Ooof I've got too much on today to do the research but Nail my warrant is signed by (the now retired) CC and my oath taken before witnesses (CO, ACC, friends and family) and a magistrate.

I don't propose that I have 'power' over anyone other than to protect life and property using the powers granted on me by the various acts of parliament, statutory instruments and common law. The country is policed, on the whole, by consent but this doesn't mean you aren't bound by the laws accepted as a whole by the population. You may not consent to not drop litter but on the whole the population doesn't like it thus we have laws for that kind of thang.

I must admit I don't know enough but I do find a few of these freeman type things quite funny.

As I said in an earlier post Pete, the first line of defence is always ridicule. That's why I turn it around and use it on those that presume 'authority' over me. Making people appear ridiculous draws the eye from the fact they may actually have a point. I must agree some of the Freeman stuff is surely the produce of those funny fags they smoke, but I don't smoke 'em, and I'm not a freeman. This won't be a freeman debate.

You'll see the relevance of your oath later on Pete, I will come to it. I'm not surprised you are not well up on this stuff, as in fairness most coppers are trained in statues, as that's their 'tools of the trade' so to speak. Law is the reserved of barristers and judges etc.



Yep, that’s it. Put simply, that's the difference between Common Law and Statute law. It's difficult to put my case forward without using a long and complicated premise, and the indication that Pete would wish to research his side of things could mean that this could turn into a debate in which nobody really explores anything other than to recite various statutes. Pete’s busy, and I’m busy too at the moment so let’s simplify it.

What I hope to show is where I believe things are going wrong, and why. So as not to exclude anyone from the debate, here’s a quick clarification of how our law is constructed. Pete, at any time please feel free to chip in if you disagree on any point. So let’s (over) simplify stuff so that all here can follow it. Let’s start right at the beginning with a loose definition of Common Law and Statute Law.

Common Law.
Law derived from custom, and formulated over many centuries. Based on the premise that the conditions of life are so simple and so unvarying, that any decent sort of rules should suffice, so long as men know what they are. The basic principle of common law is all are equal, and that no person shall cause to another HARM, INJURY or LOSS. That’s it!. And when you think about those three things they encapsulate everything.

Harm – May be physical or mental, it may also be psychological such as with intimidation.

Injury – Physical or non-physical. i.e. Injury to a reputation by slander etc.

Loss – Theft of course, also larceny, dispossession, or sequestration.

The advantage of law based on Custom, is that it is the first check on tyranny; that fixed routine of social life by which modern improvement is impeded, is the primitive check on base power. The disadvantage is that it doesn’t minutely describe each offence into an easily deciphered ‘crime’.

Statute law.
Statutes are not Laws, but rules, by which society may be guided. Statutes are Acts, articles of legislation passed by Parliament that are said to be given the force of law by the consent of the governed. The government cannot make Laws it can only pass legislation - Acts.

The advantage (to society) of statutes is that they can be used to react to the changing times, and they can more sharply define an offence. The disadvantage is that they are incredibly complex, and therefore not usually understood by the common man. They are also open to manipulation and abuse. Statutes can be introduced that are politically motivated for example, and due to such abuse we could find our rights removed, and our freely held opinions deemed ‘Illegal’. Once something has been deemed ‘illegal’ by Parliament, you can then be arrested, charged and possibly imprisoned for it.

Finally. When a statute has lost its purpose, as in the case of Joolz shooting Welshmen with a bow and arrow, it is said to have fell into abeyance.

Ok so far? Right, I’ll go and paint the kitchen ceiling.

The beauty with an act of parliament then is that it has to be tested by the courts, which is why lawyers hunt around desperately looking for cases that they can go before a court and test it. So pretty much every statute or act has been tested in common law.

The police/agencies use acts but apply them based on guidance passed onto them by lawyers who have studied and applied the rulings in the various cases that are tested. If a judge one day turns around and says in ratio decidendi or obiter dicta something which would appear to alter the law or wording of statute then that would it would need to be further tested or appealed by a superior court.

Thus in my eyes at least; the law is the law.

What about all the literal/golden/ the other one i've forgotton for my exam rules that mean depending on the judge, the ruling can be completely and utterly altered? Never really understood it, but yeah.

Of course. Law is the Oozlum bird of the sciences – in that it can only travel forwards by looking backwards. It makes progress by looking where it’s been, in order to decide where it’s going.

The thrust of what I want to get across is not so much about the system we use, but it’s susceptibility to abuse. I’m absolutely convinced that there are lawful or political doctrines extant, that on paper work superbly. The only fly in the ointment comes when you add human beings to the equation. So when a statute is passed to the benefit of some or other business or political party, you as a Policeman then enforce it considering it to have been tested and proved in common law.

The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all, but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others. For example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses , which the rest of us do not have .

A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statute is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable.

Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation. A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (ho ho ho) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.

Therefore the option to withdraw consent to governance is built in to the framework of the law as a safeguard against tyranny, which is why it is much derided by those of ill intent, or ignored by those that find it an inconvenient truth.

At this point may I also express my thanks to the mods for allowing what could easily turned into a political rant to continue. I know I can be aggressive in argument, but that’s not the idea here. What I would like to do is explore certain preconceptions and hold them up to the light, and we’re lucky enough to have Pete here who can offer his own perspective. Hopefully we might all find it interesting.

Time for a second coat on the ceiling...

Luvin it - bring it on

HFS!! When offroad goes wrong!
Who says Health and Safety is a bad thing?

Health and safety isn’t a bad thing Smiffy, just the twonks that interpret it.



I’ve had to edit this post to cut it down as I noted an error in your previous reply Pete, I then forgot to put mention it.

My understanding is that the assumption that any one individual has the ability to give consent on behalf of another isn’t correct. In law there is no idea of ‘general consent’, only the assumption of consent, or presumed consent.

This means that if an individual who is presumed to consent, acquiesces, (another interesting word) then he has given tacit consent. Put simply your consent is assumed because you do not protest. To ‘acquiesce’ is to consent tacitly i.e. to consent without stating it directly.

If somebody assumes authority over you and you do not protest then you will be deemed to have consented by acquiescence. This is where we get the legal maxim Qui non improbat, approbat - He who does not disapprove, approves.

As the first principle of common law is that all are equal to kings, all are therefore sovereign individuals. This principle basically means that what is mine is mine, and it can only be given away by me, and not by any unauthorised person or proxy on my behalf. Therefore ‘general consent’ cannot exist, only presumed consent.

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I happen to think that no knowledge at all is exactly where they want you. You need just enough intelligence to push the button on your machine, fix the engine, install the plumbing – whatever it is you do, and that little bit more to do the paperwork afterwards to enable them to take their taxes, and that’s it. Go home - watch X factor!

I don’t know the exact figures but I believe that during the Blair government they introduced something in the order of 3400 new statutes. Think about that... that’s 3400 more things that you can now be fined for that you couldn’t before. Wow.

That must mean one of two things, either for the past two thousand years common law didn’t work, or that the government has now introduced greater control of our freedoms, while simultaneously increasing its source of revenue.

Hmmm...Wonder which one it is?

OUCH!! That video is a bit mad.

Good driving to save it though, if he'd rolled it off that bridge it might have been expensive.