All the people saying this is great, what would you do, if crashes into your £20K car, or worse if he run over your child, disabling that child forever, with no insurance?
Yes it is your private property so use it only on your own private property! don't use it on the roads that WE pay tax to build and tarmac, should drive dangerously, have an accident, how can anyone trace you if you are not on a national register of ownership! and what about ensuring it is road worthy (mot) THEN of course what about meeting the insurance laws should you crash into me any member of my family I can promise you will see things some what differently then! hope fullythrough bars!!
So what happens when this presumably uninsured vehicle has an accident or knocks someone over? who's going to pay because that guy sure doesn't look like he can afford to pay for the repairs to a Jaguar or compensation to a child whose legs he breaks!
I DO NOT CONSENT TO YOUR POLLUTION ENTERING MY LUNGS OR PROPERTY. YOU ARE RESTRICTING MY RIGHT TO WALK FREELY DOWN THE STREET. YOU ARE RESTRICTING MY RIGHT TO A NOISE & POLLUTION FREE LIFE. I DO NOT CONSENT IN ANY WAY TO YOU RESTRICTING MY ANCIENT RIGHTS AS A PEDESTRIAN.
Amazing - looking through some of the comments here. People truly do not want to have freedom and they'll do their utmost to prevent anyone else from having it too.
@jaguar420g yes they truly are. It's not hard to see why the world is in the state its in when people obviously don't think highly enough of themselves to be able to make their own decisions and clearly like the idea that 'higher ups' are making them for them. How sad. Thankfully, not all of us are that brain dead to enjoy the idea of others making our decisons for us and taking our money while they're at it.
bullshit , at the end of the day they can take your car away from you no matter what you do, I dont want to have to pay the DVLA any more than he does. The simple fact is the DVLA will use force to stop you and they have tens of thousands of police to inforce it = the state wins
@UKOGBN That depends on whether the car is worth more or less than a years insurance and how long you manage to hold on to it before it gets taken. It's possible to save money and cause them to expend money at the same time if your careful and you stick to using older cars that you pick up cheap.
Why bother sending notices, they are the ones acting unlawfully. I just de-registered via filling in the export slip, whacked my on plates on and carried on. If they steal it I will just buy another one and crack on. No point arguing with thieves and thugs tbh.
paperwork, common law, uniform commercial code, oaths, jurisdiction, constitution, bill of rights, blacks law dictionary, inalienable/unalienable rights, freeman, human, sovereign, acts, statutes, legislation & so on, are they not all hearsay, fictitious & ambiguous?....type in imbatman57 in youtube & talkshoe.com
@lollygaggle There are over 31 million cars on the UK's roads which do an average of 12,000 miles per year each, and yet there are only around 40,000 serious traffic accidents per annum. If you do the maths, you will see that there is approximately 9.3 million road miles between accidents, and the amount of tax paid on the fuel to drive that far is somewhat over £1,000,000. It's not the people's fault that we are being fleeced and have no protection other than the goverbanksters insurance racket
@TheDemocracyDelusion So just so we are perfectly clear, you are saying that you are counting on not being involved in a blameworthy collision & you have no financial safeguard even if you did?
Suppose you collide with the main breadwinner of a family on his bike, he can no longer work, pay his mortgage, you have no insurance?
Having attended inquests, insurance claims are the only thing that keeps a roof over heads.
@lollygaggle In a sane system, such an accidental cause of harm and loss would be treated exactly the same way we treat any other situation, a court determines the amount of compensation to be repaid by the person at fault.
I can see your extremely well into your fantastical world of magical road safety papers and limited liability, so I don't expect you for one moment to consider any other form of system or method of doing things. Enjoy being fleeced on the off chance you MIGHT cause loss.
@TheDemocracyDelusion Thanks for responding, but you have simply avoided answering the question.
In the event of a blameworthy collision, what financial provisions have you made to ensure the quality of life of anyone you injure? Let's say the court awards a sum of £750k? You can supply that?
@lollygaggle So does the fact that I've got about £4.6 million pounds in the bank mean that I am free and your a slave? Or is the system institutionally unfair?
@TheDemocracyDelusion Quite the reverse, you would be completely obligated to supply the entire lump sum & for £23 a month by direct debit, my insurance company would write a cheque.
That's beautifully fair.
Last month my windscreen was replaced, it was heated & expensive - insurance company paid for it.
In 2007, our loft water tank caused £15k worth of damage - who do you think paid?
@TheDemocracyDelusion I believe it would be far more of a sin to have to find £15k out of my family's pocket to return their quality of life to back the way it was, than fork out a couple of hundred quid. My daughers' bedroom was completely destroyed by the leaking water tank, as was the back lounge.
Your avoidance of key questions does your stance no favours.
@lollygaggle I don't have a stance, if they want to steal my car they can I'm not bothered about anything in the situation other than that I might be imprisoned for not being complicit in my, and your, enslavement by engaging with it. I'll buy another one and put it in the same spot with the same plates. I can keep this up all day.
Given your position, your desire to appear 'free' & the apparent ongoing lengths you claim you'd go to maintain that, I perceive you as being far more enslaved than those you view as being imprisoned. You have created your own prison, one that you clearly occupy even on 25th December.
So you have no house insurance? Second time of asking.
@lollygaggle I can keep up replacing an old car with an identical one with identical plates faster than they can possibly remove and destroy them. As it stands I'm still on the first one. Long story really, far too long for 500 character comments anyway.
Second time of ignoring your attempt to lead by questioning.
To follow your method rather than your lead, I ought to ask you if you have walking/ out of house insurance, to cover any damages you might inflict on others whilst using your feet.
What will you do if a sudden gust of wind bowls you off your feet into a shop window and causes you to damage a load of expensive items you cannot afford to replace? Do you believe the shop-keeper ought to pay for your carelessness? What if your out walking and you trip up and land on a small child, crippling the child? Who pay's for the child's medical care?
Uninsured walkers like you are a menace to honest fully insured walkers, and drive up the costs of safe insured walking.
Perhaps your going to defend your incredibly selfish desire to walk without proper walking insurance to cover your potential liabilities, by suggesting that such events are too rare to give a damn about. The child you crippled by falling over ontop of can be cared for by the NHS right? The shop window you smashed by falling into it is covered by the Shop-keepers insurance right? None of which is your problem, so you feel quite justified in walking uninsured, costing honest pavement users money.
Perhaps your going to defend your incredibly selfish desire to walk without proper walking insurance to cover your potential liabilities, by suggesting that such events are too rare to give a damn about. The child you crippled by falling over on top of can be cared for by the NHS right? The shop window you smashed by falling into it is covered by the Shop-keepers insurance right? None of which is your problem, so you feel quite justified in walking uninsured, costing honest pavement users money
Perhaps your going to defend your incredibly selfish desire to walk without proper walking insurance to cover your potential liabilities, by suggesting that such events are too rare to give a damn about. The child you crippled by falling over on top of can be cared for by the NHS right? The shop window you smashed by falling into it is covered by the Shop-keepers insurance right? None of which is your problem, so you feel quite justified in walking uninsured, costing honest pavement users money
Perhaps your going to defend your incredibly selfish desire to walk without proper walking insurance to cover your potential liabilities, by suggesting that such events are too rare to give a damn about. The child you crippled by falling over on top of can be cared for by the NHS right? The shop window you smashed by falling into it is covered by the Shop-keepers insurance right? None of which is your problem, so you feel quite justified in walking uninsured, costing honest pavement users money
Maybe your going to compare it to driving, in which case I would point out that there are 31,000,000 cars in the UK, which drive an average of 12,000 miles per year each. That's 372,000,000,000 miles driven per year in the UK. Divide that figure by 40,000 (the number of serious motoring accidents per annum) and you reach a figure of 9,300,000 miles driven between serious accidents.
The fuel duty alone for the petrol to drive that far is over £1,000,000
Our economy benefits an almost incalculable amount by being a motorised economy, as compared to a country with no cars and roads. We take that huge benefit and shovel it into a tiny number of private hands, whilst simultaneously pushing any associated costs through accidents and the like onto individuals. The system is fundamentally broken and infact dangerous. Search for "Britain's most banned driver". I have a website in the pipe which will go into all these issues in far greater depth.
And provide a policy framework for a safe sensible and logical update of our road law system which puts a stop to perfectly good cars being deemed unroadworthy, stupid tossers like that britains most banned driver from getting behind the wheel, and will offer a level playing field where only a persons aptitude and ability determine whether they have the right to drive a car or not... instead of the size of their bank account.
@TheDemocracyDelusion Having attended a great many RTC's in an official capacity, having seen children with their brains in their lap as the result of human error, lives & families destroyed, not to mention the following aftermath of the financial implications when people are unable to work. insurance has been the only thing that kept a roof over heads.
I understand you believe what you are doing is somehow 'right' or even rebellious, but attend some inquests then comment.
@lollygaggle I have no illusion about the dangers involved in motoring. I simply strongly disagree with the tin-pot, dated, crap system we have in place right now, which you are supporting. As far as I am concerned one avoidable death is one death too many, and our system right now is dangerous
I'm weaving because I'm trying to compress some very lengthy and detailed analyses that I have done into tiny little text response boxes which are wholly inadequate for a serious discussion of the matter
@TheDemocracyDelusion I acknowledge that the issue of house insurance is extremely difficult to address & must be ignored, this is very common in FMOTL type debates.
No, no feet insurance.
You have now attempted to corrupt direct questions with sidelining, also very common, much like a smoker brings in the internal combustion engine to justify their actions.
You weave & avoid because you know that answering would tear holes in your logic.
@lollygaggle What makes you think I am a FMOTL adherant? As a matter of fact I think that the FMOTL theory is utterly flawed to it's very roots. For instance, if I go into a restaurant I want to be sure that the food has been prepared properly in a clean environment. An FMOTL kitchen may or may not be clean, because they do not recognise legislations regarding the matter.
I do however sympathise with them because the system which I concur is needed, is imho very badly corrupted.
I'm still waiting to hear why you feel the matter of house insurance has relevance to a debate regarding the roads, people's right to travel and the rip-off scam of muggle-fooling-road-safety-papers which is operated on our fair island right now.
You claim your primary motivation for engaging in the debate as being road safety and you cite having attended RTC's to draw authority on the matter.
I ask you then, how can you stand to support a system which is so badly broken that lives are being lost because of it's ineptitude, a system which is draining 27 billion pounds a year from the public pocket without protecting them, a system which allows a driver who has over 200 driving convictions to continue getting behind the wheel of a car?
Whilst you harangue this guy for changing some paint symbols on his number plate, other people are out there racking up motoring convictions and totally not giving a shit because the system is horribly corrupt and broken and does basically nothing but funnel huge volumes of money from mugs like you into the hands of private interests whilst all the time doing it's damnedest to avoid ever having to return any of it. It's wholesale theft built on top of good intentions and woolly thinking.
1) If road safety is not your primary concern in the matter then what is? That the owner of this video is a slave and ought to pay his masters for the right to use his own property as he see's fit.. because you do?
2) Yes indeed, driving is and always will be dangerous whilst human beings are in charge of the machines. However, magical-road-safety-paper does not help 1 iota in making our roads safer, only superior equipment and driver training can do that.
When you realise how the public desire has been used and perverted to create a massive money making machine in the hands of a private few who profit massively from it, you might start to think there has to be a better way of dealing with the issues.
When you reach that point, you might start to think about what is the most logical, rational and 21st century way of improving the system.
If you think about it all properly you will most likely end up with the same conclusions I have reached.
Tax discs should scrapped and replaced with MOT discs showing when the car is next due for a check covering only it's road worthyness.
Liscenses should be renamed driver competency certificates and should only be revoked for medical reasons.
There should be tough penalties and prison for dangerous / drink / drug driving.
People should be able to choose their own display for their plates, and plates should have a data square on them which the police cars can read to get limited information.
Insurance should be optional, and limited to insuring your own property against accidents / fire / theft.
Accidents and costs thereof should be funded directly by the state from the fuel duty.
I could write an essay clarifying and proving each of the above points to be valid and contributory to improving road safety and egalitarian access to our roads system, however there is very limited room in these comment boxes, so to read further you will have to wait until I've built the website.
@TheDemocracyDelusion I have not seen any evidence to support your continuing use of 'road safety', I have not used that term in the context of the debate. That is just your conclusion
So new cars would not pay any excise duty for three years as they would not need an MOT?
In the event of a collision, what is to prevent the blameworthy leaving the scene if they have no VRM displayed?
Licences are an indication of having achieved the required standard.
Excise duty was created to fund the improvement and extension of the road network, these days it's just a tax that has no relation to how roads and repairs are funded. It's obsolete.
In a system where we are not criminalising people for being poor or having all too human accidents, people would be much less likely to leave a scene, especially if in so doing they would get themselves in trouble when staying would not get them in trouble.
I'm not suggesting making the cars un-indentifyable, I suggest that a number plate should consist of a data-square readable by cameras in cop cars etc, and a display of letters of the drivers choosing.
The term license has old fashioned proprietary connotations to it. The roads belong to us all equally, the modern way to deal with this would be to rename licenses to driver competency certificates, which show the driver has been trained to competent standard.
@TheDemocracyDelusion Nope, a police vehicle would have to be on the scene to read the data - collision takes place, the vehicle is driven off, no VRM = no identification.
@lollygaggle But it doesn't work, you can get plates like those FMOTL ones for like £20 online. A datablock can't be faked, it would strengthen the ability of the police to identify the motorist, however without the other measures I suggested to make access to motoring more egalitarian, fair and worthy/fitness to drive based, implementing it under the current system would cripple the economy when the 2 million+ drivers out there are suddenly unable to bend the rules any more.
The datablock should imho, only identify the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle type, colour and make, and when it is due to it's next MOT.
You could put scanners in the garages so that NO MOT = NO FUEL.
We have technology now that is way more advanced than the 1950's solution we are still using. However, any upgrade we make to the system MUST be carefully considered otherwise we may end up institutionalising highway robbery as we almost have done already with the current insurance scam system
The plate could carry the datablock and the drivers own choice of display characters for the plate.
That way if there is a collision and the crowd report a red ferrari with the plate "SO COOL", the police will have all the information they need to look up the owner. The computer database can make sure that the plates are unique to each colour and type of car.
When the police car reads the datablock they get to see what the display name ought to be, and the car type and colour, thus preventing
The plate could carry the datablock and the drivers own choice of display characters for the plate.
That way if there is a collision and the crowd report a red ferrari with the plate "SO COOL", the police will have all the information they need to look up the owner. The computer database can make sure that the plates are unique to each colour and type of car.
When the police car reads the datablock they get to see what the display name ought to be, and the car type and colour, thus preventing
The plate could carry the datablock and the drivers own choice of display characters for the plate.
That way if there is a collision and the crowd report a red ferrari with the plate "SO COOL", the police will have all the information they need to look up the owner. The computer database can make sure that the plates are unique to each colour and type of car.
In switzerland the plate stays with the driver, rather than with the car. I think that is pretty sensible, and when you get a new car you could register your own plate for use with it.
@TheDemocracyDelusion I disagree, a vehicle with no VRM encourages the driver to leave the scene of any RTC. I have witnessed wing mirrors smashed off in a housing estate, the car drove off but was easily identified by the plate.
A datablock is valueless with no-one there to read it.
It only seems such a problem _within_ the current system which seems to be the only way your capable of thinking about the problem.
The datablocks are part of a much wider complete overhaul and modernisation of the road law system which is intended to make access to our roads safer, smarter and more egalitarian, such that people like WeAreChangeTelford, don't feel any need to protest the system anymore.
He's only protesting because he knows the system is broken.
Changing the plates is part of the protest but without an overall plan of how to fix the problem it's like a single x-wing trying to take on the deathstar all by itself... ain't going to work!
Even if large numbers of people follow the lead and change their plates, it still won't solve the problem or set everyone free. The system will simply fight back with more draconian measures.
I however do have a plan, it's just too complex to describe in these stupid tiny text boxes.
People leave the scene because in the moment they are considering it they think they are going to be in deep shit for staying and want to get away.
If we remove that deep shit aspect, for the crime of being human and having an accident then people will be less inclined to leave a scene.
Nobody ever wants to have a crash, unless they are on drugs and suicidal or something... or they are trying to scam the insurance, which incidentally criminal gangs do frequently.
@TheDemocracyDelusion I'm still waiting to learn if you have house insurance, however, you have refused to comment. Therefore, no debate regarding house insurance will be entered into.
Would you allow your children to be passengers in a vehicle driven/operated by someone who had consumed a bottle of whisky?
@lollygaggle Perhaps it would be simpler if you assumed intelligence on my part instead of stupidity, then maybe your questions would be more useful, and any answers I choose to supply, more insightful.
@TheDemocracyDelusion I have not thought you stupid, merely shortsighted. I accept you believe what you type, however I have seen families lose the roof over their heads because of the lack of insurance cover on the part of the blameworthy. Few uninsured motorists would be able supply the finances to maintain the same quality of life having killed a breadwinner.
@lollygaggle, I am actually short-sighted, I have glasses for it... how do you correct your vision?
I have thought things through, your the one who hasn't. I cannot condense various lengthy proofs of concept and analyses that I have done into this 500 character limited format, all I can do is give you the cliff notes and hope your smart enough to fill in the blanks.
@lollygaggle You just called me short-sighted. The fact that I actually am short sighted and have glasses for it not withstanding, you were attempting to insult my ability to think through the ramifications of the conclusions I have reached regarding motoring law, without having actually understood those conclusions or how I reached them.
@TheDemocracyDelusion Having personally witnessed the value of insurance when it was crucially needed to maintain a standard of living for those compromised by circumstances, the expression 'shortsighted' simply means that you lack the first hand experience that allows you to also see such.
It isn't a derogatory term, simply a statement that identifies you have been unable to make the same observations.
Your assuming that road insurance is the ONLY answer. Your accusing me of short-sightedness because I'm saying it's not the only answer, there is infact a better answer, which if implemented will piss off certain fat cats, but ultimately lead to a much more productive and prosperous society where people who are fit and healthy to drive and own have road worthy cars, are not grounded by the fact they haven't got enough numbers in computers called bank accounts.
@TheDemocracyDelusion I don't accept financial safeguards as being any form of 'control'. Having made two claims in the past few years, I had no issues with the system whatsoever, it was fast & things were put back better than the originals.
@lollygaggle Sure, and I suspect you will continue to believe that unless or until a day arrives that you are unable to use your perfectly healthy eyes, hands and feet, to drive your perfectly road worthy car, simply because the bank's computer says you cannot afford the insurance.
With premiums rising fast, I wonder how long it will be before your encroaching enslavement becomes apparent to you.
@TheDemocracyDelusion To add perspective, I am uninterested if someone is making money from operating a business, as long as I get the services promised upon claiming.
On the occasions I have had to claim on insurance, it did exactly what it said on the tin. We had builders in the house for 17 days, walls, floors, furniture, television, lights, wallpaper, paint, all done on the insurance - all for less than £30 a month.
@lollygaggle I have no problem with the concept of profit either, it's just that the profit margins involved are obscene and the product is forced on people because the system is designed primarily to create a revenue stream whilst preaching the bullshit that it exists for public safety.
You paid less for the work you needed doing than you had to, others paid less too, but someone somewhere has paid a whole lot more + the fat cat profits. Like it or not insurance is in fact a form of gambling.
@TheDemocracyDelusion Prior to my old mum passing away, she called me to her bedside & whispered 'You'll know the instant someone has lost an argument when they start calling you names or using bad language'.
@lollygaggle Like for instance referring to short-sightedness.
I have lost no argument because I have made no argument. All I have done is stated some opinions, an argument supporting those opinions is, as I have already noted several times, way beyond the scope of a 500 char limit text box commenting system.
Hence the reason I am soon going to develop a website with a forum system specifically dedicated to this issue so it can be discussed properly.
@TheDemocracyDelusion You are quite free to make whatever suggestions you like, publish them on websites, or T-shirts, wherever, but what difference will it make to anything?
There are motorists out there now who have read a little on the FMOTL ethos & simply scrap insurance, their licence, drive unregistered & intend to state they are a untouchable 'Freeman' when something unpleasant happens. They then compromise any number of people.
@lollygaggle There are 2 million uninsured motorists in the UK, I intend to mould them into a rebel army, and give them moral and logical justification for their position.
I am less than willing at present to explain how I intend to do that.
@TheDemocracyDelusion I believe Capt Gatso had the same ideology. Although considerable numbers of static cameras were destroyed, the country now faces the weighty alternative of vastly increased mobile enforcement & no warning signage.
Sometimes, the easiest way is simply slow up when required & accept what could be a whole lot worse if the system is forced to change.
No I get it, the more we cast off the chains of slavery and tyranny the more the tyrants will add extra locks and guards. But in so doing, they also wake up more people to the realisation of what is really going on, and round it goes until they are so tyrannical and controlling that everyone knows what's going on and then the people win.
@lollygaggle You would need a pilot's licence, and if your dumb enough to take your aircraft up in the sky without insuring it then it's your loss if it gets damaged. If you collide with another craft and they don't have insurance either, then your both shit out of luck. Your choice. I don't see why you, a little cessna flyer, should subsidise boeing's risks of flying their 747's.
When you make things mandatory you create monopolies and exploitation, guns and threats are not the answer.
Why should I answer to you? If, and only if, you can show the relevance of house insurance to this discussion, I will consider maybe divulging that information, if I feel like it.
@TheDemocracyDelusion I acknowledge your desire to steer clear of certain types of insurance.
You are quite welcome to deliberate for as long as you like over 'considered' responses. Let's keep the benefits as far away from the discussion as possible.
@lollygaggle What makes you think I steer clear of insurance? I have neither confirmed or denied whether I have such insurance, and frankly I think it's totally irrelevant and non of your business, so unless your going to show why it relates to the matter of road laws, I am less than inclined to answer to you on the matter.
Many FMOTL type individuals are of a similar opinion, awkward questions are routinely dismissed as 'troll' like behaviour, UKB didn't last more than a minute. If you are unable to support & defend your rationale under these conditions, then your balloon will 'pop' in a second in the real world.
@lollygaggle I made no such suggestion. Personally I believe that it is right and proper that anyone operating any form of dangerous machinery should be properly trained and certified in it's use prior to operating it in public.
I also hold however, that such training and certification should be open and available to all, and that proof of said training should be the only requirement for operating said equipment.
Not limited, let or hindered by the size of people's bank accounts.
@lollygaggle I don't see any problem with it being a plastic photo card like the ones we have now.
The difference is that a licence can be revoked.
A competency certificate merely shows you are competent and capable of driving safely.
Part of why the current system is unlawful is the fact that you can have your right to travel restricted by revoking your licence. You then have to retake your licence which holds up others from getting on the road. That is unfair, and stupid.
Under the certificate scheme, you prove your able to drive and that's all.
If you are caught drink or drug driving, you get stiff sentencing, but there is no notion of having to retake your test taking up 2 test slots which new drivers could be tested with, further adding to the already long waiting lists for tests.
I'm not about making it so people can be idiots with their cars, I'm about making the system fairer, safer, more efficient and in line with the common law right to travel.
Under my system, that idiot with the 200 driving convictions (search britain's most banned driver) would not be considered a competant driver and would face prison if he is caught driving, whilst WeAreChange here (the owner of this video) would be free to drive around as he pleases because he is competant and stupid bits of paper with ink on them won't make any difference to how safe and competant he is.
The most banned driver would be considered disabled because he's not able to drive.
he would be considered disabled because in this day and age with motoring such an essential tool to so many, being unable to drive safely is a form of disability, and there should be no stigma or criminality attached to it, unless and only unless he drives without the appropriate competency certification... doing so would be considered a criminal offence.
My system would of saved the backbone of his young victim, whilst the current system is powerless to stop this guy from driving.
It is exactly cases like this which show just how very badly broken and dangerous the current system actually is!
It needs a complete overhaul and update with the concept in mind that driving is no longer a luxury but a necessity, and it's a huge benefit to the economy having so many of our people able to access motorised transport.
We need a 21st century framework of law, the 1950's shit has got to go.
@TheDemocracyDelusion What evidence can you supply to support the claim '..because he is competent..'? He could well have a string of convictions, together with a poor driving history.
Common Law dating back to the times of Magna Carta is nothing more than animal skin with scrawls on it, a time when human beings in charge of boxes capable of 100mph+ would be considered witchcraft. The Right To Travel reflects nothing whatsoever of someone's ability.
@lollygaggle Ok sure, I was assuming he's just an ordinary everyday driver who has every right even under the current system to drive, I could be wrong I don't know the guy.
Now lets say he has been convicted of driving offences and is infact unable to operate a motorised vehicle safely on our roads... if that is the case then he is disabled, the same way that someone who can't walk is disabled and deserving of our care as the strong members of society who are fully-abled.
That 13th century shit, as you put it, is the very foundation of the freedom and prosperity which you enjoy today you ungrateful ignorant fool.
You might as well deem yourself as having won this argument right now because I have nothing more civil to say to you if your incapable of seeing the reality of what your supporting and what your decrying.
Everyone has a right to travel, period full-fucking-stop. If we are going to restrict that right to travel it has to be for the utmost best reasons
and numbers in bank computers, is not a good reason. It's infact a very crap reason, that is totally and completely artificial and utterly divorced from reality.
I hold a significant number of pounds because I need to hold them in this society the way it is, not because I believe that society is structured correctly. When the pound tanks, my pounds go down with everyone elses, and it will be the stupidity of people like you slagging off the magna carta and our traditions that precipitates it.
@TheDemocracyDelusion A traitor? My dad was German, my mother Spanish & I was born in Christchurch New Zealand, to which country am I a traitor to exactly?
@TheDemocracyDelusion I have not slagged off The Magna Carta, merely added the perspective that whilst modern statutes are not 'laws', TMG is simply animal skin with scribblings on composed in time when life was not exposed to intensive care units & The X Factor.
So I must therefore be able to travel by any mode of transport I choose - you however put restrictions on private air travel. We exist in a vastly different world from the green leafy tree lined paths of horse drawn transport of the 13th century.
@TheDemocracyDelusion Just been reminded about the father in law's medical insurance. This allowed him to have a significant amount of surgery in two weeks that otherwise would have seen an 18 month NHS wait.
@lollygaggle I don't agree with MANDATORY insurance. There is a big difference between that and saying that all insurance is bad.
I tried to explain the situation with the notion of mandatory walking insurance. If that was the law, I suspect you would see what is faulty with the concept very easily.
To expand on that, consider if it was the law that you had to have public liability insurance to even step outside your house, because there is a certain non-zero risk that you might cause harm or loss to others that you can't afford to repay.
If that was in effect, then your home just became your prison the moment your bank account dips below the level at which you can afford the mandatory insurance premiums.
@TheDemocracyDelusion So in simple terms, you have third party insurance & you are stationary at a junction & your vehicle is hit from behind & written off by an unisured penniless motorist.
How do you proceed in replacing your means of getting to work?
@lollygaggle You claim on your insurance the same way the shop keeper would claim on his if you were out walking and fell through his window without insurance.
The insurance company should not be allowed to increase your premiums as a result, and instead can see to recoup their costs via the courts, who will judge the situation and determine a fair amount for the driver to repay with the rest coming from a public fund which is supplied by the fuel duty we all pay according to our usage.
There are a limited number of types of collisions and I have classified them each and determined how they can be handled in a voluntary system which does not rely on the coercive power of the state to support a thieving monopoly of fat cat insurers who funnel over 27 BILLION from the economy annually.
@TheDemocracyDelusion So apart from what you suggest, all we need is an end to starvation in Africa, a cure for all kinds of cancer & AIDS, domestic fuel bills reduced by 9/10th's & we'll be sorted.
@lollygaggle How is any of that relevant in the slightest to the situation regarding motoring law in the UK?
Oh btw, Iran has a cure for cancer, but unfortunately we are probably about to bomb them back to the stone age, to secure the profit margins of the tyrant fat cats you love so much, so it's not going to be much use to anyone.
nice one but if you crash it into my car and kill my wife then you will go to jail lol
daveygravey123456 1 month ago
Have you got your appointment with the crusher yet?
sparklelard 1 month ago
Get ready to say goodbye to that car if you take it on a public road and the police ANPR camera see it......
onlywhenpissed 1 month ago
All the people saying this is great, what would you do, if crashes into your £20K car, or worse if he run over your child, disabling that child forever, with no insurance?
da8iwr 1 month ago
You have too much free time on your hands.
cimasgro 1 month ago
Yes it is your private property so use it only on your own private property! don't use it on the roads that WE pay tax to build and tarmac, should drive dangerously, have an accident, how can anyone trace you if you are not on a national register of ownership! and what about ensuring it is road worthy (mot) THEN of course what about meeting the insurance laws should you crash into me any member of my family I can promise you will see things some what differently then! hope fullythrough bars!!
brokeboatbloke 1 month ago 2
Good for you mate. Best of luck. Anyone know how this can work in the United States?
LordFancourt 1 month ago
So what happens when this presumably uninsured vehicle has an accident or knocks someone over? who's going to pay because that guy sure doesn't look like he can afford to pay for the repairs to a Jaguar or compensation to a child whose legs he breaks!
badgern100 1 month ago
would like to know how he is getting on driving it ??
matjinthol 1 month ago
ha ha nice one, what has happened since?
wyrdpixie 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I DO NOT CONSENT TO YOUR POLLUTION ENTERING MY LUNGS OR PROPERTY. YOU ARE RESTRICTING MY RIGHT TO WALK FREELY DOWN THE STREET. YOU ARE RESTRICTING MY RIGHT TO A NOISE & POLLUTION FREE LIFE. I DO NOT CONSENT IN ANY WAY TO YOU RESTRICTING MY ANCIENT RIGHTS AS A PEDESTRIAN.
zivkovicable 1 month ago
i`am not a number
i`am a free man..!
foxone1974 1 month ago
Doing this on a bunch of technicalities won't stop 'em getting you.
CaptainWatson234 1 month ago
Amazing - looking through some of the comments here. People truly do not want to have freedom and they'll do their utmost to prevent anyone else from having it too.
gangstagrannie 2 months ago 7
@gangstagrannie some people here remind me of well trained monkeys lol
gangstagrannie 2 months ago
@gangstagrannie nutters
jaguar420g 1 month ago
@jaguar420g yes they truly are. It's not hard to see why the world is in the state its in when people obviously don't think highly enough of themselves to be able to make their own decisions and clearly like the idea that 'higher ups' are making them for them. How sad. Thankfully, not all of us are that brain dead to enjoy the idea of others making our decisons for us and taking our money while they're at it.
gangstagrannie 1 month ago
@gangstagrannie Thats because they are brain washed and thick as shit !
jfunkfinger69 1 month ago
@jfunkfinger69 you aint wrong there lol. Crazy how people just don't want to be free.
gangstagrannie 1 month ago
well done that man!!!
MrResisting 2 months ago
I agree. Papers on cars should be abolished. Licenses, titles, insurance. Let them burn everywhere in the world!
Licmycat 2 months ago
have you had any problems
1killerbilly 2 months ago
you still have to pay road tax for the use of public roads you sad idiot
TheSisko1 2 months ago
so with the car being de registered can/have you insured the car in the event of a accident,,??? thanks and well done on doing what you have done...
BUZZ50RIDER 2 months ago
bullshit , at the end of the day they can take your car away from you no matter what you do, I dont want to have to pay the DVLA any more than he does. The simple fact is the DVLA will use force to stop you and they have tens of thousands of police to inforce it = the state wins
UKOGBN 2 months ago
@UKOGBN That depends on whether the car is worth more or less than a years insurance and how long you manage to hold on to it before it gets taken. It's possible to save money and cause them to expend money at the same time if your careful and you stick to using older cars that you pick up cheap.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
I wonder how long it took for the systems agents/officers to take your car,been there and lost.
myunhivedmind 2 months ago
brave from you to be one of the first.
soon i´m going to do the same here in Portugal, still working on the subject.
reading the comments I think, OMG so many sheep.
kart600 2 months ago
I hear tasers hurt alot.
May I suggest you not resist arrest.
safeinsuburbia 2 months ago
Oh fuck. This guy is probably a conspiracy theorist also. Get a life, dude.
SoCalDualSport 2 months ago
Why bother sending notices, they are the ones acting unlawfully. I just de-registered via filling in the export slip, whacked my on plates on and carried on. If they steal it I will just buy another one and crack on. No point arguing with thieves and thugs tbh.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
paperwork, common law, uniform commercial code, oaths, jurisdiction, constitution, bill of rights, blacks law dictionary, inalienable/unalienable rights, freeman, human, sovereign, acts, statutes, legislation & so on, are they not all hearsay, fictitious & ambiguous?....type in imbatman57 in youtube & talkshoe.com
Harv7340 2 months ago
what a fucking prick.
knightstorm16V 2 months ago
@knightstorm16V fuck you idiot.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
I like your style good for you.good luck with all the dumb drones that will get in the way from time to time.
bamdogwood1 2 months ago
In the event of a blameworthy collision, what financial provisions have you made?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle There are over 31 million cars on the UK's roads which do an average of 12,000 miles per year each, and yet there are only around 40,000 serious traffic accidents per annum. If you do the maths, you will see that there is approximately 9.3 million road miles between accidents, and the amount of tax paid on the fuel to drive that far is somewhat over £1,000,000. It's not the people's fault that we are being fleeced and have no protection other than the goverbanksters insurance racket
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion So just so we are perfectly clear, you are saying that you are counting on not being involved in a blameworthy collision & you have no financial safeguard even if you did?
Suppose you collide with the main breadwinner of a family on his bike, he can no longer work, pay his mortgage, you have no insurance?
Having attended inquests, insurance claims are the only thing that keeps a roof over heads.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle In a sane system, such an accidental cause of harm and loss would be treated exactly the same way we treat any other situation, a court determines the amount of compensation to be repaid by the person at fault.
I can see your extremely well into your fantastical world of magical road safety papers and limited liability, so I don't expect you for one moment to consider any other form of system or method of doing things. Enjoy being fleeced on the off chance you MIGHT cause loss.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion Thanks for responding, but you have simply avoided answering the question.
In the event of a blameworthy collision, what financial provisions have you made to ensure the quality of life of anyone you injure? Let's say the court awards a sum of £750k? You can supply that?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle So does the fact that I've got about £4.6 million pounds in the bank mean that I am free and your a slave? Or is the system institutionally unfair?
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion Quite the reverse, you would be completely obligated to supply the entire lump sum & for £23 a month by direct debit, my insurance company would write a cheque.
That's beautifully fair.
Last month my windscreen was replaced, it was heated & expensive - insurance company paid for it.
In 2007, our loft water tank caused £15k worth of damage - who do you think paid?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion So you have no house insurance either (assuming you own a house)?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle I consider limited liability to be a sin. I'll leave it up to you to figure out why that is.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I believe it would be far more of a sin to have to find £15k out of my family's pocket to return their quality of life to back the way it was, than fork out a couple of hundred quid. My daughers' bedroom was completely destroyed by the leaking water tank, as was the back lounge.
Your avoidance of key questions does your stance no favours.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle I don't have a stance, if they want to steal my car they can I'm not bothered about anything in the situation other than that I might be imprisoned for not being complicit in my, and your, enslavement by engaging with it. I'll buy another one and put it in the same spot with the same plates. I can keep this up all day.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion You don't have a stance? Then what can you keep up all day?
Given your position, your desire to appear 'free' & the apparent ongoing lengths you claim you'd go to maintain that, I perceive you as being far more enslaved than those you view as being imprisoned. You have created your own prison, one that you clearly occupy even on 25th December.
So you have no house insurance? Second time of asking.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle I can keep up replacing an old car with an identical one with identical plates faster than they can possibly remove and destroy them. As it stands I'm still on the first one. Long story really, far too long for 500 character comments anyway.
Second time of ignoring your attempt to lead by questioning.
To follow your method rather than your lead, I ought to ask you if you have walking/ out of house insurance, to cover any damages you might inflict on others whilst using your feet.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
What will you do if a sudden gust of wind bowls you off your feet into a shop window and causes you to damage a load of expensive items you cannot afford to replace? Do you believe the shop-keeper ought to pay for your carelessness? What if your out walking and you trip up and land on a small child, crippling the child? Who pay's for the child's medical care?
Uninsured walkers like you are a menace to honest fully insured walkers, and drive up the costs of safe insured walking.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Perhaps your going to defend your incredibly selfish desire to walk without proper walking insurance to cover your potential liabilities, by suggesting that such events are too rare to give a damn about. The child you crippled by falling over ontop of can be cared for by the NHS right? The shop window you smashed by falling into it is covered by the Shop-keepers insurance right? None of which is your problem, so you feel quite justified in walking uninsured, costing honest pavement users money.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Perhaps your going to defend your incredibly selfish desire to walk without proper walking insurance to cover your potential liabilities, by suggesting that such events are too rare to give a damn about. The child you crippled by falling over on top of can be cared for by the NHS right? The shop window you smashed by falling into it is covered by the Shop-keepers insurance right? None of which is your problem, so you feel quite justified in walking uninsured, costing honest pavement users money
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Perhaps your going to defend your incredibly selfish desire to walk without proper walking insurance to cover your potential liabilities, by suggesting that such events are too rare to give a damn about. The child you crippled by falling over on top of can be cared for by the NHS right? The shop window you smashed by falling into it is covered by the Shop-keepers insurance right? None of which is your problem, so you feel quite justified in walking uninsured, costing honest pavement users money
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Perhaps your going to defend your incredibly selfish desire to walk without proper walking insurance to cover your potential liabilities, by suggesting that such events are too rare to give a damn about. The child you crippled by falling over on top of can be cared for by the NHS right? The shop window you smashed by falling into it is covered by the Shop-keepers insurance right? None of which is your problem, so you feel quite justified in walking uninsured, costing honest pavement users money
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Maybe your going to compare it to driving, in which case I would point out that there are 31,000,000 cars in the UK, which drive an average of 12,000 miles per year each. That's 372,000,000,000 miles driven per year in the UK. Divide that figure by 40,000 (the number of serious motoring accidents per annum) and you reach a figure of 9,300,000 miles driven between serious accidents.
The fuel duty alone for the petrol to drive that far is over £1,000,000
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Our economy benefits an almost incalculable amount by being a motorised economy, as compared to a country with no cars and roads. We take that huge benefit and shovel it into a tiny number of private hands, whilst simultaneously pushing any associated costs through accidents and the like onto individuals. The system is fundamentally broken and infact dangerous. Search for "Britain's most banned driver". I have a website in the pipe which will go into all these issues in far greater depth.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
And provide a policy framework for a safe sensible and logical update of our road law system which puts a stop to perfectly good cars being deemed unroadworthy, stupid tossers like that britains most banned driver from getting behind the wheel, and will offer a level playing field where only a persons aptitude and ability determine whether they have the right to drive a car or not... instead of the size of their bank account.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion What personal experience do you have of attending RTC's?
I guess 100 a day nationally doesn't seem a lot to those who simply pass once every five years, just stats, easily dismissed.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion Having attended a great many RTC's in an official capacity, having seen children with their brains in their lap as the result of human error, lives & families destroyed, not to mention the following aftermath of the financial implications when people are unable to work. insurance has been the only thing that kept a roof over heads.
I understand you believe what you are doing is somehow 'right' or even rebellious, but attend some inquests then comment.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle I have no illusion about the dangers involved in motoring. I simply strongly disagree with the tin-pot, dated, crap system we have in place right now, which you are supporting. As far as I am concerned one avoidable death is one death too many, and our system right now is dangerous
I'm weaving because I'm trying to compress some very lengthy and detailed analyses that I have done into tiny little text response boxes which are wholly inadequate for a serious discussion of the matter
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I acknowledge that the issue of house insurance is extremely difficult to address & must be ignored, this is very common in FMOTL type debates.
No, no feet insurance.
You have now attempted to corrupt direct questions with sidelining, also very common, much like a smoker brings in the internal combustion engine to justify their actions.
You weave & avoid because you know that answering would tear holes in your logic.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
go on then, what has house insurance got to do with the suitability and safety of our road law system? Do enlighten me.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion Let me see if I understand you;
You openly & deliberately refuse to state if you have house insurance & then publish questions regarding house insurance that you want answering?
Why do FMOTL duck & dive when compromised by key points?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle What makes you think I am a FMOTL adherant? As a matter of fact I think that the FMOTL theory is utterly flawed to it's very roots. For instance, if I go into a restaurant I want to be sure that the food has been prepared properly in a clean environment. An FMOTL kitchen may or may not be clean, because they do not recognise legislations regarding the matter.
I do however sympathise with them because the system which I concur is needed, is imho very badly corrupted.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
I'm still waiting to hear why you feel the matter of house insurance has relevance to a debate regarding the roads, people's right to travel and the rip-off scam of muggle-fooling-road-safety-papers which is operated on our fair island right now.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
You claim your primary motivation for engaging in the debate as being road safety and you cite having attended RTC's to draw authority on the matter.
I ask you then, how can you stand to support a system which is so badly broken that lives are being lost because of it's ineptitude, a system which is draining 27 billion pounds a year from the public pocket without protecting them, a system which allows a driver who has over 200 driving convictions to continue getting behind the wheel of a car?
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Whilst you harangue this guy for changing some paint symbols on his number plate, other people are out there racking up motoring convictions and totally not giving a shit because the system is horribly corrupt and broken and does basically nothing but funnel huge volumes of money from mugs like you into the hands of private interests whilst all the time doing it's damnedest to avoid ever having to return any of it. It's wholesale theft built on top of good intentions and woolly thinking.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion You say my I claim my primary motivation is road safety?
Please quote me.
Road traffic accidents will always happen whilst human beings are behind the wheel, they cannot be totally avoided, or stopped.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle
1) If road safety is not your primary concern in the matter then what is? That the owner of this video is a slave and ought to pay his masters for the right to use his own property as he see's fit.. because you do?
2) Yes indeed, driving is and always will be dangerous whilst human beings are in charge of the machines. However, magical-road-safety-paper does not help 1 iota in making our roads safer, only superior equipment and driver training can do that.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
When you realise how the public desire has been used and perverted to create a massive money making machine in the hands of a private few who profit massively from it, you might start to think there has to be a better way of dealing with the issues.
When you reach that point, you might start to think about what is the most logical, rational and 21st century way of improving the system.
If you think about it all properly you will most likely end up with the same conclusions I have reached.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Tax discs should scrapped and replaced with MOT discs showing when the car is next due for a check covering only it's road worthyness.
Liscenses should be renamed driver competency certificates and should only be revoked for medical reasons.
There should be tough penalties and prison for dangerous / drink / drug driving.
People should be able to choose their own display for their plates, and plates should have a data square on them which the police cars can read to get limited information.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Insurance should be optional, and limited to insuring your own property against accidents / fire / theft.
Accidents and costs thereof should be funded directly by the state from the fuel duty.
I could write an essay clarifying and proving each of the above points to be valid and contributory to improving road safety and egalitarian access to our roads system, however there is very limited room in these comment boxes, so to read further you will have to wait until I've built the website.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I have not seen any evidence to support your continuing use of 'road safety', I have not used that term in the context of the debate. That is just your conclusion
So new cars would not pay any excise duty for three years as they would not need an MOT?
In the event of a collision, what is to prevent the blameworthy leaving the scene if they have no VRM displayed?
Licences are an indication of having achieved the required standard.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle
Excise duty was created to fund the improvement and extension of the road network, these days it's just a tax that has no relation to how roads and repairs are funded. It's obsolete.
In a system where we are not criminalising people for being poor or having all too human accidents, people would be much less likely to leave a scene, especially if in so doing they would get themselves in trouble when staying would not get them in trouble.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
I'm not suggesting making the cars un-indentifyable, I suggest that a number plate should consist of a data-square readable by cameras in cop cars etc, and a display of letters of the drivers choosing.
The term license has old fashioned proprietary connotations to it. The roads belong to us all equally, the modern way to deal with this would be to rename licenses to driver competency certificates, which show the driver has been trained to competent standard.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion Nope, a police vehicle would have to be on the scene to read the data - collision takes place, the vehicle is driven off, no VRM = no identification.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle But it doesn't work, you can get plates like those FMOTL ones for like £20 online. A datablock can't be faked, it would strengthen the ability of the police to identify the motorist, however without the other measures I suggested to make access to motoring more egalitarian, fair and worthy/fitness to drive based, implementing it under the current system would cripple the economy when the 2 million+ drivers out there are suddenly unable to bend the rules any more.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
The datablock should imho, only identify the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle type, colour and make, and when it is due to it's next MOT.
You could put scanners in the garages so that NO MOT = NO FUEL.
We have technology now that is way more advanced than the 1950's solution we are still using. However, any upgrade we make to the system MUST be carefully considered otherwise we may end up institutionalising highway robbery as we almost have done already with the current insurance scam system
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
The plate could carry the datablock and the drivers own choice of display characters for the plate.
That way if there is a collision and the crowd report a red ferrari with the plate "SO COOL", the police will have all the information they need to look up the owner. The computer database can make sure that the plates are unique to each colour and type of car.
When the police car reads the datablock they get to see what the display name ought to be, and the car type and colour, thus preventing
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The plate could carry the datablock and the drivers own choice of display characters for the plate.
That way if there is a collision and the crowd report a red ferrari with the plate "SO COOL", the police will have all the information they need to look up the owner. The computer database can make sure that the plates are unique to each colour and type of car.
When the police car reads the datablock they get to see what the display name ought to be, and the car type and colour, thus preventing
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
The plate could carry the datablock and the drivers own choice of display characters for the plate.
That way if there is a collision and the crowd report a red ferrari with the plate "SO COOL", the police will have all the information they need to look up the owner. The computer database can make sure that the plates are unique to each colour and type of car.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
In switzerland the plate stays with the driver, rather than with the car. I think that is pretty sensible, and when you get a new car you could register your own plate for use with it.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion So you now champion unique VRM's.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion So as well as having a datablock you also would have display characters = a VRM unique to that vehicle.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
Comment removed
UKBLIVE 2 months ago
@UKBLIVE Mornin' UKB. Good to contact you again.
My comment meets with your approval?
lollygaggle 1 month ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion The trade in black market fuel would rise accordingly.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I disagree, a vehicle with no VRM encourages the driver to leave the scene of any RTC. I have witnessed wing mirrors smashed off in a housing estate, the car drove off but was easily identified by the plate.
A datablock is valueless with no-one there to read it.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle
It only seems such a problem _within_ the current system which seems to be the only way your capable of thinking about the problem.
The datablocks are part of a much wider complete overhaul and modernisation of the road law system which is intended to make access to our roads safer, smarter and more egalitarian, such that people like WeAreChangeTelford, don't feel any need to protest the system anymore.
He's only protesting because he knows the system is broken.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Changing the plates is part of the protest but without an overall plan of how to fix the problem it's like a single x-wing trying to take on the deathstar all by itself... ain't going to work!
Even if large numbers of people follow the lead and change their plates, it still won't solve the problem or set everyone free. The system will simply fight back with more draconian measures.
I however do have a plan, it's just too complex to describe in these stupid tiny text boxes.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion Why doesn't the current licence shows that the same level has been reached?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I note you merely attempt to justify 'why' someone would leave the scene of a collision, not the implications of doing so.
It could just as easily be a footballer earning 100k a week.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle
People leave the scene because in the moment they are considering it they think they are going to be in deep shit for staying and want to get away.
If we remove that deep shit aspect, for the crime of being human and having an accident then people will be less inclined to leave a scene.
Nobody ever wants to have a crash, unless they are on drugs and suicidal or something... or they are trying to scam the insurance, which incidentally criminal gangs do frequently.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Comment removed
UKBLIVE 2 months ago
@UKBLIVE I acknowledge you feel confused & divided by simple debate. Life often presents issues we find uncomfortable.
I am not a 'he'.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@UKBLIVE How is DemDel going to delete all my messages?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I'm still waiting to learn if you have house insurance, however, you have refused to comment. Therefore, no debate regarding house insurance will be entered into.
Would you allow your children to be passengers in a vehicle driven/operated by someone who had consumed a bottle of whisky?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle Perhaps it would be simpler if you assumed intelligence on my part instead of stupidity, then maybe your questions would be more useful, and any answers I choose to supply, more insightful.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I have not thought you stupid, merely shortsighted. I accept you believe what you type, however I have seen families lose the roof over their heads because of the lack of insurance cover on the part of the blameworthy. Few uninsured motorists would be able supply the finances to maintain the same quality of life having killed a breadwinner.
You just haven't thought things through.
Have you ever been to an inquest?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle, I am actually short-sighted, I have glasses for it... how do you correct your vision?
I have thought things through, your the one who hasn't. I cannot condense various lengthy proofs of concept and analyses that I have done into this 500 character limited format, all I can do is give you the cliff notes and hope your smart enough to fill in the blanks.
So far I'm less than confident you are.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I see, so it is you calling me stupid now?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle I'm calling you stupid if you were calling me stupid.
If your not stupid then I guess you will be intelligent enough to turn the conversation away from stupid name calling at this point.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I have made it clear that I have not called you (or anyone else) any names during YouTube debate - ever.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle You just called me short-sighted. The fact that I actually am short sighted and have glasses for it not withstanding, you were attempting to insult my ability to think through the ramifications of the conclusions I have reached regarding motoring law, without having actually understood those conclusions or how I reached them.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion Having personally witnessed the value of insurance when it was crucially needed to maintain a standard of living for those compromised by circumstances, the expression 'shortsighted' simply means that you lack the first hand experience that allows you to also see such.
It isn't a derogatory term, simply a statement that identifies you have been unable to make the same observations.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
Your assuming that road insurance is the ONLY answer. Your accusing me of short-sightedness because I'm saying it's not the only answer, there is infact a better answer, which if implemented will piss off certain fat cats, but ultimately lead to a much more productive and prosperous society where people who are fit and healthy to drive and own have road worthy cars, are not grounded by the fact they haven't got enough numbers in computers called bank accounts.
Your the one being short-sighted.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I don't accept financial safeguards as being any form of 'control'. Having made two claims in the past few years, I had no issues with the system whatsoever, it was fast & things were put back better than the originals.
You don't have or agree with house insurance?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle Sure, and I suspect you will continue to believe that unless or until a day arrives that you are unable to use your perfectly healthy eyes, hands and feet, to drive your perfectly road worthy car, simply because the bank's computer says you cannot afford the insurance.
With premiums rising fast, I wonder how long it will be before your encroaching enslavement becomes apparent to you.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion To add perspective, I am uninterested if someone is making money from operating a business, as long as I get the services promised upon claiming.
On the occasions I have had to claim on insurance, it did exactly what it said on the tin. We had builders in the house for 17 days, walls, floors, furniture, television, lights, wallpaper, paint, all done on the insurance - all for less than £30 a month.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle I have no problem with the concept of profit either, it's just that the profit margins involved are obscene and the product is forced on people because the system is designed primarily to create a revenue stream whilst preaching the bullshit that it exists for public safety.
You paid less for the work you needed doing than you had to, others paid less too, but someone somewhere has paid a whole lot more + the fat cat profits. Like it or not insurance is in fact a form of gambling.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Comment removed
UKBLIVE 2 months ago
@UKBLIVE Mornin' UKB.
Comment pending approval?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@UKBLIVE Evenin' UKB.
Comment pending approval?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
Comment removed
UKBLIVE 2 months ago
@UKBLIVE Hi UKB, thanking you for the acknowledgement that your cage has been rattled.
Comment pending approval?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion Prior to my old mum passing away, she called me to her bedside & whispered 'You'll know the instant someone has lost an argument when they start calling you names or using bad language'.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle Like for instance referring to short-sightedness.
I have lost no argument because I have made no argument. All I have done is stated some opinions, an argument supporting those opinions is, as I have already noted several times, way beyond the scope of a 500 char limit text box commenting system.
Hence the reason I am soon going to develop a website with a forum system specifically dedicated to this issue so it can be discussed properly.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion You are quite free to make whatever suggestions you like, publish them on websites, or T-shirts, wherever, but what difference will it make to anything?
There are motorists out there now who have read a little on the FMOTL ethos & simply scrap insurance, their licence, drive unregistered & intend to state they are a untouchable 'Freeman' when something unpleasant happens. They then compromise any number of people.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle There are 2 million uninsured motorists in the UK, I intend to mould them into a rebel army, and give them moral and logical justification for their position.
I am less than willing at present to explain how I intend to do that.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I believe Capt Gatso had the same ideology. Although considerable numbers of static cameras were destroyed, the country now faces the weighty alternative of vastly increased mobile enforcement & no warning signage.
Sometimes, the easiest way is simply slow up when required & accept what could be a whole lot worse if the system is forced to change.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
No I get it, the more we cast off the chains of slavery and tyranny the more the tyrants will add extra locks and guards. But in so doing, they also wake up more people to the realisation of what is really going on, and round it goes until they are so tyrannical and controlling that everyone knows what's going on and then the people win.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion Does the owning of a private aircraft mean I could travel with no insurance or pilot's licence under your system?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle You would need a pilot's licence, and if your dumb enough to take your aircraft up in the sky without insuring it then it's your loss if it gets damaged. If you collide with another craft and they don't have insurance either, then your both shit out of luck. Your choice. I don't see why you, a little cessna flyer, should subsidise boeing's risks of flying their 747's.
When you make things mandatory you create monopolies and exploitation, guns and threats are not the answer.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion Can you explain why you have avoided the issue of house insurance?
Do you have any?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
Comment removed
UKBLIVE 2 months ago
Why should I answer to you? If, and only if, you can show the relevance of house insurance to this discussion, I will consider maybe divulging that information, if I feel like it.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I acknowledge your desire to steer clear of certain types of insurance.
You are quite welcome to deliberate for as long as you like over 'considered' responses. Let's keep the benefits as far away from the discussion as possible.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle What makes you think I steer clear of insurance? I have neither confirmed or denied whether I have such insurance, and frankly I think it's totally irrelevant and non of your business, so unless your going to show why it relates to the matter of road laws, I am less than inclined to answer to you on the matter.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion What makes you think I steer clear of insurance? I have neither confirmed or denied = steer clear.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle I'm starting to think UKBLIVE is correct in his appraisal of your motives for engaging in this discussion.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion Motives? I have no motives.
Many FMOTL type individuals are of a similar opinion, awkward questions are routinely dismissed as 'troll' like behaviour, UKB didn't last more than a minute. If you are unable to support & defend your rationale under these conditions, then your balloon will 'pop' in a second in the real world.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion So you are saying that the right to travel does not cover all modes of transport?
Why is a pilot's licence a prerequisite before taking to the skies?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
Comment removed
UKBLIVE 2 months ago
Comment removed
UKBLIVE 2 months ago
@lollygaggle I made no such suggestion. Personally I believe that it is right and proper that anyone operating any form of dangerous machinery should be properly trained and certified in it's use prior to operating it in public.
I also hold however, that such training and certification should be open and available to all, and that proof of said training should be the only requirement for operating said equipment.
Not limited, let or hindered by the size of people's bank accounts.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion So what is the difference between a licence & any revised document you replace it with?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle The driver competence certificate merely confirms that an individual is fit to drive and has been trained to a requisite standard.
It's like the difference between open-source and licensed software.
I am involved in the open-source movement, and I hope to bring that superior ethos to our road system and laws pertaining to them.
I know it's going to be an uphill struggle, first getting people to understand what's wrong with the current system, and then convincing the fat cats
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion How does a driving licence not determine being trained to an accepted standard? Will a certificate have a photo on?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle I don't see any problem with it being a plastic photo card like the ones we have now.
The difference is that a licence can be revoked.
A competency certificate merely shows you are competent and capable of driving safely.
Part of why the current system is unlawful is the fact that you can have your right to travel restricted by revoking your licence. You then have to retake your licence which holds up others from getting on the road. That is unfair, and stupid.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Under the certificate scheme, you prove your able to drive and that's all.
If you are caught drink or drug driving, you get stiff sentencing, but there is no notion of having to retake your test taking up 2 test slots which new drivers could be tested with, further adding to the already long waiting lists for tests.
I'm not about making it so people can be idiots with their cars, I'm about making the system fairer, safer, more efficient and in line with the common law right to travel.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
Under my system, that idiot with the 200 driving convictions (search britain's most banned driver) would not be considered a competant driver and would face prison if he is caught driving, whilst WeAreChange here (the owner of this video) would be free to drive around as he pleases because he is competant and stupid bits of paper with ink on them won't make any difference to how safe and competant he is.
The most banned driver would be considered disabled because he's not able to drive.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
he would be considered disabled because in this day and age with motoring such an essential tool to so many, being unable to drive safely is a form of disability, and there should be no stigma or criminality attached to it, unless and only unless he drives without the appropriate competency certification... doing so would be considered a criminal offence.
My system would of saved the backbone of his young victim, whilst the current system is powerless to stop this guy from driving.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
It is exactly cases like this which show just how very badly broken and dangerous the current system actually is!
It needs a complete overhaul and update with the concept in mind that driving is no longer a luxury but a necessity, and it's a huge benefit to the economy having so many of our people able to access motorised transport.
We need a 21st century framework of law, the 1950's shit has got to go.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I see, so the 50's stuff has to go, but the 13th century stuff has to stay.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion What evidence can you supply to support the claim '..because he is competent..'? He could well have a string of convictions, together with a poor driving history.
Common Law dating back to the times of Magna Carta is nothing more than animal skin with scrawls on it, a time when human beings in charge of boxes capable of 100mph+ would be considered witchcraft. The Right To Travel reflects nothing whatsoever of someone's ability.
lollygaggle 2 months ago 9
@lollygaggle Ok sure, I was assuming he's just an ordinary everyday driver who has every right even under the current system to drive, I could be wrong I don't know the guy.
Now lets say he has been convicted of driving offences and is infact unable to operate a motorised vehicle safely on our roads... if that is the case then he is disabled, the same way that someone who can't walk is disabled and deserving of our care as the strong members of society who are fully-abled.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
That 13th century shit, as you put it, is the very foundation of the freedom and prosperity which you enjoy today you ungrateful ignorant fool.
You might as well deem yourself as having won this argument right now because I have nothing more civil to say to you if your incapable of seeing the reality of what your supporting and what your decrying.
Everyone has a right to travel, period full-fucking-stop. If we are going to restrict that right to travel it has to be for the utmost best reasons
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
and numbers in bank computers, is not a good reason. It's infact a very crap reason, that is totally and completely artificial and utterly divorced from reality.
I hold a significant number of pounds because I need to hold them in this society the way it is, not because I believe that society is structured correctly. When the pound tanks, my pounds go down with everyone elses, and it will be the stupidity of people like you slagging off the magna carta and our traditions that precipitates it.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
In short, as far as I am concerned, you are a traitor, a scumbag, and you deserve every ounce of tyranny that can possibly be piled upon you.
I have nothing more to say to you... goodbye.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion A traitor? My dad was German, my mother Spanish & I was born in Christchurch New Zealand, to which country am I a traitor to exactly?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion I have not slagged off The Magna Carta, merely added the perspective that whilst modern statutes are not 'laws', TMG is simply animal skin with scribblings on composed in time when life was not exposed to intensive care units & The X Factor.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion No, I never used any such expletive.
So I must therefore be able to travel by any mode of transport I choose - you however put restrictions on private air travel. We exist in a vastly different world from the green leafy tree lined paths of horse drawn transport of the 13th century.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDemocracyDelusion
Quote; 'I see, so the 50's stuff has to go, but the 13th century stuff has to stay. lollygaggle 3 hours ago'
I do not & have never used any bad language to make a point - unlike some.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion You state 'Everyone has a right to travel, period full-fucking-stop.'.
Yet you'd happily imprison those who do not meet your requirements.
So, no. not everyone has.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion Just been reminded about the father in law's medical insurance. This allowed him to have a significant amount of surgery in two weeks that otherwise would have seen an 18 month NHS wait.
You don't agree or have medical insurance?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle I don't agree with MANDATORY insurance. There is a big difference between that and saying that all insurance is bad.
I tried to explain the situation with the notion of mandatory walking insurance. If that was the law, I suspect you would see what is faulty with the concept very easily.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
To expand on that, consider if it was the law that you had to have public liability insurance to even step outside your house, because there is a certain non-zero risk that you might cause harm or loss to others that you can't afford to repay.
If that was in effect, then your home just became your prison the moment your bank account dips below the level at which you can afford the mandatory insurance premiums.
You see? (I guess not)
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion So in simple terms, you have third party insurance & you are stationary at a junction & your vehicle is hit from behind & written off by an unisured penniless motorist.
How do you proceed in replacing your means of getting to work?
lollygaggle 2 months ago
Comment removed
UKBLIVE 2 months ago
@lollygaggle You claim on your insurance the same way the shop keeper would claim on his if you were out walking and fell through his window without insurance.
The insurance company should not be allowed to increase your premiums as a result, and instead can see to recoup their costs via the courts, who will judge the situation and determine a fair amount for the driver to repay with the rest coming from a public fund which is supplied by the fuel duty we all pay according to our usage.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
There are a limited number of types of collisions and I have classified them each and determined how they can be handled in a voluntary system which does not rely on the coercive power of the state to support a thieving monopoly of fat cat insurers who funnel over 27 BILLION from the economy annually.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion So apart from what you suggest, all we need is an end to starvation in Africa, a cure for all kinds of cancer & AIDS, domestic fuel bills reduced by 9/10th's & we'll be sorted.
lollygaggle 2 months ago
@lollygaggle How is any of that relevant in the slightest to the situation regarding motoring law in the UK?
Oh btw, Iran has a cure for cancer, but unfortunately we are probably about to bomb them back to the stone age, to secure the profit margins of the tyrant fat cats you love so much, so it's not going to be much use to anyone.
TheDemocracyDelusion 2 months ago
@TheDemocracyDelusion You will need to explain the shop keeper analogy?
You don't appear to understand third party insurance.
lollygaggle 2 months ago