Added video no.5.
Here’s a cracking series of video’s featuring Danny Shine questioning Matt Mckeown the Parliamentary Engagement and Legislation Manager at Office for National Statistics with regard to the census.
Census Phone Call Part 1:
Census Phone Call Part 2:
Census Phone Call Part 3:
Census Phone Call Part 4:
Census Phone Call Part 5:
A few points that I found interesting:
Video no.3 There is NO statutory obligation for anyone to open mail posted through their letterbox!
Video no.4 clarifies that ALL DATA COLLECTED becomes the “PROPERTY” OF THE CROWN!!!
Now this is interesting, if it’s property after it leaves your possession and becomes Crown property, it must also be property BEFORE it leaves your possession. Property holds VALUE therefore who would WILLINGLY hand over their personal property for FREE?
The court referred to “informational privacy” – “This notion of privacy derives from the assumption that all information about a person is in a fundamental way his own, for him to communicate or retain for himself as he sees fit.” – Regina -v- Dyment (1988) 45 CCC (3d) 244 1988
The rule of law applies to everyone! … doesn’t it?
To take what doesn’t belong to you is theft no matter who takes it. To take what isn’t given voluntarily is theft. To take property without consent is theft. To say or imply that you have the authority to take what doesn’t belong to you without payment and, without being able to prove that authority, is THEFT BY DECEPTION OF AUTHORITY.
Definition of theft as laid out in the Theft Act 1968:
Definition of “theft”
1 Basic definition of theft.
(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.
(3)The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).
(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.
(1)Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.
(2)Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property.
(1)“Property” includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.
(2)A person cannot steal land, or things forming part of land and severed from it by him or by his directions, except in the following cases, that it to say—
(a)when he is a trustee or personal representative, or is authorised by power of attorney, or as liquidator of a company, or otherwise, to sell or dispose of land belonging to another, and he appropriates the land or anything forming part of it by dealing with it in breach of the confidence reposed in him; or
(b)when he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed, or after it has been severed; or
(c)when, being in possession of the land under a tenancy, he appropriates the whole or part of any fixture or structure let to be used with the land.
For purposes of this subsection “land” does not include incorporeal hereditaments; “tenancy” means a tenancy for years or any less period and includes an agreement for such a tenancy, but a person who after the end of a tenancy remains in possession as statutory tenant or otherwise is to be treated as having possession under the tenancy, and “let” shall be construed accordingly.
(3)A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose.
For purposes of this subsection “mushroom” includes any fungus, and “plant” includes any shrub or tree.
(4)Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcase of any such creature, unless either it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in course of reducing it into possession.
5“Belonging to another”.
(1)Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).
(2)Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be regarded as including any person having a right to enforce the trust, and an intention to defeat the trust shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive of the property any person having that right.
(3)Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other.
(4)Where a person gets property by another’s mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds.
(5)Property of a corporation sole shall be regarded as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.
6“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.
(1)A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.
(2)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control (lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other’s authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights.
How about terrorism? Is the threat of being dragged through the court system designed to scare people into giving up what belongs to them? I would suggest that to anyone with at least an ounce of common sense can see that the “threat” is indeed designed to invoke involuntary compliance born of terror.
So non compliance will result in “threatening letters”, a compulsion to attend a court full of strangers who will decide that you’ll “voluntarily” give up £1000 under the “threat” of imprisonment (or as it’s called when the anyone except a government does it “kidnap”), and ultimately the use of violent force against the person and damage to private property should kidnap be resisted.
Terrorism Act 2000:
Definition of “property”:
“property” includes property wherever situated and whether real or personal, heritable or moveable, and things in action and other intangible or incorporeal property,
1 Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.