h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I forgot to mention that a partner that does qualify is only entitled to property and monies aquired _during_ the Common Law marriage.

Ah right, that might be the same (or similar) in the UK then - for a proper marriage at least. iirc She was entitled to *something* just not much.
As Hoo said though - there is no such thing as a common law marriage here really, despite the popular belief to the contrary
.

Cheers Hoo, I needed a laugh: the copper deadpanning "But we're not at sea" was beautiful.

Despite her playing the victim card the woman displayed a breathtaking level of arrogance: "I wasn't causing harm" - she was speeding which means she's more likely to be in an accident and make any accident more severe except she is, of course, the worlds best driver and accidents happen to other people.

In her 'to camera' bits I particularly enjoyed the décor in her room because nothing says freedom-loving than a prop from a multi-million pound film made by a multi-national film company/studio.

I couldn't watch her "to camera" bits because after about twenty seconds I could feel my blood pressure starting to rise.

I have just one question for these people: has it ever worked?

As in: you go on and on an on about how you're not the "legal fiction" that is the "person" named on your birth certificate, how you're a free man/woman on the land, how you're in registered lawful rebellion, blah blah blah. You believe you have a set of magic words you can say to policemen which you believe means they cannot arrest you since you do not consent to the law - sorry, statute or act - under which you're being arrested. So - HAS THAT EVER WORKED? Even once? For anyone? Has anyone who ever started on with this bollocks to a police officer actually been allowed to go on their way despite having broke a statute or act, or even, for that matter, not spent far, far longer talking to that copper than they would have done had they shut the up and cooperated?

(Here's the thing - the vast, VAST majority of people who interact with coppers are generally best advised to clam up, give name and address etc. but say NOTHING else, and if offered an on the spot penalty, to take it, especially for something relatively trivial like speeding. Take the ticket, take the three points, take the fine, and you'll be on your way in MINUTES. Your day is slightly worse, but hey, that was your fault, right? Seriously - when I was nicked for speeding by an actual copper with a radar (as opposed to a camera), the whole process took about five minutes. Of course, I could have backchatted him, refused to identify myself and basically forced him to arrest me... and that would have been better because....... nope, no idea. (Note: this advice does NOT apply to accepting a caution. Consult a lawyer. I am not a lawyer.)

There is a conversation to be had about which laws are just and which are not and how we enforce them. But the impression I get of these "free men" is that they're just attention-seeking dorks of extremely limited intelligence.

Someone mentioned the US... aren't there people there who refuse to pay taxes on the grounds that the US govt isn't a legitimate govt or something?

There's also lots of cases in the US of people building non-consented buildings and getting away with that or not depending on the nature of their local council. (that's kind of similar in NZ, but not to the same extent).

We have common law marriage laws in NZ, similar to Canada. I'm surprised to hear that there aren't any in the UK. So if a couple are together for 30 years, have bought lots of things together (say from joint bank accounts) and then split, who decides who gets what? Or is it a grab fest?

It's a grab fest. But if they really cared they could always have got married, they didn't need to invite a lot of people or spend a lot of money, it only costs £92 and you can get witnesses off the street.

I don't know how you distinguish house-sharers and flatmates from common-law partners. I shared a house with a girl, as a lodger who paid me rent which was half the mortgage. Could she have turned around and claimed half the house? Actually she couldn't have done because I married Ben whilst I lived with her, but if I hadn't she could have claimed that we we'd spent every night in the same bed, and were a couple.

Actually I'm not sure if sharing a bed is the bar for determining a marriage. My aunt and uncle had separate bedrooms the whole of their marriage.

Also, the test for being a couple for welfare in NZ has nothing to do with sex. It comes up in cases of women on the single parent benefit living with someone they're sleeping with. The sex isn't enough to make them ineligible as a single parent - there has to be a level of commitment and a degree of financial interdependency (as well as the partner being somehow involved in raising the children).

I doubt that the legal definition of marriage (common law) is about who has sex but would be interested to know. Although there is that historical thing about marriages not being lawful unless consummated. What is that about?

>>
It's a grab fest. But if they really cared they could always have got married, they didn't need to invite a lot of people or spend a lot of money, it only costs £92 and you can get witnesses off the street.
<<

SOme people feel very strongly that they don't want the state involved in their relationship. Which seems fair enough. They still deserve legal protection though.

A grab fest sounds horrendous. That must end up in the courts, so what happens?

>>Some people feel very strongly that they don't want the state involved in their relationship. Which seems fair enough. They still deserve legal protection though.<<

That's hypocritical though: if you don't want state "involvement" in your relationship don't expect the state to come in and protect/rescue you when it all goes wrong. If you've decided you are self-sufficient in your relationship then that should include what to do when it all breaks down.

It's as others are saying: they're wanting to to pick and choose which laws and procedures they'll follow and that's not how it works.

AFAIK there are three responsibilities for married couples. You have to live together, financially support each other and sleep together. It's why for a long time a man couldn't be prosecuted for raping someone he was married to (even if they'd separated) because by law she has to sleep with him (and him with her). I guess that's where the marriage isn't 'set' until you do the dirty deed!?

Now I've said that I can state that was 'common law' and has since been covered by an Act. So I hope this silly cow never gets married, as she lives by common law and doesn't recognise any Acts she'll give up any right to say no...

My understanding of a marriage depending on sex to be official is based on an idea that the creation and raising of children is really the whole point of marriage. Under this mentality, of you're not working towards making babies, you might as well not be married at all.
I think there's also an element that you're supposed to be a virgin before you get married, so it's like being able to 'take your goods back to the store' as long as they're still 'in saleable condition'. So to speak.
It's a crude business in general, when it comes down to it.

Common law also refers to certain aspects of trespass,
sanctuary and squatters' rights.

A path across private property which has been in 'common'
use for 15 years is considered a public road. If you buy
a parcel of land which has such a traditional pathway you
may not deny access. But to maintain title to the roadway
you must close it with a chain or locked gate for one day
every year with a sign saying "Private Property".

No one may deny safe landing on their waterfront property
to any boat, canoe or vessel in need of shelter or to dis-
embark the ill or injured. In cases of foul weather they
have the right to stay for 24 hours after the storm. And
in the case of damage or leaky seams they can remain
until effective repairs can be made.

Property rights end at the high tide line so anyone can walk
along shorefront beaches at low tide and no property owner
may build any fence or obstruction below the high water mark.
If a wharf or pier is erected it must provide a safe pedestrian
throughway.

And traditionally anyone who occupies a piece of property,
either public or private land, for 20 years could claim
title to it if there is no record of the owners' making an
effort to remove them.

Time frames and other details may vary from one jurisdiction
to another in modern revised laws but these basic principles
are considered among the oldest common laws and they were
happily imported throughout British North America.

PS: In North Carolina it is illegal to wash a mule on Sunday.
We need another thread for 'crazy old laws still on the books'.


~jwf~

"A path across private property which has been in 'common'
use for 15 years is considered a public road."

This isn't the case in the UK. When a shopping centre was built in the old precinct they banned dogs. I complained to the council and asked didn't it become a right of way after so many years and I was told it had only ever been a 'permissive' footpath. So that's my shortcut cut off.

Actually I googled it, ramblers say it's after 20 years, and to prevent it a sign needs to be up stating it's not intended to become a right of way - that's the permissive path. Although I don't recall a sign like that ever being up on the precinct!

As I understand it all ideas of property and ownership would not apply to English common law, since the common law of England predated those concepts, apart from minor "chattel ownership". Lord Chief Justice Mansfield applied chattel ownership to British 'real estate' during the reign of George III- hence the Highland Clearances etc.

The whole basis of common law was the collective opinion of the English common people over the legal aspects of any issue as they understand them to be in accordance with the customs and usage of them and their forebears. Hence a document for the Cambridge region c1040 could make a note of all the various rights and obligations of every single section of their local society: and such things would be decided/applied by the people in common Moot Halls where the issue was general, and in juries in criminal cases..

In the latter in common law any man who still "oathworthy" merely needed to swear his innocence and produce 12 other "oathworthy JURORS" to swear the same+ case dismissed. Henry II changed the legal system, with Royal Judges making circuits and "Jurors" being asked hear the case on the evidence and give a verdict guilty or innocent. But this still often really came down to applying guilt or innocence in the knowledge of what was common place. And, of course, policing as such was by the common people. In villages everybody knew everybody and their business. Towns were more impersonal, hence the need to raise the "hue and cry" and catch someone before they could make themselves scarce.


This idea that English people decided the basis of "what was what" long endured, and was reflected in Dr. Johnson's statement that , unlike a France that needed a whole clutch of academicians to decide what was/is "proper French", "proper English" was whatever language English people actually used.

Magna Carta, which has been mentionned, was the result of the immigrant Angevin barony becoming "Anglicanised". Already under John they had insisted that an Englishman's traditional military duty to the Crown was only to help the Crown to defend England, and not to get involved in foreign wars. And the Baron's revolt that produced Magna Carta was the result of King John ignoring the "contract" that determined what the rights and duties of an English King actually were.

The most significant part of MC is the clause that, the Charter having detailed the relationship between the King and his tenants-in-chief, then layed down that this model of the relationship between the higher and the lower should be replicated all the way down the system- guaranteeing the rights of all Englishmen, most of whom at this time prefered not to be free men- because they clung tenaciously to their right to the use of the land that they worked in order to provide for them and their families.No-one was entitled to abuse any position of power and/or authority, and it was the duty of all to check such abuses and hold such people to account.

Cass

English Common Law has been consistently eroded since the Union of England with other parts of the UK, with the increasing dependence on the right invested in the great assembly of the English people to break with custom and write totally new, made up and invented laws, that merely need parliamentary majorities to impose legal obligations upon minorities.

The whole idea of English good-naturedness, consensus and goodwill gave way to a notion of Parliament as a battle-field where rival clans that would continue the blood-feud for ever would fight for temporary victory and revenge. By the third of the Scottish-Stuart line these two "clans" were regularly being identified by the two insults Whig (Scottish) and Tory (Irish)- which became badges to be worn with pride.

Cass

Well, I've learned all I consider that I need to know about this movement in general and this woman in particular. I posted a reply to the video on youtube which said:

"I'm not a police officer, I'm a chemical engineer. I was nicked for speeding by a roadside copper. My entire contact with the police lasted less than five minutes at the side of the road and cost me £60, end of story. 3 points on licence and on my way, within the speed limit this time. By all means take legal advice from random unqualified people on the internet but it has already cost you most of a day and night dealing with plod - why would you make it worse?&#65279; I honestly, sincerely don't get it"

She answered. Did she make any attempt to respond to the question, do you think?

Unfortunately, I derailed her brain with my first sentence. The intention was to qualify that I was not one of the hordes of police, ex-police etc. who have commented since she was featured on Inspector Gadget's blog. I was a sincerely baffled civilian wondering whether this stuff has ever, even once, worked, and why she's deliberately making her own life worse.

Her response, in its entirety, read:

"okay then, S0 you'll be familiar&#65279; with Chemtrails & HARRP?"

Leaving aside the primary school level capitalisation and her failure to correctly spell a five letter word (it should be HAARP - and it should be *harder* for thinking adults who have any idea what they're talking about to misspell acronyms, shouldn't it?), I can now, I think, safely consign this woman to the ranks of the mentally ill.

For those who don't know, both things referred to are paranoid conspiracy theories put forward by people with time on their hands and limited education. Chemtrails refers to the idea that the vapour trails one sees behind airliners in the upper atmosphere - a desperately simple thermodynamic effect - are in fact trails of chemicals being deliberately dumped up there to drug us, or something. HAARP is a research facility in Alaska studying the upper atmosphere. Both things are a magnet for the low-level mentally ill, such as David Icke. I pity them, a bit. But not much.

Having watched the video, I have to say that I feel rather sorry for the woman. Her crime (other than speeding) seems to me to be excessive credulousness, and that's hardly evidence for mental illness. I guess we might wonder about paranoia, but I don't think it's appropriate to start trying to diagnose people based on a youtube clip.

How do we share responsibility between her for believing some of the nonsense about 'freeman on the land' or 'lawful rebellion' or whatever, and those who came up with it in the first place? I wonder if the people who spread this idea have actually tried it on Plod themselves? I suspect not. While her experience with Plod was her own fault, the distress and unpleasantness were real (as was the time wasted by Plod in dealing with it), and she could have been spared it had some dreamer not started perpetrating this stuff in the first place.

It's a shame, really. There's enough that is really wrong with the world and with the country that requires action, without having to event new conspiracies and plots to rail against.

Our son a few years ago saw a youth trying to steal his bicycle and grabbed hold of him saying that he was making a "citizens' arrest"..The thief's back up layed into our son, and the Police warned him that they might have charged him with common assault.

Cass

As an aside, thank you for explaining what H.A.A.R.P. is. It is also the name of a Muse live album, and I have always wondered why. This fits in with what I know of Matt Bellamy: I love Muse, but I wish he wouldn't go for all this conspiracy nonsense.