saxondale Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 reminds me of every "lets strike over not having a uniform" day at school ............someone else has totally misunderstood the concept of "concepts" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 We've had free men on the land for a long time, I don't see why people have a problem with it myself. Gypsies have been free men on the land for a long long time, its only recently the system has started building them camp sites to attract them into the system. And not all Gypsies like the idea of it and will remain free men. Yozhik, what problems do you have with travel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yozhik Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 We've had free men on the land for a long time, I don't see why people have a problem with it myself. Gypsies have been free men on the land for a long long time, its only recently the system has started building them camp sites to attract them into the system. And not all Gypsies like the idea of it and will remain free men. Yozhik, what problems do you have with travel? The biggest hurdle is international travel ... incredibly difficult without a passport. I know its an issue being looked into currently. A passport requires an application (ugh) and submission (ugh) of documents that are trappings of the system. I don't believe a solution has been perfected, as yet, but the wheels are in motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Not having a driving license or car tax is not against the law. It is the rule of a private corporation, but we think it applies to us all and just go along with it without question yes, and its called society darren rules and laws were drawn up to settle conflicts and disputes fairly and so that we can all live together in harmony. without them, we would have much more conflict for example, if more unscrupulous people decided to follow your advice and i was hit by them in an accident.....I would be the one that would have to pay for that. this does not make me happy darren. it makes me very, VERY angry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yozhik Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 yes, and its called society darren rules and laws were drawn up to settle conflicts and disputes fairly and so that we can all live together in harmony. without them, we would have much more conflict for example, if more unscrupulous people decided to follow your advice and i was hit by them in an accident.....I would be the one that would have to pay for that. this does not make me happy darren. it makes me very, VERY angry Actually, if you read your society's rules and regulations, you will find that travelling in your conveyance without insurance, is perfectly lawful. There is provision in the statutes to provide an indemnity bond. The statute prescribes an amount an to whom it is to be lodged with. This is not commonly exercised, as the amount is perceived to be prohibitive and it is easier for people to simply contract with an insurance company ... but it does exist. Please do not jump to the conclusion that those who study the freeman ideology do so without taking full responsibility for their actions. Should you have the misfortune of being involved in an "accident" with a freeman traveller, then whilst they may be "uninsured", it is more than likely your injuries and loss will be adequately covered by their lawful indemnity bond. Just as an aside, there has also been recent discussion about your home contents insurance being adequate cover, in lieu of "motor vehicle insurance". There have been examples given where the wording and the details of this contract cover this type of event, making specific vehicle insurance unnecessary. It appears that we have become an over insured society ... but not at al surprising, when everything about the statutes revolves around money and finding new ways to take it from you. Don't take this as fact ... it isn't ... it is heresay and I'm just recanting the topic of recent discussions. Worth looking into though, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon1 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Please do not jump to the conclusion that those who study the freeman ideology do so without taking full responsibility for their actions. Should you have the misfortune of being involved in an "accident" with a freeman traveller, then whilst they may be "uninsured", it is more than likely your injuries and loss will be adequately covered by their lawful indemnity bond so why don't they just get insurance yozhik and stop putting more dumb ideas into the heads of the many fools we have driving around already! i understand what you are saying yoz, that the freeman ideology creates responsible adults that effectively have their own rules..... but they are still living by rules at the end of the day so whats the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donuticus Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 In Darren Polla we have a rareity. Someone even Gordon Brown could beat in an election. I have in my time read some utter, utter, tripe on these pages but your collection of crap is quite unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depoix Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 o once was told if you were a millionare you didnt need car insurance as long as you could give surity that you would pay any damage to a third party,by todays standards 1 million would not be enough considering some claims as for the rest of the posts byy the op it all seems to be in riddles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yozhik Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 so why don't they just get insurance yozhik and stop putting more dumb ideas into the heads of the many fools we have driving around already! i understand what you are saying yoz, that the freeman ideology creates responsible adults that effectively have their own rules..... but they are still living by rules at the end of the day so whats the difference? Personal choice and personal responsibility, I guess. Hey, as I've already said in my previous posts;this isn't for everyone. For many, the comforts and convenience of the current system is great. More power to them I personally object to the current crowd and the bs they are enforcing. My heckles go up whenever they encroach further into my rights and enforce draconian "security" measures upon me, which are the result of their own mismanagement. Let's be honest, the current financial crisis (if it was real) is about fat cats trying to get fatter and greed with no regulations... and yet we get have the pleasure of being lumbered with the debt to bail them out, for generations to come ... for their mistakes? Sorry - I don't get it. Biometric ID cards? No thanks. National database available for sale to the highest bidder? No thanks. Common Purpose in all aspects of administration? No thanks. Its no longer a society I voluntarily want to be a member of. There are better choices and I don't need the trinkets and shiny toys with my happy meal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yozhik Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 o once was told if you were a millionare you didnt need car insurance as long as you could give surity that you would pay any damage to a third party,by todays standards 1 million would not be enough considering some claims as for the rest of the posts byy the op it all seems to be in riddles No riddles. Its written in statute. If my memory serves me correctly, the prescribed sum is £500,000 lodged as a surety bond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.