January 10, 2012

Told You So

Since we are living in austere times, this post is a 3 for 1 special.

Told You So No 1: Nicotine patches are shite. (Someone tell the NHS!)

It says so right here

Told You So No 2: Second hand smoke is harmless.

It says so right here

Told You So No 3: Cops release Freeman without charge.

See for yourselves.



We'll put this down as a good day, shall we?

CR.

PS-Tip of ye olde beret to Mescalito for the YouTube link.

25 comments:

Twisted Root said...

Here's to the walkers; the talkers and scoffers are politely invited to go away and crawl back under the duvet.

Pesky Anonymous said...

Hey Captain. I've been itching to congratulate Mescalito for his superb find, but layed off 'cos I knew you'd go for it :-))

Well done that man. But what a mauling the drones gave him eh?

"Then he attempts to make a very strange deal with the officer."
What would that be then? Standing up for his rights?

Oldrightie said...

Slowly it begins to dawn. Brilliant work, Cap'n.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant! Is that from one of those cop shows? Surely he can claim damages for trespass against the person after they forcibly removed his trousers?

I will just say though that he sounded quite drunk and, at risk of sounding like a do-gooder, being pissed and driving isn't a great advert for lawful rebellion.

David

Robert the Biker said...

OK, I'll bite here. What happens when I, or one of my kids, gets wiped out by some shithead who has no licence (showing he has passed an admittedly low standard of competence) or insurance ( to compensate the victims of his behaviour). Is it just passed off with a laugh then? How about if I apply MY law and kill the worthless bastard, is that acceptable? Sorry, but all I see is some tosser who thinks he's God and can do as he pleases without troubling himself about other peoples rights and that does not spell 'Freeman' to me.

Captain Ranty said...

David,

If he was pissed do you honestly think they would have let him go?

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Robert,

Driving is lawful. In fact, anything that "requires" a license is inherently lawful. The license is in place as a control mechanism.

Does your bit of plastic make you a safe driver? I can honestly swear that mine has had no impact on my driving skills. When I leave it at home I find that I can drive just as well.

The license is meaningless. I displayed my competence when I passed my test.

Insurance? I have that. Fully comp. Always will. It offers (financial) protection against bad drivers.

But having insurance does not stop car crashes any more than carrying a license makes you a better driver.

Notice I am not answering for the guy in the vid? If you have a beef with him, go and ask him about it.

The reason I posted the video is simple: if you have done nothing wrong, there is no need for the police to treat you this way.

If the chap in the video had done harm, there is no way I would promote his actions.

CR.

Dave_G said...

I just wonder how the guys 'treatment' at the hands of those coppers would have gone had there been NO cameras recording the proceedings......

Captain Ranty said...

Dave_G,

No cameras may just explain the 1,100 deaths in police custody over the last 10 years.

And not one single prosecution for wrongful death.

CR.

Anonymous said...

Driving without insurance is plain cuntish.
Paris Claims

Captain Ranty said...

PC,

I don't think he was.

Cops would have charged him.

CR.

Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

I would like Paris claims to explain just exactly what the WORD 'insurance' means.
Insurance is NOT a requirement as it states in their ACTS and statutes, A deposit with the authorities is all that is required. FACT and in their own words.

By the way Capt'n did you see the piece about the police refusing admittance to the 'FORCE' if their IQ is HIGH. So the rest of them must be low IQ.
Well not all, there are constables out there and they are OK. Police OFFICERS are ALL TWATS.
FULL STOP.
Constables that act according to their oath are all 'good men and women' and I would assist them but NEVER will I assist an 'OFFICER', they are the thugs that need to be kicked off the FORCE and put on the dole where they belong.

Namaste, rev;

mrfrostblog said...

Robert,

The underlying principle for the Freemen is to "do no harm".

You will have been able to prove a loss and pursue justice through the courts.

Additionally, if they had been driving under their Common Law rights (instead of the Statute Law) they would not have a limit on their liability.

Therefore, the maximum tarrif for manslaughter is, say, (as I can't be bothered to look it up), 15 years under Statute Law with a limited fine / compensation. Under Common Law, there would be no limit to the sentance that could be passed and so you may find the bugger locked away for the rest of his life.

Mr. Frost

Anonymous said...

This is an interesting example of how the conspiracy theorist maintains his convictions. Allow me to explain.

There's a consensus. It could be about anything - from smoking being dangerous to global warming to terrorists killing thousands on September the 11th. The conspiracy theorist subjects the evidence for the consensus to forensic analysis. Any doubt is siezed upon with glee. The qualifications of experts are questioned. Everything is doubted. But evidence against the consensus is treated quite differently. Anything, no matter how weak, is treated with reverence.

All that link says is that one doctor has testified that secondhand smoke isn't dangerous. If that single doctor had said that secondhand smoke was dangerous would you have changed your mind? No. Of course not. You'd rightly point out that other doctors would say the opposite. You'd point out that he's not even an epidemiologist.

So, we have a tiny scrap of 'evidence' supporting your position. You report it as if it states that your position is correct. 'Says so right here'. But all the evidence against your position - say, the opinion of almost every medical and scientific organisation in the entire world - is dismissed. They're wrong. It's a conspiracy. Everyone is lying but I know the truth.

This is the process that allows the freeman nonsense to survive, just. The finest legal minds in the country are dismissed as charlatans and liars. Meanwhile confused, rambling idiots on youtube are praised like visionary geniuses. Text books are wrong. Semiliterate forum posts are gospel.

I realise that arguments from authority are problematic, but I honestly want you to think for a second. On one side you have scientists, professors, scholars. On your side you have mentally ill pensioners ranting at judges and people who think we're ruled by lizards.

Dailyhammer said...

Anonymous 2:49

"The finest legal minds in the country are dismissed as charlatans and liars. Meanwhile confused, rambling idiots on youtube are praised like visionary geniuses"

So lets just get the facts straight here - the rambling idiot was released without charge - this was achieved without the intervention of solicitors and courts and consumed a total of 4 hours of time for all involved. If the rambling idiot had taken your preferred course of action and involved solicitors which would have been paid for by legal aid, he would have been dragged through the courts consuming more public funds and then be prosecuted / fined at the end of it.

Considering there are so called specialist solicitors that charge thousands of pounds for their "expert knowledge" and "greatness of mind" to allow people to escape motoring offences - the rambling idiot did it himself.

I do not condone driving without insurance but the point of the freeman movement is to rebel against statutes of which motoring offences are classed under and as he was released without charge - it sets a precedent for other statues.

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

It might help if you understood how a "consensus" is arrived at. Do study the Delphi Technique then pop back and tell me how cool consensus is then.

Look, the link I have here about SHS is just one of dozens I can produce from medical doctors, from professors and from scholars. I studied tobacco and its effects for more than four years. I regularly prove to my own GP that I have forgotten more about primary and secondary smoking than they will ever know.

If you want to have the debate, let's do it. But I will predict this, your final words on the subject will be "Yeah, but it smells". I know because I have had the debate around a thousand times.

You hold up, as examples of my movement, one pensioner (who has never been proven to be "mentally ill") and a guy who talks about lizard people (who I rarely quote on here) and you cleverly ignore the other 500,000-800,000 people that are studying this subject.

Shall I do the same? Shall I find one paedophile judge or one bent lawyer, or one killer cop and insist that they represent your side?

No, I wouldn't do that, but it's okay when you do?

Grow the fuck up.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Dailyhammer,

Well said.

All of it drips with common sense.

Anon has trouble with that.

CR.

Twisted Root said...

Anon 2:29,

Take a look in the mirror. Consensus is achieved through the very techniques you ascribe to anyone who doesn't agree - ignore, marginalise,demonise, vilify, belittle and mock. Your post has all the hallmarks - spurious appeal to authority, strawman and tar baby attacks.

Consensus is a lovely sounding word and no doubt you sincerely believe it is a good thing, but it is the tool of tyrants.

Anonymous said...

Anon.... Yep and I bet you think the EU is a good idea too..... Move along, nothing to see here.... In other words fuck off back to sleep and pay your taxes like a good chap...... I bet you missed Eastenders thinking about that one...... Off you pop.

Aldo.

PS I see you left no name and haven't taken up CR's offer of a debate? Why is that? That would be it your argument is flawed from the very first letter......

James Higham said...

One or two come our way.

Pete said...

Damn Captain! I have not been online since yesterday, went onto my blog and posted the exact same clip. I had best hat tip ya lol. Sorry matey.

coz said...

some promising research on repairing lung damage....

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/8401756/breakthrough-may-help-heal-smokers-lungs

Andrew said...

"So, we have a tiny scrap of 'evidence' supporting your position."

No.

Allow me to explain.

He simply posted a "tiny scrap".

If you want more then there's plenty of studies out there confirming passive smoking is bullshit.

Here's a couple for you:

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/1440.short

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm

"the opinion of almost every medical and scientific organisation in the entire world - is dismissed"

As you can see from the links I provided this is not true.

It's governments who dismiss whatever goes against them grabbing as much money and control as possible.

And they rely, heavily, on people like you. People who'll simply nod their head and mindlessly accept whatever they're told. Because, after all, everything government does is in the best interests of its citizens, right?

On one side you have people who can think for themselves and make their own mind up. On your side you have psychopathic control freaks, pathological liars, vicious warmongers, useful idiots, and people who'll spout any manner of crap to get their hands on a pay cheque.

www.cheapdildosuk.co.uk said...

Please Mr Ranty, post anything you can on not having to have your car registered with the D.V.L.A please

Anonymous said...

Live an achievable....
If someone smacks my car up I want it fixed, if they cripple me I want loads of compo (at least). If the driver is a multi millionaire and has ringfenced a large amount of money for such an eventuality, fair enough. If not, I want him insured or off the road. I am a libertarian at heart ( a nationalist one if that's possible) but I'm not an anarcist. If the police want to nick a load of uninsured drivers they need to go to Bradford or some other culturally enriched area. Half are uninsured and the insured ones keep ramming each other and make spurious whiplash claims
Paric claims