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

One thing I have gleaned from these opposition posts is that the folks feel that any recourse should benefit the State, and people who may be termed "victims" should not get anything at all, for the good of the State. Example:

Your house is robbed and robber x is caught trying to sell your big screen tv. In common law the burglar will be told to compensate you for your loss. According to many of the posters this is the absolute wrong way to run a civilized society, as this way does not actually prevent robber x from stealing the tv, the real law of course does as no tv's are ever stolen.

In what we call "law" which is "maritime law" robber x is fined by the State and sentenced to jail. The money that robber x pays in the form of fine, goes to the State - as many have pointed out the REAL victim of the crime. Then, the "fake victim" you, whose house was robbed, is doing his duty by paying money to incarcerate the very man who robbed his house. According to those who KNOW the law, and who KNOW freedom and common law, this is the BEST way to run a civilized society. Repeat, the best way is to have the felon pay the State, then incarcerate him at the expense of the home owner AND in some cases, work for free for several people who have not been involved in the crime via community service. Indentured servitude, making robber x work for "free" for people not involved is really the best way to keep people save from robber x AND make sure that crime does not happen.

According to the naysayers: Now, things get even better when there is no victim. Dave doesn't have a license, so he is "fined" because the State is irreparably damaged by this fact. The State rightfully, as the victim, comes forward to collect an amount THEY determine is good enough to make the whole, say 500 dollars - that number is wholly arbitrary. Those on this site love the idea that Dave pays 500 bucks and makes the State all good again. What is interesting to me is that Dave wants 20k for being "arrested" and folks scoff at the wholly arbitrary nature of his demand, but they will fight to the death for the State to get its arbitrary demand of 500 dollars. Huh?

The naysayers also love the idea that robber x, pays the State for robbing their house of their big screen tv, say the amount of 5000, because it makes the State whole and they themselves can go out and get a new TV no problem, they have Credit Cards. They also embrace the increase in property tax needed to house robber x, as it makes the State whole. They also feel that if they were to be accused of harming the State, Dave's penalty is too lenient for them, they'd like to pay even more to the State but the State doesn't really accept that notion. But, they may "donate" to the State and I wonder why they don't.

What I can't understand is why folks have decided that the old ways of common law, where the victim, and there must be a victim, is compensated for the loss by the accused in favor of the State being the only victim possible who can be compensated in absolute. The victim of robber x may be the defendant in a separate civil trial, but alas, the fact that he is in jail, being paid by the victim to be there, and having paid the fine to the State, has nothing left to compensate the people who's home he robbed.

Consider it this way. Farmer Joe steals a pig from Farmer Ed. Farmer Joe and Farmer Ed pay the King 500 dollars and two pigs to make it right.

Why is this acceptable, in fact, why is this the best way to assure safety?

In the realm of license = proficiency, could someone please tell me how those who are deemed worthy of driving by paying their State a fee, wind up drinking and being involved in drunk driving accidents - isn't the license supposed to prove folks won't do this?

In the realm of insurance is necessary and a license assures this. You folks are aware of no-fault are you not? This is the LAW where accidents are deemed simply accidents, and you are obliged to deal with your own damage yourself - common law. You are aware that trial lawyers always fight this system of common law because it EXCLUDES them from the process of collections and can put them out of business. You are aware they have put mind control memes, carefully crafted ones that state that common law is the horror of all horrors, but law where they can bend, fight, manipulate the law and take a hefty fee win or loose is the best law around for keeping people safe.

The King has been taxing for 2000 years, where is taxing = safety been proven. Safety comes when people don't rely on the punitive repercussions of the "law" and the King but instead rely on their own inner moral compass, which, oddly enough was removed with public education - the State teaching you what the State wants you to know and nothing else.

Well sadly for Dave if this is true and I have no reason to believe it is but I am just posting a couple of quotes from a well know forum as there is little else to go on regarding the outcome of this event For all I know the case may be ongoing.

Reply 1

Tell him to ask Murphy straight out "where is your car now?
What happened to it after you were stopped by the police?"
Just a plain simple question, then see if Murphy:

A. Replies with a straight answer
B. Answers with a question about "common law, statutes" etc without mentioning the fate of his car
C. Just doesn't answer at all. If he gets anything except A, ask him why he thinks Murphy won't give a straight answer.

That sounds pretty familiar.

Reply 2

Company car :-), worthy of a YouTube vid and "big win" thread? Neither in my opinion!!!!! "So has Dave mentioned anyting about what finally happened to his conveyance? " Common knowledge ( pardon pun) that it got crushed,he lost his job and subsequently his pad...............aye Freeman win indeed.........

A big shame if that is the case but I hope Dave and others continue the Freemen fight. TPTB would obviously like all Freemen to give up, lie down and admit defeat. That is how they control, but if people keep on standing up for the rights of the individual to choose, based on our constitutional law here in the UK they may get results.

Of course the above posts are just hearsay but as David won't tell anyone the outcome, one can only assume that it was not good sadly.

I won't link to the external content site in this case in order to protect the identity of those posting but it only takes a 2 sec Google search.

I wish him and all participants of the Freeman movement well.

reply to post by crankyoldman


Your reply is one of the best that I have read on this subject. Not know the Law this has helped immensely to understand how this "circle" closes itself to make me be the loser in so many ways.

In what we call "law" which is "maritime law" robber x is fined by the State and sentenced to jail. The money that robber x pays in the form of fine, goes to the State - as many have pointed out the REAL victim of the crime. Then, the "fake victim" you, whose house was robbed, is doing his duty by paying money to incarcerate the very man who robbed his house. According to those who KNOW the law, and who KNOW freedom and common law, this is the BEST way to run a civilized society. Repeat, the best way is to have the felon pay the State, then incarcerate him at the expense of the home owner AND in some cases, work for free for several people who have not been involved in the crime via community service. Indentured servitude, making robber x work for "free" for people not involved is really the best way to keep people save from robber x AND make sure that crime does not happen.

reply to post by boncho


Somehow, I don't think Dave has a problem paying a road tax for the upkeep of the roads.

Nice attempt at a strawman, Bonch. Next time, remember how to spell "statute".

reply to post by ReptileSkinShoes

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 ---->

That is receded thinking. He is a British citizen too.. Why should he leave. A piece of paper does not make you any more of a person..... I think British citizens that dont spell Britain with a capital B should get the f** out ----> as they evidently have no respect for being British....

Does anybody know the outcome of his arrest?

what happened in court?

reply to post by Liberal1984


Sorry fella, but what about the police wasting his time, did they see him cause loss or suffering to another individual, no they didn't. So why did they stop him going about his business, because he didn't register HIS vehicle with them. Why should he, why should we. it's our not theirs. The log book states that the said piece of paper is only the keeper and not the owner. As long as you have a receipt in your pocket that says it's yours, who are they to take it away.

Why do you think social services can take your kids away if theyfeel you aren't raising them how they want, because you registered them at birth, basically you handed all rights over to the government, they just let you feed and clothe them on their behalf

If you want to learn something really interesting go read up about the Ces tui Qui act from the 1600 then come back and tell us we are all mad, you cant it will be impossible. The long and the short is the government at the time realised they could pull the wool over serf eyes and have been doing so ever since under this act

reply to post by crankyoldman


Absolutely brilliant
They want the state to take the money, because they think it makes them safe.

Many years ago Thailand sent all the major criminals to live on the islands, as they didn't want to deal with them, as such the islands had very little crime as the 'bad people' tended to look after the islands, this all changed after the US in Vietnam and then the DEA became involved and tried forcing the Thai government to start policing the islands, since then ot has gone down hill

I found a forum that discussed this Law and one of the comments I thought was rather clear as to how it works.

Hi ellie, It was common for lords and the like to be their own government like body on their own property before and after the cestui que vie Act. They would have people (peasants) working the land which would be registered tenants. Lords would try to get as many peasants under their tenancy as they could for the obvious benefits of creating lots of wealth from their land whilst paying for nothing but a minimal amount of food. With the CQV Act government did as the lords did and made everyone a tenant of england. However they did it in a more reserved manor. ellie12022 wrote:the registration of births began in 1837, well after the cestui qui vive act. This is true however, my numerous references to people being dead is as a result of birth registrations starting and not the reason the CQV Act was drafted. As I suggested, the legislation was inferred property rights, defaulted legal title. Only if no one made claim to it within the alloted time of 7years would the government have complete ownership. However, at that time (1666) this legislation probably only applied to estates and not persons. After birth registrations started, the CQV Act could also be applied to your fiction/person/strawman. Registering your birth means they own your strawman. This makes them the lessors/landlord/owner of your person/property and we, the lessee/tenant/user. We are allowed to use our person to do business but only in the way the government says. It was likely that the CQV Act was not used as a tool to strip everyone of their rights but was taken advantage of much later on, even after births were starting to be registered. Perhaps when it was clear to those in power that no one had any clue about this stuff anymore. I think the majority of depict started in 1914 when the gold standard was removed. It's clear to see that today, almost everything is considered government property or private government property and that big businesses are the new Lords. Peace :sun:

Are you dead?

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey


Finally, the funniest part of the video was when Dave was denying driving a motor car! That was hilarious, what are you driving if not a 'motor car' a spaceship? Get real here!

The law makes a distinction between 'Driver' and 'Traveler' a driver is one who 'drives' passengers or goods in his vehicle in return for payment, a 'traveler' is one who uses the roads to travel while not engaged in any commerce. Spaceships have 'pilots' or 'astronaughts' would you drive something that was flying?

Originally posted by robbo961

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey


Finally, the funniest part of the video was when Dave was denying driving a motor car! That was hilarious, what are you driving if not a 'motor car' a spaceship? Get real here!

The law makes a distinction between 'Driver' and 'Traveler' a driver is one who 'drives' passengers or goods in his vehicle in return for payment, a 'traveler' is one who uses the roads to travel while not engaged in any commerce. Spaceships have 'pilots' or 'astronaughts' would you drive something that was flying?

edit on 10-10-2012 by robbo961 because: something left out...

Only if I had a license

I do not care what you think or state, if you are driving a motor vehicle with or without passengers, you are a driver! Trying to redefine the term does not make you right!

Dave denies driving, Dave denies its a 'motor car'! Dave is in denial, if he is a traveller he should get himself a horse and caravan and become one

I am still waiting to hear whether Dave was found 'Not Guilty' and/or got his car back but silence is golden.

Originally posted by seamus
reply to post by boncho

 

Somehow, I don't think Dave has a problem paying a road tax for the upkeep of the roads.

Nice attempt at a strawman, Bonch. Next time, remember how to spell "statute".

The roads were created through statutes of tax paying people. And people that right them, (just by riding them) are agreeing to the statutes that govern them.

Niggling me on typos doesn't get you anywhere either...

Many things have changed since the feudal system, just like common land that commoners had a right to:

Common land (a common) is land owned collectively or by one person, but over which other people have certain traditional rights, such as to allow their livestock to graze upon it, to collect firewood, or to cut turf for fuel.[1]

In English social and economic history, enclosure or inclosure[1] is the process which ends traditional rights such as mowing meadows for hay, or grazing livestock on common land formerly held in the open field system. Once enclosed, these uses of the land become restricted to the owner, and it ceases to be common land.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by robbo961

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey


Finally, the funniest part of the video was when Dave was denying driving a motor car! That was hilarious, what are you driving if not a 'motor car' a spaceship? Get real here!

The law makes a distinction between 'Driver' and 'Traveler' a driver is one who 'drives' passengers or goods in his vehicle in return for payment, a 'traveler' is one who uses the roads to travel while not engaged in any commerce. Spaceships have 'pilots' or 'astronaughts' would you drive something that was flying?

edit on 10-10-2012 by robbo961 because: something left out...

there is a deeper distinction. The "driver" is navigating a seafaring "ship" with cargo and must act like a ship delivering a load from the UK to the US - maritime law covers the seas. Traveling is a man on a boat going from the UK to the US for fun with only his personal belongings on board. The reason for this is all business are fake, legal fiction, and can be "taxed" with reckless abandon as to play the game means to play by the rules - taxes. Men, living breathing men - or women, cannot be taxed, either for the right to live or their actions UNLESS the are acting as a business.

Sadly people think the colloquial definition of words is the same as the legal. they KNOW the word "understand" means; to comprehend, but what they don't know at all is that the legal definition of "understand" means; to submit, to "stand under". The difference between driving - colloquial, and driving - legal is miles.

They are blissfully unaware the terms connect to the actions taken on the high seas, as it is/was there control of the captain could be absolute, but on land, "god's land" there is no authority but oneself. In order to skirt the legal conundrum, the King brought the sea to the land, and sought to make definitions of certain words reflect the law of the sea. Schools are prohibited from teaching the real meanings, but the are mandated to teach and make sure every kid KNOWS the meaning best suited for enslavement.

Don't chastise the poor man who scoffs at Dave for saying "driving" isn't "driving," as he was educated to believe what his masters want him to believe, and never bothered to find the truth because freedom isn't important, safety is.

reply to post by crankyoldman

Sadly people think the colloquial definition of words is the same as the legal. they KNOW the word "understand" means; to comprehend, but what they don't know at all is that the legal definition of "understand" means; to submit, to "stand under". The difference between driving - colloquial, and driving - legal is miles.

I'm no Legal Eagle here but the one thing I have learned (one semester of pre-law) is that words are the "secret" in Law. The common man does not understand this, thus he is completely in the dark what the game is all about.

The power of words extends into other areas as for instance Mass Media. If I use the word "rebel" a positive image pops into the mind. If instead I call a group "terrorists" a different image pops in. He who chooses which words to use is in CONTROL of our minds.

Originally posted by tintin2012
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

Sadly people think the colloquial definition of words is the same as the legal. they KNOW the word "understand" means; to comprehend, but what they don't know at all is that the legal definition of "understand" means; to submit, to "stand under". The difference between driving - colloquial, and driving - legal is miles.

I'm no Legal Eagle here but the one thing I have learned (one semester of pre-law) is that words are the "secret" in Law. The common man does not understand this, thus he is completely in the dark what the game is all about.

The power of words extends into other areas as for instance Mass Media. If I use the word "rebel" a positive image pops into the mind. If instead I call a group "terrorists" a different image pops in. He who chooses which words to use is in CONTROL of our minds.

edit on 10-10-2012 by tintin2012 because: grammer

true, words are programming, in the same way "code" is used on a computer. Then the codes are used to control the mind. What is funny, but awfully sad, is the defiance of those who KNOW what the law is based on the programming code put into them. They argue, madly, frothing at the mouth, for their own enslavement via the codes. Seriously, they demand to be "un-free," because the codes they have to argue for freedom take them to the enslaved zone.

War for peace, police to be free, taxes help us all and so on. The key to ALL the programming is to never include the "I" in the meme, make it the other guy. So notice how "I fight war for peace" sounds if you say it about yourself. Then say "we fight war for peace." Try, "I need police to police and control me" then try, "we need police to control and protect us." One argues for personal enslavement without the person seeing how it means THEM personally!

It has been said that when one goes to court they are offered three choices at their arraignment: guilty, not guilty, no contest. Three? Three? Why three? How about, "what the hell gives you the right to have this hearing at all?" How about, "I don't agree to anything you say or seek to impose?" How about, "show me how you have jurisdiction over me?" By offering the choice, and making sure that all the "choices" lead to the same location, the court insures voluntary enslavement. Does anyone ever ask, "well, are these my only choices?" No, they accept it because they are offered choice.

Remarkably, anyone in court doesn't want to be there, anyone outside of court wants others to be there, yet, in a fit of insanity, those who demanded others to be in court become turncoats when they are in court - how come? Home come the naysayers on this site get pissed off about the unfairness of a parking ticket, speeding ticket or ticket for using the wrong trash cans, yet they demand those who "break the law" got to jail at their expense? Why do folks accept the idea that the guy in jail is COSTING THEM MONEY!!!!

The reason is the word programming, the programming in their head tells them the "other" guy is punished to keep them safe, but they don't understand THEY are being punished by not being free and they can't get to that place because the words in their head won't let them get there, as their big court type choice is, "anarchy or order, you can't have both?" That's a lie of course.

Originally posted by FFS4000
reply to post by Hongkongphooey

 

No, you're missing the point, it is about taking responsibility for your actions and not letting the state get in the way, you are accepting of the programmed state they want you in. You think going to school is education, i on the other hand call it indoctrination.

There will always be the 2 sides of a coin

Sorry, you are missing the point of the post you are responding to. What you think of school has nothing to do with anything - what has that to do with whether you should be judged safe to drive or if you are in a car safe to be on the road, or your ability to make sure others are compensated if your lack of a license or MOT puts someone elses life at risk or even if you have paid the road tax to actually drive on the road? Idealism is nice, best taken with at least a little realism to why as adults you have to accept some responsibilities. I'm assuming you are at school or have recently left.

reply to post by crankyoldman

No, they accept it because they are offered choice.

Yes my friend, that is part of the problem. People have been conditioned and can not see that they are in an artificial boundary.

That is why there are voices against the "reformed", "modernized" etc. educational system. The new system of "You have a choice A,B,C or D. Which is the answer?" and "A-your brilliant, B-Your not bad, C-Your hanging in there, D-Your sinking, F-Your an idiot" has defined the educational system and everyone is convinced that nothing else exists. Majority I suspect think that the Greek's had something similar. God forbid that 90% of class time would be student input and 10% teacher. God forbid that Critical Thinking was stressed in the school curriculum. NO, the answer is either A, B, C or D.

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by definity

 

This is pretty much what Gypsy's do and how they can get away with a lot of thing most people cant. Yes some laws are exempt when you do this but it is also a very stupid thing to do because you loose a LOT of benefits. No JSA, No NHS and lot of governmental services will help you, also no NI number. I don't think many countries support this way of life though, it is technically created for people who want to live a free life like hermits and extreme hippy's who want to go out into the wilderness and live off the land. But like a lot of law's it is abused.

I liked your post up until this point. lol

You really think only hippy hermits want to live like this? LOL

I don't know many hippies that are also hermits actually. They are normally outdoors kinda people.

Any way the way of life is very appealing to me. Keep the NHS and all the other so called "benefits" and I'll live my life without hurting anyone or stealing from anyone. That is fair enough isn't it? I'll put nothing in and take nothing out. How about that?

While I think you may be trolling somewhat, I'm fairly sure that if you do work (how, if you wouldn't be known to tax authorities?) then what you are really saying is you have no wish to contribute to society. If you suffered an accident tomorrow that rendered you incapable of movement and the NHS didn't treat you, you would be the first person to paint yourself as a victim. If by not paying into any pension you end up with literally no money whatsoever, you would be the first person to paint yourself as a victim....... unless of course you earn your daily wage through illicit means.

Waste. Of. Space. You almost sound like you have inherited wealth so have no need to earn it.... hmmmm

Originally posted by DaveMurphy25

Originally posted by Hongkongphooey
Dave is your perfect example of how a little knowledge is dangerous!

As a Public Servant he is required to have and produce on demand his identity, as a man in my private capacity I am not.

Can you please show why you are not required to show your vehicle is roadworthy and you are both the acknowledged owner of such and you are classed as fit to drive it? I actually think you are doing more harm than good and I'm glad you aren't on the road anywhere near where I live.

Originally posted by definity

Originally posted by mee30
reply to post by definity

 

Private health cover? Imagine if you paid zero taxes (even vat?) how much extra cash you would have?

What does the day and age have to do with it? This is a very exciting time to be alive because we are setting the foundations of true freedom and responsibility. You can either take a back seat or get involved. It is a really eye opening and exciting journey to take but more importantly it is an inevitable journey. It really confuses me how people will see the corruption of power again and again but still think it will work this time!

Isn't that the definition of insanity?

Any way have a little listen to stefan molyneux on youtube. He covers many subjects from a philosophical point of view. It is very good brain food.

OK yeah, but the only work you can do is cash in hand a lot of companies don't work that way, I would have to be self employed, whos gonna hire someone with no NI number. I still feel uncomfortable not having a great service like NHS about.

Trust me, private health cover won't cover you if you are not complying with the rules of the land - they would see that as you not agreeing to terms and conditions you would then find in their small print, and rightly so.