Quatloos!

AndyPandy wrote:

ArthurWankspittle wrote:

David Robinson
We had one sentenced to prison (Ollie Pinnock) who paid under duress....he was denied evidence did not appear in any court and was arrested by treasonous cops......thye constitutional law there is no other law.

Wasn't it Ollie's mum who paid or have I got the wrong person. If it was, Ollie never "paid under duress".

That's the one, Wally Pillock's mum paid it and then went onto Facebook and bollocked the PLDers

Ollie's mum is the only sensible member of PLD that hasn't being booted......I wonder why?

JimUk1 wrote:

AndyPandy wrote:

ArthurWankspittle wrote:Wasn't it Ollie's mum who paid or have I got the wrong person. If it was, Ollie never "paid under duress".

That's the one, Wally Pillock's mum paid it and then went onto Facebook and bollocked the PLDers

Ollie's mum is the only sensible member of PLD that hasn't being booted......I wonder why?

The best bit was when she called them all layabouts and crab bait 'an ugly dickhead'.

‘Bust him out of jail’

Ok so I need to know who I will be standing with , here one for you all , if Olli pinnock was sent to there prison! Would we as a lawfull group ,have gone and bust him out? Or just stand there with banners?

JimUk1 wrote:

AndyPandy wrote:

ArthurWankspittle wrote:Wasn't it Ollie's mum who paid or have I got the wrong person. If it was, Ollie never "paid under duress".

That's the one, Wally Pillock's mum paid it and then went onto Facebook and bollocked the PLDers

Ollie's mum is the only sensible member of PLD that hasn't being booted......I wonder why?

There you go - posted for prosperity .

Oh I've never seen that, but that's an absolute classic!

Some balls you have Mr White!

SteveUK wrote:‘Bust him out of jail’

Ok so I need to know who I will be standing with , here one for you all , if Olli pinnock was sent to there prison! Would we as a lawfull group ,have gone and bust him out? Or just stand there with banners?

Wow, this guy thinks the PLD group is capable of standing somewhere with banners?

Would we as a lawfull group ,have gone and bust him out? Or just stand there with banners?

Neither. IIRC a few posts on your group's Facebook page was about as much as they could muster.

rumpelstilzchen wrote:

Would we as a lawfull group ,have gone and bust him out? Or just stand there with banners?

Neither. IIRC a few posts on your group's Facebook page was about as much as they could muster.

Facebook is a very useful tool when you have friends stretched the length and breadth of the country or even abroad... Letting you keep in touch with the trivia and saving the "I haven't spoken to Tom/Dick/Harriet for months... I must give them a ring" thing where the longer you leave it the harder it is to call... When it's your whole life that's just pathetic and for the likes of PAYG Dave and Crabbie that seems to be the case.

Following on from the council of the 25 barons being redifined as 'the people' now we have the witnesses to your signing the oath not actually having to witness anything... If you're Billy-No-Mates just PP it.

Pete Danby

I wanted to do the lawful rebellion oath, (Article 61) but cant get witness to sign the document, due to being isolated in the community. Is there any other way of going about this ?


Robert White

You can pp my name Pete.


Roland A Ford

Same here Pete pp my name


Charles Spencer

put my name down, sign if in my name with a prefix of PP before signature


John P Randles

What?


Pete Ponchorat Maddison

Where it says 'signature', just write PP then YOUR signature and where it says 'name', write theirs.

I assume being 'isolated in the community' is a polite way of saying he's a fucking weirdo that nobody wants anything to do with.

Another stunning article 61 win!!1!!

£100 into £5000

I ignore them, but your choice. I'm up to £5k on a ALLEGED £100 penalty. Referred them to their own website which states that if you earn less than a certain amount, you do not need to file a tax return. They keep ignoring it so I do likewise.. Your choice though.

At least he or she is giving us the "choice" of whether to fulfill our obligations to society or to turn relatively minor fees into massive ones (like turning five loaves and two fish into a meal for 5,000 people, but less altruistic and completely opposite).

What magical power is "PP" supposed to have? I must have missed that lesson in Article 61 school.

There is an automatic late fee for not filing a UK tax return by the end of January or some similar date. It is £100.
This is not usually a problem for people on low incomes, for example as a pensioner, I do not need to file anything automatically, similar applies to people on state benefits.
Additionally, people in employment not earning enough to be subject to higher rate tax also do not generally need to complete any tax forms.
The retired, unemployed on benefits and the routinely employed make up most of the population, so this one must have been in somewhat unusual circumstances.

It could happen that a self employed person becoming self un-employed, but who typically did file a return would be subject to this sanction despite a low income, if they did not claim any state benefits. It could have been avoided by either filing a return stating the actual income, even if it was below the taxable threshold, or in some other way notifying HMRC about the situation some time before the filing date. The penalty is not for not paying tax, it is for not sending in (or completing online) the relevant declaration.

Quite how someone could compound this to £5000 baffles me. Any UK tax experts got an opinion?
One guess is that the lack of a declaration prompted a second or indeed a first look at previous declarations, and that appeared to HMRC to indicate unpaid tax from an earlier period. I cannot think of anything else. I have always found that if you do not bother them, they will not bother you but this is not to be entirely relied upon.

TheNewSaint wrote:What magical power is "PP" supposed to have? I must have missed that lesson in Article 61 school.

It means 'per pro' I think, and indicates that the missive is signed by some underling, usually, on behalf of the great person themselves.

It is quite common in UK business correspondance.

Siegfried Shrink wrote:

TheNewSaint wrote:What magical power is "PP" supposed to have? I must have missed that lesson in Article 61 school.

It means 'per pro' I think, and indicates that the missive is signed by some underling, usually, on behalf of the great person themselves.

It is quite common in UK business correspondance.

Thanks. So they're implying they are signing on behalf of the barons. The dishonesty, even in following their own rules, never ends with this lot.

Siegfried Shrink wrote:There is an automatic late fee for not filing a UK tax return by the end of January or some similar date.

31st January, and the penalty applies either for not submitting the return, or for not paying any tax due by that date. If tax is due it will start to clock up interest as well.

TheNewSaint wrote:

Siegfried Shrink wrote:

TheNewSaint wrote:What magical power is "PP" supposed to have? I must have missed that lesson in Article 61 school.

It means 'per pro' I think, and indicates that the missive is signed by some underling, usually, on behalf of the great person themselves.

It is quite common in UK business correspondance.

Thanks. So they're implying they are signing on behalf of the barons. The dishonesty, even in following their own rules, never ends with this lot.

No - they’re signing on behalf of the witnesses.
Not that it makes a jot of difference - yet more work for the shredder!

TheNewSaint wrote:Thanks. So they're implying they are signing on behalf of the barons. The dishonesty, even in following their own rules, never ends with this lot.

Not signing on behalf of the barons but 'signing' to say they've witnessed the signing of the oath by the rebel. The stupidity of having the person effectively signing on behalf of a witness in the absence of the witness the same document they have just signed is stupidity of solid gold Olympian proportions.

The crazy thing about this stupidity is that the need for three (or two) witnesses is a self imposed hurdle and something that's been plucked out of thin air along with all of the other inane theories they have about the magical power of the wet ink signature.

I'm trying to think what things actually need a 'wet-ink' signature to be legally valid... Credit agreements, wills and probate forms need a signature but what else? Passport and driving licences do I suppose but they are both 'treasonous' contracts with the evil PTB

Siegfried Shrink wrote:Quite how someone could compound this to £5000 baffles me. Any UK tax experts got an opinion?
One guess is that the lack of a declaration prompted a second or indeed a first look at previous declarations, and that appeared to HMRC to indicate unpaid tax from an earlier period. I cannot think of anything else. I have always found that if you do not bother them, they will not bother you but this is not to be entirely relied upon.

I would suspect the Awful Webel in question has not replied to any tax letters, demands or Tax Tribunal notices. What happens in the UK in these situations is that the tax man says something like: Mr Webel is a kangaroo wrangler. The average kangaroo wrangler makes £30k, therefore send us £5k tax. Mr Webel doesn't reply, tax man goes to the Tax Tribunal. Tax man repeats claim. Tax Tribunal says "What's your reply Mr Webel?" "Hello?" "Mr Webel owes £5k in tax. Next case please." Unless it has changed, it is one of the few decisions by a court or similar that isn't appealable. Even if Mr Webel gets a letter signed by the Queen and the Pope saying he earned nothing that tax year, he still owes £5k in tax. Happened to someone I knew years ago, cost him £4,000.

longdog wrote:

TheNewSaint wrote:Thanks. So they're implying they are signing on behalf of the barons. The dishonesty, even in following their own rules, never ends with this lot.

Not signing on behalf of the barons but 'signing' to say they've witnessed the signing of the oath by the rebel. The stupidity of having the person effectively signing on behalf of a witness in the absence of the witness the same document they have just signed is stupidity of solid gold Olympian proportions.

The crazy thing about this stupidity is that the need for three (or two) witnesses is a self imposed hurdle and something that's been plucked out of thin air along with all of the other inane theories they have about the magical power of the wet ink signature.

I'm trying to think what things actually need a 'wet-ink' signature to be legally valid... Credit agreements, wills and probate forms need a signature but what else? Passport and driving licences do I suppose but they are both 'treasonous' contracts with the evil PTB

There’s no raised wax seal either. Christ - these are amateurs.