Inside The Curious World Of “Freemen”

[Burnaby49]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/i ... ttgNwZAg5w

My favorite part is the Ollie Pinnock quote where he credits an article he read in a tabloid newspaper 16 years ago as the basis for constructing his world-view;

"I discovered an article in the Telegraph from 2001 that quite clearly stated that article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 had been invoked under the correct protocols of British constitutional law," he says.

[notorial dissent]

The problem I have with that is crediting that the Pillock EVER picked up let alone read a newspaper or article, unless maybe it was sports or boxing scores. And then we come to the part about him UNDERSTANDING the article, that moves right straight in to the fantasy or science fiction realm.

[MaritalArtist]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... urope.html

[mufc1959]

That's quite a nice little house he's built, and it reminded me a bit of the Woodland House from a few years ago on Grand Designs. IIRC, the guy was allowed to build that house from natural materials as he was employed by the Woodland Trust or something, and did coppicing or some such. I think that house was built in such a way that, if required, the land could be returned to its natural state without much effort, so no mains services or concrete foundations. I think he had a generator, a composting toilet, water butts everywhere and used propane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgduN7uNGOY

So it seems a shame that a small home that blends in with its surroundings is going to be demolished, and I can see that it doesn't seem fair when looked at in isolation. But it's the 'thin end of the wedge' argument, the thick end of which is that a-hole who built a fugly castle and hid it with hay bales.

[The Observer]

They say that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British liberties. The Queen has 40 days to respond. Under the Magna Carta's provisions, if the Sovereign does not observe the Charter the people may rise up and wage war on her, seizing castles, lands and possessions until they have redress.

This was back in 2001. Sixteen years and I am still waiting to see one castle taken.

[King Lud]

That's quite a nice little house he's built, and it reminded me a bit of the Woodland House from a few years ago on Grand Designs. IIRC, the guy was allowed to build that house from natural materials as he was employed by the Woodland Trust or something, and did coppicing or some such. I think that house was built in such a way that, if required, the land could be returned to its natural state without much effort, so no mains services or concrete foundations. I think he had a generator, a composting toilet, water butts everywhere and used propane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgduN7uNGOY

So it seems a shame that a small home that blends in with its surroundings is going to be demolished, and I can see that it doesn't seem fair when looked at in isolation. But it's the 'thin end of the wedge' argument, the thick end of which is that a-hole who built a fugly castle and hid it with hay bales.

Why can't it be looked at in isolation? We have a lot of Travellers in our area who build any old shit, apply for retrospective planning permission on Greenbelt and basically get it waved through.

I know Quatloos is generally pro government and the status quo but just sometimes they really don't get it right and there's no reason to defend it.

[Jeffrey]

Categorical imperatives and all that. It’s only okay to do X if it would be okay if everyone did X.

[AndyPandy]

That's quite a nice little house he's built, and it reminded me a bit of the Woodland House from a few years ago on Grand Designs. IIRC, the guy was allowed to build that house from natural materials as he was employed by the Woodland Trust or something, and did coppicing or some such. I think that house was built in such a way that, if required, the land could be returned to its natural state without much effort, so no mains services or concrete foundations. I think he had a generator, a composting toilet, water butts everywhere and used propane.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgduN7uNGOY

So it seems a shame that a small home that blends in with its surroundings is going to be demolished, and I can see that it doesn't seem fair when looked at in isolation. But it's the 'thin end of the wedge' argument, the thick end of which is that a-hole who built a fugly castle and hid it with hay bales.

Why can't it be looked at in isolation? We have a lot of Travellers in our area who build any old shit, apply for retrospective planning permission on Greenbelt and basically get it waved through.

I know Quatloos is generally pro government and the status quo but just sometimes they really don't get it right and there's no reason to defend it.

I agree, but he'd have to apply for retrospective planning permission and somehow I don't see him doing it. It's a bit Tom Crawford and very freeman - would rather lose everything rather than do the sensible thing and engage.

[longdog]

I know Quatloos is generally pro government and the status quo...

Speak for yourself. Being entertained by a bunch of lunatics living in a fantasy world doesn't make me pro-government or pro-status-quo.

[ArthurWankspittle]

My thoughts on this are basically in Freeman World it would be OK for me to build a four storey castle on his land boundary and power it by my home made nuclear generator, with the waste being dumped just uphill of his land.

[Hercule Parrot]

33. .... I can well understand why Mr Mitchell would prefer not to have to comply with the enforcement notice. He has put a lot of work and, judging by the photographs, has used considerable skill in building the structure. It seems that he has own reasons, which no doubt seem good to him, to prefer to live a somewhat secluded life. He has produced a letter, which confirms his own assertion that he has been able to do useful work in clearing parts of the woodland and in seeking to deter fly tippers.

34. He has, however, done all this in breach of the planning control which aims to protect and benefit the public as a whole and which applies to everyone: even those who, like Mr Mitchell, declare themselves not to be bound by the legislation and not to consent to its application to them. ......

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2017/2328.html

[JimUk1]

I know Quatloos is generally pro government and the status quo...

Speak for yourself. Being entertained by a bunch of lunatics living in a fantasy world doesn't make me pro-government or pro-status-quo.

I'm certainly not pro-government, but I can respect and understand the decision making behind some of the laws; others just leave you in bewilderment.

You also have to respect the fact without some kind of goverance it would be total anarchy, and given what was happening in Britian, say 1200 years ago, who wants to have to fight Vikings, Saxons, Celts ect every week

These freemen seem to think we can all just mutually respect each other's existence; I believe otherwise.

[Siegfried Shrink]

who wants to have to fight Vikings, Saxons, Celts ect every week

Football fans?

[The Observer]

who wants to have to fight Vikings, Saxons, Celts ect every week

Football fans?

Well, you have to admit that the British Isles were much better off fighting off invaders every weekend in comparison to becoming civilized and organizing FCs.

[The Observer]

My thoughts on this are basically in Freeman World it would be OK for me to build a four storey castle on his land boundary and power it by my home made nuclear generator, with the waste being dumped just uphill of his land.

And I think this is exactly what goes to the heart of the matter about freemen and their inability to think out the consequences of their arguments. I doubt our "hobbit" would be very accepting of nuclear sludge running into his hole on a daily basis. So who would he turn to to combat your freeman domicile?

[notorial dissent]

I think it comes back to that little operation think/thought, they don't seem to do it much or at all, or even to be really familiar with the concept.

[Siegfried Shrink]

Who does he call when someone comes and sets fire to his home.
It had better be Ghostbusters because in freeland there is no fire or police service.

To be truly 'free' he should be able to defend his land from roving bands of council enforcement people, preferably First Blood style with his woodland craft and indomitable bravery. And those fat paper pushers could be a useful protein supplement to an evergreen diet.

"More planning officer, Cyril?"
"Don't mind if I do, Monty."

As usual, I worry about the dog.

[The Observer]

As usual, I worry about the dog.

I shouldn't think there is a reason to be concerned with the dog's future. It looks perfectly capable of ripping the wanna-be hobbit's throat out when he is asleep and surviving off the carcass for a few weeks. After that, I wouldn't be surprised if the dog went to the local Counsel and filed for a retrospective plan as a way of dealing with his late master's stupidity.

[ArthurWankspittle]

As usual, I worry about the dog.

I shouldn't think there is a reason to be concerned with the dog's future. It looks perfectly capable of ripping the wanna-be hobbit's throat out when he is asleep and surviving off the carcass for a few weeks. After that, I wouldn't be surprised if the dog went to the local Counsel and filed for a retrospective plan as a way of dealing with his late master's stupidity.

No, no. The dog is homeless though the fault of its landlord, so it is entitled to social housing. Landlord gets prosecuted, charges stay on file because he's disappeared.

[The Seventh String]

Why can't it be looked at in isolation? We have a lot of Travellers in our area who build any old shit, apply for retrospective planning permission on Greenbelt and basically get it waved through.

I know Quatloos is generally pro government and the status quo but just sometimes they really don't get it right and there's no reason to defend it.

I’d hardly describe myself as either of those things.

I just happen to think that if the law says someone is entitled to X then the best, quickest and often only way to get X is to use the methods of the law.

And if that doesn’t work because the law is unjust, or you think it is, then campaign on that issue. But start building your strategy by analysing how things actually are in concrete reality, not by replacing reality with a huge conspiracy theory involving long-dead bits of Magna Carta and imaginary “common law” then leading people down blind alleys to inevitable defeat.

As for the FOTL gurus who teach and encourage people to believe such nonsense, they’re parasites, pure and simple. No different to the snake-oil medicine sellers of the old west, except that snake-oil usually contained a hefty amount of alcohol so you got something for your money.

I guess I’m saying that I think the best way to get the result you want, be that getting the best possible legal outcome or even bringing about major social change, is to use a strategy that has at least a decent chance of actually working. And FOTL stuff stands no chance of working at all, unless you count turning a parkling ticket into a debt of hundreds or even thousands of pounds a victory.

On second thoughts, there’s one situation where it might work. When you can convince someone pursuing you for a small debt that you’re completely bonkers, on another planet and have no possessions worth seizing or income worth attaching. So they decide to give up on you and go collect other, more productive debts instead. But if you don’t get rid of them they’ll just keep coming back with ever bigger bills and more warrants until they win in the end. Just ask Neelu.