In the news

I know for a fact they can't touch you if you don't take your hat off in court.

in court

C'mon, a sign on a building indicating the Powers-that-be designate it a 'court' doesn't fool a true Freeman!

This Freeman stuff received some encouragement back in the day,
when TV licensing enforcement was sub-contracted to Capita.
Someone worked out that the Capita employees had no right of entry,
so you could refuse to let them enter and verify that the property contained
electrical/electronic equipment that could receive a tv broadcast.

Secondly, the legislation for 'private' car parks was so shoddily written that shysters
started issuing demands for payment for 'illegal' parking.
Many drivers evaded paying these 'invoices' as they could clearly demonstrate there was no contract between the shyster and the registered owner of the vehicle,
and, only (I seem to remember, originally), local authorities could issue fixed penalty charges.

The 'no contract' concept was then conflated to virtually every interaction between 'citizens' and 'government'.

What do you think the Venn diagram looks like for Brexiter and FMOTLer?

Secondly, the legislation for 'private' car parks was so shoddily written that shysters
started issuing demands for payment for 'illegal' parking.
Many drivers evaded paying these 'invoices' as they could clearly demonstrate there was no contract between the shyster and the registered owner of the vehicle,
and, only (I seem to remember, originally), local authorities could issue fixed penalty charges.

This distinction still exists and is worth noting: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets/

It's a bit unfair on consumer activists, past and present, to suggest that there has ever been any encouragement of the fmotl insanity.

Re: licensing - as far as i'm aware, inspectors have never had any right of entry, predating Capita's involvement by a long time.

Re: car parks - the challenge (prior to the Protection of Freedoms Act in 2012, and the odd Supreme court case) has predominantly been that penalty charges are unenforceable under contract, not that no contract exists, and that there is privity of contract, so no obligations conferred between the driver of a vehicle at the time of the contract and the registered keeper of that vehicle.

By and large, consumer rights activists have relied on the correct application the law, in particular where it is incorrectly applied by corporations / public bodies.

Saturday, two days ago:

I thought Beavis v Parking Eye said that pcn's were enforceable?

In that limited scenario, not as a general rule.

They weren't PCNs, though, which are a prescribed througn statute.

The fmotl mindset finds encouragement in any 'victory' against the powers-that-be.
I have no idea of anyone was ever caught by TV Detector vans, whether the inspectors were ever employees of the BBC, a branch of Government or Capita.
Few members of the public know who has Right of Entry.
Once the fmotl found out Capita employees did not, the early 'net=based communications methods allowed them to spread this knowledge.

I apologise for my lack of understanding of the matter. I've only ever incurred a fixed penalty notice on residential roads with timing restrictions. I paid up as it was clearly my fault.
My apportioning of error was not to consumer rights activists, but the legislation that allowed shysters to attempt to levy fines on the drivers of (over?-) parked cars.

None of the statements given to the police on the day of the accident,
including the Defendant’s, mention that the Claimant was using her
mobile phone.

https://clinicalnegligencebarrister.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/brushett-v-hazeldean-the-facts/

Well, I think the 'freeman on the land' phenomenon is the product of several different things, but I agree that as with so many things the Internet helps like-'minded' people to find each other. It's only ever a search engine's activation away.

I'm also certain that there are some people who deliberately stoke these sorts of flames for shits and giggles, preying on gullible people.

Reichsbürger

Yes, I posted about that here:

https://www.lfgss.com/comments/12708570/

Also, while some of the "Reichsbürger" stuff is quite funny, it isn't funny that there's been at least one murder, of a policeman, committed by an adherent of the fantasy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrgerbewegung

#rep

Well done Grauniad

1 Attachment

Scum. Utter scum.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/24/woman-poses-dead-cyclist-eilidh-cairns-aunt-oppose-london-bike-lane

If any wider good has come from this case it is that the publicity may encourage cyclists to take out insurance to protect themselves in the event that their riding causes someone to suffer injury.

their riding causes ... sigh. And yet, a motorist’s driving causes so many incidents reported as accidents and gone unpunished.

I suppose the most bitter pill that isn’t addressed is the high price of court costs, and that the adage “there are no winners” is false; the solicitors win big.

Interesting that the speed/distance calculations are provided, I can’t remember the last time I took that street but I’m pretty sure I stopped doing so because of the peds and that it is really not possible to do it at the speed H claimed. Or maybe, it’s not possible without colliding with someone.

Came here to post the same. Despicable person.

Fucking hell.

Oh I do not dispute that, it was principled but stupid. However the fact remains she made the decision to make a claim against him for something that was to most observers entirely her fault

Some more info coming out from a discussion between the legal bods involved and Martin Porter, specifically that [Hazledean] admitted that he saw her from 20m away and chose to accelerate rather than slow down.

https://twitter.com/NyeMoloney/status/1143233029776842752

(Useful info in those tweets from first to last...)

Something else quite frustrating is that the law, the application of the law, and the reality are all very far apart. We don’t have jaywalking laws, and we don’t often observe the laws that are in place anyway. When we do observe them we don’t consistently observe them.

So, regardless, if a pedestrian is already in the road the vehicle should yield, but a pedestrian should not step into the road when a vehicle is coming. The solicitors argue speed and distance to determine who had the right to be on the road and who should have stopped and decided they were equally to blame.

However, the equally to blame is determined on the basis that the guy saw her in the road so could and should have yielded. That is based on their own analysis of what would be acceptable distance and speed.

But, this never marries up with the reality of British infrastructure and behaviour. London is a clusterfuck, and if you would yield for every pedestrian that stepped out, you would never make your destination.

In a situation like this, when you see a pedestrian walking along you probably saw them from 20m away, but their decision to cross in front of you was made after the gap had already closed to maybe 5 or less.

I’d question why did the guy have an airhorn if he wasn’t frequently confronted by lack of awareness by pedestrians when crossing.

Probably the takeaway should not be, insure and lawyer up, but improve infrastructure and educate.

London is a clusterfuck, and if you would yield for every pedestrian that stepped out, you would never make your destination.

Definitely agree with this.

I’d question why did the guy have an airhorn if he wasn’t frequently confronted by lack of awareness by pedestrians when crossing.

This actually makes me think the opposite - sounds like he could be one of those people with a 'get out of the way' mentality that just doesn't work given the above clusterfuck.

It's all about finding the right balance.

their riding causes ... sigh. And yet, a motorist’s driving causes so many incidents reported as accidents and gone unpunished.

Very much this, every single day hundreds, and I really do mean hundreds of these civil cases are settled and 99.9% relate to damage and injury cased by motorists.