Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[ArthurWankspittle]

The fact his father is living off a basic pension and he was on benefits for some of the period probably mean that their is a very good chance he would be entitled to some sort of discount, but what do these morons advise instead - stupid as stupid come. Of note the OP did not reply to the suggested advice so here is hoping he is following a more sensible approach.

As short as possible, yes he is likely eligible for Council Tax Benefit.

[AndyPandy]

6. Your statements do NOT apply to the Men and women living on this land under Common Law with our inalienable rights fully preserved.Do you not understand this fact of Law.

"Inalienable rights"?

So far as I know, that phrase appears only in the American Declaration of Independence, not something I would think would carry a lot of legal weight in the UK.

Section 187 Social Securities Administration Act 1992

187Certain benefit to be inalienable

[Pottapaug1938]

6. Your statements do NOT apply to the Men and women living on this land under Common Law with our inalienable rights fully preserved.Do you not understand this fact of Law.

"Inalienable rights"?

So far as I know, that phrase appears only in the American Declaration of Independence, not something I would think would carry a lot of legal weight in the UK.

Section 187 Social Securities Administration Act 1992

187Certain benefit to be inalienable

The Declaration of Independence doesn't even carry any legal weight in the United States. It didn't even to legally separate the 13 colonies from Great Britain; rather, it told the world what we were doing, and that's it.

[Dr. Caligari]

The Declaration of Independence doesn't even carry any legal weight in the United States.

The verbiage in the DOI about inalienable rights, consent of the governed, etc., etc. have never been held to carry any legal weight in the United States. The Declaration itself carries some legal weight, in that American courts (back when the issue still mattered) considered the date of American independence to be July 4, 1776 (the date of the DOI), while English courts considered the American states to have still been colonies until May 12, 1784 (the ratification of the Treaty of Paris, which recognized American independence). Thus, for example, American courts considered someone born in New York in 1777 to be an American citizen, while British courts considered such a person to be a British subject.

[Pottapaug1938]

"Inalienable rights"?

So far as I know, that phrase appears only in the American Declaration of Independence, not something I would think would carry a lot of legal weight in the UK.

Section 187 Social Securities Administration Act 1992

187Certain benefit to be inalienable

The Declaration of Independence doesn't even carry any legal weight in the United States. It didn't even do anything to legally separate the 13 colonies from Great Britain; rather, it told the world what we were doing, and that's it.

The DOI was the equivalent of a press release. Nothing more.

[Dr. Caligari]

American courts have, IIRC from a legal history course many decades ago, held that the last paragraph of the Declaration ("That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown...") was a legally effective transfer of sovereignty as of the moment of its publication. But all of the rest of it has been held to be not legally enforceable.

Nonetheless, for the benefit of any of our British Quatloosians who may not have read it recently, I am going to quote what I think is probably the most influential sentence ever written in the English language:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[notorial dissent]

The DOI was a very prettily and well written piece of Enlightenment era PR for the Revolution when it comes right down to it. Lots of high sounding words and phrases that were more honored in their breach than in their observance.

[longdog]

For a right to be truly 'inalienable' you have to assume that there is some fundamental power above and beyond the government of the day capable of preserving that right in the face of a government determined to do away with it. The US has the constitution and the UK has The Human Rights Act but both of those can, in theory at least, be changed or abolished.

Common-law however does not and never has conferred truly inalienable rights on anybody as even the most fleeting examination of history would show.

[Gregg]

what I think is probably the most influential sentence ever written in the English language:

Me too. Among our founding documents you will find some of the best writing ever in English, or any language.

[littleFred]

Talking about English and American: just in case anyone finds themselves in Nottingham on 21 May:

Jon Shackleton will be talking about the LEGAL name

Rob B will be talking about Injunctions and what he has found out recently passing on his fantastic wealth of knowledge.

We are also waiting for confirmation from Rohan Lorian with a live link from Australia looking at the Glossa and American Sign Language (ASL)

I couldn't go, because I wouldn't be able to stop laughing. There are some dead-serious Australian videos around that very earnestly explain that the Oxford Style Guide is the governing volume for English, and this tome tells us that the Ancient Romans used only upper-case, therefore anything written in upper-case is Ancient Latin or possibly American Sign Language because that also uses only upper-case, therefore the world is flat. I might have mis-remembered that last bit, but it really is that stupid.

[JamesVincent]

You Brits aren't still mad about that whole overthrow the oppressors thing are you?

[eric]

I couldn't go, because I wouldn't be able to stop laughing. There are some dead-serious Australian videos around that very earnestly explain that the Oxford Style Guide is the governing volume for English, and this tome tells us that the Ancient Romans used only upper-case, therefore anything written in upper-case is Ancient Latin or possibly American Sign Language because that also uses only upper-case, therefore the world is flat. I might have mis-remembered that last bit, but it really is that stupid.

Get a grip! The only appropriate desk references are the Concise OED and Fowler's Modern English Usage. Back in my mis-spent youth I can remember a few soldiers who were sworn in on a copy of Fowler's because the recruiting office, which was next to my mine, couldn't find their bible and the personnel involved didn't bother looking at the tome that was passed to them. It had a nice dark black cover with gilt lettering, close enough to a bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Diction ... lish_Usage
.... Eric, formerly Captain and Adjutant.
edit: and one of the founding members of the Society to Preserve the Subjunctive Tense in the English Language

[littleFred]

Is it a tense? I thought it was a mood. Ah, if I only knew.

[ArthurWankspittle]

You Brits aren't still mad about that whole overthrow the oppressors thing are you?

One battle victory and a bit more petrol (note not gasoline) in 1812 and you'd be singing a different tune.

[bmxninja357]

You Brits aren't still mad about that whole overthrow the oppressors thing are you?

One battle victory and a bit more petrol (note not gasoline) in 1812 and you'd be singing a different tune.

It could still happen. Once Harry kills his brother in a manner befitting a royal we will all pay our tax to king Harold the beheader....


Ninj

[letissier14]

De register from Birth Certificate

Link: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... _certifica

From: Mr Young

15 March 2011

Dear General Register Office,

Our parents were under Duress of a fine if they did not as acting powers of attorney register our "Legal Fiction" by means of a Birth Certificate. (contract law v common law)

As first point of contact into "YOUR SOCIETY"-with the individual Registered on birth certificate would legally point to the fact that the birth certificate contractually binds them to "YOUR SOCIETY"

At birth we were not able to give consent and therefore when able to give consent wish to discuss the matter.

The contract under duress imposed unfair terms making the contract void-able unless there is implied consent by both parties to continue or renegotiate terms of the contract.

Therefore who we need to contact to:-

Possibly renegotiate the void-able contract.

De register

Possibly Inform of the void contact and advise them that we are leaving your society and are part of a separate society operating on common law.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Young

Reply .........................

From: Hughes Selwyn

28 March 2011

Dear Mr Young,

Thank you for your recent email.

The registration of a birth does not involve a "contract", and such
registration does not "contractually bind the individual to your society".
A registration is a simple record that an event has taken place (ie a
birth), and as such it is not possible to "de-register". As indicated,
there is no contract to void or renegotiate.

Yours sincerely,

Selwyn Hughes
Communications Manager
Identity and Passport Service | General Register Office | Communications
and Business Support | Room 109 Smedley Hydro | Trafalgar Road | Southport
| PR8 2HH

[pigpot]

Notice to "ArthurWankspittle". So due to all the disapproval's of my posts I'm concluding that I cannot post here anymore. Not just on this board but anywhere on this whole forum unless I agree to hold "Statist" views. This is and must be a "Statist" forum of that I have no doubt. As admitted by "Burnab49" this is not a forum where can share personal ideas but they must COMPLY. That's fine as if it is the case I may very well be turning in my membership because anyone in the right mind wouldn't want to be controlled by a dictatorship. Even "Tito" got it wrong.

Notice placed. Response needed.

Thank you.

[Pottapaug1938]

You Brits aren't still mad about that whole overthrow the oppressors thing are you?

One battle victory and a bit more petrol (note not gasoline) in 1812 and you'd be singing a different tune.

... or if the Regulars and Hessians had sealed off the Continental retreat at Bunker Hill or in New Jersey, or been able to pull off the three-prong attack which ended in disaster at Saratoga.

[Gregg]

Notice to "ArthurWankspittle". So due to all the disapproval's of my posts I'm concluding that I cannot post here anymore. Not just on this board but anywhere on this whole forum unless I agree to hold "Statist" views. This is and must be a "Statist" forum of that I have no doubt. As admitted by "Burnab49" this is not a forum where can share personal ideas but they must COMPLY. That's fine as if it is the case I may very well be turning in my membership because anyone in the right mind wouldn't want to be controlled by a dictatorship. Even "Tito" got it wrong.

Notice placed. Response needed.

Thank you.

You are free to quit posting anytime you want, but I'm afraid "turning in my [your] membership" is a bit like resigning US Citizenship, possible but it requires more effort than its worth.

I think I can speak for most of the Team in saying your posts are not disapproved because we want to control the way you think or make you comply with Statist views. If you look around the site you will find quite a bit of diversity of opinions, much of it not what I would call "complying".

No, sir, your posts are disapproved (and I have dunked more than a few, possibly more than ArthurWankspittle) is because they are babbling, trolling nonsense that contribute nothing to rational discussion.

If you want to make meaningful additions to the given topic at hand, feel free. If you want to give up, take your ball and go home, have at it, Sparky. No need to "turn in your membership", your identity will eventually be culled for non-activity by the system. I, for one, won't miss you.

umm, buh bye!

[JamesVincent]

Like one of my favorite exes used to say:

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya