This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Picture Penzance is free to join and use. So why not join our community. As a member you can upload images, add comments, participate in our contests and connect with like minded people.
    All the best,
    Halfhidden (founder member)

Sign up for free today
Membership Is Free
No Adds
Members Only Areas
And lots More!

CLICK HERE

A Democracy, don't make me laugh............

Discussion in 'Conspiracy theories' started by 46traveller, Jun 28, 2010.

  1. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've put a link to a site that I think everyone should check out. So much information that it will need more than just a quick look. I'm sure there is something on there that will help folk understand what is happening to our Country behind our backs, whatever your political views.

    www.tpuc.org | News for positive people

    Just found this site, well worth a look regarding debt, dealing with courts etc.

    http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2010
  2. bikerlen

    bikerlen Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Must say it looks to be a interesting site. from what i have just looked at. thanks for sharing.

    bikerlen.
     
  3. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi bikerlen, amazing facts point one;
    The Devon And Cornwall Police parent company is now IBM. Strange, I didn't read about that takeover in the news.
    Learning a lot from the sites, I intend to declare myself a "Freeman Of The Land" as soon as I know enough to hold and defend that position in law.
    In the meantime here is another site worth a visit http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2010
  4. bikerlen

    bikerlen Member

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks 46traveller. will take a little peep there to, keeps the brain active. even if it is nonsense.

    bikerlen.
     
  5. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. matt

    matt

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Has anyone any experience with trying what this guy says? What he said in the video makes so much sense.
    Am interested in what he is on about but need to research a more.
     
  7. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi matt, I only found these sites two weeks ago so I'm still learning , but if you plod through all the sites forums you will see many people have won their cases in court, or just by sending the letter back for TV license and Parking Tickets. A guy in Canada called Robert Menard is one of the front runners in this, and he's advising students on how to dismiss their student loans at the mo. There are quite a few sites springing up about this subject, and a fair bit on You Tube. The only advice I can give is to search every site and Forum you find thoroughly for what you need to know about. Lots of links on the two sites I posted, I've added a couple more sites with bits of info that may help.
    There's so much I never bothered to find out about before, just plodded on blindly not asking too many questions, finding these sites has woken me up

    Front Page : World Freeman Society

    Lawful Rebellion | British & Worldwide News and information on Lawful Rebellion, Sovereignty, Common Law, constitution, Freeman, Natural Law, Commercial Liens, Commercial Redemption, corporate takeover, Statutes, tax, bills and much more
     
  8. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anyone remotely interested in this subject should get hold of a copy of mary-elizabeth: crofts book

    How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash-Confiscatory Agency Known To Man (Great Title).

    This can be downloaded in PDF form from the Web should the local library not carry it. Although it covers mostly American and Canadian info, they are covered by the same Common Laws being Colonies of Great Britain. It's a good read, very informative and shows what can be achieved by anyone learning a few simple facts about the Laws that Govern us.
    If you have trouble finding it, send a private message and I will forward the PDF to you.
     
  9. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    FLYER DOING THE ROUNDS, MAKE OF IT WHAT YOU WILL.

    ***WAKE UP CALL***

    DEVON AND CORNWALL POLICE ARE NOW AN ORGANISATION CALLED "SOUTH WEST ONE" THEIR NEW PARENT COMPANY IS "IBM" THEY ARE LISTED IN THE NEW COMPANIES HOUSE "DUPORT" AS SUCH. CHECK FOR YOURSELF, THEY EVEN HAVE COUNTY COURT JUDGEMENTS AGAINST THEM. THEY ARE NO LONGER POLICE MEN OR WOMEN, THEY ARE CORPORATE EMPLOYEES, AND AS SUCH SEEM TO HAVE LOST SIGHT OF THEIR TRUE DUTIES WHICH ARE TO GUARD AND PROTECT US "HER MAJESTY'S SUBJECTS" AS WRITTEN IN THEIR OATH.

    THEY SEEM TO HAVE TURNED FROM A FRIENDLY FACE ON THE STREET, TO A BUNCH OF WEAPON WIELDING THUGS DRESSED AS STORMTROOPERS INTENT ON FOLLOWING ORDERS BLINDLY, WITH NO QUALMS ABOUT USING PEPPER SPRAY OR TAZERS ON THEIR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS, IF WE TALK BACK OR QUESTION THEM ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

    THERE IS A WAY TO STOP SOME OF THIS HAPPENING, IF YOU SEE AN INCIDENT WHERE A POLICE OFFICER IS ACTING (In your opinion) BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY, FILM THE INCIDENT ON YOUR PHONE, THAT'S ALL, IF THEY SEE YOU RECORDING THE INCIDENT THEY WILL ACT ACCORDINGLY, IN OTHER WORDS ""PROPERLY"" YOU MAY WELL SAVE SOMEONES LIFE............................

    THERE IS NO LAW, COMMON OR CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTE OR ACT THAT STATES THAT YOU CANNOT FILM THEM IN PUBLIC.

    POLICE OATH

    "SCHEDULE 4 Form of declaration

    I, ... ... ... ... of ... ... ... ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve Our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the office of constable, without favour or affection, malice or ill will; and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects; 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."


    THIS NEW LOT OF "COMMUNITY POLICE HELPERS" HAVE NOT SWORN ON OATH AND ARE NOTHING BUT CORPORATE EMPLOYEES WITH A UNIFORM AND NO LAWFUL POWERS AT ALL.


    WHY DO WE NEED THEM???? ARE WE PAYING THEIR WAGES??? ARE THEY PERMITTED TO CARRY WEAPONS ??? WILL THEY USE THEM ??? WHY HAVEN'T THEY TAKEN AN OATH??? SOMETHINGS NOT RIGHT !!!!!!!!!

    I AM NOT AGAINST THE POLICE IN ANY WAY, WE JUST NEED TO REMIND THEM TO DO THEIR JOB ""PROPERLY"".

    UNTIL THEN WE CAN USE LAWFUL PEACEFUL HINDERANCE AGAINST THIS REGIME OF CORPORATE BULLYING AND LAW MAKING WHO ARE FINING YOU AND TAKING YOUR HARD EARNED CASH AT EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY, IT'S A MONEY MAKING MACHINE, AIDED BY THE COURTS, WHO ARE NOW ALSO A CORPORATION. DON'T BELIEVE ME, CHECK IT OUT YOURSELF AT

    Companies House Registration and Reports by Duport

    THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS, DON'T BELIEVE ME, CHECK IT FOR YOURSELF, AND TELL YOUR FRIENDS WHAT'S HAPPENING.

    THE SOONER PEOPLE REALISE WHAT IS HAPPENING, THE SOONER THIS NEW POLICY OF GUILTY TILL PROVEN INNOCENT WILL CEASE.

    http://www.tpuc.org/node/813

    http://www.tpuc.org/content/hall-shame

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2010
  10. Halfhidden

    Halfhidden Untouchable Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    943
    I'm afraid this is utter rubbish. I've just completed a lengthy search of Companies House (the only recognised limited companies list of the UK) Duport is a private company that has absolutely nothing to do with companies house whatsoever. They pay companies house to use their database of companies information... but then again so do most other private companies.

    It seems to me that the post you came across whilst surfing is nothing more than an anti police thread that really has no fact to it.
    Private sector companies cannot buy law enforcement agencies... my god where would we be if that really happened ::11:
    Seriously, I think this thread was directed at the G20 tragedy.
    Here's the search results for southwest one from Companies House:

    SOUTH WEST ONE LIMITED
    05989944
    D SOUTH WEST 19 LTD Dissolved 05975249

    SOUTH WEST ONE PAINTING LTD
    06381299
    D SOUTH WEST ONE SERVICES LIMITED Dissolved 06399134
    D SOUTH WEST ONE UK LIMITED The list has the companies numbers and names. The D represents a dissolved company (no longer trading).
    *** I just wanted to add two things hence the edit:
    1 Duport is a private company and therefore you are charged if you want the results from a companies search (normally £15) so therefore the relationship with this email looks dubious.
    2 The companies house search is comprehensive and conclusive. If a company isn't shown at companies house it doesn't exist (this only applies to uk trading companies) this includes past companies.
    So South West One dose not exist and never did!!
    are still not convinced then go to:
    Companies House and have a search yourself.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  11. Halfhidden

    Halfhidden Untouchable Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    943
    Just also like to add that the two links at the bottom of you're post both point to The Peoples united community, who claim to be doing the right thing for people. But the more and more I read from the site it seems to fuel hatred towards everyday... well everything. A very negative site indeed.
    Also the other ling that pretends to show the results from companies house shows the registration number as: uc5383605
    No such number sequence has ever been used by the UK government.
     
  12. matt

    matt

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are numerus sections of the terrorism act regarding picture taking in any form of police and miltary personel, whilst not always applicable per se (ie you and i are not terrorists and have no links to such activity) it is a route an officer can go down to stop you taking pictures.

    The situations where people choose to film police, arent exactly everyday walking round town situations and most do it to get reaction from police kind of like papparazzi do.
    Often when you see such videos youll hear taunts and shouts on the video and often the request to cease filming and to cease taking pictures are lawful requests from a police officer in an attempt to keep the peace and to prevent encouraging other people in disorder.
    Many many many times i have seen/assisted in someone being arrested and some onlooker that doesnt know what is going on tries to intervene or gets their phone out and riles up the crowd with 'police brutality' , 'you cant do that', 'hes done nothing wrong', they often have no idea what is going on nor what they are actually talking about. Really gets my goat.
    There is also wether or not an officer can deem that it is causing a breech of the peace, which really depends on the situation, inciting a crowd whilst filming for a reaction is such a common instance.
    The general lack of respect for the police (and other authoritive positions such as security) is pretty dusgusting, their authority is almost always challenged when theings dont go peoples way and people really will try and use anything to blacken their name.

    Some of the videos on youtube and such places that i have seen where people are getting arrested for taking pictures/video of police, are at rallies and suchlike and are doing it for reaction. Also there are those where they are filming officers for no reason, they are just walking down the road on their beat. Even i would be wondering why the heck someone was filiming me in that context, if they didnt give me a good reason i wouldnt be impressed! i dont want my image taken for no reason, it is my human right to ask that you dont do it- why not a police officer they are covered by the same human rights etc.
    The flyer provides little/no evidence of what it says re police thuggishness and i see it as mainly spin/unsupported claims and sounds like anti authority propaganda to my ears.

    @46traveller, it seems we posted at exactly same time - morning ::1:
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  13. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Matt, the Anti Terrorist Act concerning arrest and detention was thrown out by the Europen Court in January this year. The Gov is talking about appealing but the EU has stated it will not hear it. So this I DO think shows how England is losing it's powers to Brussels.
    I must ask though, as the police often say "If you are doing nothing wrong" why does anyone object to being filmed. The entire Government has this mentality and this country is overloaded with CCTV cameras. We all have the same rights no arguement there, it's just that it's getting to the stage where it would appear certain people in Gov have a lot more rights than me, and if I'm honest I DO think the police are carrying an absolute arsenal of weaponry about their person these days, and are quite fond of removing identification numbers and names during protests and some house raids. Now call me old fashioned but that is a bit "Suss" to me. If there is good reason to do this I can't see it, sorry. And I would like to know your opinion on why the new community police helpers don't have to swear on oath. Surely anyone dealing with the public on this sort of level should be beholding in some way regarding responsibility and duty, should there be a complaint about their behaviour.


    Hi Halfhidden, I was half the night checking this and other statements on a couple of similar sites. To be honest I'm quite disillusioned about the whole thing. I must admit to being suspect (as you were) about the actual flyers wording, and have left no stone unturned in my efforts to find more information. I have sent mail to three of these sites now asking why the information posted cannot be proven. I'm hoping for replies but not holding my breath. If this is indeed a pile of codswallop I will remove the thread and carry on researching if any of what they say is true. Shame though, I was hoping for change and prepared to be a small part of it.
    Oh well back to reading travel books.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  14. matt

    matt

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
  15. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Matt, bit busy with work at mo will sort it out later if I get a chance.
     
  16. Halfhidden

    Halfhidden Untouchable Staff Member Administrator

    Messages:
    2,832
    Likes Received:
    943
    @46traveller I would leave the thread on the site as it could be an education for others.
    @Matt Interesting point of view from the security side
     
  17. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quick Look, found this so far, will go into greater detail later.
    United Kingdom


    • Prevention of Terrorism Act (Northern Ireland), 1974–89
    • Terrorism Act 2000
    • Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (the Racial and Religious Hatred Act was supposed to be part of it as provisions, but it was dropped)
    • The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 is intended to deal with the Law Lords' ruling of 16 December 2004, that the detention without trial of nine foreigners at HM Prison Belmarsh under Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was unlawful, being incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It was given Royal Assent on 11 March 2005. The Act allows the Home Secretary to impose "control orders" on people he suspects of involvement in terrorism, which in some cases may derogate (opt out) from human rights laws. In April 2006, a High Court judge issued a declaration that section 3 of the Act was incompatible with the right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act was described by Mr Justice Sullivan as an 'affront to justice'. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, JUSTICE and Liberty have opposed it. Criticism of the Act included complaints about the range of restrictions that could be imposed, the use of closed proceedings and special advocates to hear secret evidence against the detainee, and the possibility that evidence against detainees may include evidence obtained in other countries by torture.
    • The Terrorism Act 2006 increased the limit of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 28-days after a rebellion by Labour MPs. Originally, the Government, and Prime Minister Tony Blair, had pushed for a 90-day detention period, but this was reduced to 28-days after a vote in the House of Commons.
    • The Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008[11] is currently going before the UK Parliament, with a clause which aims to increase the limit of pre-charge detention for terrorism suspects to 42-days, however this is currently the subject of much controversy and on-going debate within UK politics.[12] As of 11 June 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown narrowly won a House of Commons vote on extending the maximum time police can hold terror suspects to 42 days.[13] The marginal decision, where nine Democratic Unionist MPs decided to vote with him resulting in a 315:306 majority sparked astonishing scenes in the House of Commons as furious Tory MPs shouted "traitors", "shame" and "you've been bought" at the Northern Ireland politicians sitting alongside them.
    The last sentence speaks for itself.

    Bit More
    http://content.usatoday.com/communi...pe-for-renewing-terrorist-financing-program/1
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  18. matt

    matt

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah id gotten loads of stuff on the acts themselves, i meant on the part about getting thrown out by EU court.

    Im not a debater, but ill try and give you some sport :), though i may fail lol ;) I appreciate everyones point of view, these are just my opinons and my own points of view, hope they make sense.

    I understand what your saying and i agreeto an extent, i guess its the same authority issue as you mention where we dont have a choice if we are filmed or not by police as its deemed as necessary for police to carry out certain duties, evidence gathering etc whereas we dont have that same need when reversed except in circumstances such as genuine police brutality. I dislike being filmed as i am self conscious and i simply dont like it.

    Yes it was something like 15 to every 1 person living in the uk, however to put it into a bit more context, these include those in shops that cover the cashier, those outside school buildings, nightclubs, pubs, holiday parks, not all government controlled and very vast majority are private and nothing to do with the government. The impact that authority(by that i mean police, council etc) controlled cctv have had on crime and disorder is impressive and i can vouch (for what its worth) that they are not used for any invasive or intrusive purposes but for detecting, reporting and monitoring crime and incidents (as well as evidence gathering for those incidents as would be expected). Nothing untoward is done with the information nor the way it is gathered, it is highly regulated and monitored. A great asset. they are a victim of their own success at the moment.

    I do understand what your saying. With regards to the police and powers that are given to them, they are meant to be there to protect us and i believe they can only do that if they are given powers to do so and also the powers to look after themselves as well.

    Sadly alot of the people who they come across during their duties, although bound by laws same as you and i, often do not abide by them.
    Speaking as someone who has nightly stood on a club/pub door and had to deal with people at their worst (drunk and/or drugged up, emotionally and often mentally unstable) i would happily have had PPE such as cuffs, spray and baton, it really would have made dealing with some of these people so much safer and easier both for me and for them.

    The kit the police have is mostly a detterant and not meant for people like you and i and will never be used on us but for those that break the law and kick off with police/other members of public and intend to damage/cause harm or escape arrest it is a necessity.
    It is not easy attempting to restrain someone who does not want to be restrained. A lone officer facing a 6'4 steroid freak who has beaten his missus, will need that equipment, a drastic example i agree however incidents such as this happen more than people realise.
    Often officers are faced with being outnumbered (especially in the devon and cornwall area, more so than the met obviously but still will happen) or outmatched in size/strength/ability (No matter who you are there is always someone that is your match or better) and whilst i think that there should be stricter recuiting methods and better defense training, if this was to happen what would the public think then? they would probably say that this is a civilian police force why are they being trained like soldiers? they cant win but have to do something, is it not better that they have equipment and not use it?

    I know i feel safer knowing that if i got jumped and a lone officer turned up that he/she would be able to help me get my attacker off me by spraying them if needed and threatening to use their baton and intimidating him to back off rather than 'excuse me sir do you mind awfully ceasing to grate that males cheek on the pavement, thank you'.

    As for armed officers(guns and tasers), they have their place and are for the most part a deterrant. When they are used, it is necessary. Whilst they obviously do the same job as an unarmed officer, ie they see underage teens drinking in the street i believe they have to act on it, they are mainly used for high visilbilty deterrants and high risk situations. If you didnt have them, youd certainly be needing them more. Ive seen tasers used a few times and every time it was necessary. Once was a male wielding a knife who was not respoding to police requests to drop it and after a standoff and threats from the male the officer was authorised to use the taser. If that taser wasnt there, that couldve gotten very messy or indeed armed response officers been called with their MP5s?

    On the whole, with very few exceptions if your fair, the response by police are proportionate, they are accountable not only to us (public) but to each other and to various disciplinary authorities.

    They may be public servants but they are not in the same way you may percieve a waiter/maid as a servant. They are tasked to keep and ensure order and passively and proactively enforce laws and rules. For the most part they dont interfere with anyone/anything.

    Police make mistakes, they are human and not perfect.



    Cant comment, could be as simple as they dont want to be identified but i dont know. I agree that on accasion it is suss, especially when it happens that their actions are made public to be inappropriate. However, this again isnt all that common, it happens i agree.

    Im going assume you mean PCSOs and im going to say that ,with all due respect to them, they are a waste of space and i believe a very poor attempt to replace police officers on the beat for a saving of a few thousand a year on each salary.
    I dont think they swear an oath as they are not upholding laws, that is the main reason officers are made to swear an oath. They are eyes and ears and reporting bodies dressed to look similair enough like an officer without actually being one. They are given the same stab vest obviously for protection, same radio for same reason as well as direct cntact for reporting, but lack any other PPE. I believe that the tickets etc they are allowed to give out are not backed by legislation (though i dont know for sure).
    In this i wish that special constables were paid a small wage and have more of them, they do a cracking job.


    Indeed the police are directly responsible for the and their behaviour, they are also recruited and vetted in a similair fashion.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  19. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Matt searching through the stuff I have found relevent, haven't come across a link for you yet but the search is continuing.
    As for any Parking Ticket the PCSOs hand out or indeed Traffic wardens, pretty sure that there is a Maxim in law that states "No fine may be levied without an appearance in Court to prove guilt" or words to that effect. Otherwise it's guilty till proven innocent, which I think everyone would agree is ridiculous and not in the spirit of justice. This is the reason (IMO) that people are getting away without paying, they seem to be using this a lot now according to the sites I visit.
    Gotta say though apart from the "Lunatic Fringe" and "Ranters" that visit these sites I have found overall that some of the points they put across are enlightening, and they are not covered by the news media AT ALL.
    I've put a link to a Police Forum that debates the Freeman Tribe which shows (IMO) there are ranters and Eyes Wide Shut on both sides. Gave me a chuckle anyway.

    freemen and lawful rebellion - UKPOLICEONLINE Discussion Forum

    Unsure but think this covers the Guilty before innocent Maxim
    [SIZE=+1]It is a maxim in law, that no distresse can be taken for any services that are not put into certaintie, nor can be reduced to any certainty .... Section 96a.

    Taken From

    http://www.commonlaw.com/Coke.html

    Article in the Guardian re. EU, I think this is the link I had but will continue the search.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal

    This sort of thing proves a point and gets up my nose that a change of Law to suit certain people is always available to the select few.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/22/dpp-veto-arrest-warrants-war-crime

    [/SIZE]
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  20. 46traveller

    46traveller Member

    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    0

Share This Page