Driving without a licence

Re: Driving without a licence

Postby Dreadlock » Tue May 14, 2013 11:04 pm

If they own them they can issue any terms&conditions they like.

By this reasoning they could prevent any use of the public highways by any means - scary!

It is the very common law you cry for that requires us to have a license to drive a mechanically powered vehicle on public roads.

This simply isn't true. Unless harm/hindrance/nuisance can be demonstrated the common law would have little to say about the use of a car on the roads. Is a modern car harmful? to some degree yes. Do they cause a hindrance/nuisance? sometimes. But are they any worse than a horse drawn carriage for which no driving license is required? Arguably no. Both forms of transport emit noxious vapours and horses tend to leave feces, possibly disease ridden, all over the roads. Cars can kill people but then so can, and did, horse drawn carriages. If the common law had anything to say on the use of horses and carriages for transport, it would have no more to say about the use of motor powered transport.

Claiming that a license is required for a form of transport simply because it is motorised makes absolutely no sense and this is not the claim being made by government!
I've said it before and I'll say it again, a driving license is permission to drive on behalf of the government - that is all! Look at a court docket and you'll see further evidence for this in the form the defendant's name takes:


The capitalised surname indicates that the man is acting as a person who is an officer/employee of the government. It is an ASSUMPTION that they always use to effect jurisdiction. If Joe Bloggs is simply using the highways, whatever the form of transport, without causing harm/hindrance/nuisance then the government can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop Joe from doing so. Well that isn't true. They can convince Joe Bloggs that he was acting as Joe BLOGGS and then legally screw him over.

Terms & conditions - terms & conditions of use.

I don't think anyone is denying that there are terms and conditions of use. As I said before, who do they apply to? They certainly don't apply to everyone. The Queen is one of a very few PERSONS who does not require a driving license. But all PEOPLE are equal in the eyes of the law, so how can this be true?

Because PEOPLE are not necessarily PERSONS. The terms and conditions you talk about apply to PERSONS. Joe BLOGGS is a person but Joe Bloggs is not. Elizabeth Windsor does not require a driving license and neither does Joe Bloggs - because all people ARE equal in the eyes of the law. All PERSONS are not!
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Driving without a licence

Postby huntingross » Thu May 16, 2013 8:55 pm

There is something I should add to complete my position on this subject for future reference.

There appears to be two things agreed here, the right to travel and 'public authority' ownership.

The right to travel is not a right if it is contingent upon compliance with conditions, which is why I keep harping on about the law supporting the point. This scenario turns a right into a privilege.

There is much case on the 'law of conversion' (much of it American) including conversion of constitutional rights.

The right to travel is enshrined in the UK's constitution (only constitution) the Acts of Union, which includes NO provision for parliament to repeal its sections. Accordingly any and every law or statute that is contrary or inconsistent with those provisions are void ab initio.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Driving without a licence

Postby Dreadlock » Fri May 17, 2013 1:19 pm

Interestingly the Act of union refers to the people as "subjects" :

IV. THAT all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall, from and after the Union, have full Freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any Port or Place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging; and that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges, and Advantages, which do or may belong to the Subjects of each Kingdom; except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles.

Most of us are no longer considered subjects, according to the British Nationality Act 1981, so it might be argued by some that rights as stated in the constitution as applying to subjects, would not apply to UK citizens.
My argument would be that all subjects are first and foremost people and that any rights of subjects must therefore also be rights of people. Constitutional references to rights belonging to subjects would therefore still apply to people - as long as they are not acting as UK Citizens.

Was the British Nationality Act 1981 a sneaky way of removing some constitutional rights from UK citizens?
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am


Return to Frequently Asked Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest