FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Smug Bastards

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Have just been intensely irritated by another thread.

People who spend a lot of time and energy finding loopholes in the law to justify them flagrantly breaking it. Then posting in detail, with the most smug air, how they did it. Like they are single handedly smashing the state, one smug bastard lego brick at a time.

Nope, they're avoiding paying a pittance out of some moral principle that basically stinks like a slurry tank. Like getting out of a speeding ticket for doing 120mph, when you know you were doing it, because the speed gun was a day out of calibration. You shouldn't celebrate that, you should be ashamed.

Does the state really oppress you that much that it's turned you into a total dick who has to celebrate even the most minor victories? Im sure if you spent less time with your Vendetta mask on plotting the downfall of a minor civil servant, and a bit of time thinking about others you'd be a lot happier.

Ironically these are probably the same people who hate benefit cheats/scroungers and tax evaders.

Just a little rant. Still warming up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

120mph and asking for calibration is a bit much. but if i was caught at say 34 in a 30 zone the first thing id ask is. is the calibration correct

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

120mph....? What car did he have?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Have missed your rants jodie. Now let rip girl xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"120mph and asking for calibration is a bit much. but if i was caught at say 34 in a 30 zone the first thing id ask is. is the calibration correct "

Surely if the calibration is wrong it doesn't matter if it's 34 in a 30 or 120 in a 70.

Wrong is wrong.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Your so right Jodie

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Some people just have this kind of mindset I am afraid Jodie .

Ignore them !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Haven't read it but have to say I quite like people that do things out of moral principle rather than toe the line just because others expect or accept the status quo.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago

Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum

A+ rant there

I find it sad that people who have a reasonable income would still go out of their way to not pay something others pay, yet would be the first to excoriate a company for not paying its taxes, or a benefit claimer for having a luxury in their life.

There is a shocking case of double standards starting to raise its head in this country, and it's not nice to see.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Haven't read it but have to say I quite like people that do things out of moral principle rather than toe the line just because others expect or accept the status quo."

It's not 'moral principle' it's sheer bloody mindedness and reflects the fact that many people have few or no choices in their life.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

I don't which thread you were reading but I like your rant.

The loophole merchants justify as much as they want but annoy me. Then I get angry when the same loophole merchants turn all judgmental on the poor and weak and for what? Not having enough money to be able to exploit a loophole?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Haven't read it but have to say I quite like people that do things out of moral principle rather than toe the line just because others expect or accept the status quo.

It's not 'moral principle' it's sheer bloody mindedness and reflects the fact that many people have few or no choices in their life."

I haven't read it so don't know what the specific 'it' is - just responding to the first comment.

I am always impressed at how much people can judge about others from such small amounts of information on here though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"I don't which thread you were reading but I like your rant.

The loophole merchants justify as much as they want but annoy me. Then I get angry when the same loophole merchants turn all judgmental on the poor and weak and for what? Not having enough money to be able to exploit a loophole?

"

They don't seem quite so happy when, say, an alleged sex offender gets off on a technicality.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Law works both ways, both sides must comply

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"I don't which thread you were reading but I like your rant.

The loophole merchants justify as much as they want but annoy me. Then I get angry when the same loophole merchants turn all judgmental on the poor and weak and for what? Not having enough money to be able to exploit a loophole?

They don't seem quite so happy when, say, an alleged sex offender gets off on a technicality."

Funny things those loopholes aren't they?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ScotsmanMan
over a year ago

ayrshire

...sHaM 69! .. .or even catch22. ..depending on youR mood you decide. X x X

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *drianukMan
over a year ago

Spain, Lancs

Perhaps what you describe as 'loopholes' are not loopholes.

We are a legal society. We have laws to govern us as opposed to men to govern over us.

It means that decisions can't be taken in an arbitrary way- as with someone saing 'I know you are within the law but I don't like what you are doing'.

That is tyrannous.

Where the law doesn't justify punishment then there should be no punishment.

THat is not looking for loopholes.

What I think is a total disgrace is people calling down punishments upon people when there has been no law broken! That is tyranny.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

One of the guys over at the Alfa Romeo forum was bragging recently that he got away with nothing more than a £60 fine after being caught doing 124mph on a dual carriageway, his defense was that he was testing a newly replaced engine component that couldn't be effectively tested any other way (utter bullshit btw). The abuse he got over there was phenomenal and well justified.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Don't diss the vendetta mask.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ndy_mandyCouple
over a year ago

Tredegar


"120mph....? What car did he have?

"

I have driven at 188 mph, was in an F1 car though around silverstone, does that count, had cameras flash at me and everything

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As someone who has owned businesses I have experienced dealings with the taxman, and in certain circumstances they can be quite intimidating. I always paid my tax, it was the searching around for other liabilities which didn't exist which showed their other side.

I'm firmly of the belief that our taxes pay to maintain an army of desk drivers all trying - and in most cases succeeeding - to control every aspect of our lives. Like the twats who decided that all cars in the EU must have dipped headlights on all day - even in the sunlight of Greece - just because up north there's a lot of darkness in winter. Clearly modern people don't have the intelligence to know when to switch their headlights on. £30,000 well spent then on a degree.

So when I hear someone say something like "I don't use Caffe Nero (for example) because they don't pay their taxes", I just think that's the fault of the people I'm paying to collect the money.

Businesses are there to make money they're not registered charities. So they minimise their tax liability. If the rules allow them to do that it's the fault of the people who make the rules.

I'm sure we all happily pay more tax than we have to

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The thread wasn't about tax, so calm yourself.

Thats a whole other can of bastards I don't want to open.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 07/12/13 10:28:16]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Its important to note that the law is not neutral...discretion is in the hands of the law makers and law enforcers!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"120mph and asking for calibration is a bit much. but if i was caught at say 34 in a 30 zone the first thing id ask is. is the calibration correct

Surely if the calibration is wrong it doesn't matter if it's 34 in a 30 or 120 in a 70.

Wrong is wrong."

cobblers..

if the device is out and the speed is low, eg urban as stated 34 in a 30 etc then fair play and challenge it..

anyone doing in excess of 100 knows what they are up to, challenging a devices calibration when the driver knows they were doing 120 is cuntish..

grow some and take what you deserve..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"120mph....? What car did he have?

"

My (unmodified) Scoob topped out around 155mph.

Plenty of cars will do 120mph.

My mum's old Golf Gti did.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *igSuki81Man
over a year ago

Retirement Village

Don't think i've come across a justjodie rant before. Looks good though

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"120mph and asking for calibration is a bit much. but if i was caught at say 34 in a 30 zone the first thing id ask is. is the calibration correct

Surely if the calibration is wrong it doesn't matter if it's 34 in a 30 or 120 in a 70.

Wrong is wrong.

cobblers..

if the device is out and the speed is low, eg urban as stated 34 in a 30 etc then fair play and challenge it..

anyone doing in excess of 100 knows what they are up to, challenging a devices calibration when the driver knows they were doing 120 is cuntish..

grow some and take what you deserve.."

So, at what speed above the limit for the road you're driving on stop being 'fair play' and become 'cuntish'?

You're either speeding or you're not.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heScotandthegirlCouple
over a year ago

London & Edinburgh

well said Jodie...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"120mph and asking for calibration is a bit much. but if i was caught at say 34 in a 30 zone the first thing id ask is. is the calibration correct

Surely if the calibration is wrong it doesn't matter if it's 34 in a 30 or 120 in a 70.

Wrong is wrong.

cobblers..

if the device is out and the speed is low, eg urban as stated 34 in a 30 etc then fair play and challenge it..

anyone doing in excess of 100 knows what they are up to, challenging a devices calibration when the driver knows they were doing 120 is cuntish..

grow some and take what you deserve..

So, at what speed above the limit for the road you're driving on stop being 'fair play' and become 'cuntish'?

You're either speeding or you're not. "

have seen and dealt with the effects of cuntish driving in urban and rural area's..

both at speeds which were totally negligent and sometimes when the person was there or there abouts of the speed limit..

anyone who has driven on the motorway system with some experience could give a 'guestimate' when someone is clearly tanking down the outside in gross excess of what most folks do..

which is tbh above the 70..

but someone doing 120 or there abouts is a hazard and deserves a sanction..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

I've done 120. But I was on an unrestricted autobahn at the time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The thread wasn't about tax, so calm yourself.

Thats a whole other can of bastards I don't want to open. "

No, it's about loopholes in the law remember?

And that's what I was talking about.

Loopholes in the tax law and I'm quite calm. Are you?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *teveanddebsCouple
over a year ago

Norwich

IMO 34mph in a 30 limit outside a school is a lot more cuntish than 120mph on an empty motorway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *B9 QueenWoman
over a year ago

Over the rainbow, under the bridge

People always know when they're driving like twats. They go to enormous lengths to defend themselves with the most minute and petty reasons.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Smugs are usually the little people. No great depth, tenderness or heart. Usually very easily overlooked.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at2Couple
over a year ago

north Down

Before making judgement, on loopholes, in as you say the, "law ".

You first have to under stand what is law.

Is it, law.

As in : natural , GOD given, law of the land, admiralty, common or statute.

Then, when you've worked out which one of these Laws, you've have broken.

Then and then only can you find the loopholes, which are written in to these, using the other English language ,that you don't speak or read.

It's called legalise and uses the blacks dictionary.

This can only be used and spoken by someone that has been to the bar.

Law has two offences which covers all things to do with the man/woman better known as GOD given law, common law , natural law etc. this covers two things only of which is everything. This is you will cause no harm or loss and nothing else.

The other is statute, under admiralty law which is a law made by lawmakers under legalise and is against the person i.e. The persona of the man or as you should know the birth certificate of said persona. The person is the the said piece of paper which has your stock number on it and was registered, ( or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on) by your father after you where given birth too in the UK plc .

To break the law, you must be judged to have caused harm or loss and you will be tried within crown court, as the man/woman by a barrister and judge who have been to the bar.

This means they will speak in legalise and the judge will mediate and keep the jury informed of proceedings as they do not speak said language but the judge does having been to the bar him/her self.

You do not break a law by speeding on a highway. As by speeding alone you have not caused harm or loss you have only broken a statute or bylaw which can be changed anytime by the government of the time i.e a 30mph zone becoming a 25mph zone etc. This in itself is a loophole which I think you don't realise. Most technicalities are used against police officers or a police man/women by either the defence or prosecution as a police officer or man/woman must under their contract know the difference between law and statute which is a sackable offence in statute if they admit to not knowing so this is how most persons or men/woman get off on a technicality .

I hope this gives you a bit of an insight into how law, is stacked with loopholes which most men women or persons know nothing about, but and here's a cracking loophole.

You have no defence as under statue ignorance of a law is no defence. Hope this helps but I would think it won't . My rant over.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

^ love that

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at2Couple
over a year ago

north Down


"^ love that"

99.9% know nothing about law and laws which is very handy when those in enforcement of it don't know either which allows the establishment to have it almost all their own way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *taffsfella1Man
over a year ago

Newcastle-under-Lyme

I was reading an interview with a Premiership manager earlier today and he admitted that he got off a driving ban for excessive speeding by his lawyer persuading a magistrate that the city would suffer if he was banned. Absolutely disgusting!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at2Couple
over a year ago

north Down


"I was reading an interview with a Premiership manager earlier today and he admitted that he got off a driving ban for excessive speeding by his lawyer persuading a magistrate that the city would suffer if he was banned. Absolutely disgusting!!! "

You will probably find it was a barrister who when in a magistrates court which deals solely with statute and not law speaks legalise at which point the recorder who also speaks legalise takes over as the magistrate does not and the said barrister after questioning the enforcement officer to the person/persona accused of breaking said statute finds that said enforcement officer or court official has used an incorrect term in either language or written word then the recorder will advise the magistrate in English that to admit said wrong doing is in its self an offence this is then recorded as a technicality and said person/persona and not the man because he was not on trail is given no fine or punishment and the case against is thrown out this happens all the time when you can afford upwards of £1000 per hour barristers and is not illegal as it understood law and statute is equal and the right of everyone.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

tell me about it, i have to work with contractors earning nearly 60k who on paper earn so little they pay around 2k inland revenue and NO national insurance!!

I'm paying their Dr/hospital bills!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *taffsfella1Man
over a year ago

Newcastle-under-Lyme


"I was reading an interview with a Premiership manager earlier today and he admitted that he got off a driving ban for excessive speeding by his lawyer persuading a magistrate that the city would suffer if he was banned. Absolutely disgusting!!!

You will probably find it was a barrister who when in a magistrates court which deals solely with statute and not law speaks legalise at which point the recorder who also speaks legalise takes over as the magistrate does not and the said barrister after questioning the enforcement officer to the person/persona accused of breaking said statute finds that said enforcement officer or court official has used an incorrect term in either language or written word then the recorder will advise the magistrate in English that to admit said wrong doing is in its self an offence this is then recorded as a technicality and said person/persona and not the man because he was not on trail is given no fine or punishment and the case against is thrown out this happens all the time when you can afford upwards of £1000 per hour barristers and is not illegal as it understood law and statute is equal and the right of everyone. "

I'm very impressed that you managed to work all that out from my post

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A+ rant there

I find it sad that people who have a reasonable income would still go out of their way to not pay something others pay, yet would be the first to excoriate a company for not paying its taxes, or a benefit claimer for having a luxury in their life.

There is a shocking case of double standards starting to raise its head in this country, and it's not nice to see. "

Classic example for you. Carlos Tevez (an ex West Ham/Man United, current Man city player for those who don't know him) was find a year ago £3000 for not having the correct documents to drive in this country. Yes to us its a lot of money. To him its probably about 2 hours worth of wages. A year on and he still hasn't changed his documents and people can get fined between £60-£80 for traveling 34mph in a 30 mph zone and the only reason for that is because they were going down a hill when approaching the speed camera and that person will be forced to pay or taken off the road. Even if they can't afford it. Something is wrong somewhere

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at2Couple
over a year ago

north Down

Every person/persona within the UK plc pays around 65% in tax annually from earnings made in the UK plc due to the contract which your father informed on you and registered by to their contract to said UK plc this can be raised or lowered by the elected government at anytime and is payable under the contract you are deemed to have voluntarily entered into. So to say you are paying someone else's tax is wrong as taxes are payed by all persons based mostly on their spending within the UK plc and least by their earnings income tax is the least amount you actually pay in tax per year.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *taffsfella1Man
over a year ago

Newcastle-under-Lyme


"A+ rant there

I find it sad that people who have a reasonable income would still go out of their way to not pay something others pay, yet would be the first to excoriate a company for not paying its taxes, or a benefit claimer for having a luxury in their life.

There is a shocking case of double standards starting to raise its head in this country, and it's not nice to see.

Classic example for you. Carlos Tevez (an ex West Ham/Man United, current Man city player for those who don't know him) was find a year ago £3000 for not having the correct documents to drive in this country. Yes to us its a lot of money. To him its probably about 2 hours worth of wages. A year on and he still hasn't changed his documents and people can get fined between £60-£80 for traveling 34mph in a 30 mph zone and the only reason for that is because they were going down a hill when approaching the speed camera and that person will be forced to pay or taken off the road. Even if they can't afford it. Something is wrong somewhere "

I disagree. I think the amount of the fine should be based on the offence not what somebody earns.

For the record, Tevez now plays in Italy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at2Couple
over a year ago

north Down


"A+ rant there

I find it sad that people who have a reasonable income would still go out of their way to not pay something others pay, yet would be the first to excoriate a company for not paying its taxes, or a benefit claimer for having a luxury in their life.

There is a shocking case of double standards starting to raise its head in this country, and it's not nice to see.

Classic example for you. Carlos Tevez (an ex West Ham/Man United, current Man city player for those who don't know him) was find a year ago £3000 for not having the correct documents to drive in this country. Yes to us its a lot of money. To him its probably about 2 hours worth of wages. A year on and he still hasn't changed his documents and people can get fined between £60-£80 for traveling 34mph in a 30 mph zone and the only reason for that is because they were going down a hill when approaching the speed camera and that person will be forced to pay or taken off the road. Even if they can't afford it. Something is wrong somewhere "

You are not forced to pay a motoring fine you entered into a legal contract stating that you will pay all fines when deemed that you have broken a statute if you do not keep to the contract i.e you registered the car which is the legalise word in English for to give ownership off so under contract if you do not pay all fines on the car you registered through a legal document and signed in a box under the four corner rule they have every right to take there car back.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A+ rant there

I find it sad that people who have a reasonable income would still go out of their way to not pay something others pay, yet would be the first to excoriate a company for not paying its taxes, or a benefit claimer for having a luxury in their life.

There is a shocking case of double standards starting to raise its head in this country, and it's not nice to see.

Classic example for you. Carlos Tevez (an ex West Ham/Man United, current Man city player for those who don't know him) was find a year ago £3000 for not having the correct documents to drive in this country. Yes to us its a lot of money. To him its probably about 2 hours worth of wages. A year on and he still hasn't changed his documents and people can get fined between £60-£80 for traveling 34mph in a 30 mph zone and the only reason for that is because they were going down a hill when approaching the speed camera and that person will be forced to pay or taken off the road. Even if they can't afford it. Something is wrong somewhere

I disagree. I think the amount of the fine should be based on the offence not what somebody earns.

For the record, Tevez now plays in Italy."

Oops my bad forgot he left the club, lol. But on a serious note a fine is to try and stop you from doing something wrong again. If I was fined a £500 for dangerous driving. I would be extremely careful how I drove in future as that's a lot of month to me and I know I can't survive without the money. If someone earning £500,000 a month got fined £500 for the same offence. What's to stop them doing it again as its pocket money to them as the whole point of fines is to stop you committing the offence again.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at2Couple
over a year ago

north Down


"A+ rant there

I find it sad that people who have a reasonable income would still go out of their way to not pay something others pay, yet would be the first to excoriate a company for not paying its taxes, or a benefit claimer for having a luxury in their life.

There is a shocking case of double standards starting to raise its head in this country, and it's not nice to see.

Classic example for you. Carlos Tevez (an ex West Ham/Man United, current Man city player for those who don't know him) was find a year ago £3000 for not having the correct documents to drive in this country. Yes to us its a lot of money. To him its probably about 2 hours worth of wages. A year on and he still hasn't changed his documents and people can get fined between £60-£80 for traveling 34mph in a 30 mph zone and the only reason for that is because they were going down a hill when approaching the speed camera and that person will be forced to pay or taken off the road. Even if they can't afford it. Something is wrong somewhere

I disagree. I think the amount of the fine should be based on the offence not what somebody earns.

For the record, Tevez now plays in Italy.

Oops my bad forgot he left the club, lol. But on a serious note a fine is to try and stop you from doing something wrong again. If I was fined a £500 for dangerous driving. I would be extremely careful how I drove in future as that's a lot of month to me and I know I can't survive without the money. If someone earning £500,000 a month got fined £500 for the same offence. What's to stop them doing it again as its pocket money to them as the whole point of fines is to stop you committing the offence again. "

Again you are not forced to pay a fine you have signed a legal contract or deemed to have signed a legal contract which stated that you would pay said fine or give up ownership of a thing or your freedom for a set maximum term if you cannot or will not pay said fine to the said office working for the UK plc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Two simple points If I may:

1. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

2. If stopped for speeding by police using an "illegal" speed gun (i.e. one that is not correctly calibrated) then only you know you were speeding and you have no obligation to tell the police or court about it. It is the job of the police to prosecute and prove their case.

Let he who has never broken a law, or done so and has always turned themselves in, cast the first stone.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"Before making judgement, on loopholes, in as you say the, "law ".

You first have to under stand what is law.

Is it, law.

As in : natural , GOD given, law of the land, admiralty, common or statute.

Then, when you've worked out which one of these Laws, you've have broken.

Then and then only can you find the loopholes, which are written in to these, using the other English language ,that you don't speak or read.

It's called legalise and uses the blacks dictionary.

This can only be used and spoken by someone that has been to the bar.

Law has two offences which covers all things to do with the man/woman better known as GOD given law, common law , natural law etc. this covers two things only of which is everything. This is you will cause no harm or loss and nothing else.

The other is statute, under admiralty law which is a law made by lawmakers under legalise and is against the person i.e. The persona of the man or as you should know the birth certificate of said persona. The person is the the said piece of paper which has your stock number on it and was registered, ( or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on) by your father after you where given birth too in the UK plc .

To break the law, you must be judged to have caused harm or loss and you will be tried within crown court, as the man/woman by a barrister and judge who have been to the bar.

This means they will speak in legalise and the judge will mediate and keep the jury informed of proceedings as they do not speak said language but the judge does having been to the bar him/her self.

You do not break a law by speeding on a highway. As by speeding alone you have not caused harm or loss you have only broken a statute or bylaw which can be changed anytime by the government of the time i.e a 30mph zone becoming a 25mph zone etc. This in itself is a loophole which I think you don't realise. Most technicalities are used against police officers or a police man/women by either the defence or prosecution as a police officer or man/woman must under their contract know the difference between law and statute which is a sackable offence in statute if they admit to not knowing so this is how most persons or men/woman get off on a technicality .

I hope this gives you a bit of an insight into how law, is stacked with loopholes which most men women or persons know nothing about, but and here's a cracking loophole.

You have no defence as under statue ignorance of a law is no defence. Hope this helps but I would think it won't . My rant over."

A lot of this does not make any sense logically, gramatically or practically. I hope nobody decides to rely on it as a defence when they have broken the law.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"120mph....? What car did he have?

"

mine does 150mph if it goes over a cliff

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The thread wasn't about tax, so calm yourself.

Thats a whole other can of bastards I don't want to open. "

shall i pass you the can opener

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I've done 120. But I was on an unrestricted autobahn at the time. "

i love the autobahn

our motorways were unrestricted when the M1 was first built

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I think you're all looking a bit too deep here.

It's getting like a really tedious episode of LA Law. But with more tits.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at2Couple
over a year ago

north Down


"Before making judgement, on loopholes, in as you say the, "law ".

You first have to under stand what is law.

Is it, law.

As in : natural , GOD given, law of the land, admiralty, common or statute.

Then, when you've worked out which one of these Laws, you've have broken.

Then and then only can you find the loopholes, which are written in to these, using the other English language ,that you don't speak or read.

It's called legalise and uses the blacks dictionary.

This can only be used and spoken by someone that has been to the bar.

Law has two offences which covers all things to do with the man/woman better known as GOD given law, common law , natural law etc. this covers two things only of which is everything. This is you will cause no harm or loss and nothing else.

The other is statute, under admiralty law which is a law made by lawmakers under legalise and is against the person i.e. The persona of the man or as you should know the birth certificate of said persona. The person is the the said piece of paper which has your stock number on it and was registered, ( or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on) by your father after you where given birth too in the UK plc .

To break the law, you must be judged to have caused harm or loss and you will be tried within crown court, as the man/woman by a barrister and judge who have been to the bar.

This means they will speak in legalise and the judge will mediate and keep the jury informed of proceedings as they do not speak said language but the judge does having been to the bar him/her self.

You do not break a law by speeding on a highway. As by speeding alone you have not caused harm or loss you have only broken a statute or bylaw which can be changed anytime by the government of the time i.e a 30mph zone becoming a 25mph zone etc. This in itself is a loophole which I think you don't realise. Most technicalities are used against police officers or a police man/women by either the defence or prosecution as a police officer or man/woman must under their contract know the difference between law and statute which is a sackable offence in statute if they admit to not knowing so this is how most persons or men/woman get off on a technicality .

I hope this gives you a bit of an insight into how law, is stacked with loopholes which most men women or persons know nothing about, but and here's a cracking loophole.

You have no defence as under statue ignorance of a law is no defence. Hope this helps but I would think it won't . My rant over.

A lot of this does not make any sense logically, gramatically or practically. I hope nobody decides to rely on it as a defence when they have broken the law."

A man/woman is not the same as a person under law or in life a person is the persona of the man/woman or as you would not and do not understand the birth certificate or as it really is the regesitration of birth given in to the UK plc if you would take time to find some of this out then you might learn something .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"Before making judgement, on loopholes, in as you say the, "law ".

You first have to under stand what is law.

Is it, law.

As in : natural , GOD given, law of the land, admiralty, common or statute.

Then, when you've worked out which one of these Laws, you've have broken.

Then and then only can you find the loopholes, which are written in to these, using the other English language ,that you don't speak or read.

It's called legalise and uses the blacks dictionary.

This can only be used and spoken by someone that has been to the bar.

Law has two offences which covers all things to do with the man/woman better known as GOD given law, common law , natural law etc. this covers two things only of which is everything. This is you will cause no harm or loss and nothing else.

The other is statute, under admiralty law which is a law made by lawmakers under legalise and is against the person i.e. The persona of the man or as you should know the birth certificate of said persona. The person is the the said piece of paper which has your stock number on it and was registered, ( or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on) by your father after you where given birth too in the UK plc .

To break the law, you must be judged to have caused harm or loss and you will be tried within crown court, as the man/woman by a barrister and judge who have been to the bar.

This means they will speak in legalise and the judge will mediate and keep the jury informed of proceedings as they do not speak said language but the judge does having been to the bar him/her self.

You do not break a law by speeding on a highway. As by speeding alone you have not caused harm or loss you have only broken a statute or bylaw which can be changed anytime by the government of the time i.e a 30mph zone becoming a 25mph zone etc. This in itself is a loophole which I think you don't realise. Most technicalities are used against police officers or a police man/women by either the defence or prosecution as a police officer or man/woman must under their contract know the difference between law and statute which is a sackable offence in statute if they admit to not knowing so this is how most persons or men/woman get off on a technicality .

I hope this gives you a bit of an insight into how law, is stacked with loopholes which most men women or persons know nothing about, but and here's a cracking loophole.

You have no defence as under statue ignorance of a law is no defence. Hope this helps but I would think it won't . My rant over.

A lot of this does not make any sense logically, gramatically or practically. I hope nobody decides to rely on it as a defence when they have broken the law.

A man/woman is not the same as a person under law or in life a person is the persona of the man/woman or as you would not and do not understand the birth certificate or as it really is the regesitration of birth given in to the UK plc if you would take time to find some of this out then you might learn something ."

I would learn something if I did some research. I don't think I am going to learn anything from you. Some of what you say actually makes no sense at all and I believe a lot of the rest to be nonsense.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

Some punctuation would also help get your meaning across. Your chunks of text are very difficult to read and interpret without any.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"Before making judgement, on loopholes, in as you say the, "law ".

You first have to under stand what is law.

Is it, law.

As in : natural , GOD given, law of the land, admiralty, common or statute.

Then, when you've worked out which one of these Laws, you've have broken.

Then and then only can you find the loopholes, which are written in to these, using the other English language ,that you don't speak or read.

It's called legalise and uses the blacks dictionary.

This can only be used and spoken by someone that has been to the bar.

Law has two offences which covers all things to do with the man/woman better known as GOD given law, common law , natural law etc. this covers two things only of which is everything. This is you will cause no harm or loss and nothing else.

The other is statute, under admiralty law which is a law made by lawmakers under legalise and is against the person i.e. The persona of the man or as you should know the birth certificate of said persona. The person is the the said piece of paper which has your stock number on it and was registered, ( or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on) by your father after you where given birth too in the UK plc .

To break the law, you must be judged to have caused harm or loss and you will be tried within crown court, as the man/woman by a barrister and judge who have been to the bar.

This means they will speak in legalise and the judge will mediate and keep the jury informed of proceedings as they do not speak said language but the judge does having been to the bar him/her self.

You do not break a law by speeding on a highway. As by speeding alone you have not caused harm or loss you have only broken a statute or bylaw which can be changed anytime by the government of the time i.e a 30mph zone becoming a 25mph zone etc. This in itself is a loophole which I think you don't realise. Most technicalities are used against police officers or a police man/women by either the defence or prosecution as a police officer or man/woman must under their contract know the difference between law and statute which is a sackable offence in statute if they admit to not knowing so this is how most persons or men/woman get off on a technicality .

I hope this gives you a bit of an insight into how law, is stacked with loopholes which most men women or persons know nothing about, but and here's a cracking loophole.

You have no defence as under statue ignorance of a law is no defence. Hope this helps but I would think it won't . My rant over.

A lot of this does not make any sense logically, gramatically or practically. I hope nobody decides to rely on it as a defence when they have broken the law.

A man/woman is not the same as a person under law or in life a person is the persona of the man/woman or as you would not and do not understand the birth certificate or as it really is the regesitration of birth given in to the UK plc if you would take time to find some of this out then you might learn something .

I would learn something if I did some research. I don't think I am going to learn anything from you. Some of what you say actually makes no sense at all and I believe a lot of the rest to be nonsense."

this..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 08/12/13 12:51:55]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Before making judgement, on loopholes, in as you say the, "law ".

You first have to under stand what is law.

Is it, law.

As in : natural , GOD given, law of the land, admiralty, common or statute.

Then, when you've worked out which one of these Laws, you've have broken.

Then and then only can you find the loopholes, which are written in to these, using the other English language ,that you don't speak or read.

It's called legalise and uses the blacks dictionary.

This can only be used and spoken by someone that has been to the bar.

Law has two offences which covers all things to do with the man/woman better known as GOD given law, common law , natural law etc. this covers two things only of which is everything. This is you will cause no harm or loss and nothing else.

The other is statute, under admiralty law which is a law made by lawmakers under legalise and is against the person i.e. The persona of the man or as you should know the birth certificate of said persona. The person is the the said piece of paper which has your stock number on it and was registered, ( or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on) by your father after you where given birth too in the UK plc .

To break the law, you must be judged to have caused harm or loss and you will be tried within crown court, as the man/woman by a barrister and judge who have been to the bar.

This means they will speak in legalise and the judge will mediate and keep the jury informed of proceedings as they do not speak said language but the judge does having been to the bar him/her self.

You do not break a law by speeding on a highway. As by speeding alone you have not caused harm or loss you have only broken a statute or bylaw which can be changed anytime by the government of the time i.e a 30mph zone becoming a 25mph zone etc. This in itself is a loophole which I think you don't realise. Most technicalities are used against police officers or a police man/women by either the defence or prosecution as a police officer or man/woman must under their contract know the difference between law and statute which is a sackable offence in statute if they admit to not knowing so this is how most persons or men/woman get off on a technicality .

I hope this gives you a bit of an insight into how law, is stacked with loopholes which most men women or persons know nothing about, but and here's a cracking loophole.

You have no defence as under statue ignorance of a law is no defence. Hope this helps but I would think it won't . My rant over.

A lot of this does not make any sense logically, gramatically or practically. I hope nobody decides to rely on it as a defence when they have broken the law.

A man/woman is not the same as a person under law or in life a person is the persona of the man/woman or as you would not and do not understand the birth certificate or as it really is the regesitration of birth given in to the UK plc if you would take time to find some of this out then you might learn something .

I would learn something if I did some research. I don't think I am going to learn anything from you. Some of what you say actually makes no sense at all and I believe a lot of the rest to be nonsense.

this.."

Anything written in the language of the law is difficult to understand. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true.

A lot of people, including me don't understand it, but I wouldn't discredit what he/she has written because of that lack of knowledge.

At no point did this forumite suggest that we take their word as law or even suggest we try and use it in our own defence.

They were, from what I have read, just passing on some info they have knowledge of.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


".............

Anything written in the language of the law is difficult to understand. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true.

A lot of people, including me don't understand it, but I wouldn't discredit what he/she has written because of that lack of knowledge.

At no point did this forumite suggest that we take their word as law or even suggest we try and use it in our own defence.

They were, from what I have read, just passing on some info they have knowledge of."

Anything written in the language of bollox is difficult to understand. But that doesn't mean that it isn't bollox.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"

Anything written in the language of bollox is difficult to understand. But that doesn't mean that it isn't bollox."

anything badly written may reduce its significance, badly written either with an element of fact or bollocks is still just that..

delivery etc..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"Before making judgement, on loopholes, in as you say the, "law ".

You first have to under stand what is law.

Is it, law.

As in : natural , GOD given, law of the land, admiralty, common or statute.

Then, when you've worked out which one of these Laws, you've have broken.

Then and then only can you find the loopholes, which are written in to these, using the other English language ,that you don't speak or read.

It's called legalise and uses the blacks dictionary.

This can only be used and spoken by someone that has been to the bar.

Law has two offences which covers all things to do with the man/woman better known as GOD given law, common law , natural law etc. this covers two things only of which is everything. This is you will cause no harm or loss and nothing else.

The other is statute, under admiralty law which is a law made by lawmakers under legalise and is against the person i.e. The persona of the man or as you should know the birth certificate of said persona. The person is the the said piece of paper which has your stock number on it and was registered, ( or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on) by your father after you where given birth too in the UK plc .

To break the law, you must be judged to have caused harm or loss and you will be tried within crown court, as the man/woman by a barrister and judge who have been to the bar.

This means they will speak in legalise and the judge will mediate and keep the jury informed of proceedings as they do not speak said language but the judge does having been to the bar him/her self.

You do not break a law by speeding on a highway. As by speeding alone you have not caused harm or loss you have only broken a statute or bylaw which can be changed anytime by the government of the time i.e a 30mph zone becoming a 25mph zone etc. This in itself is a loophole which I think you don't realise. Most technicalities are used against police officers or a police man/women by either the defence or prosecution as a police officer or man/woman must under their contract know the difference between law and statute which is a sackable offence in statute if they admit to not knowing so this is how most persons or men/woman get off on a technicality .

I hope this gives you a bit of an insight into how law, is stacked with loopholes which most men women or persons know nothing about, but and here's a cracking loophole.

You have no defence as under statue ignorance of a law is no defence. Hope this helps but I would think it won't . My rant over.

A lot of this does not make any sense logically, gramatically or practically. I hope nobody decides to rely on it as a defence when they have broken the law.

A man/woman is not the same as a person under law or in life a person is the persona of the man/woman or as you would not and do not understand the birth certificate or as it really is the regesitration of birth given in to the UK plc if you would take time to find some of this out then you might learn something .

I would learn something if I did some research. I don't think I am going to learn anything from you. Some of what you say actually makes no sense at all and I believe a lot of the rest to be nonsense.

this..

Anything written in the language of the law is difficult to understand. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true.

A lot of people, including me don't understand it, but I wouldn't discredit what he/she has written because of that lack of knowledge.

At no point did this forumite suggest that we take their word as law or even suggest we try and use it in our own defence.

They were, from what I have read, just passing on some info they have knowledge of."

It's not written in the language of the law, it's just supposed to sound as though it is. Some of it makes no sense in any version of English known to man.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *taffsfella1Man
over a year ago

Newcastle-under-Lyme


".............

Anything written in the language of the law is difficult to understand. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true.

A lot of people, including me don't understand it, but I wouldn't discredit what he/she has written because of that lack of knowledge.

At no point did this forumite suggest that we take their word as law or even suggest we try and use it in our own defence.

They were, from what I have read, just passing on some info they have knowledge of.

Anything written in the language of bollox is difficult to understand. But that doesn't mean that it isn't bollox."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

k, I can't be arsed to pick this entire post apart but here are a few comments to defend my statement that this is nonsense.


"As in : natural , GOD given, law of the land, admiralty, common or statute."

God given law? Really???


"using the other English language ,that you don't speak or read.

It's called legalise and uses the blacks dictionary."

There is no language called "legalise". "Legalese" is a slang term to describe legal style writing.

Black's Dictionary is an American legal dictionary. It's used in American courts.

If a language cannot be written or spoken how is it a language, given that humans have yet to develop telepathy as standard? If it can't be written or spoken, how would it have a dictionary and why the absolute fuck would it need one?


"This can only be used and spoken by someone that has been to the bar."

Passing the bar qualifies a person to practice as a barrister. It does not suddenly confer upon a person an ability to read and understand legal terminology and law. It certainly does not suddenly make a person capable of understanding a fictional language called "legalise".

Solicitors do not need to take the bar. They study, learn, understand and use the same legal terminology and law as a barrister.

Mere mortals are capable of learning legal terminology and understanding law. Sometimes mere mortals actually represent themselves in courts.


"Law has two offences which covers all things to do with the man/woman better known as GOD given law, common law ,

natural law etc. this covers two things only of which is everything."

Again, there's no such thing as God given law.

"only of which is everything" is a collection of English words. Arranged in that order they do not make sense and mean nothing.


"The other is statute, under admiralty law which is a law made by lawmakers under legalise"

Admiralty law is law specifically relating to maritime offences and matters. Statute law is legislation - laws drafted and passed by the government.

"Legalise" I've already covered. I'll add that if Legalise were a language, as claimed, one does not create something "under" a language.


" and is against the person i.e. The persona of the man or as you should know the birth certificate of said persona. The person is the the said piece of paper which has your stock number on it and was registered, ( or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on) by your father after you where given birth too in the UK plc ."

This is so mixed up I don't even know where to begin.

A human has an official identity conferred upon them when their birth is registered, that is true.

However, statute law covers everybody in the country. It doesn't just relate to people born and registered in the UK.

If a person does not have a UK birth certificate, does legislation (statute law) not appy to them? Can they do as they like with no fear of legal consequences? If the birth of a child in the UK was somehow not registered, would they not be bound by law?

"(or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on)" - more nonsense. A birth certificate isn't given ownership of anything. He seems to be trying to say that the registration of a birth in the UK is the formal informing of the authorities of the existence of a new person. The issuing of a birth certificate confers upon the person a legal identity. What he's actually written is mostly complicated gobbledegook.


"You do not break a law by speeding on a highway. As by speeding alone you have not caused harm or loss you have only broken a statute or bylaw"

A statute refers to legislation which has been passed and therefore become law! Speed limits are not set by statute. The rules relating to obeying them are.

I can't be arsed to go on.

Conclusion: it's bollocks.

Disclaimer: I am not a solicitor or barrister. I have no formal legal education. Some of what I have written may be technically incorrect. It's not as much bullshit as the post I'm commenting on though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"k, I can't be arsed to pick this entire post apart but here are a few comments to defend my statement that this is nonsense.

As in : natural , GOD given, law of the land, admiralty, common or statute.

God given law? Really???

using the other English language ,that you don't speak or read.

It's called legalise and uses the blacks dictionary.

There is no language called "legalise". "Legalese" is a slang term to describe legal style writing.

Black's Dictionary is an American legal dictionary. It's used in American courts.

If a language cannot be written or spoken how is it a language, given that humans have yet to develop telepathy as standard? If it can't be written or spoken, how would it have a dictionary and why the absolute fuck would it need one?

This can only be used and spoken by someone that has been to the bar.

Passing the bar qualifies a person to practice as a barrister. It does not suddenly confer upon a person an ability to read and understand legal terminology and law. It certainly does not suddenly make a person capable of understanding a fictional language called "legalise".

Solicitors do not need to take the bar. They study, learn, understand and use the same legal terminology and law as a barrister.

Mere mortals are capable of learning legal terminology and understanding law. Sometimes mere mortals actually represent themselves in courts.

Law has two offences which covers all things to do with the man/woman better known as GOD given law, common law ,

natural law etc. this covers two things only of which is everything.

Again, there's no such thing as God given law.

"only of which is everything" is a collection of English words. Arranged in that order they do not make sense and mean nothing.

The other is statute, under admiralty law which is a law made by lawmakers under legalise

Admiralty law is law specifically relating to maritime offences and matters. Statute law is legislation - laws drafted and passed by the government.

"Legalise" I've already covered. I'll add that if Legalise were a language, as claimed, one does not create something "under" a language.

and is against the person i.e. The persona of the man or as you should know the birth certificate of said persona. The person is the the said piece of paper which has your stock number on it and was registered, ( or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on) by your father after you where given birth too in the UK plc .

This is so mixed up I don't even know where to begin.

A human has an official identity conferred upon them when their birth is registered, that is true.

However, statute law covers everybody in the country. It doesn't just relate to people born and registered in the UK.

If a person does not have a UK birth certificate, does legislation (statute law) not appy to them? Can they do as they like with no fear of legal consequences? If the birth of a child in the UK was somehow not registered, would they not be bound by law?

"(or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on)" - more nonsense. A birth certificate isn't given ownership of anything. He seems to be trying to say that the registration of a birth in the UK is the formal informing of the authorities of the existence of a new person. The issuing of a birth certificate confers upon the person a legal identity. What he's actually written is mostly complicated gobbledegook.

You do not break a law by speeding on a highway. As by speeding alone you have not caused harm or loss you have only broken a statute or bylaw

A statute refers to legislation which has been passed and therefore become law! Speed limits are not set by statute. The rules relating to obeying them are.

I can't be arsed to go on.

Conclusion: it's bollocks.

Disclaimer: I am not a solicitor or barrister. I have no formal legal education. Some of what I have written may be technically incorrect. It's not as much bullshit as the post I'm commenting on though."

Is it just me or do some people have a lot of spare time?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it just me or do some people have a lot of spare time? "

You have to be impressed at the effort.

Some animals spend a whole day pissing on trees to mark their territory.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"k, I can't be arsed to pick this entire post apart but here are a few comments to defend my statement that this is nonsense.

As in : natural , GOD given, law of the land, admiralty, common or statute.

God given law? Really???

using the other English language ,that you don't speak or read.

It's called legalise and uses the blacks dictionary.

There is no language called "legalise". "Legalese" is a slang term to describe legal style writing.

Black's Dictionary is an American legal dictionary. It's used in American courts.

If a language cannot be written or spoken how is it a language, given that humans have yet to develop telepathy as standard? If it can't be written or spoken, how would it have a dictionary and why the absolute fuck would it need one?

This can only be used and spoken by someone that has been to the bar.

Passing the bar qualifies a person to practice as a barrister. It does not suddenly confer upon a person an ability to read and understand legal terminology and law. It certainly does not suddenly make a person capable of understanding a fictional language called "legalise".

Solicitors do not need to take the bar. They study, learn, understand and use the same legal terminology and law as a barrister.

Mere mortals are capable of learning legal terminology and understanding law. Sometimes mere mortals actually represent themselves in courts.

Law has two offences which covers all things to do with the man/woman better known as GOD given law, common law ,

natural law etc. this covers two things only of which is everything.

Again, there's no such thing as God given law.

"only of which is everything" is a collection of English words. Arranged in that order they do not make sense and mean nothing.

The other is statute, under admiralty law which is a law made by lawmakers under legalise

Admiralty law is law specifically relating to maritime offences and matters. Statute law is legislation - laws drafted and passed by the government.

"Legalise" I've already covered. I'll add that if Legalise were a language, as claimed, one does not create something "under" a language.

and is against the person i.e. The persona of the man or as you should know the birth certificate of said persona. The person is the the said piece of paper which has your stock number on it and was registered, ( or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on) by your father after you where given birth too in the UK plc .

This is so mixed up I don't even know where to begin.

A human has an official identity conferred upon them when their birth is registered, that is true.

However, statute law covers everybody in the country. It doesn't just relate to people born and registered in the UK.

If a person does not have a UK birth certificate, does legislation (statute law) not appy to them? Can they do as they like with no fear of legal consequences? If the birth of a child in the UK was somehow not registered, would they not be bound by law?

"(or given ownership of said persona under legalise and informed on)" - more nonsense. A birth certificate isn't given ownership of anything. He seems to be trying to say that the registration of a birth in the UK is the formal informing of the authorities of the existence of a new person. The issuing of a birth certificate confers upon the person a legal identity. What he's actually written is mostly complicated gobbledegook.

You do not break a law by speeding on a highway. As by speeding alone you have not caused harm or loss you have only broken a statute or bylaw

A statute refers to legislation which has been passed and therefore become law! Speed limits are not set by statute. The rules relating to obeying them are.

I can't be arsed to go on.

Conclusion: it's bollocks.

Disclaimer: I am not a solicitor or barrister. I have no formal legal education. Some of what I have written may be technically incorrect. It's not as much bullshit as the post I'm commenting on though.

Is it just me or do some people have a lot of spare time? "

Yeah, I'm at a bit of a loose end today.

I also took exception to the suggestion I said the post was bollocks because it was in legal parlance and I didn't understand it. Any lack of understanding is only due to it being badly written bollocks

I'm merely demonstrating I can justify that conclusion.

And I'm at a loose end.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"Is it just me or do some people have a lot of spare time?

You have to be impressed at the effort.

Some animals spend a whole day pissing on trees to mark their territory."

Whereas this one just pissed on the badly written bullshit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Is it just me or do some people have a lot of spare time?

You have to be impressed at the effort.

Some animals spend a whole day pissing on trees to mark their territory.

Whereas this one just pissed on the badly written bullshit."

You are to be commended for your effort.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"Is it just me or do some people have a lot of spare time?

You have to be impressed at the effort.

Some animals spend a whole day pissing on trees to mark their territory.

Whereas this one just pissed on the badly written bullshit.

You are to be commended for your effort."

I admit, it's a bit sad and anal. I do have OCD though and an allergy to gobbledegook bullshit.

If I declare something to be bollocks, I usually have something to base the claim on. I don't usually declare something to be bollocks because I don't understand it.

I could have replied to the post above saying that my reason for declaring it bullshit is not because I don't understand it. However, I felt like proving the point.

I'm in that sort of mood.

So sue me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it just me or do some people have a lot of spare time?

You have to be impressed at the effort.

Some animals spend a whole day pissing on trees to mark their territory.

Whereas this one just pissed on the badly written bullshit.

You are to be commended for your effort.

I admit, it's a bit sad and anal. I do have OCD though and an allergy to gobbledegook bullshit.

If I declare something to be bollocks, I usually have something to base the claim on. I don't usually declare something to be bollocks because I don't understand it.

I could have replied to the post above saying that my reason for declaring it bullshit is not because I don't understand it. However, I felt like proving the point.

I'm in that sort of mood.

So sue me "

Thank you for pointing out the BS. Sadly there are some people in the forum who actually believe what is written here so correction is necessary!! Can you believe that?

Luckily, as a poster of questions on occasion, I have deduced those poor souls are far outweighed by those that cannot comprehend written English. This is demonstrated by their unerring ability to make comments unrelated to the original question. But it is all good fun on a cold wet winter's Sunday.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"Is it just me or do some people have a lot of spare time?

You have to be impressed at the effort.

Some animals spend a whole day pissing on trees to mark their territory.

Whereas this one just pissed on the badly written bullshit.

You are to be commended for your effort.

I admit, it's a bit sad and anal. I do have OCD though and an allergy to gobbledegook bullshit.

If I declare something to be bollocks, I usually have something to base the claim on. I don't usually declare something to be bollocks because I don't understand it.

I could have replied to the post above saying that my reason for declaring it bullshit is not because I don't understand it. However, I felt like proving the point.

I'm in that sort of mood.

So sue me

Thank you for pointing out the BS. Sadly there are some people in the forum who actually believe what is written here so correction is necessary!! Can you believe that?

Luckily, as a poster of questions on occasion, I have deduced those poor souls are far outweighed by those that cannot comprehend written English. This is demonstrated by their unerring ability to make comments unrelated to the original question. But it is all good fun on a cold wet winter's Sunday. "

Ah thread creep. It's one of those forum things.

I post all sorts of random stuff sometimes because my brain runs off at odd tangents.

I'm often guilty of being off topic. Or of perpetuating someone else being off topic.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


".......

Thank you for pointing out the BS. Sadly there are some people in the forum who actually believe what is written here so correction is necessary!! Can you believe that?

........ "

I doubt anyone actually believes much of what's written on the net, even if they've written it themselves.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


". Like getting out of a speeding ticket for doing 120mph, when you know you were doing it, because the speed gun was a day out of calibration. You shouldn't celebrate that, you should be ashamed."

Indeed why on earth was the officer was using a piece of out of calibration equipment?

it demonstrates he has not carried out his inspection of his equipment and brings into question the rest of his gear and work.

heh interstitially using out of cal equipment in my work unknowingly (ie you didn't check) = gross negligence and either final written or dismissal and if used knowingly (you couldn't be arsed to get it sorted before working) dismissal and potentially criminal charges.

Although 120 can be perfectly safe depending on the conditions, i got pulled the other week for doing well over 120, but the situation/road changed and by the time he'd caught up an got his radar sorted I'd returned to the speed limit (below actually) because that was a safe speed to do in the new area.

sticking ridgedly to speed limits (outside of pedestrian lethality in unavoidable collisions) doesn't really make anything safer or change/cause many accidents. iirc speed is only a controlling factor is about 10% of crashes.

in fact low speeds such as the 20 zones are now being looked at as having actually caused more injuries and accidents because they require the driver to pay too much attention to his speed and not the world outside his little metal box.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top