Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What would you do if you lost your license?
#21
Fair do's
thou shalt not kick
Reply
#22
l'd be with rusty.  btw does asking for permission to drive a car (driving license)  and "submitting"your car registration - under there rules (which is why you can get done under there rules)  so what happens when you dont sign up and register your car and apply for a driving license and drive your private vehicle or is that idea too "out there" or l'm i reading too much into it l'm just pissed off at the meaning of some words like -
Registration, submitting and license






Reply
#23
[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hinges on the fact that we are a nation governed not by force but by consent, and that individual consent can be withdrawn.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[size=1em]Therefore the theory is that if that consent is withdrawn those acts cease to be law applicable to the individual that has withdrawn it.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.  Smile

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.






Reply
#24
Double post for some reason - now edited out.  Smile
Reply
#25
aahh cheers RUSTY lve heard of this before l'd been looking into legal language.  ta
Reply
#26
The study of legal language means your on the right track. Legal language is not the same as the common English language, inasmuch as a word that means one thing to us has an entirely different meaning in legalese. Wink
Reply
#27
Yea l'm starting to come across that.  Smile
Reply
#28
(30-09-12, 10:57 AM)ChrisJH link Wrote: KTM plus loads of others including Cosworth make some very nice machines, 30mph 60 mile range with your feet up plenty more if you assist

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/eu...ore-23093/

If it'll do 30MPH with your feet up it won't be legal in the UK, well not as an electric pushbike anyway, it'll need all the same stuff as any other motor vehicle - reg plate, insurance,  LICENCE...  Smile

Reply
#29
(30-09-12, 08:05 PM)Rusty link Wrote: 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.  Smile
They're not an automatic fine.  They are essentially a confession that you sign and post back along with a cheque, if you've confessed what need is there for a trial?  If you dispute it then take it to court.
Reply
#30
Exactly. Your signature is yours alone, it is your property and cannot lawfully be extracted under duress. That is the principle.


Far better to ask for a trial by your peers as is your right. Do you really believe that if everyone opted to refuse to give away their signature the courts could arrange trial by jury for everyone? A court case for every litter fine, parking fine, dog mess or speeding fine? The administration alone would cost more than the revenue from the so called offences.  It's a con, a giant ponzi scheme perpetrated on the gullible.


The law works both ways, without principle it fails to be coherent and loses all validity.



Reply
#31
It's not being 'extracted under duress'... there's nothing forcing you to sign it at all.  If you get a speeding ticket and object to signing it then just take it to court.  If you're innocent then there won't be any evidence surely?  If you're guilty then the £60/3 points is a quick way of dealing with it without the time/expense of taking it all through court.
Reply
#32
This is about to become a john Harris love in. I'll just get lizard people mentioned before anyone else gets a chance
Smell ones mother. Yaas!
Reply
#33

(01-10-12, 12:36 PM)Tiberius Onklevaart link Wrote: This is about to become a john Harris love in. I'll just get lizard people mentioned before anyone else gets a chance


Nowt to do with John Harris or anyone else TB, it's about the right to stand up for yourself. Facts are facts, law is law. If law is based on principle that principle cannot waver can it? Therefore the law can work for you, or against you, it's just a question of harnessing it in your favour. Introducing talk of lizards or other silliness doesn't detract from the principle.


(01-10-12, 12:24 PM)Lawrence link Wrote: It's not being 'extracted under duress'... there's nothing forcing you to sign it at all.  If you get a speeding ticket and object to signing it then just take it to court.  If you're innocent then there won't be any evidence surely?  If you're guilty then the £60/3 points is a quick way of dealing with it without the time/expense of taking it all through court.


Which is why I believe that no one should sign anything - let them bring it to court.  Let me ask you who benefits from the quick 'confession'? Certainly not the individual being processed.

In recent times there have been cases of pensioners being fined for having their dustbin lids open 1 inch too high, another pensioner who dropped a ten pound note while exiting a newsagents was fined for littering, hearses with coffins have been booked for transgressing yellow lines, and all other forms of lunacy.

Each of those fines was imposed without any compunction to be sensible on the part of the person issuing them, and often as not were upheld upon appeal by local authority. My point is that when told to 'sign here' by a Policeman or any other person how many individuals actually know they are perfectly within their rights to refuse to do so?  The law exists not to persecute but to protect, and far too many citizens are unaware of their own rights to defend themselves against such tin pot tyranny by using that same law in defence.











Reply
#34
(01-10-12, 12:49 PM)Rusty link Wrote: Which is why I believe that no one should sign anything - let them bring it to court.  Let me ask you who benefits from the quick 'confession'? Certainly not the individual being processed.

In recent times there have been cases of pensioners being fined for having their dustbin lids open 1 inch too high, another pensioner who dropped a ten pound note while exiting a newsagents was fined for littering, hearses with coffins have been booked for transgressing yellow lines, and all other forms of lunacy.

Each of those fines was imposed without any compunction to be sensible on the part of the person issuing them, and often as not were upheld upon appeal by local authority. My point is that when told to 'sign here' by a Policeman or any other person how many individuals actually know they are perfectly within their rights to refuse to do so?  The law exists not to persecute but to protect, and far too many citizens are unaware of their own rights to defend themselves against such tin pot tyranny by using that same law in defence.
In those cases I agree with you, but then speeding, littering etc can and do affect other people.  Bins being open by an inch etc is just retarded and whoever dreams up stuff like that should be given a kicking.

As for who benefits... if I get caught speeding and the choice is a) sign paper, £60 and 3 points, or b) don't sign, go to court, day off work, £60+, 3+ points, court costs... I know what I'd do.
Reply
#35
Rusty, don't get me wrong, I agree. Except with the notion  silliness about the lizard people.
Smell ones mother. Yaas!
Reply
#36
And Sean, please have the admin whizzes change that daft name over. You're anything but grumpe
Smell ones mother. Yaas!
Reply
#37
(01-10-12, 12:57 PM)Lawrence link Wrote: As for who benefits... if I get caught speeding and the choice is a) sign paper, £60 and 3 points, or b) don't sign, go to court, day off work, £60+, 3+ points, court costs... I know what I'd do.


I don't want to leave anyone with the impression that I'm some sort of political anarchist, I just like to stand up for myself. Smile [size=1em]I'll give you a real life example from personal experience.[/size]


[size=1em]In 1984 I was shopping at Asda and came out to find the back lights of my car smashed and the car dented. A couple had seen the person responsible, gave me their details as witnesses and the offenders reg no. My wife then convinced me to report it to the Police. I went to the local station, told them the tale and gave them the witness details. I was told that as it happened on Asda car park which is private land they could do nothing. (I now know this to be incorrect) What they did do however, was to go outside and inspect my car, then give me a 'producer' to produce my documents, even though I was not at fault.[/size]


Sods law came into play and on getting out my documents I found my MOT had expired three days earlier! I was therefore booked for having no MOT. :\


When the summons came the charges were having no MOT, and having no insurance. Even though I had insurance and had shown them the certificate. I contacted the Police who told me that the charges still stood, I contacted the CPS who also told me the charges stood, so I elected to go to court. I pleaded guilty by letter to no MOT.


The court case happened to fall on Wednesday, my day off from work. Representing myself I went along with my documents and the prosecution put forward their case. I pleaded guilty to no MOT as I had done by letter, with mitigation that it was an oversight that was corrected immediately upon coming to my knowledge. To the charge of no insurance I simply produced my certificate. The magistrate found no case to answer for insurance, and fined me £15.00 for having no MOT.


He asked me how I wished to pay and I said I would pay immediately and in full. But before I do we must discuss the matter of my loss of earnings in attending court to provide evidence of my having insurance. The MOT I had pleaded guilty by letter, so the sole purpose of the court case was to determine if I had insurance or not - which I had. And not only had I insurance, but had produced it to the Police. Having to subsequently attend court had cost me a day off work I told them, and that constituted at that time a £35.00 loss.


I was awarded the £35 costs, which means that they paid the fine and I made a £20.00 profit for attending court on my day off.  Smile  That is the point I'm trying to get across, it's up to the individual to know the law and use it for their own protection, it doesn't exist so that incompetent fools can fleece you.
Reply
#38
Double post
Reply
#39
Blimey Rusty - you've just admitted to defrauding the Courts as well :lol
Reply
#40
I agree with you completely, but the two cases are different.  You were wrongly accused of something and not only could the prosecution not prove that you'd done it (driven with no insurance) but you had proof that you were covered.  As with the MOT though, you pleaded guilty by post presumably as it was the easiest/cheapest/quickest way of doing it.  Had you turned up in court for that you would've had the same result but costs on top.

My point being that if you have done something then it's probably cheaper, quicker and easier to take the fixed penalty rather than fight it and get done for it anyway.
Bit of a result ending up £20 in pocket though  :lol
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)