Common Law Right to Travel

Norman: Hinks made this Freedom of Information request to Department for Transport

The request was partially successful.

From: Norman: Hinks

29 May 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

Can you please confirm the following:

1) That the common law right to travel still exists;
2) When travelling in your personal conveyance of the day there is
no requirement for a license, insurance, road tax or MOT as it is
not covered by any statute such as the road traffic act.

Yours faithfully,

Norman: Hinks

Link to this

From: Beverly Williams

5 June 2009


Attachment Letter Mr Hinks.pdf
47K Download View as HTML


Dear Mr Hinks

Please see the attached letter.

Beverly Williams
Casework and Specialist Advice
Zone 1/D16
Policy and External Communications Directorate
DVLA

Tel: 01792 788577
GTN: 1213 8577

show quoted sections

Link to this

mark-william:baker left an annotation ( 7 June 2009)

Quote-marks question dodge their common law rights have nothing to do with legal liberties/rights!to use a vehicle legally is not the same as using a vehicle lawfully!

Link to this

From: Norman: Hinks

21 June 2009

Dear Beverly Williams,

Thank you for your reply. I am a little confused by some of the
content of your reply and respectfully ask for your clarification
on a couple of points, in order for me to act lawfully.

You clearly state that the common law right to travel is in place.

Can you explain where in law you base the next comment,'However, if
the travelling is to be done in/on a mechanically propelled vehicle
on a public road, the vehicle must be registered and licensed.' as
it appears to contradict the common law right to travel?

I am aware of the 'Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994' &
'Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994' which are both statutes
and as such only apply to those who give consent. (please refer to
Black's law dictionary for the definition of a statute if needed).

Are you suggesting that a statute overrides a Law?

Also the above 'acts' refer to a driver, which i understand is
defined as someone who engages in commerce on the highway, such as
a taxi driver.

Lastly, can you please clarify the contradiction between travelling
and driving for me?

Yours sincerely,

Norman: Hinks

Link to this

From: Beverly Williams

23 June 2009


Attachment Letter Mr Hinks2.pdf
73K Download View as HTML


Mr Hinks

Please see the attached letter.

Beverly Williams
Casework and Specialist Advice
Zone 1/D16
Policy and External Communications Directorate
DVLA

Tel: 01792 788577
GTN: 1213 8577

show quoted sections

21/06/09 10:12 >>>
Dear Beverly Williams,

Thank you for your reply. I am a little confused by some of the
content of your reply and respectfully ask for your clarification
on a couple of points, in order for me to act lawfully.

You clearly state that the common law right to travel is in
place.

Can you explain where in law you base the next comment,'However,
if
the travelling is to be done in/on a mechanically propelled
vehicle
on a public road, the vehicle must be registered and licensed.'
as
it appears to contradict the common law right to travel?

I am aware of the 'Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994' &
'Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994' which are both
statutes
and as such only apply to those who give consent. (please refer
to
Black's law dictionary for the definition of a statute if
needed).

Are you suggesting that a statute overrides a Law?

Also the above 'acts' refer to a driver, which i understand is
defined as someone who engages in commerce on the highway, such
as
a taxi driver.

Lastly, can you please clarify the contradiction between
travelling
and driving for me?

Yours sincerely,

Norman: Hinks

show quoted sections

Link to this

mark-william:baker left an annotation (26 June 2009)

Quote-marks ahh but remember equality is paramount before the law bev.so who are the government to tell another what to do especially on a legislated act given the force of law on the consent of the governed?i mean what if someone isnt a member of this apparently nameless society which noone seems to remember joining upto?or is this all related to our births where a certificate of birth was produced and needed to be traded as a security thus bringing the baby into the legal world to enact legislation upon it as a legal person(company) for a few measly benefits?thats really laughable if you have a sick sense of humour that is

Link to this

From: Norman: Hinks

1 July 2009

Dear Beverly Williams,

Thank you for your reply and i note its contents. I would request
that you clarify the LAWFUL position.

You have quoted requirements of statutes, which are irrelevant to
the common law right to travelling in ones own conveyance of the
day, un hindered, without license or insurance etc... are they not?

The license as required by the statutes you quote are for 'driving'
and are irrelevant to the common law right to travel is it not?.

'Driving' is defined as engaging in commerce on the highway. i.e.
buying and selling. like a taxi or delivery driver for example, so
if one does not engage in commerce there is no need for any
license, or indeed any license available to travel as it would be
equivalent to requiring permission to engage in the lawful activity
of travelling?

Travelling is not defined.

Yours sincerely,

Norman: Hinks

Link to this

John Cross left an annotation ( 2 July 2009)

Quote-marks summary of authority response: "I acknowledge that the common law right to travel still exists. However, if the travelling is to be done in/on a mechanically propelled vehicle on a public road, the vehicle must be registered and licensed."

Link to this

From: Beverly Williams

6 July 2009


Attachment Hinks3.pdf
72K Download View as HTML


Mr Hinks

Please see attached letter.

Beverly Williams
Casework and Specialist Advice
Zone 1/D16
Policy and External Communications Directorate
DVLA

Tel: 01792 788577
GTN: 1213 8577

show quoted sections

01/07/09 18:17 >>>
Dear Beverly Williams,

Thank you for your reply and i note its contents. I would request
that you clarify the LAWFUL position.

You have quoted requirements of statutes, which are irrelevant to
the common law right to travelling in ones own conveyance of the
day, un hindered, without license or insurance etc... are they
not?

The license as required by the statutes you quote are for
'driving'
and are irrelevant to the common law right to travel is it not?.

'Driving' is defined as engaging in commerce on the highway. i.e.
buying and selling. like a taxi or delivery driver for example,
so
if one does not engage in commerce there is no need for any
license, or indeed any license available to travel as it would be
equivalent to requiring permission to engage in the lawful
activity
of travelling?

Travelling is not defined.

Yours sincerely,

Norman: Hinks

show quoted sections

Link to this

mark-william:baker left an annotation (11 July 2009)

Quote-marks im interested where these so called obligations come from

Link to this

Jessica: Wheeler left an annotation (30 July 2009)

Quote-marks Surely a personal conveyance can only be that of the current day. Common law doesn't state means of propulsion, it could not, and as there is no awareness of what the future would hold when this was conceived.

Parliament state statute law is only there to uphold and ratify our common law. I'm sure the oath is to this effect.

I note US Judges are now upholding the common law right of travel. I consider them having written it down at the time when it was defined by English Law that they are showing us the true interpretation of English law.

If above all everything has to be seen to be equal above the law, and by whichever contract they have got you by birth or license, where's their side of the bargain? I can't see any balance being struck.

I have similar responses re: PCN. Refusal to answer points even when written as a legal notice, therefore absorbing them in contract to respond. Doesn't work!

Link to this

Darkhorse21X left an annotation ( 4 February 2010)

Quote-marks The remedy exists in the use of the word vehicle. The Acts use the term vehicle in recognition of your common law right to travel and not in spite of it. They are protecting your common law right to travel. Blacks Law Dictionary clearly defines what vehicle means. A conveyance is defined as a means of transport. Transportation is defined in Blacks as a commercial activity.

Therefore, to be under the jurisdiction of the Act, there must be demonstrable proof that you are acting in commerce.

The crown must prove that you are acting in commerce to have jurisdiction over your actions. As long as they continue to use the word vehicle, you have remedy.

No statute can be written to abridge or restrict a pre existing right unless it is SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Act. As no such specificity exists in any "Motor Vehicle Act", then you can reasonably infer that your common law right to travel has not been infringed upon.

LET FREEDOM REIGN

Link to this

Matthew Cooper left an annotation (24 January 2011)

Quote-marks What do they mean by the phrase 'In the UK'?

Link to this

scott left an annotation ( 2 August 2012)

Quote-marks Just a quick summary on the subject of ''common law right to travel'' First of all i would like to say this law does exist that protects us from the corporate greed in this case the DVLA i like the comments of Mr Norman Hinks And have to say the replies from beverley where clearly statute jargon (jiberish) to protect the best interests of there financial gain i hope everyone oversees these comments and takes it upon themselfs to challenge these rubbish statutes and go and treat yourself to a nice car then go and drive it where ever and whenever you like without going through there financially gainfull stages of requiring a license then insurance mot tax ETC... have fun people lets overthrow these corrupt people that laws are always in the favours of the rich and wealthy.

Link to this

barry powell left an annotation (11 August 2012)

Quote-marks I believe the time has come to checkmate the system.
In Australia they deny our common law rights to travel and they do this by denying our right to a trail by jury which is breaching the commonwealth constitution act 80 :Trial by jury
The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.

we need to some how find a law or loophole to get that trail by jury in order to expose all corrupt judges and lawyers who are thriving on the system and breaking the ciminl code act 1995
268.10 Crime against humanity--enslavement

(1) A person (the perpetrator ) commits an offence if:

(a) the perpetrator exercises any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over one or more persons (including the exercise of a power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children); and

(b) the perpetrator's conduct is committed intentionally or knowingly as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 25 years.

(2) In subsection (1):

..... then the whole system will collapse like a house of cards.

Link to this

TC left an annotation (29 October 2012)

Quote-marks Mr Hinks may have a legitimate point to contend here, but he appears to be ignorant of the finer workings of the British constitution and is therefore getting his knickers in a twist by barking up the wrong tree.

The place to assert one's rights in the UK is not via a Freedom of Information Act request. The civil servant has fully answered the question being asked. His/her job is not to engage in what is in effect a political discussion.

The laws that are thought of to be an infringement upon a Crown subject's rights is a creature of Parliament, so any disagreement with the law should be taken up with respective Members of Parliament or, if need be, be tested in a court. There are numerous ways to raise an issue in Parliament, the latest innovation being e-petitions (Google "e-petitions").

Mr Hinks and others have cited Black's. As far as I am aware Black's is not an authoritative source of law in England and Wales. However, case law, which IS an authoritative source of law, has given the verb "to drive" a variety of legal definitions, a summary of which may be found here: http://blog.bsure.uk.com/the-legal-defin.... (N.B.: None of the definitions mention anything to do with "commercial activity".)

Mr Hinks and others seem eager to assert their common law right to travel and to extend that right to driving (on a public road, I assume) without the necessary documents as stipulated by Parliament. I consider such requirements to be a necessary condition of accommodating all members of the public on a public road. Operating a machine that can travel up to 120 mph in public presents a grave health and safety risk to people other than the operator, and I would think that some form of regulation and imposition of responsibility on operators would be a wise thing to have for the sake of public safety. But that is just me. In order to find out why Parliament decided on such onerous requirements, Mr Hinks and others may consult Parliament's Official Report (Hansard) for the relevant debates and committee sittings. I am sure that the British Library holds copies.

All in all I applaud Mr Hinks and others' eagerness to assert what they believe to be their legal right. I hope that my suggestion of sources for their further research will be helpful.

Link to this

GF left an annotation (28 December 2012)

Quote-marks TC, you are arguing from within the limits set to you by the system that we are contesting is fraudulent. That is a form of circular logic that makes no sense. I'm not a "Crown Subject" I'm a human being. We all are.

There is no such thing as 'legal rights', as legal is whatever the government says it is. There are only legal privileges. Rights are an inherent aspect of having been born a sovereign human being.

Link to this

malek left an annotation (12 February 2013)

Quote-marks NOTE TO ALL: We all have the constitutional rights to travel on our road freely, asking the DVLA permision is like asking your mum to go to the toilet. They are advising you through their statutory regulations! They have already stated the right to travel exists, you wont get nothing more, notice how she said in a 'mechanically propelled vehicle' and not automobile/private conveyance. If you are going to do this, make sure you have private notarized ID as if you show passport/driving license the police will use that against you (when you get pulled over). Make sure to have your Notarized affidavits/ claim of right/fee schedule as you WILL have your car impounded (untill you show approval from the courts) police cannot comprehend this movement, so be armed! make sure you rebut the claims before the sumons, then show up on the date and waive all benifits, should you have to take it to judicial review (most of time you will) then stay strong, once you get your dismissal, this will be your golden pass free card next time you get pulled over. ENJOY THE FREEDOM GUYS :) much love Lord Malek

Link to this

TC left an annotation (13 February 2013)

Quote-marks Yes, GF, you are a human being. So am I. Together, with other human beings, we form society. And a society must have rules to curtail individual freedoms if it is to be a functioning society.

While rights are, as you say, "an inherent aspect of having been born a sovereign human being", without legal underpinning, they mean nothing. For example, in the UK all have a right to have as many children as they want - the state will even pay money to support their child-raising. In China if you attempt to assert the same right you will face hefty fines, because the law there is that one couple can only have one child. All rights, if they are to be enforceable, have to be legal (i.e. recognised and protected by the courts). Otherwise they're just empty protestations.

Malek, you are right that "We all have the constitutional rights to travel on our road freely". If you go out and start walking - travelling on your feet - no law enforcement body will fetter you. That is your constitutional right to travel freely. Driving a car/automobile/mechanically propelled vehicle is different. That is more than travelling on a road; that is, as I have said, operating a machine capable of killing, particularly if not used correctly.

Even if you are exercising your right to travel on the road freely (i.e. walking), if you do so in a way that injures someone else, you may be liable for their injury. So in that way your right to travel on the road freely is qualified: you have the right to travel on the road freely as long as you do not infringe upon other people's rights to enjoy the road equally.

The right to drive on the roads is the same, only that it is even more important to ensure that the chances drivers cause death, injury or damage to other people or property are reduced to a minimum. That is the theoretical reason behind the need for regulation. Yes, our rights as drivers are curtailed by regulation, but this is to ensure that other drivers are also curtailed by regulation, so that the risk of collision is kept to a minimum.

Perhaps a comparable analogy is that of pedal bicycles. While there are laws regulating the use of bicycles on the roads if you live in a busy city like I do all too frequent you see cyclists breaking the law: riding on the pavement; ignoring red lights; riding on the wrong side of the road etc. These cyclists are a danger to other road users, but because they are neither licensed nor insured there is mighty little claimants can ask for if they are injured by negligent or dangerous cyclists.

Cyclists enjoy the kind of right you seek for drivers: no regulation, no licence, no insurance. And some of them take advantage of that and become a menace to other people. Yet why should innocent people suffer from the inability to seek redress or compensation if they have been hit by an unlicensed and uninsured cyclist? If a cyclist is found to be cycling dangerously he/she could still hop on a bike the next day, potentially causing more injuries to more people. Are you sure you want dangerous or negligent drivers of cars to have same kind of immunity?

Rights are rights only if balanced with appropriate responsibilities. Otherwise they're just selfish excesses.

Link to this

malek left an annotation (14 February 2013)

Quote-marks Dear TC,

i have dealt with these matters countless times with people arguing the same points you make. Let me assure you its invalid when i got to the courts! (before i even go to the courts i deal with the matter honorably through letters) you said it yourself, cyclist enjoy the same freedom! we do not need to ask permission from mum (government) to travel in an automobile!!!! YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT!! I have been doing it for the last 3 months!!! i cant help the fact you are unable to comprehend the matter but i can most surely help incorrect statements. when you say 'dangerous drivers' this applies to anybody anywhere on the planet! you know that simply leaving your house something could potentially hit and kill you. if you are living in fear, you are more than welcome to submit to a higher responsibility to take care of you, but remember its IMPOSSIBLE for somebody to take liability on your behalf, they can only do so financially. If you buy an armani suit, that doesn't mean we all have to take insurance because your scared you might get it dirty! insurance is a scam im sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and there is no such thing as money, you create money every time you ask for a loan. all money is DEBTS!

Furthermore, when our society wake up to the fact that we are the ones responsible all along, thats when we stop contributing to contradicting statutes and acts, please note you are contributing to war crimes by funding money to the military in order to kill for the corporation of the commonwealth.

I have already started my peaceful non-compliance, all humans should have the courage and support of our community to do so without fear, but rather guidance and support to pave the way of a new model in order to make the current model obsolete.

I have explained how to 'travel' lawfully without the fear of ending up in prison. that doesnt mean we are not responsible, infact its the contrary i am more responsible than most 'drivers' as i have chosen to take FULL liability for my actions. Behaving Lawfully implies i can still be punished if i injure/cause loss/harm or fraud in contracts.

Courts mean nothing to me without proof. play them at thier own game, you will soon find you have been scared for no reason,tricked and conditioned.

Link to this

TC left an annotation (15 February 2013)

Quote-marks Malek,

It is clear that we adhere to quite opposite socio-economic/political traditions - which is no bad thing, of course. I wonder how much latitude the moderators will allow, but I am enjoying this discussion with you.

I have a feeling that "common law right to travel" is being confused with "lawfully driving a car". Of course you don't need the permission of the Government (or society) to get into your car and drive to wherever you want (i.e. common law right to travel), but once you are driving that car you are bound by the rules society makes in order to make driving safe for everyone else on the street. I am addressing the second matter and the second matter only.

You are right to say that "'Dangerous drivers'...applies to everybody on the planet". That is exactly why we need regulation to ensure a minimum standard of safety. I applaud the care and responsibility that you take when driving. The road certainly could do with a few more drivers who take your attitude, but the world is not full of people like you - the world is full of idiots. When the Government regulates it is not to punish you; it is to protect everyone from idiots and irresponsible people, or usually-responsible people who might have been having a bad day or were tired and weren't paying attention. Unfortunately we all bear the responsibility for everyone, responsible and irresponsible, because that is the nature of society. In 2011 there were 203,950 casualties on the roads (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...). You caused none of them, but someone did cause them, and someone was hurt or even killed. Society owes a duty to those casualties - and potential casualties - to ensure that drivers are safe. The way to do so is to ensure that everyone drives according to the same rules (i.e. have traffic laws); everyone is proven to be able to drive (i.e. driving licence); and in case of accident the injured party can have access to an adequate amount of compensation without crippling the driver (i.e. insurance).

I am not a big fan of the insurance industry myself, because, as you allude to, it actually absolves people of financial responsibility and encourages people not to think as much about their responsibility. Yet on perhaps a more positive note it means that someone I injure has at least a chance of recovering an adequate level of compensation that on my own I would never be able to provide. I don't like it, but it does have its value.

I respect, though disagree with, your decision to be civilly disobedient. It is not a decision I would take, for I believe that complying with the law has more positive effects for everyone else around me, so I'm not putting my own rights and freedoms above everyone else's.

P.S. Sorry for not addressing your otherwise interesting points about war and money. Interesting topics, but ones that would have been difficult to address without going on a tangent. Perhaps next time.

Link to this

malek left an annotation (16 February 2013)

Quote-marks A beautifully returned argument i must admit TC

I had no idea tha casualties was so high in 2011, its shocking! I agree with regards to regulation, it brings the crime into control of the hands of a higher authority. What scares me however is you could potentially regulate everything, cycling,skating,roller skating, if it has wheels it could cause potential harm. Im sure its not in the best interest of society reach into their pocket and pay for the education of common sense. I believe life insurance can take care of this issue safely with compensation, however creating statutes or acts simply because we cannot control humans is going too far. Humans will always make mistakes unfortunately, thats the beautiful aspect about us, we learn and grow consciously. its amazing to think 80-90 years ago women had no rights, eventually we understood we are all equal.

Now when you say 'It is clear that we adhere to quite opposite socio-economic/political traditions' who is the 'we' i feel this is strictly your opinion.

Also you stated 'so I'm not putting my own rights and freedoms above everyone else's.' i hope i have not come across as higher than anybody, if i do then i sincerely apologise, my intention is to exercise my god given rights. no mans is above me but god himself, unless he has a document signed by god, then fair enough you win :P

history has a tendency to repeat itself, please note all of what hitler committed was 'legal'.

for example: ICC Act 2001 part 5.51, Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. (1) Its is an offense against the law of england and wales for a person to commit genocide, a crime against humanity or war crime. 2 (b) Outside united kingdom, by a united kingdom national, a united kingdom resident, or a person subject to united kingdom jurisdiction.

52 (1) Its is an offense against the law of england and wales for a person to engage in conduct ancillary to an act to which this section applies.

'conduct ancillary' means to also aid and fund!!!!

If i stop paying tax, i stop conducting to ancillary, sorry if i come across persistent, but my father is originally from libya, 4 family members dead now from the 'uprising'.

United kingdom is a person (in legal terms, as it is a corporation) also metropolitan police is partly owned by IBM, we are loosing control of our OWN services through corporations. War is about business not people. when a company ignores its employees what usually follows?

With time we will understand not to fear these silly taxes and paid courts on behalf of the council, magistrates hiring solicitors to act as judges, never showing oaths as they cannot provide it. I fear too many of us are in fear, i blame the news for keeping us in line.

What happened in Iceland never hit national news, they had a peaceful revolution and kicked out private bankers! I wonder if we would ever have recessions if these banks were nationalized.

capitalism worked great....for a while....then we learned it was only great for the ones WITH capital, and boy did they end up with most of it :) time to put the monopoly money back in the box, this game has taught us enough now.

Link to this

TC left an annotation (17 February 2013)

Quote-marks Malek, I actually agree with much of your latent sentiment, but I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that humans always make mistakes. Both Government and business are simply collections of imperfect humans being given a little authority and power, or means of buying authority and power, and it isn't surprising at all that they will abuse it. That is why rigorous checks and balances and a vibrant civil society are so important.

I'm under no illusion that the UK is a paradise, but it's a whole lot better than many, many other countries in the world. British foreign policy may have less-than-desirable aspects to it, but I haven't found any other country's foreign policy to be any more appetising. Arguments for and against intervention go both ways, and it's a debate for historians in the future.

Of course that is no comfort to those who suffer from war and other human-induced atrocities, but as you say, we make mistakes. Until and unless the fundamental drivers of human folly are addressed, that will go on in one way or another. As the French would say, c'est la vie.

Link to this

Yiannis left an annotation (23 October 2013)

Quote-marks To TC and Malek _ I have enjoyed your debate very much, but feel I must come down with Malek on this one.

TC - almost everything can be used to kill. Your position in this regard would mean a license and tax on kitchen knives, walking sticks, cricket bats, hammers and so on.

The point is that with rights come responsibilities and TC you are correct in your point that some cyclists break a number of 'rules' and therefore infringe on the particular rights of other, but this doesn't mean that all cyclists are as irresponsible and therefore need to be licensed and taxed. When we register something we give up title and this is what the corporations that operate under the UK plc corporation want - they get title to the privileges (the ability to tax and charge) and we end up with title to the liabilities (as the surety for the 'MR' name).

Tax and registration are correct for the people who do not take personal responsibility but that doesn't mean that we are collectively bound by this. If I choose to step up and take responsibility for myself, I can choose NOT to be a member of this rather brutal and oppressive society. That is my god-given right.

Have you ever considered that as the DVLA have legal title to our cars why they aren't paying for the maintenance and insurance of them (the same goes for houses)?

No, Malek is bang on here. I am not a person (which all statutes apply to), I am a sentient being with a soul existing freely under Divine Law and the laws of natural justice. The 10th Rule of Commerce is to never let anyone get between myself and my creator, which I would be doing by handing any of my un-a-lien-able rights to a piece of paper called a corporation.

This includes the DVLA, who are private racketeers as are TV license, Council Tax, HMRC and many more...

Link to this

TC left an annotation (24 October 2013)

Quote-marks Yiannis,

It is always welcome to hear from opposite viewpoints. I thank the moderators who have allowed such a wide latitude to our discussion.

The law does regulate knives, walking sticks and hammers. They may not be licensed or taxed (well, sales of them are, by VAT, but that is irrelevant for this discussion), but various Acts of Parliament already regulate their sale and possession (e.g. s. 1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953; Offensive Weapons Act 1996). I am very happy for these items to remain regulated.

There is a debate to register and license cyclists. I, for one, am in favour, at least in theory. I am a cyclist myself, and cyclists who ride badly give all cyclists a bad name. Cyclists are already subject to the Highway Code and may be fined if they break the law. Licensing them—or at least forcing them to purchase insurance—will, I believe, improve every cyclist’s behaviour. As I said, I believe that the requirement for licence is not because everyone is irresponsible, but because a few are. Frustrating, I know, but we do live in a society full of idiots.

It is, I submit, not correct to say that when we register something we lose legal title to it—at least not for every type of property. An example is land. Under the Land Registration Act 1925, all land in England and Wales should (eventually) be registered with the Land Registry. However, the legal title always remains with the freeholder or leaseholder. Registration merely clarifies who owns what. You state that DVLA takes legal title to your car. Could you kindly provide the source of law or documentation that states that to be the case?

I applaud wholly your desire to take personal responsibility, but different people have different standards of “personal responsibility”. I give a non-legal example: I think it’s okay to leave dishes in the sink overnight and deal with them in the morning, but my flatmate disagrees; he thinks it’s disgusting. Clearly my flatmate disagrees with my idea of what personal responsibility entails. When two parties are in dispute, what should they do to resolve it? In any civilised society they should take their dispute to court. The court should then try to come up with a neutral and balanced principle, and then make a judgment based on the facts. This is the fundamental reason for the existence of law and society: people disagree, but instead of fighting it out they decide to submit to the authority of a third party.

Also, while you may expressly reject your membership of society, from your known, existing behaviour I would argue that it is implied that you are a willing member of it. What behaviour, you ask? Using the internet. Just by reading this reply, you are already engaged in a heavily regulated activity. I name three types of law that regulate this behaviour: private law, domestic law and international law.

First I will have to make two assumptions (correct me if I am wrong):

1. You are accessing the internet within England and Wales.
2. You connect to the internet through one of the commercial internet service providers.

If so, this most likely means that you have a contract with them. If you dig out your contract and read it, I suspect that you will find a clause stating that any dispute arising under this contract will be settled under English law. By agreeing to the contract, using the service and paying your connection fees, you are enjoying the privileges it brings to you, but you are also subject to the terms of the contract and ultimately the English judiciary. That is the private law aspect.

Secondly, your ISP will most likely be subject to regulation by Ofcom, established by the Office of Communications Act 2002 and the Communications Act 2003. This is the domestic law aspect.

Finally, in the international law aspect, the UK is a signatory to, just to pluck a random one, the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, which helps to provide legal protection to your internet usage against cyber-criminals.

Unfortunately it takes a lot nowadays to completely peel oneself from society. If you ever achieve it, I would love to know, but given that you should be completely shunning the internet at that stage, I doubt I ever will.

I agree with you that you (and I, and everyone else) are a sentient being with a soul existing freely under divine law and the laws of natural justice, even though I struggle to see where the 10th rule of commerce comes from. Again, if you can provide me with a source of where these rules of commerce come from within divine law and the laws of natural justice, I would be grateful.

I don’t know whether your God is my God, but my God tells me that, while I have certain rights, it is a higher path to surrender those rights if it means benefiting his fellow creation (John 15:13; 1 Corinthians 8:13). I take my example from my God, who submitted himself to an authority even lower than his own so that he may rescue a few of his creation (a position put beautifully in Philippians 2:6).

I do not for one moment pretend that Britain is a God-given paradise; in fact my God has expressly stated that he doesn’t think that this world is up to scratch (e.g. James 4:4), and that it will one day pass (Matthew 24:35). However, I believe that that is a call to engage with the world rather than withdraw from it, so that I may be a positive influence within my fellow members.

I have no care for DVLA, my local council or HMRC, but I do care for safe driving on public roads, rubbish-collecting and library services, and free healthcare at the point of use. If taxation, licensing and registration are the means we have so far devised to allow me to enjoy those, so be it.

Link to this

Mark Carboon left an annotation ( 8 December 2013)

Quote-marks I have been reading this thread with great interest. I am not sure if any other readers are aware that in Australia all local councils are illegal and have no authority according to our Westminster constitution. Therefore all council rates, parking fines etc. have no legal basis. Local councils should not exist. I am in the process of challenging this in court.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Department for Transport only:

Follow this request

There are 14 people following this request

Offensive? Unsuitable?

Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).

If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators

Report this request

Act on what you've learnt

Similar requests

Common Law

To House of Commons by Mr S J Warren 19 November 2013

More similar requests

Event history details

Are you the owner of any commercial copyright on this page?