WHY is it UNLAWFUL to pay tax ? because the government is CRIMINAL, and it is UNLAWFUL to pay someone to commit a crime so how is the government CRIMINAL? if you knowingly INJURE your NEIGHBOUR, it is RECKLESS and CRIMINAL, so if you KNOWINGLY damage or destroy the environment which your neighbour lives in, then you are KNOWINGLY injuring your neighbour, which is RECKLESS AND CRIMINAL. obviously, we will do SOME damage to the environment we Live in, however, ANY UN-NECESSARY OR UNREASONABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION, done KNOWINGLY, is RECKLESS and CRIMINAL, the question arises, how much is NECESSARY AND REASONABLE . .? I cannot answer that question, however, I can, without fear of contradiction, assert that there is a LOT of un-necessary environmental damage and destruction, AND that the damage and destruction is being done KNOWINGLY by the ENTIRE WORK-FORCE. Indeed, we can SAFELY ASSERT that the threat of environmental damage and destruction, being done KNOWINGLY by the ENTIRE GLOBAL WORKFORCE, is as SERIOUS AS A THREAT OF WORLD WAR. this is a VERY SERIOUS BREACH OF THE LAW. ANY legislation which is allowing this damage to continue, is UNLAWFUL legislation, and it has BEEN ENACTED KOWINGLY BY OUR GOVERNMENT. the government is PAID through taxation to ENACT THE LAW the government has a STRICT LIABILITY TO ENACT THE LAW the government has KNOWINGLY, and CONTINUES, AGAINST ALL GOOD ADVICE AND REASON, knowingly to enact UNLAWFUL legislation, allowing multinational corporations to damage and destroy OUR ENVIRONMENT, and the threat is now as SERIOUS AS A THREAT OF WORLD WAR. THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT IS RECKLESS AND CRIMINAL . . . so now, from FIRST PRINCIPLES OF LAW> There is a Universal Law of social behaviour which always applies, to any group of creatures, at any time; in the past, and in the present, and in the future; in any place, in any possible universe. The Universal Law is quite simply that any creatures living in a group do not, as a general rule, injure each other. If the members of a group injure each other, then that group will get smaller and smaller, until, at the end, if the members continue to injure eachother, there is only one creature left, which is not a group! It is quite natural in many groups for members to establish pecking-orders and during this process some injury may be done, but once the pecking-order has been established and each group member knows hir place, very little further conflict is seen. This Law may be applied to any group of creatures, living at any time, in any place; anywhere, in any conceivable Universe. Therefore, if we are to believe in a Divine Architect who created the Universe, this is a Universal and Divine Principle Of Law, which any religious, political, financial, or industrial leader HAS TO AGREE WITH Even if we do not believe in a Divinity of any kind, the principle still holds good according to both common-sense and simple logic, so atheists, anarchists, agnostics, and nihilists have to accept it too... In British Law today there is a Duty of Care which states that: YOU MUST TAKE REASONABLE CARE TO AVOID ACTS OR OMISSIONS, WHICH YOU CAN REASONABLY FORESEE, WOULD BE LIKELY TO INJURE YOUR NEIGHBOUR This reasonable standard of care, as outlined in the Duty of Care above, is applied to all persons in the UK including the Government, the Bankers, and the Legal System itself... The failure to uphold the Duty of Care is either: (1)NEGLIGENT which is doing something likely to injure your neighbour in circumstances when you would not reasonably be expected to know that the thing you are doing is likely to injure your neighbour, (this is not a criminal offence, one may only be liable for damages in a civil court), or (2)RECKLESS which is doing something you KNOW is likely to injure your neighbour and yet doing it anyway (which IS a criminal offence where one may be arrested, and fined or imprisoned and be liable for damages), or (3)INTENTIONAL which is to intend by your act or omission to injure your neighbour (this is the most serious type of criminal offence which is generally punished with the full weight of the criminal law ). Not only is the Duty of Care arguably a Divine Principle of Law, it is also used in legal practice today to create precedent or new law. If you can show that your behaviour is reasonable, prudent and well-intentioned in the circumstances which you find yourself in, then you are not generally guilty of any crime even if you have broken a particular statute or statutes. For instance, there are times when it may be seen as reasonable, prudent and well-intentioned to disregard a particular law in order to serve a greater interest. Therefore we may argue that the Duty of Care is both the most fundamental and underlying principle of British (and International Law), also that it will over-ride any previous precedents or statutes in certain circumstances. Indeed we may argue that the Duty of Care IS the Law . . . . ! THE DUTY OF CARE - EXAMPLES The Duty of Care is used in court every day to determine the guilt or innocence of every defendant who appears in the dock. Two examples will serve to clarify the point. 1). (a). A person is driving a car who has no mechanical knowlege, this person has had the car serviced and maintained by qualified personnel and has the service history in the glove box of the car. The tax, MoT and insurance are all up to date. This person has done all that can REASONABLY be expected to ensure that the car is safe, yet when stopped by the police in a routine road check, it is found that they have DEFECTIVE BRAKES. This is doing something which is likely to injure their neighbour yet having taken all REASONABLE steps to insure that what they were doing was NOT LIKELY to cause injury. The person is still responsible in a civil court for the payment of damages should they injure someone as a result, but they have NOT behaved CRIMINALLY. (b). The same person is driving the same car along the same piece of road at the same speed and is stopped by the same police officer who, this time, forms the REASONABLY HELD BELIEF that the person KNEW that the brakes were defective. This time the person will very likely be ARRESTED AND TRIED in a criminal court for doing something which is likely to injure their neighbour KNOWINGLY, if it is found that the person DID KNOW that the brakes were defective, AND DID NOT SLOW DOWN or stop, this is RECKLESS behaviour as such is CRIMINAL. (c). The same person is driving the same car along the same piece of road at the same speed and is stopped by the same police officer who, this time, forms the REASONABLY HELD BELIEF that the person was AIMING TO HIT someone. This time the person will very likely be arrested and tried in a criminal court for doing something which is likely to injure their neighbour INTENTIONALLY. If it is found that the person DID INTEND TO HIT SOMEONE WITH THE CAR then this is obviously a SERIOUSLY CRIMINAL matter. It may be seen from the above that (a) ~not only does there have to be an unlawful ACT (the actus reus) committed (driving the car with defective brakes) for a defendant to be found guilty of a crime, (b) ~the MENTAL STATE (the mens rea) OF THE ACCUSED PERSON HAS ALSO TO BE OF A CRIMINAL NATURE. (2). The other example is rather heavy, but it does prove the point: In the case of the Hungerford Massacre, when, in 1987, a man called Micheal Ryan shot 16 people, and then shot himself; If a reasonable, prudent, and well-intentioned person (John Doe) had been present, and after Ryan had already shot one or more people, knowing that he intended to shoot another person, John Doe had shot Micheal Ryan, (to prevent him from shooting anyone else), John Doe would NOT BE FOUND GUILTY OF A CRIME, ~even if John Doe, the REASONABLE PERSON had to use REASONABLE FORCE to take a gun from someone else or from a shop. In ordinary circumstances, a person who stole a gun from another person, and then shot someone with it would be found guilty of assault and battery, theft of a firearm, unlawful posession and use of the firearm, and murder, and would receive a heavy gaol sentance (around 30 years). It is therefore apparent that:- (1). From the first example: For a defendant to be convicted of crime there has to be both: (a) an unlawful act or omission, (the actus reus) AND (b) the state of mind (the mens rea) of the accused has to be of a criminal nature, (2).From the second example: Reasonable, Prudent Well-Intentioned Behaviour is not criminal, (notwithstanding any acts of parliament, previous case law, or common law). To put it another way, if a person can show that they upheld the Duty Of Care In the circumstances they found themselves in, then they are not guilty of a crime. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre There have been many cases which are relevant on the eco front, the most dramatic of which was that of the Ploughshares Women who broke into British Aerospace and damaged combat aircraft which were to be exported to the Indonesian Government in order to subjugate the natives who were (and still are!) trying to resist the encroachment of western hotel complexes (etc etc) into the forests which are their home. inlap.freeuk/ploughsh.htm Normally, to break into British Aerospace and damage combat aircraft would, I believe, be a treasonable offence which is still punnishable by death. However, when it was found that prior to this action the women had taken all REASONABLE steps to make their point known (they wrote petitions and staged peaceful demonstrations etc), and it was realised that the matter was genuinely felt to be of sufficient urgence to justify such an action, the women (after serving several months remanded in custody) were FOUND BY A JURY TO BE NOT GUILTY OF ANY CRIME. In the last 12 years, court cases involving GM crops and nuclear, chemical and arms companies collapsed after protesters said they had followed their consciences and had been trying to prevent a greater crime. · 2000 Norwich jury found Greenpeace director Lord Melchett and 27 activists not guilty of causing criminal damage to field of GM crops · 2000 Five Greenpeace volunteers found not guilty of criminal damage after occupying incinerator · 1999 Three women cleared of causing £80,000 damage to Trident nuclear submarine computer equipment · 1996 Liverpool jury acquitted four women who caused £1.5m damage to Hawk fighter jet at British Aerospace factory theguardian/.../activists... Another Example: the Criminal Damage Act s1. To knowingly or intentionally, damage or destroy another persons property, without Lawful excuse legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/48/section/1 WHAT would be a Lawful Excuse to damage or destroy another persons property ? eg, if another persons house is on fire, and you break open the door to get someone out, then it would NOT be a criminal act. It is illegal to break another persons door open, but it is LAWFUL to do it to save someones Life. Another case in point is that many thousands of eco-activists have been arrested under the Criminal Justice And Public Order Acts, eg. for Criminal Damage to GM modified crops, yet only a very few have been found guilty of any crime, and even then, penalties are small. This is because it is unarguably the case that in the face of the threat due to Un-necessary and Unreasonable Environmental Damage and Destruction being of a similar magnitude to a threat of World War, it is REASONABLE, PRUDENT AND WELL-INTENTIONED, therefore NOT CRIMINAL to take Non-Violent-Direct-Action on Environmental Issues. THE DUTY OF CARE APPLIED TO Unnecessary Unreasonable Environmental Damage & Destruction. (from now on, Unnecessary Unreasonable Environmental Damage & Destruction will be written as UUEDD) Bearing in mind the huge increase in public awareness of UUEDD over the last five or ten years, it is no longer possible for anyone in a position of responsibility to claim that they are unaware of the threat of UUEDD to the nations (not to mention the planets) well-being and security. Therefore, any acts or omissions leading to further UUEDD, committed by person(s) in positions of responsibility are done in the full knowledge that such acts and omissions are already injuring all of us, on a massive scale, physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. THEREFORE ANY ACTS OR OMISSIONS LEADING TO FURTHER UUEDD COMMITTED BY PERSONS IN POSITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY ARE RECKLESS AND CRIMINAL. ~ THIS is where it starts to get INTERESTING . . . THE DUTY OF CARE APPLIED TO GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY It would appear that successive Governments have (knowingly) both acted, i.e. passed UNLAWFUL ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (which are supposed to be enactments of the Law) to allow UUEDD, and have omitted to control it, which they ought to have done according to Law. Therefore it would appear that such Governments are manifestly reckless and CRIMINAL, by act and omission in their Duty of Care for us and our environment. The (British) Government is voted in, and paid, by the British People THROUGH TAXATION, to serve the best interests of the British People. To this end therefore the Government is the servant of the (British) People, and the People are the Masters of the Government. It is UNLAWFUL for a master to employ a servant to commit a reckless act (the vicarious responsibility of a master for the act of a servant); so if the British Government is reckless in its duty of care for the environment, then it is unlawful for the British People to employ -i.e. pay tax to- the Government as long as the Government continues to be reckless. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
Posted on: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:23:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015