Does that also apply to companies working out of Germany via a website? whatever happens whether UK law applies as they are selling to UK customers, or German law applies as they are selling from Germany. it'd be the seller who has to contact the courier to find out what's happened. is there any way that you can contact the courier and find out what happened?

I disagree, since capita providing a list of addresses to all companies would just give all companies information that that house wasn't registered. it'd be an easy case of crapita falling outside of the data protection act. my ISP is virgin, if I didn't have a TV license then they can talk to Virgin to find out what IP addresses I've had, as they are my ISP and with a court order they'll release the addresses. if they talk to all other UK internet providers then they are just letting every man and his dog know details that they shouldn't know. -like the person living at that address is unlicensed. plus as lots of addresses aren't static they are dynamic you might find out that an unlicensed house had an address, that then gets passed to a licensed house who watch TV and unlicensed house get clobbered. should be fairly easy to figure out the times, but most people being accused of this probably aren't going to be able to prove a thing, and the ISP isn't going to be helpful to them... I agree the method that you've given is the simplest, but it's also the one that's going to open capita up to the most challenges regarding appropriate use of information and data sharing etc. I think that what is being overlooked here is what Buzby said earlier. it's no whether you have a TV and DO watch live broadcast, it's if you have a TV CAPABLE of watching live broadcast. as discussed before, you can have your TV just connected to a DVD player for watching films, but if the enforcement people see that it's still capable of recieving live broadcast that's where the problem is... people have successfully owned TV's for years without a license and without breaking the law by removing the tuner circuitry, i.e you remove the capability. some people report that just removing the antenna and blocking the socket is enough to convince the inspector people that you;re not receiving broadcasts. now back to PCs... if you have a PC connected to the internet then you are CAPABLE of receiving live broadcasts. what you'd need to do is render yourself incapable by way of a firewall that blocked live streams from the major UK providers.

I realise that you're not the only person who is avoiding taxes. but you are still taking from the communal pot in one way or another, and you freely say that you put so little in. I can understand that it's possibly to survive without money, indeed if you have land and grow your own fruit and veg you could be fine. question: how will you buy the seeds you need without money? Also, lots of food takes a long time to grow, I planted my veg out a few months ago, and I've got little more than immature plants at the moment. what are you going to eat whilst you're waiting for the food to grow? Technology and infrastructure? i work in technology, and if you think I'll work for potatoes then I've got a surprise for you. As much as i agree with the more "hippy" aspect of what you're saying, sow and reap, if I'm working the land and having to plant my own potatoes, forge my own tools etc I'm certainly not going to sit in front of a computer screen making sure that the various systems running this infrastructure (which I can only assume would be the only remnants of the "system") are still functioning. what work do you do without pay? Good diet, and sensible lifestyle can only be determined by a balanced education. you understand that right? to know what a good diet is, first you have to be told what a good diet is, and taught the science behind it. as for education, I'm lucky, I'm the first person in my family to have gone to university, it wasn't easy and I had to work all the time whilst I was there to get through it. thanks to my free education (provided by the state) I was able to extend myself to further education, and now as such have a more comfortable job and lifestyle than anyone in my family. my father for example is a gardener, he has always done this, his life has been hard, his life is still hard and he'll have nothing when he retires. I work in IT, my life is relatively easy, besides some interesting "thinking" problems, I earn enough that I'll end up being able to take care of my parents. My father can barely work a computer, he's not thick, far from it... the point is my father taught me to make things, he's a craftsman, he taught me to weld and fabricate with metal, he taught me woodwork (far beyond what was taught in school). he taught me to grow food and maintain a garden, he taught me (as I used to go to work with him) how to build roads/driveways/lay bricks but he could have never home schooled me to the point where I've gotten a degree in engineering. He could have taught me to read and write, but really only just. being responsible for your own health? so when your kids are sick what are you going to do? I'll take mine to the hospital, and you? what'll you do? ask around your freeman mates to see who might have rescued a medical text book out of a bin? then you can sharpen up your pen knife and get ready to have their appendix out? no, you'll take your kids to hospital, once more you'll take from the system because it suits you. I do like that people can choose to home school, but to be honest sometimes letting people like yourself teach your kids all this messed up and incorrect stuff is bordering on child abuse. I went to an OK school and left with a fairly good knowledge of all of these things. with the exception of survival, ,i'll agree that's not on the national curriculum! we learned food and farming in science, food technology, history and geography. banking was covered in maths. spirituality and meditation was covered in religious studies. dance was covered (weirdly) in P.E arts were quite comprehensively covered by technology, art, drama and music lessons. All of these things were compulsory at the school that I went to. why are you worried who does what with the pavements? you don't think that the pavements are paid for out of taxes too? you don't pay taxes then you don't get a say in how the infrastructure is used I admit car ownership, and certainly single occupancy is selfish. you don't understand what I was saying. It's completely impractical to not use currency, it's a light and easily transportable way of exchanging goods and services. Lets say that I want to live your way of life. now to work the land I need a spade. spades need, metal, wood and a craftsman to make it. so, I can either turn up at the spade makers cabin, with a large block of metal, a section of tree, and some mixed veg, -in other words I re-reimburse him for the materials with more materials and furbish him for his time and the fruits of his labour with the fruits of my labour... alternatively instead of carrying around lumps of metal, bits of tree and sacks of veg. I can take a promissory note. a note that says thank you for your spade that you've valued at X amount. here is X amount... then he can bring that note back to me at a later date when I can give him equal value in vegetables. or his can swap that note with the guy who fells trees to make the handles for a load of wood, and the woodsman can then come to me with the note to get the vegetables. you think that you can do without money thanks fine, I'd like to see you try (and fail). as for myself, much as I'd like to be living off the land, one aspect that I definitely would keep is the received wisdom from thousands of years ago, Money. to let you know why this system of banking and lending isn't a problem as you are trying to say that it is. Going back to the start of the problem, before I can grow my veg, I need to have the spade, but I can't have the spade because I've got nothing to trade with... thus I go to a friend and he says, I'll lend you the money to get the spade that would have cost say 100 potatoes, you give me 110 potatoes back and the end of the year. this works well for me, I can get my spade now, and will be growing thousands of potatoes, so loosing ten over and above what I'd have lost just buying the spade isn't a problem. the guy who wants the 110 potatoes (so 10% interest) isn't being greedy, he's being clever, he's clearly not only lending potatoes or money to me, he's lending it to loads of people, and he needs that extra return from me so that he'll not loose if any one of his investments (spades he's bought for other people fail). for example my friend down by the river, he had a bad year a flood washed away all his potatoes, thus the money lender saw no potatoes, the money lender is taking a risk and is beng rewarded for that risk. now lets say that the money lender is a friend. who trusts me, yet doesn't trust the would be carrot farmer, I say to the money lender. "I need to buy a couple of spades" he knows that a spade costs 100 potatoes, so 2 costs 200 potatoes, he gives me 200 potatoes worth of money and I promise to return 220 potatoes to him at the end of the year. The carrot farmer them borrows 100 potatoes worth of money from me, except he's calling it 100 carrots worth. now I need 110 carrots/potatoes back just to break even as I have to return the 10% extra to the money lender so I tell the carrot farmer he can have the 100 carrots worth of money, but he'll have to give me 120 carrots back... (now the 200 has turned into 220 being returned from me, and the carrot farmers 100 has turned into 120 being returned. an extra 30 potatoes/carrots have appeared from somewhere). this is the same as your description of fractional banking, person a lends person b money and charges interest, person b lends person C money and charges interest. the difference is that my example works, it's exactly the same, just with my example I realise that we don't have an entirely service based economy. if at the end of yours you added and then the black smith who borrowed all the money at the end bought loads of metal and forged a million horse shoes you'd see that at the end of the chain in fact, even though more money was generated with the increasingly complex levels of lending that it all worked out in the end because more physical products were produced to give the currency value. sometimes there isn't enough produce or physical assets created to fill the value of the money created, sometimes there is more than enough, that's why we have inflation and deflation. That's about as simple as I can make the example to tell you why the (money) system does actually work. you miss the point, it shouldn't have to. I can see this, if I stopped paying tax, then I could affrd to pay off all my debts and stuff. and make a load of sayings so I could afford to disappear... if I could get someonbody else to pay for ever part of my life and also work and never give anything back, my life would be loads better, -doesn't make it the right thing to do though. you can practice off road without a license. if you get a provisional license and do a CBT you'll be fully allowed to ride on the roads with L plates for 2 years on bikes 125 or less. (not allowed on motorways though). you could find a smaller bike a bit cheaper. I thought that £600 to get a coupe of hundred kilos of metal forged into a complex machine, then delivered all the way from China to my front door was bordering on the kind of bargain that was only a once in the life time event. I think for £200 you might find someone who's perhaps got an old bike that they've used offroad and never had registred on the road. you could also buy in parts off ebay, buy an old frame, buy and old engine, buy some old wheels and bolt them all together. Tell me, is your problem being registered on the system or paying road tax (VED)? it'd be better for all concerned if you got a license, I know that it'll cost a bit, but it really will ensure you're a better rider at the end of it. the sad truth is that cars have minor shunts all the time, there's no such thing as a little acccident on a bike. one moment you're on the bike, the next you're going along the floor at near the speed you were travelling on the bike. people in cars have a huge metal box around them, people on bikes just don't. All joking aside, if there is one thing that I do urge you to do properly it's the training aspect. get the training and get the license. As I said before, Get your vehicle properly checked at an MOT station, you're not qualified to say what's safe, and as much as I like working on my own cars/bikes I'm not qualified to say what's safe. there are MOTs in this country for a reason, -it's to stop fools like me thinking that their badly done fixes are good, they ensure the safety of your vehicle for all the people around it... as far as tax goes... if your bike is 125 or less the tax for the year is only £15... but if you really hate the idea of contributing to the system so very very much then I suggest that you buy a pre-1973 car/bike as these are tax exempt. you don't pay for tax, you just go to the post office and get a new zero revenue disc to put on the window each year. -plus if you get a pre '73 bike you'll find it a lot easier to maintain yourself. Do you believe that judges would act unfairly otherwise? Do you think that they could be leaving due to the fact that you've just insulted them and questioned their fairness, and that to carry on the trial at that point might cause them to be unfair, so they just ajourn for a while to calm themselves down? in the knowledge that i've done nothing wrong I would be happy to enter any court. but that's because I've done nothing wrong according to any law, statute, common, natural, or universal laws... and until they make getting on with your own life according to the law illegal then I won't have done anything wrong. I do see the point of what you;re saying, don't hurt anyone and you're alright. sadly there are more ways to hurt a person than you see. as I said earlier you choosing to duck out of paying for the system and choosing to gather from the system hurts everybody who contributes more in your place. and if we all chose not to, then there would be no system, we couldn't take places anywhere as there would be no roads. there would be no peace as there was no policemen (or peacemen as you like to call them). there would be no hospitals so the sick would die in the streets. does this really sound like a better place?

They are correct, you can't insure what isn't yours. you'd need to get your parents to insure the car with you as a named driver. you may be able to ask for third party only insurance as that's not insuring the car, that's insuring the public against your actions.

I suppose in the vaguest of ways this makes sense. You step into the sea and the judge who would be harbour master, puts a lien on your vessel (which is your body). it makes sense in the same way that someone might pleased to be a druid and thus be except on the battle field due to ancient or universal law. The Mayor of London v Hall & Ors [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB) (29 June 2010) (in other words it makes no sense unless you want to invent a concept and then twist it about until it's unrecognisable and generate an entire made up back story to suit your means and claim it's a conspiracy so that you can get what you want).

Again the idea that it's actually insulting to be paid in tokens for a days work is a Marxist theory. in some ways you are of course right, the idea that you should work for a day to only be furnished with bits of paper for your efforts. but the fact is that currency was invented for the reason that it's difficult to carry a few tons of metal and a million potatoes that I might want to trade with a skilled craftsman when I need to buy a car. The currency is a promissory note that you carry and exchange for goods and services. (it even says as much on the paper money).

To be fair it's not only him that's taking the thread off topic.

standing outside of a court pretending that you have even the faintest idea about the law isn't working. You don't force me to work, you just force me to work harder. as I said, I enjoy my job, and I enjoy working, lots of people in the world do actually enjoy working, practically nobody in the world enjoys paying taxes, you force my taxes to be higher because you refuse to contribute. you cause me harm. I'll say it again, YOU CAUSE ME HARM. how do you console that about your natural law beliefs about not causing people harm? you do cause me harm... so what we have here is that you say that so long as you cause people no harm, you're ok, -that is in line with your common/natural/universal law? but you free load off the state and the hard work of other people, causing all other people who do work harm. i don't believe that there is a natural law of the universe, but if there was I think that not taking advantage of other people (in any way) would be a core rule. you don't live by natural law, because you do take advantage. you take from a welfare system designed to protect the weak. you could work, you could contribute, but instead you decide to take money from a communal pot that's not meant for you. you choose to harm me and others who do work by forcing us to pay higher taxes, and you harm the weakest in society by stealing money from a system that should have been destined for them. your cycling doesn't help anyone out, you cycle because you don't have a car, nor license to drive a car or motorbike. not for some greater good. a positive solution would be everybody contributing towards society and the system, and whilst you're not contributing towards the system yet still expecting to take from it, I do this it's a very positive action that those who avoid tax such as yourself are chased by the system. do you not think that if you did pay your taxes that'd increase the budgets available and possibly, just possibly might lead to improvements in society? if you and your other free (loading) men of the land friends paid your taxes, perhaps the roads wouldn't be so bad you live in luxury because you refuse to work and constantly only take, as I said before you force the rest of us to be slaves. I agree with what you are saying though, but that's a completely different system to what you talk about. the idea of every man from his means and every man to his means is Marxist ideology, (which I happen to agree with -but that's a completely different discussion). but your ideals about not paying taxes, if anything reduce the aid budgets that can be given to other countries. by refusing to contribute to the system you hurt people on a national scale who have to work harder to support you, and you hurt the poorest on an international scale as there is less wealth to send to other countries. even if you did believe in Marxist ideology, and you intended to live by it, you've failed at the first hurdle. the kind of communal society that you're hoping can exist if only we overthrow the current powers can only ever be achieved if you really believe in everyone to their means and everyone from their means. in a nut shell it basically means that if you're fit and strong you should go out an work, you should provide from your means. if you're sick and unable then you should receive help to survive, every man to his means. Sadly in this country although we have state socialism in the form of welfare and healthcare, then people such as yourself abuse this with your always taking (possibly beyond your means) -i.e you take more than you even need. and your never giving to your own means at all. further to that EVEN IF you wanted to abolish the current system of law, you're not going to do that by just making up new laws, bending the truth about existing laws and generating conspiracy theories about how governments print our hidden birth certificates on expensive paper.

I've heard that theory about birth certificates, people reckoning that when you register a birth that you're giving permission for the state to take away your child, you're signing them over to the state. and yes, someone may have been stupid enough one day to confused birth and berth as the same word, but it still doesn't explain why it matters whether courts are admiralty or not. or why anyone should care... I was expecting the answer to come back that admiralty courts can only deal with boats, and so people/persons/human/legal fictions whatever you want to call it can't be tried in a court. but it seems it's just a name, and has no bearing on the function, so it's literally just a conspiracy theory then? that has no legal bearing, and no actual substance. just one thing to mention, in the bit earlier there words were listed off and it was pointed out how simillar some words are like the dock in port, and birth and berth, and how you have a legal document called a passport... the passport one really isn't a conspiracy, it's a pass, that enables you to travel through ports. isn't this exactly what you wished for? with no documentation or supposed birth/berth certificate or bond? but you can see how not having it is a massive problem?

yes, I'm immensely proud that i work each day. and paid Taxes on the money earned and have done since I was 16. (not that I would look down on anyone who hadn't through no fault of their own). I'm immensely proud to have contributed to the system that made me. after all it was the school system that I attended that taught me to read and write, and express my views, it was the school system that made me who I am today, it was the health system that cured me when I was sick and the dental system that gave me check ups and looked after my teeth, it was the police who kept me safe at nights. it's the system that give my grandparents money now that they've retired to enable them to live, and it's the system that make the roads I use everyday to get to work. it's the system, all the system, and if you ask me it's doing a pretty bloody good job, I am proud to be a part of a system that has done so much for me, and does so much for other people. and I don't understand why you are not.

If peace 2k isn't coming back then can anyone else try to explain what he meant by courts being admiralty courts? What would the type of court matter to the justice dispensed there? Or whether justice could be dispensed there?

that goes against everything that I believe in. how can you console with yourself that you should use the roads services and shops that us tax payers are providing? you say that your natural laws say cause no harm. if you don't pay tax, and yet still take services you cause me to work twice as hard, you are causing me harm. you cause me phsical hard as I work harder and am exhausted, you cause me emotional harm as I work longer and don't spend as much time with my family and you cause me financial harm as I have to pay to support your free loading arse. So the way I see it you have two options. in order to stop causing me physical, emotional and financial harm... opt out of society completely, don't use the roads, don't use the shops, don't use the water that comes out of a tap and don't use the electricity services, also whist the government is funding BT to get broad band infrastructure you're going to need to stop using the internet too. don't contribute and thing,? then don't take anything... your other alternative way to not cuase me physical, emotional or financial harm is to get a job and contribute to society through paying taxes if you don't pay taxes then let me know when you end up in court, and when you ask who you've caused harm to I'll happily stand up and say me and all the other poor buggers paying tax that are your slaves, working to support you with no return from you! we aren't slaves in society to society, we are equal partners with society, we give work and receive services, if we are slaves at all we are slaves to people like you who would take the fruits of our labour without ever paying for them in any way shape of form.

I guess that we don't think alike, I like my job. and enjoy doing it. I see nothing wrong with falling back on the state as a welfare safety net when you've hit unfortunate times and lost your job or become ill. but you seem to be saying that you;re fine with it being a lifestyle choice? do you understand how crazy that sounds? the only thing special about bond paper is how difficult it is to forge, that's why bonds shares and money are all printed on that special paper. your birth certificate is neither special nor important, they aren't sitting about printing birth certificates on special paper then locking them away out of site so that nobody could get at them. ask your self, what would be the point of printing a birth certificate on bond paper? the bike I bought cost £600 off ebay, brand new delivered to my door completely unregistered with the only record of ownership being the import documents. the make was a Lifan, and the engine size was 125cc. I bought it on ebay, the shop I bought it from has closed down and started up under new ebay names more times than I care to remember, it should make me think that they are dodgy, but the bike was great, their payment was easy, their delivery was faultless, the service was great. I can't fault them, I think that the actual company is called something like LSI imports and they're based in Portsmouth. there are of course other importers, and if you and a load of your freeman mates got together you could always contact the factory and arrange for a shipping container full of unreigstered vehicles to be imported at an even cheaper cost. with regards getting your friends to give you lessons, you'll need to take a CBT test before you;re allowed on the road even as a learner and you'll need a provisional license for this. you can get insurance from some providers that insure on the frame number, indeed I had to use one of these providers as you have to have the vehicle insured before you can register it as you buy tax when you register it. with regards the MOT theory that you put forward, checking it yourself would likely not be a dilligent enough measure unless you're a mechanic yourself, I'm guessing that you're not, which means that you're not qualified to make that assesement. you'll be on the road, unregistered, untrained, unlicenses, un taxed, untested and uninsured (you could take out insurance, but this would be invalid when your insurers found out that you were using the vehicle illegally). and you'd soon find your self an unfreeman of the system. still you already said that you consider policestations as hotels, so prison should be no worry for you. it'd just be like a holiday right? I think that they will, you think that they won't, let's remove all doubt, go with a big amount, or a more restricted drug So you don't believe what you;re saying then? honestly, if there is nothing wrong with having a drug (any drug) and it is not causein harm to anyone else then what have you got to fear? we've talking about having an inanimate (yet controlled) object in your pocket. you say that it puts you in danger, but if your theories are correct surely there is no danger? I'm sure that some people would say that I shouldn't be encouraging you to break the law, but I don't think that you will anyway. because as if stands, you're another arm chair acivist who likes to get stoned and think of a free world where we can all do what we want. -without thinking of the consequences. I'm not doubting that the oaths are correct. I'm asking what the point of trying to hold someone to the oath is? what does this achieve? the fact that you don't know what you'd say if the judge answered "yes" surely shows that there is little point in asking the question, it seems to achieve nothing. other than halting proceedings for a few minutes. Again, can you tell me why it makes a difference? I'm actually interested to se why these points that you're saying are law are actually supposably effective? what difference does it make whether a criminal court is an admirality court or otherwise, there are still laws (common laws and otherwise), and it you break those laws you're tried in a court. what does it matter who owns or runs or what type of court it is? yes, of course, when you take out a mortgage the bank put a lien on your house. when you owe someone a lot of money they could apply for a lien on your house, it's just a security. when you talk about unalienable rights I'm not sure that they even exist in this country. if you've committed a offense that you are fined for the courts are able to talk almost any measures, including sending bailffs that would register interests on your property, -if not just take it outright. this doesn't work. if you choose to select a statute that you want to use then you're choosing to be a part of the system. you can't pick and choose. that makes it sound like it's all about free loading. these services that you are talking about, you freely admit that you use them, like you ride your bike on the road, yet you say that you refuse to pay for the road. it's not that I think it's a lawful obligation to contribute to society, it's that I know it's a matter of give and take, not just take. fundamentally, you're quite right, I'm not more entitled to life that you are, If we were standing in line I couldn't tell you I was more important than you and push in front. but you're also fundamentally wrong, exams knowledge and training does make people more important that others in a given situation. that's why people choose to get lawers rather than express the opinion themselves. that's why when i talk about people licensed to instruct the bar, it's people who excell in their field and are educated to give a professional opinion as fact that could decide a persons (or aliving entities if you prefere) future. -and they excell through education and prove that with exams a lot of the time. that's why a qualified MOT tester is able to say if your vehicle is safe, and yet you arenot qualified to give that opinion. I still don't understand the importance of an Oath and what difference it's going to make to your trials. essentially the oaths are "I'll do a good and fair job", are you suggesting the judges won't unless they absolutely promise that to you. incidentally if you asked me "are you on the square?" I'd probably give you a funny look to and thisnk "are you on the ****?". actually we're not, there are even laws governing what we can and cannot express. I would assume that the natural law that you abide by would also forbid just expressing any old opinion without thought of the consequence.

I was expecting a punchline about French cars immobilising themselves by breaking down

you might find some advice in this thread. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dvla/264343-dvla-taking-me-court.html assuming that the bailiff didn't sign the form then there was no way that you could have sent off advising of a change of keeper.

or buy brand new and already unregistered. or buy a vehicle that was never registered... even so, you'd still only be able to use these on the road to a dedicated DVLA place to get a SVA done. ready for you to license the vehicle properly.

don't forget about those that are licensed to instruct the bar also, they aren't representing themselves, but they are considered trust worth enough to give correct and independent advice. are all these people corrupt and in-on-it too? ('ll give you a clue, this is a lot or ordinary professionals and the answer is no, they aren't in-on-it)

no, there are two types of MOT certificates (licenses if you prefere to call them that) that are granted to bikes. bikes that are fully equipped with lights get a regular license, and can be ridden on the road at all times. bikes with no lights get a day license and can only be ridden when lights are not required in ordinary driving/riding/self conveyance -call it whatever you like... you can't get an MOT without a car being registered, (there are of course special exceptions). and if it's registered it should have a plate. the plate forms a part of the test, so no plate no test pass. if you were feeling really brave, I'd suggest booking your unregistered bike in for an MOT and walking away without a certificate but with a document from the tester saying that he'd consider it safe (if you could even do such a thing). that way when you were stopped you could at least show that you took reasonable measures to make sure that your vehicle was road worthy. again I'd also suggest a few hundred hours of tuition, but you can't do that as you wouldn't have a provisional license anyway... at the end of the day you'd be riding untaxed barely tested with little to no actual tuition, you can get insured on the frame number, indeed when I bought my bike it was straight off the ship from China and I insured it on the frame number before registering it, a year later they automatically renewed and I had to get all my details updated and new insurance docs with the reg number sent out before I could buy a tax disc. anyway, without a license you can't be insured anyway and you would get stopped as that's illegal (not just the insurance, but all of the above). personally, I don't know. but lets not get too far off topic. no, take a huge bag, an ounce at least. take a small amount and they'll tell you to go away, take an ounce, or a half ounce neatly divided into small bags and they'll arrest you on suspicion of dealing. if you're going to play with fire then grow some balls, do it properly, but don't cry too hard when you get burned. better yet, just carry some heroin, I'm not suggesting you take it, just posses it, just tell the police office you've got heroin about your person, or a big bag of pills, in fact take as many drugs as you can and we'll see what happens. this one plant thing comes under that same thing I was talking about earlier with the taking a tiny amount of the drug to show a police man. -is it worth the time? Fill your house with plants and lights and watering equipment and we'll see what the police think? a good example is a police man might watch you steal a single grape from a supermarket and do nothing, yet if you try wander out of a shop with a TV under your arm [that you didn't pay for] they'll likely stop you In the United Kingdom, these licences are issued by the Home Office under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. industrial hemp still contains the active ingredient of the drug hemp, (just the strain used for drug hemp has more of it). thus industrial hem still contains the drug (though tiny amounts) and is therefore still a drug, and only grown under license.

group a cars are always small hatch backs, usually Daewoo Matiz in all the experiances that I've had. just how big were you expecting a 1.0 car to be? it's not like they make 1 litre estate cars. you can upgrade the car that you want as a courtesy car if I recall correctly, you could perhaps have asked for a group B car, which'd normally be 1.2 - 1.6 sized engine cars that are usually bigger in size... Basically, you'd find it difficult to prove your injury was caused solely by the car, and you were advised of the sized car that you'd be getting. and you could have requested a different car when they delivered the courtesy car. if this has really been such a problem then i'd suggest that you contact your insurance company and ask them to make sure that your cover car will not be a small car and must exceed the group a (1.0) range of cars. you'll likely have to pay extra though.

Can you explain this Oath and why this defense is supposed to work? the oaths page that you linked to did very little to clear in my mind why this would be the case, not least because it says that the oath is "I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law. " And also says something about how they are meant to protect you, yet the only oath that says anything about protecting anybody is the police oath, and you say you're trying to use this on a judge... can you explain how/why this is supposed to work? can you let me know what your unalienable rights are? I searched for the phrase and could not find anything in UK law that used the phrase. correct me if I'm wrong, but are you basically saying that you'll tell everyone about all of this, but are a bit shaky over whether it works, so you're looking for proof? I believe all the proof you need that it doesn't work was posted earlier in that the thread starter ended up in prison.

To put it simply, if the judge was corrupt as you are alluding to, then why wouldn't he have just carried on regardless?? Your argument seems to be that the legal system carries on as is because they all speak a suspiciously english though not quite english language, that we can't understand... If we can't understand it then why would it matter at all if the public were there in their own blissful ignorance? Do you not think that a much more likely explanation is that the judge stopped the public attending as they were being disruptive, and after all your "yeah well the law doesn't apply to me man because I don't want it to" crap had already disrupted proceedings enough? Somehow I knew when I started reading this thread and all this free-man-o-the land crap came up I knew it's all be some stupid excuse to smoke weed. VIN plates are a manufacturing mark, they are used in the registration of a vehicle, and are an identifying mark that could be traced back to the registration, but if it were possible un-registering a vehicle and then using it on the road unregistered would still be illegal. On a bike there would not be a VIN number, but there would be a frame number and an engine number. Off road bikes can be registered on the road, (indeed I have one) -with lights and all so I can ride it day or night, if you have a completely off road bike with no lights then you are still able to rid on the road, just only in the daytime... I do I do it's not definitly not I accept it after getting a degree in electronic engineering during which time we investigated how this things work, did practical experiments to back up the theory. Perhaps if you really do believe in all this stuff then you should do a practical experiment to back up that theory... go to a busy street with loads of police around, wander around obviously smoking weed there... we could run a sweep stake on how long your "god given" rights to possess a "god given" herb on a "god given" bit of land last then?

will the disabled really bear the brunt? or will everyone be affected? I mean is this the only cut, the deepest cut or just the first cut? I agree, and think that the MPs should be leading by example by taking a 20 - 30% cut in salary, and their rules on expenses should be limited and restricted further. so that they can't just top up their salary at will expensing things.

That's what I said. In 97 there was a deficit. Bu we have not run a permanent deficit budget. There has been times (earlier in the 00's) when there was surpless in the budget. Yes. We're not like Greece, but comparing a countries budget to a household budget isn't that far off the mark. You can't borrow endlessly constantly running a deficit in your personal finances just the same as the country can't either. Incidentally I'm not criticising the spend your way out of recession method. It's tried and tested. I'm criticising the fact that the government put nothing away during the good times.

I think that I should explain that my answer was based on a little research and that's the best answer that I could find. I'm not a solicitor, and definitely not an expert in the matter. so my answer might be completely wrong... but as I understand it, whether it's tax credits, or housing benefits the income assessment is the same. based on regular taxable income, so the cash gifts from your aunt shouldn't count... I've just found another thread (oddly enough on that same forum) how much money b4 you have to declare it? - Netmums Coffeehouse they suggest that for HB you can receive up to £6k a year in cash gifts before it would affect your benefits. obviously you'd have received £7200 from your aunt, but as you only split with your ex in April and I assumed that he'd worked a couple of months after your breakup, then you might still be ok... (how many months has your aunt been giving you this money?). Even if you weren't that thread suggests that it's £1 in every £100 that you would loose from your HB, I assume it's £1 per month for every £100 per year that you get over the £6000 limit, so if you have received £7200 in a year you'd loose £12 a month. or that might be £12 a year, the thread doesn't seem very clear on the subject. Would be best to phone up the housing benefits people and try to find out?

Does anyone really think that if all benefit fraud was stopped,the "genuinely" disabled people would recieve more? I don,t think so. no, I don't think so either, but I'd like to this so... No we don,t,[need to make savings]theres always been a defecit,anyway scrap trident,pull troops out of an unwinnable war in afghanistan, so you don't think that we need to make savings but then go on to identify two areas in which you believe that we could make savings to tackle the deficit? of course we can always tax the rich as well... -but even the rish have a point at which they break. -also: we haven't always run a deficit budget or always been in debt? when the Tories started in 79 there was a massive deficit and debt, which was cleared. then built up again. when labour started in 97 there was debt and deficit in the budget which labour cleared. then built up again... if we always ran a massive deficit and always just had masses of spiralling debt as a country then other countries would just stop lending to us and we'd need to get bailed out by the IMF like happened (or nearly happened) to Greece. And just like what'd happen to you or I if we earned £1000 a month but spent £1500 a month through loans and credit cards, eventually the credit would just run dry and we'd be left with a giant bill. The trouble is that in previous years the governments have cleared the debt and balanced the books and kept a little aside for bad times. often not enough, hence the cuts needed during the recessions in the 70's 80's and 90's our last government balanced the books. but then instead of squirrelling a little away during the good times instead they publicly declared that they'd "abolished boom and bust" and never saved anything for the next recession. hence the severity of the cuts and tax increases needed for the recession in the 00's.