March 31, 2011

Police! Camera! Action!

 This is one of the most incredible videos I have seen involving the police.

Listen, as the police officer struggles to explain "the law" to Danny. The cop resorts to just making stuff up. I wonder how many times a day they get away with this. How many people just blindly accept/assume that the cop knows what he/she is talking about.

Well done Danny. For asking the right questions, for standing firm, and for displaying compassion for the cop even after he lunged at you. (Technically, it was an assault).

Learn this stuff, folks. And protect you and yours.

My thanks to Dave at Lawful Rebellion for posting this video. Pop over there for a write up.

If you want to learn more about Danny Shine, go here.



Anonymous said...

A perfect example of how to react when being held up by modern day highwaymen. Danny keeps calm and continually asks questions, ignoring the blatant attempts at intimidation. Well played Sir!

Michael Fowke said...

Why don't we see this stuff on TV?

Captain Ranty said...

Probably because we would ALL start questioning the police.

TPTB do not want that.


Anonymous said...

It's a good video most certainly! As you know from the email Captain, I a was arrested for not giving my details and asked under what law I needed to give my details, to which my solicitor has told me that the arrest under the law I was given is not in fact legal, although I have been told they will not say they arrested me under that law when I go to court.

If only people switched off their TVs and started reading on law in order to defend themselves better. The total change in the way policing is now done in the UK means that it's vital people understand their rights as human beings in order to defend themselves against pillocks like PC Stout.

Unlike Danny, I don't like the cops. I think they're fascist psychopaths, most probably bullies or the bullied at school who don't give a shit about the liberty of people, whom they now incidentally call 'citizens'.

I never got your reply by the way Captain. Very odd. Keep up the great work.

Harbinger (still not got a google account - lol)

Mr Numba Cruncha said...

I love the bit in which Danny explains that the camera is there for his own safety and for the safety of good old PC Stout.

Thats what i call a role reversal!!


Woodsy42 said...

Good honest passive resistance!

Anonymous said...

Sorry to pour water on this, but you seem to be missing the elephant in the room.

Why was Danny being stopped? It was "alleged" that Danny ran a red light on his bicycle. Did he? Probably.

There's no doubt plenty of rants on the blogosphere about "lycra louts" on bikes committing these type of traffic offences, and nothing being done about them, so when a barrack room lawyer gets pulled for such an offence, he becomes the hero?

The narrative at the end, for me, is a climbdown.

"Not an offence in my book" - is that the book that we should all refer to, then?

All in all, not a good demo of libertarianism, IMO.

Captain Ranty said...


First off, no-one is claiming Danny's words and actions have anything to do with libertarianism.

Was anyone harmed? No.

Did anyone suffer loss? No.

Was anyone defrauded? No.

Was anyone even 'offended'? No.

Were there any victims? No.

Danny proved one thing: that cops today will lie (and lunge at you) to get you to do what THEY want.

They disrespect the ancient office of constable. PC Stout deserved everything he got.


Captain Ranty said...


Good to see you posting again.

I don't hate all coppers as I haven't really interacted with them. Some of the examples shown on this very blog tell me that I should avoid them though. But when we do meet, I know what to say and I know how to act.

Oddly, our Community Police Officer just topped himself. Apparently they found child porn on his computer. I had met him a couple of times. Seemed okay to me. Obviously, he wasn't okay.


Anonymous said...

Sorry Cap'n Ive got to disagree with you on this one;

Was anyone harmed? No.

Did anyone suffer loss? No.

Was anyone even 'offended'? No.

Were there any victims? No.

The answers SHOULD be "No, ... not this time... fortunately"

BUT what would you have said IF this biker, going through a red light, had caused another car to swerve and run over two kids walking along the footpath?

Prevention is better than cure??

This biker was very lucky not to have spent an hour or two in the cells and possibly charged with a few other offences after doing a runner eg obstruct police or resist arrest in addition to the red light offence

I suspect that the copper was only going to have a word in his shell-like for running a red light and that would have been it, but when faced with a confrontational 'I know my rights' barrack room lawyer he started to talk about tickets and arrests. I am surprised this copper didn't follow up - many others would have.

If anyone comits an offence and fails to give his details sufficient for service of a summons or the details are suspected to be false he can be arrested under PACE under 'general powers of arrest'- no ifs or buts.

The police are NOT required to repeat verbatim the wording of any law in order to arrest as long as the person arrested is made aware of why they are being arrested - laymans terms are sufficient. Even this need not be required if the persons actions prevent it; eg he does a runner.

If the copper had decided to issue a ticket or arrest he should however have cautioned the biker and any arrest would have been under Sec 25 PACE.

Just sayin!, Anyone listening to this 'advice' and acting on it may not be so lucky and could find themselves in trouble.

There are many many laws that I hate with a vengence but this particular incident is not one of them.

Captain Ranty said...


Perfectly ok to disagree.

We can all play the "what if" game.

The only luck the biker had was to come across PC Stout. He is obviously clueless about the "law" he is supposed to uphold. Every arresting officer MUST know under which law he is arresting or detaining someone. This one just made stuff up! Is that really the kind of reaction you would expect if you got nobbled for something? I would want the officer to at least know what he was talking about. This one didn't, which is why he was left holding his plastic bag with a ticket inside.

The plain facts are that no-one suffered harm, injury or loss. The "what if" part belongs in the movies. It is pre-crime. It has no place in law.

His advice is solid gold. Accept no paperwork.

In fact, are you aware that when an officer gives you the second copy of a speeding/parking ticket, and you then pop off and PAY that ticket you have just broken the law according to the Bills of Exchange Act 1882?

Only original bills can be paid.

Anything else is fraud.


Anonymous said...

The video now says PRIVATE.

P.S. I'd like to take you up on your kind offer CR...


Dame Davina Pancake said...


As pointed out by HH above, the vid now shows only "this video is private" - any chance of posting it on Eyetube?


Davina x

Anonymous said...

CR, a speeding/parking ticket is NOT a bill of exchange as defined by the 1882 Act!

Captain Ranty said...


Can you please wing a note to captainranty at btinternet dot com and we can communicate off-line?


Captain Ranty said...


I will check it out and get back to you.


Captain Ranty said...

Anon (16:40),

If you investigate further, (and I hope you do), you will discover that the BoE 1882 covers all bills.

If the FPN was NOT a bill, then how can they expect you to pay it?

Any piece of paper demanding money from one party, for payment to another, is defined in the law as a bill.


richard said...

I thought it was an offer rather than a bill, the offer being to pay now and save everyone the bother of a court case. However you're right in that you don't have to pay it, because you can opt to go to court instead and put forward your side of events for ajudication.

Captain Ranty said...


You are correct.

But paying it straight off is fraudulent because it is a copy. (I was angling for this, rather than the "offer" side of the story).


Captain Ranty said...


Not sure why my version of the clip is private.

I followed the link to Lawful Rebellion and the clip can be viewed there. It isn't "private" at their site.


Live an 'Achievable Life' said...

Here in this vid we have two (2) men.
1 who stands his ground as, as it turns out, a compassionate man.
1 who follows orders, who also is as it turns out, also a compassionate man.

Both are equal, however there is an air of authority being pressed by one of the men, one of the men is dressed in uniform which is designed to intimidate; this cannot be refuted. The other has either pushed or rode his bicycle through a red traffic light.

It wasn't that the one man was being reckless, it was because he rode his bicycle through a red light, a calculated risk. Because he is a compassionate man I am convinced he would have not done this if his or another's life was in danger, the assumption follows that he would not have disregarded another persons safety. He was on a BICYCLE and would have come off far worse even if the oncoming or other vehicle had been a motorcycle.
I can safely assume the above is true having heard his concern about his behaviour on another site.

Another fact was that the policyman had stopped him, the man stopped for the policyman, he was not avoiding being spoken to and probably knew he HAD run a light But thought he had not done anything wrong, and I don't think he had. There were no sounds of screeching breaks no thud of a pile up just tweeting birds and 'TWAT' behind him shouting for him to stop, which he did.

What would YOU do if someone demanded that YOU STOP and then proceed to treat YOU like YOU was a child?

Anonymous said...

My comment on YouTube...

This is a bad call by Lawful Rebellion Inc. by linking a situation with the Lycra Lout Brigade. If this prat did run a red light, then I'm all for the copper clubbing him like a baby seal.  Would he have run a red light with his child onboard once he collected it from school? Hello CPS. Lawful Rebellion is a noble and just cause... not another excuse to knock a granny down on a Pelican Crossing.

Captain Ranty said...


"Would he have run a red light with his child onboard once he collected it from school?"

Straw man argument. There was just Danny on the bike. It doesn't matter one iota what we can imagine. What we know is that he was on his own and no-one suffered harm, injury or loss.

However, it isn't what he did "wrong" that interests me.

It's what he did afterwards. The way he dealt with the cop was perfect.

And if you want to bring LR into it, read Article 39 of MC1215. (Art 39 is still valid, still lawful).

No-one has the right to stop a Freeman travelling on the highways and by-ways. They (the cops) certainly do not have the right to dispense summary justice.


Anonymous said...

Disagree... 'Danny' was on the way to collect his child from school. I have no reason to believe that his behaviour would be any different on his return journey. The idea that it is a calculated risk and it is just he that would be the only victim is utter tosh. What about the serious accidents and deaths caused by such situations when the other parties take instinctive avoiding action, or those traumatised by killing the cyclist through no fault of their own. Next you'll be telling me that being a Freeman means that you can drink and drive with honour and impunity. But my main point is about the PR fail in using a lycra lout to outwit a not the sharpest pencil in the black book PC, while alienating just about ever one of the road... and pavement using... public.

Captain Ranty said...

I hear you Harry, but I disagree.

There is a bit of supposition in there. We also have no reason to believe he would run a red light with a child on the back.

We weren't there. If we are going to guess we can just as easily guess that as he approached the red light he could see that there was no oncoming traffic. I am guessing that if there was, he would have stopped.

I am no fan of cyclists either. I ran one of them over in West Germany. It was foggy and I knocked her off her bike as I was moving forward to look both ways before turning right onto the main road. I wanted to call the police but she insisted that I didn't. About a week after giving her my wife's brand new bike (the German lady offered me her piece of shit rusty heap in exchange, I politely refused) as compensation, her tenant (another squaddie) told me that she was blind drunk at the time of the accident. Which explained why she didn't want the politzei to attend.

One of the main points of being a Freeman is behaving responsibly. So no, getting shit-faced and climbing behind the wheel is not sanctioned by anyone with an ounce of common sense. Cause no harm, injury or loss, remember?


Anonymous said...

"We also have no reason to believe he would run a red light with a child on the back."

Habitual behavour... becoming even more serious when he gets behind
the wheel of something weighing a couple of tons. He's probably well past the time when he even notices a set of traffic lights.

"Cause no harm, injury or loss, remember?"
I suppose that someone will pipe up that not putting lights on their bike is a calculated risk and will cause no harm, injury or loss.

"Which explained why she didn't want the politzei to attend."
Does that mean you did. Perhaps she didn't understand that you only wanted to read them Article 39 of MC1215 on her behalf ;o)

I thought the idea of Lawful Rebellion was to save us from a treasonous, unjustly governed police state... not justify the behaviour of irresponsible road... and pavement... users by challenging rules and regulation that most of us agree with.

For the record, I am putting you on notice that if the Freeman Movement becomes dominated by individuals like Danny and that dipstick Charlie Veitch, I will apply for a position as head baton swinger in the NWO goon squad ;o)

Love and Peace.

Captain Ranty said...

Or, he knew the cop was there, and did the deed on purpose. He was, after all, armed with a camera, and the knowledge to argue with the cop.

Who knows? Only Danny, presumably.

I did want to call the cops because I was taught to call them if I was involved in an accident. I was told this was for my benefit even if I had caused the accident. MC1215 and Lawful Rebellion were years into the future at that time. (Wouldn't have worked in Germany, anyway).

Yes, you are right. We do have a higher purpose. This is NOT about dodging tickets and confusing the coppers, although, if one is in LR that is a requisite. Distressing and distraining is what we are obliged to do.

I pick different fights. I started with HMRC and will move on to another govt agency when that battle is over. (Which, for the record, came to a swift halt when I told the Solicitors Office that I would counter-sue. Not a peep since then.)

Every movement has its dipsticks. Danny is new to me, and Charlie must have had a brain-fart when he made that video.


Zaphod said...

I note the debate about Danny's alleged misdeeds. Alleged.

The cop's misdeeds, as a trained and paid enforcer of law, are much more interesting.

Good one, Danny.

Anonymous said...

"Or, he knew the cop was there, and did the deed on purpose."

Absolutely... but there is a bit of supposition in there... eh... You can guarantee that a video of Danny roasting on a spit for not paying his income tax, will elicit my full sympathy and support... until then, all I ask as a humble, ordinary slave, is that I can enjoy my weekly Big Mac, large Fries and Coke without the other plonker turning up with his megaphone...

Anonymous said...

"The cop's misdeeds, as a trained and paid enforcer of law, are much more interesting."

Hello... another worshipper of Dumb and Dumber.

Don't you understand that by constantly focusing on these trivial conflicts, that you'll eventually get the population rallying against you. Only a fool would make enemies and start wars unnecessarily. Just look at the comments on YouTube. A Gerald Ratner moment for Freemanery.

Anonymous said...

Final Post...

Ha... Ha... Jokes on me... It's not against the law for a cyclist to run a red light. How clever of Danny... pity he didn't make a stronger point of that fact. Mind you, if he gets hit by a truck, his chances of a finasncial windfall are diminished somewhat.

There's a campaign called Stopatred "to improve the status of cycling in the eyes of the public and policy-makers alike, and to tackle the attitudes of those cyclists whose behaviour perpetuates the image of cyclists as a low-status social 'out-group' on wheels."... i.e. lycra louts.

Trouble is, when they progress to 'driver' of a 'vehicle' the lessons of vigilance and patience have not been learned. For example, over my many years as a driver, I have noticed the recent and new habit of mounting the pavement to make a left exit that is blocked by a line of traffic. In some areas of the city where I live, you can assume that nobody is paying attention to traffic lights. So, I believe that not developing your driving skills at the bike stage is against the public good, and contrary to a code supported by the silent majority.

Captain Ranty said...


Good of you to let us know.

I didn't know it was not against the law to ride a bike through a red light.

It makes PC Stout a bit of a twat though. Did HE know that Danny broke no law, and was still prepared to hand the lad a ticket?

I agree with your last paragraph. I'm an old fart who was taught proper cycling skills. I do not recall being taught to ride on pavements when it was convenient for me to do so.


Anonymous said...

CR... I'm not proud... that'll teach me not to Google...

I was referring to cars, vans and in some instances, lorries mounting the pavement... is that what you meant?

Riding a bike, with a 'Don't Kill Me' poster on your back, is the best way to learn road skills. What's the point of learning to drive while having to negate years of bad habits? That's if they intend to, that is.

Hookie getting a kicking on YouTube...

@HarryHook . Lemme break out some crayons so I can draw a clue for you! First off, he went through a red light, which IS legal for a cyclist as long as they stop or slow down first to make sure its safe... See, cyclists sit higher up then cars and have a better view of the road and also don't have airbags to protect themselves, so the average, non-completely brainwashed person would surmise that the cyclist was advancing cautiously through the light which 99% of officers on Earth would allow !!

@wequick1968 Thankyou for the points that you have made with crayons. How can you describe something as being legal when it is not illegal? A career in Strasbourg beckons, I feel. Indeed, it is not illegal to run a red light on a bike... seat position up, down, prone, diligent, whatever... but it is my contention that it is unlawful in the eyes of the public because it is contrary to accepted convention, and definitely discourteous towards other road users and pedestrians.

P.S. ...and I would hope it is not the intention of Lawful Rebellion /Freeman et al, to be discourteous to us humble, simple sheep.

richard said...

Captain, this incident reminds me of a recent occasion when I ran a red light and was apprehended by a constable who was behind me in a car. He told me he was going to fine me £60 and produced his book. I replied that the lighs were temporary ones which had been left in situ by road-menders, that work had ceased for the day but the lights were still running on automatic, that no other drivers had been inconvenienced, that the road ahead was obviously clear and that no loss or damage had occurred. He then acted honourably and fairly as a peace officer rather than as a revenue collector and did not impose a fine.

Anonymous said...

Hi Capt, Here's a link to Danny's response to the negative critisism.


Harri said...

Excuse my ignorance, but, i thought plod were given some kind of 'new power' under some 'terrorism act' or another, made it an 'offence' to photograph a police farce officer?

Maybe i am wrong !

Anonymous said...

Sorry, CR, but you are completely misunderstanding the key differences between a bill of exchange (as defined by the Act) and a 'demand for payment' such as a phone bill or a fine. These are totally different animals. A milk bill (for example) has no intrinsic value. It's just a demand for money owed between typically 2 parties (you and your dairy). A Bill of Exchange, on the other hand, is a valuable instrument to which there are 3 parties (drawer, drawee and payee) with strictly defined rights and responsibilities. Before we go any further I should point out that I'm a retired banking lawyer and used to work in the City for 20+ years. If you know better, of course, I'd be intrigued to hear your argument.

Captain Ranty said...


I agree.

I was conflating the two.

The point I was aiming for was that a copy cannot be paid. The reason being that the original could also be paid and then you end up paying twice.

The theory has it that this is exactly what happens with fines, tax demands and the likes. When you complete the giroslip at the bottom of the demand, and include a cheque for payment, the recipient gets paid twice. Once by your cheque, and a second time by the giroslip which (looks like a cheque itself) is now converted into a negotiable instrument.

I would be interested in your thoughts on that.

(Thank you for the correction).


Anonymous said...

Oh I think I see where you're coming from now. I was somewhat confused by your choice of the word "copy".
It's not a unique circumstance for a payee to lose a cheque (a narrower form of Bill of Exchange) or for said cheque to simply get lost in the post. The Act provides in this instance that the payee can require the drawer to issue a duplicate so he, the payee, doesn't lose out. However, as you correctly point out, the original is still at large and could be assigned to an innocent third party (as settlement for a debt, for instance) who may present it after the duplicate has already been sent/cashed. This would result in the drawer wrongly paying out double. To forestall this, the drawer can require the payee to provide a surety against this eventuality. In practice however (and especially after the 1992 Cheques "Act" (it was a tiny amendment to the 1882 Act) came into force and made assignment so much more difficult) such surety is rarely demanded. All this stuff is rapidly becoming less and less relevant of course, with the increased use of electronic payments systems.