Practical Lawful Dissent FMOTL antics, continued...

[SteveUK]

On the old but correct Wonkos demolition of PLD, some of the rebels are getting unhappy with this work of treason in the comments.

http://www.wonkosworld.co.uk/wordpress/ ... ent-574363

That's not their only contact from Planet Q, scroll up the comments a bit.....

My bloody comment has been deleted. The cabal strikes back!!! 1!!!

[Hyrion]

I'm an epistemologist

I'd actually believe that.

I wouldn’t.

I didn't say it was it was good philosophy or good theory

It's about as bad philosophy/theory as "better to ask forgiveness later then permission up front" when the person finds themselves in prison for a very long time.

[Hyrion]

Looking at it from a more pessimistic point of view this means everybody, by their own perception, is damned to see every living thing they care about die... For eternity.

Ok... that whole spiel has the very real feel of a Douglas Adams entry into the Hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy!

[The Seventh String]

I'm pretty sure she's lying but even if she weren't I doubt the courts would accept "I screwed my letter-box shut" as a valid reason for not responding to a summons.

She’ll be in for an unpleasant surprise once she finds out (probably the hard way) that a summons is still going to be judged as correctly served if it has been pinned to her front door.

[aesmith]

More on the departure of Dave R, he doesn't seem to be missed ..

Andy Pears
Lazarus Laurence he is a total prick. he landed me in serious shit. he wont even drive a car i offer to buy him without road tax thats how much skill he has none. i blame myself for listening to him. he hides away and really needs to eat some food. he will never convince anyone by living the way he does. good intention the worst execution of i have ever seen.

[notorial dissent]

Even when they sort of get it right they get it so very wrong. That's some powerful stupid at play.

[Gregg]

Looking at it from a more pessimistic point of view this means everybody, by their own perception, is damned to see every living thing they care about die... For eternity.

Ok... that whole spiel has the very real feel of a Douglas Adams entry into the Hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy!

I was thinking the same thing. Long time readers will know that Douglas Adams is kind of a secular patron saint here. I was myself wondering if it was intentional or just inspired.

[He Who Knows]

Transcript of an imaginary emergency call

Operator: Which service do you require.
Caller: Coastguard please

CG: Maidup coastguard station, how can I help
JS: This is John of the Smith family, I am aboard my catamaran, the So Dulot, approx.
65 nautical miles south of the Somali Coast, and am being chased by pirates.
CG: Got you there John, They are a bit of a bugger at the moment. I assume by the nomenclature you have used , that you are a freeman on the land, is that correct.
JS: Yes, it is a concept I embrace wholeheartedly, I have no wish to be a debt slave , but what has that got to do with it.
CG: A hell of a lot now John, we now have to respect your principles.
JS: Glad to hear it, now what are you going to do about these pirates.
CG: Nothing we can do about it… so good luck.
JS: What do you mean…. Nothing you can do for god sake.
CG: Well you see john, if we come to rescue you, we risk causing the pirates, Harm, as we will probably have to shoot at them, Loss as we may damage their boats, and injury, because the royal marines are bloody good shots, and generally hit what they are aiming at….. so do you see my predicament.
JS: But they will kill me.
CG: More than likely………eventually….
JS: WHAT do you mean… Eventually.
CG: I mean they won’t kill you straight away…
JS: Why not
CG: Well… first they will contact the british embassy to seek a ransome, however as you are now a freeman, and no longer a british citizen, the embassy will have no record of you… so the pirates will think you are lying and torture you to get you to tell the truth.
JS: but I am a british citizen.
CG: sorry john, you cant really be both, but there is another way we might be able to help.
JS: anything, they are gaining on me.
CG: First we need you to give us immunity from your laws.
JS: Done
CG: Are you sure .... you didn’t half renounce your principles quick.
JS: Yes I’m sure, What else
CG: As you have not been paying taxes, you need to pay for the rescue….upfront
JS: how much will that cost.
CG: An order of magnitude costing will be £75Million
JS: £75Million
CG: Yep, that includes a type 42 destroyer, air cover, and a squadron of royal marines, so cheap at twice the price really.
JS: I cant afford that. Why do I have to pay
CG: Cos you are not a taxpayer john, you know all us debt slaves, working, paying our way, all the stuff you escaped from, taxes, that sort of thing, no pay.. no service.
Of course being a freeman you probably haven’t got insurance
JS: Ah Yes I am insured with cheep s chips insurance Basingstoke
CG: that’s great John, I will give them a ring, to make sure your covered, in the mean time I suggest you tidy yourself up, splash on some aftershave, and deodorant.
JS: why would I do that
CG: it might save your life,
JS: How?
CG: These pirates are Sailors John
JS: I don’t follow you
CG: well… you know what they say about some sailors John….
JS: no I don’t..please explain
CG Come on john, you must have heard about the golden rivet…. If they were Scotsmen..They would prefer peat to heather.
JS: oh my god… sob sob sob
CG: Spoken to the Ins coy John, apparently, that boat is registered and insured to a Mr Alan Nutherjon, his number seems to be engaged
JS: Ah.. well.. this is his number
CG: Ah great is he there
JS: Yes and no
CG: Not following you there john, he either is or he isn’t …… oh I see what you did A nutherjon, he doesn’t exist, why did you do that
JS: To avoid paying mooring fees, and inland waterway speeding fines.
CG: That was quite clever, well it was up to an hour ago, not so clever now tho.
JS: Crying….you need to help me please
CG: Would love to John, but we are paid for by the Tax payer, for the tax payer, and that aint you
JS: What am I going to do.
CG: Tell the pirates, they are not allowed to cause you, Harm, Loss, or Injury, and if they do, you will take them to a common law court, that should stop them.
JS: Are you mad?
CG: No John… That’s why I am happy to be what you scathingly refer to as a debt slave,… as to your mental state I am not so sure, but hey you get to die as you have lived, a free man, that’s gotta be a good thing right.
JS: Sod that bollocks, I want to be a british citizen again
CG: No Sweat shithead, we are on our way.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

CG: Yep, that includes a type 42 destroyer, air cover, and a squadron of royal marines, so cheap at twice the price really.

Showing your age there! The last Royal Navy Sheffield class (HMS Edinburgh) was decommissioned 5 years ago and scrapped in 2015. The only operational Type 42 is with the Argentine Navy.

[JimUk1]

Is he seriously comparing a human brain to quantum theory?

Well, although I think that's bunk, the mathematician Roger Penrose thinks that human minds can only be explained through quantum theory. So, that, in itself, is not necessarily evidence of "crazy talk".

Hmmm from what I understand, quantum mind and quantum chromodynamics are two separate fields of interactions between the particles, for instance chromodynamics appears more about matter and how it interacts and quantum mind is more about human conciseness.

I propose- Freeman-Entanglement.

The theory of which is basically when a large group of gasbags confuse each other with incoherent bullshit, it ties their minds up in knots.

I still think he’s found something on the net
And added it to his largely, ridiculous rant.

On a side note, come back Dave! We’re all missing your 100% succes LR crap.

[Gregg]

CG: Yep, that includes a type 42 destroyer, air cover, and a squadron of royal marines, so cheap at twice the price really.

Showing your age there! The last Royal Navy Sheffield class (HMS Edinburgh) was decommissioned 5 years ago and scrapped in 2015. The only operational Type 42 is with the Argentine Navy.

I'm sorry, but showing MY age, that's terribly ironic. They sank the original HMS Sheffield in the Falklands War, didn't they?

[SteveUK]

Nope- the name are recycled multiple times . There was a ww2 Sheffield before the falklands one and I'd imagine a few before that as well.

[Burnaby49]

Does this settle it?

Three Royal Navy warships have been named HMS Sheffield after the city and county borough of Sheffield, South Yorkshire.

HMS Sheffield (C24) (1936) - a Town-class light cruiser which saw service in World War II from the Arctic Circle and the Atlantic to the Mediterranean. She was one of the Royal Navy pursuit ships that tracked down the German battleship Bismarck. She was sold and scrapped in 1967.

HMS Sheffield (D80) (1971) - a Type 42 destroyer badly damaged by the Argentinian air forces on 4 May 1982 during the Falklands War. While being towed towards South Georgia Island, she sank in heavy seas.

HMS Sheffield (F96) (1986) - a Type 22 frigate sold to the Chilean Navy in 2003 and renamed Almirante Williams.

All three of these warships have carried many fixtures and fittings manufactured in Sheffield itself, including a great number of stainless steel items, leading to the nickname that has been applied to all of them: the "Shiny Sheff".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield

[aesmith]

Possibly the stupidest suggested defence for a speeding ticket ..

Alan Rayner There is no so called law against jumping red light

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Possibly the stupidest suggested defence for a speeding ticket ..

Alan Rayner There is no so called law against jumping red light

He is quite right. There is no "so called law", there is actual and very specific law.

Road Traffic Act Section 36 (1)
[...] a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.

[grixit]

Yeah, but it doesn't mention *travelling*!

[Siegfried Shrink]

The travelling BS has only half heartedly taken root here, as we do not have any explicit constitutional 'right to travel' that they can claim as jutification, and any right to travel fans must have got it from US gurus.

What really acts as a major discouragement is the police power to seize any uninsured vehicle regardless of protests, in effect they are then free to exercise their right to travel on foot. They may have 'right' on their side but they are still walking. This takes a number of crappy old cars off the road, the cost of the towing and storage, plus the cost of insurance to get the vehicle back is often more than the value of the old banger they are driving so they just start again with another bargain basement conveyance.

[Gregg]

The travelling BS has only half heartedly taken root here, as we do not have any explicit constitutional 'right to travel' that they can claim as jutification, and any right to travel fans must have got it from US gurus.

But surely the UCC would give that right to the UK, no?

[HardyW]

The travelling BS has only half heartedly taken root here, as we do not have any explicit constitutional 'right to travel' that they can claim as jutification, and any right to travel fans must have got it from US gurus.

But surely the UCC would give that right to the UK, no?

Gregg, I don't think so because as I understand it, the US gurus assert the "right to travel" in a conveyance not being used in commerce. No Commerce = no appeal to a Commercial code.

However, returning to the real world, is there in reality in the US a "constitutional right to travel" ? I'd assumed it was derived from the English common law concept of public use of "the king's highway" which similarly doesn't extend to a right to use of a mechanical conveyance.

[Dr. Caligari]

However, returning to the real world, is there in reality in the US a "constitutional right to travel" ? I'd assumed it was derived from the English common law concept of public use of "the king's highway" which similarly doesn't extend to a right to use of a mechanical conveyance.

The U.S. Constitution nowhere explicitly mentions a "right to travel," but many cases have recognized that there is implicit in the Constitution a right to travel from one state to another-- i.e., one U.S. state cannot close its borders to a citizen of a different state who wants to move. Except in the minds of the sovereigns, it does not include a right to travel by means of a specific form of conveyance.

More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_o ... States_law