What would you do if you lost your license?

[Rusty]

I don't know you, you could be a top lad, but this kind of thing is mental, and beneath you.

Ah now we're getting somewhere. 

Firstly, your correct in that you don't know me, nor anything about the circumstances I referred to. All you believe you know is based on assumption, without having the facts. I'd like to point out that the mention of the freeman on the land scenario wasn't something I was 'spouting off', or even espousing, it was a point of view held by some that I explained in response to a question asked.

I find it amusing that you cheer-lead your involvement with the pseudo socialist 'occupy group', who were originally thrown off land near the stock exchange only to take refuge under the jurisdiction of the church, which was itself only possible by taking advantage of an institution possessed of rights older than the statutes used to shift you there. So it appears the claimed knowledge you have of the law was insufficient to protect you from that? Your subsequent retreat to the sanctity of church grounds thus akin to running home to mummy.

You are obviously quite prepared to spatter everyone who disagrees with your Marxist point of view with titles like 'mentalists' 'nuts' 'twats' and similar insults, while failing to see that the majority of the general public conceived Occupy as a bunch of tiresome hippy twats with no work to go to.

However, you have since concluded that the government has no right to have tried you, not that rich people have an advantage. This might be all balled up with hate for fucking Thatcher, which is also a fine thing in itself.

At no point have I said this? Again it is an assumption you have made, and from your obvious bile filled hatred for a political leader that has been out of office for twenty fucking years (get over it) I might be tempted make an assumption of my own - that you're plainly out of touch with reality, and quite possibly a middle class boy full of self loathing for the benefits you have had while playing the revolutionary to square the circle. To paraphrase, I don't know you, you could be a top lad, but this is beneath you.

It is true that some poor 'deluded twats' as you call them, attempt to challenge statute law and repeatedly come worse off, and the reason for this is that they are deluded twats who are bound to fail through their lack of knowledge. This does not prove as you state that the premise of their argument is incorrect, just that they themselves have insufficient knowledge of it. Roger Hayes is not such a person, and when dealing with people like Roger, people who DO know the law and it's associated implications this is what they do.

http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/roger-hayes-arrested-tried-secret-court-imprisoned

I won't go into a tedious list of links to prove my point, I don't need to as the one above is the reality, and an indication of how 'the law' is selectively adhered to. My point is and has been that you cannot have a law that applies only in certain circumstances to certain individuals. There is either due process in law or there isn't, what has freeman ideology or anything else got to do with that?

NONE of what you have said is true

This is because you say so I take it?  :rolleyes

There is no global conspiracy designed to keep us inserfdom

Then what the fuck were you doing cluttering up (and littering) the concourse of Saint Pauls ? Now let's all stand for a rousing chorus of 'The Internationale'. :z