Letter from Wirral Magistrates’ Court Regarding Roger Hayes

July 13, 2012

in Opinion, Reports

In my previous post on Roger Hayes, the Chair of the British Constitution Group, and his recent trip to prison, someone commented that Roger Hayes’ outfit had posted the following message:

“Roger Hayes was visited in prison this morning by Danny Bamping, who took an affidavit from Roger in which he makes it clear he received no summons or invitation to the hearing which resulted in the arrest warrant being issued.

Roger also makes it clear he was given no opportunity to speak at the unlisted secret court hearing – a hearing which lasted just long enough to the judge to utter the sentence.

Danny and his team will submit an application for Habeas Corpus tomorrow morning, at the High Court in Manchester, which can be found in the new “Civil Justice Centre”.

The application will be heard under “Supreme Court Order 54″.”

As that was last week and we have heard no more about about it, I shall assume that what I predicted has come to pass – the judge told Danny Bamping (who is not a lawyer) that he was being daft.

I have written to Wirral Magistrates’ Court to ask them the actual details of this case. Their response is below, and makes it very clear that what has happened to Roger Hayes is not some exciting tale of conspiracy and Stalinist machinations to silence a warrior for the truth, but the inevitable wheels of state machinery turning against anyone who refuses to pay their council tax.

I would point people especially to the part which states that “the hearing … was in public and to which the press were entitled to have access”, and “An application for committal to prison for unpaid council tax can only be made to a magistrates’ court”. So it wasn’t “secret”, or exceptional, and Hayes wasn’t tried without a jury because he wasn’t tried at all, or convicted, or accused of a crime – he’s in prison as an enforcement measure, and is apparently going to stay there until he pays his council tax.

I won’t get into what I consider to be the insanity of arguing that Parliament has no authority to pass the legislation allowing people to be imprisoned without trial by jury, other than to note that the power of a magistrate to imprison disruptive individuals at their own discretion has existed for at least 800 years. Whether you believe that council tax is legal or not (and personally if we’re going to live under a state I don’t really mind paying some to have someone come collect my bin and sweep my streets), the fact is that Roger Hayes is in prison for deliberately withholding it and ignoring all and every attempt to get him to pay it. This is not the scandal my Facebook feed would apparently like it to be.

Subscribe to SarahMcCulloch.com via Email! (or via RSS!)

Related Posts:

erwin toseland July 15, 2012 at 11:49 am

I have just received an e-mail telling me that the government are hiding part of the EHRC from the British people. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, PROTOCOL 4, ARTICLE 1 simply states “NO PERSON CAN BE JAILED FOR DEBT ALONE”.

sarah July 15, 2012 at 12:07 pm

Hmm, the actual clause says,

“No one shall be deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.”


It’s a bit of a stretch to call a tax a contractual obligation (which usually refers to loans, mortgages, business deals etc.), and no-one has questioned that Roger Hayes has the money to pay his council tax, he’s just not doing so.

Doog April 30, 2014 at 10:49 pm

i think you will find that your council tax goes on other things, it certainly does not go to emptying bins and paying for schools.
The point of withholding the tax is simple: it is unlawful. Just check out the difference
Between lawful and legal. We are all being ripped off.
Look at the local gov. Finance act of 1888sec79/2 all YOUR liabilities can be passed to the council.

Yvonne Stewat-Taylor July 16, 2012 at 6:46 pm

The question I would like answered is this. If the Council have already forced Rodger hayes into bankruptcy, how are they able to say he has the means to pay, when he has no employment and no income? It looks like they have taken two bites of the same cherry and this is unlawful and illegal. They are trying to have their cake and eat it, typical of the fraudulent double accounting we have all seen these councils doing in the last decade or more. The real criminals are council officers who are committing fraud to line their own corrupt pockets.

Jenny July 16, 2012 at 9:33 pm

I find it really hard to believe that Sarah does not know that paying council tax is ILLEGAL under International Law, due to it ‘aiding and abetting’ any one or anything starting illegal wars of agression. Without any shadow of a doubt all the wars that have been carried on in recent years are agressive, illegal wars.

Sarah, it would be a good idea if you could do a bit more research before you print articles like the one above.

I don’t have time now but there are several holes in your argument above. Please do the research because you are misleading people which I am sure is not your intention.

Joy July 17, 2012 at 2:27 am

There seems to be a contextual clash here. I am not spokesperson for any of the mentioned parties, I do not know any of them. I am as yet no expert in the confusing terminology used in courts and legal documents. I have been following this case.

I would like to see included here the following, 3 apparently relevant points, there are likely more;

1 – ‘witholding’ is not the same as ‘refusal to pay’ and suggests there are grounds for witholding.

2 – there had been at least 2 previous court hearings during both of which Roger Hayes had requested sight of specifically what statute declares that payment of council tax is compulsory.

3 – Provision is made by Law that there are conditions by which ‘Lawful Rebellion’ becomes necessary for ‘those who know the Law and are of mind to keep it’ when faced with evidence of corruption.

This case is an example of a much bigger issue than council tax that is happening in the UK, which is why observers are concerned regarding the lawfulness of the practices of the contemporary legal system and of those paid to protect it from corruption.

Marcus July 17, 2012 at 4:02 pm

THE TRUTH context about this case (and Council tax Generally). There is so much missing from both posts and thus effectively errors by ommissions that it is difficult to know where to start.Having researched and studies wider issues of law and challenges council tax in two councils over 4 years my experience which of course is open to challenge and discussion is as follows, and the information is there for those who wish to research it, though many will find the statements below so far out of their paradigm they may well not do so (as it did for me to start with).
1. Council Tax and all taxes only apply to CITIZENS or PERSONS who consent to the artificial constructs of government. As a sentient human being there is no requirement to pay.
2. It is in fact an impossibility ‘pay’ in with the fake fiat money which is a debt promissory note and can not be used to satisfy a debt
3. Council Tax within the monopoly matrix is in itself unlawful (for a number of reasons to do with not only Magna Carta but overseas use of funds, use of funds for council staff pensions, the fact that the tax is ‘prepaid’ etc) and actually everyone has a duty to withhold for these reasons
4. The supposed BILL issued by most councils is not valid in terms of complying with the lawful requirements of a bill
5. The Billing Authority is not the same party as the one [providing (supposed) services thus also invalid.
6. The supposed invalid bill is being and out to a corporate fiction NAME
7. There is evidence of a contract between the Billing authority and the recipient NAME
8. The council is not part of ‘Local Government’ in the sense people believe but is a Unincorporated Company
9. The SUMMONS (which if valid are only an invitation to partake of services by and the unincorporated company namely the Magistrates Court) is a fraud and forgery printed by the council not the court thus also VOID.
10. The Liability ORDER is fraud and forgery not being signed and sealed by the court but issued by the council (and void anyway due to the void summons)
11. The Warrant for Committal will ALSO be void as a result
12. Regarding your letter from he court (a company) do you have sight of the AFFIDAVIT from Roger Hayes and the Statutory Declaration about non receipt of notice of a supposed ‘hearing’ that I and mainly others have been assisting Roger with? I presume not – so do you have both the sides of the facts?
13. ALL Magistrates Courts are Unlawful as confirmed by Halsbury’s rules
14. For the record the council have NOT placed Roger (or rather his NAME) into bankruptcy as the application FAILED.

The above list is just one part of the bigger picture and each in themselves is sufficient to make the action of the council, court and police unlawful and constituting kidnap and unlawful imprisonment.

For those who wish to research of there own accord they might consider avoiding the distractions and see the information missing , ie not be distracted by for example by ‘but someone needs to pay for local services’ or splitting hairs in the website posts by the UKcolumn or assuming that a letter from a court (unauthorised company) is correct when both Roger himself (and the local MP) have been informed he was deliberately NOT informed supposedly due to large numbers of attendees and other possible objections (meaning the order is void and the system has broken a raft of its own rules). Most important is to get away from the FEAR of the unlawful use of FORCE by anyone against you the sentient being. If you step and back and research you will be doing yourself and your children a big favour by helping raise the frequency and awareness of the planet and your and their own divine natural spiritual freedom and happiness.

PS some state for 10 links on the site – don;t believe anything – do your own research ;-)

Nigel July 17, 2012 at 5:16 pm

@ Sarah:

I must take issue with you on two points of merit. Firstly, you are perhaps unaware of the recordings in circulation of a Head of Legal services conceding that Council ‘Tax’ is not a Tax, rather is a contract. Like all contracts, it is enforceable only after one party has defaulted on an agreement to which both have given joinder. I do not know whether or not Roger hayes gave joinder. If he did not, then an injustice has taken place.

Secondly, you state “he’s in prison as an enforcement measure, and is apparently going to stay there until he pays his council tax”. The document that you cite states no such thing.

I could go on, but the advice to ‘get it right’ states my point concisely.



Jenny July 17, 2012 at 5:18 pm

Marcus, many thanks for that :)

Marcus July 18, 2012 at 12:16 am

@ Jenny – and anyone else – you are welcome. Happy to share :-). PS typo correction in my post: Starter for 10 links (no cost) on my facebook page called TruthWealthFrededom Foundation

tom September 15, 2013 at 9:16 pm

I must say that I find the above article strange: It is clear that the writer is biased for a reason that they may or may not be aware they are not disclosing.
The article presupposes that people should have no freedom of expression and labels Roger Hayes as a “disruptive” individual. Why “disruptive” – is it because he was making a peaceful “protest” against illegal wars etc by withholding council tax? So all “peaceful protestors” are “disruptive” and should be be sent to Jail……Hmm! Now, would that be like “Stalinist machinations to silence a warrior for the truth” which the writer states is not the case.
The article “he’s in prison as an enforcement measure, and is apparently going to stay there until he pays his council tax” – How does one enforce payment for something by putting them in Jail? – Most people use bailiffs with court warrants.
The writer states “I don’t really mind paying some to have someone come collect my bin and sweep my streets)” in the context as if everyone should feel the same way.
In summary, the writer has an early implication that what happened to Roger Hayes was not like “Stalinist machinations….” but appears to speak as one who advocates these machinations and that everyone should feel the same way, without protest, otherwise jail. Maybe the writer should state more obviously whether they feel that is how people “should” be treated rather than give the same impression evasively.
I feel the writer is slightly confused and has actually stated their own political affiliation and/or beliefs being either unaware of the same – or is hiding them. At least Roger Hayes seems transparent in his own convictions and beliefs without contradiction, unlike the above article.

The above would explain why the writer has placed “all weight” on a letter from HMCTS to propound their position when the letter quite clearly states “public and the press were ENTITLED to have access”. The writer has ignored the actual facts that NEITHER the press or members of the public (including Roger Hayes family) were PRESENT AT ALL in the courtroom. The writer much surely know the facts otherwise why would they be writing an article about the matter?

If anything the article raises the issue as to why HMCTS have stated an entitlement for attendance by public and in the letter without explaining why it was not actually possible for press or public to attend the hearing (due to, for example, a speedily expedited trial to frustrate attendance by either of those parties, which, of course would be Stalinistic as highlighted in the article).

sarah September 15, 2013 at 9:53 pm

“If anything the article raises the issue as to why HMCTS have stated an entitlement for attendance by public and in the letter without explaining why it was not actually possible for press or public to attend the hearing (due to, for example, a speedily expedited trial to frustrate attendance by either of those parties, which, of course would be Stalinistic as highlighted in the article).”

The fact that there weren’t press there doesn’t mean they weren’t entitled to attend. It’s that one man refusing to pay his council tax isn’t anything even approaching newsworthy.

The point of this article is that nothing unusual or extraordinary happened here. The law states that you should pay your council tax, Roger Hayes didn’t, was referred by Wirral Council to the courts, who considered the case and issued a custodial sentence, which Roger Hayes was then made to serve. There was nothing secret, underhand, or illegal about it. Maybe you have reservations about the implications of a legal system that imprisons people at all, but that is a separate issue from “ZOMG, secret prisons and government conspiracies”.

My politics are Marxist, but are neither here nor there for the sake of this case. The fact is that you are all crazy and genuinely seem to believe the British legal system is built on a lie, as determined by you. The reality is that the state is not optional, and you cannot use magic words to opt out, as Roger Hayes found out. It’s an inadequate system, but the best thing to do is rip it down, not whine about how your dada interpretation of Magna Carta isn’t being implemented and then be surprised when you go to jail because the people with the power ignore you.

Kevin September 18, 2013 at 1:20 pm

Sarah, your politics are not relevant to me but simply I think you believe in magic whilst those of us on the other side of the debate believe in logic. You seem to believe that if it’s done by government, it is immediately and magically ok whatever has actually happened, more or less, whereas, I believe that if any of us did the same thing it would be undeniably criminal. You seem to think that by placing a cross in a box at election time once every few years allows you to give away my rights and freedoms as if they were your own and that although you believe in ‘by the consent of the governed’ you seem to think that if you’ve consented so have I. You want to be governed I want to be free. I have no objection to your wish to be told what to do by government, if that’s what you want for yourself that’s up to you. I want to be left alone. The problem is that people like you can’t do that, because you want to be told what to do, you think everyone else should too, and woe be tide anyone who does not conform to your idea of ‘freedom’. We are not crazy, although it is an easy attack to make for those that do not understand simple concepts, usually because those people have invested no time in trying to understand those concepts. These people are dismissive of things they do not grasp and yet instead of trying to get understanding and then dismiss on facts simply dismissing on no understanding is not valid nor worthy of an intelligent human like you. The fact that injustice is not unusual does not justify it, but simply makes your idle dismissal more repellent. If the injustice was one of your own family would you be so off hand? The problem is that you do not understand and seem unlikely to make any effort to. The government relies upon such apathy for its continuation of its state sponsored theft and injustice, still, I expect you’ve consented to that too.

sarah September 19, 2013 at 8:43 am

It is a true achievement to rant at someone about what you think their politics are and be totally inaccurate in every single sentence.

The point is not what is fair and what is not, it’s that the system we live under is the system we live under – if you don’t like it, agitate for change or revolution. Don’t engage in some weasly self-denial where our legal system actually means what you want it to.

Roger Hayes went to prison because he, and all of the previous commenters lecturing me on debt, don’t want to pay tax but don’t have the mental capacity to advocate a wholesale change in our constitutional settlement. Instead they’re engaging in highly pedantic nonsense about how all this legislation they don’t want to follow is invalid because of Magna Carta, as if the law descended from on high a thousand years ago and can never, ever be changed.

Roger Hayes went to prison because he refused to pay his council tax and judges are able to jail people for that. The point of this article is to counter people getting hysterical about how it was illegal, or how Roger Hayes doesn’t have to pay tax, or how there was some sort of conspiracy around it because Roger Hayes is so awesome and threatening to the authorities (lol). The reality is that what happened to Roger Hayes, imprisonment for not paying council tax, happens to people up and down the country every month, because that’s how the law works right now.

If you object to the law, agitate to change it. Don’t tell me that that’s not what the law is and then stick your fingers in your ears and say that I just don’t like freedom.

Aleks February 26, 2014 at 1:47 pm

Actually what this is about is the lack of following common law, which cannot be appealed or changed by parliament – it is the basis of our society and the point Roger Hayes is trying to make through his actions is that the actions of the courts are unlawful. I suggest you try to properly understand the issue before writing articles.

miranda September 18, 2013 at 4:51 pm

To Tom and Kevin,

Thank you both for your comments, which voice exactly my own thoughts …very much so! The leadership of the world is in very corrupt, deceptive and unpleasant hands. I agree with all you both said. Roger Hayes case, the secrecy and unlawfulness of how it was carried out is common to so many cases, but coverups of these cases and countless others is the rule of the day.

I know little about Marxism but I do know a quote that is attributed to Marx: “One thing I know is that I am not a Marxist” …in other words, his philosophies were taken and twisted to suit the purposes of others.

Sarah, I don’t think any of us mind paying a FAIR share of all public services, but when we actually have no say in end decisions, and we realise that we are in fact paying something like 85% tax overall, then yes, it’s time the people woke up and got rid of our present system – being very careful while we do so that we do not replace it with another that is equally as awful. Btw, that 85% figure is not a mistake …it is the total amount of all the hidden taxes that exist in every single item we buy + the obvious taxes that we pay.

Once again, thank you very much, Tom and Kevin :)

Kevin September 19, 2013 at 1:26 pm

Thanks Miranda, luckily we have a freedom loving Marxist is awaken us from our slumber.

Sarah McCulloch September 19, 2013 at 4:00 pm

The pursuit of the truth gets me out of bed. You can deride my political views all you want and make personal attacks, but in the morning, I shall still be right and you will still be wrong. And you will still be jailed if you persistently refuse to pay your council tax.

Kevin September 19, 2013 at 5:00 pm

Sarah, we both want truth, my post is not an attack upon you, nor is it a rant. It was calmly written without ill will or vexation toward you. Your views are respected by me although I obviously do not share them. If you are right then that’s great. It is simply that to me, being a Marxist or right wing or left wing or whatever is not freedom. It may be to you. That’s great and that you think it could ever be such is, well, strange to me. That’s not a derision of your views, it is simply that I don’t understand how that could be, in they same way that I believe you do not understand my views, I don’t understand yours. Although I do try to understand them. Perhaps it is because, now how did you phrase it, ah yes I don’t have the mental capacity; perhaps it is because of that. Nothing in my post was a personal attack on you, my interpretations of your views maybe but not on you. If I have misinterpreted your views or my understanding of Marxism isn’t what it should be then of course I offer an unreserved apology for such ignorance. To me taking away a person’s freedom is a significant thing. Pay or go to gaol is not something of which I approve. It appears to me you do. Perhaps I have again misunderstood you? If courts are not there for fairness then what are they there for? To ensure the smooth movement of money from the people to government? I see that as theft, it appears you see it as legitimate; that’s fine I understand that part of your views, do you understand that part of my views?

sarah September 19, 2013 at 6:27 pm

“If courts are not there for fairness then what are they there for? To ensure the smooth movement of money from the people to government? ”

That’s exactly what they’re there for – to uphold the laws of the state. “Fairness” doesn’t come into it. Many’s the judge who has said in their judgements that they don’t think that the law a particular defendant has broken should exist – and then convicted them anyway.

And you can say that those laws suck, and that they should be changed, and that council tax shouldn’t be legally binding, but that doesn’t change the fact that that’s what the law is, right now.

The problem I have with Roger Hayes and his buddies is not that they want to get out of paying council tax, it’s that they’re trying to get out of paying council tax by claiming they aren’t subject to British law and/or that it’s illegal to arrest someone for non-payment of council tax. Both suggestions are attempting to use the system against itself in a way that assumes that everyone is on a level playing field and that the state doesn’t use violence to maintain its hegemony. It’s crazy, and the point of this article is that you simply cannot be surprised that if you try to ignore the state, it won’t ignore you.

miranda September 19, 2013 at 11:59 pm

Sarah, you astound me. So you think we should go on obeying the laws even though we know they are wrong and corrupt and grossly unfair?? We should go on obeying them just because we are told to by some person over there who has no more right to tell us what to do than we have to tell them what to do?? It seems you were born under the yoke and will die under the yoke.

Roger Hayes may not have done his bit in a successful way but he made a good effort and personally I thank him for it. He’s opened the crack just a little bit more, so the next people who also make unsuccessful runs at it will open the crack even more …until in the end the crack will be broken wide open and justice, fairness and goodness will be the rule.

Those people like Roger, who open the way for the rest of us, need to be encouraged not derided by gutless people sitting on the guidelines.

sarah September 23, 2013 at 8:08 am

Roger Hayes is not challenging laws he thinks as “wrong and corrupt and grossly unfair” – he refuses to recognise the law, full stop. This is my point: such a position is crazy and doomed to fail.

Incidentally, Roger Hayes did not disobey a “wrong and corrupt and grossly unfair” law like the mass storage of our communications data, or the efforts of the government to create secret trials in the Family Courts, or even the Bedroom tax, a truly onerous tax inflicted on people who cannot pay. No, Roger Hayes tried to get out of paying the tax that pays for fire brigades, dustbin collectors, and gritters on icy roads. I don’t think that’s noble, just really selfish.

Kevin September 24, 2013 at 1:01 pm

Misrepresenting the facts is a prerequisite to building a case against Mr Hayes. So Mr Hayes working for his money and wanting to then keep the money he has earned is selfish, but others insisting upon its removal from him is a noble thing? Oh and if you don’t just give it to us without a fight, we’ll put you in prison. How very noble indeed. Oh, and by the way a significant proportion of council tax pays for the pensions of local government officers. It’s getting more noble by the minute isn’t it? It is also interesting that you take the word of Sonya Kirk as read and yet the testimony of Mr Hayes, who was actually there, is dismissed out of hand on the say so of someone who wasn’t there. I don’t know which version is true because I wasn’t there but I prefer personal first hand knowledge to the alternative.

sarah September 24, 2013 at 5:49 pm

I’m not misrepresenting Roger Hayes. You can watch him say all of the things I said he believes on the front page of his group’s website: http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk

He doesn’t believe the government is legitimate, he believes British courts are acting unlawfully, and he thinks Magna Carta is still in force. He can say that all he wants and he would still be in complete misunderstanding about how our state works.

But ultimately, we reach the rub. Mental gymnastics regarding our constitution aside, you just don’t want to contribute to the community you live in. I have no problem with my tax being used to pay workers’ pensions – the pension system was introduced in 1906 to support people who had worked their entire lives and were unable to to work anymore because they were too frail. A fair society takes cares of its members who have done their bit.

You spoke of fairness earlier. Is it fair that you drive on roads maintained with council tax, you eat in clean and hygenic restaurants inspected by EHOs paid for with council tax, you live in structurally sound housing built under regulations enforced by council tax funds, yet you pay none yourself because of your “freedom”? No. You can dispute what your council tax is used for, and how high it is, but the concept of paying into the system and receiving services back is neither unfair nor unreasonable.

Kevin September 24, 2013 at 8:14 pm

Then we simply disagree, I maintain it is both unfair and unreasonable in view of all the other taxes paid. I wasn’t suggesting you were misrepresenting Roger. All courts in all countries have always acted unlawfully to support their political masters; whether that be in Nazi Germany, Russia in the past or now or any other courts in any other country at any other time. You’ll get no justice there. With government you pay for everything at least twice. There was me thinking that’s why we pay road tax on our vehicles, or colossal duty on petrol and diesel, for the roads. And that’s the problem it’s never enough and it never will be enough because how ever much is raised in tax, every penny is spent and then some more. We need to make them understand they cannot continue with an open cheque book, because there is no natural constraint to the size, scope or ‘duty’ of government. So they continue to grow and to interfere in every aspect of our lives to an incredible degree. You want build a house? Ask for our ‘permission’. You want to live in a house? Pay us, you want to buy a car? Pay us. You want to drive a car? Pay us. You want to buy some shares? Pay us. You’ve made a gain on those shares? Pay us. You want to earn a living? Pay us. You want to buy a house? Pay us. The answer is no, you can’t have anymore money period, that is our responsibility, to make them responsible; they’re not now. I do not want the council to enforce anything for me. I neither want their ‘services’ nor approve of the way they go about their ‘business’. Mr Hayes understands very well how the state works. All people who work for a living have done their bit too. It matters not to me whether they worked for government or actually produced something useful. Why are these government workers so special that they deserve special pension benefits whilst those working in the private company or for themselves are afforded no such benefits. The best pension scheme in the country is for politicians. We pay for that too. It isn’t a question of no tax it is a question of where do we draw the line, because one thing is for sure government never will and never has, that’s why we owe billions.

miranda September 25, 2013 at 11:04 am

Sarah, sorry but have to say this …your continuous sanctimonious, holier-than-them attitude about people’s unwillingness to pay council tax is really misplaced. There is no one that I know who is unwilling to pay their FAIR SHARE of the country’s costs. They are unwilling though to be totally fleeced of their prosperity by the parasites in the 1001 ways that it’s being done. Council tax is just one direct way to get started on bringing this ghastly state of affairs to an end. Please allow yourself to understand this …it’s very easy to understand for anyone with a good and honest heart.

sarah September 25, 2013 at 11:25 am

What do you define as a fair share?

Do you accept the constitutionality of this government and it’s legal right to set taxes?

Kevin September 25, 2013 at 12:12 pm

The government has a legal right to set taxes, but it does not have a lawful right to set taxes.
The problem is too much government not that their isn’t enough money. Everybody pays through so many ways too numerous to list here. I’ve touched on just a few above.

miranda September 25, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Sarah, why do you need to ask for a definition of what a ‘fair share’ is? Because a fair share means that whatever lawful, good and just costs exist for the optimum running of a country are shared by the inhabitants of that country in a fair and intelligent way. That is not what we have, is it?

DoI accept the constitutionality of this government and it’s legal right to set taxes? I need to comply with it at present if I don’t want to go to prison …but do I accept it? NO, of course I don’t. Our whole system of government and monetary system is run by thieves and crooks, starting with the globalists including of course the gangster banksters, then on down to our bought puppet politicians, and so on down.

In no way have we had for thousands of years, or do we have now a government that is by the people, for the people. Until we find the way to unseat these rogues we have to go along with this vile system.

Kevin, exactly!

miranda September 25, 2013 at 3:11 pm

Sarah, please read this truly excellent article and leave your comments, especially your views on the video that’s included on that page. Please don’t comment unless you read the article (not just skim through it):


Gavin September 25, 2013 at 8:23 pm

Dear Sarah,

You make the comment in you article that “if we’re going to live under a state” that you then “don’t mind paying to have your rubbish collected” etc etc.

But you make that statement, and you include the word “if” in there … *as if*, we the people who are purportedly being “represented”, even have a choice in the matter. We don’t.

We’re not talking about paint or wallpaper preference here, we’re talking about the absolute power through violence, to force coercion and compliance to the will of another.

I am no fan of Roger Heyes. In fact his hypocritical stance on what he pretends is an alternative to banking, for one thing, plumbs depths of hypocrisy and inaccuracy that are hard to imagine.

But, his opposition to arbitrary State tyranny is sound, and you merely pointing out that The State doesn’t even need to try him in a court, actually simultaneously undermines your case, and underlines the very unthinking arbitrariness of power that so many object to.

If freedom and voting mean anything at all, then what about the freedom to “not join in”? What about the freedom to be just left alone and to opt out? What about the freedom to arrange for your own rubbish collection? And what about the freedom to question the entire paradigm of “the absolute power of The State” even?

None of these things are “allowed” by our Kings. And yes, when push comes to shove, we still have absolute subjugation to the iron will of “authority”, as if the lyingly named “representatives”, ever can and should have MORE power over another individual, than “the represented” have!

It seems that we as sovereign human beings are only offered a mere publicity veneer of freedom, yet upon even the cursory examination of it, the substance is just not there, and what is there, bears absolutely no resemblance to the fake promises and empty rhetoric spewed out by lying politicians and their paid lackeys and talking head academics.

They make grandiose statements about democratic mandates, and they grandstand about democracy, as if the faux principle of “the consent of the governed” was anything more than just the most moronic of all oxymorons.

There can never be any such thing as “the consent of the governed”.

If it is “consent”, then by definition, it has to be “voluntary” … but if it’s “governed”, then it is simply not voluntary.

So the two words cannot just be rammed together so as to simultaneously both pacify and mollify the populace, and yet still ensure that the iron will of whatever Statist gang in office at the time is carried out.

The monopoly of the initiation of violence then, is the violently-seized, artfully-disguised and flat out stolen, prerogative of the ruling class, but, it has no more moral right to exist and be adhered to, than did the “Divine Right to Rule” of the kings of yesteryear!

No one in their right mind accepts that archaic anachronism of the “Divine Right to Rule” any more, and yet, the freedom-denying false choice that we are offered at election times, of choosing between two virtually indistinguishable, euphemistically named “parties”, bares no resemblance to anything that can be described as freedom. And yet, billions of people trot along to polling booths, to validate the system, chests puffed out in pride, as if fascism had been defeated, when in reality, the end goal of fascism, the rule by State and Corporations, was thoroughly achieved.

So these self-proclaimed “leaders”, of the so-called “free world”, who have war-mongered, murdered and slaughtered millions, on their way to their “bastard child” mental construct called “Democracy”, heralding it as if it were a an advancement in personal freedom, are an absolute blight on humanity.

Democracy does not equal freedom. Even Democratic States, are no different to religions; they have always been, just as religions were for thousands of years, unchallengable institutions, that howl in protest at the very notion that they are anything but natural, unavoidable, and just.

So it is the very shoulder-shrugging defeatist acceptance of tyranny that you seem to be indifferently accepting in your article, that empowers the inherent injustices of “The State” as a system of administering our affairs ; the system that to this day, is still immorally harvesting the fruits of humanity’s labor, all for the corporate gain of their own kind.

It matters not whether The State is Facist, Communist, Democratic or any other “shade” in between, the fact remains that all forms of Collectivist Statism, point guns at the heads of the people, especially those who understand and cherish the true nature of personal freedom.

Only then, when sufficient numbers of people wake up to the grotesque inequalities that are designed and built into the power structures of “The State”, even *can* those same inequalities even begin to be addressed.

Until then, the “free range” form of slavery, and the harvesting of human endeavour and creativity, will continue unabated, all while an self-styled elite strata of humanity, continues to rape and pillage the planet’s resources for ring-fenced and exclusive personal gain.

It can only be hoped, that humanity grows up out the delusion that Statism is inevitable and necessary, before the planet wreaks it’s unimaginable revenge on the parasites that are bleeding it, and the rest of us dry.

In my humble opinion of course.

Tom October 11, 2013 at 8:23 am

[I had some computer troubles and was unable to post my previous comments, which I (incorrectly) assumed was because the author had taken a dislike to critical comments despite the dozens of previous ones which remain for all to see. I am therefore very angry about this and am going to choose to repeatedly call this article idiotic and post this to the personal website that I have previously acknowledged the author has total control over what is published and what is not. I suggest that people don’t post anymore to this blog, after I have commented, because my word is the be-all and end-all of all comments.

My comment is also idiotic.]

sarah October 11, 2013 at 9:07 am

I haven’t deleted any comments on this article, despite my opinions of the people who wrote them. If you struggled to post, that’s your computer having a problem.

I haven’t hidden any political viewpoints either, but as you seem to think that you can post abuse to my blog, I think I will do some judicious editing to your previous comment, and I hope that will be a lesson to others in future.

miranda October 11, 2013 at 11:07 am

Sarah, you seem to forget something in your rush to control …as is government only there because the people support it, so is your blog only ‘visible’ due to your visitors and especially your commenters. Carry on as you are and your blog will become just another ‘billboard on a desert road’.

I will also be unsubscribing as I have understood well where you are coming from and it holds no good future for the human race imo.

sarah October 11, 2013 at 11:18 am

My visitors are welcome. People who post abuse to my blog blaming me for their technical problems, not so much.

And if you are taking offence to the idea that on private land, as my blog effectively is in cyberspace, I cannot do what I wish, I think you’ve missed the point of your own argument.

miranda October 11, 2013 at 12:36 pm

No offence taken, Sarah – wrong word, although applicable for how you felt when you read his thoughts.

[Holocaust comparison]

I will bid you ‘goodbye’ as there’s nothing of value or further interest here by me.

sarah October 11, 2013 at 12:38 pm

Comparing a Jew editing someone’s comment on her own blog to the Holocaust? Goodbye. Don’t come back.

sarah October 11, 2013 at 2:35 pm

Miranda has now been banned from this blog for making Holocaust comparisons and a second comment she made making numerous anti-semitic statements has been deleted and reported.

miranda October 11, 2013 at 11:14 am

What a very unethical woman you are, Sarah! I’ve just read the email version of Tom’s comment and see that you did actually rewrite it. Sad, sad woman.

sarah October 11, 2013 at 11:19 am

Of course I rewrote it, that’s why it’s in brackets…

Tom October 12, 2013 at 9:20 am

Sarah, I did not call you an idiot. You have stated that I called you an idiot. I referred to the article as idiotic. There is a world of difference. The person is not an articlle that is written.
I must now ask you to remove the lie that you have perpetrated against me and the lie that I have called myself an idiot.You have defamed my person and I would ask that you correct your wrongdoing with immediate effect. Saying someone has said something they did not say is fraud.
When articles are published in public they are no longer “private land” – that is why websites get taken down when, for example, they are fraudulent.
My final thought on this matter is that you, having professed to be a marxist yet maintain you can do what you like with your private land that you have opened for public comment – very un-marxist – very confused??.

sarah October 12, 2013 at 9:54 am

Yes, ok, I have edited the comment to reflect your point, which I think is reasonable.

Website pages are not public land, however. The reason you can have pages taken down for libel is because they have a publisher. The extent to which our lives are being conducted on privately-owned sites like Google and Facebook, beholden to none but their owners, is genuinely something that we should all be concerned about.

In Marxism, there is a distinction between private and personal property. Private property refers to the means of production, such as land, factories etc. Personal property, with which you can do as you like, are consumables you own or goods you produce, in this case, my blog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property

Whereas for the vast majority of the people on this thread, everything you own is absolutely yours to do with as you please, regardless of the feelings of other people, and I find it odd that people are seriously trying to argue that “my blog, my rules” doesn’t actually apply to them when no doubt if I were to send an abusive letter to a magazine they edited, it would probably not see the light of day.

Gavin October 12, 2013 at 4:36 pm

Hello again Sarah

I see that you have allowed the thread to become deflected from what was originally it’s main thrust.

I have no axe to grind with regard to Semites or Anti-Semites … except to say that it is a tired “old chestnut” of a non-argument, that only succeeds in the user “hiding” behind the flight to authority and the purported power of the majority view.

I only take issue with the users of any “defense”, where the defense itself has been rendered “unchallengeable”, hence artificially “unassailable” by imposed political correctness.

It seems that all history … except for the details of what happened during the Holocaust … are open to the natural justice rigors of natural revision. If I am mistaken in that, then I would genuinely appreciate being told what other period of history carries the threat of imprisonment for those who question and investigate it.

Given that “history is always written by the winners”, historical revisionism is all that stands between justice and the perpetuation of tyranny.

All I am saying Sarah, is that for your own benefit, it is maybe best to not resort to the “might makes right” rule in order to challenge differing viewpoints.

sarah October 12, 2013 at 6:26 pm

If I wanted to rule this thread with an iron fist, I could have shut off comments altogether. I could have ordered people to change topic, I could have banned everyone who has made critical comments of my post. That the conversation has veered off on other subjects besides Roger Hayes is a direct result of my general lack of moderation.

Making cheap Holocaust comparisons, however, and then following this up with anti-Semitic abuse after I identified myself as a Jew, is beyond what I am willing to tolerate. The statements made were nothing to do with Holocaust denial.

However, if you do not take issue with anti-Semites, then I have a major problem with that. I actually don’t think that Holocaust denial should be a crime for the same reasons you gave, but the reality of the situation is that people who generally engage in Holocaust denial, despite the truly overwhelming evidence, including witness testimony and Nazi records, usually do so for anti-Semitic reasons and that is and should be prosecutable. Discrimination against people on the basis of their race, gender, sexual orientation or ability, to give the four big ones, is not acceptable and I won’t allow people to post such sentiments on my blog.

Gavin October 13, 2013 at 3:11 am

One day Sarah … you and so many others like you, will wake up and realize that the very freedom of speech that you now seem to want to deny others, is the very freedom of speech that was denied others in the past to so many who found themselves voiceless because of dictators. All dictatorships start by setting rules as to what is and is not “acceptable speech”.

So we descend into a “race to the bottom”, in a purposely unwinable and divisive mass of freedom robbing rules and regulations, that will in time crush human creativity and free expression.

The arbitrary, often politically imposed, “red lines” as to what is and will, and what will and will NOT “be tolerated”, is the draconian stuff of purposely perpetuated division, that threatens the very survival of the species. And all over the head of what? Words? Feelings? Are you kidding me? They are worth crushing free speech and life over? Really?

And who grabs the power to decide who draws those lines? Who “gives” them the right to decide for all humanity? Exactly! Only dictators!

So what to do? Oh I know … let’s just carry on with the broken model of crushing dissent out of existence! That’s a great idea! Not!

“If we don’t believe in freedom of speech for everyone, then we don’t believe in freedom of speech for anyone” ~ Noam Chomsky

And why do we do it? Because our “feelings” are hurt? And we “take” offense? How about we turn the tables and teach our children to ACTUALLY be tolerant, rather than “just talk about it”, but when push comes to shove, WE decide that WE are miraculously “different” and that WE are SO wise, that we have have actually earned the right to draw those lines!

So instead of teaching our children to be tolerant, what your attitude does, is that it STILL actually teaches them intolerance of the opinions of others. Only this time, you teach them that WE are the “good guys” this time, and that this time, we get to crush dissent instead of the other side! Great! Let’s just transfer the power of the tyrant to our side shall we?! Please!

We teach our children that certain “words” deserve to be punished with more than just other words. That they deserve to be punished with imprisonment, or worse.

Can’t you see that?

So instead of advocating a world of tolerance, in actual practice, this attitude simply “add fuel to the fire” and plays into the hands of a new form of tyranny.

Only this time, some “fire starers” and “petrol throwers” are protected by popularity of opinion, and fear is the weapon of choice.

When we evolve sufficiently then, to rise above using words as “swords” OR “shields”, will have something to be proud of. Anything else just smacks of revenge and “it’s our turn to wield the sword” pay back.

Hiding behind saying “I’m offended” and “You have no right”, is really just the most base of “reactionary” knee-jerk rhetoric. Not very enlightened to be honest.

In my opinion of course. But isn’t that the real issue at stake of course. The right to free expression, without fear of “do as I say … or else” consequences.

Where does it all end Sarah? Are you personally prepared to shoot someone in the head for their opinions? If not … what ARE you prepared to inflict on them for the mere utterance of words with their vocal chords?

Just a beating? Just imprisonment?

Can you see the minefield you’re stepping in.

The Non-Agression Principle is either sacrosanct, or it’s not. Either we we live by violence or we don’t. Either we are prepared to grant a small group of people the “monopoly on the initiation of violence”, or we are going to grow up, and realise that in doing that, we only condemn our children to being on the receiving end of tyranny one day.

As you will only be too well aware …

“First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me”.

All of that was ONLY possible, because people were fearful of being able to speak out. And merely transferring that power “over to the other side” does nothing to eliminate the crushing of free expression that led to abuse.

sarah October 13, 2013 at 12:46 pm

That you have successfully posted your lengthy rant essentially calling me a dictator is an indication of the extent to which I grant a platform for people to speak their minds even when I disagree with what they have to say.

Freedom of speech is the right to not have your speech restricted by the government – individuals and private entities may act as they please. Freedom of speech as a concept does not mean that people have the right to insult me or make anti-Semitic statements on my website.

Pastor Niemoller, the originator of your closing quote, and all those who actually died in the camps, were imprisoned because people did not stand up against the NSDAP when they were merely using words. All the victims of racist pogroms, attacks and discrimination became victims because someone did not originally tell the perpetrator when they first started expressing racism where to get off. I’m pretty certain that Pastor Niemoller wouldn’t have allowed someone to erect a sign on his lawn saying “Jews out”, and I’m pretty sure that when he talked about “speaking out” in the poem you quoted, it wasn’t directed at the right of those who had imprisoned him to continue demonising everyone they didn’t like. Your analogy is exactly the wrong way round.

Gavin October 14, 2013 at 6:32 pm

Dear Sarah

I have re-posted your complete reply below … along with my direct comments on each paragraph, in between.


That you have successfully posted your lengthy rant essentially calling me a dictator is an indication of the extent to which I grant a platform for people to speak their minds even when I disagree with what they have to say.


First of all, I didn’t call you a dictator, as I indicated in my last post, which was a clear use of inflammatory, yet inaccurate language … attested to by you use of the “wooly” phrase … “essentially called me”. Which in fact means that I didn’t call you a dictator at all. Big difference I’m sure you’ll agree. Otherwise, you would not have felt the need to have inserted the word “essentially”.

Secondly … thank you … you do indeed “grant a platform for people to speak their minds”.

But as is so often the case with blog owners, you do tend to fall into the trap of feeling that you have to “defend the indefensible”, should someone write a reply that undermines the original opinion or idea that you posited.

This is a widespread problem, and to be honest with you, you are not “stand out” guilty of it, at all really. But you do tend to “paint yourself into a corner”, assuming that the moment that you “press send”, that somehow magically, your views cannot be swayed, changed or proven inaccurate.

Surely as an Inter Faith minister, can see the logic in inviting discussion, rather than ferociously defending/attacking opinion.


Freedom of speech is the right to not have your speech restricted by the government – individuals and private entities may act as they please. Freedom of speech as a concept does not mean that people have the right to insult me or make anti-Semitic statements on my website.


OK … let’s talk about whether another person has “the right to insult you” as you call it.

It may or may not have been Voltaire who said … “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”.

The wisdom of that is self evident really, because the alternative can only lead to escalation from mere words, into full blown physical violence; all in defense of “rights”.

It teaches real tolerance, not just “tolerance … unless of course your words offend me somehow”.

The moment you impose rules as to what can be said … and you then enforce those rules with guns … you then have dictatorship. Hide it behind what now counts as democracy, and the result still stays the same.

All religious and political conflicts, wars and violence, have been founded, purportedly, on such crossing of arbitrarily imposed “red lines”.

Back in 1928, in the wake of World War One, The Kellogg Briand Pact, outlawed all war, period.

It took the Second World War, and the imposition of the “United Nations”, to scrap that advance … and now we are back to square one with “justified wars”, “pre-emptive wars”, “UN sanctioned air strikes” (war) “No-fly Zones” (war) … and all manner of other “weasel words”, designed to facilitate and justify the monopoly of the initiation of violence”.

These are all part of the consequences of swallowing the lie, that states that just because we have accepted as “just”, an imposed “veneer” of democracy, that we ought to be “good little boys and girls” and be obedient to such thinly disguised tyranny.

Pastor Niemoller, the originator of your closing quote, and all those who actually died in the camps, were imprisoned because people did not stand up against the NSDAP when they were merely using words. All the victims of racist pogroms, attacks and discrimination became victims because someone did not originally tell the perpetrator when they first started expressing racism where to get off. I’m pretty certain that Pastor Niemoller wouldn’t have allowed someone to erect a sign on his lawn saying “Jews out”, and I’m pretty sure that when he talked about “speaking out” in the poem you quoted, it wasn’t directed at the right of those who had imprisoned him to continue demonising everyone they didn’t like. Your analogy is exactly the wrong way round.


You say that “All the victims” in Germany, became victims, simply because “someone” did not tell the perpetrator “where to get off”.

I’m sure you cannot believe that that was the major cause of the ensuing violence.

The NSDAP, as you surely know, were heavily funded by Western banking, and they were also using fear and intimidation tactics from the outset.

So blaming the people, victims of massive scale geo-political manipulation, is a bit rich.

The people back then, were just as mind controlled by the controlled media, as they are now, and the awakening process from that level of indoctrination would have been just as painful as it is now. That combined with peer pressure to conform with “what the government says”, lead to hugely distorted levels “apathy” and “going along, to get along”. Classic abuse of human psychology by masters of deception. And so to simplistically “blame” the rest of the people, massively misses the “rafter in the eye” of the problem, and blames it on “the splinter”, placed in the eye of the people by the poisoners of the mind.

You have already hinted earlier in your posts that you realise just how corrupted global government and corporations are, yet still you defend the right of THE STATE to be obeyed, just because they are “in power”; a power only stolen by it, because of the false choice between two slave masters that we are given at election time! You KNOW that they are just two masks on the same face … surely.

Yet you still “defend them to the hilt”. It is such a blinkered view.

“Blind belief in authority, is the greatest enemy of truth”
– Albert Einstein

In what way then, is that any different to the silence of the passively subservient majority, that you yourself now say, was the reason why “all the victims” in Germany were subjected to violence?

You really are wanting to “have your cake and eat it” Sarah.

And that is the central issue that you have studiously avoided throughout this thread.

Only when you get to grips with the central issue of “the monopoly on the initiation of violence” and the Non Aggression Principle, will you be able to square the circle of your contradictions.


“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free, because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”
– Salman Rushdie

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
– Henry David Thoreau

“You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don’t ever count on having both at once.”
– Robert A. Heinlein

“Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.”
– Sigmund Freud

Gavin October 14, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Dear Sarah

Socrates said that “The beginning of wisdom, is the definition of terms.”

And unfortunately, the only alternative to that, is the exaggeration and the obfuscation of terms … a.k.a. … “appeals to emotion”.

“The truth, is that which cannot be simpler” … and we only arrive at it, not by simplistically “defending our corner” or our world view, but by humbly and courageously stripping away from our OWN views, that which is manifestly not true.

Now that takes true guts, but it is the only way that we can protect ourselves, from ourselves, and from our naturally occurring preconceptions, often implanted in us by decades of indoctrination and mind control.

The first method, starts with a “desired conclusion” … some position that must be “defended at all costs” … and it then “builds a case” in order to “prove” or “defend” it.

The latter method on the other hand, simply “assesses what we assume”, and has the guts to “strip it back to the metal” to publicly examine it, in the full glow of honest self examination.

So Sarah, I don’t want to fall out with anyone, least of all you on your own blog. I have many times defended the “property rights” of blog owners from abuse, trust me.

But you have already made it quite well known now, on which side of the issue of establishing truth you stand. And the ultimate irony for you, is that in doing so, you have recused yourself now from being an impartial judge on the issue.

So we can trade appeals to emotion about death and persecution in the past, all day, but really, what does that achieve?

Of course “bad things happened” in the many holocaust events of the past, no one argues with that, and many atrocities still happen. But as I say, merely transferring or hijacking “power” over to “our side”, solves nothing. And we then ourselves in turn then, simply also engage in “silencing dissent” over a given issue, then that actually heals and resolves nothing; it only makes us “feel” more empowered.

So instead of “defending our preferences” by crushing the free expression of others, why can’t we teach the coming generation to not be offended by mere words, and teach them that all history is open to the natural laws of revision, and not just the parts that we choose, while engaging in “exceptionalism” regarding that which we have deemed to be unassailable?

The control and manipulation of language and communication then Sarah, is intrinsically wrapped up in the absolutely critical issue of the “monopoly of the initiation of violence”, which is the core nub of all forms of tyranny. Tackle that, and we have true freedom. Fail to do so, and we instead simply prop up the psychological cause of the division in the first place, and we knowingly or otherwise, simply take part in “fanning the flames” of yet more violence and injustice.

So while I now see where your strident views come from, and while I can also empathize with that, I can’t help but also see, why they represent just “more of the same” unfortunately.

The “rot” of recrimination, retaliation and fear, has to stop somewhere, and surely your passion for Inter Faith cohesion, can allow you to see how the ancient bickering feuds, of the multiple desert dogmas of the past, stand full square in the way of genuine peace.

Surely the way ahead then, is not to help perpetuate an environment where these historic enemies can merely “safely circle each other”, and “tolerate” their inherent divisiveness, but to once and for all time, openly “de-fang” them, by “stripping away from them, all that which is not true”.

The alternative, is the equivalent to living in the middle of three circling tigers … they may be cute to look at, but you know sooner or later, that they’re going to get hungry and eat something.

Only the “science of spirituality”, unchained from both scientific AND religious dogma, can achieve that. inter-faith attempts, as noble and well intentioned as they may well be, still “play” in the same “sand pit” that has been used for thousands of years to control, fleece, abuse, and “farm”, what they no doubt see as human livestock.

The justice you no doubt would love to see on the planet Sarah, is possible, but not until enough of us evolve sufficiently, to be able to conduct a “root & branch” dismantling of all that religion has been abused for, in order to control billions.

P.S. In all honesty, I haven’t read all the posts here at all. But if you have re-written a post, rather than just deleting it, then it’s easy to see why that would cause a reaction.

P.P.S. You do regularly call people’s posts “rants”, while your own posts / replies are no doubt seen by you as just comments. Hard to square that kind of subjective opinion sharing, with claims of objectivity. Just a minor observation.

P.P.P.S I didn’t “call you a dictator” as you claim. If you look at the context, you will see that I was talking in global terms, about issues that effect all of “humanity”, not your personal blog.

Doog November 3, 2013 at 7:34 am

Why don’t you check out local gov. Finance act 1888 sec79 ss2 : it says that the duties and liabilities of the inhabitants of the county shall be the duties and liabilities of the council.

Still think Roger Hayes is at it????
You are being ripped off by a corupt government, and going by the tone of your letter

I would not be surprised if you worked for council or government.

sarah May 1, 2014 at 12:25 am

Two years after I posted this article, I am still receiving comments of immense stupidity. It is simply boring to open my email and find another whinge about how some semantic nicety means the law is fundamentally flawed in a way that the most expensive lawyers in the world haven’t managed to exploit but Roger Hayes understand and used to successfully avoid his council tax. Except that he didn’t. He went to jail. Indeed, no-one has ever used freeman arguments successfully, but a lot of them have gone to jail.

I am so bored of people dropping by to insult me and display their profound ignorance of society because they don’t want to pay tax. It is *so* boring. I am therefore now closing comments on this post. Bore someone else.

And read this RationalWiki article to learn what everyone really thinks of your movement: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/British_Constitution_Group

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: