exiledscouser wrote: I've used the religious analogy because there are very many parallels: the true path, the schisms, prophets, false prophets, the requirement for some future apocalyptic event after which everything will be perfect. Not forgetting the collection plate!
There's probably a full length book or a doctoral thesis in that excellent theory if you pad it out for another 60,000 words or so.
One thing you forgot to mention is the martyrs... Tom Crawford, Ollie Pillock, that stupid woman who got evicted from her housing association home. All three have made the sacrifice needed and yet miraculously risen again... Sort of.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
AndyPandy wrote:If you know it doesn't work - why would you recommend it !!
Rachael Maunder How do I get a CCJ removed (which I refuse to pay out of priciple as it was very unfairly put on me)
Craig Pepper Need more info than that? What's it for how long u had it, what paper work do u have to back up what u are saying?
Richard Green You can try and have it set aside on the grounds the Judge/Magistrate was acting unlawfully as he/she had no jurisdiction since the invocation of Article 61. But you only have a certain time after the judgement to apply. I have tried without success.
She has now explained why it was unfair:
parking notice charge at 'the range' where I met a friend who was late and then had to breastfeed my newborn on the premises. I went over the 2 hours allowed. I ignored them and then found out that I have a CCJ. It was last year around March time.
So.....she parked there to meet her friend......her friend was late......but although she had a baby who would require feeding soon she had no choice but to wait for her friend... for over two hours.......and then, blow me, the baby needed to be fed.......obviously not her fault.....her choosing to park there for more than two hours and then having to feed the baby was not her fault.......it was all out of her control.....then she ignored the ticket.....not her fault.....then she ignored all of the paperwork from the court.......again not her fault.......she subsequently received a CCJ......
I agree. It was very unfair. How dare they!!!!1!!!!
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
rumpelstilzchen wrote:
She has now explained why it was unfair:
parking notice charge at 'the range' where I met a friend who was late and then had to breastfeed my newborn on the premises. I went over the 2 hours allowed. I ignored them and then found out that I have a CCJ. It was last year around March time.
So.....she parked there to meet her friend......her friend was late......but although she had a baby who would require feeding soon she had no choice but to wait for her friend... for over two hours.......and then, blow me, the baby needed to be fed.......obviously not her fault.....her choosing to park there for more than two hours and then having to feed the baby was not her fault.......it was all out of her control.....then she ignored the ticket.....not her fault.....then she ignored all of the paperwork from the court.......again not her fault.......she subsequently received a CCJ......
I agree. It was very unfair. How dare they!!!!1!!!!
This will have been Parking Eye, who are easy to see off by following sound advice from somewhere other than Facebook. Parking Prankster & Pepipoo to name a couple. Sound advice not A61 nonsense.
JimUk1 wrote:
They're all about "resorting the rule of law", but we haven't seen exactly what is wrong with the current system (Or how they plan on repairing it?) apart from people who are irresponsible or end up in debt and end up turning to internet gurus who don't have any real world answers.
I think they are proposing that all cases should be heard by a jury because that's what it says in Magna Carta... If you ignore the fact it doesn't actually say that at all of course.
Apart from the fact it would be ridiculously wasteful and expensive they seem to think that a jury would automatically find in their favour because reasons.
Imagine a 'rebel' being taken before a jury to explain why he didn't have to pay his mortgage. Do they think the jury is going to say "Well yes... You borrowed £50,000 to buy a house and contractually agreed to pay it back plus interest over 25 years but we are going to throw the rights of the lender away and allow you to keep the house and the money"?
As with all simpletons they simply haven't thought the thing through and they're trusting that the twelve good men and women and true are going to find in their favour every time. That's one hell of an assumption to make.
This is one of the reasons I was disappointed that old Tom did not get his time in front of 12 good men and women. It would have added a whole new layer to the fraud in the courts, shadow courts, gatekeeper judges and the newly appointed barrier jurors!
hucknallred wrote:This will have been Parking Eye, who are easy to see off by following sound advice from somewhere other than Facebook. Parking Prankster & Pepipoo to name a couple. Sound advice not A61 nonsense.
I'm not sure I'd class Parking Eye as easy to see off, they're one of the more competent of a bad bunch. Remember they are the ones who won the famous Beavis. However her story should have won at POPLA (independent arbitration) if presented correctly, or possibly could have been cancelled by the retailer. Now she has a much steeper hurdle, to get a set aside she needs to persuade the court that she had a good reason to ignore the claim (received poor advice?) and that she has a defence with real prospect of success. Even after all that she may lose when the claim is reheard.
You have the absolute freedom to agree wholeheartedly with the party line.
They seriously think that the slack handful of morons who are actually active on their moronic group are going to persuade the huddled masses to join them when they can't even abide the slightest hint of dissent. Scratch a freeman and there's usually an outright fascist hiding just under the surface.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
longdog wrote:You have the absolute freedom to agree wholeheartedly with the party line.
Yes, it's remarkable how these free-thinkers and brave individualists willingly accept their comments being delayed for review, approval and censorship by Kim Jong-dave. It's for the best, and anyway it's like that on every FaceBook page (a lie, but no-one will be allowed to say so). Freedom of speech would be dangerous, thank you for protecting us...
And my favourite from all of them - dear, dopey Lu Lou intones that authority and order are necessary for a safe community, as if she's forgotten that this group is dedicated to defying the law.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
Jezz! How dumb are his followers? And following the link in the comments of the video, Dave says the town hall cleaner, Les, moved them on at home time
David Robinson By returning their demands in that way you wont be ignoring them and tacitly agreeing to their demands. But Ollie did not do anything but ask the question if it waas legal to pay. I am disappointed that this has been allowed to occur as he was denied a defence and tried in a secret court. I think the people in this country (generally) have no backbone and accept too much. Without people uniting to stop injustice it will spiral into the wrost nightmare that can be imagined.
Utter rubbish, he's received a notice of a Committal Hearing - was advised by David 'lend us a fiver Robinson' to ignore - if he'd turned up he could have told the truth that he was skint and couldn't pay, they wouldn't then have arrested him and sentenced him to 25 days!
Thomas Golden-lockyer Been a few big fails recently tho no?
David Robinson You mean the Ollie Pinnock matter...well we cant be held responsible for their crimes against us.
On top of looking like a bad morgue shot, another idjit unclear on the concept, any concept.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
AndyPandy wrote:David Robinson lies with casual ease
David Robinson By returning their demands in that way you wont be ignoring them and tacitly agreeing to their demands. But Ollie did not do anything but ask the question if it waas legal to pay. I am disappointed that this has been allowed to occur as he was denied a defence and tried in a secret court. I think the people in this country (generally) have no backbone and accept too much. Without people uniting to stop injustice it will spiral into the wrost nightmare that can be imagined.
Utter rubbish, he's received a notice of a Committal Hearing - was advised by David 'lend us a fiver Robinson' to ignore - if he'd turned up he could have told the truth that he was skint and couldn't pay, they wouldn't then have arrested him and sentenced him to 25 days!
Thomas Golden-lockyer Been a few big fails recently tho no?
David Robinson You mean the Ollie Pinnock matter...well we cant be held responsible for their crimes against us.
Also, a past master at shirking responsibility
aaaaaaaaand under the bus goes another mug with the words of his guru ringing in his ears "u dun it all wrong m8!". To think even St Ollie of Essex can be so casually sacrificed. Looking forward to Crabbie's entirely self inflicted car- crash and watching the massed ranks of deluded unlawful rebels do sweet FA once more. Well, maybe do a u toob or two. Or if pushed and can be arsed send yet another garbage-destined letter.
As for that mugshot above it looks a bit like Jimmy One Cell's bastard love child.....
JimUk1 wrote: Dave says the town hall cleaner, Les, moved them on at home time
Yes well, the Magna Carta states quite clearly that, if carrying a bucket and a mop, a town hall cleaner is the highest authority in the land.....even higher than the King (or Queen). If you don't believe me you can always go and check it out for yourself...........
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
It's not widely known but if the USSR had stationed West Country cleaners in Eastern Poland during 1941 Operation Barbarossa would've ground to a halt.
"Youm might be the Waffen SS moi luvver but yourn still gonna have to go 'ome. Oim gonna lock arp now".
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
