I am not a lawyer, I am not an advocate of law and this is not legal advice so do not be advised by any of the following or act upon it. In fact, maybe just skip to the next article if you are uncertain.
I hope this serves as an admonition of non-admonition to the reader. And I also hope that it pleases those who are paid to turn simple words into time served in a cell for the authoritarian business called justice. This is just my private thoughts for consideration.
This is really a prod in the brain for all those that consider themselves British and free in this land and also feel that they are above the constraints of prejudice regarding colour: race, religion, and class; in truth, none are. Even assuming so is the key reason why rights are taken away, allowing ‘assumptions’ to become your law.
In many ways, this is an invitation for us to seek a deeper understanding of three things: law, religion, and science but the intricate details are a whole other story so we will simplify it if it is possible. Maybe an example is needed.
In the world that religion recognised before it became a swear word, there was a duty for people to believe in the unseen. Of course, today that sounds like looking out for a bearded man descending from the heavens on a white horse while striking people down for violating the Sabbath. But if you can momentarily bridge your mind and put prejudice aside, you will actually see that seeing the unseen is simply referring to mentalism – a validated science.
Our reality actually does all begin with the thought, then the expression of the spoken word to form the material world. Today, for us, that word is Brexit. And out of NOTHING came all of this.
Let’s take two other words: ‘Brexit’ and ‘Law’. Briefly dissect them and illustrate how doltish a once clever nation has become.
In fact, blaming immigrants for the state of the country is somewhat like a bumpkin calling a pumpkin stupid or is it the other way around? It’s only one’s ego that allows the parading of a birth certificate or even an academic degree (a few out of 360) to give them a feeling of entitlement over others, born abroad, especially when they’re not even sure of which law they are governed by.
On a very basic level, it’s Maritime and that flag, the Union Jack, is and has always been the flag for ships floating on the high seas, acknowledging a law separate from the law of the land.
But why didn’t you know that? Once again, you’ve assumed wrong by outsourcing your reasoning to the trusted authorities.
Accepting this assumption based community interaction, one would benefit from knowing that Brexit was really just a slang word, one that a rapper could have invented. Although it was actually coined by Peter Wilding to refer to Britain’s possible exit from the EU, basically, the law that now governs you, that claims to be the advocate of the highest justice–God, is so flimsy today that a word that didn’t exist a few years ago can today slip into your life and determine you and your progeny’s future existence – it wasn’t in God’s simple plan.
What God is this?
For atheists, just go with the dreaded word for a moment, if nothing else, it may create an argument to save your freedom. This merely means the original laws that kept us from killing each other at times of conflict, like now.
This Brexit condition was never supposed to be put upon people, especially without the consent of the masses. By consent, I mean an independent vote that is clearly and evidently respected and adhered to without mischief; one which we have probably never seen.
But what if the word was not ‘Brexit’ but ‘Blingit, would we have been as ready to digest it as a possible reality? Maybe we would have been woken up from the whimsical spells of this dreamy reality where fictions become law by the stroke of a pen and the non-actions of a narcoleptic nation? And that pen happens to be in the hands of the guardians of, not the galaxy but, the Oxford dictionary.
The Oxford Dictionary, or agents for their corporate office, officiated the word Brexit in 2016, thus making it a friend of your consolidated word processors. Interesting, the much older word that I love ‘Empath‘ remains a work of fiction and can’t seem to get a look in let alone a correction from Microsoft Word.
So the country is changing and all because of the tacit acceptance of this new fictitious word ‘Brexit’. It officially entered your dictionary thus your reality that is also transforming with a little-understood word called ‘consent’.
The word ‘consent’ is responsible for a lot more than you could imagine, as you may soon see, especially shown in the video further down.
What are those?
You could have thousands of people quoting what they think rights are yet each one will have a different idea since the constitution of the UK is left ambiguously uncodified.
Let’s imagine you’re travelling from France on a French passport and you settle into this lovely little city called London. You like it and wish to contribute to this great way of life. You are eventually encumbered by the British police in your dreamy illusion, (lower case ‘p’) what do you do?
You give them up, everything: information, name, papers, keys, money, intentions, meanwhile they empty your pockets on an assumption that you are a criminal because you (and they) believe that they can demand this. You feel fortunate to even be allowed into the country, let alone resist the bullying of authority, the press and the sheople.
Now, let me say this one thing that I hope will stay with you forever. Understand this if nothing else: The route of the word authority is ‘author’.
We at UDL are authors and YOU are too: the author of your own affairs and your own destiny unless you have wrongly and deliberately been encumbered or encumbered somebody else’s affairs and destiny. The said officer (equal in status) that assumes that you have no right to resist his unnecessary cause for a pause in your life does this each day in the name of criminal investigation. Common sense would tell you that they are looking in the wrong place for their crime, no further assistance necessary.
Only then, after being taken into custody, the custodian may seek remuneration for being stalled in their pursuit of life as there was no probable cause for suspicion but they rarely do.
If you use common sense for a moment, to accept that one can be thrown into jail for merely standing around doing nothing, on the basis that they could have been about to commit a crime, should frame questions about the form of law that they are living under. So anybody standing around doing nothing is assumed to be a criminal. This being the case, this form of government has failed, big time, so do we have any business voting for more of this?
In a civil society, ‘a suspect’ needs to be ‘a suspect’, having previously displayed some unlawful behaviour to warrant an investigation. But until it affects us personally we can simply and blindly wave the Union Jack and see nothing wrong. It has been said that “a crime anywhere is a crime everywhere” as well as the maxim: The burden of proof is upon the accuser.
This is a simple principle of common law and outweighs all statutes codes and ‘assumptions’. Unless of course, it’s a different type of law being enforced. If you can just comprehend this fact you may find yourself free in mind and become equal to the next free person but it’s very unlikely; mainly because of experiencing a lifetime of watching television and replicating that model society creates your place and a fixation on fitting in. Unfortunately, this has a crippling effect on what you feel freedom actually is. The result is someone in servitude to many assumptions.
I apologise for delving into such a sensitive place but, if the worthy humans that perished in the Grenfell Tower inferno of June 2017 (RIP) had been given a certain level of entitlement, the fire may well have been circumvented. Unfortunately, this model of unworthiness is the ongoing story of people following a script that has no bearing or standing. It’s an assumption that the public has, the police have and of course, the workers at the benefits office are guilty of this. These are the ones that feel that the unemployed should beg for their keep as though they actually issue the benefit out from their own sphincter each time you are paid.
The housing representatives are no better when a tenant has a concern for their safety it is the housing establishments duty by law to address it immediately, but they won’t and you, because of the reasons above will capitulate–again, thinking yourself lucky to have a roof over your head. Not to turn the homeless situation on its head but a roof is an actual human right.
See it Say it Sorted
Human rights is a funny old thing because most have forgotten what it means to do what the heck they please. Evidence of this amnesia is the seat belt law which, by the way, is a statute of positive law. The root word ‘posit’ which means ‘a statement which is made on the assumption that it will prove to be true‘. again, ‘assumed’. Who is injured when you decide to leave your seat belt unclipped? In real law, which are bi-laws from original ecclesiastic laws pertaining to those seeking peaceful living on God’s earth, if they do not reflect this quest for harmony for everybody in an equitable way they are not law; but that’s just my opinion, remember the caveat at the start? Unless we are working with a different law. I will guess that you already know it’s all commerce.
In the movie Minority Report, 2002, Tom Cruise played John Anderton, a Policeman that basically arrests people for possible future crimes.
The philosophy of this science fiction movie has quietly been carried into our society and created such corruption that it has abused its authority, placing children in jail because of wild immoral statutes such as Joint Enterprise (now Common Purpose), which I refuse to understand because it is not law. Notice that, for those that have seen the movie, it was only when the officer had also been accused of a future crime that his ego reclined and finally allowed him to see the injustice and that he wasn’t above the law at all but just like everybody else.
But why couldn’t he question the morality of his job until it affected him, he was not an empath? In such a stark expression of organised injustice by establishment, it is imperative that the person carrying out the job has to feel detached from their peers and aligned with their fellow workers. That is what you would call, in a lawful society, a conflict of interest. A separation between the people and the police must also be enforced to achieve a system detached from the peoples needs and common equity.
I know this may sound strange and contradictory to my caveat but, go hug a policeman, love your police and remind them of their job to execute justice and not the policy in a tycoons mind. Bridge that gap and put a spanner in the works. They are not yet androids, although you can hold your breath for that. If any police persons are reading this do remember that you should first question the morality of what you enforce otherwise you are nothing but a bouncer – the brains are just biceps responding without thought.
So please recognise the extent of your rights and acknowledge that you, as undeserving as you may feel, have been given dominion over the green, brown and blue and whatever means in which you must act so that the earth serves you best. If you’re not stepping on another’s toes, it’s your God-given right to do as you wish. And, if anybody, uniformed or otherwise, accosts you on your merry way, if you are not a commonly known criminal, they stand in the way of your freedom to move.
If we can just stand on that basic right, our world will change and this kind of authorised assumption that badge yielding officers have will cease to have any power at all.
It’s never been more important to wake up. Do not become a John Anderton and let the press tell you who to blame or hate or you may end up like this fool.
Is it possible to be like a child with love and intuition as you we’re more than capable of constructive reasoning as an eleven-year-old like Greta Thunberg? Maybe we can familiarise ourselves with another old Maxim of law: The one who wishes to be deceived, let him be deceived. There’s no protection for fools–by law.