your bags in the back, but they'll be with you at all times".
Good work.
|
|
|
Mr Happy
4,273 posts
89 months
|
Crossflow Kid said: Top marks all round to the BiB (with the possible minor exception of Sarge saying he used to go and kill people because the Queen told him to. I get the point but.....hardly helpful).
I thought the first officer deserves special mention. Seemed to click on to "Dave" and his issues pretty quick and came across as really trying to win the bloke over or at least contain the situation, with carefully placed comments like "I know you don't agree with it, Dave, I just want to make sure you understand it" and "I'll put your bags in the back, but they'll be with you at all times".
Good work. PC 94 Bennett of Bedfordshire Constabulary - top man!!
|
|
|
Crossflow Kid
4,613 posts
60 months
|
Mr Happy said: Crossflow Kid said: Top marks all round to the BiB (with the possible minor exception of Sarge saying he used to go and kill people because the Queen told him to. I get the point but.....hardly helpful).
I thought the first officer deserves special mention. Seemed to click on to "Dave" and his issues pretty quick and came across as really trying to win the bloke over or at least contain the situation, with carefully placed comments like "I know you don't agree with it, Dave, I just want to make sure you understand it" and "I'll put your bags in the back, but they'll be with you at all times".
Good work. PC 94 Bennett of Bedfordshire Constabulary - top man!! That you is it? 
|
|
|
Mr Happy
4,273 posts
89 months
|
Crossflow Kid said: Mr Happy said: Crossflow Kid said: Top marks all round to the BiB (with the possible minor exception of Sarge saying he used to go and kill people because the Queen told him to. I get the point but.....hardly helpful).
I thought the first officer deserves special mention. Seemed to click on to "Dave" and his issues pretty quick and came across as really trying to win the bloke over or at least contain the situation, with carefully placed comments like "I know you don't agree with it, Dave, I just want to make sure you understand it" and "I'll put your bags in the back, but they'll be with you at all times".
Good work. PC 94 Bennett of Bedfordshire Constabulary - top man!! That you is it?  I wish, would love to get in the job! He helpfully said his name & number on "Dave's" video!
|
|
|
technogogo
198 posts
53 months
|
WeirdNeville said: No I think it's sad too. there are clearly some people with mental health issues who begin to believe the Woo. If you peruse the forums of FMOTL for example you find examples of more than one person who no doubt has been arrested when had they chosen not to believe they wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place. This is then compunded by people claiming to be experts in this area of the law turning up or calling the police station whilst they are in custody with "advice" and finally even turning up at court whilst these poor souls dig themselves even deeper in front of a Judge.
If it was a gian piss-take I could see the funny side, but it has had real and lasting negative impact on peoples lives - not least by the way they encourage people to try and deal with problem debts (or even encouraging people to take debt on in the mistaken belive that they can never be held accountable for it).
It's dangerous fluff. Yes it is dangerous. There was mention of this Freedom of the Land stuff on a Radio 4 program today: Thinking Allowed at 4pm. I didn't catch the whole program - I was in the car and just dodging commercial radio ads! But the presenter talked about this sort of thing appealing particularly to a certain demographic in poorer areas. People who feel particularly disadvantaged by 'the system' and grab onto anything that they think may tip the balance in their favour. I'm less convinced about the mental health point. I believe the ability to wholly adopt dangerous belief systems does not require mental health issues. In fact quite the reverse in many notable cases. The leaders of the 9/11 hi-jackers were highly educated people. And on the TV the other day were 10,000 (or was it 20,000?) bright young things taking part of a bizarre moonies wedding event having each paid thousands of pounds (and then 10% of their income) for the privilege of being fixed up by their very own living, breathing deity. One more example, the small number of doctors that support homeopathy. If I could change the world in just one way it would be for everyone to be educated in critical thinking skills and for everyone to recognise the serious danger of dogmatic thinking of whatever flavour.
|
|
|
Variomatic
702 posts
30 months
|
Just watched the first, then skimmed the others, and decided that the coppers deserved a little more than the praise on here. So just sent this email to Bedfordshire Police (from the ID information given in the first video). It may not get back to the officers involved, but hopefully it will, as a small gesture to brighten their day  : "Dear Sir or Madam, I thought I should take a few minutes to commend the exemplary professionalism demonstrated by, I believe, your officers as evidenced by the video clips available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP8BGjkGAdghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec-euzvhj28http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFE7qpFq-G4In the first clip one officer identifies himself as PC 94 Leon Bennett and shows what he states is a Bedfordshire warrant card. Police on traffic duties are often disliked by the motoring public but the patience, courtesy and good humour maintained by the officers involved in this stop make it very hard to understand why. These officers are clearly a credit to your force and to the image of the Police in general. Yours faithfully, Variomatic,"
|
|
|
Somewhatfoolish
3,627 posts
55 months
|
That makes two of us vario, I reckon if more people here do so then they may get some kind of proper award or something, which would be great cause they deserve it
|
|
|
Mojooo
7,288 posts
49 months
|
Is there an actual law that says all other laws apply to every person in the UK?
Clearly every law applies to eng/wales/scotland etc - but is there anythingto say it automatically applies to every person? just to get that point home.
|
|
|
Somewhatfoolish
3,627 posts
55 months
|
Mojooo said: Is there an actual law that says all other laws apply to every person in the UK?
Clearly every law applies to eng/wales/scotland etc - but is there anythingto say it automatically applies to every person? just to get that point home. ??? It doesn't have to If a law says "a person may not bum a lampost on fridays " then by default it will apply to every person who bums a lampost on a friday. There doesn't have to be any quibbling about the definition of "person" - common sense will do. However, I have to point something out here - the VAST MAJORITY OF LAWS do not apply to england/wales/scotland. The majority of laws apply either to england & wales, or to scotland. Scotland has a different legal system - for example juries are not just constrained to "Guilty" and "Not Guilty". They can also record a verdict of "Not Proven" - which is basically a "we think you dunnit but can't prove it". And there are s  tloads of differences in Scottish law in general. And then there's Northern Ireland - afterall remember the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Then you've got peopel like me who have moved to the Isle of Man. We have different laws again, as have the Channel Isles!
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,209 posts
32 months
|
Somewhatfoolish said: If a law says "a person may not bum a lampost on fridays " then by default it will apply to every person who bums a lampost on a friday. Feck! Anyone know where I can get a good defence lawyer? PS: at least it was a pretty one. PPS: Anorakky Pedant corner: The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands do not form part of the UK. Yrs, Amazingly dull and pointless factoids R Us.
|
|
|
pitmansboots
1,058 posts
56 months
|
Somewhatfoolish said: ...
If a law says "a person may not bum a lampost on fridays " then by default it will apply to every person who bums a lampost on a friday... I know what you mean but the law applies to everyone before any lamp post burning takes place because the first part of it will set out the offence of lamp post burning, even if it does so in a general way. Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act sets out the offences. While it says that people committing certain acts will be committing an offence defined in it, that is effectively informing all citizens of England and Wales, even including those who do not agree to be bound by it, that to cause damage and in 1(3) of that act damage by fire is wrong. A later section will set out the penalties if a person commits that offence, it is that part of the law that then specifically applies to the person who burns the lamp post. The law is there to prevent undesirable things occurring so applies to all or have I got that wrong?
|
|
