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?

ChelsyHandy - this is my understanding, but I think it is okay.

According to The Anglo Saxon Chronicle, Hengist and Horsa arrived in three keels at the request of Vortigern to be mercenaries to protect the British. However they were not paid, rebelled and invited their kindred over. They were, I think, Saxons.

According to Bede the settlers after the Roman Empire were Angles, Saxons and Jutes from the areas of North Germany and Denmark. There is evidence from excavation that in those areas populations were under pressure from rising sea levels and then at the time that the Anglo Saxons were supposed to invade Britain a lot of settlements were abandoned and apparently the population reduced. There is also evidence of Frisian settlement (obviously being argued about) in Kent especially and I think they had different patterns of landholding. Different inheritance patterns continued in Anglia (settled by Angles as opposed to the Saxons in Wessex) into the Middle Ages.

As the Middle Ages progressed and the kings insisted it was their judges that had the final say, thank you, and I'll have the fines that go with them, law became more uniform especially as judges made 'circuits' around the country. In England the law always remained under the direct control of the crown.

btw Scotland has a completely different legal system which is why expressions like 'UK law' make my teeth itch.

I really have to go and spend time with DH now, but will wander back and wonder what on earth I was on later.

Thank you once again LisaMed. I also hate the phrase "UK law" although arguably there are now many statutes which apply to all parts equally.

Angeln in Denmark (or is it Germany) is considered a poor agricultural area to this day and is quite depopulated! The UK's potential farmland and low population must have looked appealing!

Just wanted to say that I have read this entire thread and it's fascinating, thank you so much. I have learnt a lot about the history of English law. And yes I had that Billy Bragg song about the Diggers going round my head the whole time as well!

I'm also totally bowled over by the knowledge you've all shared! Not joking when I say this thread has been more of an education in history than my entire school education. Fascinating stuff , thank you :)

I'm marking and booknarking.
I'm halfway through and am rapt, but I need to sleep.

Never heard of this but it's brilliantly mental. As my dad is fond of saying, there's more out than in

Yes, this has been bloody brilliant and I am going to shamelessly steal quite a lot for my blog which will hopefully help steer some people away from this steaming pile of elephant poo.

Thanks qwerty for starting it and thanks to all the historians. This, and pictures of otters that look like Benedict Cumberbatch, is what the internet is for.

You blog? Can we have a link, please?

It's not strictly 'mine' but I am one of the administrators - it was set up by a bunch of mumsnetters to bring rational debate to child protection law after the shocking reporting by hemming and co of the 'forced cesarean' debate last year.

We have a 'mythbusters' section and I think a piece on this whole freeman malarkey would be useful - particularly as I am coming across so many people who are signing up to it.

It's www.childprotectionresource.org.uk

Oh, wow. That's brilliant. I remember the debates but I had no idea. That's such a great site.

Just watched the video posted by frankblackswife and I have to say, what a lovely policeman.

Really really clued up, firm and kind, using all his powers to try and resolve the situation without the crazy guy losing face or coming into direct confrontation with him. Would have been just as easy, probably quicker, to just stick the guy in the back of the van and let someone else deal with the eejit.

I hope he's proud of himself, as he's lovely :)

(suspects I may have missed the point :), glad to have missed point)

Thanks LRD - I am pleased that something good came out of all of that. It is depressing just what some people are encouraged to believe about the 'system', particularly when it puts them at risk of losing their children.

The freemen are all under the same umbrella of madness - john hemming has shared platforms with Brian Gerrish and is a big Vicky. Haigh supporter. They are all intertwined.

It's really useful - I've just been clicking through the mythbusters bit.

It makes me really angry when people with an agenda take advantage and convince others.

I'm finding this discussion really interesting, but have to take issue with LisaMed's statement at 20.39 that "Strathclyde was part of England" round about 1450. It may be the chippy cybernat in me, but did "England" exist as a political entity then? I have the impression that everywhere in the British Isles was a bit more, er, tribal than that.

I thought it was reasonably well known that Strathclyde was brought into the Scots kingdom in the middle ages, having previously been part of Cumbria, part of the country inhabited by ancient Britons? And that many of its placenames reflect this? And on the east, Northumbria for much of recorded history extended up to the Firth of Forth OldLady?

I think England has existed since at least 1450, since the Normans were recorded as vanquishing old native "English" aristocracy? True, middle English might have used words for Anglian or Saxon, but the modern translation would be English?

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong. Living in Scotland, I get a bit fed up with some of the myths and the constant pushing of the tartan, kilts, Gaelic and bagpipe culture currently being propagated in Scotland for political reasons.

I really don't know, Chelsy, which is why I phrased it as a question. Does "ancient Briton" equal "English"? I thought (and am more than willing to be corrected) that "ancient Britons" were Celtic-speaking people, the Normans were French, and many of the tribes that colonised "England" (the Angles and the Saxons, for example) were Germanic in origin.

But I am coming mainly from a Scots perspective, and have little idea about how "England" evolved, which is why I'm finding the discussion so interesting, and informative.

I wonder what you're reading if you're seeing "constant pushing of tartan, kilts, Gaelic and bagpipe culture"; I see none of this. Maybe you need to widen your reading material? I'd recommend www.wingsoverscotland.com. :)

But please, let's not derail this.

Hi Mumsnetters!

Some subject matter 'googling' led me to your forum and this message thread. After reading the amusing and informative posts and exchanges I thought I'd add a few minor comments which I hope are of interest.

Micqdc seems to be quite enthusiastic about Dean Clifford, a Canadian Freeman-on-the-Land 'for pay' promoter. What Micqdc has omitted is that Dean has been having a difficult time of late, having been arrested in November right at the end of one of his weekend seminars on how to get free stuff and conquer the courts. There is video of that. Six months later he is still in pre-trial detention, facing multiple charges for illegal and prohibited weapons, operating a marijuana grow-op, and other ancillary offenses. Dean has been denied bail - which is unusual in Canada.

To date Dean has filed many applications to miracle himself out of jail, and has also attempted to sue the Canadian government for his alleged mistreatment. Nothing has worked and instead he awaits trial...

If you're interested in learning way too much about Dean he is one of the subjects tracked by Quatloos, an internet forum which specializes in online scams, frauds, and Sovereign Citizen/Freeman-on-the-Land types. I'm a regular on there - I specialize in Canadian litigants of this kind. Dean and his brother Darren are the subject of a couple message threads:

www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9364

www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9589

There are even copies of many of Dean's court documents! While his legal arguments are a little thin, his penmanship is impeccable.

It's interesting to read reports of how Freeman activity is on the increase in the UK. The movement in Canada has all but collapsed. There have been too many failed promises and now court responses are aggressive and strict. It has made a big difference, as have a number of high profile public relations disasters.

I'd be very pleased to answer any questions you may have on the situation in North America.

Again, thanks for some entertaining reading!

SMS Möwe

Spero But is there no way to at least regulate people who charge for this tomfoolery?

Well, but are you looking to regulate the LEGAL PERSON or the NATURAL PERSON on the LAND?

Lisa, this has been a delight. You should absolutely do Law A-level, it's great fun.

Strathclyde was, for a period of time part of Northumbria, which was an Anglian kingdom. However, it was never ruled by a de facto king of England. Mercia, and most of the Danelaw became under the control the kings of Wessex over time, but Northumbria basically split in two, the northern bit falling under the control of the king of Scots.

This is where I learnt about the Magna Carta. I think it's very informative. Not quite as informative as this thread though .

Fwiw in 1450 the border was more or less as it is now. The last significant change was in 1093 when William II took Carlisle. There were periods when the English controlled parts of Scotland and vice versa (during Stephen's reign) but they weren't permanent annexations.

Much of southern Scotland is made up of former Anglian areas. Edinburgh takes its name from Edwin, king of Northumbria, I believe. When I studied Scottish history, I was taught that Scotland was made up of Anglian bits, Pictish bits, Norse bits and Scottish bits. I can't remember exactly where the Scottish bits were. Anyway, the point being made was that Scotland was never purely Celtic.

Thanks for that Mowe

I am very interested in what happens when these free men get to court as an ex friend of mine (who believes to save the world all she needs to do is dress as a pixie and tell people not to vote) is going through lots of legal processes at the moment to get herself off paying off debts she has accrued in the past and is prepared to go to court and announce her freeman status and how they have no power over her.

Intrigued to how it will all turn out.