Temperature trickery

During the late seventies and early eighties our lab looked after a small weather station on behalf of the Met Office. We logged rainfall, snow, temperature, sunshine hours and every now and then a chap from the Met Office would collect the data.

All data was hand written of course and ever since climate change came to be such a hot topic I’ve often wondered how reliable it was. In my view those far off days have something to tell us about historical data and the fact that it was collected and transcribed by people, not automated instruments. Historical protocols and historical behaviour – a minefield of unknowns.

To record daily maximum and minimum temperatures, we used a simple max/min thermometer housed in a wooden Stevenson screen. Every day someone from the lab would read the two temperatures, write them down and reset the thermometer.

If we missed a day, which happened occasionally for a variety of reasons, then the Met Office chap would nag us about it when he collected the data, look up a temperature record of the nearest station to ours and insert the readings into our record. He once told me that this was standard procedure – they didn’t accept incomplete data.

Yet at the time the data was fit for purpose, although that doesn’t mean it was fit for a far more tightly specified purpose dreamed up decades later.

In those days nobody knew that such temperature records would one day be used to justify global political decisions on energy policy. Nobody knew that long term temperature changes of less than one degree centigrade would acquire such dramatic significance.

Not that our station was ever likely to figure in these games I hasten to add. It closed some time ago. I’m merely dredging up some memories to highlight the tricky nature of historical temperature data. Stripping off some of the gloss you might say. There is a lot of that in climate science.

For example, our thermometer was never recalibrated. I’m sure it was checked before being installed, but even simple thermometers change over time and today it would be regularly calibrated against a certified standard. Ours wasn’t - ever.

Apart from the unknown condition of the thermometer, how many errors were made by people who took the readings and wrote them onto sheets of paper come wind, rain or snow?

In my experience, scientists are reluctant to take cognisance of human error even for highly uncertain factors such as historical and somewhat loosely defined protocols. Yet the historical global temperature record and our evidence of recent warming relies on such data.

Were the protocols and equipment used my lab capable of detecting a small temperature rise over a century?

One degree? No.

Two degrees? Doubtful.

Three degrees? Maybe.

Of course this is merely my opinion. I don’t actually know and neither does anyone else. Nobody can go back and calibrate our thermometer, review the protocol we followed and audit the way we followed it. There are some things we could do such as comparing our record to the record of nearby thermometers, but is that sufficient to detect small long term changes?

Taking the wider view, are we able to estimate such changes from long historical records based on protocols not designed for that purpose? Always assuming written protocols were used of course - and what about calibration facilities? How many were calibrated against the equivalent of NPL standards? Some? A few? None?

Yet in terms of time span, manual surface temperature records derived from a range of old and possibly dubious measurement protocols account for at least two thirds of our surface temperature record for the past century.

Note – this post gives an excellent insight into the pitfalls of temperature measurement.

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.

Albert Burgess: Loyalty vs. Treason 2

Winston Churchill said in 1938, "This country breeds a type of man who is very well educated and highly intelligent, who think they know best. They can't help themselves: they always commit treason."

Such a man was Edward Heath. He thought he knew what was best for this ancient Kingdom. He was wrong, of course. Traitors are never right. Heath as an Englishman and as Privy Councillor had an absolute duty of loyalty to this Kingdom.

So what did he do?

Edward Heath was tasked by McMillan to carry out negotiations for the United Kingdom to join the European Economic Community, for entirely the wrong reason De Gaulle said "non".

When he became Prime Minister Heath was determined to take us into the EEC at any cost. Sir Con O'Neil, our chief negotiator, was told not to negotiate but to accept whatever the French offered. Sir Con O'Neil coined the phrase "Swallow it whole, swallow it now".

The laws which prevented our membership of the EEC had already been removed: the Act of Provisors was repealed in the Criminal Law Revision Act 1948, and the Act of Praemunire was repealed in the Criminal Law Act 1967. The way was now clear for Heath to commit high treason.

But how did he go about it? The first thing he did was to contact a man named Norman Redaway who worked at the Foreign Office in a department called the Information Research Department, which during the Second World War was known as the Office of Strategic Services. Redaway was a spook. Heath asked him if he could change the mind of the British people and Redaway said he could do that. He needed help and he got it from a man named Anthony Royle.

Did Heath know what he was doing? The answer is yes, he sought advice from Lord Kilmuir the Lord Chancellor. His advice is in this letter*:

 

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/rp2010/RP10-079.pdf

 (N.B. This document is no longer on the Parliamentary website at that address!)

They set up a conspiracy designed to subvert the English Constitution, which is the major crime of sedition, and at this level of sedition an act of high treason. And to hand this Kingdom lock, stock and barrel to a foreign power the EEC was the major crime of high treason.

But how to do it? First, organized breakfast meetings at the Connaught Hotel in London; these meetings were attended by Government Ministers, MPs, the British Council for the European Movement and top people from ITV, the BBC and the national newspapers. At these meetings the media people were persuaded to remove all their front line anti-EEC reporters and to replace them with pro-EEC reporters.

They set up a department in a back room of Chatham House where five people wrote thousands of letters all purporting to come from people like you and me, every letter saying what a great idea this EEC was; but the IRD did not have a facility to distribute them, so they were distributed to the central offices of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties and the British Council for the European Movement. They got them signed and sent to the letters pages of the news outlets. By this method they completely skewed the public’s perception of what was best for the Kingdom and themselves and their families.

Heath also asked the Foreign office what effect joining the EEC would have on Britain. They told him it would mean surrendering powers to govern to a foreign power, and taking on foreign laws.

So both Lord Kilmuir and the foreign office knew it would mean surrendering powers to govern to a foreign power, Lord Kilmuir saying this had never been done. Of course it had not, because to do that is treason. The Foreign Office went so far as to say, "It is important for our politicians to get positions of authority in the European Parliament, ready for the day it takes over.”

The rest, as they say, is history, Heath is dead; others are not. Our job now must be to reverse this ongoing treason by putting on trial the surviving members of Heath’s machine. In order to do that, check our website: www.acasefortreason.org.uk.

________________________
* Slightly edited copy of the text - from here - is as follows (apologies for the odd line breaks, caused by pasting from pdf):

RESEARCH PAPER 10/79

Appendix 2 Letter to Edward Heath from Lord Kilmuir, December 1960

I have no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of sovereignty [...]
Adherence to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three
ways:-Parliament would be required to surrender some of its functions to the organs of the
Community; The Crown would be called on to transfer part of its treaty-making power to
those organs; Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of independence by becoming
subordinate in certain respects to the European Court of Justice.

(a) The position of Parliament

It is clear from the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council of
Ministers could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into force)
make regulations which would be binding on use even against our wishes, and which would
in fact become for us part of the law of the land. There are two ways in which this
requirement of the Treaty could in practice be implemented:-Parliament could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council made regulations requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply with our obligations under the Treaty if Parliament abandoned its right of passing independent judgment on the legislative proposals put before it. A parallel is the constitutional convention whereby Parliament passes British North America Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada; in this respect
Parliament here has in substance, if not in form, abdicated its sovereign position, and it would
have, pro tanto, to do the same for the Community.

It would in theory be possible for Parliament to enact at the outset legislation which would
give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by the appropriate
organs of the Community. For Parliament to do this would go far beyond the most extensive
delegation of powers, even in wartime, that we have experienced and I do not think there is
any likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons.

Whichever course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal the
relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the assumption that
entry into the Community would be irrevocable; we should have therefore to accept a
position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments than it has in
practice to abrogate the Statute of Westminster. In short, Parliament would have to transfer to
the Council, or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers of
legislating over the whole of a very important field.

(b) Treaty-making Powers

The proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some extent
fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties, such as GATT and O.E.E.C.,
restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties and I should not regard it as
detrimental to our sovereignty that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make
tariff or trade agreements without the Council’s approval. But to transfer to the Council or the
Commission the power to make such treaties on our behalf, and even against our will, is an
entirely different proposition. There seems to me to be a clear distinction between the
exercise of sovereignty involved in the conscious acceptance by use of obligations under our
treaty-making powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our cession
of these powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state’s treaty-making powers on
an international organisation is the first step on the road which leads by way of confederation
to the fully federal state. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily carry us
very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step and one for which there is no
precedent in our case. Moreover, a further surrender of Parliamentary supremacy would
necessarily be involved: as you know, although the treaty-making power is vested in the
Crown, Parliamentary sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law
or the imposition of taxation (to take only two examples), and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend our domestic laws.

(c) Independence of the Courts

There is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer questions of law
(even in a limited field) to another court and – as I assume to be the implication of ‘refer’ to
accept that court’s decision. You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered
in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it. I have no doubt that
the whole of the legal profession in this country would share my dislike for such a proposal
which must inevitably detract from the independence and authority of our courts.

Of these three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must emphasise that in
my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious ones and I think that, as a matter
of practical politics, it will not be easy to persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I
am sure that it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of the objections to them.
But those objections ought to be brought out into the open now because, if we attempt to
gloss over them at this stage, those who are opposed to the whole idea of our joining the
Community will certainly seize on them with more damaging effect later on. Having said
this, I would emphasise once again that, although these constitutional consideration must be
given their full weight when we come to balance the arguments on either side, I do not for
one moment wish to convey the impression that they must necessarily tip the scale. In the
long run we shall have to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifice
of sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it is that we are being
called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/rp2010/RP10-079.pdf

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.

Institutional warmism

Following yesterday's post about serialising some of John Cook's rebuttal pieces, the comments have persuaded me that I should continue putting them up in the shooting gallery.

But before I do, some other points and a request:

1. First, I need to make it clear that the comments I received privately were certainly not aimed at censoring Cook. But the depth of feeling in them clearly signalled that something has gone wrong in the academic debate on climate change.

2. As he himself says, Cook himself is not a climate scientist - his specialism is physics - and his site was set up pro bono by his lights as a convinced global warmist. Further, he says he "has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups." So he is not to be accused of having stymied anyone's career in climate science, or taking some rich man's shilling. When one glances around the internet he does seem to polarise (that wasn't intended as a pun) the participants, because of his (as some see it) excessive assertiveness;  but one has to remember that Skeptical Science is intended for the public and so oversimplification is bound to be a hazard. 

What gave me pause was the obvious - and surprising to me - strength of sentiment provoked by Cook, who appears to stand as a symbol of the triumphalism of the pro-warmist camp generally. And even in the comments to my related post yesterday, there are mutual insults and imputations of improper motive and so on. There is a level of tension that makes liberal suspension of judgement and bilateral respect very hard to sustain, and so I wondered whether it was worthwhile airing the discussion if all it achieved was to see the air thick with brickbats - "hooligan's confetti".

But this has led to another issue: what is causing this level of acrimony? There is smoke drifting over the hedge, and I'd like to see where the fire is.

I don't think it's just to do with disagreements over the truth. It's something to do with vested interests of various kinds, that's clear enough, and I'll be glad if anyone is willing to get down to specifics rather than generally tarring the other side as mercenary scoundrels.

That's my first request: specifics on conscious bias. While keeping an eye on libel laws, can anybody really show that someone has sold their integrity, instead of simply being funded for an opinion they had anyway?

And my second is about bullying and skulduggery. What evidence (if any) is there that people on either side have been leaned on or otherwise unfairly treated for not toeing the line? Is there any case where fervent revolutionaries or cold reactionaries have gone too far, and (in career terms) employed Stalin's maxim "no man, no problem"?

If you feel you can help, please contact me in confidence at wved@ymail.com. It will be very useful in getting the background - or the underlay - to this most contentious subject.

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.

The Hierarchy

Folks,

Before I continue with my overview of the Freeman movement, I thought it would help if you knew your place in the world.

This is about The Hierarchy. Or more vitally, where you fit in the scheme of things. It is the single most important thing you can, or will, learn. It came to me late in life, but if you are relatively young, as you read these words, it will change your life. At least, I hope it will. Most of us do not know how powerful we are. This is deliberate. We are dumbed down on purpose. If we knew just what we were, instead of what we think we are, we could, and would, run rings around anyone we come into contact with. Primarily I mean the government. The police. In fact, anyone who works for the government. As long as they are, or claim to be, an agent of the government. When they clock off at 5 pm they are just like you and me again. They are human once more. But as long as they wave a badge in your face, you are dealing with the government.

However, once you have worked out where they sit in the hierarchy, the game changes. I am deadly serious about this. I defy anyone to tell me I am wrong.

You ready for this?

Alrighty then.

This is the pecking order:

1. Your God/your Creator. Stands to reason, does it not? Even if you aren't religious, TPTB are. Every oath taken has god in there somewhere.

2. You. Your creator made you. No-one else did. You report upline to him/her.

3. Dogs, cats, birds, cows, horses, dolphins, whales, penguins, aardvarks, skunks, chipmunks, gorillas, lions, tigers, giraffes, two-toed sloths, dung-beetles, flies, maggots, earthworms, amoebas and bacteria. (And every other species living on the planet today).

4. The government. And ALL of its agents. Companies and corporations. And all of its agents.

Did you get that? The government, and all of its employees, like tax collectors, policemen & women, customs officers, prison officers, parking wardens, ministers, prime ministers-and anyone who works for them, rank lower than bacteria. Lower than a simple amoeba. This not an insult, by the way. It is a statement of fact. It is indisputable.

They are agents for an entity made by man. The government itself is a thing. It is an artificial construct. It is a legal entity. It does not have a heart that beats. It does not have eyes that see. It does not have limbs that move. It does not have a mouth that speaks. It does not have a brain that thinks. It does not have blood coursing through its veins. It is inanimate. It has no life. It has no life force.

You have all of these things. Maggots have all of these things. Flies have all of these things. Dogs have all these things. Skunks have all these things. Things that put them squarely in the "living" bracket.

You are supreme on earth. Once you get to your version of heaven the game changes. Or, if you are an atheist, it matters not. You remain supreme, whether you believe in a god or not. On earth, you are at the top of the tree. You outrank every politician, every minister, every judge, and every officer of any company or corporation. They are merely extensions of the thing they made, and what made them can be unmade at the stroke of a pen. You cannot be unmade in this way. To unmake you, your life has to be ended. Likewise, you were not created/made at the stroke of a pen. It took a miracle to make you. I can buy a company off the shelf for £80 in the next twenty minutes. It's that simple. You are not simple. You were not simple to make, and you are not simple to run. You are a complex life-form, with complex needs, wants and emotions. For a corporation to function, all it takes is an idiot or two. (Or a genius or two, depending on your benevolence).

And yet, and yet we allow them to shove us around. To lock us up at a whim. To taser us. To beat the crap out of us. To stop us from travelling whenever they want to. To take over half of our money every week, every month, every year, for decades. To tell us what, and where we can smoke. Or drink. Or eat. To watch our every move on millions of CCTV cameras. To trap and store every personal email we ever typed to friends, to families, to loved ones. To steal and transcribe every telephone conversation we ever have. To tag us. To fine us. To control us utterly. And the worst thing of all? We pay them to "make" us do these things. We pay them willingly enough. We comply. We consent. We permit these atrocities.

Now that we know where they rank on the ladder of life, will you allow them to continue? Will you just roll over, bend over, and will you submit to them, those that rank lower than bacteria, ever again?

Or will you say no? Will you take control, and responsibility, for your life, the only life you're getting, for three score and ten years, or thereabouts? When you think about it, they, the government, need us. Very badly. Without us, they are finished. Without our money, they are finished. Without our consent, they are finished.

Would it be a bad thing, if that thing called government was eradicated? Would we miss it? We'd certainly be richer. We would, finally, be keeping all of our sweat equity. We would decide all on our own, to smoke, or to not smoke, to drink, or to not drink, to eat, or to not eat, to spend, or not to spend. To defend our homes and those we love in a manner we decide to be appropriate. To carry weapons, or not to carry weapons. To create our own courts, to appoint our own judges and juries. To appoint our own peace keepers. To decide for ourselves whether our children can play "tag"  or conkers in the playground. To decide when, if, and for how long our public houses open and serve beer. To decide whether we really need cameras watching us as we walk around our communities. To decide if we wanted to pay the workshy to laze around while we did all the work. To allow, or not to allow people from foreign lands to live and work on our lands. To make war with other countries, or to make peace instead, and to work out our own trade agreements with other communities, or other countries. To allow thugs and villains to roam our streets or to punish them according to the new rules set by our own communities, where everyone in it has a say.

Our government steals from us. All of our lives. And not only do we condone that theft, we encourage it! Sure, we'll pay £1.20 for a litre of petrol that costs 3p to make! Sure, we'll pay £3.00 for a pint of beer that costs 20p to make!! Sure, we'll pay £6.50 for twenty smokes that cost 30p to make!!! Keep adding to our burden, and keep easing your own. We'll pay!! And when we want a pension after chipping in to the fund for forty years, sure, you just keep moving that retirement age further away from me! I can work longer! And when I get sick, and that doctor says I cannot have treatment, sure, I'll just wander away like I should, despite paying for the service all my life!

There comes a time when you have to weigh up the costs and the benefits. I just did that, and the burden on me is grossly unfair. I can't complain because I agreed to it all. I agreed because I did not disagree.

I am disagreeing now. Finally, I am saying no. No more. No more will you get.

I say this, and I say it without ego, without arrogance, and without malice: I am in charge of my life from this day to my last day. No more will I submit to a thing.

No more.

My life. My rules. My law.

My choice.

Made freely, in a way only a sentient human being can.

CR.

PS-Some of you may have seen this post before on my old Blogger site.

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.

Should I continue to publish John Cook's Skeptical Science pieces?

I have an apology to make - I think.

On Monday, I commented on David Rose's piece in previous day's Mail on Sunday. His series has been tagged "The Great Green Con" and his contrarianism (with which I have no issue in principle, being awkward myself) has been expressed in a provocative style that may help sell newspapers but doesn't do much for the spirit of liberal debate. In fact Rose seems to go so far out of his way to rile that I mistakenly thought he might be Johann Hari, who did at one time use the name "David Rose"; I am sorry for the error, but I have little trust in newpapers any more and believe some of them capable of taking a black sheep back into the fold if it helps boost circulation. My bad, as the Americans say.

Rose's piece seized on the increase in Arctic ice cover as some sort of touchstone proof that the global warmists were wrong. So I cast about for some alternative explanation for this seemingly awkward fact. And came across a piece written by an Australian academic called John Cook, who described a plausible mechanism whereby ice at the other end of the world might be increasing as a result of global warming. He kindly agreed to let me republish here, and to use other material if I wished - and so I planned a series of his debunk-the-debunker pieces to run for a month or so, with the idea that it would stimulate and inform debate.

I didn't realize that I had gone pogo-sticking into a minefield.

Having left college nearly forty years ago, and only as a student, I had forgotten what I'd heard about how sharp academic controversy and rivalry can be. At Oxford, votes in the election of the University's Chancellor can be checked against the name of the voter, and careers have (it seems) come to a screeching, permanent halt just for backing the wrong candidate. I supported a friend in the last vote and found out from Who's Who that another candidate, Lord Blake, was also head of the Electoral Reform Society, which (I think) is in favour of secret ballots; my friend told me that when he was going round radio stations on the stump they treated him as an entertaining joke until he raised this point, and then he could hear the producer screaming "Cut!" into the interviewer's headphones.

Now it seems that climate change is an issue that can scarcely be discussed at all. Adherents on either side overstate their case and denigrate the opposition - deplorably like some of the politicians that infest our Mother of Parliaments. It was Andrew Neather who revealed that Labour was happy to encourage immigration partly because it would "rub the Right's nose in diversity" (though the implication of that metaphor is quite unpleasant, when you come to consider it).

Anyhow, it may well be that careers in science have also been blighted by backing the wrong candidate (would Richard Dawkins be fair to a Christian graduate student under his tutelage, I wonder; perhaps he would). And there's money in grants and lobbying to be had on both sides, too.

So the odium theologicum rages strong in this field. Alerted by very unhappy (private) comments about John Cook, I looked for evidence that he is considered extremist or over-eager in his advocacy. His site (Skeptical Science) is certainly assertive, just as Rose's articles are, and really I've been brought up to think that science is always tentative and provisional. And so like Rose (who I think is not himself a scientist, though he has chosen a scientific subject) he invites debunkers.

Which is what I was hoping for. A backs global warming, B rejects the theory, C (Cook) tries to debunk the contrarian, D (I would hope) picks holes in the debunking.

It seems it's not quite like that. The temperature of the debate is melting everyone's cool. At a milder level, the site WattsUpWithThat features a number of articles about Cook's claims, including a recent dissection of his assertion that the overwelming majority of scientists believe in global warming; on the same issue, two other writers leap to his defence in The Guardian.

But it can get much, much worse than that. Some of the comments on The Guardian's website, reacting to David Rose, are simply psychotic. There's a lot more mental illness around than we realise; people talking with a mask on lose their humanity, it seems.

Well, I had planned a series of Cook's pieces and let people take reasoned and factual pot-shots; but I didn't intend for anyone to be seriously unhappy. I came from a family that was prepared to argue about everything - Mother voted Labour, Father Conservative (why did they both vote, I wondered) - but retained that sense that anyone can be wrong about anything. We kicked the ball around in the air, but never at anyone's head.

As far as climate goes, either it will stay much the same for the rest of human history, or get warmer, or colder (either of which could have serious consequences for us); the truth matters, even though we may not be able to predict it, and if we are helping make the environment more dangerous, then we should do something about it - if we can; but maybe we're not, and we can't, or shouldn't. But surely honest and mutually respectful debate (from all sides) has the best chance of discovering something like the truth, and helping us make decisions that are less wrong.

You'll see from the Energy and Climate page that the sidebar has links to both camps. But should I continue to print Cook's pieces here on this main page, if all it does is increase heat without light? I'm sorry if that's all it's done.

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.

So, You Want To Be A Freeman?

There is a great deal of confusion surrounding this movement. Hopefully this post will clear some things up.

Firstly, the term 'Freeman' covers men and women.

The full term would be Freeman on the Land. This is deliberate. It refers to law, or more specifically, common law and natural law (God's Law, if you prefer).

Why on the "land"?

Research, years of it, collectively, shows us that the UK (and the USA and others) operate on Maritime Law. Maritime Law is comprised of statutes. Statutes are plastic, Natural Laws are solid gold. Natural Laws concern rights, whilst Statutes concern benefits. The difference between the two is monumental. This should be obvious: statutes are created by men, and are therefore much less valuable than God's Law/Natural Law.

Each time a policeman asks you "Do you understand?", and you say "Yes", you just swapped all of your rights for benefits. You also surrender yourself to the bobby and you have just used Contract Law. You have entered into a verbal agreement to 'stand under' his/her authority. You really, really, really should not do this.

Case in point: last year I had cop after cop showing up at my house to deal with a speeding offence. (As explained in my last post, I wanted to be difficult). When they finally decided to read me my rights, after which the cop said "Do you understand?". I said "No". He asks, "Which part do you not understand?". I said, "All of it". He asks me, "Why don't you understand?". I replied, "Because I choose not to". "Ah", he said, "So you know what the phrase means then?". "Yes", said I.

It's a small thing, at first glance. Seemingly unimportant, but it threw the bobby for six. I had gone off their script and he was clearly unsure what to do next. His partner, (the designated 'bad cop') said, "Then we will take you to Fraserburgh police station to continue the questioning". I said, "Let's go. I have nothing else to do today". (Fraserburgh is a good 1.5 hours away. Why they couldn't take me to Banff (8 miles away) I never did learn). The good cop said (to his partner) "There's no need for that. Not in this case".

This, is essentially what being a freeman is all about. It's about not understanding. It's about not consenting. It's about retaining all of your rights. It's about refusing to accept benefits.

How do you go about becoming a Freeman?

Simply research the movement, read up on the do's and don'ts, discover the difference between legal and lawful, send off a NOUICOR* if you wish, and start thinking and behaving like the free soul that you always were. It's an attitude as much as anything else.

This kind of sums it up:

*a NOUICOR is a Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right. Your autograph needs to be witnessed by three good men and true, or by one Public Notary. If  it is unrebutted after you send it off to the PM, or the Home Office, or your local Chief Constable, (or you can send it to no-one at all), it becomes law. Your law. Mine has been in force since 2008. In it, I revoked my consent to be governed. No-one disputed my Claim, and in law, if no-one disagrees, they agree.

So you now know that I am in Lawful Rebellion, and you know that I am a Freeman. The two are not connected. I just decided to notify Mrs Windsor that I was in Lawful Rebellion, and I chose to notify one Gordon Brown and later, one David Cameron, that I had revoked my consent, lawfully, to be governed. Neither wrote back to me. Neither of them disputed my witnessed Affidavits.

You can choose either path but be aware that they are quite different.

Freemen believe that their research proves, beyond a doubt, that when we were born, and our parents registered our birth, a legal fiction was created. This is indisputable, and I will explain why later. They also believe that shortly after our birth, a Bond is created. (The average value of the bond would appear to be around 1 million pounds for a 'working man', but considerably more if your anticipated lifetime earnings are themselves in the millions). The government of the day sells the bond to the BoE and is advanced whatever you are deemed to be worth. These Bonds are then traded on the international stock market, and mine, for instance, is said to be worth 70 or 80 million pounds by now.

Caveat: I have found no hard evidence of this Bond. The theory though, makes a great deal of sense.

Freemen know that we have been bankrupt since the Napoleonic Wars. Since then, the UK Debt Management Office, in cahoots with the Treasury, have operated a double-entry ledger system. Money in, money out, no profit shown. What does that mean, in practise?

Case in point: I was sent a demand by HMRC for 5K. It was in the form of a letter with one of those little giro things at the bottom. I filled in the boxes, added my autograph, and sent it back. They sent me a letter saying "You forgot to put in the cheque". I wrote back saying, "No, I didn't. I animated the bill* by adding my autograph. It is made out to cash. Take it to the Debt Management Office, their accountants will know what to do with it". They didn't do as I instructed and they sent another 'bill'. I repeated the process and sent it back to them. They wrote back saying that I hadn't paid. Again. I said "Fair enough. Send me back both giro-slips so that I can destroy them". They either wouldn't, or couldn't. The giro-slips are used to take payment from your 'Bond Account'. When they wrote again demanding payment, I said "I have already settled this account. I have paid you twice". They never contacted me again after that. This method of payment is called "Accepted For Value". Google the term to learn more.

*Bills-If you read (and you should) the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, you will learn what a Bill should look like. I haven't seen a proper bill in years. Perhaps decades. At least, not from the government. Nor have you, probably. In the Act, it clearly states that an offer accepted after 14 days means that the payment is settled. Since HMRC took several weeks, and in one instance, 3 months to reply, according to the BoE Act, the debt was paid. I could (under the terms of the Act) have offered bananas, potatoes, furry hats, or funny balloons as payment and if the offer was NOT rejected in time, then the offer stands as settlement.

Interesting factoid 1: If you should have bailliffs at your door demanding money, walk them to the pavement, take a witness, and ask them what it is all about. No doubt they will mention the amount owed. Make sure your witness heard it and then thank the bailliffs. It is highly unlikely that they will have read the BoE Act of 1882, so you can gently explain to them that the debt is settled. They will look perplexed, until you further explain that according to the act, a private debt spoken of publicly is automatically settled.

Interesting factoid 2: If  you have a Debt Recovery Agent at your door, first ascertain the amount they are after, then ask this question: "Did you/your company buy this debt from XYZ Ltd (the company you allegedly owe)?" If they say yes, simply thank them and close your door. Again, according to the BoE Act, they have settled the debt for you. They chose to pay off your bill. Be grateful, and send them on their way.

The Legal Fiction thing

As our courts operate under Maritime Law, they never see people. They never see human beings. They can only deal with legal fictions and corporations and limited companies. I am none of those. I am alive. I am animated. My heart beats, my lungs breathe, my blood flows, my arms and legs move. A legal fiction/corporation sole/limited company can do none of these things. So when a court calls your 'name', they actually want to do business with the fiction created shortly after your birth. As an experiment, next time you are in court, when they call your name, say "I am acting for that fiction". (It will cause apoplexy, but do persist). The judge/magistrate/sheriff will demand that you step forward (either into the dock or to the counsel tables) but you should refuse, insisting that you "wish to remain on the land". This messes them up entirely. Once you 'crossed the bar' you just left common law jurisdiction and stepped onto the high seas so that they can nail your fiction with Maritime Law.

It is fascinating stuff, but because it is so involved, I will end it here and continue with a second post in a few days time.

Please ask questions, or if you prefer, you can visit www.FMOTL.com and have a look through the various sections they have.

All I ask is that you keep an open mind, for now. It is very easy, having done no research whatsoever, to dismiss this as madness.

If you are fair about it, you will discover a lot of sanity in this fledgling movement.

CR.


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.

The Armageddon text

Today, Yorkshire people in Easingwold will be the first place in the UK to receive sample disaster warnings by text message to cellphones.

What emergencies can you envisage (the Daily Mail suggests nuclear or terrorist attack), and what would your suggested message be?

Would it be available in dialect, slang, textspeak?

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.