"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[Siegfried Shrink]

I wonder if there's a name for this hurling allegations of paedophilia when you're losing an argument... Something like Godwin's Law for the Nazis.

Yes. it turns a simple row into a Saville row.


I'll get me coat......

[JimUk1]

They must also object to the modern slavery act-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Slavery_Act_2015

Because you know, Dave would rather he was able to expoilt people for personal gain.

Still paying them, just largely expoilt them. That's not causing harm or loss.....

Just purely expoilt my! Thankfully someone did something about it....

But Dave doesn't agree the government should be?

[longdog]

Further allegations of paedononcery from Robert White proving he doesn't actually have the ability to argue intelligently...

Robert White

I think the regulars know me by now but you never know I could be all talk and no action, (the quatloos "paedos and nonces" would like that). Well I don’t blame anyone for feeling the fear but it’s how you cope with it that matters. With me it’s easy because I don’t give a fuck and I’ve got enough of what I need to keep me going until I’ve had enough. And when I’ve had enough it won’t be because the system beat me, it will be because I’m not capable any more. And when you get to that stage there’s no point anyway. Chances are you know somebody in your life or heard of somebody who, at one time or another, did not give a fuck and went on to accomplish amazing things. Most people just wanna be liked and accepted, not me I don’t give a fuck. The point is, most of us struggle throughout our lives by giving too many fucks in situations where fucks do not deserve to be given. We give a fuck about the rude shop assistant who gave us too much change, can I get away before they notice. We give a fuck when something’s cancelled on TV. We give a fuck when our friends don’t bother asking us about our weekend. We all need to learn, by giving a FUCK we’re giving in. Better stop there I know people don’t read long posts, and the post might not be accepted anyway. Just one more thing, by not giving a fuck you’ll be a better person and not a SLAVE, (or a quatloos paedos nonce with nothing better to do).

On the subject of not giving a fuck I think I speak for all here when I say the childish "paedo-nonce" rantings fall well and truly into the category of things we don't give a fuck about except in so far as it says more about them than us.

As for "The point is, most of us struggle throughout our lives by giving too many fucks in situations where fucks do not deserve to be given." I assume one of the things Crab Bait doesn't give a fuck about is getting behind the wheel of a van while inebriated, driving on the wrong side of the road and seriously injuring an innocent motor-cyclist.

[Gregg]

If the "till I don't give a fuck" is some kind of veiled suicide reference, I'd be happy to let him borrow a handgun. I understand they're hard to come by in the UK.

(as opposed to some parts of the USA where I think you get them as prizes in your happy meals)

[daveBeeston]

So he wants a reasonable debate and his way of instigating it is to start throwing accusations and insults around...I'm sure that will make us all rush over to his Facebook page to partake in the reasonable debate.

I wonder if its ever crossed his mind that his unfounded allegations could see him kicked off for breach of terms of service if someone reported his repeated derogatory remarks/unfounded allegations, not to mention the misleading information his group promotes.

To Dave Robinson and Robert White, just because we have a very different view to you does not make us what you claim, we could claim the same about you but we wouldn't do that for 2 reasons number 1 we have no proof to back up such an allegation and number 2 we are adults that don't make false allegations as that is unacceptable, malicious and potentially libelous.

[Philistine]

Does it not occur to this upright, moral individual that the ethical thing to do would be to alert the shopkeeper of the error and return the extra change?

We give a fuck about the rude shop assistant who gave us too much change, can I get away before they notice.

Do no harm indeed.

[longdog]

Looks like he's tried to tell the official receiver he doesn't give a fuck about him either...

Robert White Sent an email but it was returned. Recipient:- Gavin.Fisher@insolvency.gsi.gov.uk

Subject:- Re: Your affairs in bankruptcy
Date:- 07/19/17


Reason Quarantined: Profanity in email

This message has been quarantined by the Insolvency Service e-mail security system.

Please Contact the recipient or sender for futher details.

Obviously his 16 month jail sentence for causing serious injury through drink driving was a doddle... I'm assuming he enjoyed it anyway because if he keeps this up he'll be heading back there for contempt of court in very short order.

[Hercule Parrot]

Shhhhh, be vewy vewy quiet, we're going to occupy a building...!

Robert White - Had a lot of interest in this just waiting for some info to come through then we can get the plan and date ready. Anyone else wanting to join in let me know.

Bless their sekwet little plan. Hopefully there are no covert observers in their ranks, reporting back to the powers that be. Of course we would never do anything like that, so they certainly don't need to worry about any memberships we haven't registered.

[Hercule Parrot]

Looks like he's tried to tell the official receiver he doesn't give a fuck about him either...

Robert White Sent an email but it was returned.

Obviously his 16 month jail sentence for causing serious injury through drink driving was a doddle... I'm assuming he enjoyed it anyway because if he keeps this up he'll be heading back there for contempt of court in very short order.

Pubic Lice thrive in prison, so Krabby will be perfectly happy in surroundings which most people would find unbearable. This is what Peter Clarke, England's chief inspector of prisons said yesterday -

"I have often been appalled by conditions in which we hold many prisoners. Far too often I have seen men sharing a cell in which they are locked up for as much as 23 hours a day, in which they are required to eat all their meals, and in which there is an unscreened lavatory,” Clarke said.

“On several occasions, prisoners have pointed out insect and vermin infestations to me. In many prisons I have seen shower and lavatory facilities that are filthy and dilapidated, but with no credible or affordable plans for refurbishment. I have seen many prisoners who are obviously under the influence of drugs."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... tor-report

Krabby would prefer to hide in that brutish environment, rather than have to look his wife in the face as the effects of the bankruptcy proceed. Leave Mrs K to deal with the bailiffs, to apply to the council for emergency accommodation, etc.

[TheNewSaint]

Does it not occur to this upright, moral individual that the ethical thing to do would be to alert the shopkeeper of the error and return the extra change?

Do no harm indeed.

But he remained in honour.

[longdog]

I am proud to share with my fellow paedo-nonces the funniest thing I've seen all day...

Mark Abbott

?? Court didn't want to know, Peter smith, this was for me failing to provide, looks good but I'm not sure it should of been that easy lol.




Craig Pepper

U have been dealt with in your absence? I don't get what u mean here? U haven't got away with anything m8?


David Robinson

Yes they proceeded against you anyway....not sure what you sent to them but it seems you used arguments orther than whether or not they had the authority to hear the matter.

Mark Abbott

A shit,, I'm te reading it right now, I thought it said there were taking no further action as it stands..... not it still stands, fek

Genius Mark Abbott sends Magnum Charter drivel to the court and mistakes a "Nothing in your gibberish affects your conviction or punishment... The sentence stands" letter for a "My god!!! Your mighty legal powers have made us think again and you are an innocent man without a blot on your impeccable character" letter

[King Lud]

Perhaps David needs to make it clear what the correct arguments are because literally nobody is doing it right at the minute. 100% failure rate looks bad for his little group. I mean he knows exactly what to do, doesn't he?..........Doesn't he?

[JimUk1]

David is still struggling to understand what "authority" to oversee a court case really means.

Well Dave, the courts will open up and down the land tomorrow. Judgements will be passed, and those that are convicted will be jailed (just try walking out of a crown court when you've been found guilty and see what happens) and civil matters will be dealt with to.

Those like your friends who ignore the orders of the court will eventually get spanked (like Ollie). That's the authority the court has-

It's backed by the power of the people (in other words, the millions of people in the UK)

It's back by the state.

It's backed by the police, bailiffs people who make claims ect ect ect.....

A few simpletons on Facebook represent oh let's work this out.....

Working on the assumption that 100% of the 12,000 or so are in the UK that means your group accounts for-

Out of approx 60 million Brits that's,

0.002% subscribers to lawful rebellion on Facebook.

Actually that's a remarkable percentage!

[Siegfried Shrink]

In order to inspire a popular movement, you need to be popular, you need charisma, you need to be someone who is followable. You need to be able to make and keep friends, because you cannot do it all alone, and you need to be a fluent orator so your words impress and inspire others. Something of a sense of humour is also really useful, you can deflect a lot with a rueful grin or a witty quip.
You also need to have some sort of cause that people are inclined to support even if it is only motherhood and apple pie. It is also an advantage if you are physically, if not attractive, at least a bit impressive.

I cannot say I have seen any of these features in what I have seen of the dissenters, so they need a literate and charming figurehead to rally the troops.

No doubt they would welcome suggestions for this figure. They will get nowhere with leaders who would stand around in a brewery wondering what to organise.

[hucknallred]

Jamie then makes this observation;

Half the guys on here seem to be jobless, bankrupt or losing their homes. I don't think it's the most sensible way to do things..

A view which goes down very badly with the true believers.

Great entertainment Dave, keep it coming!

I'm no expert in Facebook matters, but Jamie's name is now greyed out, would that be the Article 61 banning hammer?

Reasonable debate eh?

[TheNewSaint]

Perhaps David needs to make it clear what the correct arguments are because literally nobody is doing it right at the minute. 100% failure rate looks bad for his little group. I mean he knows exactly what to do, doesn't he?..........Doesn't he?

Good idea. In fact, since we have their attention, let's ask David Robinson to clear up a few other things:

1. According to http://www.legislation.gov.uk, the oldest version of the Magna Carta with any remaining legal effect is the 1297 version. Article 61 is from the 1215 version, and was omitted from the 1216 version and all later versions. Various correspondence and court judgments your group has received also say Article 61 has no legal effect. Please explain why you think Article 61 has any legal effect.

2. The "practical lawful dissent" Facebook group makes frequent use of the phrase "properly standing under Article 61." Please explain, in as much as detail as possible, how one does this.

3. Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta reads, in relevant part:

the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish

the offence be notified to four of the aforesaid twenty-five barons

And if we do not correct the transgression, or if we are out of the kingdom, if our justiciar does not correct it, within forty days,

the aforesaid four barons shall refer that case to the rest of the twenty-five barons

Please provide the following:

• A list of the names of the 25 barons who have agreed to serve in this capacity;
• The name of your justiciar;
• Any written records you can provide of this grievance procedure being followed (including the allowance of 40 days for resolution).

4. Members of the "practical lawful dissent" Facebook group frequently cite Article 61 as defense against council tax, parking tickets, and other matters not explicitly called out in the clause. Please give your legal reasoning as to why you think Article 61 applies to such cases.

I think these are very reasonable questions, and presented in a respectful fashion. If Mr. Robinson or anyone else wishes to educate us, here's their opportunity.

[Wakeman52]

Well, let's see, the office of Chief Justiciar as second in dignity to the king / queen was effectively abolished in the mid 13th century, during the reign of Henry III, following the removal of one Hubert De Burgh from office in 1232. The role was subsumed into that of the Lord High Chancellor.

The current incumbent (since 11 June 2017) is The Right Honourable David Liddington, MP.

Just for information.

[rumpelstilzchen]

So following Robinson's pseudo-legal bullshit has resulted in Mark Abbott receiving six points on his driving licence and a fine (including victim surcharge and costs) of just over eight hundred pounds for failing to furnish.
SUCCESS FOR PLD!!!!61!!!!
In his comments Mark Abott questions the victim surcharge. He writes "what victim?" Bless him. He appears to believe the victim surcharge applies to a victim in his particular case

[notorial dissent]

Perhaps David needs to make it clear what the correct arguments are because literally nobody is doing it right at the minute. 100% failure rate looks bad for his little group. I mean he knows exactly what to do, doesn't he?..........Doesn't he?

Good idea. In fact, since we have their attention, let's ask David Robinson to clear up a few other things:

1. According to http://www.legislation.gov.uk, the oldest version of the Magna Carta with any remaining legal effect is the 1297 version. Article 61 is from the 1215 version, and was omitted from the 1216 version and all later versions. Various correspondence and court judgments your group has received also say Article 61 has no legal effect. Please explain why you think Article 61 has any legal effect.

2. The "practical lawful dissent" Facebook group makes frequent use of the phrase "properly standing under Article 61." Please explain, in as much as detail as possible, how one does this.

3. Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta reads, in relevant part:

the barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish

the offence be notified to four of the aforesaid twenty-five barons

And if we do not correct the transgression, or if we are out of the kingdom, if our justiciar does not correct it, within forty days,

the aforesaid four barons shall refer that case to the rest of the twenty-five barons

Please provide the following:

• A list of the names of the 25 barons who have agreed to serve in this capacity;
• The name of your justiciar;
• Any written records you can provide of this grievance procedure being followed (including the allowance of 40 days for resolution).

4. Members of the "practical lawful dissent" Facebook group frequently cite Article 61 as defense against council tax, parking tickets, and other matters not explicitly called out in the clause. Please give your legal reasoning as to why you think Article 61 applies to such cases.

I think these are very reasonable questions, and presented in a respectful fashion. If Mr. Robinson or anyone else wishes to educate us, here's their opportunity.

I would first want to see the list of the duly chosen and elected 25 Barons, then I would like evidence that four of that number did petition both the King and his Justicar for redress and were wither rebuffed or ignored, and then have referred the complaint to the full 25 and that the 25 have voted to take action against the King, for a start.

The rest is all window dressing, but then I would also like to know under which of the Barons are they taking their lawful orders on how to "distress the Kyng"?

[TheNewSaint]

Considering the law has been null and void for 800 years, there's little to discuss at all. But it amuses me that these people can't even do what the law says. It confers powers to barons, not them, and not the powers they're claiming for themselves. They're also not following any of the procedures the law calls for. I bet half of them haven't even read it.

If I didn't know better, i'd swear these people were just trying to get out of paying their bills.