Why you don't need a licence, insurance, tax, etc to "drive" in the UK

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I would like Dave to answer these questions:-
What plates were on the car? Czech, German?
Did you go to court? What was the verdict?
Did you get the car back? How?
Did you get the £10000 invoice paid? From who?

Thanks.




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by scotsdavy1
 





Does Dave actually have a licence to drive? He says you don't need one. I had to get one for my motor bike when I was younger, then I got one for a car, then one for a class 2 for a truck and finally a class 1 for any truck on the road. The last ones I was taught by experts on a course I was on and am proud I passed them all.


I can not speak for him but if you watched the video you would see he had one but sent it back... What does your experience have to do with anyone else's? Because you were forced to have a license others should too? Also if you are driving heavy vehicles you are obviously in commerce so would require a license under the common law. However I even disagree with this personally. You need training yes but you are an adult and know when you are competent to drive, no?




If you don't need one then a child could drive on the road and kill many people without tax, insurance or licence or m.o.t! Ludicrous !


Would you let your children loose with a car? Nah thought not. Btw kids do joyride today, are you aware of that? How does the license stop that?




Why not go the whole hog and let drunk drivers weave everywhere on the road? They don't need a licence to drive? Do they in your opinion?


They can drink and drive but they would be very irresponsible people (btw they do that today too). Freemen are responsible people, where are the videos of freemen drink driving? But you do not need force to persuade people to not drink drive. You need reason and evidence. I know a guy that got repeated drink driving bans and ended up with a 25 year ban. Still drank and drove, never killed anyone though.




I have driven for 38 years and had one accident that wasn't my fault, and I feel strongly that his reasoning is completely wrong.


Would you have driven all these vehicles without any training?




Would he like someone to re wire his house who wasn't a qualified electrician or gas fitter without a certificate of competence like a licence? Or be in a plane that the pilot hasn't one either?


If you trust the person, sure why not? I worked in a plumb center at one time and I knew the old boys that were the best of the best. Been doing it years and now they need to pass some damn test every couple of years? It's a racket. You can learn trades on the job with skilled on the job training.




Maybe when cars first came on the road it was ok or not thought about, but on today's roads, you need to have your wits about you and be in complete control of what all the road signs mean and what other drivers are doing etc.


What does this even mean/prove? I will point you to the fact that they have removed ALL road signs/markers/traffic lights even pavements at various places. And guess what? Less accidents! In one particular place there were ZERO accidents. Why? Because people were looking at the damn road and not at signs and lights! lol... Besides no-one has said it would be sensible or responsible to jump into a car when you have had zero training.




If an uninsured driver hits my car, i will loose my no claims and god knows what else. What does he loose?


Wrong again because if you were hit by a freeman he would be responsible and settle things without the need for the insurance company.




The argument is null and void and stupid to say the least. Who pays for the hospital bills, lawyers fees, breakdown trucks, the list goes on and on.....


Whomever was at fault...




I am not even going to lower myself to watch the said videos as I think it is a joke and nothing else. If not, you should get the jail for putting other people's lives in danger. Is your car fit for the road? You said you were in an accident that cost you about £1000, look at the value of a lot of the cars today. I was driving a truck that cost £56000, what if you had crashed into me and I had jackknifed and the truck was written off.


Ignorance is bliss I suppose... Then why comment?

How has he put others in danger? He would be irresponsible to drive with an unsound car! This isn't about lacking responsibility! This is the highest form of responsibility. I love all the ridiculous scenarios people come up with... Tell me, if you had no insurance how would you drive?




Would you have paid if it was proven you were at fault? Get real.


Sir you know nothing of this subject...

Off to sleep now so goodnight one and all....
edit on 8-10-2012 by mee30 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Wow, after watching all those. I have a profound respect for that man. He makes me want to read up on law here in the states and challenge it. I have considered reading law books before but with my limited understanding I didn't think it was worth it to delve too deeply since I didn't really think there would be profound advantages to understanding those laws. I was clearly wrong, although I'd love to see him try that stuff in the U.S.....I don't think our police are nearly as friendly....still...I think I'll take up a hobby reading up on law here in the U.S.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
Wow, after watching all those. I have a profound respect for that man. He makes me want to read up on law here in the states and challenge it. I have considered reading law books before but with my limited understanding I didn't think it was worth it to delve too deeply since I didn't really think there would be profound advantages to understanding those laws. I was clearly wrong, although I'd love to see him try that stuff in the U.S.....I don't think our police are nearly as friendly....still...I think I'll take up a hobby reading up on law here in the U.S.


There are many sources for this kind of philosophy in the U.S and around the world for that matter. It is a truly deep and compelling journey to take and I'm excited for you that you have been turned on to this. Good luck with your further research. Oh and btw if you want to read more up on this stuff just google "freeman on the land US" or something like that.




posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mee30
 


Go to www.awakeradio.co.uk... then go to the podcast page and under Allegedly Speaking there's a podcast called: 2012-08-23 - Driving and Travelling



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrimReaper86
Wow, after watching all those. I have a profound respect for that man. He makes me want to read up on law here in the states and challenge it. I have considered reading law books before but with my limited understanding I didn't think it was worth it to delve too deeply since I didn't really think there would be profound advantages to understanding those laws. I was clearly wrong, although I'd love to see him try that stuff in the U.S.....I don't think our police are nearly as friendly....still...I think I'll take up a hobby reading up on law here in the U.S.


Here's a good start with all the case law that you'll need:

ebookbrowse.com...



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveMurphy25
 


Yeah I just found that now funny enough but it still won't have it. I'm using ubuntu with firefox not sure if that has anything to do with it. But it just loads and loads, the player is there but nothing ever loads. I hasn't been uploaded to youtube then?



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Just a couple of thoughts, no heavy analysis, and remembering that this applies only to the US, here are just a few threads on the issue:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's a comment from one of those threads:


I'm almost sorry I found this thread. You may not believe me, and that's your right, but my law degree is from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. I have many years of federal law enforcement experience and have provided personal opinions on prosecution to the US Attorney in Milwaukee on several occasions.

It is possible that you might win a low level case using these tactics if the staff decides they don't care or can't be bothered. You may be just be dismissed as a harmless nut and allowed to avoid a fine. (The odds of this happening are incredibly small, but I suppose it is conceivable.)

But please, and I can't stress this enough, at least talk to an attorney about your situation before you do anything. Many attorneys will take a few cases each year pro bono (free). Many will give you a half hour of free consultation. Lots of them have fees based in part on your income. Your State Bar Association will help you find a lawyer that practises in the area you're having a problem with.

I recall a case where a man attempted to defraud the government out of some tax money. The person was clearly repentant, afraid, and was willing to make restitution. I recommended probation. Another fellow with a bad attitude led me to suggest to the US Attorney that the sentence had to be stricter to show the man the seriousness of committing crimes and mocking the law.

Again, if your case is about anything bigger than a few dollars and you're in the US, please don't try the techniques described here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My own feeling is that if this "freeman" business worked, then defense attorneys would snap it up and use it to get their clients found innocent. If you would, provide us with a case that was brought to trial, or better still handled at the appelate level in which a "freeman" won based on his arguents.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


You talk without even a brain cell if you believe what you wrote. You haven't a clue about the law on driving or anything. So please, go away and play with your Lego or whatever you play with.

edit on 8-10-2012 by scotsdavy1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
These discussions always wind up the same way, the very few demanding everyone accept the common perception that paying money in the form of fees, licenses, taxes etc. equals freedom. Fallacy number one, money paid to a governing body equals freedom.

Freedom is inherent in each living thing, unless they give it up for some reason. The reason people now equate freedom with anarchy is there has been a wonderful series of perfectly timed, exquisitely exploited events that have proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that people left to their own are evil. It never occurs to those who support fallacy number one that people are systematically taught to rely on laws, and a horrendous system of education, to teach them to avoid their own personal sense of morality and take on that of the freedom eliminating State. If a car is no different then a horse, we can assume that the Old West never happened as all died due to lack of regulation. Had the Old West had the millions and millions of laws we have now it would have worked perfectly. BTW, why are we not taught in school the millions and millions of laws?

These discussions always wind up with the few demanding everyone accept that freedom is something handed out by a governing body and is in no way inherent to a living being. Fallacy number two, governing systems, king, pope, or other give out freedom.

Folks have been educated on the notion that man is not free, but documents written by other men give them freedom, a freedom that only exists within the confines of all the documents governing freedom. Get that, MEN give other MEN freedom? Folks are under the delusion that behavior is the same thing as inherent right and they have taken their education to heart, demanding that folks are not really free unless their behavior is regulated as they are nothing but behavior. Humans are NOT behavior, and behavior should be of no concern to the State unless the humans fall so far from their true self the require a corporate fiction to control their existence and demand it - which those on earth have.

These discussions always end up with a few demanding everyone accept the idea that laws protect people and standing above or outside the law inherently makes the world more dangerous. Fallacy number three, laws equal safety.

Laws are punitive, not preventative. Only the child, or the child mind, thinks that laws, lawyers, judges and the institution of governance stops anything. Those systems only exact punitive/monetary damage on behavior but the acceptance of the external system as overlord of self has led all to accept more and more control of their entire self. We now demand the governance system control thinking as the freedom to think is dangerous.

The discussions always wind up with the few demanding people just accept the obvious fact that the OTHER guy needs to have his freedoms stopped or curbed because HE will do harm or damage to them and the others around them. Fallacy number four, restriction is for the other guy.

The human mind is so feeble minded that is believes that ALL laws, restrictions and actions taken are for the other guy. They are not, all laws and restrictions taken are for him, personally. I repeat:

All laws are for YOU, not the other guy. It is YOU that requires the endless laws, licensees, taxes, penalties, fines, tariffs and so on, it is YOU that is the problem, not the other guy. It is YOU that needs your thinking stopped.

The story is apt: Some time ago a test was done of a fish. The fish was placed in a tank 4 feet long. The tank was cut in half with a glass partition, the fish swam in the truncated tank for some time. When the partition was removed, the fish stayed in the truncated area. Humans don't know what freedom is, they've never had it, so there is no desire for it. Education and endless fear mongering has them fearing freedom. I'll say that again:

The human condition actually has them fearing freedom, demanding, with anger, vitriol and self righteousness that anyone at all take away their own personal freedom.

All of these discussions wind up the same way, with a few demanding they loose more of their personally freedom because it protects them from the horrors of themselves.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
All i see are slaves in this thread...you people are pathetic. Acting like the trained monkeys that you are. this man has balls, I do not and i only wish i did.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by 3Dplus
 


Well in the USA, they rarely do anything but give a citation for no insurance or registration. Minnesota is even easier, they give you a verbal warning. I have had two accidents - years ago - with two separate drivers, both uninsured. Nothing happened to them, my rates went up. Also, in Oregon, $2.00 of every premium paid (at least it was $2.00) went to an "uninsured motorist pool". What the heck that was for, I don't know. My impression would be that it should have paid the damage to my car instead of my insurance. I believe it only covers medical payments thought. And for the record, there are millions of uninsured drivers in the USA.

Here's a current list:



The IRC says the percentage of uninsured drivers generally rises along with the unemployment rate and currently stands at 13.8 percent. Here’s a look at the states where the need for uninsured motorist coverage is greatest:

State Uninsured % Unemployed %
Mississippi 28 10.4
New Mexico 26 6.7
Florida 24 10.7
Oklahoma 24 5.5
Tennessee 24 9.8
Alabama 22 10
Michigan 19 10.9
Kentucky 18 9.5
Rhode Island 18 10.8
Arkansas 16 8.2
Georgia 16 10.1
Indiana 16 8.5
Ohio 16 9
Washington 16 9.3
California 15 12
Colorado 15 8.5
District of Columbia 15 10.8
Illinois 15 9.5
Maryland 15 7.2
Texas 15 8.4
Wisconsin 15 7.8
Missouri 14 8.7
North Carolina 14 10.1
Alaska 13 7.7
Louisiana 13 7.6
Minnesota 13 7.2
Nevada 13 12.9
Arizona 12 9.4
Delaware 11 8.1
Hawaii 11 6.1
Iowa 11 6
Montana 11 7.7
New Hampshire 11 5.2
New Jersey 11 9.5
South Carolina 11 10.9
Virginia 11 6.1
West Virginia 11 8.1
Connecticut 10 9.1
Kansas 10 6.5
Oregon 10 9.5
Wyoming 10 5.8
North Dakota 9 3.3
South Dakota 9 4.7
Idaho 8 9.4
Nebraska 8 4.1
Utah 8 7.5
Pennsylvania 7 7.8
Vermont 7 5.7
New York 5 8
Maine 4.5 7.7
Massachusetts 4.5 7.6



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Just a quick response as it's very late.

Dave does indeed have a point.

Police cars are not insured, did you know that?
There is no commercial insurance policy active for any Police car from any force in the UK.

Police cars are not taxed.

The next time you get close to a Police vehicle have a look at the tax disc.
It is displayed simply to give the impression to the masses that it is taxed but it's not. It is exempt from excise duty. The tax disc is free.

Perhaps Dave should if anything also apply for the free disc, that would be an interesting and challenging quest Dave.

The Police had no other choice but to do what they did under their limited circumstances and knowledge. They only know what has been fed to them and they follow it.

I'm not saying it was right but they know nothing else and a legal challenge by the road side, no matter how robust could not be fully investigated at that time.
In the minds of the officers the simple solution would be to lock him up and put him before the courts to decide. It is not the officers duty to make a decision on a legal challenge or argument. They are simply not equipped to do so.
So what the officers did according to their guidelines was correct, just as what Dave did and said under his own civil/legal basis was correct.

I do think they should have let him get his papers out of the car but I doubt they would have signed anything. I certainly would not have signed the 20K bill but the officer did and that's one up to Dave.

I am also surprised they let him carry on filming, as once arrested your civil liberty is removed but they did. This makes me think that they were indeed aware that they may indeed have been on dodgy legal ground themselves.

As an ex Police Officer with decades of service of which no I am not proud, I salute Dave and what he is trying to accomplish, which appears to be to simply go about his own lawful passage unhindered and certainly un-molested.

I would be very interested to know the final result of the arrest / summons.

Regards to all

S500
edit on 8-10-2012 by studio500 because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-10-2012 by studio500 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
theres a way to do something similar in the states, by denouncing your ALL CAPITAL NAME i forget process but it means you dont have to pay anything federal and are exempt from alot of fees, but for a person to do this you would have to be the type that like to explain ones self every single time you need to do some kind of transaction, have a run in with the law, court systems, ect ect,,, so yah over 65-75 years you will probably save about 25k in fees and what not, but always have to be ready for a fight or someone that doesnt care about your particular situation and keeps treating it like a normal situation, then have to wait around (maybe in a jail cell) to get things cleared ect ect, no thanks you can keep the 25k lol.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
He'd be so busted in the US. It's amazing. The UK so can be nanny state and yet it is possible to get away with things that would bring a SWAT team down on you in the states.

reply to post by FireballStorm
 



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Interesting videos, but he still got arrested, didn't diffuse the situation much and as far as I can tell there is no follow up, as others have asked, did he get the 20,000? Was his case quashed?

It makes for interesting viewing, but the outcome of the video doesn't make me want to go and rescind my license



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReptileSkinShoes
plus , if you have an accident you need to pay up yourself , no insurance means YOU yourself pay a lump sum to the "victim". Dodgey grounds if you ask me ........ he`s also recinded his birth certifacte or something , this man is an absolute idiot .

If you`re willing to go to this extent i would like to say to you , as a british citizen , and on behalf of all british citizens .... get the f*** out ---->


On your first point, everybody has to do that anyway because no one in the UK can afford to take anything out of their insurance in the long run.

On your second point, you appear to be very narrow minded. I too am a british citizen, and you will not be saying anything of the sort to him on my behalf, I revoke your permission to do so because I'm in agreement with this man. I think it's awesome that he's found these loopholes and I think anyone who can play the government at their own game should be invited into this country so it can be made a better place.



posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 

If there is only my contribution of one star toward this tirade
over a period of almost three hours, we surely are in trouble
as a culture. Cranky, that was magnificent and well done!
I lied to myself for years, and the final nail in MY personal
coffin was asking the government for help with a personal
problem. What the government did was help itself quite
unlawfully to the better half of my working years; and a
sizeably larger percentage of the wages.
For at least one the psyop is over. Thanks again, and I
would be overjoyed to send this to my friends with your
by-line and permission if I may. This could jar even the
most hypnotic of We the People awake.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Sounds like alot of you guys haven't heard of maritime admiralty law and why we are governed by it in the first place. We are treated as property upon our birth verifiable by a "birth" certificate legally done because we as babies are delivered through a canal. The human body is comprised primarily of water so the term birth canal is used to denote a place where goods are delivered over water. This is why your country can claim ownership of you.

It is through "capitis diminutio maxima" that we as a natural born organisms are treated as corporations. This is why your name appears in all caps on any form of ID. The following video explains it better than I can, in fact I'm surprised this concept appears so radical to many members on this forum.

This man Dave is exercising his rights and it's very inspiring. We don't need the government to govern us. It's quite the opposite actually.

edit on 9-10-2012 by MrLovenLight because: grammar



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Same here in US.

After I lost my drivers license, I opted to sign up for an ID card only and I use that to travel. You only need to be identified.

Drivers licenses are for COMMERCIAL drivers (CORPORATIONS).

Get active, ditch your license. The law says its ok





new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join