Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[fortinbras]

One of the astonishing thing about these videos of Freemen/SovTards getting their windows smashed/getting arrested by police, is that the videos are being posted by the Freemen/SovTards themselves, the very ones who got arrested and lost the argument, and they want the whole world to know that they had their windows and/or faces smashed for spouting their nonsense. This hardly encourages anyone to follow their example.

[longdog]

This hardly encourages anyone to follow their example.

I fear you underestimate the number of morons there are in the world for who martyrdom is preferable to their drab, empty lives.

[SteveUK]

More success !!1!!.

Taken from Fmotl fails.

Taken from the White Rabbit Trust Facebook page.

Mike Watson
1 hr

Hello fellow fighters

Below is an e-mail sent to the chief constable of west berks police force; circulated for my own protection.
To the Chief Constable Thames Valley Constabulary.
Notice to principal is notice to agent. Notice to agent is notice to principal.
NOTICE.
I am Michael Watson and live at 14 Dysons Close, Newbury. I wish to add to the Notice that Mr. Timbrell sent to your force control for your attention. I countersigned that and also sent the same notice in. I have tried to send that notice on two occasions now, but on each occasion, the email has been returned. It seems that someone within your force does not want me to contact you. I have a screenshot the returned emails and sent it on to others for my own self-protection. I have also dialed 999 and complained of the break-in of two unauthorised persons to my home. The ur-no is 1012. dated 30/10/2017. A subsequent call has been made to 999 complaining of the returned emails.
Because of subsequent events that have happened, I now have to serve a further notice on you. I know of previous occasions where constables were stopped from assisting debt collectors masquerading as bailiffs by a similar notice being served on another chief constable.
Although I doubt if the chief constable saw the notice, someone in force control read and acted on the notice and stopped the constables committing offenses. By assisting a corporate debt collector masquerading as a Court Bailiff, they would have placed themselves in a dangerous position because, if in the course of assisting a corporate "bailiff" they get assaulted, they could not use the protection the law gives them because they would not be acting in the execution of their duty.
In this matter, I opened the door to my flat to heavy banging on my door. The man standing there asked me for my name. I asked if I was obliged to answer this question. He said "no." So I bid him good-day and started to close the door. He immediately placed his foot in the door and refused to let me close it. After about five minutes he forced his way passed me into my hallway and refused to leave. I dialed 999 and complained to your police force. I asked for a constable to come to my home and eject them. They turned up some 10 minutes later.
In the meantime this criminal showed me what he said was a "warrant" to take away my property it I did not pay him the sum of £423.00. I asked to see the "warrant." This piece of paper did not have a wet ink stamp by an issuing court, so, therefore, had no date within the stamp as to when the "warrant" was issued; furthermore, no Judge's signature to identify the an issuing Judge was thereon either. It was a fake instrument.
When you Constables arrived I made a citizens arrest of this man whose name is Jamie Bhargie, who works for "BRISTOW AND SUTOR enforcement agents." His accomplice is named Paul Goff also from the same corporation. Your constables refused to take him/them into custody breaching their Oaths of Office. I said that I would take responsibility for the arrest and that the evidence of his/their crime was the fake "warrant." Your constables cannot act a judge and jury and were negligent in their duty in refusing to arrest them. It is up to a jury in common law court to judge in this matter.
According to the County Courts Act 1984 sec 135, posing as an officer of the court carries, upon conviction, a 7-year jail sentence. I wish to press charges. Again the evidence of this mans crime is that he had no genuine warrant.
Your constables 7214, 1412, and your sergeant Carberry, refused to listen to my explanation as to why the warrant was fraudulent and why they were wrong to assist this debt collector masquerading as a court bailiff and acting for a corporation from stealing my property. They were aiding and abetting the crime.
A Sergeant Carberry attended and gave assistance to constables 7214 and 1412. He explained that they were here just to prevent a breach of the peace. He refused to accept that they themselves were causing a breach of the peace by stopping me stopping the bailiff from piling up my property in my living room.
Sergeant Carberry refused to read a copy of the notice that I sent to you by way of John Timbrell, and refused to use his radio to refer back to force control to see what the notice contained. It was obvious that he did not know how a warrant had to be formulated to be legal. The so-called warrant originated from another corporation situated in Northampton. There is no court there or an authorised person who can sign warrants. In any case, the warrant to take my goods was not signed.
I signed a document under duress stating inter alia that the bailiff would return tomorrow 31st October to either take a sum of money from me or take away my goods. My signature was given and signed "under duress."
I require you as a public servant with statutory and lawful obligations to stop constables under your control from unlawfully harassing me and assisting a fraudulent "bailiff" causing me harm and distress. Because I do not trust your constables to act lawfully, I will state that I intend to defend my property with my friend's help. I will not allow the Bailiff to enter my property and I and my friends will use lawful force if the police try to enter my property using force.
I remind you of the provisions of the Criminal law Act 1977 section 6. which prohibits ANYONE using force to enter property without the consent of the occupier. Although this is a legal statute this repeats the superior common law because to use force the enforcer needs lawful authority. A situation could arise where a constable sees a fire in an occupied house. He would be lawfully authorised to break in to protect life and property.
I further require you to record the crime of the Bailiff using a fraudulent instrument to enter my property and also the crime under the Criminal law act 1977 section 6.
I now find that my emails using the force.controlroom was received but returned not delivered. So I have used another email address. Hopefully, your professional standards department will act in a professional way.
Signed and served electronically:
michael watson
This email has been spread widely for my own self-protection.

[ArthurWankspittle]

So much wrong in such a small space, including an admission of wasting Police time with some of the 999 calls. I doubt there is one sentence in there that isn't either debatable or out and out wrong.

[NYGman]

So much wrong in such a small space, including an admission of wasting Police time with some of the 999 calls. I doubt there is one sentence in there that isn't either debatable or out and out wrong.

Noticed that 999 bit too. Isn't there a non-emergency number to call, that allow the report of Dumb FMOTL violations, that wont take away resources from those that are actually have a life or death emergency. In NYC we have 311, they will deal with absolutely anything non-emergency related.

[John Uskglass]

I will state that I intend to defend my property with my friend's help. I will not allow the Bailiff to enter my property and I and my friends will use lawful force if the police try to enter my property using force.

That's got to be a gift with bows on for the prosecutor if, as seems likely, he goes the way of Chrisy Morris.

[AndyPandy]

Noticed that 999 bit too. Isn't there a non-emergency number to call, that allow the report of Dumb FMOTL violations, that wont take away resources from those that are actually have a life or death emergency. In NYC we have 311, they will deal with absolutely anything non-emergency related.

Well yes, it's 666, especially set up for free loaders and FMOTL's, actually it's 101 but shush don't let on !

[aesmith]

Noticed that 999 bit too. Isn't there a non-emergency number to call, that allow the report of Dumb FMOTL violations, that wont take away resources from those that are actually have a life or death emergency.

National non emergency number is 101, replacing the individual numbers used by each local Police force. However if unauthorised persons were truly trying to force entry then I'd say 999 was the correct call as action would be needed urgently even though it might not be life threatening. As it happens of course they weren't unauthorised, so no point in calling the Police at all. From the Police themselves .. "You should always call 999 when it is an emergency, such as when a crime is in progress, someone suspected of a crime is nearby, when there is danger to life or when violence is being used or threatened."

[notorial dissent]

Agreed, just so much wrong in so little a space.

In my experience the only ways an email gets "sent back" is if the sender got the adds wrong, or it they are for some reason blocked or embargoed by the receiver. I know that certain of this prize flock have been banned by their local gov'ts from sending anything by email and are probably on a blocked sender list, but I really doubt this is the case here.

Does the UK even have the concept of a "citizen arrest", I didn't think they did.

I do agree that this one is is looking to go the Chrisy Morris way of moronic behavior.

He may also have gotten himself on a list of the potentially dangerous for when the police have dealings with possible problems, which could ultimately turn out really badly for him.

[Footloose52]

Yes, the concept of a Citizens arrest very much exists in the UK but you've got to be very sure of what you are doing.

Citizen’s arrest
What is a citizen’s arrest?

A citizen’s arrest is an arrest by an individual who is not a police officer or other sworn law enforcement official. The law regarding citizen’s arrest is complicated and open to interpretation.

The law is found under section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). We set out the basic principles of citizen’s arrests.

The law states:

Anybody can arrest a person who is committing an indictable offence.
Anybody can arrest a person if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are committing an indictable offence.

Reasonable grounds will be assessed objectively – not according to the subjective viewpoint of the person making the arrest. An individual may only make a citizens arrest when it is not reasonably practical for a police constable to make the arrest, and it is necessary because the person is either:

Causing physical injury to themselves or others;
Suffering physical injury;
Causing damage or loss of property;
Escaping before a police constable can take responsibility of them.

Indictable offences

An indictable offence is an offence that is at least relatively serious, and may be tried in the Crown Court, such as violent assaults and burglary. However, it may well not be apparent at the time whether the person’s behaviour or conduct amounts to an indictable offence – so anyone contemplating making a citizen’s arrest needs to carefully assess the situation before acting.

So, if you believe you are witnessing a serious crime, such as a burglary, and you think they will make moves to escape quickly before the police arrive, you should do what you can to get immediate help from the police before considering a citizen’s arrest.

In practice, this can be difficult when time is of the essence, but if the person making the citizen’s arrest acted reasonably in the circumstances there should be no repercussions. If the individual did not act reasonably in making the arrest, they could face a civil claim from the individual concerned, and/or criminal charges.

Making a citizen’s arrest

If you are making a citizen’s arrest, you must inform the person what you are doing, and why, as soon as is reasonably possible. You must also tell them what offence you believe they have committed. If you have to use force when arresting the person, you must only use reasonable force.

Once the arrest has been made, the person apprehended must be taken to a magistrate or police station, otherwise the arrest will not be legally valid. You will have to make a statement and you could well be called upon as a witness if the individual is prosecuted.

Police Community Support Officers and citizen’s arrests

Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and store detectives use this right to make citizen’s arrests in the course of their employment. If a PCSO or a store detective arrests you, they will have to be able to show that the arrest satisfies the legal criteria as set out in PACE.

Other considerations

First and foremost, no one should put others or themselves in danger – even if the suspected criminal has the chance to escape. Instead, call 999 and leave the search and arrest to the professionals.

The legal implications of making citizen’s arrests are very complicated, not least because of the provisions that the person making the arrest must act reasonably. However, one difficulty is what constitutes ‘reasonable suspicion’ and ‘reasonable force’. Although the courts look favourably on members of the public who are seeking to assert their rights and protect other citizens, the risk is that someone executing a citizens arrest could face arrest and/or civil litigation if the citizen’s arrest was unlawful, or goes wrong.

[notorial dissent]

OK, learned something new. I have never come across that in any thing I have read before. The kicker, particularly to the fotl crowd, is that just because YOU think they are breaking the law doesn't mean that they are, and if they aren't you could be in a world of legal hurt. This could be particularly rough on the fotls's and other idjits who are convinced that not agreeing with them is treason.

[notorial dissent]

OK, learned something new. I have never come across that in any thing I have read before. The kicker, particularly to the fotl crowd, is that just because YOU think they are breaking the law doesn't mean that they are, and if they aren't you could be in a world of legal hurt. This could be particularly rough on the fotls's and other idjits who are convinced that not agreeing with them is treason.

[JohnPCapitalist]

One of the astonishing thing about these videos of Freemen/SovTards getting their windows smashed/getting arrested by police, is that the videos are being posted by the Freemen/SovTards themselves, the very ones who got arrested and lost the argument, and they want the whole world to know that they had their windows and/or faces smashed for spouting their nonsense. This hardly encourages anyone to follow their example.

Actually, it may encourage more to do as they've done. They think it's proof of tyranny from the eeebil gummint, so they post evidence of their martyrdom as a badge of honor. What's the US$400 (C$3,700, if I've worked the exchange rate math correctly) to fix a smashed windshield compared to the months of basking in the admiration of all your SovCit friends and teeming handfuls of YouTube viewers?

People have been documenting abuse at the hands of the eeebil gummint for centuries, since practically the Magna Carta era. Here's the forerunner of all those FMoTL/SovCit videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY

[JimUk1]

Over on the new GOODF,
Toolapack is having trouble with the gas company appearing to want to install a prepay layer, and he's not having any of it!

Queue the awful advice from the usual suspects, Tiggy and assassin!

http://goodf.forumotion.com/t1367-we-ar ... your-meter


Guaranteed to end in a huge fail this one!

[AndyPandy]

Life's really unfair for Lynne over on CA3, ASDA charging you after ONLY 3 hours of free parking, who takes more than 3 hours to do their supermarket shopping ??

So unfair that they give you only 3 hours then fine you. Sending pictures of you entering car park and the time . I’ve had a hip replacement and awaiting another. Impossible to get around quickly . Honestly we are robbed every thing we do. Big brother crap . X

[longdog]

I just bet the sign at the entrance to the car-park giving the parking rules and charges doesn't have a wet ink signature OR an embossed seal!!!

[hucknallred]

Life's really unfair for Lynne over on CA3, ASDA charging you after ONLY 3 hours of free parking, who takes more than 3 hours to do their supermarket shopping ??

So unfair that they give you only 3 hours then fine you. Sending pictures of you entering car park and the time . I’ve had a hip replacement and awaiting another. Impossible to get around quickly . Honestly we are robbed every thing we do. Big brother crap . X

This will be Parking Eye. There are Practical Lawful steps that can be taken that will see off one of their charges. But sod that, but them on notice of the Magnum Charter instead.
This will end very badly as Parking Eye use the Small Claims system on an industrial scale, first sight of court papers scares most into paying up. Those that ignore the papers are in for a lot of pain.

[ArthurWankspittle]

To be honest I have a tiny bit of sympathy for Lynne. The camera record going in and out, so they aren't recording actual time parked. There has been a lot of discussion on this on various boards and forums. In one instance the parking company claimed it made several checks to ensure fairness only to send a parking ticket to a guy who fixed his number plate to a shopping trolley and wheeled it out of the car park.

[Arthur Rubin]

Life's really unfair for Lynne over on CA3, ASDA charging you after ONLY 3 hours of free parking, who takes more than 3 hours to do their supermarket shopping ??

ADD?

[grixit]

Life's really unfair for Lynne over on CA3, ASDA charging you after ONLY 3 hours of free parking, who takes more than 3 hours to do their supermarket shopping ??

So unfair that they give you only 3 hours then fine you. Sending pictures of you entering car park and the time . I’ve had a hip replacement and awaiting another. Impossible to get around quickly . Honestly we are robbed every thing we do. Big brother crap . X

I'm sure the limits are longer if you have a handicap sticker. But if you got one you couldn't enjoy your victimization.