Broad Oak: your emotional support animal

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

My Long Walk To Freedom

Almost five years have passed since I cracked open an eyelid and looked at the world anew.

I live in Scotland, in a wee village where not much has changed for decades. Crime is almost non-existent, my two sons received a goodish education, my wife works full-time, and I continue to use the village to launch my visits to Africa and beyond. Life was good, all were happy and all were feeling relatively secure.

In late 2005 I learnt about the impending smoking ban which was slated to kick off on March 26th 2006. I was incensed. I was outraged. I knew the damage it would bring to the hospitality industry, so I read, and I read, and I read. I studied the proposed law and I was stunned at how easy it was to get an abomination like this through Holyrood. The law was flawed. In fact, according to a QC I know in Edinburgh, it contained five major flaws and two minor flaws. He was, he said, quite happy to launch a Judicial Review to overturn the law but he also said he needed 250 thousand pounds to achieve it. Game over. It was, in fact, game over for nearly 12,000 pubs and clubs. They still shut down at a phenomenal rate.

In 2008 I discovered the Freeman Movement and I was enthralled. The principles were sound, the theory was sound, so I threw myself at reading statute after statute. My head was bursting with a million facts and I was now on the warpath. I was an enemy of the state. This was okay, because the state was always my enemy. They hate me. They hate you too. If you doubt that, take a brief look at the many thousands of things they do not do in our name.

Later on I started reading Magna Carta (1215 as well as 1297) and I knew the answers lay within. MC1215 is unique. It is a Treaty between the King and his people. It was for all time, and it could not be amended, repealed, rewritten, or undone in any way. This Treaty was not created by parliament-it was written and enacted 50 years before the first English parliament was even born. De Montfort and his early parliamentarians only got started in 1265-and as MC1215 was not created by them, they, and successive governments, had/have no right to fiddle with it. As far as I am concerned, the document is lawfully extant. Every word of it.

In June 2008 I entered Lawful Rebellion. I invoked Article 61, as is my right as an Englishman, although the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish also have the same right: Barons from all four corners of what is now the UK came together to add their autographs to this world-changing Treaty. This Treaty serves us all. In 2001 a Barons Committee was formed following the horrendous House of Lords Act 1999. Some 70 Peers entered Lawful Rebellion and advised Mrs Windsor accordingly. I did the same thing using a series of Affidavits between June and September of 2008. In essence, I am no longer beholden to any statute bearing Mrs Windsors name, nor am I obliged to obey any of her agents, or indeed, anyone who has sworn an Oath of Allegiance to her. My allegiance is to the Barons Committee. I am not alone in this. Some 800,000 people in Britain have sent the same documents, and made the same oath: to distrain and distress Mrs Windsor and her agents until redress is obtained.

I have been distraining and distressing like billy-oh ever since.

It is not a comfortable life, seeking confrontation with the state at every turn, but I enjoy it. I have learnt to say "No", forcefully, politely, and often. It may surprise you to learn just how powerful this word is.

One of my tasks (part of the distraining and distressing thing) is to withhold taxes as often as I can. So when I got a demand from HMRC for 5K 'owed' to them in Corporation Tax I thought I would try my new found skill. They sent me letter after letter, demand after demand and threat after threat. It went on for a while and in order to stay in honour (very important in law) I continuously made them a "Conditional Agreement To Pay". This staved off court action because I never said I would not pay, just that I needed them to answer a few simple questions before I did so.

I ended up writing to their Solicitors Office when they were handed the problem. It took me three letters to remove their interest in me completely. What voodoo did I use? Which particular words threw them into a tailspin?

Just these:

"Please prove that I, Captain James Ranty*, a living, breathing man, owe you a single penny".

*my nom de guerre

The letters stopped. The demands stopped. The threats stopped. Everything stopped. I have not heard a word since 2009.

As daft as it sounds, the words 'human being' do not appear in any tax statutes. Not once. The word 'person' appears hundreds of times, I grant you, but I am not a person. Their definition of person is: "corporation sole, limited company, or legal fiction".

I am none of those and I am therefore not obliged to pay tax. That, plus my obligations as a Lawful Rebel, put me way beyond their reach. To date, I have withheld over 15K in taxes and fines.

The courts are very different. I have not had a good outcome there. I am not a habitual criminal, by the way, but I did decide to treat a speeding 'offence' a little differently than most. I refused to complete the Notice of Intended Prosecution form. It allowed me only to plead guilty and that is not right. Not according to the Bill of Rights 1689 or the Scottish version, Claim of Right 1689. There is a maxim that states "A man cannot be hanged by his own evidence" (I have paraphrased) and I told the courts this. They did the only thing they could do: they ignored me, and kept sending policemen to my home. They got short shrift as well, but I eventually ended up in magistrates court and I was 'awarded' 9 points. 3 for speeding, and 6 for not hanging myself.

Along the way I learnt many things, including:

1. Mrs Windsor abdicated in 1972 when she gave Assent to the European Communities Act.
2. Because of that, every police officer acts unlawfully, as does every court in the land.
3. Parliament is both an illegal and an unlawful gathering.
4. We have been bankrupt since the Napoleonic Wars.
5. America remains a British colony, and still pays taxes to Mrs Windsor.
6. Washington DC is NOT part of the USA.
7. The City of London is NOT part of the UK.
8. ALL law comes from the Vatican, this includes Islamic and Judean Law.
9. The Vatican owns every living being on the planet-See Unam Sanctam of 1302.
10. We are all dead-See the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666.
11. Our money is worthless. It is fiat currency, and operates only on faith.
12. Banknotes are promissory notes. According to the Bill of Exchange Act of 1882 I can also create promissory notes. So can you.

I could go on, but I have discovered that the only way to know a thing, is to research it for yourself. Some of this stuff seems utterly unbelievable at first glance, but that is mostly because we have been misled by corrupt governments for hundreds of years. Most of them have no idea how deep the rabbit hole is, and I think that very, very few of the proles (myself included) have no real idea either.

Like it or not, we are cash cows. We will be milked until we squeal. Looking around me, at Generation Meh, it will be quite some time before the Establishment hears any significant noise from us. They have a Black Belt, Fifth Dan, in the Art of Distraction.

To wrap up, consider this:

In what world would the master/servant relationship be reversed and condoned? In ours, of course.

We pay these public servants to run the country. No more, and no less. They lie, cheat and steal from us on a daily basis. They take our money and waste it in new and disturbing ways. We pay THEM yet we stand looking sheepish as they punish US. We pay our policemen and women to kick the crap out of us. We pay them so well, and protect them so well that they have killed almost 1,800 of us in the last nine years and guess how many were prosecuted for wrongful death? None. Not one. Those 1,800 who died after coming into contact with the police? Just coincidence. Nothing more.

Our taxes pay for bombs and bullets which are rained down on innocent brown men, women and children in foreign climes. We are supporting massacres with our tax dollars, in direct contravention of the laws which came after the Nuremberg Trials, and in direct contravention of the Terrorism Act of 2006. Their own statutes tell us that anyone sponsoring illegal wars and insurrections is as guilty as those prosecuting them. And yet we pay.

We pay because we feel we cannot refuse. If we do, they promise to send burly men to come and haul us off to the courts. They don't. I am living proof of that.

One definition of slavery is doing work for no recompense coupled with the threat of force if you do not comply. Every single employer is enslaved. Every single employer collects your tax from source for absolutely no reward. Slavery never ended. They just introduced a new subtlety.

It isn't all about money. It is essentially about freedom. Freedom from thuggish police, from inept, greedy, self-serving politicians, freedom to shop in a large town or city without being captured on video more than 300 times in a three hour visit, freedom to travel the highways and byways without let, hindrance or charge. This right was granted to all in the Bor/CoR 1688/9. The freedom to live, rather than merely exist. The freedom to ignore a snooping, tracking, eavesdropping, nannying government.

In short, I want to be left alone. The very moment they leave me in peace, I will stop being a thorn in their side.

Captain Ranty.

PS-If I were you, I would disbelieve every word in this piece. I would click my way around the interwebs in an effort to locate some the facts mentioned here. I would question everything, and I would default to my number one priority, which is to follow the money. Do that, and you should find yourself wondering how the hell you were deceived for so long. Good luck and Godspeed.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

28 comments:

Sackerson said...

Astonishing assertions, and with a truly oratorical (Celtic, dare I say?) roll.

Nick Drew said...

I am truly fascinated by your arcane legal discoveries

however, you were barking up the wrong tree to start with - the smoking ban (across most of Europe) is one of the best things to have happened in many years

I speak as a chronic asthmatic - people like me (and millions more besides) have had their lives transformed for the better

we were under assault by smokers beforehand, there is no other way of describing it: and all the libertarian bleating is just so much crap

sorry mate, but there it is

Captain Ranty said...

:)

Celtic? Nay.

On my father's side we hail from York. A cousin of mine traced us all the way back to 1198.

Which makes me an Englishman, I suspect.

CR.

Sackerson said...

York? Vikings - who were Celts by extraction.

Captain Ranty said...

Ah. That explains it then.

CR.

Mark In Mayenne said...

Fascinating

Captain Ranty said...

Nick,

I hear you.

But, it doesn't matter. (Bear with me now).

The point of me mentioning the smoking ban was to highlight bad law. Yes, I know you got what you wanted/needed, but it was the way it was done that was jaw-dropping.

The junk science, the ridiculous comments by the Health Committee, the haste with which is was enacted, all made for a bad law put together by biased fools.

And, if you look back from that day to this, the floodgates opened for all sorts of insanity which just 'had to enshrined in law'.

In 1265 those men embarking on a new way of governing our nation must have been beside themselves. They had power, given by the people and blessed by the monarch and despite that, it took them TWO YEARS to produce their first piece of legislation.

Do you know how many bits of legislation were vomited out in 2012? 4,195.

Four thousand one hundred and ninety five.

How many of those (a mix of primary and secondary legislation) got the scrutiny they deserved? Serious question.

Parliament sits for less than 180 days a year. My calculator says that they enacted 23.3 bits of legislation per day during 2012.

Now, do you imagine that all 650 MPs read every single word?

How many other bad laws are we enduring, or are about to endure?

CR.

Mark In Mayenne said...

Presumably if you have distanced yourself from Mrs W and her agents, you have no call on her services for your defence?

What rights do you therefore have to defend your life and property? Are they any different from those "enjoyed" by the rest of us?

Sackerson said...

CR, I think many pubs were done in by supermarket booze, desubsidised public transport, the destruction of blue-collar employment and police keen to make their quota by following your car.

Mark In Mayenne said...

How about the passport?

Anonymous said...

Nick Drew,

So then, you don't think the vast amounts of carbon monoxide being pumped into the air daily from car exhausts aren't giving you problems then?

I'm with the cap'n on this. The smoking ban was a trial run to see how obedient the populous were and they showed it. Showed how weak they were.

Look back in history. The pub was a meeting place for people, to go and talk, socialise, gamble, fight, smoke and drink. And because you have a 'condition' you think it's ok to ban possibly the majority's right who drink in that pub to smoke, because you're not happy about it?

The best thing would have been for cities to have created a cafe, a pub and a restaurant for all those non smokers to go and postulate in and allow all other establishments to remain doing what they'd been doing for hundreds of years before you came along.

It's nothing but downright selfishness of politically correct morons like you who ruin life for many because it doesn't fit into your way of things.

The word fascist does spring to mind quite frankly reading your post. And worse still, I bet you drive as well which would make you somewhat of a hypocrite, or if you don't, at least use public transport which does, not forgetting buying goods, that result in the pollution of the atmosphere (and land) with deadly chemicals.

How many chronic asthmatics in the UK are there compared to smokers Nick? You epitomise the Marxist realist who believes that the minority should rule over the majority.

I don't smoke but I vehemently defend the right for people to do so, whenever and wherever they are. No one has the right to tell them they can't. Then again I am an anarchist which pretty much labels me as one who believes 100% in liberty and freedoms, unlike people like you.

Harbinger

Sackerson said...

Harbinger: it's perfectly Ok to differ here, but it's a question of style - they say the mark of a gentleman is that he removes his hat before beating his wife. Let's air our differences with lethal courtesy.

Anonymous said...

Sackerson,

With all due respect, it's the libertarians like the cap'n who are speaking out against the drastic future hell we all face that could see people, like Nick, being arrested in public for farting, to be assaulted, beaten and locked in a cell until his loved ones handed over enough cash to the coppers to release him.

I'm sorry Nick is an asthmatic, but why should say, one man, with breathing difficulties have the right to stop far more people having a fag down the local? In the past they'd have told dogooders like he to kindly piss off, go home and make his own brew. Moreso, because of the smoking ban many publicans have seen sales plummet and have had to close shop.

Let me see.... if you were a publican, would you rather have Nick, the asthmatic in your pub or twenty locals who no longer come because of the ban? Would you rather have Nick buying two pints an hour or twenty going through half a keg?

It's pretty much a no contest isn't it?

I'm known for not mincing my words and for people like Nick they need a good boot up the backside to bring them into reality.
The smoking ban was the litmus test on the public's acceptance of state enforced bureaucracy upon their lives. And they passed with flying colours. In this one show of state victory they re-insted soviet communism in the west. And it's only going to get worse, thanks to people like Nick.
regards
Harbinger

Anonymous said...

I would say the demise of pubs is down to economic factors, as is the demise of eveything else, including the High Street in general (though internet sales have loomed large here as well).

At three and a half quid a pint (or more, rarely less) it's a price too far for many people. And how much are womens' drinks now? Strewth. This is where the supermarket deals come into their own too.

What about home entertainment these days, all this mega-technology? One doesn't have to go out these days for excitement - it's all there on the desk top. I get the feeling that a lot of political bloggers don't go out that much, going by the amount of material they produce daily, but I do suspect they enjoy a drink at home whilst doing so. Good on them, but they aren't in the pub and that isn't anything to do with smoking.

The smoking ban has been a straw on the camel's back, but really that's all it's been.

That's what I think anyway. I might be wrong.

Otherwise I agree emphatically with the comments on the smoking ban.

To the asthmatic then surely the comment about vehicle exhaust fumes is valid. Living in the rural coutryside must be better for that condition than a busy city. Tobacco smoke would be incidental in the country, unless one was in a locked and sealed room with a smoker. I can accept that crowded, smoky pubs wouldn't be ideal. That's unfortunate, but doesn't warrant a change in the law for everyone.

However the refutation of Nick's post by Harbinger was rude and aggressive. Anarchist? One has to be suspicious.

Sackerson said...

"two pints an hour or twenty going through half a keg?":

The old landlord of the Little Lark in Studley had a notice on the wall saying, "Please drink harder and faster. Thank you."

Don't know if that'd be allowed these days.

Captain Ranty said...

Mark,

I have paid taxes all my life. I continue to pay taxes (PAYE) so for the time being, I will use the services if I need them.

If I could stop paying all taxes-which is almost impossible as almost everything is taxed-I would keep more of my own hard earned money which would enable me to pay for an ambulance, fire engine or a police visit. I have needed none of those for a very, very long time.

Defence? The Bill of Rights allows me to arm myself. The wording is careful, it says we are permitted to carry weapons "...as allowed by law". So they disarmed us over the decades because of lunatics in Hungerford (no more rifles) and Dunblane (no more pistols).

I am ex-military and I am familiar with, and trained to use, a whole host of small arms. I firmly believe it is right for people to carry concealed weapons but I would make training mandatory. Crime would plummet overnight. The saying "An armed society is a polite society" is absolutely true.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Anon 01:00,

I have no doubt that there is more at play than just the smoking ban. To assume otherwise would be naive.

Supporters of the ban regularly state that it was the global recession that killed most off.

Not quite true.

In 2005 102 pubs closed.

In 2006 205 closed.

In 2007, in the first six months of the ban, 1,682 closed.

The numbers crept up steadily from 2 closures per week in 2005 to 49 per week in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Close to 800,000 jobs have been lost from pubs directly, and those that support pubs indirectly.

You say that a pint costs 3.50 which is about right. This was always going to happen when an industry stood idly by and allowed the govt to ban around 70% of their customers. Fewer customers always means that the price of the product will rise in an attempt to make up the shortfall. Whilst smokers make up 21% of the population, in pubs & clubs the demographic changed dramatically to around 76% of people smoking in pubs & clubs. Most, as you can see, were/are "social smokers".

Studies carried out reveal that smokers spent longer in pubs, spent more, and tipped better than non-smokers.

We were the hospitality industries best customers and they threw us out on the street. No surprise that the pub losses are so huge. Take a look at Pubco shares before and after the ban. They lost billions.

There is a pub not 300 yards from my front door. I moved to this village 3 years ago and I have not been inside it once. I will not use pubs in this country. One of the reasons I love going to Africa is being able to smoke in a pub or bar. There is no hand-waving, no indignation, and curiously, no odour. Those 'third world nations' have discovered a technology that defeats tobacco smoke: they call this witchcraft "Air conditioning".



CR.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous (1:00)

I can never understand why anonymous posters can't even sign off with a name out of courtesy to the blogger?

"Courtesy people say, you mean the same courtesy you showed Nick?"

Well, people like Nick, like I said need a jolt to be awoken into reality, instead of accepting the façade they call society.

"However the refutation of Nick's post by Harbinger was rude and aggressive. Anarchist? One has to be suspicious."

A refutation is a refutation and the only rudeness and aggressiveness was my labelling him as a moron, to which, he has proven in his reply to the article.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech and I'll use every means I possibly can, however rude or aggressive one may see it as in order to try and make people see the error of their ways. I am known by many for not just scraping the nerve in discussion, but severing it completely. I take no prisoners and when people need to be chiselled down to size I'll gladly do so.

My 'aggressive' refutation (calling him a moron) was so because he is living in cuckoo cloud land with his opinions. As the cap'n has statistically demonstrated above, the smoking ban has resulted in the closure of many pubs up and down the country. I will also certainly add that price hikes and alcohol limit must take part of the blame but when the cap'n states that within the first six months of the ban, over eight times the number of pubs closed compared to the previous year then it proves overwhelmingly the damage it did to the catering industry.

And finally, I come from a publican family. I grew up in the trade. I've worked as barstaff, management and door security in pubs from the age of seventeen up to thirty five and know the pub game like the back of my hand. I also know that smokers keep pubs alive by buying more beer, as the cap'n also stated.

My attack on Nick for his views are perfectly within my right as a human being to do. He represents the oppressive minority who has taken control of the majority which is having a disastrous effect upon society.
It was I also who made the comment about car fumes. To further add to that comment, scientists have proven that cancers are the result of city living and I can really only see that considering cities are jam packed full of traffic, whose fumes linger, trapped between buildings, then this is the main reason why.

Many arguments I've had with drivers who welcome the ban and who don't smoke. They do not see the hypocrisy in their argument. The only thing they do is laugh when I say that they should put a pipe back into their car, to stop their exhaust polluting the atmosphere. They say it would kill them if they were to do so, not realising that they are effectively killing pedestrians by not doing so. They have no argument regarding this matter.

Lastly, passive cigarette smoke HAS NEVER been proven to cause cancer yet is continually linked to it. The green agenda, liberal luvvies make sure the msm parrots this continuously and yet ironically, we never see any objection to them wanting to go abroad to Islamic lands and bomb the bejesus out of all those 'towel heads'.

The smoking ban was a massive attack on the liberty of human beings in the UK. And yet people like Nick fail to see this. All he was concerned about was his cronic asthma, no doubt, never doing any research into how and/or where he actually got it from. If it were the case that people got asthma through passive smoke, then we'd all have it. However we don't, which disproves that theory. My guess is asthma comes straight from the pollutants in the air caused by carbon monoxide and other deadly chemicals in the air as a result of manufacturing smoke and aircraft spraying of barium and aluminium.

regards

Harbinger

Anonymous said...

@ Ranty

It's hard to argue with your figures for pub closures, not that I wish to argue. Maybe there is more to it than I thought. I've been to a few pubs since 2007 and stood at or outside the door for a smoke. Not ideal I know, but it didn't personally bother me too much. More of a mild annoyance than a defnite reason not to go out. Maybe other people take it more seriously.

Nick Drew said...

Captain R @ 19:43 - it's all trade-offs and shades of grey in the world of practical decisions

and we are ad idem on crazy legislation; if you check my blog you will find a a strong & consistent theme (my pet topic being crazy energy /CO2 emissions legislation)

Harbinger - aren't we supposed to go a couple more rounds before Godwin's Law kicks in ?

its straightforward to debate this with libertarians because they put a principle on the table: "do what you like unless it harms someone else". That's a ball we can all kick around to good effect in this context

but you're an 'anarchist' ? An-archy ... no rules ? like Anon@01.00 says, that's a bit fishy ...

Captain Ranty said...

Nick,

Shades of grey?

The MK I human eyeball can distinguish over 500 shades of grey.

It is a very great pity that most of us are not looking.

The creation of legislation-especially since we joined the EU-is an out of control monster. There is a cost attached to every single one of these 'laws' and I find that just as disturbing as the proliferation.

Anarchy: One definition of anarchy is 'Rules but no rulers'.

I like that idea. I like it a lot.

CR.

Anonymous said...

Nick,

"...but you're an 'anarchist' ? An-archy ... no rules ? like Anon@01.00 says, that's a bit fishy ..."

The next logical progression for a libertarian is becoming an anarchist. I started off quite liberal conservative when I was in my teens, then I became quite liberal, living in London, but years there opened my eyes to much and I moved into nationalism, then libertarian nationalism, then finally into anarcho nationalism. In a nutshell, I'm one who believes first and foremost in the rights of the indigenous peoples to exist and not have their lands colonised and cultures destroyed.

Anarchy comes from the Greek anarchia. The prime definition of it is 'without rulers'. When you start there as a solid foundation then you can't go wrong.
I suggest you read some Tolstoy, Bakunin and Kropotkin if you want to find out about Anarchy instead of reading the msm. They churn out post holocaust, apocalyptic futures, where people murder, rape and eat one another and blame it all on anarchy. I wonder why they do, don't you? Well, they want to terrify people into realising that there's an alternative to rule by government and so do what they msm does best and promote lie upon lie via their mass indoctrination and propaganda machine.

My anarchy would be a simple one: no bankers, no aristocracy, no politicians, no police and no armed forces. This done, society would be a far better place to live in. And as the good cap'n correctly states -

"I firmly believe it is right for people to carry concealed weapons but I would make training mandatory. Crime would plummet overnight. The saying "An armed society is a polite society" is absolutely true."

No truer words are spoken. Of course, you'll come up against a brick wall when you speak to the liberal luvvies, who still don't realise that guns don't kill people. People kill people. Too many times I've had the argument that if people want to kill they will, armed with a gun or not, they'll find some other object with which to end someone's life.

So, it's really about self responsibility. Arming oneself, claiming some land to build a house, raise your family, livestock and crops and get on with life. But you see, many people don't want to go back to the natural way of life because they've become addicted on all the technological gadgetry that our 'masters' give us, in order to keep us under their control. Take a child's playstation away and it's WW3 for example!

(cont)

Anonymous said...

....

It is not up to any state to impose its rules upon a people. It's the people who should impose rules upon themselves. If they break them, then they will end up in conflict with those who don't. The most natural way of life was tribal society. It was the most democratic society ever created, where if people in the village had an umbrage, then they'd all sit around a fire and discuss what the outcome should be, instead of leaving it in the hands of a third party (politicians), who are nothing but bought and paid for shills of the bankers/Israel (Rothschild) and corporations.

The problem lies therein of people who want to be nannied by others, who want to be willing slaves and thus want to be controlled and abused. These are the biggest problem we face with society because they're cowards and don't want to take self responsibility, the type of hypocrites who would eat steak but never kill and gut a cow. It is these people who feed the beast (system) as well as staff and protect it, even though it abuses them on a regular basis.

I look forward to the day when bankers, politicians, aristocracy along with their police servants are hanging from trees and lampposts up and down the country. An end to the system that has murdered billions in its existence and created untold suffering for even more.

Would I go around killing, raping and eating people? Of course I wouldn't but if someone was going to kill me or my family, I'd have no choice to. I simply don't allow myself to be conditioned by a system that says the police are there to sort your problems out when they most certainly don't nor ever will.

Anarchy is a very misunderstood concept. It's just a pity people weren't more aware to what anarchy is really all about. It terrifies the aristocracy, the bankers, the politicians, the councillors and all other members of bureaucracy for it takes away their control, their security and leaves them in a big wide ocean along with all the rest of the fish. They fear this because they no longer have the power to abuse and are, worse still to them, the most likely people who would suffer from the abuse they've been meeting out to the people for thousands of years. So they have to continue promoting the lie that anarchy is chaos and without order one cannot have a society. It is of course nothing but bollocks, but it keeps them where they always want to be - pushing the buttons, turning the knobs and keeping people down, abused and ignorant to the freedoms and liberties they all have as natural human beings.

regards

Harbinger

Captain Ranty said...

Anon 10:29,

As Harby said earlier, it was a game-changer.

It proved beyond doubt, to me, that the great British public will endure any law from poor governments.

The science behind the law does not stack up.

Effectively, we did nothing while they legislated against a smell.

If that's the case, I have a couple of dozen odours I want to see legislated against....

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

And just to add some weight to Harby's statement that 'passive smoking does not kill anyone" you all might want to ask Mr Google to find McTear v ITL.

The anti-smoking taliban brought all of their big guns to court and, well, I won't spoil the surprise.

Read the judges summation.

It cheers me up no end, it does.

I found it for you:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html#conclusionsandresult

Read 'Result' 9.5 right at the bottom.

CR.

Anonymous said...

Good old Captain, great words. I haven't been in a pub for years, it's supposed to be a public house, not a government experiment with the landlord as unpaid policeman watching as trade dwindles. As for "prove I owe you money" it works with credit cards too. A line of electronic credit is what they give you. Clickety click, here's some zeroes, now pay back cash.
-richard

eyeofwisdom1 said...

My blood (my noble and honourable forefathers) were there when john was forced on pain of death to sign
this document (mc 1215), this document kept us together as one,it didnt matter whether you were a baldrick or a baron,every englishmans home was his LAWFUL CASTLE.
Even kings couldnt enter your home without permission,evrybody knew this inc his own footmen.Now
every mans home is his LEGAL PRISON.Not all barons and nobles were greedy selfish inbreds. Usurping assholes are a billion a penny, honourable people are rarer,and that meant something back then,thats why the PEOPLE gave consent for the barons and such to run the show, not blind faith,but through a proven track record of loyalty to the british people...
When monarchys changed you see, the laws were changed to suit the fuckwit on the throne, which usually started skirmishes and mini wars and general chaos, wereas the nobles would have to make sure the "law" was being obeyed, whether they thought the law was insane or not they had to enforce it,(on payne of death) just like today when a policeman kidnaps you and holds you to ransom on behalf of a fuckwit on the throne... I could elaborate all day
as my family have a track record going back to the 8th century, and along the way have gathered rare knowledge which will emancipate the british from eternal debt slavery to goatrapers.

p.s. The smoking ban is actually part of the codex alimentarious project of removing from society anything which stimulates the brain...or anything beneficial to the mind,body and soul.

Sackerson said...

Re 10 (Cestui Qui Vie Act 1666), see this from Yahoo! Answers:

Jimmy answered 12 months ago

When this Act was enacted in 1666 a large number of land owners took advantage of Britain's growing overseas land holdings to establish new estates in the the new lands. At the same time many men joined the British merchant fleet to which increased massively to address the new trade routes that were being established. Both these events meant that men were often away for many years and their homes and families were impacted by their departure. The Act was created to allow the families and tenants to seek through the courts a way to remove the barriers that prevented both those who rented land/homes and those who needs to be able to control land/housing from doing so.

The Act allows for an individual to seek a judicial ruling that if there was no evidence that an individual was alive and that they had been missing for seven years, then they were deemed to be dead. This freed up land and money that would otherwise have been locked awaiting the return of the owner.

The law also provided for the situation of a person deemed dead returning to Britain and how they could recover lost profits.

Your are correct to an extent that maritime law has a very strong influence on British law, however this influence is primarily in the commercial law area and not the general law.

We are not treated as property and the reason people are registered is simply to create a record of birth that allows the state to identify individuals and to monitor population growth, etc. A register is nothing more than a set of records.

If we were really "property" then there would be a document that set out who owned you (such as the documents retained by slave owners). The state does not create such documents. So yes you are taking your ideas too far.

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130430073232AAEOenk