to think the 'common law/freeman on the land' thing is a whole load of bollocks?

[qwertypop]

I've come across a few people over the last few years that take it very seriously and bang on at length about how the police and courts have no authority over them as they are self declared 'freemen'. Something to do with common law being the only true law in Britain, I think? And not having to wear bike helmets or pay for TV licenses or repay your debts also seem important to the ones I've had the dubious pleasure of meeting.

A couple I met at the weekend have taken the biscuit though and not registered their baby's birth because apparently this will mean said baby grows up to be a 'freeman' (she's actually a girl but the term appears to be freeman anyway). They believe quite firmly that to register her birth will mean that the law assumes her and her name (which is a fucking corker, of course) are one and the same and that only by NOT registering her birth can she be free to be a human being. Quite what this actually means is a mystery to me and tbh the mumbo jumbo they gave me by way of an answer leads me to suspect they don't really know either

I've tried to read up on it but all the info I can find is written in a style you'd expect of an paranoid, delusional, and possibly hallucinating chimpanzee let loose with a legal dictionary.

So AIBU to think this is bollocky woo of the most fucking ridiculous type? Or is someone going to come along and actually enlighten me as to wtf its all about, preferably in plain English with no pseudo-legalese?

Lisamed, I love your passion for history, which has really come through on this thread. I have learned a huge amount from your posts. Thank you.

But sleep is really good important. Sleep well Lisa, knowing that you have taught us a lot about Canon law, Statuatory law, Common law, AngloSaxon law and the history of being a person on this patch of land.

You're class. Sweet dreams.

Well Lisa bless you for raising some very pertinent points. Now I know Mumsnet is subject to Justine's Law rather than that of England & Wales, so I do wonder whether the statement "Oh do piss off with your half assed internet bollocks of freemen on the land and test it in law when some fucker burgles your tent because you surely as fuck don't live in a house owned by someone who subscribes to conventional law like your parents " would be deleted.
And do I get a prize for sentence length?

Has Henry III's law against the deliberate maiming of fairies ever been repealed? I think we should be told.

Now I know that MN is subject to Justine's law.
Too right. And believe me Giddy she's a bitch. But we all accept her as a product of her environment. Her granny is terrifying! A local girl done good, if you will.

Thank fuck she is subject to the law. Just as you and 1Buntu are Giddy. Under the laws of this land, you are all equal. Doesn't that make you heave a sigh of relief?

And no Giddy. Your sentence is not the longest sentence on MN.

But keep trying pet. And you know what? One day you may get there.

There are some corners of MN where I swear I have wandered over to the dark side. Honestly do these nutters really exist in everyday life??

LisaMed I've learned a ton from you as well - thank you

Rags I stand corrected! Still not sure that the latest poster was going to get the help she was looking for here.

There's no 'think' about it, the freeman on the land thing is bollocks as has been proved countless times in court.

However telling its adherents that their views are based as they are based on a fundamentally unsound understanding of history and the law is a waste of time as they are convinced they are victims of a massive conspiracy to rob them of their rights they'll derride you as a mug or as part of the system.
Unfortunately there are enough fellow loonies out there spreading this guff that they get caught in an echo chamber in which their views are defect back to them.
I encountered exactly the same thing on a thread on conspiracy theories, which attracted every tinfoil hat merchant on mumsnet, who didn't understand that the unreferenced, unsourced ravings of a fellow conspiracy theorist wasn't proof of anything. I gave up in the end as any attempt to counter their claims were met with variants of 'but that's what they want you to think' or more conspiracy websites.

Please, please try and get your unregistered self into another country without valid ID and claim to immigration officials they can't restrict your movement. And let me know so I can be there.

I'll refer you back to Spero's video as an example of what might happen.

I found this really interesting. Too weird for The Wire,
www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0805.carey.html

A bizzare use of the founding ideas that went on to form most of the basis for freeman ideals in order to beat the death penalty.

The main problem with the freeman ideals isn't that it's batshit crazy, It's just that it's a few centuries too late. It's what led to the formation of the laws in the first place that we have now in order to try to protect the 'weaker' members of society.
The 'wear a wolf's head' is what the freeman would like -without the lopping off part- but it's nigh on impossible to integrate a 'freeman' within an organised society, which in it's very nature is a constricting and therefore not free environment.
The only way to achieve that, as mentioned earlier is with a large army at your rear which would somewhat defeat the point.

I have my own -longer- theories and opinions on freeman ideology which I might post up later if I can be arsed.

it is not true to say we have had written laws in most of English history. There have been humans in England even back to the time when were joined to France and there was no writing.

Every person decides what laws they obey in any state and I obviously encourage people to obey laws just as it makes sense in communes if people obey the rules as it makes life simpler but it is for each person to decide what is right for them. The UK still has English common law. As I said above it's our greatest export and is the foundation for US laws, Australian and many other places.

It is not an easy life to try to live outside regulation surveillance and the law in England and I don't recommend it to anyone but it's up to them if they want to try it. If you want to be more lawless there are places with more space and less efficient states where you would do better. People like the Amish escaped Swiss persecution to move to the less regulated US. Thjere were Scots in Patagonia. There are groups in New Zealand although it's probably harder to get lost there. Mind you we've masses of illegal immigrants who operate off the radar so it's probably not that hard even in England.

RedDaisyRed sorry I was using 'English History' in the sense of a historian. The Anglo Saxons arrived in 449 according to Bede and while many academic papers have been written about this, they were probably here some time after AD 300 and sometime before AD 550. That is where I would take the start of English (not British) history, and as I understand it the common law came out of traditions that have been identified as Germanic and thus coming over with the Anglo Saxons (I'm willing to be put right on that). A legal code was one of the first written items when general literacy came over with Christianity.

According to some Roman writers, the Druids did not allow Pre-Roman law to be written down although they used writing for other purposes. There was a class of people that memorised the law and were required to declare it. There has always been social sanction to balance the 'do as I say or I'll beat you up'.

The oral tradition of law carried on for a long time after the first law codes (which were mainly compensation lists and matters concerning the church) and tradition played a massive part all the way through the Anglo Saxon and Norman periods. Local history played a part as well, and legal traditions continued for a long time to vary between the old Anglo Saxon kingdoms and the areas previously under Viking rule.

However the proliferation of laws mean that most of the times people would have used tradition have been superseded by written law. The law in England originally and then England and Wales has become more and more standardised. For example, gavelkind was a type of legal proceedings that referred to land and was mainly confined to Kent. It has been held up as a tradition from the time of the Anglo Saxon conquest. It was superseded in 1925.

People have always been able to refuse to obey written laws, but there have always been sanctions. I err on the side of the libertarian, but I think that the FMOTL movement isn't about liberty or individualism. It isn't about challenging unfair laws. I suspect it is about otherwise disadvantaged people trying to find a way that they are smarter than the rest of us and buying into what is nothing to do with law or history but is hokum.

Re the presenting of strange documents - can anyone tell me if the court procedure used is still from the County Court Act 1984? Doesn't that set out how stuff should be presented?

" I think that the FMOTL movement isn't about liberty or individualism. It isn't about challenging unfair laws. I suspect it is about otherwise disadvantaged people trying to find a way that they are smarter than the rest of us and buying into what is nothing to do with law or history but is hokum. "

I think that is a fair analysis tbh. Any FMOTL types that I have met have been the types to tell you all about their superior knowledge, you know, the kind of people that do that long blink while they are talking to you?

However I think that some of their ideas could be useful to the rest of us, such as putting a 'no implied right of access' notice on your front door.

One interesting point - Anglo Saxon law codes were published in English as well as Latin and court procedings were in a language everyone understood. That obviously changed with the Norman Conquest, but cases were heard in English relatively soon after the conquest. I had in mind that it was during the time of Henry IV or V but when I was looking up the dates the Act goes back to 1362.

I suspect that means that since at least 1362 there has been a man in a pub/inn/tavern who had heard about this thing where if you followed this particular rule then you would get off, happened to his mate's cousin, honest...

Coffeemarkone I think that if the FMOTL was true then there would be widespread forums/websites/blogs and there would be people happily sharing the details for free.

I am tempted by the 'no implied right of access' but as I only ever really get a postman, and the ones round here are lovely, it would be a bit pretentious.

• I was thinking about the BBC goons re the TV licence....

I don't mind the licence fee as I shamelessly take advantage of the subsidised programmes like Last Night of the Proms, Remembrance Festival at the Albert Hall, the educational stuff etc. I don't watch much commercial stuff apart from Doctor Who.

"can anyone tell me if the court procedure used is still from the County Court Act 1984?"

Bits of it possibly, but the County Court and the High Court and Court of Appeal now use the same set of rules- the Civil Procedure Rules. The Supreme Court does too but additionally has its own set of rules for some things.

Unwritten law still matters, usually only as a guide to general principles and values. Judges swear an oath to try cases fairly 'according to the laws and usages of this realm'.

'No implied right of access' is the law anyway, surely? Putting it on a notice doesn't change anything.

I don't know, Quaker.
The only person I know who has it round here, also has a massive weed farm out the back (not that I know about that of course, oh no) so may be operating on full paranoia...

On the point of if you own freehold land who has the right to go there lots of people put up no hawkers or put up a fence to stop anyone coming in. (Although that will make it hard for your Amazon deliveries and when drones come along you'll need a net above the property too).

Scotland has more extensive rights to roam than England. Lots of countries allow access to any breach even if the land up to it is owned by someone. Basically countries and communities make their own rules. When we were very few on this planet we would not that often meet other humans. My ancestors had fun with the Neanderthals and inter bred - people with freckles like I have have more Neanderthal genes than anyone - about 5% - so issues of personal space did not arise and we moved around in hunter gatherer mode. that has been how it was for most of human history. Recent settled times are a tiny pin prick of our time.

I seem to be dealing with a lot of this freeloader claptrap in work at the moment, so had a little Google and found this thread.

I am in tears from laughing and am incredibly late for work. Applause all round for brightening my day!

Sorry to resurrect!

dons tin foil hat and heads into the office

I don't know why people object. There are lots of different people in England and it's nice to hear from different groups just as I am sure many mumsnetters like to hear my right wing libertarian feminist views.

I think, deep down, I am so angry because it is a con that abuses English history and the law. I'm angry because in important cases people about residence and the protection of children are being treated as a game of 'tuppence more and up goes the donkey'. I am angry because it tries to fuck over the process of law, which while it has it's faults is not entirely bad and it means that one idiot trying to prove how clever they are will tie up understaffed department in knots for hours instead of minutes when there was never any chance of a success.

And if there were these loopholes, Tony Blair would have closed them.

I agree LisaMed

These people have the potential to ruin vulnerable people's lives with their idiotic ideas. It's interesting to enjoy a debate between diametrically opposed views for fun but completely idiotic to play with people's lives.