• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Freemen On The Land / Lawful Rebellion

Cochise said:
There is , at least in the UK, a semi serious point behind this. I was taught British Constitution at school. A subject which AFAIK is no longer taught. And part of that was that the law of the UK was made up of edicts going back as far as the Magna Carta, if not further. Recent governments going back nearly 50 years now have ignored those ancient rights and precedents.

But do those rights still exist? I doubt you'd find any modern judge or solicitor who would give them countenance, but have those precedents actually been abolished? And without them, are the current actions of Government even legal?
Click to expand...

Genuine question; What ancient rights and precedents which one might consider reasonable and/or relevant in the modern age have been superseded to the general detriment?

If I recall correctly, the great majority of clauses in the Magna Carta were concerned with the regulation of the feudal system, and as such, thank god, have little relevance today. There are a few key and extremely important exceptions - notably the requirement that all men have the right to the same forms of justice, via due process and the judgement of their peers. Also, there was considerable effort made to define under what circumstances property could - or could not - be seized. (See here: Clauses 39 and 40 are those generally considered to be universal and timeless and cornerstones of the law to this day. I'm not sure anyone's much vexed these days about fish weirs or the returning of the King of Scotland's daughters.)

All that aside, the almost universal application of the Freeman argument appears to be in relation to avoiding paying tax, or paying fines (especially for traffic violations), or paying child support. I'm not sure that enforcing the law in any of those areas is a contradiction of any lost and ancient rights. And if it turns out it is...well...that's good, surely?
 
Last edited:
We have in theory a Bill of Rights, set up in 1689. The so called “glorious bloodless revolution”, basically when William & Mary took over from James the Second. It’s worth a read & was the basis of the US Declaration of Independence & in theory nothing can be repealed unless reference to the bill itself is made in the new law. It includes the right to bare arms.

Somehow the Bill of Rights is conveniently ignored.

Incidentally, the original Magna Carta was annulled by the Pope at King John’s behest, that took about thirty days, the time it took in those days to get a fast horse & rider to Rome.
 
We are English, we don't recognise the pope.

I should have been more specific, it's not UK law it's English law in origin. And it starts with the decrees of Alfred the Great, a far more important monarch than the (probably mythical) Arthur.

I don't specifically support the Freeman arguments, but I have serious doubt that the UK Parliament is actually constitutional.
 
Cochise said:
We are English, we don't recognise the pope.

I should have been more specific, it's not UK law it's English law in origin. And it starts with the decrees of Alfred the Great, a far more important monarch than the (probably mythical) Arthur.

I don't specifically support the Freeman arguments, but I have serious doubt that the UK Parliament is actually constitutional.
Click to expand...
We did recognise the pope at that time, so Magna Carta was in theory dead in the water. It did however lead to other charters, normally at times of unrest, the Charter of the Forest, is one that comes to mind.

Oh & the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights was only for Protestants.
 
I could be wrong on this. I'm certain the UK is registered as a corporation so what ever was signed at Runnymeade has no meaning.
 
Cochise said:
The British Constit

The British Constitution IS written. Part of what I was taught. It's just not written in a single document. Which makes it very hard to repeal or supersede

There'd be no monarchy or parliament if either relied on a single document.

I did my archery practice from 16 until 42. Yes, proud to be a yeoman.

People get besotted by the US - we aren't the US.
Click to expand...
In reverse order:
4) I'm not besotted with the US. I'm not American. However, it is the most obvious example of a written constitution (including the amendments which have been added over the decades).
3) I know how to use a bow (poorly), spear, axe, dagger, and sword. Not because I think I'm a yeoman - or live in the medieval ages - but because I was a re-enactor. And, no - it's not only make-believe. That's theatrical fight choreography.
2) A single document can declare the installation of a monarch - or even a president (see USA). Apparently we're a democratic monarchy: the monarch lets our parliament happen, in exchange for the retention of a (practically) powerless monarchy. This was the outcome of the Restoration.
1) I've never ever heard of being taught 'the British Constitution' - not saying it doesn't exist, mind you - and I'd be interested in reading the composite written British Constitution. Also, if something is unwritten in law, it can be ignored. If something is written then it can be repealed and superseded. Laws are created by Parliament which is then applied by the judiciary. Who applies the British constitution? In this country, we put a heck of a lot of influence in tradition and ceremony. It also relies on the 'gentleman's agreement' - the behaviour which is expected and that which is NOT DONE. This unacceptable behaviour isn't illegal because no one (in the past) thought any 'gentleman' would think of doing it and so thought there was no need to enshrine it in law.

EDIT: Well I'm blowed! I just Wiki searched for the British Constitution and there's a large section about it. A notable start is the following:
The constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.
Click to expand...
So, technically, nothing is enshrined in the British Constitution since it has never been codified and therefore applied in law. The law only deals with that which is written.
 
Last edited:
If it is a number of different documents from different ages, including unwritten things, isn`t it a bit generous to call it a constitution?
 
TLDR: it must be codified in order to apply legally. If it isn't, but a collection of past agreements and documents that may agree or formulated by various bodies, then it's difficult to codify because the proposals must be cooperative or even applied.
 
Frideswide said:
Magna Carta certainly wasn't intended to apply to the Scots. Or women. Or the poor. Or most of the population of England.
Click to expand...
True. Scotland was a separate country then.

But we have to start somewhere. Incidentally England was more 'democratic' - i don't mean literally - under the Saxons 500 years before Magna Carta. My old mantra - not all change is for the better, not all progress is progress.
 
"written and unwritten"

Comes of using wiki as a source. For centuries we've applied 'common law' as law. It's unwritten. And the written bits, as mentioned , go back to Alfred the Great.

"constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body."

Again wrong. It predates the UK (and I apologise for my original misstatement) , The constitution is essentially the English constitution, amplified by actual political acts which certainly exist in writing that absorbed Scotland and Ireland. Poor old Wales was simply conquered.

Scotland, as surely all Scots know, retained many rights and many of it's own systems to itself under the settlement.

I fear it is all too compl3ex for the modern world, but dismantle it at your peril.
 
kesavaross said:
I could be wrong on this. I'm certain the UK is registered as a corporation so what ever was signed at Runnymeade has no meaning.
Click to expand...
This again!

We have this trotted out every now and then by people with a certain motive in mind...which eludes me. The story goes that sometime in the 70's, Australia was made a Corporation and was floated on the US Stock Exchange...

This allows certain individuals the right (?) to do what they want - as far as they're concerned.

Trying to determine the truth in the matter is frustrating, and trying to convince these people that it sounds ridiculous is just plain annoying.

Can anybody explain to me why the Government of the day would want to do this?
 
So we’re all on the same parchment, here are the actual clauses of the actual Magna Carta, together with dates of repeal (if repealed) / whether still in force:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Clauses_in_detail

I’m off to find a Jewish moneylender to invest my widow’s dowry in the destruction of fish weirs. As soon as I’m relieved from castle guard duty.

maximus otter
 
Analogue Boy said:
I‘m off to the Town Moor in Newcastle to graze a cow.
Click to expand...

Excuse me officer, but this is not a cow, this is Daisy: as commonly called of the family Holstein Friesian, and she does not consent to be removed from the rear of my legally deregistered carriage - namely, Fiesta: as commonly called of the family Ford.
 
Last edited:
Actually, like so much that's going on nowadays, this subject is almost impossible to parody.

See below for car deregistering shenanigans:

I ...... ....... of The family ....., do solemnly and sincerely declare that,

it is my understanding that any right that you may claim over my car is through my consent.

and it is my understanding that any statute by which you may claim to use to back any claim you may make on my car can only be valid if i consent to those statutes.

and it is my understanding that my purchase of my car, my possession of it, my upkeep and maintanence of it, proves that i am the lawful owner and have sole claim to it.

and it is my understanding that any claim that you have over myself to control whatever form of conveyance i may choose to operate on Her Majesty's roads and highways is only done with my consent...
Click to expand...

etc and ad nauseam

Source.

There's a Freeman Motors Ltd in Oldham - the poor buggers must be absolutely inundated with nutters.
 
1702556872546.png
 
Mungoman said:
This again!

We have this trotted out every now and then by people with a certain motive in mind...which eludes me. The story goes that sometime in the 70's, Australia was made a Corporation and was floated on the US Stock Exchange...

This allows certain individuals the right (?) to do what they want - as far as they're concerned.

Trying to determine the truth in the matter is frustrating, and trying to convince these people that it sounds ridiculous is just plain annoying.

Can anybody explain to me why the Government of the day would want to do this?
Click to expand...
I've no motive in mind or any conspiracy theory and I've no idea why any government would want to do that.

It's just something I've heard or read about over the years. I know for a fact that there is an entity called UK plc but how that relates to anything, I haven't a clue.
 
kesavaross said:
I've no motive in mind or any conspiracy theory and I've no idea why any government would want to do that.

It's just something I've heard or read about over the years. I know for a fact that there is an entity called UK plc but how that relates to anything, I haven't a clue.
Click to expand...

“UK plc” is often used to refer to the United Kingdom in business terms, e.g. “The paint exports of UK plc last year earned £XM…”

Some confusion, perhaps?

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
“UK plc” is often used to refer to the United Kingdom in business terms, e.g. “The paint exports of UK plc last year earned £XM…”

Some confusion, perhaps?

maximus otter
Click to expand...

Yup. It's an informal term used to describe the UK economy, usually in relation to its general performance.
 
Last edited:
There are in fact at least three 'UK PLC' registrations at Companies House: one appears to be a removals company, one a travel website, the third - whatever it was - is dissolved. Suffice to say, none of them are the one being informally referred to when the term is used by the government or media (well...apart from maybe that last one). There's also a 'UK PLC LTD'. Interestingly, all three 'UK LTD's are dissolved.

I actually thought there was some sort of restriction on registering company names like this. I'm pretty sure there are restrictions in Scotland and Wales on the words 'Scottish' and 'Welsh' when used in company titles - I'm sure I've not just imagined that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top