Hannah Shotbolt- An English Rose

[Normal Wisdom]

To be fair to Hannah she does say in the Facebook comments that the strip search was conducted by females although she doesn't say if they were police officers or not.

Make that ladies in blue. The chance of them not being Police officers is next to nil. If you were strip searched by anyone other than LE and medical professionals it would be national news, people would be being prosecuted, losing their jobs, resigning, getting sued etc.

Agreed. I just meant that it's not clear whether it was a strip search which can be done by police officers or an "intimate" search which should normally be done by medical professionals.

[notorial dissent]

She sounds like a thoroughly charming individual. I would expect that between her demeanor, the charges she was up on, and most likely her general attitude and actions that they figured that a strip search was necessary, and I can't say but what they probably weren't right. I'd say ouch on the £1000+ fine, but considering what she got popped for I suspect it was more than in line, and equally I don't really expect her to either pay it or have it. I do hope they confiscated her vehicle to prevent further occurrences though.

[PeanutGallery]

I missed the part where Hannah said it was ladies in blue, so obviously stand corrected. I have to agree with Notorial's assessment and can't help but imagine that Hannah applying her Freewoman logic (likely in an attempt to avoid the dreaded JOINDER) led to her refusing to answer simple questions knowing that a refusal would lead to a search.

[PeanutGallery]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=15 ... =2&theater
Oh and this is an excellent observation:

I think the idea behind Kate of Gaia and Keith Thompson is to make it deliberately confusing and irrational. If the theory makes sense it can be debunked by a rational thinker and argument it's the timecube of the Sov movement (for those unaware timecube is a theory that modern physics is wrong and this man http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gene_Ray is right).

You can pick out any, ANY Kate of Gaia radio show and you will hear absolutely preposterous absurdities. Just the other day, Keith/Kate masterfully proclaimed that prior to the Julian calendar, there was no moon orbiting around the earth. Oh, and word is that the moon is actually made out of titanium. And it's hollow. AND it's worshiped as a false goddess, or something, because "money" is actually pronounced "moon-eye". Also, the standard mathematical value of "pi" is wrong. Keith/Kate figured it out and the REAL "pi" is just 22/7.

I've done a bit more looking into the whole Kate of Gaia theory inane ramblings and I've come to the conclusion that my previous post wasn't entirely accurate. I don't think the idea is to make it confusing and irrational (that is not to say it is not confusing and irrational it very obviously is) but rather I don't think their is a single idea behind it.

Kate and Keiths theory inane ramblings aren't sourced from just one example of crazy nutjob woo, they encompass several. The ones that they have latched onto are the parts of Freeman Woo and absent logic that rational minds didn't bother to debunk because the idea was so devoid of rational thought no sane person could should believe it.

As an example the moon not existing, being hollow, being made of titanium, being a projection, all seem to have spawned from the old Flat Earth conspiracy, however sitting here in merry old England I cannot prove that the moon is not really the real moon to the satisfaction of a believer idiot because they would want to go there, if I brought them to one of the few people who has actually set foot on that sphere they would no doubt call them a liar and proclaim that the moon landings were faked. Losing the name, a key tenet of Kate and Keith's theory inane rambling is itself an alteration of the strawman theory that Freeman have followed to failure, that a persons name upon their birth certificate is a legal fiction, again we can't disprove that because it's ALL IMAGINARY and you will never find proof for a thing that doesn't exist. I even suspect that they have borrowed the term "babylon" from Rastafarian culture (given that the use of it seems to tie in with the Rastafarian view that "babylon" is modern western society.

What we can do is show evidence that the moon is really real by tidal patterns and eclipses, or that names are simply a tool we use to identify one another and the government likes to know and keep track of who it's actually governing.

[grixit]

No moon before the Julian Calendar. Um, the Julian Calendar is the result of Julius Caesar and some priests and mathematicians revising an agricultural year that had gotten out of sync with the actual seasons, and so came in just a few decades BC. So what are they saying, that when Caesar ordered all romans to use the new dating system, he also snapped his fingers and a big light appeared in the previously dark sky? No wonder he was declared a god! And what about all those astronomical observations of previous civilizations that seemed to mention the moon? All those queen goddesses that wore the moon as a crown? That's got to be the most perverse denial of reality of all time.

[notorial dissent]

I've got to go with Grixit on this one. I've heard some really outlandish claims made by sovcits, but I think this tops them all. I'm not sure they even know what the Julian calendar is, or who Julius was considering the general level of historical knowledge and understanding that crowd usually exhibits.

What I'd also really really like to know is where Julius got the Titanium and how he got it up there. That ought to be good for a good belly laugh as well.

[PeanutGallery]

I would like to imagine that if Julius Caesar heard tell of the sovrun ideas about him and the moon he might furnish us with "Veni, Vidi, Lunacy"

[Normal Wisdom]

The problem is that your looking at this from the literal matrix instead of taking an anagogic view. This seems to be Kate's favourite word which he apparently uses to mean that "things mean what I damn well say they mean".

I've only managed to listen to 40 -odd minutes of this so far and rather than being about the "false moon", it seems to be the world's longest "F**k you" to his estranged family.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK5mWGqztro

You have to admire his ability to churn out 2 or 3 hours of this stuff virtually every day even when, as in this case, it gets no views on Youtube.

[grixit]

I would like to imagine that if Julius Caesar heard tell of the sovrun ideas about him and the moon he might furnish us with "Veni, Vidi, Lunacy"

That would be "Lunatas"

[PeanutGallery]

You made me go to a latin dictionary, which is older than Blacks. May I suggest that we could agree on Lunavi (It keeps the Rhyming method going which I feel is important).

Apologies for the derail. To get things back to our least favourite girl with a glass I note from her facebook that she's planning on going to an occupation of parliament square in London. At least the police will know where to find her when she keeps on not paying her fine.

[Normal Wisdom]

Having burst onto the scene earlier this year, Hannah has of late been exceedingly quiet on matters of "lawful rebellion". It is tempting to think that her initially popular reception was less to do with her impeccable credentials in the largely middle aged male dominated world of the sovereign movement and more that she is:

a) a 20-something blond
b) with the ability to put her ankles behind her ears and
c) almost certainly not really a man

But now she is back, back, back with two new videos on one of her Facebook pages that demonstrate that she is still a fully committed exponent of the cause.

As we know, in April she published her "notice of understanding and claim of right" to The Queen etc in which she notified her intention to "travel" without a driving licence and to enjoy health giving properties of cannabis. Despite this clear and reasonable communication and no doubt due to a simple communication error, in June the police arrested and charged her with amongst other things driving without a licence. To her amazement she was convicted and fined around £1,000.

This really devastated poor Hannah so much that she felt it necessary to take a break of about 3 months from lawful rebellion. During this time she refreshed herself by attending anti-fracking protests and anti-<enter your cause here> protests in Parllament Square as well as filming her experience (still to be released) with the hallucinogenic drug DMT.

With her mind duly refreshed she has returned to "the law stuff". She has filed an appeal against her conviction for not having a driving licence because as she says "I'm obviously not having what they said". It seems the judge will entertain her appeal if she can show that she did in fact have a driving licence. Now I agree with Hannah that the judge is probably being a bit of a tease here because as she says "they know I don't have a driving licence" (since she previously surrendered it). Moreover, according to Hannah the judge knows that she doesn't need a driving licence to enjoy her right to travel so he's being "unreasonable" in finding her guilty of the offence especially since according to Hannah the High Court in the USA and our own DVLA have both recognised the existence of the common law right to travel.

Still all the judge has to do is to cancel the conviction and fine and pay her in accordance with her notarised fee schedule ("which he better f***ing do").

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=15 ... =2&theater

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=16 ... =2&theater

[notorial dissent]

I fear the poor dear is due for further disappointment.

Life is just so difficult when the authorities just won't see reason and admit you're right.

[littleFred]

I want to live my life now by the three moral principles of love, truth and compassion, and not in one act or one statute or one law book can you find any of those three words.

It was Rob Menard that told me that and it's completely true.

(Video at 6:20.)

No, it isn't completely true. On the contrary, it is completely false. Some counter-examples:

Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 schedule 1: "Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding, ..."

Habeas Corpus Act 1816 s3: "... it shall be lawful for the justice or baron, before whom such writ may be returnable, to proceed to examine into the truth of the facts set forth in such return by affidavit ..."

The National Health Service (Revision of NHS Constitution—Principles) Regulations 2013: "Respect, dignity, compassion and care should be at the core of how patients and staff are treated ..."

I confess, this is one aspect of SovCits that really amuses me. Hannah confidently makes an easily checkable assertion very clearly, very matter-of-fact, even emphasising "it's completely true". But it isn't.

Is Hannah lying? Does she know this is untrue and deliberately wants to deceive? I think it is more likely that she has taken the word of her guru and embellished it, adding her own emphasis to add spurious authenticity. I think she doesn't care about the truth, so won't check things for herself, and this creates her own untruths.

This directly contradicts her desire to live "by the three moral principles of love, truth and compassion".

[PeanutGallery]

I think she's just plain ignorant of the actual law and more a gullible idiot rather than trying to deceive anyone. She's so stuck in her rabbit hole that she genuinely believes she is being honest and this will cause her no end of problems. For instance she seems to expect her appeal to be granted in spite of having been made both substantially out of time and without her having advanced any arguable ground. The Judge even says that the only arguable ground would be if she had and produced for the court a valid driving license.

The problem with Freepersons like Hannah is they seem unable to consider that their actions, if permitted could lead to future problems, now I'm sure that Hannah has no intention of driving while intoxicated, but how could that be prevented or policed without the state regulating who can be trusted to operate a motor vehicle while unimpaired. She seems so egotistical she doesn't seem capable of thinking that her actions might have undesirable consequences or that she should take responsibility for those consequences.

[JamesVincent]

I think she's just plain ignorant

You could have stopped right there and you would have explained it all.

[Normal Wisdom]

Presumably sovereign theory on DUI is that it's only a crime if you actually cause someone harm while doing it.

[grixit]

Having burst onto the scene earlier this year, Hannah has of late been exceedingly quiet on matters of "lawful rebellion". It is tempting to think that her initially popular reception was less to do with her impeccable credentials in the largely middle aged male dominated world of the sovereign movement and more that she is:

a) a 20-something blond
b) with the ability to put her ankles behind her ears and
c) almost certainly not really a man

Do we actually know point b?

[Normal Wisdom]

Having burst onto the scene earlier this year, Hannah has of late been exceedingly quiet on matters of "lawful rebellion". It is tempting to think that her initially popular reception was less to do with her impeccable credentials in the largely middle aged male dominated world of the sovereign movement and more that she is:

a) a 20-something blond
b) with the ability to put her ankles behind her ears and
c) almost certainly not really a man

Do we actually know point b?

Well to some extent I was making an assumption.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater

[grixit]

Having burst onto the scene earlier this year, Hannah has of late been exceedingly quiet on matters of "lawful rebellion". It is tempting to think that her initially popular reception was less to do with her impeccable credentials in the largely middle aged male dominated world of the sovereign movement and more that she is:

a) a 20-something blond
b) with the ability to put her ankles behind her ears and
c) almost certainly not really a man

Do we actually know point b?

Well to some extent I was making an assumption.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater

Fair enough. If she can't now, she's certainly getting there.

[littleFred]

Our favourite blonde FWOTL has been wondering how to pay her court fines, so she's been researching and found out about promissory notes, and Michael Tellinger (who lost his house and failed to pay anything with a promissory note but he, like, set a world-wide legal precedent that anyone can do likewise), and the Ubuntu party are promising like free energy and so on when they get elected, so Hannah has applied to be a prospective parliamentary candidate for them but hasn't like heard back yet like.

She doesn't say how she'll get funds for the £500 deposit. It seems that promissory notes are not acceptable.