[size=1em]I think what you are referring to there grumpe1 is the old FMOTL perspective whereby registering something is seen as handing over the rights to it. (which in a way it is) It's difficult to it sum up in few words but here goes.[/size]
[size=1em]There are two systems of law in England, common law and statute law. Common law is the mainstay, as statute law is susceptible to tampering by politicians in order to further a political agenda. For this reason statute law is open to abuse and is not always just. On the other hand Common law stands eternally, it can't be altered.[/size]
Basically the premise hinges on the fact that we are a nation governed not by force but by consent, and that individual consent can be withdrawn. If one were to withdraw the consent to be governed then you exist only under common law. This means that you reject statutory law which exists beside common law. Statutes are not Law, they are legislation, "acts of parliament given the force of law by the consent of the governed". You consent to be governed in many ways, most of which your average Joe knows nothing about so is unaware of, which is why statutes are for him - law.
[size=1em]Therefore the theory is that if that consent is withdrawn those acts cease to be law applicable to the individual that has withdrawn it. In reality it would be very difficult to pull this off, but in Law it is a recognised position, as common law is the law of the land over and above statuatory law. The courts dislike this knowledge being in the public domain however as it diminishes their authority.[/size]
The reason is simple; Common law applies equally to all regardless of wealth or favour, whereas statute law is made by politicians and is therefore open to bias. It's simply a question of preventing bad laws from being enforced. For example under the English bill of rights of 1689 it states; http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm
[size=1em]"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".[/size]
Understand the implications of that. It means that all parking, speeding, littering, or any other form of 'automatic' fine levied against you without a prior trial to determine guilt are illegal.
Perhaps you now begin to see why much menacing, threats, and huffing and puffing is done by the state and it's various organs to control this sort of revelation. Put simply - We're all being taken for a ride.
[size=1em]There are two systems of law in England, common law and statute law. Common law is the mainstay, as statute law is susceptible to tampering by politicians in order to further a political agenda. For this reason statute law is open to abuse and is not always just. On the other hand Common law stands eternally, it can't be altered.[/size]
Basically the premise hinges on the fact that we are a nation governed not by force but by consent, and that individual consent can be withdrawn. If one were to withdraw the consent to be governed then you exist only under common law. This means that you reject statutory law which exists beside common law. Statutes are not Law, they are legislation, "acts of parliament given the force of law by the consent of the governed". You consent to be governed in many ways, most of which your average Joe knows nothing about so is unaware of, which is why statutes are for him - law.
[size=1em]Therefore the theory is that if that consent is withdrawn those acts cease to be law applicable to the individual that has withdrawn it. In reality it would be very difficult to pull this off, but in Law it is a recognised position, as common law is the law of the land over and above statuatory law. The courts dislike this knowledge being in the public domain however as it diminishes their authority.[/size]
The reason is simple; Common law applies equally to all regardless of wealth or favour, whereas statute law is made by politicians and is therefore open to bias. It's simply a question of preventing bad laws from being enforced. For example under the English bill of rights of 1689 it states; http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm
[size=1em]"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".[/size]
Understand the implications of that. It means that all parking, speeding, littering, or any other form of 'automatic' fine levied against you without a prior trial to determine guilt are illegal.
Perhaps you now begin to see why much menacing, threats, and huffing and puffing is done by the state and it's various organs to control this sort of revelation. Put simply - We're all being taken for a ride.