this country used to be full of work houses with children in them...that was legal.....men never used to be able to be convicted of raping their wife that was the law...it used to be legal to keep slaves ffs. If it was legal to have sex with children on a wednesday night after 8pm all these cunts championing the law would be there with their dicks out saying they were doing nothing wrong. well here's what I know.. a change is gonna come and all these evil sheeple will be dealt with accordingly
acts AND laws are for sheeple. good ppl know what's right and wrong, and know how to behave. laws and acts were created so they could justify doing things that are wrong.
Think back to the iraq invasion... all the hype...... was it legal was it illegal.....going somewhere killing innocent women and children is wrong. but they create a smoke screen and justify it by saying it was legal. they tried to replace right and wrong with illegal and legal, so they can change what IS right and wrong
There is a difference between act and law. Acts are generally limited with specific language. Such as in California, State of, the vehicle act, section 21052 restricts the act to a specific group of persons. By knowing the statutes of the acts and finding how and who they apply to eliminates the question if fraud.
I love that these idiots accuse police of Fraud by enforcing law set out by statute acts. That's funny last time I checked Fraud was part of the Theft Act, so according to the hypocrites the police aren't breaking the law
@msadler100 such a weightless argument. Common law and case law dictate that acts are laws, therefore they are laws. There is no counter to that argument.
if an act is law, why is it called an act and not called law? because it isnt law its an act. if it was law it wouldnt be called an act it should be called law.
If freetards believe that acts are not laws but common law is, how do they explain the statute of repeal act 1553? Created well before the introduction of Government-made law, therefore it is common law and it protects people's rights not to be bound by religious laws. Answers on a postcard?
@007RoyalFlush The First Statute of Repeal was an Act of the Parliament of England (1 Mary, st. 2, c. 2), passed in the first Parliament of Mary I of England's reign, nullified all religious legislation passed under the previous monarch, the boy-King Edward VI, and the de facto rulers of that time, Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, and John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland.
@msadler100 It may have been passed while there was such a thing as Parliament, but Parliament did not have power to create law until the overthrow of Charles the first. This law was created by the monarch, therefore it is common law.
An Act of Parliament creates a new law or changes an existing law. An Act is a Bill approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and formally agreed to by the reigning monarch (known as Royal Assent). Once implemented, an Act is law and applies to the UK as a whole or to specific areas of the country.
@speightsfan CORRECT! It never ceases to amaze me how much the freetard movement contradicts itself. Apparantly statutes aren't laws, but common law is. But common law states that statutes are laws, but the freetards say they aren't. So only the bits of common law that the freetards agree with are law, and the bits they don't like aren't law. Makes as much sense as performing CPR on a fruit salad.
This guy had no thought for people who attend at police stations to report crime or pass on sensitive information. He should not be filming inside the front counter of a police station regardless of whether there is any existing law preventing him from doing so. The officer had handed him documentation which the officer stated explained his query. This officer was fully aware he was being filmed and sensibly refrained from making any legal comment designed by the questioning to embarrass him.
Thank you for your proffesional breakdown. Its all much more clear now. But what if you want to be crowned king, and not prime minister? -Its not the same. why should you settle with prime minister? That job sucks ass. You want to be king and do whatever kings do. Wear a big ass crown on your head and spend milions on the expense of others. You and I can't ever do that. In a democracy, we would. For being a ''traditional idea'' - its pretty f**ing expensive, dont you think?
But govs are filming us aren't they? why's that okey?
Try filming at a trainstation. U'll be treated as a TERRORIST (whatever that means) We're filmed at all time n places but we cant film them? justice? And how come you and i cant ever be crowned kings? Thought we agreed on democracy and that were all equal?
Wake up. Democracy and the laws are BS- its the biggest mockery to the inteligence of mankind! -Made by the rich FOR the rich. Think of the word Freedom. We are not free.
@MrDonChorizo Let me break it down for you, primary school style, as that is clearly what you are in need of. Being treated as suspicious is not the same as being treated as guilty. We have agreed on a democracy, and that is why anyone can be Prime Minister - he's the head of the Government. The Queen has no real power, it's just a traditional idea, or rather something for you to moan at just for the sake of moaning. We have freedom, although admittedly there is no such thing as absolute freedom
@gotknowledge1 Your video description outlines your poor knowledge of the law. Firstly, if an officer has enough suspicion that someone is carrying something illegal, then he can search that person, regardless of consent. If that person makes it impractical for the search to be conducted there and then, he will be arrested where a search can be carried out forcibly. Secondly, the fact that an arrested person is found innocent does not make it an unlawful arrest. Learn the law please!
"as he is not a criminal and he was released without charge so he filed a complaint in regards to why he was detained"
This is exactly what police HAVE to be corrupt -- ( and they shoudl have just made up some charges) because if they are not they get screwed over and people take the piss
Your parents signed the birth certificate as your legal guardians, thats it ! Your parents can sign you into a contract under the age of 16 if its in your best interests. If you do not require the protection of the crown go be a gypsy !
@BluewaterDezil Granted, you are correct in your analysis of a contract, but a birth certificate is not a contract, neither is a driving licence or any other proof of identity. They are just documents, which are issued by the Government or other accredited authorities that prove who you are. That's it.
It is irrelevant whether it is against the law to film in a police station, if I don't want you have film in my house, premises etc. I can tell you to stop or eject you. The police were doing the same, you have no right to film anyone, anywhere.
Everyone know that the way to "fight" this -- if you really think you are in the right-- is in the courts..
What did you expect the cops to say -- Did you really expect the cops to admit they were wrong on film ( hypothically , I'm not saying they were) and then risk getting sued.
What exactly where you expecting to get out of this
this video makes me angry. "FUCK THE POLICE, I SEE FRU DEM, THEY BRING GUNS AND DRUGS INTO THE COUNTRY THEN LOCK ME UP IF I USE DEM" fuckin pig cunts, harry roberts is my friend, is my friend, is my friend/!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great video my friend. Humanity will win this thing the day police wake up to realise they are no more than a corporate gang, hindering their fellow mans progress. It's innevitable, and I'm very excited about the future :-)
An "act" is a "law." Before being passed by a legislative body, a piece of legislation is called a "bill," which is not yet a "law." Once an bill has been passed by the requisite number of votes and is signed by an executive authority, it then becomes an "act" (enacted) and at that point, it becomes law.
@simon71590 watch john harris its an illusion. acts are to control the govened. the lad making the video, i assume didnt give a name and would refuse to be govened by the police. to Understand an Act would then become law as you Understand (Stand Under the act/law)
I will say one thing though. He is not exactly being disorderly is he. The officer was just thinking of some way to get him out. I think he would be hard pushed to arrest him for being disorderly in a Police station!
Section 1 of pace 1984 gives police to search a person without arresting them.
plus... ur lucky u didnt get nicked for section 5 public order. u swoar in a police station which counts as a public place you said "shit" and youve incriminated yourself by posting a recording of yourself on youtube breaking this law... so effectively u could be arrested... this is where your video becomes a tad stupid mate...
@highnine9 Wrong. Section 4a of the public order act is to direct at somebody. Section 5 of the POA is wrods, signs, or behaviour, in a public place which is likely to cause someone harassment alarm and distress. It does not have to be directed at anyone in particular
You all claim to only follow common law, yet you have all failed to actually study common law. Under the Magna Carta, only a baron can lawfully rebel. None of you are barons. You have also not researched "contempt to statute" under common law, which specifically creates an offence for not following an act of parliament. Also, under common law, a Police officer can outlaw you from all protections under law if you attempt to escape arrest, making it lawful to kill you. Still love common law?
I completely understand how it is so unfathomable for some people to understand whats really going on, but break a down, lets look at the smaller picture. Why do these officers not know the difference between laws and acts? Would you be content with teachers not knowing and understanding the curriculum? Open your eye's people - your fear is blinding you. "A slave who thinks he's free, is still a slave"
@coco1baby Because the "difference between laws and acts" is like the "difference" between John Doe and JOHN DOE, or the "difference" between a person and a human being. They are misconceptions promoted by conspiracy theorists who think having a copy of Black's and a list of websites means they have a better understanding of law than those who have actually studied law in accredited schools. Like hypochondriacs who think a medical book makes then better at medicine than their doctor!
@coco1baby When your teachers are people like Elvick, Stoll, Sam Kennedy, Hovind, Shrout etc, then no, I don't expect them to understand what they are "teaching"! An ignoramus who thinks he's an expert is still an ignoramus!
I thought this was very very good, good on you :) If you want to see corrupt policing, come up to West Yorkshire. The entire force is corrupt and it's one rule for them, one rule for us. Well done :D
The people who disagree with this video are simply scared sheep who love there government. Question nothing and remain asleep....let the awake human beings with a brain handle the real issues.
An Act of Parliament creates a new law or changes an existing law. An Act is a Bill approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and formally agreed to by the reigning monarch (known as Royal Assent). Once implemented, an Act is law and applies to the UK as a whole or to specific areas of the country.
@edotoole An act is a rule of the society and requires your consent. The reason most people don't know this is because they don't realise they are consenting... Look up common law vs law of the sea
@crisisofconsciousnes It is obvious that your comprehension of the English language is limited.
I will try to explain. Laws start out as bills. When they are approved by both Houses of Parliament they become the law of the land. As I stated, " once implemented an Act is law." To claim otherwise is imbecilic.
I hope this helps, but I suspect not and you will continue with your tomfoolery.
@edotoole My comprehension of the english language, what the fuck are you talking about. Now if you want to get technical isn't everyones comprehension of the english language limited. We are not all walking around like fucking walking dictionaries your fucking cheeky litte cunt sack.
Now you believe that the government can pass Law of the land on its people, you fucking believe that, don't assume I'm thick mate, Im likely more intelligent than you, now go away and play nicely
@edotoole Here do you wish to confirm this Legalese definition for me you fucking waste of flesh: A LEGISLATIVE RULE of SOCIETY given the FORCE of law by the CONSENT of the GOVERNED, a RULE, as of a CORPORATION.
@crisisofconsciousnes Legislative rule of society - A law issued by the Queen in Parliament. Force of Law - The enforcement of the law by law enforcement officers. Consent of the governed - The ability for the public to vote on who leads the law making decision process. Corporation?? Not really relevant.
You and your friends probably look fucking dodgey and filming a place like a police station without concent is against the law, how do they not know you will use that is some kind of terorism act YOU DESERVE NOOOO RESPECT!
"as he is not a criminal and he was released without charge so he filed a complaint in regards to why he was detained."
If I was in the police positions I would never have released him. I would have made up some charges ( even something simple as disorderly conduct)
You are just asking for police to be corrupt. The police do the right thing and realse you friend rather that making bogus charge ( which I would have done) and you still give them shit..
@badpanda84 ... area known 4 drug use. As I said, they go for the easy results as opposed to catching real criminals that would require a bit of effort and time.
That said, all you have to do is search "Freeman" on youtube&there are numerous videos of these people arguing with police, it's pathetic!!! I mean I completely agree with your reason4being a freeman&its true, society is a joke, its made4the rich and powerful, but there are better ways of stickin it2the man than givin coppers grief!
@fukinblowme no no no, this is typical of police, if you do something that irritates them or that they dont like they will use their powers to cause you some hardship simply because they decide they dont like you.
Bottom line is, and ive said this for a long long time, the police are a TARGET based organisation, catching CRIMINALS in not at the top of their agenda, meeting TARGETS IS.
Find out about MANDELA COURT in Reading, known over the whole country, they target the end user as opposed to...
lucky you had witnesses and a camera or you would have been shot and some bogus story made up about you attacking officers would have been told to everyone.
Probably not the best way of settling affairs but I congratulate the respondent and the officer at law to have not let the situation denigrate into a Warner Bros style cloud of spit and feathers. Statutes are not LAW and a Freeman can utilise Natural and Common Law to not contract with these 'agents' in their merciless pursuit of private profit. Nuff said.
@EUROPEANDRIFTER- DO YOU MEAN POLICE OFFICERS . YOU CAN GET MORE THAN TWENTY IN ONE CELL JUST MAKE ONE THE BOSS AND THE REST WILL CRAWL UP HIS ARSE . UNLESS YOU HAVE A CAMERA THEN NONE OF THEM WILL WANT TO BE THE BOSS
In the future the statist monsters will no doubt be spewing nonsense as if it were news saying, "He was armed with a communication device and assaulted officers..."
What do police have to hide such that they don't want to be recorded?
straight gangster my friend... i be doing the same thing to these damn pigs out here in my city... i shud start filming it tho and show just how they try and manipulate us into believing we did somethin wrong...
hi you are getting better at this gotknowledge1! It's good. If you could give me more information it would be great. My skype address is gicker1 if you have it and we could have a chat sometime if you dont mind. keep up the good work!
@vienacarva yeah, dont go looking to cause trouble, it's pathetic when people purposely antagonise the police... if they hassle you then by all mean exercise your right as a human being (not the human rights act, thats just laughable)
@baldeagle1962 I welcome all comments but your analysis is just out of context mate. 1) I did swear so wot its not like I was swearing at him so any1 that swears is auto in the wrong wot are u on about? 2)my argument is about acts an laws so y r u tryin 2 make it out 2 b about filmin on private property the issue came up but was irrelevant in the end. lol so any1 that goes into a police station and ask questions is protestin ur kind of thinkin does the freeman movement no favours at all.
2) Remember your OWN argument, the Police are a limited company therefore YOU ARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
It's pathetic that police or even that fool baldeagle should even go on about swearing, since when did words actually do any harm? I hate people & police when they threaten arrest for swearing, they're words for crying out loud and da same 2 filming anything. It's powers created to oppress. Police should be out catching real criminals
How do you explain to a moron that they are a moron. They are morons and don't understand. Give them a job to do and they do it. Give them some time to think and...
Everyone that thinks he should get arrested are completely incorrect you have fallen into the trap that the government have set up your freedom is covered up by propaganda the current police are officers, not police men but officers.. An officer is a corporate rank they are there to collect money by enforcing acts which are statutes THE ARE NOT THE LAW they are acts... Shakespeare said that the world is a stage.. And acts are just acts. You CAN record police officers even without their concent,
not totally accurate, statute is law, statute law acts upon your PERSON, it is corpoarte law, marine/admiralty law, in contrast common law is law of the land, and says that you should not cause harm or loss to another or enter into false (misleading) contracts. to simply state that statute is not law without qualifying what you're saying makes it a false statement.
@baldeagle1962 The Magna Carta states that the law of the land including both common law and statute, thus making your argument invalid and contradictory
@Palafury Incorrect - A policeman and a police officer are one and the same thing. Acts are laws, as dictated by common law precedent and the magna carta. Although you can record, you cannot publicise that recording of ANYONE without their consent.
Really, then why can newspapers publish without consent. You're talking rubbish, and by the way the word statute does not appear in the Magna Carta, you're talking out of your arse.
@baldeagle1962 They are allowed to because they are the press. You are not the press. Read the Magna Carta (As you clearly haven't read it YOURSELF) and you will find it
I have read it, the Magna Carta predates parliament and statute, it has subsequently been largely repealed by statute but the word statute does not appear in the original Magna Carta 1215, anywhere, stop trying to sound knowledgeable when you're not, your previous posts are similarly unenlightened, basically you're just another youtube fuckwit.
@baldeagle1962 I'm quite pleased that I managed to make you waste a large portion of your day looking though :-) My argument comes from pure common sense. To say that legislation is not law is nothing short of complete idiocy.
you're an idiot, it's not worth carrying this on as you don't have any knowledge of the subject. don't bother responding, the Magna Carta doesn't "waste my time" but you are. (I'm not sure why you think reading the Magna Carta is a waste of time in the first place)
@baldeagle1962 I know you're lying, If you were indeed a law graduate would know that acts are laws and how the English legal system works, which you clearly don't. You would also know how much of a waste of time researching the Magna Carta is. It's a law which is rarely used if at all in today's modern society.
i got a 2:1 from Bristol. now which part of fuck off dickhead didnt you understand? you're clearly not an english speaker, asian maybe, and on that basis you'd know all about lying
@Palafury " You CAN record police officers even without their concent,"
In theory maybe -- but realisitcally if they were dodge ( which some of them are) they will probably just taze you anyway and then confiscate you camera.. -- and then how are you going to prove it..
@badpanda84 People like that deserve to get tazered. The police officer will more than likely admit to using a tazer or any other type of force, you don't seem to understand how far the reach of "reasonable force" stretches
@badpanda84 Quite right, the justification for the use of force by a police officer should be subjective, and the level of force used versus the resistance offered should be open to interpretation. I sense sarcasm but I don't quite understand why
@ferrarisarecool7 I fully agree... that why this guy is an idiot.. because realsitcally if the cops were dodgey. they would just bash the crap out of him and tazer him and take the camera.. and then what is he going to do .. access the police of excessive force
And if the cops weren't dodgey ( ie just doing there job) then why make a video agaist them
@badpanda84 I must say I certainly am not a fan of the police as an organisation, (see my comments below) but it seems to me a lot of the "freemen of the land" go out to purposely wind the police up, which I dont agree with.
In my experience of the police they have never been there when i've needed them (i.e. when the threat of an assault has arisen or even after they've done fuck all) but a quick enough to hassle me over driving with a break light out or to search me for walking through an...
@007RoyalFlush ", and the level of force used versus the resistance offered should be open to interpretation"
Problem is that in a confrontation can you tell how much resistance is going to be offered. What if the person you are trying to arrest happens to be an pro-boxer.
How would you know ( until its too late)
Better to be safe and use more force than necessary rather than be sorry and get killed
@badpanda84 I couldn't agree with you more. A police officer is always be given the opportunity to justify the amount of force he has used. The rule is that if he can justify it under the circumstances, then it's fine, regardless of the level of force actually used.
When facing a judge ... every lawyer should know and be told to get the prosecutor to justify the law. Police are not a reliable source. As this affects every society on earth police will be the ones with the burden. so keep speaking out
I came accross a police written law that says towns and city must have police. It is not a law, police self serving .. and they police have stacked the laws against someone policing the police. great job keep it up.
when police do not respect the law it is time to go to the goverment. Goverments also wonder where these laws come from. you keep telling them.. See members of parliment or if american congress, governors, even the mayor should be infomed.
@gotknowledge1 "treat me with the respect that I deserve" - Due to the manner is which you are acting, you deserve none. "Gross negligence", "Fraud", please learn the meaning of these terms before making ridiculous accusations. If you had really done your research, you would learn that although acts are not the same as COMMON LAWS, they still legally binding to all citizens within the UK. The only time common law holds more weight that legislation is with precedent. You are delusional.
Law is of course the product of a RIGHT, and is the means by which we protect a right; whereas a statute is a club rule that has been given 'force of law' by consent of the person who places themselves under it. I have rarely found a cop who understands the difference.
Why is it the police force is still made up of only white people just comes to show the police will always remain two faced undercover racist they will never change and they will always abuse their powers.
@wolf18179 The difference between legal and lawful has no relevance in practice, as in reality they actually mean the same thing. You are already placed under the rule of statute, simply by being in the country, and statute is not subject to consent. Do you no think there would have been a case for such a theory if you were in fact right?
@edjthompson Wow its clear to me that your trapped in a prison state mentality where you think the state is all powerful and runs just about every part of your life. Your a slave in my humble opinion there is a clear difference between legal and lawful but you ignore it.
@edjthompson I think we should agree to disagree because you believe the state is all powerful I believe we are born free! And should stay free and most of us are brainwashed and conditioned to be slaves of the state. Its been interesting talkin to ya good bye and good luck.
@wolf18179 I understand what you believe the difference between lawful and legal to be, it is the same difference you believe there to be between common law and statute. In today's modern society there is no difference. Statute is there because common law is insufficient. Without law, we would not be the advanced society we are today, and to suggest that we are not free because of legislation is nothing short of absurd.
@edjthompson I understand most of what you say but this is what I don’t get if you believe all statutes are laws then how can you at the same time believe your free? that’s just crazy to me because if the state was to carry out every act/statutes to the letter that’s not freedom not even close.
@wolf18179 Because we need laws in order to live in a civilised society. Laws are there for a reason. The way in which our country produced laws changed when we started being led by a government in place of the monarchy. What you're really arguing is that you don't agree with certain laws and are making as much of a fuss as possible in attempting to argue that you shouldn't have to abide by those laws you don't agree with.
@edjthompson lol you call us a civilsed society. and your wrong again i love this countys laws i hate the acts. your a slave stop tryin to make other people slaves you must work for the state or make money out of people bein slaves thats y ur tryin 2 make more slaves lol you talk rubbish fed to u by the state! facts are facts i get away with acts every day iv even had police tel me im right so il stay free you keep workin for master ya slave lol
@wolf18179 You haven't had police tell you acts are not legally binding, or if you have they will have said it just to shut that overactive mouth of yours. There is no way you got away with anything on the sole basis that it was an offence against an act and not a common law offence. Your lies offend me. The Government makes the law on approval of the Queen. This is really about the fact that you don't agree with the content of the law, rather than the way in which it is made.
@edjthompson you obviously have no clue we are getting our lives back from what you represent. the police are there to serve the people and protect our rights under common law hence the (oath), lol if you are a police officer and cannot tell the difference between statutes and common law then you are a disgrace to the uniform and fraudulent too, you have no power to enforce anything other than common law to a human being we are not slaves you are!
@wolf18179 Your comments are genuinely quite funny. The police are servants of the crown, and not servants of the people. Police officers have equal power to enforce statute as they do common law. The majority of police work is to do with statutory powers, and has very little to do with common law. Police do protect your rights under common law, to suggest otherwise is madness. But police also enforce the law in the form of statute, which is not only a power but a duty.
@edjthompson Lol im trying to be very serious. I disagree with 90% of the things you said surprise surprise! I tell you what edjthompson if you can explain this video away and not make me laugh ill be impressed?..... it wont let me post the link il send it in a message
@wolf18179 I'm sure you are. I thought you might refer to these videos. The fact that they are even filmed in a UK court room is proof enough for me that they are completely fabricated. If you've ever been to Court you will know the security measures in place to prevent even the smallest prohibited items being taken into Her Majesty's Court.
@edjthompson Lol that last reply was just weak check the facts hes got dates times names video plus the response from the court what court it is! he answers questions about it on his website I could go on and on. for you to just dismiss it as completely fabricated just shows me and every1 how enslaved you are.
Don't get me wrong, I think it was very funny that you bamboozled the copper. He probably did the wisest thing and left you alone as you clearly had an agenda to either entrap him or make him look even more stupid. Props to you for not giving in. It is unfortunate that when we are born we somehow have auto-consented to laws of the country we live in. I just feel happy I was not born in China/Pakistan, where your actions could have lead to your death.
lol sorry gilesey3 there is no such thing as auto consent or statue law its either a law or statue. of course i have the right not to consent that is what makes us a free county not like china/pakistan get past the smoke and mirrors and it all becomes clear good luck.
@wolf18179 They have different names because the two different types of law originate from different places. Both statute and common law are legally binding and not subject to consent. Common law in the form of precedent dictates that statute is legally binding.
@wolf18179 lol were did u find that crap? statutes do need consent and are legally binding any1 will tell you that. common law is not legally binding and not subject to consent. common law is law of the land act/statutes are laws of the sea.
@wolf18179 Where did I find it? In studying for my law degree! I tell you what, go and commit an offence which is only contrary to statute and see how far the 'policed by consent' argument gets you with the police, the CPS and the judge. The law is binding to all people in the country. The source of the law is irrelevant, i.e. whether it was made by the arm of the monarch through the judiciary, or whether it was by parliament.
@edjthompson Wow your doing a law degree! I do understand what your saying. if you watch my tv licence video you will see your wrong again because I have committed an offence which is only contrary to statutes and they cant do anything nothing lol. I can give you endless links to watch people breaking act/statute and get away with it. so its you that has to ask yourself if statutes are laws how and why are we getting away with it and putting it on utube to show people like yourself the truth?
@wolf18179 Correction - I have a criminal law degree. I dare say people will have got away with plenty of statutory offences, however not because they are statutes, likely to be because of a technicality or lack of evidence. There is no defence recognised by the English legal system involving the claim that statutes are not legally binding or subject to consent. Precedent states that statutes are legally binding, hence it is now case law (common law) which even you claim to be legally binding.
@edjthompson Ok smart guy who gives statutes the force of law? Do I have the right not to consent? blacks 1 says acts/statutory instruments are given the FORCE OF LAW where in that does it say they are law? they need our consent and consent is deemed through action or inaction its a hidden fraud hidden in plain sight if you watch people getting away with it it has got nothin to do with technicality or lack of evidence I said common law is not legally binding.
@edjthompson Law is of course the product of a RIGHT, and is the means by which we protect a right; whereas a statute is a club rule that has been given 'force of law' by consent of the person who places themselves under it. I have rarely found a cop who understands the difference.
@edjthompson Law is of course the product of a RIGHT, and is the means by which we protect a right; whereas a statute is a club rule that has been given 'force of law' by consent of the person who places themselves under it. I have rarely found a cop who understands the difference.
@edjthompson Law is of course the product of a RIGHT, and is the means by which we protect a right; whereas a statute is a club rule that has been given 'force of law' by consent of the person who places themselves under it. I have rarely found a cop who understands the difference.
I do have one interesting question though. If he decided to lock you up in a cell without reason, you would use the Police And Criminal Evidence Act and the Human Rights Act to defend your legal position. So if you do really believe that Acts aren't laws, I dare you not to ever use them in your defence. They aren't just about what the police can do to us, but what they can't do to us too.
@gilesey3 I see where your coming from. but if he did lock me up for no reason my defence wouldn’t be to use any act! my defence would be that I didn’t commit any crime! Or consent to his actions. I have a question or to for you gilesay3 what is the difference between legal and lawful? Who gives statues/acts the force of law? Do I have the right not to consent to statues/acts?
Basically born from 'bills', after acts have been implemented, they become part of Statue Law. In that link you'll see a statute law database that shows you all the acts that were incorporated into Law. The only thing that I think confuses us, and the police too is that there's not one big list of laws e.g.
Law 1 : Thout shall not kill!
They are all spread around silly acts to confuse and weaken us.
"An Act of Parliament creates a new law or changes an existing law. An Act is a Bill approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and formally agreed to by the reigning monarch (known as Royal Assent). Once implemented, an Act is law and applies to the UK as a whole or to specific areas of the country. "
he can not refuse to take your complaint - please come the board you might have a case against this officer
complaintsaboutpolice.co.uk
Come on a discussion board and help educate people
undercoversting 4 days ago
The bird who came through the receiption was highly shaggable, is tellong her that an offence?
planetrockford 1 week ago
Why is it even a debate - "I WANT TO FILE A COMPLAINT YOU TWIT! THAT'S ALL!" Other than telling me the procedure....FUCK OFF!
Stalicone 1 month ago
this country used to be full of work houses with children in them...that was legal.....men never used to be able to be convicted of raping their wife that was the law...it used to be legal to keep slaves ffs. If it was legal to have sex with children on a wednesday night after 8pm all these cunts championing the law would be there with their dicks out saying they were doing nothing wrong. well here's what I know.. a change is gonna come and all these evil sheeple will be dealt with accordingly
disi4h3 1 month ago
acts AND laws are for sheeple. good ppl know what's right and wrong, and know how to behave. laws and acts were created so they could justify doing things that are wrong.
Think back to the iraq invasion... all the hype...... was it legal was it illegal.....going somewhere killing innocent women and children is wrong. but they create a smoke screen and justify it by saying it was legal. they tried to replace right and wrong with illegal and legal, so they can change what IS right and wrong
disi4h3 1 month ago
There is a difference between act and law. Acts are generally limited with specific language. Such as in California, State of, the vehicle act, section 21052 restricts the act to a specific group of persons. By knowing the statutes of the acts and finding how and who they apply to eliminates the question if fraud.
coreyeib 2 months ago
I love that these idiots accuse police of Fraud by enforcing law set out by statute acts. That's funny last time I checked Fraud was part of the Theft Act, so according to the hypocrites the police aren't breaking the law
sonofbruce79 3 months ago
it all stems from
Modern "Commercial Law" Is based on Ancient Babylonian Codes
msadler100 3 months ago
@msadler100 such a weightless argument. Common law and case law dictate that acts are laws, therefore they are laws. There is no counter to that argument.
007RoyalFlush 3 months ago
if an act is law, why is it called an act and not called law? because it isnt law its an act. if it was law it wouldnt be called an act it should be called law.
msadler100 3 months ago
If freetards believe that acts are not laws but common law is, how do they explain the statute of repeal act 1553? Created well before the introduction of Government-made law, therefore it is common law and it protects people's rights not to be bound by religious laws. Answers on a postcard?
007RoyalFlush 3 months ago
@007RoyalFlush The First Statute of Repeal was an Act of the Parliament of England (1 Mary, st. 2, c. 2), passed in the first Parliament of Mary I of England's reign, nullified all religious legislation passed under the previous monarch, the boy-King Edward VI, and the de facto rulers of that time, Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset, and John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland.
msadler100 3 months ago
@msadler100 It may have been passed while there was such a thing as Parliament, but Parliament did not have power to create law until the overthrow of Charles the first. This law was created by the monarch, therefore it is common law.
007RoyalFlush 3 months ago
An Act of Parliament creates a new law or changes an existing law. An Act is a Bill approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and formally agreed to by the reigning monarch (known as Royal Assent). Once implemented, an Act is law and applies to the UK as a whole or to specific areas of the country.
speightsfan 3 months ago
@speightsfan CORRECT! It never ceases to amaze me how much the freetard movement contradicts itself. Apparantly statutes aren't laws, but common law is. But common law states that statutes are laws, but the freetards say they aren't. So only the bits of common law that the freetards agree with are law, and the bits they don't like aren't law. Makes as much sense as performing CPR on a fruit salad.
007RoyalFlush 3 months ago
This guy had no thought for people who attend at police stations to report crime or pass on sensitive information. He should not be filming inside the front counter of a police station regardless of whether there is any existing law preventing him from doing so. The officer had handed him documentation which the officer stated explained his query. This officer was fully aware he was being filmed and sensibly refrained from making any legal comment designed by the questioning to embarrass him.
TheS7D 4 months ago
@Weimar1924
Thank you for your proffesional breakdown. Its all much more clear now. But what if you want to be crowned king, and not prime minister? -Its not the same. why should you settle with prime minister? That job sucks ass. You want to be king and do whatever kings do. Wear a big ass crown on your head and spend milions on the expense of others. You and I can't ever do that. In a democracy, we would. For being a ''traditional idea'' - its pretty f**ing expensive, dont you think?
MrDonChorizo 4 months ago
its supposed to be @007RoyalFlush
MrDonChorizo 4 months ago
@Weimar1924
But govs are filming us aren't they? why's that okey?
Try filming at a trainstation. U'll be treated as a TERRORIST (whatever that means) We're filmed at all time n places but we cant film them? justice? And how come you and i cant ever be crowned kings? Thought we agreed on democracy and that were all equal?
Wake up. Democracy and the laws are BS- its the biggest mockery to the inteligence of mankind! -Made by the rich FOR the rich. Think of the word Freedom. We are not free.
MrDonChorizo 4 months ago
@MrDonChorizo Let me break it down for you, primary school style, as that is clearly what you are in need of. Being treated as suspicious is not the same as being treated as guilty. We have agreed on a democracy, and that is why anyone can be Prime Minister - he's the head of the Government. The Queen has no real power, it's just a traditional idea, or rather something for you to moan at just for the sake of moaning. We have freedom, although admittedly there is no such thing as absolute freedom
007RoyalFlush 4 months ago
@gotknowledge1 Your video description outlines your poor knowledge of the law. Firstly, if an officer has enough suspicion that someone is carrying something illegal, then he can search that person, regardless of consent. If that person makes it impractical for the search to be conducted there and then, he will be arrested where a search can be carried out forcibly. Secondly, the fact that an arrested person is found innocent does not make it an unlawful arrest. Learn the law please!
007RoyalFlush 4 months ago
"as he is not a criminal and he was released without charge so he filed a complaint in regards to why he was detained"
This is exactly what police HAVE to be corrupt -- ( and they shoudl have just made up some charges) because if they are not they get screwed over and people take the piss
badpanda84 5 months ago
Judging from the video, I can see why their friend was stopped and searched. Listen to their gutter ghetto black speak.
ScottishCaledonian 5 months ago
Your parents signed the birth certificate as your legal guardians, thats it ! Your parents can sign you into a contract under the age of 16 if its in your best interests. If you do not require the protection of the crown go be a gypsy !
BluewaterDezil 5 months ago
@BluewaterDezil Granted, you are correct in your analysis of a contract, but a birth certificate is not a contract, neither is a driving licence or any other proof of identity. They are just documents, which are issued by the Government or other accredited authorities that prove who you are. That's it.
007RoyalFlush 5 months ago
shut up shut up shut up :
Keep your Emotions in your Panties & read What the Constitutional law states .
If you dont know what it is ? How can you any Intelligent opinion about it ?
The LAWS Are written to Protect Us from Abuses of The Powers Granted.!
Misusing & Abusing These Granted Powers is a Serious Offence of The LAW!
How can this Guy in a Uniforum be a Cop if He is so Ignorant of The Law ?
Why is a Kid telling him what He Can & Cannot do under The Law of the land?
Public Trust ?
canadastreetmedia 5 months ago
It is irrelevant whether it is against the law to film in a police station, if I don't want you have film in my house, premises etc. I can tell you to stop or eject you. The police were doing the same, you have no right to film anyone, anywhere.
Weimar1924 5 months ago
Everyone know that the way to "fight" this -- if you really think you are in the right-- is in the courts..
What did you expect the cops to say -- Did you really expect the cops to admit they were wrong on film ( hypothically , I'm not saying they were) and then risk getting sued.
What exactly where you expecting to get out of this
badpanda84 5 months ago
" as he never got a reply about his complaint he took his camera to the police station to speak to the officer "
that is the problem.
Firstly the police investiaging the police dosent work.
badpanda84 5 months ago
this video makes me angry. "FUCK THE POLICE, I SEE FRU DEM, THEY BRING GUNS AND DRUGS INTO THE COUNTRY THEN LOCK ME UP IF I USE DEM" fuckin pig cunts, harry roberts is my friend, is my friend, is my friend/!!!!!!!!!!!!!
7Tottenham 6 months ago
hahahahahaha look at the video maker who is quoting all the stuff he has researched from the net
Mickygemma 6 months ago
well done m8 let em ave it :)
Fezmk2 6 months ago
Great video my friend. Humanity will win this thing the day police wake up to realise they are no more than a corporate gang, hindering their fellow mans progress. It's innevitable, and I'm very excited about the future :-)
Marronisince1990 6 months ago
An "act" is a "law." Before being passed by a legislative body, a piece of legislation is called a "bill," which is not yet a "law." Once an bill has been passed by the requisite number of votes and is signed by an executive authority, it then becomes an "act" (enacted) and at that point, it becomes law.
Act is another word for Law.
simon71590 6 months ago
@simon71590 Spot on mate.
007RoyalFlush 6 months ago
@simon71590 watch john harris its an illusion. acts are to control the govened. the lad making the video, i assume didnt give a name and would refuse to be govened by the police. to Understand an Act would then become law as you Understand (Stand Under the act/law)
mezza205 6 months ago
I will say one thing though. He is not exactly being disorderly is he. The officer was just thinking of some way to get him out. I think he would be hard pushed to arrest him for being disorderly in a Police station!
simon71590 6 months ago
haha this is so dumb.. fella your wrong...
Section 1 of pace 1984 gives police to search a person without arresting them.
plus... ur lucky u didnt get nicked for section 5 public order. u swoar in a police station which counts as a public place you said "shit" and youve incriminated yourself by posting a recording of yourself on youtube breaking this law... so effectively u could be arrested... this is where your video becomes a tad stupid mate...
EPIC FAIL on ur part ;)
spankiemole666 7 months ago
@spankiemole666 you are allowed to swear as long as its not directed towards a person
highnine9 7 months ago
@highnine9 Wrong. Section 4a of the public order act is to direct at somebody. Section 5 of the POA is wrods, signs, or behaviour, in a public place which is likely to cause someone harassment alarm and distress. It does not have to be directed at anyone in particular
simon71590 6 months ago
@spankiemole666 Either a copper or a wanabee
oppressednation 6 months ago
You all claim to only follow common law, yet you have all failed to actually study common law. Under the Magna Carta, only a baron can lawfully rebel. None of you are barons. You have also not researched "contempt to statute" under common law, which specifically creates an offence for not following an act of parliament. Also, under common law, a Police officer can outlaw you from all protections under law if you attempt to escape arrest, making it lawful to kill you. Still love common law?
007RoyalFlush 7 months ago
I completely understand how it is so unfathomable for some people to understand whats really going on, but break a down, lets look at the smaller picture. Why do these officers not know the difference between laws and acts? Would you be content with teachers not knowing and understanding the curriculum? Open your eye's people - your fear is blinding you. "A slave who thinks he's free, is still a slave"
coco1baby 7 months ago
@coco1baby Because the "difference between laws and acts" is like the "difference" between John Doe and JOHN DOE, or the "difference" between a person and a human being. They are misconceptions promoted by conspiracy theorists who think having a copy of Black's and a list of websites means they have a better understanding of law than those who have actually studied law in accredited schools. Like hypochondriacs who think a medical book makes then better at medicine than their doctor!
MsCrazyCuckoo 7 months ago
@coco1baby When your teachers are people like Elvick, Stoll, Sam Kennedy, Hovind, Shrout etc, then no, I don't expect them to understand what they are "teaching"! An ignoramus who thinks he's an expert is still an ignoramus!
MsCrazyCuckoo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@coco1baby "Why do these officers not know the difference between laws and acts?"
What make you think that some idiot who just looked it up on the internet is qualified or even correct in this case.
And even if he was correct shouldn't he challange that in court..
badpanda84 5 months ago
What Country did this take place?
GOOEYJIZZ 7 months ago
I thought this was very very good, good on you :) If you want to see corrupt policing, come up to West Yorkshire. The entire force is corrupt and it's one rule for them, one rule for us. Well done :D
DonSimonUK 7 months ago
The people who disagree with this video are simply scared sheep who love there government. Question nothing and remain asleep....let the awake human beings with a brain handle the real issues.
BurningAlienSyndrome 7 months ago
An Act of Parliament creates a new law or changes an existing law. An Act is a Bill approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and formally agreed to by the reigning monarch (known as Royal Assent). Once implemented, an Act is law and applies to the UK as a whole or to specific areas of the country.
I hope this helps.
edotoole 8 months ago
@edotoole An act is a rule of the society and requires your consent. The reason most people don't know this is because they don't realise they are consenting... Look up common law vs law of the sea
crisisofconsciousnes 7 months ago
@crisisofconsciousnes It is obvious that your comprehension of the English language is limited.
I will try to explain. Laws start out as bills. When they are approved by both Houses of Parliament they become the law of the land. As I stated, " once implemented an Act is law." To claim otherwise is imbecilic.
I hope this helps, but I suspect not and you will continue with your tomfoolery.
edotoole 7 months ago
@edotoole My comprehension of the english language, what the fuck are you talking about. Now if you want to get technical isn't everyones comprehension of the english language limited. We are not all walking around like fucking walking dictionaries your fucking cheeky litte cunt sack.
Now you believe that the government can pass Law of the land on its people, you fucking believe that, don't assume I'm thick mate, Im likely more intelligent than you, now go away and play nicely
crisisofconsciousnes 7 months ago
@edotoole Here do you wish to confirm this Legalese definition for me you fucking waste of flesh: A LEGISLATIVE RULE of SOCIETY given the FORCE of law by the CONSENT of the GOVERNED, a RULE, as of a CORPORATION.
crisisofconsciousnes 7 months ago
@crisisofconsciousnes Legislative rule of society - A law issued by the Queen in Parliament. Force of Law - The enforcement of the law by law enforcement officers. Consent of the governed - The ability for the public to vote on who leads the law making decision process. Corporation?? Not really relevant.
007RoyalFlush 7 months ago
You and your friends probably look fucking dodgey and filming a place like a police station without concent is against the law, how do they not know you will use that is some kind of terorism act YOU DESERVE NOOOO RESPECT!
simonandajsrant 8 months ago
10 police dislike this clip :-)
Baredamage 8 months ago
You do realise how easy it is for police to make up charges right?
So your friend as been realse without charge and you are complaining.
What did you want to police to do... say "since you are complaining I'll charge him with disordrely conduct"
badpanda84 8 months ago
"as he is not a criminal and he was released without charge so he filed a complaint in regards to why he was detained."
If I was in the police positions I would never have released him. I would have made up some charges ( even something simple as disorderly conduct)
You are just asking for police to be corrupt. The police do the right thing and realse you friend rather that making bogus charge ( which I would have done) and you still give them shit..
badpanda84 8 months ago
@badpanda84 ... area known 4 drug use. As I said, they go for the easy results as opposed to catching real criminals that would require a bit of effort and time.
That said, all you have to do is search "Freeman" on youtube&there are numerous videos of these people arguing with police, it's pathetic!!! I mean I completely agree with your reason4being a freeman&its true, society is a joke, its made4the rich and powerful, but there are better ways of stickin it2the man than givin coppers grief!
ferrarisarecool7 8 months ago
For the most part, cops are out to get criminals, not John Q. Public. Morons like this guy need to pick a better crusade...seriously.
fukinblowme 8 months ago
@fukinblowme no no no, this is typical of police, if you do something that irritates them or that they dont like they will use their powers to cause you some hardship simply because they decide they dont like you.
Bottom line is, and ive said this for a long long time, the police are a TARGET based organisation, catching CRIMINALS in not at the top of their agenda, meeting TARGETS IS.
Find out about MANDELA COURT in Reading, known over the whole country, they target the end user as opposed to...
ferrarisarecool7 8 months ago
Comment removed
badpanda84 8 months ago
@fukinblowme ...catching the dealer... 100's of arrests over the year or one big arrest, which do you think the police op for??
ferrarisarecool7 8 months ago
hehehe
tommydangerous27 8 months ago
Brilliant lol
Graeme87 9 months ago
lucky you had witnesses and a camera or you would have been shot and some bogus story made up about you attacking officers would have been told to everyone.
k0rps3gynd3r 9 months ago
Probably not the best way of settling affairs but I congratulate the respondent and the officer at law to have not let the situation denigrate into a Warner Bros style cloud of spit and feathers. Statutes are not LAW and a Freeman can utilise Natural and Common Law to not contract with these 'agents' in their merciless pursuit of private profit. Nuff said.
LittleErnieWise 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm loving this! People are starting to wake up hahahahaha
pyrouzi 9 months ago
@airgearbleachfan Please do
007RoyalFlush 10 months ago
@EUROPEANDRIFTER- DO YOU MEAN POLICE OFFICERS . YOU CAN GET MORE THAN TWENTY IN ONE CELL JUST MAKE ONE THE BOSS AND THE REST WILL CRAWL UP HIS ARSE . UNLESS YOU HAVE A CAMERA THEN NONE OF THEM WILL WANT TO BE THE BOSS
njoyingtube1 10 months ago
In the future the statist monsters will no doubt be spewing nonsense as if it were news saying, "He was armed with a communication device and assaulted officers..."
What do police have to hide such that they don't want to be recorded?
BenZeneProject 10 months ago
straight gangster my friend... i be doing the same thing to these damn pigs out here in my city... i shud start filming it tho and show just how they try and manipulate us into believing we did somethin wrong...
SuperPothead702 10 months ago
The premise that statutes are not laws is compete rubbish. It's just freeman movement tosh.
roman4005 10 months ago
Don' t like it back do they!
rodjames98 10 months ago
Awesome, an ACT is just that, pretense, made up by politicians for financial purposes, great catch.
xtratalk 10 months ago
hi you are getting better at this gotknowledge1! It's good. If you could give me more information it would be great. My skype address is gicker1 if you have it and we could have a chat sometime if you dont mind. keep up the good work!
oconnell2207 11 months ago
hope you keep up the good work. I'm thinking about doing the same thing in north wales. have you any tips to get me started?
vienacarva 11 months ago
@vienacarva yeah, dont go looking to cause trouble, it's pathetic when people purposely antagonise the police... if they hassle you then by all mean exercise your right as a human being (not the human rights act, thats just laughable)
ferrarisarecool7 8 months ago
Mate, I am very in favour of the Freeman movement BUT
1) You are swearing, which puts YOU in the wrong
2) Remember your OWN argument, the Police are a limited company therefore YOU ARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
The Policy Enforcement Officer is entirely right to tell the cameraman to stop filming, he is BY HIS OWN argument on private property
This kind of "protest" does the freeman movement NO favours at all
baldeagle1962 11 months ago
@baldeagle1962 I welcome all comments but your analysis is just out of context mate. 1) I did swear so wot its not like I was swearing at him so any1 that swears is auto in the wrong wot are u on about? 2)my argument is about acts an laws so y r u tryin 2 make it out 2 b about filmin on private property the issue came up but was irrelevant in the end. lol so any1 that goes into a police station and ask questions is protestin ur kind of thinkin does the freeman movement no favours at all.
wolf18179 11 months ago
@wolf18179
1) You are swearing, which puts YOU in the wrong
2) Remember your OWN argument, the Police are a limited company therefore YOU ARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
It's pathetic that police or even that fool baldeagle should even go on about swearing, since when did words actually do any harm? I hate people & police when they threaten arrest for swearing, they're words for crying out loud and da same 2 filming anything. It's powers created to oppress. Police should be out catching real criminals
ferrarisarecool7 8 months ago
@baldeagle1962
How true.
The premise behind this clip is laudible,but the subtleties of this, needs ...subtlety?
Hope this makes sense.
charliemctruth 11 months ago
How do you explain to a moron that they are a moron. They are morons and don't understand. Give them a job to do and they do it. Give them some time to think and...
bugsz1 1 year ago
It's not against the law they are PUBLIC SERVANTS.
Palafury 1 year ago
Everyone that thinks he should get arrested are completely incorrect you have fallen into the trap that the government have set up your freedom is covered up by propaganda the current police are officers, not police men but officers.. An officer is a corporate rank they are there to collect money by enforcing acts which are statutes THE ARE NOT THE LAW they are acts... Shakespeare said that the world is a stage.. And acts are just acts. You CAN record police officers even without their concent,
Palafury 1 year ago 25
@Palafury
not totally accurate, statute is law, statute law acts upon your PERSON, it is corpoarte law, marine/admiralty law, in contrast common law is law of the land, and says that you should not cause harm or loss to another or enter into false (misleading) contracts. to simply state that statute is not law without qualifying what you're saying makes it a false statement.
baldeagle1962 10 months ago
@baldeagle1962 The Magna Carta states that the law of the land including both common law and statute, thus making your argument invalid and contradictory
007RoyalFlush 10 months ago
@007RoyalFlush
You're wrong. Completely wrong.
baldeagle1962 10 months ago
@Palafury Incorrect - A policeman and a police officer are one and the same thing. Acts are laws, as dictated by common law precedent and the magna carta. Although you can record, you cannot publicise that recording of ANYONE without their consent.
007RoyalFlush 10 months ago
@007RoyalFlush
Really, then why can newspapers publish without consent. You're talking rubbish, and by the way the word statute does not appear in the Magna Carta, you're talking out of your arse.
baldeagle1962 10 months ago
@baldeagle1962 They are allowed to because they are the press. You are not the press. Read the Magna Carta (As you clearly haven't read it YOURSELF) and you will find it
007RoyalFlush 10 months ago
@007RoyalFlush
I have read it, the Magna Carta predates parliament and statute, it has subsequently been largely repealed by statute but the word statute does not appear in the original Magna Carta 1215, anywhere, stop trying to sound knowledgeable when you're not, your previous posts are similarly unenlightened, basically you're just another youtube fuckwit.
baldeagle1962 10 months ago
@baldeagle1962 I'm quite pleased that I managed to make you waste a large portion of your day looking though :-) My argument comes from pure common sense. To say that legislation is not law is nothing short of complete idiocy.
007RoyalFlush 10 months ago
@007RoyalFlush
I've got a law degree dickhead, I've been familiar with the MC for nearly 30 years.
baldeagle1962 10 months ago
@baldeagle1962 You don't have a law degree. I know you haven't. If you did, you wouldn't be saying such complete nonsense as "acts are not laws"
007RoyalFlush 10 months ago
@007RoyalFlush
i got a 2:1
you're an idiot, it's not worth carrying this on as you don't have any knowledge of the subject. don't bother responding, the Magna Carta doesn't "waste my time" but you are. (I'm not sure why you think reading the Magna Carta is a waste of time in the first place)
baldeagle1962 10 months ago
@baldeagle1962 I know you're lying, If you were indeed a law graduate would know that acts are laws and how the English legal system works, which you clearly don't. You would also know how much of a waste of time researching the Magna Carta is. It's a law which is rarely used if at all in today's modern society.
007RoyalFlush 10 months ago
@007RoyalFlush
i got a 2:1 from Bristol. now which part of fuck off dickhead didnt you understand?
baldeagle1962 10 months ago
@baldeagle1962 You clearly didn't. I can tell from every aspect of you opinion on the law that you know nothing. It's not nice to lie
007RoyalFlush 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@007RoyalFlush
i got a 2:1 from Bristol. now which part of fuck off dickhead didnt you understand? you're clearly not an english speaker, asian maybe, and on that basis you'd know all about lying
baldeagle1962 10 months ago
@Palafury " You CAN record police officers even without their concent,"
In theory maybe -- but realisitcally if they were dodge ( which some of them are) they will probably just taze you anyway and then confiscate you camera.. -- and then how are you going to prove it..
badpanda84 10 months ago
@badpanda84 People like that deserve to get tazered. The police officer will more than likely admit to using a tazer or any other type of force, you don't seem to understand how far the reach of "reasonable force" stretches
007RoyalFlush 10 months ago
@007RoyalFlush yeah the may admit to using a tazer -- but they will also claim something like " I felt my life was in danger etc"
No cop is going to openly admit to using excessive force
badpanda84 10 months ago
@badpanda84 That's probably because your idea of excessive force is not the same as the law's idea of excessive force
007RoyalFlush 9 months ago
@007RoyalFlush That is because exessive force is not an objective and measurable term..
The law's idea of exessive force is subject to intrpeation..
badpanda84 9 months ago
@badpanda84 Quite right, justification should be subjective and should be open to interpretation. I sense sarcasm but I don't quite understand why
007RoyalFlush 9 months ago
@badpanda84 Quite right, the justification for the use of force by a police officer should be subjective, and the level of force used versus the resistance offered should be open to interpretation. I sense sarcasm but I don't quite understand why
007RoyalFlush 9 months ago
@007RoyalFlush Its not that if should be subjective but if you can't measure something then it make it subjective.
Everyone has a diffrenent idea of what excessive force is. Even 2 judges may disagree on what exactly is excessive force..
badpanda84 9 months ago
@badpanda84 excessive force is micky mouse, police will stick together when they use EXCESSIVE force.
E.g:
I attack a police officer with my FISTS he batters me with a EXPANDABLE BATON, NOT deemed excessive.
Someone attacks me with FISTS and I fight back with a BASEBALL BAT, thats IS excessive force and I am liable for prosecution.
Where's the difference? I felt my safety was in danger so defended myself. The difference is I cant hide behind the LAW!!
ferrarisarecool7 8 months ago
@ferrarisarecool7 I fully agree... that why this guy is an idiot.. because realsitcally if the cops were dodgey. they would just bash the crap out of him and tazer him and take the camera.. and then what is he going to do .. access the police of excessive force
And if the cops weren't dodgey ( ie just doing there job) then why make a video agaist them
badpanda84 8 months ago
@badpanda84 I must say I certainly am not a fan of the police as an organisation, (see my comments below) but it seems to me a lot of the "freemen of the land" go out to purposely wind the police up, which I dont agree with.
In my experience of the police they have never been there when i've needed them (i.e. when the threat of an assault has arisen or even after they've done fuck all) but a quick enough to hassle me over driving with a break light out or to search me for walking through an...
ferrarisarecool7 8 months ago
@ferrarisarecool7 I agree with you.. I'm not a fan of the police either but these idiots that wind the police up piss me off more than the police..
badpanda84 8 months ago
@007RoyalFlush ", and the level of force used versus the resistance offered should be open to interpretation"
Problem is that in a confrontation can you tell how much resistance is going to be offered. What if the person you are trying to arrest happens to be an pro-boxer.
How would you know ( until its too late)
Better to be safe and use more force than necessary rather than be sorry and get killed
badpanda84 9 months ago
@badpanda84 I couldn't agree with you more. A police officer is always be given the opportunity to justify the amount of force he has used. The rule is that if he can justify it under the circumstances, then it's fine, regardless of the level of force actually used.
007RoyalFlush 9 months ago
@007RoyalFlush
yeah that pretty much how it works.. after all if you were to say " I felt my life was in danger" who can argue with you..
badpanda84 9 months ago
@badpanda84 Exactly
007RoyalFlush 9 months ago
When facing a judge ... every lawyer should know and be told to get the prosecutor to justify the law. Police are not a reliable source. As this affects every society on earth police will be the ones with the burden. so keep speaking out
geesjack 1 year ago
this happens everywhere in the world. The police are holding the human race hostage with this deceit.
geesjack 1 year ago
I came accross a police written law that says towns and city must have police. It is not a law, police self serving .. and they police have stacked the laws against someone policing the police. great job keep it up.
geesjack 1 year ago
when police do not respect the law it is time to go to the goverment. Goverments also wonder where these laws come from. you keep telling them.. See members of parliment or if american congress, governors, even the mayor should be infomed.
geesjack 1 year ago
my last comments was taken from mparker thanks lol
wolf18179 1 year ago
@gotknowledge1 "treat me with the respect that I deserve" - Due to the manner is which you are acting, you deserve none. "Gross negligence", "Fraud", please learn the meaning of these terms before making ridiculous accusations. If you had really done your research, you would learn that although acts are not the same as COMMON LAWS, they still legally binding to all citizens within the UK. The only time common law holds more weight that legislation is with precedent. You are delusional.
edjthompson 1 year ago
What an idiot you are, I see very little respect coming from you and your friends. Your letting yourself down and every other freeman
ramfan010 1 year ago
@ramfan010 lol
wolf18179 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Law is of course the product of a RIGHT, and is the means by which we protect a right; whereas a statute is a club rule that has been given 'force of law' by consent of the person who places themselves under it. I have rarely found a cop who understands the difference.
from mike .
wolf18179 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why is it the police force is still made up of only white people just comes to show the police will always remain two faced undercover racist they will never change and they will always abuse their powers.
wolf18179 1 year ago
@wolf18179 The difference between legal and lawful has no relevance in practice, as in reality they actually mean the same thing. You are already placed under the rule of statute, simply by being in the country, and statute is not subject to consent. Do you no think there would have been a case for such a theory if you were in fact right?
edjthompson 1 year ago
@edjthompson Wow its clear to me that your trapped in a prison state mentality where you think the state is all powerful and runs just about every part of your life. Your a slave in my humble opinion there is a clear difference between legal and lawful but you ignore it.
wolf18179 1 year ago
@edjthompson I think we should agree to disagree because you believe the state is all powerful I believe we are born free! And should stay free and most of us are brainwashed and conditioned to be slaves of the state. Its been interesting talkin to ya good bye and good luck.
wolf18179 1 year ago
@wolf18179 I understand what you believe the difference between lawful and legal to be, it is the same difference you believe there to be between common law and statute. In today's modern society there is no difference. Statute is there because common law is insufficient. Without law, we would not be the advanced society we are today, and to suggest that we are not free because of legislation is nothing short of absurd.
edjthompson 1 year ago
@edjthompson I understand most of what you say but this is what I don’t get if you believe all statutes are laws then how can you at the same time believe your free? that’s just crazy to me because if the state was to carry out every act/statutes to the letter that’s not freedom not even close.
wolf18179 1 year ago
@wolf18179 Because we need laws in order to live in a civilised society. Laws are there for a reason. The way in which our country produced laws changed when we started being led by a government in place of the monarchy. What you're really arguing is that you don't agree with certain laws and are making as much of a fuss as possible in attempting to argue that you shouldn't have to abide by those laws you don't agree with.
edjthompson 1 year ago
@edjthompson lol you call us a civilsed society. and your wrong again i love this countys laws i hate the acts. your a slave stop tryin to make other people slaves you must work for the state or make money out of people bein slaves thats y ur tryin 2 make more slaves lol you talk rubbish fed to u by the state! facts are facts i get away with acts every day iv even had police tel me im right so il stay free you keep workin for master ya slave lol
wolf18179 1 year ago
@wolf18179 You haven't had police tell you acts are not legally binding, or if you have they will have said it just to shut that overactive mouth of yours. There is no way you got away with anything on the sole basis that it was an offence against an act and not a common law offence. Your lies offend me. The Government makes the law on approval of the Queen. This is really about the fact that you don't agree with the content of the law, rather than the way in which it is made.
edjthompson 1 year ago
@edjthompson you obviously have no clue we are getting our lives back from what you represent. the police are there to serve the people and protect our rights under common law hence the (oath), lol if you are a police officer and cannot tell the difference between statutes and common law then you are a disgrace to the uniform and fraudulent too, you have no power to enforce anything other than common law to a human being we are not slaves you are!
wolf18179 1 year ago
@wolf18179 Your comments are genuinely quite funny. The police are servants of the crown, and not servants of the people. Police officers have equal power to enforce statute as they do common law. The majority of police work is to do with statutory powers, and has very little to do with common law. Police do protect your rights under common law, to suggest otherwise is madness. But police also enforce the law in the form of statute, which is not only a power but a duty.
edjthompson 1 year ago
@edjthompson Lol im trying to be very serious. I disagree with 90% of the things you said surprise surprise! I tell you what edjthompson if you can explain this video away and not make me laugh ill be impressed?..... it wont let me post the link il send it in a message
wolf18179 1 year ago
@wolf18179 I'm sure you are. I thought you might refer to these videos. The fact that they are even filmed in a UK court room is proof enough for me that they are completely fabricated. If you've ever been to Court you will know the security measures in place to prevent even the smallest prohibited items being taken into Her Majesty's Court.
edjthompson 1 year ago
@edjthompson Lol that last reply was just weak check the facts hes got dates times names video plus the response from the court what court it is! he answers questions about it on his website I could go on and on. for you to just dismiss it as completely fabricated just shows me and every1 how enslaved you are.
wolf18179 1 year ago
Why take it up with Johnny Punchclock copper?
montezumasrevenge 1 year ago
Well played.
lozleigh 1 year ago
@wolf18179
Don't get me wrong, I think it was very funny that you bamboozled the copper. He probably did the wisest thing and left you alone as you clearly had an agenda to either entrap him or make him look even more stupid. Props to you for not giving in. It is unfortunate that when we are born we somehow have auto-consented to laws of the country we live in. I just feel happy I was not born in China/Pakistan, where your actions could have lead to your death.
gilesey3 1 year ago
lol sorry gilesey3 there is no such thing as auto consent or statue law its either a law or statue. of course i have the right not to consent that is what makes us a free county not like china/pakistan get past the smoke and mirrors and it all becomes clear good luck.
wolf18179 1 year ago
@wolf18179 Statute = law
edjthompson 1 year ago
Comment removed
wolf18179 1 year ago
@edjthompson been over this so many times your wrong lol if they are the same why have they got different names lol
wolf18179 1 year ago
@edjthompson statute=statute lol
wolf18179 1 year ago
@wolf18179 They have different names because the two different types of law originate from different places. Both statute and common law are legally binding and not subject to consent. Common law in the form of precedent dictates that statute is legally binding.
edjthompson 1 year ago
@wolf18179 lol were did u find that crap? statutes do need consent and are legally binding any1 will tell you that. common law is not legally binding and not subject to consent. common law is law of the land act/statutes are laws of the sea.
wolf18179 1 year ago
@wolf18179 Where did I find it? In studying for my law degree! I tell you what, go and commit an offence which is only contrary to statute and see how far the 'policed by consent' argument gets you with the police, the CPS and the judge. The law is binding to all people in the country. The source of the law is irrelevant, i.e. whether it was made by the arm of the monarch through the judiciary, or whether it was by parliament.
edjthompson 1 year ago
@edjthompson Wow your doing a law degree! I do understand what your saying. if you watch my tv licence video you will see your wrong again because I have committed an offence which is only contrary to statutes and they cant do anything nothing lol. I can give you endless links to watch people breaking act/statute and get away with it. so its you that has to ask yourself if statutes are laws how and why are we getting away with it and putting it on utube to show people like yourself the truth?
wolf18179 1 year ago
@wolf18179 Correction - I have a criminal law degree. I dare say people will have got away with plenty of statutory offences, however not because they are statutes, likely to be because of a technicality or lack of evidence. There is no defence recognised by the English legal system involving the claim that statutes are not legally binding or subject to consent. Precedent states that statutes are legally binding, hence it is now case law (common law) which even you claim to be legally binding.
edjthompson 1 year ago
@edjthompson Ok smart guy who gives statutes the force of law? Do I have the right not to consent? blacks 1 says acts/statutory instruments are given the FORCE OF LAW where in that does it say they are law? they need our consent and consent is deemed through action or inaction its a hidden fraud hidden in plain sight if you watch people getting away with it it has got nothin to do with technicality or lack of evidence I said common law is not legally binding.
wolf18179 1 year ago
@edjthompson Do you know! the different between legal and lawful? with a law degree you should cant wait for reply
wolf18179 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@edjthompson Law is of course the product of a RIGHT, and is the means by which we protect a right; whereas a statute is a club rule that has been given 'force of law' by consent of the person who places themselves under it. I have rarely found a cop who understands the difference.
from mike 6291
wolf18179 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@edjthompson Law is of course the product of a RIGHT, and is the means by which we protect a right; whereas a statute is a club rule that has been given 'force of law' by consent of the person who places themselves under it. I have rarely found a cop who understands the difference.
wolf18179 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@edjthompson Law is of course the product of a RIGHT, and is the means by which we protect a right; whereas a statute is a club rule that has been given 'force of law' by consent of the person who places themselves under it. I have rarely found a cop who understands the difference.
wolf18179 1 year ago
@wolf18179
I do have one interesting question though. If he decided to lock you up in a cell without reason, you would use the Police And Criminal Evidence Act and the Human Rights Act to defend your legal position. So if you do really believe that Acts aren't laws, I dare you not to ever use them in your defence. They aren't just about what the police can do to us, but what they can't do to us too.
gilesey3 1 year ago
@gilesey3 I see where your coming from. but if he did lock me up for no reason my defence wouldn’t be to use any act! my defence would be that I didn’t commit any crime! Or consent to his actions. I have a question or to for you gilesay3 what is the difference between legal and lawful? Who gives statues/acts the force of law? Do I have the right not to consent to statues/acts?
wolf18179 1 year ago
@wolf18179
Google first result "acts of parliament statute".
Basically born from 'bills', after acts have been implemented, they become part of Statue Law. In that link you'll see a statute law database that shows you all the acts that were incorporated into Law. The only thing that I think confuses us, and the police too is that there's not one big list of laws e.g.
Law 1 : Thout shall not kill!
They are all spread around silly acts to confuse and weaken us.
Any lawyers reading this?
gilesey3 1 year ago
"An Act of Parliament creates a new law or changes an existing law. An Act is a Bill approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords and formally agreed to by the reigning monarch (known as Royal Assent). Once implemented, an Act is law and applies to the UK as a whole or to specific areas of the country. "
gilesey3 1 year ago
@gilesey3 if it becomes a law why is it still called an act?
wolf18179 1 year ago
utmost respect to the camera guy.
sizzla123 1 year ago