Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'consent'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Police News & Discussion
    • UK Police/Crime News
    • Police Oracle Features
    • World Police/Crime News
    • General Police Discussion
  • Police Careers & Training
    • Police Jobs & Recruitment
    • Promotion & Training
    • Retirement & Resettlement
    • Recruitment & Training Archives
  • Study & Personal Development
    • Student Officers’ Essays, Theses and Dissertations
    • OSPRE Part 1
    • OSPRE Part 2
    • Useful Links
  • Kit and Equipment
    • Kit and Equipment Discussion
  • Off Duty
    • Non-Police News & Chat
    • Competitions
    • The Humour Mill
    • Reunions & Get-Togethers
    • Introductions
  • Non-Policing
    • Computer & Technical
    • VIP Lounge (Members Only)
  • PoliceUK Forum Help & Support
    • Website & Forum
    • Policies & Rules

Categories

  • Articles

Found 2 results

  1. Registration

    A look at the registration process from outside of the generally accepted consensus. The act of registering with the government is what creates a legally binding contract. You are giving legal title to them while you retain equitable title and use of said property. Since they own the legal title they can dictate the terms of use of the property that you registered with them. Take your car for example. One of the terms you agreed to when registering was to abide by the rules of the Motor Vehicle Act, which includes staying within certain speed limits. To break the speed limit is therefore not a crime but a breach of contract. Should you fail to pay up, the courts are then used as a form of conflict resolution to settle the contractual dispute, they are not administering justice. No individual, corporation or organisation can compel you to register your property. You did so voluntarily, whether you realise it or not. More than likely your consent was manufactured by making it appear that your were Lawfully obliged to register. This is called deception. Any contract where deceptive use of language is used to coerce agreement or where full disclosure is not given as to the nature of the contract is illegal, and thus null and void. It's not inherently unlawful to engage in an activity without government approval. It's only against the rules they have created. In fact, any act licenced or permitted by the state has to be 100% Lawful outside of the licensing or permitted framework, otherwise they would be allowing you to commit a crime for a fee. Those rules are only applicable within the framework of their system. As we are governed by consent, non consenting members can in no way be held accountable for the consequences of an infraction of a rule that they did not agree to, let alone having never read. The grounds for committing a crime come under certain guidelines. The has to be harm caused to an actual person (natural person, not a corporate/legal entity) or their property, or fraudulent activity. No victim, no crime. An infraction of a statute, code or policy is a breach of contract, which of course can not apply to someone who has never made that contract. Implied unilateral contracts are fraudulent and are null and void from the start. As are contracts where deception was used or where full disclosure was never given. As is the case with the registration process. It was made to appear that you would be breaking the Law if did not register your personal property. When it was the act of registering that gave the government legal determination over it. That is completely fraudulent. If I coerced you into signing over the rights of your property via deception I would be committing a crime. The only difference when the government does it is that they have the backing of a monopoly on force, intimidation and violence. Might does not make right. We are all equal before the Law. I welcome alternative views, but please keep it respectful. I mean no harm to anyone.
  2. We are governed by consent in the UK. By default, we are also policed by consent. This is an important point to remember, as it acts a safety net to prevent the same abuses of power that has led to totalitarian states in the past. The government cannot pass a rule then demand that every single person obey. That is the creed of dictators and tyrants. Statutes, acts, codes, and policies are not Laws, but they do operate under the colour of Law. That is to say that they only have the force of Law with the consent of the governed. They become legally binding only after consent has been given. If this were not true the government could pass any rule they like and demand that we the public obey. We would be living under a dictatorship if this were the case. This is where the police, unknowingly in most cases, manufacture the consent of the public. As statutes etc. have no force of Law without consent, it is the job of the police to gain the agreement necessary to make the statute legally binding. Essentially, you are establishing a contractual agreement. Now here is where the unlawful nature of entire political/judicial/policing system lies, and where the police, all the way up to the highest levels are complicit in fraud. Any contractual agreement made through coercive or deceptive means, or where full disclosure is not given is fraudulent. The man or woman the police coerce into consenting was never made aware that they were getting into a contract, and were coerced into verbally agreeing and signing paperwork through deception. This is important for you to know, as you are liable, under common law, to full commercial liability for your actions. Your uniform will not protect you if you have caused someone harm due to any unlawful behaviour of your own. Knowingly or not. If there is no injured party or no intent to cause harm, there is no crime. Offence may mean to you as police, an infraction of a rule. But that does not necessarily mean that it is a crime, or that you have any jurisdiction in the matter. So the government made up a rule and deemed anyone in violation of that rule to have broken the Law? Not so. There is no such thing as "The Law" There are rules of a society which are only applicable to consenting members of that society. In most cases the society in question is The Law Society, which has its own language: Legalese. Are you a consenting member of it and are you even aware that you are using legalese terminology to dupe the public? To be clear, I have no problem with the police when you guys are genuinely keeping the peace and brining real criminals to justice. It is the systemic deception and corruption inherent within the system that I am trying to bring to your attention.