UK - Protestors 'arrest' county court Judge - Police blockaded by protesters (One man hospitalised

Good grief not this nonsense again

It's based on a lack of understanding of a law that was written about a distinct class of people in a society that no longer exists - and law that is no longer valid anyway. It's at best misguided and at worst deliberately provocative and damaging. It's rarely ever public and civil law experts leading these charges, is it? Possibly because they know something the "revolutionaries" don't?

This isn't an anti-government movement. There has been a longstanding battle between the government and the judiciary that really hit it's peak when Labour was in power. These folks are basically at the stage that the previous government has been trying to prod them to reach for years.

If you want some interesting reading, research the "seperation of powers". The massive landslide for Labour in the 90's basically merged two of the pillars leaving only the judiciary as an independant body with any hope for acting as a counterbalance. Since then, the executive has been pushing through many reforms that lack legal sense but are deliberately provocative.

A good example is "victim statements". A victim was given the right to have their statement read out in court for the judge to take note of, but at the same time the courts were then prohibited from taking the statements into account. Result? "The courts don't care! The law says I have a right to be heard but they are deliberately ignoring me! Damn the courts!". Noone ever thinks to blame the people who made the law. Ridiculous fines given out for things? Judges have very limited discretion, they are bound by government guidelines. Who gets the blame? The judges.

So, merry revolutionaries of England, well done for "sticking it to the man" by doing exactly what they've socially engineered you to do

And this for a laugh !

Though it says 'How to deal with bailiffs'
This is NOT the way to deal with bailiffs !

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


Peace

Originally posted by mr-lizard
The ex Police Officer is now saying that most sergeants and police don't actually know much about the civil rights and civil law, and generally it's not necessarily their fault as they didn't get trained in this aspect.

He's being very fair and saying that the Police NEED to read this stuff, and research it.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US we have a legal concept that goes something like this- Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Naturally though, that only applies to us. Police can pretty much do what they want. I guess our countries aren't so different after all. :-)

reply to post by ProRipp


Oh if you look through some of the additional videos you'll find people trying the "Capitalised names on birth certificates don't count, I'm a third party" rubbish as well

For all the knowledge available on the internet, some people still manage to use it to make themselves more stupid.

Originally posted by ProRipp
But I will say that certain aspects of the Freeman movement DO work
and I have experience of them !

You see, ProRipp, here's a perfect opportunity for you to outline how the 'freeman' movement can benefit all of us.

Yet, you turn it into a secretive ''word of mouth'' kind of thing, that has supposedly helped you. and will allegedly help others in similar positions...

Talk about proving my point !

Originally posted by DragonTattooz

Originally posted by mr-lizard
The ex Police Officer is now saying that most sergeants and police don't actually know much about the civil rights and civil law, and generally it's not necessarily their fault as they didn't get trained in this aspect.

He's being very fair and saying that the Police NEED to read this stuff, and research it.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US we have a legal concept that goes something like this- Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Naturally though, that only applies to us. Police can pretty much do what they want. I guess our countries aren't so different after all. :-)

The police haven't been trained in this because it is not good law. The protesters are picking and mixing from archaic, outdated and misunderstood law because they want to feel special. Bless 'em.

This news is not being shown in the US. I believe that the TPTB are too scared to let Americans see it.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

I did post after that to which you referred Sherlock my friend ?
The no contract scenario worked for me !
Some people more unscrupulous than me might see it as a way to misle theyre way out
of a situation but mine was a genuine need to use this practice !
As i said previously I would not condone the practice if it was used for unscrupulouse purposes !


Peace

reply to post by EvillerBob


The police havent been trained in this??? The police training, is military. And most of them are ex soldiers. Dosnt matter how inteligent a british bobby is. Just so long as they are big enough to beat any civilians who try and protest or stand up for their rights.
Still today the police in the old pit villages in Yorks are still spat at and abused for what they did when maggy closed the mines. So she could import cheaper coal from aparteid RSA.

reply to post by ProRipp


Hmm. Some questions, if that's ok.

When did you send the demand back?
Did you receive a reply? If so, when? What did it say?
Why do you think you have a contract with the Queen or the local government?

reply to post by illuminnaughty


Hi, I think you might be confusing the British police with... well, nearly anyone else. They have shown infinitely more restraint in dealing with protesters than nearly any other police force in the world.

Again, funny how one group gets the blame for the actions of another. Government does something, police get blamed. Government sets up ridiculous and unworkable targets then cuts the funding necessary to meet them, police get blamed. Government tries to turn police force into touchy-feely social services, police get blamed.

Note a pattern? It works other ways, too. Government increasingly interferes with sentencing powers of courts through controlling appointments and requests for consideration... judges get blamed for sentences handed out as a result.

Be angry, that's fine. Be angry with ACPO for killing the police service. Be angry with the government for supporting and enabling ACPO's empire building instead of disbanding or significantly neutering it. Being angry is fine, just be angry with the right people.

Does it say any where what exactly the judge did?

If it did - I missed it.

reply to post by EvillerBob


Okay, through an exceptional set of circumstances a situation arose whereby I owed an amount of money to the bank via a credit card ! The exceptional circumstance being I was in intensive care and unable to deal with ANYTHING !
I had a contract with the bank ! Fair enough thus far !
The bank though sold this debt to a third party (debt collection agency).
I was happy to deal with the bank !
They broke my contract with them when they sold on this debt !
I recieved at first a TEXT message on my mobile/cell phone can you believe from this debt agency the bank obviously gave this to them withoiut my permission !
It was asking me to get in touch with them which was nice but this I decided to to decline !
Then i received a demand/letter !
If you know about these things you get an inkling of where it has come from !
As my original contract was with the bank, I wrote on the envelope No Contract Return to Sender !
You must never ignore these things because if you ignore three it is assumed that you have accepted them and that a contract has been entered into !
I then did this for the next two that came and then a funny thing happened !
I got another from a completely different part of the country perhaps another office belonging to them or maybe even another party ?
Anyhow this went back the same way and to cut an even longer story short it did the trick !
As I say I don't condone this action as a way of escaping your commitment/contracts but in certtain circumstances it can be necassery !


Peace and goodnight to all ProRipp

reply to post by EvillerBob


They didnt show any restraint with that guy coming home from work in London. He was walking home with his hands in his pockets. He wasnt a protestor. Just a working class man on his way home. He was attacked from behind and murdered as far as I am concerned. Then there was the case of the students. A cripple was pulled from his chair and assaulted. Yes the police sure know how to use restraint on people. Yes I agree with you about being angry with the proper people. Police are just tools being used by the lying thieving politicians. They are the real culprits in this country and the sooner we sling them out of office the better.

I think this is awesome and I hope it continues to gain momentum and spread to other western nations (I live in New Zealand and am a dual citizen with the US) however I didn't like the video with Tracy Chapman singing Revolution. I like the song but a couple of the images smacked of communism. "Capitalism has failed!" and "Share the wealth!". Capitalism hasn't failed. "Unbridled" Capitalism has failed the masses but it sure hasn't failed the ultra wealthy elite! I have mixed feelings about the expression "Share the wealth". I don't believe in hand outs, I believe in hand ups. Wealthy people should be creating jobs as they get richer so people can earn their keep. I believe there should be a balance between capitalism and socialism. Socialism is needed to "bridle" capitialism and they need to work together in harmony.

But historically the Church (The Salvation Army more than any other institution) took care of needy people but gradually that service was handed over to government.

Remember that the Government that can give you everything you need can take away everything you have. I'd love to know who said that originally!

reply to post by mr-lizard


When the government becomes to powerful it is the duty of the people to take back their freedom. Props to these UK protesters who actually care about freedom.

It's time to wake up America!

The public have the right to protest and the police have no business to molest them when they do so unless a crime is committed.

Isn't it strange that we are now not allowed to photograph a police officer, although fortunately some of them are so stupid as to trunction whip little women and thrust people to the ground so heavily they die infront of national tv/security cameras. We are in dangerous territory because in the past we respected our police today I wonder if so many now do?

reply to post by ProRipp


Thanks for the information, it makes it a lot clearer. You weren't relying on any deep-rooted law, unfortunately, but some fairly basic application of credit-related legislation, limitations and statistics.

I'm very glad it worked for you, of course. Sometimes we find ourselves in these situations.

There is no law that says you are deemed to accept if they send three letters without reply. In fact, this particular situation is governed by specific legislation that gives you a lot of protection. A few things to note:

1) If you ignored them completely then after 6 years from the date of breach, they lose the ability to enforce the contract.
2) If you stated anything in the letter which could be read as acknowledging that you owe the debt, or if you make a payment, the clock starts again.
3) What usually happens in that the bank will write you off as a lost cause and sell your debt to a third party at a loss. The third party companies work on numbers - if they annoy enough people, enough will pay out to make it worth while. If they have no success, they will sell that debt on to another collection company for a fraction of what they paid. It's not unheard of for a debt to pass through several companies that way before finally disappearing. I suspect that is also why the companies at the end of the chain get so aggressive - if they get a single payment out of you, you can then be chased for the rest.

So, what about the risk of being taken to court? Usually very slim. A credit contract is a regulated document. The company is obliged by law to keep a copy of your signed Consumer Credit Agreement and to provide a copy of it on request. Without it, the debt is not enforceable. If it is not correct (the law sets out requirements for how the contract is drawn up) then it is not enforceable. Banks in the past have been very sloppy with their records and have often been unable to provide this document on request, which is probably why they sell the debts on rather than chase them directly. Even if they DO have them, the third party might never receive a copy, or might not be able to retrieve it on request.

You have not been dealing with any grassroots movement-type law that "sticks it to the man", you've been following basic consumer credit law. I doubt this would have worked in many other situations. I think it's better to say that you got lucky this time. I'm glad you did, of course.

Originally posted by Screwed
This is great.
It's about time.
This is coming to America folks.
I just hope we are able to pull it off with the grace that some of the other countries are.

Seems humanity is ready to throw off the chains of oppression
and graduate to first grade.
We don't need other people to RULE over us.
We have literally been slaves for thousands of years now.
People are TAKING their freedoms back.

If I were a cop or a judge in this Country (America) I would change sides quick.
This throwing off the chains of oppression thing is catching on pretty fast and spreading like a virus.

I love the sentiments you're throwin out here. So far this has been about far away places around the world but we can take advantage...the iron is hot. Of course it would be nice to organize something through ATS