"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

AndyPandy
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1162
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby AndyPandy » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:54 pm

Scotland wasn't even in the union when the original Magna Carta was initially signed by King John (then revoked) by the Pope on his behalf in 1215.

TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby TheNewSaint » Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:23 pm

As I understand it, this Article 61 business was an onerous clause in the original Magna Carta. It gave the barony the power to seize the king's lands until he adhered to the charter, but there was a lot of gray area about what "not adhering" meant. A war was fought over it, during which the king died of illness, and the MC was redrawn under the new king without this clause. 800 years ago. Why on earth these idiots think this has any current legal force is totally beyond me.

This also strikes me as a major event in the history of the Magna Carta, something people who study the subject at all should know. The willful obtuseness is astounding.

JimUk1
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 650
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2016 11:47 pm

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby JimUk1 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:12 pm

John Uskglass wrote:Recent postings on the Facebook page show a worrying obsession with having weapons.

Nonsense about offensive weapons law here, with gleeful
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 6875376347
And even more chilling, an argument for the holding of firearms here
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 0245349010
Sailing close to the wind in terms of UK's draconian terror legislation, I suspect.


It's only a matter of time before it happens in the UK. Policemen have already died in the U.S as a result of delusional sovereign citizen beliefs.

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2787
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Mon Mar 20, 2017 7:15 pm

JimUk1 wrote:It's only a matter of time before it happens in the UK. Policemen have already died in the U.S as a result of delusional sovereign citizen beliefs.
We have actually lost an ex-UK policeman to a SovCit nut in Canada. The guy left the Police in the UK, moved to Canada and became a cop there. He was killed when the SovCit opened fire on some officers who had gone to serve a warrant.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-out.html
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

Pox
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:17 pm

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby Pox » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:45 pm

ArthurWankspittle wrote:
JimUk1 wrote:It's only a matter of time before it happens in the UK. Policemen have already died in the U.S as a result of delusional sovereign citizen beliefs.
We have actually lost an ex-UK policeman to a SovCit nut in Canada. The guy left the Police in the UK, moved to Canada and became a cop there. He was killed when the SovCit opened fire on some officers who had gone to serve a warrant.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-out.html


I didn't realise that the cop killer was a sovcit. Was he well known for it?
The link seems to suggest that he was an alcoholic.

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2787
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:21 pm

Pox wrote:I didn't realise that the cop killer was a sovcit. Was he well known for it?
The link seems to suggest that he was an alcoholic.
His ex-girlfriend said he'd gone FMOTL. Quatloos version here: viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10621
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby Hercule Parrot » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:06 am

John Uskglass wrote:Recent postings on the Facebook page show a worrying obsession with having weapons.

Nonsense about offensive weapons law here, with gleeful
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 6875376347
And even more chilling, an argument for the holding of firearms here
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 0245349010
Sailing close to the wind in terms of UK's draconian terror legislation, I suspect.


Indeed. And I suspect they've just earned a few extra ranking points in the cross-departmental threat analysis model. Far below ISIS of course, probably still below many other domestic extremist groups, but quietly making progress.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1847
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby longdog » Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:54 pm

John Uskglass wrote:Recent postings on the Facebook page show a worrying obsession with having weapons.

Nonsense about offensive weapons law here, with gleeful
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 6875376347
And even more chilling, an argument for the holding of firearms here
https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... 0245349010
Sailing close to the wind in terms of UK's draconian terror legislation, I suspect.


Some idiot thinks he's going shopping for a £500 .22LR copy of an M16... Leaving aside the rank stupidity of having a .22LR assault rifle in the first place (and I had a .22LR M16 copy several decades ago and It wasn't even useful as a rabbit gun) what's he going to do when they say "And can I see your Firearms Certificate please sir?"

I suppose he could save up for an <ahem>off the books</ahem> M16 that fired the .223 round it was designed for but I doubt he'd get change out of a £10,000 note even if he could find someone stupid enough to sell one to him.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

noblepa
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 9:20 pm

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby noblepa » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:48 pm

Are fully-automatic weapons, such as the M16, legal for civilians to own in the UK?

My brother has one, and the licensing requirements are pretty complicated (and expensive).

I have to admit, though, that it is a blast to fire. Not quite as much fun as his .30 cal belt-fed tripod-mount machine gun.

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1847
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby longdog » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:02 pm

noblepa wrote:Are fully-automatic weapons, such as the M16, legal for civilians to own in the UK?

My brother has one, and the licensing requirements are pretty complicated (and expensive).

I have to admit, though, that it is a blast to fire. Not quite as much fun as his .30 cal belt-fed tripod-mount machine gun.


No... Centrefire automatic rifles were banned many, many years ago and fully auto weapons have been effectively banned since the beginning of the 20th century. They need a Section 5 permit from The Home Office which only certain firearms dealers, international arms dealers and theatrical armourers would get. In the pre-ban days you could own M16s, AKs and the like that had been converted to semi-auto only or get an AR15. I believe the converted M16s were quite a lot cheaper than the AR15.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

User avatar
morrand
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 7:42 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby morrand » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:51 am

longdog wrote:Centrefire automatic rifles were banned many, many years ago and fully auto weapons have been effectively banned since the beginning of the 20th century. They need a Section 5 permit from The Home Office which only certain firearms dealers, international arms dealers and theatrical armourers would get.


Ah, good. Section 5 is a real thing. I was hoping there was some factual content in there. So when Our Boy Bullethead says:

Anthony Paul wrote:In 1998, Mike Burke applied to the Home Office for a Section 5 authority for some prohibited weapon or other. He was refused as a matter of policy and appealed to the High Court, which in turn refused his appeal on the grounds that the Firearms Act, 1968, by implication repealed the Bill of Rights. (FC3 98/7400/3)


There really is something there. I mean, other than his interpretation of the cited case. I can't find an authoritative copy of it online, but the one copy I did find quotes it this way:

Henry J wrote:And then, when dealing with the subject's rights, it was declared [in the Bill of Rights] in relation to “Subjects' Arms”:

"That the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions (then follow the crucial words) and as allowed by law."


That was the Bill of Rights, It was declaratory of the common law. It contained in it its own words of limitation, namely that the right to have arms for self-defence is limited by the words "and as allowed by Law". The law is a changing thing. Parliament by statute can repeal the common law. Parliament has since 1920 (and it may be earlier, but certainly since 1920) imposed limitations on the right to carry firearms, and one of those limitations is Section 5(1) which we are here concerned with. Where the Bill of Rights says that “the Subjects may have arms for their defence suitable for their condition and as allowed by law”, "and as allowed by law" means “and as allowed by law for the time being", and at this time you have to comply with the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968, section 5, as amended, if you wish to have a prohibited weapon; that is to say, you require authority from the Secretary of State. That is the first ground which makes Mr. Burke’s application hopeless.

Even if that ground was not fatal to it, the submission is not entrenched; that is to say, what the law makes, the law can unmake. Mr. Burke suggested to us that Parliament has no power to alter the common law. That is a submission totally without substance. What the law makes the law can unmake. You now need the authority of the Secretary of State if you have a prohibited weapon. Mr. Burke cannot avoid that provision of the law.


The other case he (Bullethead, not Lord Justice Henry) mentions, the Metric Martyrs (a weights and measures case, nominally), is apparently available on Bailii under [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin), but it's not apparently relevant. When the earlier court said, in effect, "yes, you have a right to a weapon subject to the law...and now here is the law that says no," implicit repeal would seem to drop out of relevance.

Anthony Paul wrote:Taken together, Burke’s dismissed appeal and the Metric Martyrs case agree that the Bill of Rights has not been amended. The Firearms Acts are relevant to and control sporting guns, not military, militia or personal defence ones.


NOT SO MUCH. And I won't even go into his read of District of Columbia v. Heller, since it's totally irrelevant to UK law.

I'll agree on this point: as much as anything can be extracted from this hot tangled mess of ipse dixit and dubious history, one theme seems to be that, if you want to carry a gun in the UK, your best bet would be to sign on to your local citizen's militia. That is rightly a bit alarming. Happily, the commenters seem to be rejecting that call by and large.
---
Morrand

littleFred
Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:12 am
Location: England, UK

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby littleFred » Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:43 am

The Bill of Rights 1688 seems clear: the old king, James 2, had allowed catholics but not protestants to have arms. So the new regime allowed protestants to have the same arms-bearing rights as catholics.
Whereas the late King James the Second [...] did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome.
... By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.
[...] And thereupon the said Lords [...] declare [...] That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

As far as I know, that is still the case today: protestants and catholics have the same arms-bearing rights. It requires a mis-reading to conclude that it gives any particular rights to people of either faith.

While we are on the subject of the BoR:
And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.

The BoR was a "welcome-to-Britain" document for the Prince and Princess of Orange, and it granted authority to a foreign prince and princess. But SovCits misread this passage as "foreigners can't rule over us, so the EU is bad, so the Queen committed treason by signing the Treaty of Nice, etc". In modern English, it might be written:
And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate has or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence or authoritie, whether ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

The problem addressed wasn't foreign authorities in general, but specifically foreign religious authorities. It was anti-Pope.

John Uskglass
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:21 pm

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby John Uskglass » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:00 pm

They really are slipping into dangerous waters.

We certainly don't want a civil war but it may well get to that point if we don't unite and use the peaceful way we have been provided.... We've even made it easy for others as all we require is support by silent witnesses who are prepared to move themselves to wherever we may need it....We have the strategy in place so waiting for the army now.


https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611224816?view=permalink&id=1316910991727602&_ft_=qid.6400334895542558942%3Amf_story_key.1316910991727602%3Atop_level_post_id.1316910991727602%3Atl_objid.1316910991727602&refid=18&__tn__=%2C%3B

IANAL but I'd have thought that if someone associated with the site did something mega-stupid (and they do seem to discuss taking over public buildings in some of the threads), there might be grounds for conspiracy charges.

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1847
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby longdog » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:14 pm

John Uskglass wrote:They really are slipping into dangerous waters.

We certainly don't want a civil war but it may well get to that point if we don't unite and use the peaceful way we have been provided.... We've even made it easy for others as all we require is support by silent witnesses who are prepared to move themselves to wherever we may need it....We have the strategy in place so waiting for the army now.


https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611224816?view=permalink&id=1316910991727602&_ft_=qid.6400334895542558942%3Amf_story_key.1316910991727602%3Atop_level_post_id.1316910991727602%3Atl_objid.1316910991727602&refid=18&__tn__=%2C%3B

IANAL but I'd have thought that if someone associated with the site did something mega-stupid (and they do seem to discuss taking over public buildings in some of the threads), there might be grounds for conspiracy charges.


As far as I can work out he was in receipt of sickness benefits but lost them because he refused to cooperate with the DWP and went down the "You have to give me money because Magna Carta and etcetera" route with predictable results. I'm sure the phone-drone at the DWP will be shitting himself about the 'legal notice' winging it's merry way to them but I'm not sure the state has anything to worry about on the impending civil war front just yet :snicker:
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

John Uskglass
Scalawag
Scalawag
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:21 pm

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby John Uskglass » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:37 pm

I'm pretty sure they're all mouth and no trousers. However, in the video of them 'seizing' Glastonbury Town Hall, they seem to have an unfortunate liking for camo gear, and current UK law is pretty fierce.

Terrorism Act 2000

[quote]"terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious[, racial][3] or ideological cause.
[) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied./quote]

It's obvious that they're a few sandwiches short of a picnic, given the whole basis of the site, but it takes a particular level of stupid to put yourselves in the position where you could fall foul of terror legislation because of what you've posted on a public site.

Put it this way, if they were Muslims, they'd be being a lot more cautious...

AndyPandy
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1162
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby AndyPandy » Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:26 pm

longdog wrote:
John Uskglass wrote:They really are slipping into dangerous waters.

We certainly don't want a civil war but it may well get to that point if we don't unite and use the peaceful way we have been provided.... We've even made it easy for others as all we require is support by silent witnesses who are prepared to move themselves to wherever we may need it....We have the strategy in place so waiting for the army now.


https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611224816?view=permalink&id=1316910991727602&_ft_=qid.6400334895542558942%3Amf_story_key.1316910991727602%3Atop_level_post_id.1316910991727602%3Atl_objid.1316910991727602&refid=18&__tn__=%2C%3B

IANAL but I'd have thought that if someone associated with the site did something mega-stupid (and they do seem to discuss taking over public buildings in some of the threads), there might be grounds for conspiracy charges.


As far as I can work out he was in receipt of sickness benefits but lost them because he refused to cooperate with the DWP and went down the "You have to give me money because Magna Carta and etcetera" route with predictable results. I'm sure the phone-drone at the DWP will be shitting himself about the 'legal notice' winging it's merry way to them but I'm not sure the state has anything to worry about on the impending civil war front just yet :snicker:


I love all the idiotic comments about this ( no one of course saying you've been an arse and get over yourself !!) .. but this one is particularly special

Christine Jackson

Sorry to hear the state welfare system is being an arse and ignoring law of the land. Could you please explain what I woul do about s bus lane fine I've received. Thank u in anticipation.

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1847
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby longdog » Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:06 pm

AndyPandy wrote:I love all the idiotic comments about this ( no one of course saying you've been an arse and get over yourself !!) .. but this one is particularly special

Christine Jackson

Sorry to hear the state welfare system is being an arse and ignoring law of the land. Could you please explain what I woul do about s bus lane fine I've received. Thank u in anticipation.


Brilliant...

You couldn't even negotiate your way through a benefits system and lost your benefits through being a dick so can you explain how I can turn a trivial driving offence into a jail sentence.

Yours sincerely.

The village idiot.



How do these people manage to feed themselves?
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby TheNewSaint » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:25 pm

Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby Hercule Parrot » Thu Mar 23, 2017 1:38 am

Braveheart Robinson wrote:We certainly don't want a civil war but it may well get to that point.....

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... n__=%2C%3B .


Oh that's hilarious. So their new poster-boy David Robinson is a long-term welfare scrounger. He won't pay taxes or comply with public duties, but he expects to be maintained at our expense. Why waste public funds on elderly care or hospitals, when DR is so much more deserving?

And I wonder what strange and cruel health condition he has, that permits​ him to fight other people's battles in court, maintain multiple websites and groups, chronicle his own steadfast heroism etc, but unfortunately prevents him from doing useful, paid work.

How do these people manage to feed themselves? They don't, they are almost universally a parasitic burden upon the community.

(Edit - sorry, the quoting has gone sovcit on me)

(Edit - fixed by moderator)
Last edited by Arthur Rubin on Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Fix BBCODE × 2
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1181
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: "practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

Postby SteveUK » Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:55 am

new lows have been reached, with one of the PLD crew caught selling a quack cancer cure.
I wonder what the French authorities will make of the BS Magna Carta / Common Law/ Legalese defence thats in the making?

Image

:violin:
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest