Coppers on CH 4 this week - freeman on the land

[Fr0dders]

Did anybody watchi this weeks coppers on monday ? for those that didn't its available on 4OD - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/coppers/episode-guide/series-2/episode-6

There were a number of people trying to claim in this weeks episode that they couldn't be arrested because what was being quoted to them was a statute, and was thus not lawful.

Of course the police arrested them, and the court charged them anyway proving that this freeman on the land nonsense about statues not being lawful is rubbish.

But can anybody actually explain the concept to me ? why exactly have they decided that statues aren't lawful. I've seen the websites that quote all this stuff, and don't quite understand how they jump to the conclusion that because a statue is not common law, its not enforceable ?

 

[antijoke]

Wikipedia.

 

[Durzel]

The long and short of it as I understand it is that these people believe that laws are a contract and that as they have not consented to be bound by them that consequently they don't apply to them.

 

[RomanNose]

I watched it, I mean that guy in a suit who was arrested should not have been imo. Yes he was drunk but he didn't look like he would be causing a problem on the street. A real shame that the police have to deal with such minor crimes all the time.

 

[LOAM]

I think the biggest reason is that the people that they usually end up arresting are semi literate ****** up gobby morons who like the sound of their own voice.

I live in Nottingham and this year the city has retained its purple flag status as a safe city and it makes me cross that our poor police have to deal with these idiots in our city centre.

 

[RomanNose]

I think the biggest reason is that the people that they usually end up arresting are semi literate ****** up gobby morons who like the sound of their own voice.

I live in Nottingham and this year the city has retained its purple flag status as a safe city and it makes me cross that our poor police have to deal with these idiots in our city centre.

Personally I see it as a complete waste of time to arrest them if they are taking the mick. I would rather them staying there and arresting people who start fights.

 

[Richie]

If you fail to deal with the idiots taking the **** out of the police then the respect for law and order declines beyond it's current gutter level it is at just now.

Have a think about what people do when they push boundaries and get away with it...

 

[LOAM]

Personally I see it as a complete waste of time to arrest them if they are taking the mick. I would rather them staying there and arresting people who start fights.

But you cant, other than the very valid point made above, these people will often be the ones that go on to start the fights later in the evening.

 

[cheets64]

I saw it, most of the time the police just nick them so they can spend the night in a cell and ruin their night, no need to be arsey with police.

 

[Simian]

If you listened just before the credits the narrator said "its a Statute AND a Law!"... so the mouthy bloke was wrong!!..

Plus he claimed he was a Squaddie and 'Faught for this country... blah blah blah..." if so he's in sooooo much trouble with his commanding officer!!.. Dis-Honoring the name of Her Majesty's Forces etc...

 

[SKYNHEDD]

semi literate ****** up gobby morons who like the sound of their own voice.

Sounds like you are describing the average officer, rather than the average drunk.

 

[semi-pro waster]

The topic of Freemen on the land comes up from time to time on here, one of the most recent threads is here but don't worry if you're not quite getting why something being a statute means it is unenforceable - there's nothing to get as it's just plain wrong.

 

[Burnsy2023]

It's great when you remind them that the Magna Carta is a statute. They don't like that.

 

[Nitefly]

It's a rubbish argument which has a ropey logic with absolutely no basis in practical reality.

 

[The1nonly1]

I watched it, I mean that guy in a suit who was arrested should not have been imo. Yes he was drunk but he didn't look like he would be causing a problem on the street. A real shame that the police have to deal with such minor crimes all the time.

nobody saw what went on when he arrested him, he could have been drunk and disorderly but calmed down after

 

["andy"]

Watch some of the freemen court vids on you tube. Often entertaining. Either with idiot hippies or idiot judges

 

[DiCe!]

I find it funny that people say "oh the police are gobby etc" ive never had any problem with the police...maybe its my ability to not break the law and not gob off....but we will never know!

Respect the police and they respect you, its very simple.

 

[Richie]

I find it funny that people say "oh the police are gobby etc" ive never had any problem with the police...maybe its my ability to not break the law and not gob off....but we will never know!

Respect the police and they respect you, its very simple.

What is this old fashioned word "respect" you speak of? Doesn't exist in today's generation of self-entitlement.


As the guy stated at the end (not verbatim but very close):

"we have went through a social experiment within the UK, where people have been allowed to do whatever they like. If children are raised in this environment then they believe they can do whatever they want as adults. They have no respect for others or decency"

Well said that man

 

[DanielMMS]

There were a number of people trying to claim in this weeks episode that they couldn't be arrested because what was being quoted to them was a statute, and was thus not lawful.

Of course the police arrested them, and the court charged them anyway proving that this freeman on the land nonsense about statues not being lawful is rubbish.

But can anybody actually explain the concept to me ? why exactly have they decided that statues aren't lawful. I've seen the websites that quote all this stuff, and don't quite understand how they jump to the conclusion that because a statue is not common law, its not enforceable ?

Freemen, or whatever they want to call themselves, rest their views on a few concepts. Firstly, they extol the differences between something that is LAWFUL and something that is LEGAL. LAWFUL implies authority or sanction by law (or perhaps not forbidden by law). LEGAL implies performance technically in accordance with the forms/usages of law. So a statute, being an Act of Parliament, could be legal but not lawful since it would not be based on law. In fact, I seem to remember reading something that they consider the only valid type of law to be Common Law. Which is complete nonsense.

Secondly, they believe that each individual has a right to consent, or otherwise, to be governed. Therefore, for a statute to be valid upon them (since they have already decided that statutes are not law) they would first have had to provide their written agreement. So they would have had to sign off each individual statute agreed by Parliament in order for it to be binding upon them. This is also complete nonsense. The legitimacy of a government - and, therefore, their ability to bring into force statutes that are binding upon a country - comes through the general consent provided for them to rule. An individual cannot withdraw that consent without removing themselves from that country.

So, basically, Freemen are people who essentially know nothing about law, present a pretence of knowledge and then attempt to lead and educate other ignorant people facing criminal charges to put forward an invalid defence.

Idiots.

 

[LOAM]

Sounds like you are describing the average officer, rather than the average drunk.

I've never met a drunk officer to be honest. In my 12 years in Nottingham I have nothing but praise for their police force. I would imagine though there are some bad ones like there is bad people in every job.

The whole freeman thing always makes me laugh, they live in a society that is based on law If they wish to operate outside of that law we should deport them, if they have no country to goto we should just tip them into the sea 20 miles out. They can go and be "free" out there where they aren't causing a nuisance.