Guy Taylor - The Magna Carta Man of the UK

[Pottapaug1938]

Given that Guy, according to the last video, was kicked out by multiple cops out of the house, that should be a strong indicator that you don't own the house anymore.

That would be the case for most people; but unless someone can show Guy where, in the Magna Carta, there is a provision under which the Crown can take "his" manor away from him, he probably won't catch on.

[FatGambit]

Yes sorry it's more likely to be squatting, he did mention that many times, if I could be inclined I'd go back over the video's but honestly, I'd rather stab myself in the neck than listen to them again.

[guilty]

That would be the case for most people; but unless someone can show Guy where, in the Magna Carta, there is a provision under which the Crown can take "his" manor away from him, he probably won't catch on.

(32) No free-man shall be taken or imprisoned, or dispossessed, of his free tenement, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of the land.

[fat frank]

That would be the case for most people; but unless someone can show Guy where, in the Magna Carta, there is a provision under which the Crown can take "his" manor away from him, he probably won't catch on.

(32) No free-man shall be taken or imprisoned, or dispossessed, of his free tenement, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of the land.

that's laws, not act, there is only 1 true law and that's the manga carta, and bills of exchange, hang on that's a act, never mind, the only acts that count are the housing benefit one and DLA one, we can consent to that one, every other we don't consent to

[littleFred]

I would point out to Guy and the other speakers at What's Going ON? that most cases in England and Wales are by "legal judgement of his peers", who are either magistrates or juries.

I suspect that those in favour of setting up their own grand juries and petit juries avoid sitting on conventional juries, and discourage others from doing so.

The thought of that rabble creating their own court system, arrest warrants and "peace keepers" to enforce their own ideas of what they want the law to be -- it makes me shudder.

[longdog]

The thought of that rabble creating their own court system, arrest warrants and "peace keepers" to enforce their own ideas of what they want the law to be -- it makes me shudder.

I can see it now... A group of 'common-law police peace officers' attempt an arrest... The arrestee defends himself against what he perceives, correctly, as being attempted kidnap... A 'common-law police peace officer' gets killed... The arrestee walks away scot-free and the surviving 'common-law police peace officers' get banged up for seven years for attempted kidnap.

I know the footlers are a bit hard-of-thinking but any living creature with the IQ of a mollusc or above would realise their idea of a parallel / alternative justice system is going to end very badly... For them.

[AiusLocutius]

The thought of that rabble creating their own court system, arrest warrants and "peace keepers" to enforce their own ideas of what they want the law to be -- it makes me shudder.

Agreed, A system that enforces their misguided view of their rights without a thought of their obligations. I don't see it gathering steam.

I've just seen the post that was directly before mine. Sorry to repeat much the same thing.

[littleFred]

I'm biased but I think it's worth agreeing twice. It's a vital concept in modern society that is worth ramming down the throats of the idiots at that meeting:

Individuals do not invent and enforce laws for other people to abide by.

I'm certainly not saying our laws or legal system is perfect. Nor is our representative system of government. There is plenty of room for improvement. People can (and should) consider what laws are good and bad, and how they can be improved. Hand-waving isn't good enough, wailing that "it's all fraud" doesn't cut it. They should specify exactly what laws should change, why, and what the side-effects would be.

A related but different concept is that individuals can't opt-out of laws that society has decreed. Funnily enough, the same people who decide they can disobey laws, want to lay down the law for the rest of us. And now they want their own courts and police force.

[longdog]

People can (and should) consider what laws are good and bad, and how they can be improved. Hand-waving isn't good enough, wailing that "it's all fraud" doesn't cut it. They should specify exactly what laws should change, why, and what the side-effects would be.

Of do what most law-breakers do, and I include myself and you... YES... YOU! ... in that, and don't get caught.

These morons like to claim that normal people are asleep and/or afraid and/or playthings of thepowersthatbe but in reality we just go about our lawlessness in a quiet and discrete manner and nobody really notices and if they do notice nobody cares because we don't make trouble.

I've never been one to refrain from an activity just because it's illegal and if I had been convicted of every crime I've ever committed I would be in jail until hell freezes over but in 50 years I've clocked up one drunk and disorderly, two speeding tickets and a driving a truck through a bus lane fine.

[Pottapaug1938]

That would be the case for most people; but unless someone can show Guy where, in the Magna Carta, there is a provision under which the Crown can take "his" manor away from him, he probably won't catch on.

(32) No free-man shall be taken or imprisoned, or dispossessed, of his free tenement, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of the land.

Yeah;but he is probably looking for something which spells everything out the way he wants it done, such as "a free-man may dispossessed of his freeholding, by order of one of Our courts, if he fails to repay a loan which he received enabling him to buy such freeholding."

[PeanutGallery]

People can (and should) consider what laws are good and bad, and how they can be improved. Hand-waving isn't good enough, wailing that "it's all fraud" doesn't cut it. They should specify exactly what laws should change, why, and what the side-effects would be.

Isn't that what MP's are supposed to be for and what they are supposed to do. The problem is that the largest chunk of Guy's argument is "I don't want to pay this money back but I don't want to have consequences for not paying it". They don't understand that banking is a business, a commercial enterprise and it's designed to make a profit for those running it, the profit it makes is exorbitant and to many the bonus schemes are grotesque, but it's part and parcel of our society and it provides us with things that previously the average citizen wouldn't dream of having, like a loan in order to buy a home in which to live.

The Freetards think that banks shouldn't make a profit, however that would stop people from running banks and would lead to an economic stagnation. Most bankers aren't running them out of the kindness of their heart, they run them because their is profit to be had from them.

They also don't understand the difference between credit and money. Credit is not money. Banks can create credit, that is they can determine how much money they are willing to risk advancing you, but that money comes out of their account and is a very different thing. In fact if banks are overly generous in advancing credit to those who shouldn't have it, banks collapse and they generally go down very hard.

So can they specify what laws should change, how and what the affect would be. Of course not, because they don't want societal change, they just want to walk away from their responsibilities.

[longdog]

The Freetards think that banks shouldn't make a profit, however that would stop people from running banks and would lead to an economic stagnation. Most bankers aren't running them out of the kindness of their heart, they run them because their is profit to be had from them.

And when there is an organisation which fulfils many of the functions of a bank without making a profit and is run for the benefit of the members they will happily give advice on how to rip them off for personal gain.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... ZLAukaYFjY

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... ZLA20aYFjY

Personally I think that anybody who deliberately defrauds a credit union should be whipped through the streets and then branded with FREELOADER on the forehead. These f***ers are a moral vacuum.

[Losleones]

Did the Freeman movement begin the crap about Banks creating money from a signature or was it some nutjob posting a video on utube & they jumped onboard?

[notorial dissent]

The Vapor Money theory of how to avoid paying your debts has been around a long time, probably going back to the US sovcit movement where it is a really popular meme of how to destroy your life, further, and I would suspect that like the UCC and other fantasies that the FOTL have adopted from across the pond that is where they found that one, since originality/literacy/reading comprehension don't seem to be their long suit, kind of like reading or critical thinking, things like that. I couldn't give you an exact date, but it has been knocking around over here for a long time, at least back in to the 70's.

[Jeffrey]

I mean the vapor theory isn't technically incorrect.

[longdog]

I mean the vapor theory isn't technically incorrect.

It's not totally incorrect but I can still remember my first O Level Economics lesson from 1978 and the first subject we covered was 'what is money?' The short answer being 'it depends who you ask'. Unfortunately what was easy to grasp for a bunch of 13 year old grammar school kids seems beyond the reasoning abilities of the goofers.

[notorial dissent]

True, you are quite right that a bunch of 13 year old grammar students can easily grasp a concept the older, and presumably wiser, cough gack, hairball, FOTL's can't seem to even come close to. Sovcits and tax protesters seem to have the same mental incapacity. Of course, if you make up definitions that really don't have any validity and ignore what is going on around you, it really isn't too hard of a reach.

[YiamCross]

If they had an active brain cell to their name they wouldn't be swallowing all this crap.

[guilty]

Guy having a bit of a rant:
http://www.ukcolumn.org/video/thoughts- ... l-eviction

[Bones]

Guy having a bit of a rant:
http://www.ukcolumn.org/video/thoughts- ... l-eviction

Guy still claiming that there wasn't a warrant when, Tom has already posted a video confirming that he received one in the post.

Get your stories straight guy's (no pun intended)