September 29, 2009

Pick A Team, Any Team


If you pick Labour, Tory or the Lib Dims, you are stuck with being spied upon forever. Nothing will change. Well, perhaps we will slide further towards Eric Blair's nightmare vision of the present future, but none of them want to put away the ban stick just yet. Beating the shit out of the little people is what they do best. They get off on it. Pick this immoral bunch of thieving muppets and you deserve everything you get. They are not for me. Try as I might, I have trouble fitting a fag paper between them. Back in the day they used to actually have differing policies. That way you had some idea of what you were in for. UKIP took the Labour Party to court last year, and the not-too-surprising judgement was that Manifesto promises are worthless. I for one, will never believe any of them, about anything, ever again. I am done with "mainstream" politics. All they do is lead us deeper and deeper into the shit. Their time is over.

If you value your freedom, and feel able to take responsibility for your own actions, I would advise picking someone new. If you end up in the shit it will be because you picked that particular road. It will be a rude awakening for some, having no-one to blame for the stupid decisions they made. Spilt coffee on yourself in a restaurant? Stay the fuck away from hot coffee. You are not yet mature enough to handle hot drinks. Fall over in Tesco getting the shopping in? Watch where you are going, you dozy bastard.

I want something new, something invigorating and fresh. I want politicians that allow me to make mistakes. I think LPUK fits the bill.

They want to give me things. And I want to take them. LPUK are the polar opposite of the clowns we have spitting and fighting with each other every day regarding who will waste less of our money, and who will fuck us up the least. Sadly, the answer is "none of the above".

I want my freedom back. I need to make my own choices. I demand the right to live with decisions I have made all by myself.

Have a look at what my friend the upwardly biting underdog has to say. This is utterly brilliant and so close to my personal philosophy it is uncanny. It absolutely oozes common sense. This is one sense we badly need to recapture. Most days when I steal a peep at the sheeple I am convinced that they have undergone some sort of mass common-sense-ectomy. It's time for a drastic change.

Over to Mr Leg Iron:

"Disclaimers first.

1) I am not a member of anything. I don't speak for the Libertarian Party and even if I join, I won't be speaking for the party because if they have any sense they won't let me near the reins of power. I like to press buttons just to see what they do. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, I'm not sure I want to join any club that would let people like me in. Joining something is, for me at least, a big decision. I once joined a union and that didn't work out too well, so I have to think long and hard before committing to any group.

2) This post has been sponsored by non-approved and soon to be illegal quantities of Glen Grant.

Right. This is what I think libertarianism means and it's not based on anything other than my own random thought processes. Party members are welcome to correct me.

There is some fear of the Libertarian movement among the big three parties. I base this conclusion on labels like 'xenophobic' and 'far right' and 'BNP-like'. They are scared. With good reason. So there is a lot of talk of 'libertarian=anarchist' and 'they'll just let everyone do whatever they please' and so on.

To an extent, yes. But it's not libertinism. You can do pretty much what you please but you must accept responsibility for your actions. There can be no 'it was my upbringing' or 'it was my culture somewhere else' or 'it's a fair cop, but society is to blame'. You did it, you deal with it.

So if you want to build an extension that looks like something from 'A Series Of Unfortunate Events', go ahead. If it falls over and smashes your neighbour's shed, you'll be liable. Not the planning committee. Not the builder. Not the architect. You. You will have to compensate your neighbour. If someone is hurt, you'll go to jail and pay compensation too. it'll take a few years to sink in, but once people work out that they won't get off with excuses any more, most will start to act with some responsibility.

Libertarianism does not mean the absence of law or the disbanding of the police. It means fewer and simpler laws that are easy to understand and follow. It means a policeman would give you a ticking off for dropping litter rather than fining you, taking your fingerprints and DNA and recording all your details on five miles of paperwork. He won't even need to ask your name. All he'll ask is that you pick up your own crap and deal with it yourself. Like they used to in the old days. He'll still have authority and if you want to kick off, he'll have the power to deal with that. But it won't be his automatic response and if you just pick up the crap, he won't even have to report it back at the station.

No targets. Also, no limits. If several months go by where nobody in an area causes a problem, the police don't need to make arrests. If a ruckus kicks off because some bunch of idiots want to clawhammer someone, the police can arrest them all. You are free to do whatever you want in Libertarianism as long as it hurts nobody else. Cause trouble and the proverbial ton of bricks comes into play.

Should you steal, rape, kill, or otherwise damage someone else, expect a long prison sentence. Prisons will have room for long-term inmates because they won't be occupied by people who grow a bit of weed for their own use, or shout a bit of abuse across the street. Sticks and stones, prison. Words, no real harm. Like the old days when the British were real people rather than the professionally offended infants they have been made to be now. Libertarianism, to me, is forcing the country to grow up. It's time, don't you think?

Pause and think for a moment. Recall the news you've read recently. How many complaints to the police, how many charges, how many court appearances, how many prison sentences can be described as 'SIr, Sir, the naughty boy called me a bad name'? The police are obliged to respond. The courts are bound by the law. They enforce something that real people grew out of when they were nine.

I don't agree with every Libertarian out there but that's not a weakness in the party. It's the point. People are individuals. If every Libertarian toed the party line, they'd be like the drones of Labour, Tory or Libby Dimmies. The party is forged on concensus, not blind obedience. I would never join authoritarian parites like the big three, the Greens, the BNP or even the Monster Raving Loonies because to do so, you must accept the manifesto as it stands . You cannot argue. No discussion is allowed. That's the rule book you signed up to, now follow it. Sod that.

Take drinking and driving. Some Libertarians maintain that there's no harm done as long as you make it home safely. I don't agree with that but I do think that drunk driving, as oppposed to driving over some arbitrary limit, is wrong and should be stopped. When you're in charge of a big metal box on wheels, capable of considerable speed, you increase the risk to others when you impair your own reactions and judgement. By a lot. It's not about how many milligrams of alcohol you have in you, it's about your ability to control your death machine.

Some people I know would be able to drive over the current limit with no problem. Others would not be safe to drive even under the limit. One, at least, isn't safe sober. So I would go for a test based on the individual's ability to control their vehicle rather than a breath test. A breath test treats us all as clones. We are not. First offence, lose your licence for a year. A second offence within that year, prison. No piddling about with points and re-education classes. But it's not based on milligrams in your blood, it's based on whether you have control of the vehicle you're driving. The risk is not to yourself. it's to other people.

With seatbelts, that's your problem. You don't want to wear a seatbelt, fine, it's you that goes through the windscreen in a crash, not me.

Speeding is not so clear. If your car does 90 and you're confident of handling it, and there's nobody about, off you go. If you're tailgating or cutting in or out, the hell with you and it's licence shredding time. On an empty road at 3 am, speed cameras are just silly.

Immigration. The love that dare not speak its name, as Oscar Wilde once said about something else entirely. My thoughts? I don't care at all. I don't care whether you're white, black, brown, green, blue, turquoise or puce. I don't care whether you're Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Church of the Militant Elvis, Satanist, Atheist, or even if you think the entire universe was sneezed from the nose of a being you call the Great Green Arkelseizure. I don't care. All I care about is '"Why are you here?"

If you're here to improve your life by becoming One Of Us, great. In you come. For a year at least, it might not be much improvement.

If you came here to sponge, then leave, or die of starvation. We are not feeding you.

To add to the quotes, here's a P.T. Barnum (I think). "There is no such thing as a free lunch".

Libertarian is not libertine. There is no racism or xenophobia. Nobody is forced to leave. Stay, follow the simple rules, you'll be fine. Your gender, race, religion or sexual preference is irrelevant, we don't care.

But libertarianism is not anarchy. There are stringent rules.

Just not very many".

Just not very many will suit your unbending author nicely.

Very nicely indeed.

September 24, 2009

More Home Office Dialogue

I received a response today to my last letter to our servants manning the Home Office.

So, their answers are speeding up slightly. What it made up in speed, it lost in wordiness.

Check out their brief reply:

Dear Mr Ranty,

Thank you for your further e-mail on this matter, I regret that this is not something the Home Office would deal with.

Yours sincerely,

Sam Irvine

Naturally, I have responded.

My reply is slightly longer:

Dear Sam of the Irvine family,

Thank you for your reply dated today.

It is clear to me that you have no idea how to respond to my letters, emails and Notices. It may be because you do not understand them, or it may be because you are not trained to understand matters involving law.

In either case, you are now required to take all of my letters, emails and Notices to your legal department. Sending missives back and forth between us will get us nowhere.

Please be aware that I am not:

1. Complaining
2. Asking for advice
3. Requesting information.

Please be aware that I am:

1. Making a lawful claim.

Your standard 20 day time limit to reply is hereby reduced to 7 days. This is no “ordinary” matter. My communiqués have serious connotations in law.

All of the Notices, letters and emails I have sent to you thus far have a lawful bearing. If you are not trained in the law then you are unable to deal with my Claims. At the risk of repeating myself, I will tell you, just like I told your two colleagues, that I have sworn an affidavit and signed it in front of three witnesses. My affidavit was then sent to your office, and you had time to rebut the claims I made but you did not. In law, my affidavit now becomes law. In law, there is no more powerful document than a signed, witnessed, unrebutted affidavit. The Claims I made remain unrebutted, as they will forevermore, so I now demand that you deliver the Rights that I claimed.

Your (short) reply says that you “regret that this is not something the Home Office would deal with”.

I regret that your answer is woefully inadequate. I regret that you chose not to carry out my instructions. I regret that you failed to notify your legal department.

Mostly, I regret that you failed to read and understand the documents that I sent you.

My Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right (NOUICOR) is crystal clear on this. Please reread it. It says “Notice to principal is notice to agent, and notice to agent is notice to principal”. In law this means that the onus is on your office to promulgate my Claim of Right. I will not be held responsible for your failure in this matter.

If you have no desire to deal with my Claims, so be it. However, you now have a duty to:

a) Instruct UKBA that I must be issued with a Diplomatic Passport.
b) Instruct HMRC that I am no longer obliged to pay UK Income Tax.

Or, c) Furnish every government department with a copy of my NOUICOR and advise them to engage with me. You can start with UKBA and HMRC and I will interact with the rest when I am ready to do so.

If my words sound harsh, that is not my intent. This is a serious matter that you, and two of your colleagues, have seriously misunderstood. None of you has forwarded my communiqués to your legal team. Had any of you done so, we would be well on the way to closure. Instead I have withstood weeks of inaction. This has to stop. Instruct your legal team to engage with me immediately so that these matters can be resolved.

Without ill-will, frivolity or vexation,

Captain: of the Ranty family.

Freeman On The Land

And so, the ping pong continues. I will keep you updated.

Now, who else can I mess with........

September 12, 2009

PSSST! Wanna Buy A Statute?

I recently learned that new statutes are evaluated by the money men before they are shovelled through parliament.

If you ever thought that statutes were enacted for the sake of justice, I hope I will have busted that particular myth by the time you finish reading this entry.

How does it work?

Set your faces to stun, while I elaborate.

Preamble: the United Kingdom is bankrupt. She has been for 140 years. We have been trading thanks to something similar to the Americans' Chapter 11. Which means, in effect, that we can continue to trade but any profits realised must be used to repay debt. It is unlikely that we will ever emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but we (read HMG) have to find ways to raise cash money. Knights on white chargers are as rare as hens teeth, so we get new statutes instead. Lots and lots of 'em.

So, the problem in one word = money.

The solution, also in one word = legislation.

Every piece of legislation shat out of parliament carries a punishment, usually in the form of a fine. (It also has to have a remedy, more on remedies another day). In many cases, they also bring in a lot of front-money when they cause people or industry to apply for licenses and such. Think of Scotlands new licensing laws and the average cost to alcohol retailers, or, this new mountain of cash the CRB legislation will squeeze out of ordinary parents, who will be forced to lay out £100 for a background check just so that they can continue running little Chelsea to girl guides with her friends in the car.

Here is the scam, in a nutshell.

First, we have to come up with a piece of legislation that the bankers (read Bank of England) like the look of. So our government guys get weaving. They put together a synopsis of the new statute, along with a projection of its future earnings, then they sit down over coffee and biscuits over at Threadneedle Street. Then the haggling begins: the BoE look at the numbers and advance the government whatever they agree the new statute will generate. The government take the £4 billion, £7 billion or £10 billion, and repay some debt. As the fines roll in they are sent to those 18 shady Directors at the BoE. Everyone is happy.

It's a sales pitch. In much the same way that your future earnings are projected (see earlier posts for more details on our Birth Bonds), the bank allows the government to borrow money based on future earnings of the legislation pitched to them. Deal done, the g-men hurry off back to the Treasury to give them the good news. Next, the statute is suggested, drafted, discussed in the HoC, passed up to the HoL for discussion, debate and amendments, back down to the lower house for a vote, then off it goes to Becky for her assent/rubber stamp.

Result! HMG now has a new means of extorting money from the great unwashed.

Need an example? Look no further than the Road Traffic Act 1988. This Act has generated billions and billions of £££'s for the Chancellor over the last 21 years. And it will go on leeching cash from your pocket to go into this wasteful governments grasping mitts. Unless, of course, you do what I did, and let them know that you will no longer observe, adhere to, or take notice of statutes that were neither written for human beings and which weren't written for people who live on dry land.

Remember: all Statutes, Acts, Bills and Statutory Instruments are Laws-of-the-Water. They do not apply to you or me. Unless, of course, you actually do live, work and play on the sea.

Shocked? Disgusted? Gob-smacked?

Me too.

As unbelievable as it sounds, it makes sense.

Why else would they need to fine you for leaving your bin out too long? For smoking in a pub? For driving a little over the speed limit? For parking your car on some poxy yellow lines?

None of these "crimes*" harm, cause injury or loss to another human. But they do ensure a steady supply of your money to their bank account.

*There are only four basic crimes, and they are steeped in common sense: do not hurt, do not kill, do not steal, and do not defraud. Anything else is mere commentary.

Statutes are superfluous. They exist only to milk you, the cash cow.

My teats have withstood enough punishment, and I say, "No more!".

Unusually, I have not supported this entry with any evidence. The reason for this is that I have only found one source, so far. I am not happy until I have found two, three or more sources that I can cross-check. I'll be digging deeper and will find, and provide, something credible for you to inspect. I just wanted to share this with you to demonstrate just how hoodwinked we all are. The truth is a lie, and it brings me no pleasure to share these awful things with you, but I am obligated (by my conscience) to disseminate.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, surprises me anymore.

This has long since ceased to be a mere rabbit hole.

This deception is deeper than the fucking Kimberley Mine.

The Wisdom Of Crowds

Last night I took a rare glimpse at the propaganda unit in my living room. It is something I rarely switch on these days, as I prefer to get my news from alternative sources. For entertainment I spend a small fortune on DVDs and watch them when the urge takes me.

I wanted to see how Derren Brown had managed to accurately predict six numbers in the national lottery, and I was fascinated by a phrase he used during the show. It was "The wisdom of crowds" that caught my attention and I wanted to learn more. If you click on the title you will see what Wikipedia has to say about it. Personally I would rename it Pikipedia as not all entries contain sufficient balance for my liking. Take a peek at their very one-sided view of second hand smoke as an example.

Anyhoo, I wanted to know if there was anything in this theory and I have been mulling it over for the last sixteen hours or so.

If there is wisdom in crowds, I want to know where it is. I have seen precious little wisdom from crowds, or individuals, come to that, in the last 10 or 15 years. We appear, in our millions, to be getting stupider.

Why else would we allow Labour politicians to keep their jobs despite widespread abuse of their office?

Why else would we allow ever more unsupportable methods of control to be exerted over us?

Why do we stand by while various sections of society are curtailed, discriminated against, and vilified?

Why else would we stand by and allow these lawmakers to vomit out statute after statute that have no apparent bearing on our lives?

Why else would we watch as these people hand over our nation to the EU, to be controlled by unelected busybodies?

I think, and you may correct me, it's because we don't give a shit.

If we don't drink, and there are a significant number of people that don't, why should we care about alcohol control measures that treat adults like infants?

If we don't smoke, why should we give a damn when smokers are hounded outside in all weathers?

If we don't care for fast food, why should be concerned about the treatment of those carrying a stone or two beyond the suggested weight for "normal" humans?

Maybe it's because while they, the ubiquitous they, are picking on another group into which we don't fit, they are leaving us alone. And that's okay. If we keep our heads down, maybe they will pass us by?

Except that they won't. There will be a delay, for sure, but eventually, they will run out of abnormal targets and come for the normal.

So where is the "crowd wisdom"? Where is the refusal to be nannied? Where is the outrage at the ever increasing control mechanisms we endure, day after day?

It seems to me that the overwhelming majority know, deep down, that something is rotten, yet do nothing.They do nothing because it isn't happening to them. It also, vicariously, allows them to despise their fellow countrymen. They certainly aren't allowed to despise others not of their ethnic persuasion, or those who choose an alternative sexual orientation.

But smokers, drinkers, fatties, and yes, even those who choose to support political parties like the BNP, are vilified openly, and worse, with the encouragement of this government that have done their utmost to destroy Britain. I'd like to say that their destruction has been accidental but I can find no evidence to support that explanation. No party can be that inept, surely? It had to be engineered.

No, the only answer is that decisions are made using the Delphi Technique. (Look it up, it is as interesting as it is sinister). The basics are this: a group of "experts", or a "think-tank" sit around in a meeting room. They are asked their opinion on, say, a tax increase, and all opinions are gathered. Out of twenty people, 14 may say "Yep. Let's do it", and the other 6 are either unsure, or against the new tax. So they stay in the room until the 14 have convinced the 6 that they are wrong and that the new tax increase is the only right decision. It is a mixture of bullying and mind-control, and it is frightening, to me at least, to know that many major decisions are reached in this way. Using this technique, all 20 "experts" leave the room knowing they have made the right decision. The decision is promulgated and if necessary, the Delphi Technique is used on any dissenters that may creep out of the woodwork.

So, Wisdom of Crowds, or Delphi Technique? You decide.

It may be that I have picked up the wrong ball and ran the wrong way with it. I am sure you will let me know.

I do know that I see more evidence of the existence of the Delphi Technique than I do for the Wisdom of Crowds.

It strikes me that the average Brit is either very stupid, very insular, or very uncaring.

Or a combination of all three.

I hope, for all our sakes, that we shake off this lassitude, and very quickly.

September 07, 2009

Home Office Dialogue......

The quest continues.

On Saturday (4th September), I received my second reply from the Home Office. Regular readers will know that I sent my Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right (NOUICOR) to them on 8th June 2009. They ignored my Notice, and my affidavit became enshrined in law. That is to say, my laws are real, they exist, and they have been documented, witnessed, issued and promulgated. Within my NOUICOR I made some demands, which, if unrebutted, became lawful claims. The Home Office may or may not have seen a NOUICOR before, so I have given them some latitude. They certainly do not understand that my laws now supersede any that parliament have ever produced. Having issued them with my NOUICOR I followed up with my second Notice on 1st July 2009. My second missive was (lawfully) titled "Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure". They are, however, confused. I understand this, and have attempted to explain to them, gently, what it is I want of them.

The letter from Ms Johnson: of the Home Office family, is here:

Dear Mr Ranty,

Thank you for your e-mail of 7 August regarding your “Notice of Fault”.

I am unclear as to the contents of your e-mail and your previous letter of 1 July. It would be helpful if you could explain what your query is and what advice you wish the Home Office to provide to you.

Once we have received this information we will arrange for your e-mail or letter to be answered. You can expect to receive a reply within 20 working days.

Yours sincerely,

Miss C Johnson

My reply:

Your Ref: TXXXXX/X

07 September 2009

Dear Ms Johnson,

I refer to your letter of 4th September 2009 in which you ask me to clarify my “query”.

I did not submit a query, nor did I request advice from your office, but I do understand your confusion.

What I sent to you on 8th June 2009 was a sworn affidavit called a Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right (NOUICOR). This affidavit is a powerful document. Possibly the most powerful document written in law. In my NOUICOR I laid out my understanding, I told you of my intent, and I claimed certain rights as a Freeman On The Land. Using ancient laws granted to me by Magna Carta in 1215, I have declared myself to be a Freeman. A Freeman is unbonded, and, as long as he or she causes no harm, loss or injury to another human being, he or she is not obliged to adhere to, or be bound by, Statute Law. You may or may not know that Statute Laws are also known as Laws Of The Water. I live on dry land. Statute Laws apply only to corporations (also known as “persons”), and I am not a corporation or a person, I am a human being made of flesh and blood and in possession of an immortal spirit. A corporation is made by man. I was made by my Creator. Hopefully, the foregoing is fairly straight-forward. Having sworn my affidavit, and having had my autograph lawfully witnessed by three other human beings, and having given you (the Home Office) time to rebut my Claims, which you did not, means that my NOUICOR is solidly enshrined in law. Now that it is enshrined in law, I need to collect my demands. We can start with the simplest: my diplomatic passport. As a Freeman I am to be given unfettered and unhindered transit via our many ports, both sea and air, and to facilitate this, I will need a diplomatic passport. Please make arrangements for me to receive my new diplomatic passport without delay.

We can move on to the other Claims that you acquiesced to at a later date.

Without ill-will, frivolity, or vexation,

Captain: of the Ranty family

This may continue for some time. Play nice, and I will bring further updates as they happen.

Oh, and just for the record, most Freemen do not even get one reply, let alone two.

I am indeed blessed.

Watch this space to see just how blessed.....

September 04, 2009

Freeman Victory!

If you want to watch a Freeman do his thing, click on the title above.

This is what it's all about. Refusing to pay for stuff like this. This is our history, our heritage, and our birthright.

Those who cannot afford to pay are denied a glimpse of their own history.

It seems like a small thing, and Paul himself describes it as a "shitty victory" but I think it's important.

It's a baby step in the right direction.

Soon we'll be walking.

Then running.


We'll stop paying for the same things, or making unfair payments for things time and time and time again.

Freeman - 1. Corporation - 0.

It's a beginning.....