Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[PeanutGallery]

How does one reclaim one's right to live one's life in peace and be free of these 'debt hyenas' who it appears will stop at nothing to try to make a fast buck?

Move to a cave and use an open fire made with filched fags to heat and cook.

Granted, it has its own downside factors.

Or pay your bills !!

Or declare bankruptcy, comply with the OR and then after the bankruptcy term has expired and you have learned to live without getting into debt move on with your life.

[notorial dissent]

Move to a cave and use an open fire made with filched fags to heat and cook.

Granted, it has its own downside factors.

Or pay your bills !!

Or declare bankruptcy, comply with the OR and then after the bankruptcy term has expired and you have learned to live without getting into debt move on with your life.

Like that will every happen. I think that the last thing she wants or intends to do is get on with her life, I think she revels in her assumed victimhood, as otherwise she has NOTHING in her life. A very sick pathetic human being.

[exiledscouser]

Birds of a feather....

Take Julian Assange. He's been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy for four years now, avoiding an enquiry in Sweden where the worst punishment their criminal justice system doles out is a sauna and a quick rub down in the snow afterwards. Of course, Julian is of the opinion that were he to pop out for some milk the Men In Black would swoop, bundle him into a van and he'd be kitted out in an orange jump-suit before you know it, working for the Water Board or something, I forget the exact detail.

With his already pale complexion he does look like the latest baddie to test James Bond. Well he is making a 'Spectre' of himself.

Julian is the arch conspiracist, the conspiracist's conspiracist so when the brains trust that make up the UK conspiracy scene start to doubt his motive and purpose, even continued existence, well you know it isn't going to end well.

He endlessly fascinates Petey of Eng-ger-lund who would have it that he has already snuck out of his lair leaving a doppleganger behind;

Peter of England was outside the Ecuadorean Embassy in 2012 at the beginning of JA's forced imprisonment. Now 4 years later he makes the announcement that the globalists and Billary Clinton have faltered in their attempts to silence him "for good!" His internet was cut off at the Embassy so as to provide a "smoke screen" to allow him to be removed [with the consent of the British Government]

He is free now and with friends - He was temporarily held over in an East European state prior to taking the final flight to freedom.

So the UK is in on it. They don't like Assange so they....arrange for him to escape....to an eastern European destination from where....he took a flight of fantasy freedom. The Ecuadorians must be in on it too unless of course they're just delighted to get their broom cupboard back and that horrible smell has now finally gone from the dunny as they've kept remarkably schtum up to now. Perfect sense that Pete.

You know, the stuff you get to learn floating about in your camper van between Dusseldorf and Doncaster.

Then there's Goodf where infighting, backstabbing and general mistrust is now the order of the day. I love that the usual gobshites feel the need to include a list of the names of their enemies in their footers. There seems to be the anti deadbead dad gang, here's nihilist and, curiously Jimmy One Cell too;

Beware the steering committee

lopsum
actinglikeabanker
deadbeatdad
society of the spectacle

These members use psychological tactics to manage opinions on certain topics

Whilst in the Blue corner is SoS

Robswift, Carrot, Cookiedude
sam Bamford and
toolapcblack
believe the Earth is Flat.
ERA 2015, Astrobus and Nihilist are Working Together.

There's lopsum who at least has a pop at the more nakedly racist members;

Think now, thankyou.
Kestrel; Racism is prejudice, prejudice is ignorance , we wont win with that .
ERA2015; provocateur, watch him, never give him your details! he is Rob Swift and bikermom, wants to know your plans for direct action. Thick as shit .

And ramsden who distrusts everyone;

Do we have a lot of newbies that think they know everything or are there just more trolls?

This thread http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... BfFhnd0dBw is a great example, led by Jimmyw or "Jimmy6 bans" as he proudly styles himself. Jimmy, as you may know is a Vegan and wants us all to follow him ALAB has other ideas;

There are studies that show that vegan diets can lower your IQ, jimmyw is a perfect example of this.

and Deadbeatdad is no less impressed;

wee Jimmy then is a vegan version of Hezbollah - which we might otherwise term 'Vegbollah'

Anyway, I digress, back to Assange. JA isn't 'with friends'. Oh no, he's braaahn bread. Or he's ALIVE.

They just can't decide.

The Goodf take from the Specsavers guy manages to work in the usual anti semitic streak (slyly referring to our Mr. Smith as Peter of Israel). He (Assange) is a CIA stooge, a disinfo merchant, a Mossad spy, a Russian plant, agent of the illuminati, mason, Eagle Scout, bishop, the guy must be drawing some decent wedge every month. And no outgoings either. And a desirable flat in the heart of the city. Probably pulls pints of Dorada in the embassy bar on an evening, well it is in his genes. As an Australian I hope his work permit and UK Visa is up to date or he could be in a spot of bother.

Anyway, the token antipodean on Goofy, Ausk, is saddened that;

Reading the posts here I get the impression people doubt the motives of Julian Assange.

No shit my Ozzie friend, full marks for observation. Society of the Testicle (as Jimmyw would have it) points you to a nasty little utoob predictably claiming that JA and his Wikileaks is a Zionist plot to....to do some sort of world domination thing. Or something.

[JimUk1]

I particularly like this eloquently written piece of garbage on getoutofdebtfree.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Bhc3YbfXYU

In short, another Ill devised piece of nonsensical drivel from a completely head case-
LODGING OF A FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH NORTHUMBRIA POLICE;

IN REGARD TO THE COMMON LAW OFFENCE OF MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE; THE OFFENCE OF MAKING A FALSE REPRESENTATION OF AUTHORITY, and
THE OFFENCE OF DISLOYALTY TO THE CROWN;
MADE TO THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF NORTHUMBRIA POLICE, STEVE ASHMAN:
Northumbria Police Force Headquarters
North Road
Ponteland
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE20 0BL
24/10/2016
Dear Chief Constable 7002 Steve Ashman,
I am writing to you, in your capacity as a Loyal Servant of the Queen, to report to you and complain about conduct which effects me adversely and does not conform with the Law.

I say as follows;
In the Treaty on European Union, [signed at Maastricht on 7 February 1992 by The Rt. Hon. Douglas HURD, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ; & The Hon. Francis MAUDE,
Financial Secretary to the Treasury; ACTING as Her Majesty's designated plenipotentiaries,]
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND CONFIRMING.. [her] attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law,....... agreed as follows :
Article A;
By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union,, hereinafter called 'the Union'.
Article B;
The Union shall set itself the following objective :— to strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of the nationals of its Member States through the introduction of a citizenship of the Union ;
Article C
The Union shall be served by a single institutional framework which shall ensure the consistency and the continuity of the activities carried out in order to attain its objectives while respecting and building upon the 'acquis communautaire'.
Article F;
2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.
CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNION
Article 8
1 . Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.
2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the
duties imposed thereby.
By the foregoing text Her Majesty committed Herself and Her Governments, present and future, and the bodies and members thereof, and all Officers of the Crown, to conduct themselves in a manner which ensures the enjoyment of, and benefits arising from, the Rights conferred by the Treaty on all Citizens of the Union, by all Citizens of the Union. There are no reservations to that Commitment.
As a natural consequence of the foregoing text, any action or conduct, by an Officer of The Crown, that is intended to deprive,or does deprive Kenneth May, or exposes Kenneth May to a risk of loss, of the enjoyment of his Right to a Fair Trial, or any other such Right, comes under the remit of the Common Law Offence of Misconduct in Public Office. “Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one is owed by operation of law, as well as a loss by parting with what one has by operation of law.
Further, in English law Kenneth May's Right to A Fair Trial, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and any other Right by operation of law, is a 'thing in action' and Property Personal to the Person of Kenneth May.

Therefore, further to the foregoing text, any action or conduct, by an Officer of The Crown, that is intended to deprive, or does deprive Kenneth May, or exposes Kenneth May to a risk of loss, of the enjoyment of his Right to a Fair Trial, or any other such Right, is also an Offence against the Property of Kenneth May. Such Offences come under the remit of The Fraud Act 2006. “Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one is owed by operation of law, as well as a loss by parting with what one has by operation of law.

Unlawful Conduct Subsequent to the signing of The Treaty on European Union by Her Majesty;

In an instrument entitled “The Social Security Act 1998; An Act to make provision as to the making of decisions and the determination of appeals under enactments relating to social security...” dated 21st of May 1998, the UK Government of Prime Minister Tony Blair MP made an express representation, contained in the introductory text to the Social Security Act 1998, claiming that the UK Government of Prime Minister Tony Blair MP possessed the legal authority to unilaterally enact legislation relating to the making of decisions and the determination of appeals relating to a Claim for Social Security Benefits instigated by Kenneth May, a Citizen of the EU, residing in a Member State of the EU.

The Social Security Act 1998 provides that the Secretary of State, who is neither independent or impartial, shall be both a Party to the dispute and the sole Decision-maker and arbiter of the dispute.
Accordingly, there is never the possibility that Citizen May's civil claim to be in receipt of Social Security Benefits would be determined by a tribunal that was independent of one of the parties to the dispute, despite that being the very legal remedy for such a violation of a Citizen's Fundamental Rights that is guaranteed to all Citizens of the EU by Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. [ William Blackstone: "It is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right when with-held must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." ]

This conduct by the UK Government was ruled a violation of Article 6 in Kingsley v. the United Kingdom(app35605/97) [2000] and Tsfayo v the United Kingdom(app no 60860/00) [2009] by the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights had previously in Golder v UK in 1975 ruled that such conduct by a UK Government would be a violation of Article 6, and went as far as issuing a warning to the UK Government that such conduct.. “indissociable from a danger of arbitrary power, would have serious consequences which are repugnant to the aforementioned principles and which the Court cannot overlook”


Further, by virtue of Section 12(8)(b) of the Act, Citizen May is deprived of his Right to be heard before an individual measure which would affect him adversely is taken, as there is never an opportunity for the Secretary of State's evidence to be cross-examined or rebutted before the Secretary of State makes a decision on that evidence, as there is never a Hearing, despite that Right to a Hearing being guaranteed to Citizen May by Article 41; Right to Good Administration; of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Therefore, under the provisions of the Social Security Act 1998, Citizen May is deprived of a Fair Trial in the determination of his civil claim to be in receipt of Social Security Benefits, and is deprived of his remedy for that violation despite that remedy being guaranteed by Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; Right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, and is deprived of his Article 41; Right to Good Administration.

REBUTTAL OF THE UK GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM OF LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ACT UNILATERALLY IN A FIELD GOVERNED BY EU LAW;
The making of decisions and the determination of appeals relating to a Civil Claim for Social Security Benefits instigated by Kenneth May, a Citizen of the EU, residing in a member State of the EU, is a matter of individual concern to Citizen May as it involves his Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which are in English law a 'thing in action' and thus his Personal Property, and therefore, is a field of law governed by EU law, and inter alia, the Treaty on European Union, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 .

Under the Treaty on European Union a UK Government does not have the power to legislate unilaterally in that field by means of an Act of Parliament, or any other instrument that is subordinate to EU law, other than the making of the rules of procedure for any court or tribunal that may be convened in order to meet the requirements of Citizen May's Article 6; Right to a Fair Trial in the determination of his civil claim to be in receipt of Social Security Benefits. This is also made perfectly clear in Schedule 2(1)(c); of the European Communities Act 1972.

If a Member State wishes to act unilaterally in a field governed by EU law and thus derogate from its obligations under the Treaty, it must first seek the legal authority from the Union to do so. Applications, by Member States for authority to derogate from their obligations under the Treaty, are subject to a special authorization procedure, which would lose its purpose if the Governments of Member States could renounce their obligations under the Treaty by means of an ordinary law.

In this matter the European Court of Justice has ruled; “The executive force of Community law cannot vary from one State to another in deference to subsequent domestic laws, without jeopardizing the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty set out in Article 5 (2) and giving rise to the discrimination prohibited by Article 7 ; Costa v ENEL (1964). and; “furthermore , in accordance with the principle of the precedence of community law , the relationship between provisions of the treaty and directly applicable measures of the institutions on the one hand and the national law of the member states on the other is such that those provisions and measures not only by their entry into force render automatically inapplicable any conflicting provision of current national law but - in so far as they are an integral part of, and take precedence in , the legal order applicable in the territory of each of the member states - also preclude the valid adoption of new national legislative measures to the extent to which they would be incompatible with community provisions” . Simminthal II 1977

The UK Government of Prime Minister Tony Blair MP failed to apply for, and consequently, was not granted the legal authority by the Union to act unilaterally in a field of law governed by EU law.

As a natural consequence of that failure, the Social Security Act 1998 has no legal effect in any territory of the European Union, and any order, direction, rule, regulation or decision made under the provisions of the Social Security Act 1998 has no legal effect on a Citizen of the European Union

Under EU and English law, by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972, it is unlawful for a UK Government to conduct itself in a manner that violates or risks violating the EU Rights of an EU Citizen. The Human Rights Act 1998:Section 6(1) gives further effect to this already existing protection of Fundamental Rights in English law.

To that end, for a UK Government, while possessing the full knowledge and understanding of the supremacy of EU law and its direct effect in the territory of the EU that is the UK, to then falsely claim to have the authority to legislate unilaterally in regard to the Rights of an EU Citizen in the territory of a Member State of the EU is such unlawful conduct, by virtue of it being incompatible with the Rights of that Citizen, as such conduct could expose the Citizen concerned to the risk of the loss of the enjoyment of those guaranteed Rights.


PERSUANT TO THE AFOREMENTIONED EVIDENCE AND REBUTTAL OF THE UK GOVERNMENT'S CLAIM OF AUTHORITY;

COMPLAINT #1
It is the Complaint of Kenneth May that the UK Government of Prime Minister Tony Blair MP,
and accordingly subsequent UK Governments, and members thereof, by falsely claiming to possess the authority to legislate unilaterally in regard to the determination of Citizen May's civil claim to be in receipt of Social Security Benefits, as contained in the introductory text to the Social Security Act 1998, have committed the common law offence of Misconduct in Public Office, on the ground that the UK Government, [and members thereof], wilfully disregarded the duties that are imposed upon them by, inter alia, Membership [and Citizenship] of the European Union.

COMPLAINT #2
It is the Complaint of Kenneth May that the UK Government of Prime Minister Tony Blair MP,
and accordingly subsequent UK Governments, and members thereof, by falsely claiming to possess the authority to legislate unilaterally in regard to the determination of Citizen May's civil claim to be in receipt of Social Security Benefits, as contained in the introductory text to the Social Security Act 1998, have committed an act of disloyalty to the Crown, made by falsely claiming the authority to act in defiance of Her Majesty's commitments, made clear to all servants of the Crown, by Her Majesty's signing of and continuing commitment to the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty on European Union and the signing of, by Her Majesty's late Father, and the continuing commitment of Her Majesty to the attainment of the objectives of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and Her Majesty's commitment and attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.


COMPLAINT #3
It is the Complaint of Kenneth May that the UK Government of Prime Minister Tony Blair MP, did not have on 21st May 1998, and subsequent UK Governments do not have to this day, the claimed authority to legislate unilaterally in regard to the determination of Citizen May's civil claim to be in receipt of Social Security Benefits, on the ground that that right is conferred upon him by virtue of his EU citizenship, and the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union which continues to the present day, and thus is a Right that is subject only to provisions of EU law.

COMPLAINT #4
It is the Complaint of Kenneth May that the express representation made by a UK Government that it possesses the authority legislate unilaterally, as is claimed in the introductory text to the Social Security Act 1998, is a false representation by the UK Government, and members thereof, as to both the facts of the claim of authority and the law in regard to the claimed authority, and breaches the provisions of Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006.

COMPLAINT #5
It is the Complaint of Kenneth May that the conduct complained of in the preceding complaints has occasioned damage, injury and loss on the Person of the Complainant, Kenneth May.[ William Blackstone: "It is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right when with-held must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress." ]

CONCLUSION;

I, Kenneth May, as a Citizen of The European Union, having suffered damage, injury and loss occasioned by the violation of my Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, call on you, Chief Constable 7002 Steve Ashman, to honour your Oath of Office, in which you.. “do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law”..and investigate the conduct complained of in this Formal Complaint.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH.
I believe that the facts set out in this Formal Complaint are true.

Signed: Name: Kenneth May Date: 24/10/2016


Contact Information regarding this Formal Complaint;
ADDRESS; 11, STANDFIELD GARDENS,WARDLEY, GATESHEAD, TYNE & WEAR, NE10 8SS.
Email address; triken3@hotmail.com
This Formal Complaint is published on https://thebedroomtaxblues.wordpress.com and on Facebook.


P.S. I have forwarded copies of this Formal Complaint to my M.P. Mr Stephen Hepburn, and Mr Jeremy Corbyn MP in his capacity as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. When they contact you in regard to this matter, please keep them informed.

[exiledscouser]

Phuck me, what a load of old waffle. In his efforts to tick the box on every possible crackpot meme in circulation, unrebutted this, Blackstones the other, a pinch of court decisions from the eighteenth century, the point of "Citizen May's" actual complaint has become lost. Well it has for me.

I think he's having a winge about having his benefits stopped or reduced. Anyone go a better take?

[exiledscouser]

Ah, clicked on the link and it's a bit clearer now. Citizen May objects. To everything. Especially SSE having the temerity to charge him money for the gas an 'leccy he's used. I mean, how very dare they.

Mr. May tells us he's been on the dole continuously since 1995, a life well lived it would seem. He bristles with self entitlement, indignant that anyone should breach the Treaty of Rome or whatever nonsense his head has been filled with and is clearly falling headlong into a big confrontation with authority.

Whilst it is tempting to laugh, I sense very real mental health issues here. It's not going to end well. At least living in Newcastle he can pop in to see the Great British Mortgage Bollocks. Bet he'll try and get in for free!

[notorial dissent]

I got as far as May having some whinge, as was so aptly put, about something to do with a social insurance claim, what and why seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle, and beyond that all I see is a lot of waffle about EU law, that makes no sense to me as an outsider, and probably makes no sense to an insider. Sounds a lot like US sovcit whining about something and then claiming that some UN law or proclamation or treat, or the Vatican for that matter, is controlling, even though those institutions are generally anathema to sovcits since they represent the NOW or Illuminti or somesuch. Made my eyese hurt by the time I got through wading through it.

[aesmith]

I like his motorbike though, shame the pictures aren't better.

[AndyPandy]

I got as far as May having some whinge, as was so aptly put, about something to do with a social insurance claim, what and why seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle, and beyond that all I see is a lot of waffle about EU law, that makes no sense to me as an outsider, and probably makes no sense to an insider. Sounds a lot like US sovcit whining about something and then claiming that some UN law or proclamation or treat, or the Vatican for that matter, is controlling, even though those institutions are generally anathema to sovcits since they represent the NOW or Illuminti or somesuch. Made my eyese hurt by the time I got through wading through it.

I thought he'd been evicted!!

[notorial dissent]

I got as far as May having some whinge, as was so aptly put, about something to do with a social insurance claim, what and why seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle, and beyond that all I see is a lot of waffle about EU law, that makes no sense to me as an outsider, and probably makes no sense to an insider. Sounds a lot like US sovcit whining about something and then claiming that some UN law or proclamation or treat, or the Vatican for that matter, is controlling, even though those institutions are generally anathema to sovcits since they represent the NOW or Illuminti or somesuch. Made my eyese hurt by the time I got through wading through it.

I thought he'd been evicted!!

From that nonsense who could tell?

[SteveUK]

Utter tripe. Some of these folks may well have genuine grievances that need looking at, but when dress it up in pseudo law, or turn to the goodf crew, all hope of a sensible resolution is lost.
Micky Summers being a case of particular concern.

[JimUk1]

Ah, clicked on the link and it's a bit clearer now. Citizen May objects. To everything. Especially SSE having the temerity to charge him money for the gas an 'leccy he's used. I mean, how very dare they.

Mr. May tells us he's been on the dole continuously since 1995, a life well lived it would seem. He bristles with self entitlement, indignant that anyone should breach the Treaty of Rome or whatever nonsense his head has been filled with and is clearly falling headlong into a big confrontation with authority.

Whilst it is tempting to laugh, I sense very real mental health issues here. It's not going to end well. At least living in Newcastle he can pop in to see the Great British Mortgage Bollocks. Bet he'll try and get in for free!

I think it's fair to say a percentage of the freeman subscribers do appear to suffer with mental health issues; from what I can gather off the Internet.

Maybe even in some cases schizophrenia? Which would make them potentially very dangerous (to themselves*) if they truly believe the freeman thesis (nb if suffering with physcosis schizophrenia, detached from reality).

The owners on getoutofdebt free appear to making a lot of monsters.

[notorial dissent]

I don't know if you can really say they are making them, I think they are probably already that way to begin with, but they certainly are attracting them rather like a magnet.

[Hercule Parrot]

I particularly like this eloquently written piece of garbage on getoutofdebtfree.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... Bhc3YbfXYU

In short, another Ill devised piece of nonsensical drivel from a completely head case- ...

I'm playing the contrarian today. I think Citizen of the EU May writes quite well - too much repetition, but he sets out his argument and cites relevant law coherently. Not bad at all, for a lay citizen armed only with google and a keen sense of injustice.

It is a known fact that UK gov decided some time ago that too many people were claiming disability benefit, or getting dole because they were not fit for work. And so they introduced stricter tests, and employed some very dubious companies to carry out pseudo-medical assessments. Many thousands of people lost their income, there were some instances of striking cruelty (eg final stage cancer patients assessed as fit to work and labelled as malingers, who died a week or two later) and a number of suicides.

I do not know whether Citizen May can work, or whether his diagnosed Depression and PTSD is serious. However it seems that in late 2015, the government's clamp-down caught up with him and his benefits were reduced or stopped. (https://thebedroomtaxblues.wordpress.com/2015/10/). Citizen of the EU May sought to appeal this by due process.

In the course of this dispute, he has discovered that the UK's First Tier Tribunal (which hears such appeals) is somewhat lacking in authority and independence. If his cites are correct, the FTT is created and appointed by the Secretary of State (the Government Minister who is being appealed against), and operates within rules and guidance set by that Minister. Furthermore the FTT's decisions are not binding upon the Secretary of State, who can set them aside with a pen-stroke. In effect the FTT is a facade for the SoS as the real decision-maker.

Citizen May then asks how this is compliant with Article 6 ECHR - "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations… everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law…." He cites good caselaw in support of this.

The following matters relate to consequential events. Firstly, loss of his disability (ESA) benefit status automatically impacts on his housing benefit, so he's in arrears and they want to evict him. Citizen May wishes to argue that his inability to pay the rent was caused by the state's unjust withdrawal of benefits, and it is unacceptable that the state should then re-punish him by making him homeless.

Secondly, Citizen May also makes an audacious but thinner argument that his domestic energy supplier is exercising public functions towards him (because the energy companies were privatised from state bodies, and certain duties were transferred to them within that). His point being that he can't pay the leccy bill until the SoS restores his entitlement to benefits, and the energy supplier is supposed to be reasonable and patient in cases of hardship etc.

Once you get past his verbosity, I think he makes the arguments rather well - especially the core dispute about the government arbitrarily reducing benefit eligibility as a matter of political and financial convenience, and then denying access to an independent and impartial tribunal to determine appeals. Forget for a moment that Citizen May appears to be a workshy motorcycle enthusiast, and remember that the same rules apply to elderly war heroes and people with grave illnesses and disabilities.

[littleFred]

He argues to the police that:

As a natural consequence of that failure, the Social Security Act 1998 has no legal effect in any territory of the European Union, and any order, direction, rule, regulation or decision made under the provisions of the Social Security Act 1998 has no legal effect on a Citizen of the European Union

But that's not a police matter. The police don't get to rule on whether a UK Act is valid, and whether they apply to citizens. If, as he asserts, UK Acts are incompatible with EU law, that is a matter to raise at the EU level.

Similarly, the police won't listen to complaints that the UK government et al "have committed an act of disloyalty to the Crown".

[notorial dissent]

While taking your contrarian view M. Parrot, I will have to regretfully disagree. One of the hallmarks of good writing is to transfer an idea or thought or concept, or in this case an apparently generalized gripe, at which Citizen May fails abysmally. Other than that he is ticked off at the UK Social Insurance system we have not clue one as to actually why, therefore, NO actual communication and a failure in writing. Beyond that Citizen May communicatith nothing. The other failure to communicate comes from his larding his over long and uncommunicative missive/demand/whine with multiple soupçons of extraneous whine. That he makes his uncommunicative whine to the absolutely wrong authority merely compounds the failure to communicate.

[Gregg]

He may or may not have a decent case to make with regard to him losing his benefits. The very bare minimum of his fail is that the best way to make that argument is to get a good lawyer to take his case up for him. In the UK I don't know but I suspect there are no shortage of agencies and charities whose work includes helping people with "good facts" make these arguments in an effective way to the proper authorities. Sometimes, not always, but sometimes, the reason people like this are going the full sov-idiot route is because these resources have looked at his case and told him to suck it up and get a job...

[longdog]

...In the UK I don't know but I suspect there are no shortage of agencies and charities whose work includes helping people with "good facts" make these arguments in an effective way to the proper authorities.

There are but they are usually over-worked and underfunded and swamped with people wanting to appeal social security decisions to the point where the waiting list is longer than the amount of time available in which to mount an appeal.

I got caught in this a couple of years back when my ESA was stopped following a farcical ATOS assessment. I tried to get professional help from various agencies all of who said "Sorry... Join the back of the queue". As things turned out I won at the tribunal in under five minutes when the DWP couldn't even be bothered to send anybody to defend the indefensible... No need for pseudo-legal bullshit.

[notorial dissent]

I suspect that since this is, obviously, a sovcit/footl mental giant, adn we know this because he is filing his largely incomprehensible complaint/whine with entirely the wrong entity-the police, that he never even bothered to go through the actual filing or administrative appeal process that exists, and may very well not have a defensible case, and we'll probably never know if he does, since he is an idiot.

[letissier14]

Taken from the Facebook page of "Council Tax My Arse"

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1437675666477906/