Freemen

Burnsy2023

Burnsy2023

Burnsy2023

Man of Honour
Joined
17 Nov 2003
Posts
36,747
Location
Southampton, UK
I loathe to post a thread about conspiracy theories etc but the topic of 'freemen' has come up on another forum and they really do stun me.

Basically, the crux of the matter is that they believe they are exempt from statute law, only common law is enforcable.

Here's a site detailing their beliefs: http://www.tpuc.org/

And here's the thread where they pop up:

http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=97131&st=0

I find this really frustrating and enormously silly.

Opinions? Looneys or do they have a point?

FYI, yes I realise that to post in this thread you need to do some research, please make educated posts, any spammy posts will be deleted.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
That they only wish to adhere to certain parts of society. I find that selfish.
Click to expand...
From reading their website, it's very difficult to understand what they're trying to achieve so I can't really comment. What ever it is, disregarding great swathes of English law doesn’t seem a particularly good way of going about things.

Having said that, if they're prepared to use peaceful means to argue their point I'd say they well within their rights to do so. Even if the police do find it an inconvenience.
 
Last edited:
You got to admit the UK is becoming little by little a police state.
Like in brum centre you can't be in a crowd now so to get around it the people got to the churches where the police can't do anything.

Also I used to love going to the old out door market in brum in my dinner hour
to listen to people on thier soap boxes talking about all manor of things, now thats banned :(

And if them Freemen want to do things by peaceful means they can.
And don't get me started about the mini me's.
 
The idiotic "Freeman" movement originated in the USA (as you'd expect) and has recently developed an equally stupid British following.

The morons who buy into this little fantasy flatter themselves that they understand the law of the land better than the professionals who write it, interpret it and enforce it. They then proceed to create their own little make-believe world of hideously misinterpreted "common law" on the basis of their flawed and highly limited understanding. They're the sort of people Dolph would be if he hadn't had a secondary school education.

On a related note, it was interesting to see the number of cops on that thread who pointed out that the guy was wrongly arrested on the false charge of breaching the peace. I know cops are under a lot of pressure to tick boxes, meet quotas and achieve targets, but it really drives me up the wall when I see them blatantly lying just to get another arrest under their belt. What's even more irritating is that they probably won't even be disciplined for it.
 
Evangelion said:
They're the sort of people Dolph would be if he hadn't had a secondary school education.
Click to expand...
Ouch :eek::p

Evangelion said:
On a related note, it was interesting to see the number of cops on that thread who pointed out that the guy was wrongly arrested on the false charge of breaching the peace. I know cops are under a lot of pressure to tick boxes, meet quotas and achieve targets, but it really drives me up the wall when I see them blatantly lying just to get another arrest under their belt.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
bunch of idiots think they know the law :p should have applied to use the megaphone then he wouldnt have had it taken off him like a child, which would have prevented him for crying wolf which inadvertantly got him arrested.
 
Anyone watched 'Silencing a freeman' on the first link?

Sorry OP I need to keep reading before I comment further, but will comment in this post.

Edit: Need to do a lot more reading but I can see where they are coming from, statue law does cover us without consent. Well, our consent is our birth. Which really if you think about it not consent.

what if i want to live in this hills with no civilization but just happen to be born with an ID in the UK? your caught by default anyway, which is of course a very long designed social construct. it still comes down to an individuals consent, which can't be given by the person at that age.
 
Last edited:
Mentalists. I'd love to know how they're paying their webhosting bill, given that presumably they object to earning money in any way that would result in them being subject to taxes.
 
vonhelmet said:
Mentalists. I'd love to know how they're paying their webhosting bill, given that presumably they object to earning money in any way that would result in them being subject to taxes.
Click to expand...

I've not read anything about taxes yet, it seems to be criminal law or statute laws that are mainly in contention here from what I've gathered so far.

Mentalists brought a grin! :)
 
Last edited:
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Woodes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q.v.) and aliens, (q.v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and ********, when examined as to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.

I'd say they have a point imo. I have no choice in becoming a person in soceity. This is made for me at birth. If I want to live only as a man or human being I cannot.

I think the guy has been reading but really isn't anywhere near 100% in his arguments, or correctness. in the video I watched he's still a plonker.

/devils advocate
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom