As far as I know the only thing that changes your tax code is under/overpaid tax not CCJs. Mind you... There was that idiot a few days back who thought his P60 from the DWP meant he didn't have to pay council tax so who knows what goes on inside their heads.
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?
Goodness me, this sort of thing isn't going to help their cause -
Terry Steele - Maybe we should set up a proper court with some of the high leading people here as the judges to pass sentence n then a proper public hanging or beheading of a high councillor or mp that will get the attention from the press as they would not be able to cover that up. It would make people more aware of what we are fighting for n that we will not be silenced. This is a way forward i think
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.
Hercule Parrot wrote:Goodness me, this sort of thing isn't going to help their cause -
Terry Steele - Maybe we should set up a proper court with some of the high leading people here as the judges to pass sentence n then a proper public hanging or beheading of a high councillor or mp that will get the attention from the press as they would not be able to cover that up. It would make people more aware of what we are fighting for n that we will not be silenced. This is a way forward i think
Yeah, that probably isn't the sort of post to be writing in public at this very moment.
JimUk1 wrote:
Yeah, that probably isn't the sort of post to be writing in public at this very moment.
Hopefully, someone will remind him.
Well... Keyboard warrior and all that but yeah... Not a wise thing to post with your name attached and a public FB profile with your photo on.
5. Preparation of terrorist acts
(1)A person commits an offence if, with the intention of—
(a)committing acts of terrorism, or
(b)assisting another to commit such acts,
he engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention.
(2)It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the intention and preparations relate to one or more particular acts of terrorism, acts of terrorism of a particular description or acts of terrorism generally.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life
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?
I would say that delusionland is a very approrpiate title for this new loony bin. I have a hard time believing that this crew is as gone stupid and ignorant as they would seem to be, but they keep supplying irrefutable evidence of it. Every time something stupid falls out of their mouths it just adds to the certainty. I just love the rationalization that FMOTL doesn't work because the gov't doesn't play by the rules rather than the simpler and more logical explanation that FMOTL DOESN'T WORK. Just amazing!!
OK, I'll bite, why does no statute past 1911 count?
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.
notorial dissent wrote:I would say that delusionland is a very approrpiate title for this new loony bin. I have a hard time believing that this crew is as gone stupid and ignorant as they would seem to be, but they keep supplying irrefutable evidence of it. Every time something stupid falls out of their mouths it just adds to the certainty. I just love the rationalization that FMOTL doesn't work because the gov't doesn't play by the rules rather than the simpler and more logical explanation that FMOTL DOESN'T WORK. Just amazing!!
OK, I'll bite, why does no statute past 1911 count?
I've got no idea- but here is their line of thinking,
Well, yeah, except Parliament doesn't "rule" law, they enact it, and I can't see that the "Parliament Act" was not within the Parliament's authority, and I don't see how it could be uncnstitutional since there really isn't a constitution to begin with, and Parliament really does sort of get to say what is or isn't constitutional when it comes right down to it. I see they think removing the grand juries is also an act of treason, although there is none and never has been any such law making it so. And as I recall, that is not how things went with the "Parliament Act' anyway.
Makes my head hurt, but more in despair of the English educational system which has either seriously failed these individuals or who were too far out of it to get any benefit from it.
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.
The Parliament Act 1911 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is constitutionally important and partly governs the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords which make up the two Houses of Parliament. This Act and the Parliament Act 1949 must be construed together as one. The two Acts may be cited together as the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949.[1]
Following the House of Lords' rejection of the 1909 "People's Budget", the House of Commons sought to establish its formal dominance over the House of Lords, which had broken convention in opposing the bill. The budget was eventually passed by the Lords, after the Commons' democratic mandate was confirmed by holding elections in January 1910. The following Parliament Act, which looked to prevent a recurrence of the budget problems, was also widely opposed in the Lords and cross-party discussion failed, particularly because of the proposed Act's applicability to passing an Irish home rule bill. After a second general election in December, the Act was passed with the support of the monarch, George V, who threatened to create sufficient Liberal peers to overcome the then Conservative majority.
The Act effectively removed the right of the House of Lords to veto money bills completely, and replaced it with a right of veto over other public bills with a maximum delay of two years. It also reduced the maximum term of a parliament from seven years to five.
So basically, it increased democracy by limiting the powers of unelected (hereditary) Lords, but of course PLD worship these 'Barons' and would be happy with having an overlord and a return to feudalism.
Oh the naivety of it, obviously has no idea that their ridiculous forum is public and can be read and commented on by anyone .
Barry Cochrane I currently have a running dispute with capita so I'm glad he was outed. How do we know that he wasn't relaying information about us that could be used by the dwp. Loads of people who have joined the group and took the oath have had their benefits stopped. David Robinson being one of them. I'm glad that someone who took a wage for harassing vulnerable people is named and shamed and the reality is that he won't be the only one
But the others will either leave the group and join under a different name
How do we know that he wasn't relaying information about us that could be used by the dwp. Loads of people who have joined the group and took the oath have had their benefits stopped. David Robinson being one of them.
While it's true that a number of the 'rebels' have had their benefits stopped or refused it has nothing to do with them 'taking the oath' per se and everything to do with them either not having an entitlement in the first place or refusing to cooperate with the DWP because they don't think they have to obey the rules.
Creepy Charles tried to claim Child Benefit for a Ukrainian child that isn't his and has no relevant connection to him and others have had their ESA refused because they failed to attend an assessment. They've not 'lost' because they are 'rebels' or because they have been grassed up by informants they've 'lost' because they are fucking idiots.
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?
Another 'rebel' wants to know if he can claim state benefits from the state that he despises... Under duress of circumstances of course...
David McEwan
Can anyone give advice about dla ?
Pete Ponchorat Maddison
Try and be more specific please as that is a VERY open question.
David McEwan
My wife has an inherited type 2 diabetes is she entitled to DLA ?
Thanks in advance
There are about 3.5 million people (including me) in the UK with Type 2 Diabetes in the UK and the only thing it gets you is free prescriptions and eye tests if you take medication for it. If you control it with diet you get fuck all.
Simply having Type 2 Diabetes gets you zero points in the DLA/PIP/ESA assessment. You have to actually be disabled by it which the vast majority of people aren't. Having to take a Metformin pill twice a day ain't a disability.
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?
notorial dissent wrote:I would say that delusionland is a very approrpiate title for this new loony bin. I have a hard time believing that this crew is as gone stupid and ignorant as they would seem to be, but they keep supplying irrefutable evidence of it. Every time something stupid falls out of their mouths it just adds to the certainty. I just love the rationalization that FMOTL doesn't work because the gov't doesn't play by the rules rather than the simpler and more logical explanation that FMOTL DOESN'T WORK. Just amazing!!
OK, I'll bite, why does no statute past 1911 count?
They object to the Parliament Act of 1911 because it modified the UK constitution, which they think isn't allowed. Why they object to that particular modification, as opposed to the many others over the centuries, I don't know.
littleFred wrote:They object to the Parliament Act of 1911 because it modified the UK constitution, which they think isn't allowed. Why they object to that particular modification, as opposed to the many others over the centuries, I don't know.
It fits their narrative and since they don't understand it any more than they understand MC that is at least consistent.
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.
