Englands Wesley Ahmed, he doesn't beat the bailiffs he baits

[YiamCross]

I suspect we may be straying into territory which contravenes site rules as this looks suspiciously like politics. I do remember the good old days of British Rail, though, and I don't miss them.

There are plenty of things wrong with the world but I don't see how adding to them by stealing energy in ways which endanger the lives of others can improve anything. The fact someone else is doing wrong is about as pathetic an excuse for doing more wrong as there is.

[Burnaby49]

I suspect we may be straying into territory which contravenes site rules as this looks suspiciously like politics. I do remember the good old days of British Rail, though, and I don't miss them.

Agreed. Particularly since Corbyn's win is going to set off many heated political debates about the merits of nationalization.

[Hercule Parrot]

Corbyn's win is going to set off many heated political debates about the merits of nationalization.

Note - Political commentary deleted by Burnaby49

I think it was more a comment about economics, but we were drifting inexorably towards politics so fair enough.

[Burnaby49]

Corbyn's win is going to set off many heated political debates about the merits of nationalization.

Probably, but it isn't really necessary to renationalise. The private contractors draw huge amounts of public funding, about £2bn every year. (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... icator.xls) The government merely needs to stop that corporate welfare system, and there will probably be no bidders when the contracts come round for renewal. At that point a great part of the rail system reverts to public ownership by default.

Posts like this are why we have a no politics rule. Quatloos does not allow political debate or commentary unless directly related to the topic. British Rail has nothing to do with Ahmed. So cut it out or it is time to start deleting postings.

[Skeleton]

Note - Political commentary deleted by Burnaby49

[hardcopy]

Just as a matter of curiosity, WHY do you have a "no politics" rule ?
You have a whole section devoted to taxes elsewhere, and if if that isn't anything to do with politics I don't know what is.

[Burnaby49]

Just as a matter of curiosity, WHY do you have a "no politics" rule ?
You have a whole section devoted to taxes elsewhere, and if if that isn't anything to do with politics I don't know what is.

We had once allowed politics, it didn't work out well. As I posted in another discussion on the same question;

There are few formal stated rules but just guidelines to keep things civil and at least semi-professional. The two big ones are the ban on discussions of religion and politics.

A little background for you UK contributors who weren't here for the great purge of 2012. I joined up in late 2011 and Quatloos was largely focused on its mission exposing of scams, tax fraud, sovereigns, freemen etc. We even allowed flame wars, some of which got quite vile. One contributor, in particular, seemed to post here for no other purpose than to be grossly offensive. When arguments got out of hand they were transferred to a specific section called "Flame Wars and Other Pissing Contests". Great fun I suppose, I didn't participate in them.

But it all went to hell with the 2012 American presidential election. Things just somehow blew up into one partisan acrimonious argument after another about Obama and Romney, some of it very offensive. Political squabbling overwhelmed the site and threatened to destroy Quatloos's reputation as an objective investigative source of information on it's primary goals. A lot of previous followers just stopped reading it. So Jay, the site's founder and owner, took action and had a purge. All the political postings were deleted and many contributors who participated here for no other purpose than to argue about issues irrelevant to Quatloos's purpose were banned and all their postings, on any topics, deleted. I'd say over half of the listed contributors were purged. The individual I noted above was one of them. Along with that Jay did some housekeeping and deleted the mass of casual posters who had just dabbled a few times but had contributed nothing.

Then the moderators (I wasn't one at the time) got together and set up some firm rules about allowed topics and contributor conduct to get things back on track. No flame wars, no politics, no religion are the primary ones. Topics are expected to stick to the intent of the site. In my opinion entirely beneficial. I pretty much dropped out of the site in mid 2012 because of all the pointless arguing and political ranting. None of it had anything to do with why I'd been contributing. Also offensive racial, sexual and religious comments are right out and can get you banned entirely if egregious enough.

Religion, as a general topic, is out for the same reason as politics. Again, in 2012, posters started totally pointless religious squabbles. They often got quite heated and were irrelevant to the site's purpose. However religion is an acceptable topic in the context of scams and Freemen discussion but only in respect to how religion is an integral part of the scam. If you read my Ed Belanger postings it is all about Christianity and the King James bible because these are the foundations of Belanger's ploys to entice suckers to follow his scams. I don't given my opinion of Christianity or any other religion but I discuss how Belanger uses it to manipulate people like the Volks into screwing up their lives.

One issue that has divided the moderators is the banning of certain contributors. Philosophically we are against it, the site welcomes diverse opinions. You won't get banned here for arguing in favour of scammers like Ceylon or disagreeing with other posters as long as you keep it civil. The relatively few posters who have been banned after the Great Purge were not kicked out because of their opinions but because of their conduct or because they were just trolls. Even those were the subject of much moderator discussion and warnings first.

As you can tell from my postings some laxity is allowed as long as it doesn't touch banned topics. I'm often off topic babbling on about beer or aircraft, or my recent New York trip, but just as aside, not as a primary discussion. I try to add value rather than give my opinions.

So those are the basics. As you British posters are aware we moderators take a very light hand on policing opinions and behaviour which is why many of you probably post here. I've only used my moderator powers three times, this one, a flame war I deleted, and a third deletion of postings at the poster's own requests. But I'm lurking in the background watching.

[hardcopy]

I can't see how you can divorce politics from privatised energy companies and the resultant price hikes that means some people are attempting to scam the system.
But OK, your site, your rules, I suppose showing YouTube videos of a woman in a onesie is still appropriate ?

[NG3]

We had once allowed politics, it didn't work out well.

As the person who unintentionally initiated this derail I have to say I agree with the prohibition.

It is difficult, and I appreciate that my references to the far-right, for example, have probably contributed more political references, than any one else at present. However the lack of mod interaction with those comments has suggested the intent of the comments have been recognised.

In the example of the far-right comments my intention hasn't been to discuss far-right politics, nor any perceived merits or debits, but merely to highlight the history of the Freeman/SovCit movement, and the obvious links and influences that still exist today.

Likewise, when I made the comment that began this derail I made the comment not to start a political debate, but instead to highlight the human cost of these scams.

Some of these people actually believe that scamming the bank, or a utilities company is a victimless crime, or at least no harm is done to anyone apart from the evil overlords of a shadowy elite, when in fact it's on a huge scale and the damaging costs are passed on to all of us.

It can be difficult, because politics and these people do connect, and because of this references will inevitably crop up, but as you explained with the religious example, such references are permissible when used for context, or comparisons, we just have to remember those references are not the primary focus, and should be treated as stand alone comments, and not used as springboards to dive into off-topic debates.

I will endeavour to try to be more careful with such comments in future as I appreciate the apolitical nature of this place, politics is a very divisive subject, that can easily rip forum communities apart in an unpleasant manner, and because I appreciate the very lax moderation here.

[YiamCross]

... If you read my Ed Belanger postings it is all about Christianity and the King James bible because these are the foundations of Belanger's ploys to entice suckers to follow his scams.

Ahhhh. That explains a lot about a certain Dave Wicher who seems to be a minor guru swimming in the same pond as Wesley Ahmed and Chrissy Morris. He's recently deregistered his car, returned his driving licence and written to the queen. Often heard referring to the KJB as the ultimate source of law. He migjt be worth a thread of his own soon.

I shall read your Belanger thread.

[PeanutGallery]

I think the only statement I can make in regard to politics is that Burnaby is well informed to know who the new boy in charge of the labour party is over here. I couldn't name one Canadian politician, unless Hooser McMooserton is actually a real person...probably not.

In general I think politics isn't related to the purpose of Quatloos, I'm pretty sure that a lot of those being scammed and the guru's themselves come from all sorts of political leanings (as I would also be reasonably sure is the same of us). In regard to how the politics connect, which politics?

The anti-semitism/Hitler was right/Zionist conspiracy? Which is generally considered pretty extreme right.
The tear down the banks and lets have everything for free? Which is generally considered pretty extreme left.

I don't think these people are politically motivated, they may claim to belong to a cause but only in the sense that they can benefit from it. Wesley Ahmed isn't opposed to the work of British Gas, he has no objection to them supplying him with Gas, he does however object to having to pay for it. He would have the same objection if it was owned by the taxpayer or by a cartel of foreign investors.

[Jeffrey]

We had once allowed politics, it didn't work out well.

As we can see in this archive footage:

[Burnaby49]

Of course I know about Corbyn. He and I have frequented the same fine drinking establishment, the Sanctuary House pub on Tothill Road in London. However I didn't stand on a table and sing. I was last there May 29, 2013. Too long, too long . . . . .

[Burnaby49]

... If you read my Ed Belanger postings it is all about Christianity and the King James bible because these are the foundations of Belanger's ploys to entice suckers to follow his scams.

Ahhhh. That explains a lot about a certain Dave Wicher who seems to be a minor guru swimming in the same pond as Wesley Ahmed and Chrissy Morris. He's recently deregistered his car, returned his driving licence and written to the queen. Often heard referring to the KJB as the ultimate source of law. He migjt be worth a thread of his own soon.

I shall read your Belanger thread.

While we have a discussion on Belanger himself;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10313

There are also discussions on his acolytes/victims/customers;

The Volks who lost their house following his advice;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10123

Minister David (aka minister David Ben Ahayah) is currently in jail and apparently King James can't get him out.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10670

Donald Peterson who tried to use Belanger's bullshit to evade paying taxes. I don't know how that ended up;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9829

All based on Belanger's unique interpretation of the King James bible. His key quote is Deuteronomy 4:2;

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

Although he changes the wording somewhat and claims that it it says "do not add or take away from my laws". Since all of God's laws are in the bible any claimed law not in the bible is not legitimate. Specifically, in Peterson's case, the Income Tax Act of Canada meaning that it is not valid law and Peterson does not have to pay taxes. And Belanger is right! The Income Tax Act is not included in the King James version. You can't beat the man on the logic.

[NG3]

All based on Belanger's unique interpretation of the King James bible. His key quote is Deuteronomy 4:2;

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

Although he changes the wording somewhat and claims that it it says "do not add or take away from my laws". Since all of God's laws are in the bible any claimed law not in the bible is not legitimate. Specifically, in Peterson's case, the Income Tax Act of Canada meaning that it is not valid law and Peterson does not have to pay taxes. And Belanger is right! The Income Tax Act is not included in the King James version. You can't beat the man on the logic.

In that case I'd love to put him in a locked room with this guy:

Note - long quote deleted by Burnaby49. Reason? It is a straight religious nutcase rant which may stray into our no religion ban if it isn't somehow connected to a Quatloos topic as Belanger's religious rants are. However NG3 did not provide a link to the quote's source to allow readers to confirm original context. Reading the quote I had no idea of why the comment was originally made or even if it is an actual quote.

They could religious each other to death

[NG3]

Note - long quote deleted by Burnaby49. Reason? It is a straight religious nutcase rant which may stray into our no religion ban if it isn't somehow connected to a Quatloos topic as Belanger's religious rants are. However NG3 did not provide a link to the quote's source to allow readers to confirm original context. Reading the quote I had no idea of why the comment was originally made or even if it is an actual quote.

It was from a long standing Freeman, TP & former member of The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (guy goes back to the late 70's, and is still ranting - that quote was from a year or two back), explaining why his beliefs are valid, using "God's validation" of his personal misinterpretation of something Aristotle said.

[Burnaby49]

Note - long quote deleted by Burnaby49. Reason? It is a straight religious nutcase rant which may stray into our no religion ban if it isn't somehow connected to a Quatloos topic as Belanger's religious rants are. However NG3 did not provide a link to the quote's source to allow readers to confirm original context. Reading the quote I had no idea of why the comment was originally made or even if it is an actual quote.

It was from a long standing Freeman, TP & former member of The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (guy goes back to the late 70's, and is still ranting - that quote was from a year or two back), explaining why his beliefs are valid, using "God's validation" of his personal misinterpretation of something Aristotle said.

Then it was probably ok given the context. However there was no way of knowing that without the explanation you gave here.

[YiamCross]

Does that mean we can have it back again?

[Burnaby49]

Does that mean we can have it back again?

Once something is deleted it's gone. If NG3 wants to post it again he can as long as he explains the context and provides a link to the original quote. Without that he's just posted some anonymous religious rant unrelated to anything.

[NG3]

Does that mean we can have it back again?

It took me a while to track the guy down before and find the right quote and it's really not worth the effort to find it again.

Basically it's the same MO as all other freeman gibberish, so just try and picture Ebert or Taylor with a bible, picking out selected verses to prove their victories.

In the case of the guy quoted he has a couple of verses that mention the word "TRUTH" (always capitalised 3 times if writing, or shouted 3 times if spoken) and this apparently proves that god validates Aristotle, and because Aristotle favoured dialectics then the only true law is that formed by a variation of a dialectic in a common law court of the county.