UK woman refuses to accept speeding ticket

[Video Link] The way this woman tried to talk her way out of a speeding ticket (police video starts at 4:42), reminds me of people who say they don't have a legal obligation to pay taxes. I'm not saying her defense is wrong or right because I don't understand it. I'm posting it because it's interesting to see how patient and polite the UK police officers are. If she would have tried this fancy talk in the US, she would have been maced, tasered, and zip tied in short order.

• [fl33c3 bot]

  So because this particular UK officer was patient and polite, they all are? And the US has absolutely no polite or patient officers? Come on, Mark, use your brain.

  • [Mark_Frauenfelder]

    I’m talking about these officers in particular. I think in general, UK officers are more polite. What has your experience been?

    • [skeletoncityrepeater]

      They may be polite there, but get them over here and they’ll take quarters in your home and start roughing up the streets at night!

    • [Funk Daddy]

      Pretty polite for executing an arrest; all of the polite cop videos I’ve seen are of cops citing or investigating. Mindful, I don’t watch a lot of vids.

      Canadian cops are more polite and professional than US cops in my experience and I’ve encountered many on both sides of the border that I had cause to interact with directly. 

      I attribute it to the Canadian cops being better compensated in wage and benefits. If you’ve got to have police, fucking pay them. 

      Same same but different for teachers. We want teachers, so fucking pay them.

      Disclaimers: I interact with cops for various reasons almost always related to traffic incidence as I spent 10-12 hours a day on streets for many years. I’m not a cop lover or hater, I’m a guy who would show up at your court case to testify for no other reason than that I should bear witness to incidence in a system of harm reduction applied to our problematic transportation network, that’s it. SO, if you hate cops and think I said something positive about them, fuck off, and likewise vice-versa etc et al

      • [Gene Poole]

         I’d have to disagree with you, being Canadian, but only in your overly broad generalizations.

        In my experiences, the RCMP (the Canadian police force) are incredibly civil and polite whenever possible and work to de-escalate situations when they are involved.

        Metro city police, however, as they have in Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto, just to name a few, are another situation entirely. Incredibly aggressive, violent, and ready to pepper spray you at the slightest provocation. These are the police I associate with the American police force.

        It may be a matter of urban versus rural more than the differences between national police, with that said.

    • [nox]

      In my anecdotal experience as a traveller, the best tourist information guides ever. Proud of an empire past its prime, happy to take pictures with us.

      There are still some reasonably concerning stories that come out of the UK though. I’ve always struggled to integrate this.

    • [vitriolix]

       It is absolutely the case that in general the police in the UK are more peaceful and polite.  I think this has everything to do with the fact that they still do not carry weapons.  This forces them to constantly work to deescalate situations, whereas in the US the police as a matter of course drastically escalate to violence as soon as their authority is questioned at all.

      • [rtb61]

        It’s down to right wing craziness. That’ll upset US Republicans. Want to know how simple it all is, differences in training and of course no performance based arrest and ticket quota’s, the UK police can spend as much time as necessary when dealing with the public.
        So patience, de-escalation, a degree of restrained professional amusement at the ignorance of the citizen and, when it’s not life and death, basically, it’s not life and death. Forget the ego of authority and retain the amused distance of professionalism.
        Basically if the police officer has plenty time of time to conduct the interaction they can slow things down, chill out the citizen, retain a measure of humour about the situation and then peacefully calmly arrest the citizen, only increasing effort in real response to actual violence or attempt to escape.
        Give police the ‘TIME’ to interact, assess and, control the situation and teach them that way, no problem. Demand so many arrests per day, so many tickets per hour and you have just allowed greed driven stupidity to turn the time wasting public into a permanent job threat to the police, with inevitable consequences from hiring, through training and onto the streets.

        • [fenrox]

           Wait, they don’t have quotas in the UK?

      • [AlexG55]

        In some bits of Britain the traffic police are routinely armed. This isn’t because it’s considered to be an exceptionally dangerous job, it’s because some of the smaller police forces have merged their traffic unit with their armed response unit. There are perfectly sensible reasons for this.

      • [phuzz]

         Not completely true, I got pulled over by a couple of armed cops (bloody unusual outside of London), and they were both really polite.
        Mind you, I was polite to them, especially when I realised they were armed.
        Mind you, his first words to me were “that was the worst display of crap driving I’ve ever seen”.
        Yeah, it was fair cop.

    • [MrJM]

      I think in general, UK officers are more polite.

      I’ll be eager to see if your opinion is the same after the London Olympics.

    • [stupocalypto]

      Sussex police are a lot more polite and upstanding than the Met, having lived in London all my life and dealing with police on a fairly regular basis when I lived in Brighton.

      UK officers just have less power.

    • [Scott R]

      Boy, you guys have short memories. Have you forgotten the stories about UK police officers you’ve posted?
      See:
      http://boingboing.net/2009/06/22/british-police-use-u.html
      http://boingboing.net/2009/04/10/british-police-medic.html
      http://boingboing.net/2009/12/15/photographer-beaten.html
      http://boingboing.net/2010/12/16/uk-demonstrator-chal.html
      http://boingboing.net/2010/01/05/britains-police-desc.html
      http://boingboing.net/2010/11/25/london-police-brutal.html

  • [Drabula]

    Yes, Brit cops are nicer and more patient than US cops. I’ve watched them deal with drunks and punks (the smart-ass chavy kind, not the mohawk kind) with remarkable civility. BUT, come up against them at a protest and they become just like their American counterparts i.e. bastards.

    • [kraut]

      Funny how they become aggressive when you throw things at them…

• [Rob Beschizza]

  INB4 disappointed

  • [robuluz]

    Close, but you’ll have to be quicker than that.

• [Jason Baker]

  She claims that the speeding regulation is a admiralty law and therefore not relevant to her – maybe she needs a maritime lawyer? Where’s Cherith Cutestory when you need him?

• [tristan eldritch]

  The Freeman on the Land movement is complete nonsense.  Gullible goons and snake-0il salesmen.  To the best of my knowledge they have not produced a single legal victory.

  • [Clancy]

    Her actions were very much like those of the so-called ‘Sovereign Citizens’ here in the U.S. I assume she will be just as successful as they are when they fight the authority of the courts, legislatures, and Congress. That is to say, not at all.

    • [Chris Elmes]

      She is making claims based on the Freeman/Lawful rebellion movement based on Common law and its primacy over statute. They are the British version of Sovereign Citizens. British Freemen would object however to the term   Sovereign Citizens as they consider it an oxymoron ie: you are one or the other, you cannot be both as claiming to be a citizen cancels your claim of sovereignty. Many freemen beleve that this phrase is disinformation from US Federal and State Government and fed to the American public by a (in my opinion as an Englishman) sycophantic and cowardly mainstream media.

    • [Oli Newsham]

      Considering that the entire constitution of Britain is based on acts of parliament it is quite a longshot to declare that none of these things apply simply because you state that they don’t. The long and the short of it is that she was speeding then was difficult about it when she was caught and claimed that she was violated simply by being arrested. The entire incident could have been avoided by simply accepting the £60 ticket. The whole freeman of the land thing is a load of rubbish.

• [ZombieOtaku]

  I kinda was siding with the police officer there.  Extremely patient man.  “We’re not on the sea” made me smile.

• [AwesomeRobot]

  Compared to similarly formated videos from the US this almost seems like a parody. The politeness of both parties is hilarious. 

• [Kelly Litchfield]

  Freeman on the Land feel that they do not have to abide by societies laws, they have their own set of rules to follow. It is complete B.S.

• [Lyle Hopwood]

  I’ve seen similar attempts from American Patriots – I recall something about the gold-fringed flag being an “admiralty flag” and when the President speaks before one, he isn’t really the president because he’s representing maritime law or something.  I forget why a Free Man also doesn’t have to pay tax, but it’s related in there somewhere.  (I haven’t put all those words into scare quotes, but maybe I should have.)

  • [Funk Daddy]

    “I forget why a Free Man also doesn’t have to pay tax, but it’s related in there somewhere.”
    I bet they have a tired argument that is only bolstered in effect by there being so few of these Free Man (or woman) that can earn a wage above poverty subsistence. (which is fine if that’s what you like, not a money monger me) You don’t see many revenue agencies prosecuting a failure to file against people earning less than $16,000.00 a year.

• [foobar]

  I’ve heard of these people. They’re under the impression that they can reject any law other than the magna carta.

  • [Chris Elmes]

    Not quite English Common law is often said to be unwritten but despite what Solicitors and Barristers say this is not true. The specific documents are Magna Carta 1215(the treaty) not the later one to wit Magna Carta 1297 The Great Charter of the Forrest which is a Statute, Declaration of Rights 1688/Bill of Rights 1689, Act of Settlement 1701, Act of Union 1707 (with Scotland).  A great deal of the content of these documents have been put in the laws of most Common wealth countries and this includes the United States as well, especially with reference to Magna Carta and The Bill of Rights.

    • [Stephen Rice]

      No, common law is *definitely* written down. You collect what judges have said in court decisions before, write it down and refer to it in future cases which are analogous. That’s English common law.

• [Russell]

  The Brits do everything terribly politely when they’re on camera.

  • [Antinous / Moderator]

    Not in Parliament. It’s like listening to a bunch of angry hens trying to peck each other to death.

    • [Russell]

       Could be worse…

      http://theweek.com/article/index/202382/worlds-5-wildest-parliament-fight-videos

• [Churba S]

  To be fair, I saw a similar video recently of a young fellow openly carrying loaded firearms in the US, and the police were called, as the young man was apparently making quite a fuss advocating for his chosen political candidate.

  They showed up, they were patient and polite – even though the young man’s frankly frustrating and outright rude behavior would frustrate and aggravate all but the most patient of people, hell, it annoyed and frustrated me just watching after the fact – and despite his refusal to provide any form of identification or firearms permit, they let him be.

  In the UK, it would have resulted in the firearms unit being called and a lengthy stay in jail, as the best case scenario. Worst case scenario, a tense stand-0ff, and the young man’s death at the hands of police.

  It seems unfair to make a blanket statement about the US police and situation in comparison to a single incident in the UK, as unfair and silly as it would be to say that the situation I’ve just related is an accurate representation of all US police. Every officer is an individual, and the legal landscape is very different between the two countries.

  • [Antinous / Moderator]

    I’m not sure that your anecdote about the nice police officers letting an armed nutjob go really bolsters the argument that they don’t routinely oppress people.

    • [Churba S]

      Not the point, Ant. The point is that a single data point is not representative of the entire UK police force, nor the US police force. Also, that the legal landscape is different – the comparison isn’t terribly good, assuming it’s even valid in the first place.

      The point is not that either government isn’t oppressive. The point is that making blanket statements with approximately four fifths of five eighths of fuck all data is probably a wee bit foolish.

      By the way, here’s the video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jHYGEhtGQE

      Took me a bit to dig through my history and find it, couldn’t remember the title.

      I can’t say I’d have acted in the same way, but I feel that it was an appropriate way for the police to handle the situation, for the most part. I think it would have been a better idea to confiscate the firearms until the owner could show his permits if applicable, but I don’t know exactly where these blokes are, nor what the applicable laws in that state are.

      • [Funk Daddy]

        Hah, great vid. 

        I love people that challenge the system, but the douche with the firearms is going to cap someone eventually in a situation where he could have reasonably avoided violence without sacrificing his precious rights. 

        Just sayin, provocation is always met given time. His method won’t benefit one single soul and likely will cost one, or more if you include his soul too.

        I’m safe though, got no soul that isn’t on vinyl or mp3.

      • [koko szanel]

        Wow, so you applaud police officers for not tazing the guy that was doing LEGAL things but someone complained about them?
        He said a great analogy imo, “what if someone complains when they see black dude walking down the street, will you detain him too?”
        Basically Police harassed  someone who wasnt doing anything illegal and you are happy about it :/ Whats worse you compare that to a video of a retard breaking the law (speed limit).

      • [Rob Hobson]

         So your response to why one anecdote is bullshit is to produce another anecdote?

    • [Steve Taylor]

      No, but it bolsters his argument that single data points should not lead to sweeping generalisations.

• [Conspirator]

  Yeah, this is just one of those morons that likes to make up definitions for legal words that suit themselves.  She kept going on about how the traffic regulations were an “Act”, not a law.  Someone should introduce her to Wesley Snipes and so she can see how making up definitions worked out for him.

  And I’ve seen video of polite cops in the US.  I saw one of a police officer giving a guy a speeding ticket and that guy just kept going off on the officer, getting louder and louder and acting as if his life was ending because of the ticket, especially when he heard what the fine was.  The officer remained calm and composed the whole time.  When the guy tore up the ticket and through it on the ground the officer threatened to cite him with littering, so the guy got out and picked it up.  The officer remained calm and cool throughout the stop and let the guy go on his way.  So it does happen in the US.  

• [thedreadpiratewesley]

  Ironically, if she only believes in the legitimacy of Common Law, all of her statutory rights would also be surrendered, including the protections of the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK). :p

• [taras]

  These people remind me of the Chris Morris sketch “Thick People”:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGex0kLgNok

  “Do you know what parking meters are?”
  “Yes I know what a parking meters are!”

• [marilyn123899]

  Only one comment. Where would our world be if everyone acted like this woman. Just childishness. If you own a car, and you drive it, the rules of the road apply. Common law has nothing to do with motor traffic or the pedestrians you will mow down driving that fast. PREVENTION of you doing something that WILL cause harm or loss is the entire reason we have laws that exist above and beyond the “common law”. Cheers.

  • [Daemonworks]

     If everyone acted like her, it’d be fine, because everyone would be using the same rules.

    • [Mike Burton]

      And that’s all that matters, having the same set of rules.  There are of course no other considerations than just having the same set of rules.

  • [Abba Bryant]

     Actually it does – since the the Common Law is about causing harm or interfering with the reasonable activities of people around you.

    If she hit a pedestrian that would be a definitive violation of Common Law.

    • [sirgoofs]

      If that’s the case, common law seems incomplete when it allows people to be reckless. If children are allowed to play on the sidewalk, I don’t want idiots like her to decide how fast she should be traveling.

      • [Chris Elmes]

        No I think you’ve missed the point. The thing about Common Law is that you are responsible for you actions eg: exceeding the speed limit on a major highway in good conditions and little or no traffic is down to ones judgment and if no one else is harmed there is no problem. Conversely doing 20 mph in a 30mph town centre in snow/ice/heavy rain and sliding into someone means you are completely at fault as you should have exercised better judgement and driven more slowly. It’s all about personable responsibility and being accountable for your actions.

        • [Stephen Rice]

          This is not what common law means.

          Wiki is good on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

    • [Stephen Rice]

      “Common Law” (why are we using capital letters?) isn’t about anything in particular. The common law is nothing more and nothing less than the collected decisions of courts which bind future courts in an attempt to provide uniformity and certainty in judicial decision making. 

• [bcsizemo]

  I blame Valve for the fact every time I hear/read the world Freeman I immediately hear Barney say, “Gordon is that you?”

• [Bottle Imp]

  The cops are always less authoritarian on the other side of the pond.

  • [Beanolini]

    The cops are always less authoritarian on the other side of the pond.

    Not from where I’m standing.

    • [Ian Anthony]

      Dude this is the internet we don’t know where you are standing.

      • [Antinous / Moderator]

        I think that’s the point. This, only backwards.

• [DryDry]

  Wait, so if she doesn’t have to follow the traffic act then why did she go for her driver’s test and get a license?

  What a hypocritical gassbaggy jackass she is.

• [Tom Jennings]

  It seems like a call to magic, laws that normal people don’t know exist, but magically exempt them from the current legal system.

  Police in the UK are predominantly polite and reasonable, I’m not entirely sure why. I did think it was because they also end up doing conflict resolution and dealing with difficult people in society, but when I thought about it these seemed more the results of being reasonable. However in protests and demonstrations this breaks down into an us and them attitude leading to appalling behavior by officers.

  • [Antinous / Moderator]

    It seems like a call to magic

    She might have had an even better result if she’d told him that she had to go because Bellatrix Lestrange had Hermione and she needed a bit of quick rescuing.

    • [Chris Elmes]

      Personally I favor the Chewbacca defence………gets coat……..closes door on the way out…….

  • [Stephen Rice]

    That’s exactly what it is. It’s the same thing that appeals to us when we hear stories about students who creatively interpret ambiguous exam questions and “have to be given full marks” because they’re “technically correct”

• [chipsandchips]

  “……we’re not on the sea.”

  • [voiceinthedistance]

    What you failed to see in the video is that she carries a bucket of water with her wherever she goes for her to plant her feet in,  just in case it is needed.  Show me the law that stipulates a minimum size for a “sea”.  It’s all about the loopholes.  

    Personally, I think the officer should have changed tactics on her, and cited her for failure to wear a lifejacket.

    • [Wreckrob8]

      It would have to be salt water.

• [timquinn]

  Where is Antinous to point out Mark’s logical fallacies here?

  I love both of you , by the way.

• [Sirkowski]

  That policeman is obviously a Reptilian. Can’t you see the pixels?

• [BookGuy]

  Christ, what an asshole.

• [azzamckazza]

  Urgh. These people are the worst. The V for Vendetta poster says it all.

• [Shay Guy]

  If she would have tried

  ???

  • [David L Rattigan]

    She would *of tried.

    • [Jim Smart]

      “would of” should actually be “would’ve”, a contraction of “would have” – “would of” isn’t real english.

      to clarify further, the phrase used: “if she would have tried” would be contracted by most english speakers to be “if she’d've tried” – Mark’s grammar is totally correct here.

      • [Jim Smart]

        i believe the first rule of trolling-as-a-grammar-nazi is to make sure you actually have knowledge of correct grammar…? ;)

        • [David L Rattigan]

          I was just being facetious with “would of,” since that’s a common error. Pretty sure “if she would have tried” isn’t standard English, unless it’s standard American English.

        • [Shay Guy]

          @twitter-20604273:disqus Yeah, I was thinking it should’ve been “If she had tried.”

        • [Jim Smart]

          awww, i cannot believe i missed such an opportunity here! what i /obviously/ meant to say earlier was, in fact:-

          ‘i would have thought the first rule [...]‘

          ;)

      • [Jim Smart]

        perhaps he could’ve said “if she had have tried” or “if she had’ve tried” which are all equally as valid *shrug*

      • [C]

        Actually, it should be, “if she had tried”, or, if you want a contraction, “if she’d tried”. 
        There should be no, “would have”, and certainly no, “would of”,  in the sentence.
        I am sure that stupid woman would be very quick to call the police and expect laws to apply to her if her home was burgled or if she was mugged.

• [Ryan Campbell]

  Don’t be so hard on her.  She’s quoting the Magna Carta and it’s modern day validity. She’s clearly a time traveler. 

  • [foobar]

    They prefer the term ‘madman with a box’.

  • [C]

    Time traveller… is that another way of saying space cadet?

• [Missing String]

  I appreciate that the woman is attempting to exercise her civic rights and, to be honest, I see no problem in giving an officer a bit of a hard time even if you’ve been stopped for a legitimate reason. Little things like politely insisting on proper identification, etc, are the kinds of things that keep the power relationship between police and population in balance. 

  She obviously goes off the deep end pretty quickly though and her behaviour is clearly combative.  Why not simply accept the ticket and, if you really think you have a legal case in regards to the nuances of “common law” then why not simply challenge the ticket in court?

  I’m always saddened when I hear about these situations. She’s obviously moved to political action, which is a positive, but the way she’s going about it is so childish. If I was a police officer and had to deal with this kind of nonsense every day I wonder whether or not I’d look upon legitimate peaceful protest differently.

• [mylesnyc]

  “I’ve done nothing wrong” blah, blah, blah. Reminds me of most American politicians, if you ask me.

• [Jonathan Roberts]

  It’s weird, I’d always thought of a ‘total violation’ as being worse than being asked to take off your shoes and socks. Incidentally, I think I’d also be mentally exhausted and drained if I were left alone with her for three hours.

  • [Jonathan Roberts]

    She didn’t say anything about forced virginity tests, but I’d presume she just left it out of the list of elements in a total violation; it was 2 am so I expect she just forgot.

• [Missing String]

  Checked out her YouTube profile and I guess she’s being assailed by all kinds of negative comments. Her rebuttal is posted below. Can I stress the word sic?

  “I suggest that before you all like to harass me some more that you check out LAWFUL REBELLION TPUC BCG THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION GROUP MAGNA CARTA 1215 BILL OF RIGHTS GETOUTOFDEBTFREE FORUMS THE PEOPLES UNITED COMMUNITY FREEDOM REBELS JOHN HARRIS ROGER HAYES & YOU WILL BE EDUCATED, RATHER THEN COMING UP WITH LAME EXCUSE LIKE IM MENTAL, REALLY!!!! ITS IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT COPPERS ARE BULLYING ME! & THAT YOUR NOT REALLY AWARE OF COMMON LAW, DO THE ABOVE RESEARCH!”

  This is definitely one of those, “Can’t tell if trolling or…” moments.

  • [Sirkowski]

    Her whole defense is gonna be to tell the judge “do some research!”

    • [Stephen Rice]

      Oh yeah, judges love that one.

• [Dr Sparkle]

  I had no idea the pro common law/magna carta types existed in the UK, but we have plenty of them in the US. The argument that since your speeding caused no harm, you cannot legally be forced to pay damages or fines under common law is a pretty common traffic court defense around here. Supposedly it works from time to time. These same folks think the US Govt cannot legally collect taxes, and, of course, that Obama is not legally our president. Supposedly this has something to with the incorporation of DC in 1871, and how pretty much every US Govt action since then has been unlawful. This kind of thought is now mainstream enough that a group of New Hampshire state congressmen drafted a bill that stating that all future NH laws must be based on the principles of the Magna Carta.

  So did all this nuttiness originate in the US and travel over the pond or vice versa?

  • [Antinous / Moderator]

    This kind of thought is now mainstream enough that a group of New Hampshire state congressmen drafted a bill that stating that all future NH laws must be based on the principles of the Magna Carta.

    Since Magna Carta is based on the relationship between the people, the barons and the King, I’d be interested to see how that works out. I’d go for Prince Harry, because we really should have a ginger head of state and he’s a good dancer.

  • [wstr]

    Bizarrely it’s from those notorious trouble-makers the Canadians:
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

• [Jonathan Roberts]

  I am interested in this common law thing though: is it like the vegetarian or halal option, and should you tell the police about your legal preferences before driving, like you do on a plane?

  If so, I think that’s where the problem was: “I’m sorry ma’am, we don’t have the maritime option today, but we can offer a quiet afternoon in a holding cell.”

  • [Jonathan Roberts]

    …or you could try the ‘drive at the speed limit like a responsible adult’ option; I know that’s quite popular with many of our road users.

• [Mike Jackson]

  I think obvious counterpoint to the ladies argument is that while she may be this imaginary person who lives in her mind in a world  apart from the rest of us humans and that our ‘laws’ may not apply to her, she is driving for ‘free’ on a road the rest of her fellow law-abiding citizens paid for, not out on some ‘free-range’ road she made with her own two hands. If she or any other idiot like this wants to take the advantages of driving on ‘our’ roads, or all the wonderful things provided by the country she is driving through on the way to her personal Never-Never-Land, then they have to obey the laws of the country-full of people who paid the taxes to build and up-keep said roads. And the nice, friendly policemen we pay to patrol them for loonies like her!

• [YoDoe]

  O for F’s sake, they have these idiots over there too?    I suppose it’s reassuring that lunacy isn’t confined to America.    

• [Wreckrob8]

  If she was committing no offence and the police have no authority, why did she stop?

• [Daemonworks]

  Hmm. Simple solution to this nonsense. If they accept commonlaw, then just have a judge rule that all the stuff they don’t believe applies, actually does apply, and have that ruling entered into commonlaw.

• [danegeld]

  Yeah those police were very professional when dealing with a joker, and I’m proud they serve in our country. The woman should just take the £60 fine – it’s not that severe a punishment – or contest it in a magistrates court if it was actually invalid. Her argument seems to be: “The rule of law does not apply to me” and that isn’t a particularly good defence. I like the fact that the cop admits that he doesn’t know the exact statute, but he’s going to find it out by asking his colleague. 

• [bumblebeeeeeee]

  she isn’t right in the head

• [TheMudshark]

  Being an obnoxious asshole – it´s not just for police anymore.

• [Murdo MacSween]

  She must have a driving license as that wasn’t listed as part of her offence. Having a driving license is part of British Law. So she picks and chooses what she submits to!

• [funkyderek]

  I guess this is the legal equivalent of when a homeopathy afficionado gets cancer. Their wacky beliefs, previously shored up by an online community of other believers, collide head on with reality and are exposed as ridiculous. Luckily, this woman is unlikely to die because of her moronic beliefs but they could certainly cost her a lot of time and money.

• [directhex]

  There’s a good section on these Free Men loons on Rational Wiki

  • [Jim Smart]

    yup, really good – cheers for the tip!

    here’s the link in case anyone else is interested:-http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

• [Nathan Hornby]

  Hate to burst your bubble mark but this isn’t the most accurate representation of our police. I do like to think they’re a lot more civilised than your rabble though.

  You only have to watch the police shows that aren’t even intended to show police in a negative light and you quickly realise that it’s mostly just idiots vs idiots.

  They’re still power hungry and high on authority, rather than protective and community driven. That’s a bigger problem for me than manners.

  • [phuzz]

     There’s a great variety in cops in the UK (and I guess elsewhere).  Sometimes you get an officious, jumped up, power mad arsehole.  Sometimes you get a rational human being.
    I’ve been lucky, whenever I’ve been caught doing something wrong I’ve had one of the nice ones, and whenever I’ve been stopped by an arsehole cop I’ve been fully within the law.
    Of course, if you’re polite to them from the start, they’re a lot more likely to be polite to you (as with anyone really).

• [Svejk]

  If she’d conducted her argument in Anglo-Norman French or Latin I’d have been more impressed by the strength of her convictions.

  Crazy lady, good luck with the Common Law vs Statute law argument there, the law is an ass but I think it has you beat.

• [AlexG55]

  British police do seem to be more polite than American ones from what I hear, with the Metropolitan Police (London) being a major exception who are widely disliked by officers from other forces as they apparently give them a bad name.

  As an example, I know someone on another forum who was arrested by British police on suspicion of murder (it was mistaken identity). In the US I imagine there would have been a lot of shouting and pointing of guns. The policeman just went up to him and said “I’m sorry sir, I’m afraid you’re going to have to accompany me to the station.”

• [zozimus]

  Do they still have hanging on the statute books in the UK? Or in the mishmash from history that she lives in?  She was speeding and yet claims she ‘didn’t break any laws’.  She did. Clap her in irons and drag her to the gallows.

  • [NelC]

    I think that keel-hauling would be more appropriate.

• [Alan Goulding]

  She’s not the only one out there it would appear. Sigh.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QTicurNEEOQ#!

• [error27]

  Most American police are good people.  I once watched an American police officer trying to explain to a crazy abusive woman why she should call the flight attendant instead of getting into a shoving fight with the man near her who refused to put his seat up during takeoff.  He was very calm and he was trying to help her learn how to live in a proper way.

  The main problem in America is that violent cops cannot be fired.  When they do something bad, the response is, “Well, he was under stress when he shot the dude.  And anyway, there isn’t anything we can do about it to prevent it from happening again so just get used to it.”

• [Ev]

  If she has a driving licence, or is driving a car, has insurance, pays rent, a national insurance number, then she has entered into a contract with The British Government and is subject not only to common law, but all acts etc. The Common Law movement relies on splitting hairs between acts that are unlawful and those which are illegal. If you enter into pretty much any public space, or use any service in the UK, you have entered into a contract/relationship with the government and other parties so you are subject to those acts and laws. 

  Since we’re on anecdotes here, my mother is a veteran peace protester who briefly appeared on the news during the time of the Greenham Common women’s protests. The report said “One woman managed to break through the police cordon to sprinkle poppy seeds before being led away by police” – My mother is 5ft 3 and a pacifist, I asked how she’d done it. She said she walked up to the youngest looking police officer and said “excuse me my love, can I get past?” and he stepped out of her way.

• [JeanHuguesRobert]

  It apparently occurs to nobody that being *arrested* just because you don’t “consent” to a speeding ticket is, by itself, a gross exageration, a waste of public money and a clear signal that you’d better keep your mouth shut, however small your complaint, if you don’t want to spend the rest of they day in jail.

  Give her the ticket, send it by mail too, and let her alone, that is what would have been an appropriate response.

  • [Ben Noble]

    But not a response the police could have taken without her “consenting” to give them her name and address. Without any information to identify her, they had to arrest her if only to find out where to send the speeding ticket to.

    Yes it’s a waste of public money, but it’s her that wasted it. If there was any justice in the world, the size of her eventual fine would reflect this.

    • [AlexG55]

      Not true. She was driving a car which presumably has a licence plate. They could write down the car’s number, and send the ticket to the address of the person registered as owning the car.

      • [regeya]

        I’m assuming it’s legal to loan a car out to someone in the UK, and that rental cars are also legal.

    • [JeanHuguesRobert]

      In France, we have automated radars, they detect speed limit violations and the car’s owner receive the ticket. I suspect they have similar machines in the UK, don’t they ? If the car owner was not the driver, she won’t have to pay (french radars take pictures…).

      Anyway, my point was that beeing *arrested* should be restricted to situations that reasonnably require it, not just because a police officer is in a bad mood or can’t handle beeing pissed off by an angry woman (no sexism here, just kidding).

  • [Stephen Rice]

    “Give her the ticket, send it by mail too, and let her alone, that is what would have been an appropriate response.”

    In fact, that is the usual response. You ask them for their name and address, and then send the ticket by post.

• [Alison Atkin]

  I’m from Canada and the one thing that never ceases to surprise me here in the UK, is if you are pulled over by the police (either for speeding, tax disc, insurance, brake lights, whatever), it is considered perfectly acceptable to get out of your car and walk towards them in order to have a chat about why you were pulled over, etc.

  If you did that anywhere but small town Canada you’d have the police shouting at you within a few seconds to stay in the car, put your hands on the wheel, etc.  I understand from my past experiences in the US that the same thing would occur there (except maybe in their small towns).

  I do believe there are always a bit of both (some nice cops, some mean cops), but generally I’ve found UK police officers to be very friendly at helpful – the first week I moved here and was clearly lost, one on the beat came up and asked if I needed help and then gave me directions!  And then he called me love.  And I was baffled, until I later learned about the local terms of endearment over here!  :)

  • [Tynam]

    The difference is that police in this country aren’t usually worried that a random pulled-over citizen is likely to be armed.  Canada and the US have high rates of public gun ownership, and the US suffers from a gun-centric mentality as an optional extra.

    • [Camp Freddie]

      I don’t really understand the American obsession even if people may be armed.
      A man in plain sight will take some time to draw a gun on you.
      A man in a car could easily and secretly pull a gun without you being able to tell until you poked your head around his window.

      In the UK, a man outside the car would be much more dangerous than inside, since all he needs to do is beat the cop in a fist-fight.

      It all seems the wrong way around.

      • [Tynam]

         That’s why US cops tell you to put your hands on the wheel; it makes it easy to spot movement.

        But ‘beat a cop in a fist-fight’ is actually kind of hard to do; they’re in pairs for a reason, and have a lot of close-quarters training – most cops are much more capable in a wrestling match than a firefight.  Also, fist-fights are rarely fatal, and almost never rapidly fatal. 

        Shoot-the-cop-and-drive does happen over here, but it’s very rare, and if anything more likely from inside the car.

• [fergus1948]

  Moron trying to disguise herself as a freedom-fighting martyr. But still a moron .
  The preamble made me want to commit a malfeasance against her punishable under marine law.

• [Simpletron]

  As I read this a cop pulled up and dropped a woman off who had been walking to work in the rain. For what it’s worth, in the US.

• [Kate Floss]

  i tried to comment on that youtube video but my comment was held until uploader approval, i did not consent to my comment being held, she is taking away my freedom of speech, against my will. i have not caused any harm, injury or loss. it’s unfair. i’m hungry and exhausted now. 

• [Erik Leander]

  Talk about using a broad brush here…….I did a quick search using the query “uk police abuse power”….and look at that, UK police abusing their power.  I like quite a bit of what you post Mark…..but the way you described this was a bit weak.

• [Cory Martin]

  Wow. They’re allowed to video an encounter with a police officer in a public place? Must be nice to live in a free country.

• [Mark Pitcavage]

  The person who made this video is a “sovereign citizen.”  This is a movement that began in the United States in the 1970s with a single group called the Posse Comitatus and which by the early 1980s had become a full-fledged movement with many groups.  It had another resurgence in the mid-1990s (OKC bomber Terry Nichols was a sovereign citizen) and has had third resurgence in the U.S. since 2009.  It is currently causing problems across the United States.  You can see my backgrounder on this movement here:  http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/scm.asp?xpicked=4

  In the 1990s, sovereign citizens in the U.S. successfully exported this movement to Canada, which has had problems with the movement ever since (and has been undergoing the same recent resurgence of activity that the U.S. has).

  In the past decade, U.S. sovereign citizens like David Wynn Miller and Winston Shrout helped export the movement to Australia and New Zealand, and now both of those countries have small but growing versions of this movement.

  In the past several years,  they have been doing the same thing with Great Britain, and  that country is now developing an incipient sovereign citizen movement as well.

  This is a movement that has a high association with criminal activity, including deadly shootouts and standoffs, but also routinely engages in “paper terrorism” and a variety of illegal frauds and scams.  Paper terrorism is the use of bogus legal documents or filings or the misuse of actual ones in order to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against police, public officials, or private citizens.

  In 2010 I wrote an overview of recent sovereign citizen activity in the U.S. called The Lawless Ones, which you can see here:  http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/scm.asp?xpicked=4

  So much activity has occurred since the summer of 2010 that I am preparing a brand new version of that report with examples from 2010-2012.

  • [Chris Elmes]

    So you’re involved with Federal/State Government then?……..Here in the UK we don’t have problems with Freemen (and women) in “shootouts” nor  are they more likely to be involved with criminal activity than any other member of the public. As to your comment and  quote “Paper terrorism is the use of bogus legal documents or filings or the misuse of actual ones in order to harass, intimidate, or retaliate against police, public officials, or private citizens.” are you seriously suggesting that it is wrong to challenge the decisions/conduct of police or public officials? Are you one of these individuals who think that anyone who exercises their constitutional rights is a “pinko commie subversive”or the new buzz word for US Government officials to strip citizens of their constitutional rights, Terrorist/Terrorism is the mantra being used to enslave the American people. I’m afraid that you and “The Funny People” at the FBI/CIA/NSA/Homeland Security are more of a danger to the freedom of the American people than Al quieda or any other band of  nutjobs. But then the US Government always need a a bogeyman to frighten their citizens into compliance.

• [BlackPanda]

  Ahh, the “Freeman on the Land” conspiracy nonsense. Sadly, a couple of my friends have been taken in by all this.

  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

  http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/11/15/freemen-of-the-dangerous-nonsense/

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/nov/16/law-protes…

  http://legalbizzle.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/comment-is-free-but-woo-is-sacred/

  These links should explain it all quite neatly. I’ll keep this, as it’s a spectacular example of the “techniques” failing.

  The last person I sent the above links to told me he “wasn’t going to read anything which is obviously a government mouthpiece [like The Guardian, and Ben Goldacre].” He also said it was “biased”. Which is a brilliant reason for not reading anything, I suppose.

  It’s only a few steps from here to the Lizards and the chemtrails, etc.

• [BlackPanda]

  There’s a brilliant video somewhere of a young lad completely failing to retrieve a retrieve a camera he had confiscated by the police, because he refuses to give his name (which is all they’re after), insisting that “he” is not there, and trying to present a receipt instead.