Taxpayer Equity

[squark]

The idea that we can go to court and order that a fine be set off (A4V + returned 4V)against our share of the National Wealth is entirely dependant on
1. There being any national wealth
2. It being ours and not the queens or the crowns.

I found this
http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/_downloads/VOA_Annual_Report_2012-13.pdf
which is pretty dull except that on page 49, where the heading is:
Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity for the year ended 31 March 2013

Its only a small point but I thought worth knowing.

-----------------------------------
Also spotted that:
1.17 Civil penalties
We levy civil penalties for the failure to submit Forms of Return deemed essential for the
assessment of rateable values. We do not account for receipts of these penalties in the
Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure as we have no claim on them and must
surrender them to the Consolidated Fund. Therefore they are recognised as a liability
on the Statement of Financial Position and shown as receipts and payments in the
Cash Flow Statement.
==============
Civil penalties, ie a fine for not registering (sharing ownership in) your property.
oooo look at this.....UN Declaration of Human Rights
Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
------and how should I express that right, because it feel like I must Register or be fined, and I can't find the statutory blah blah that shows me my remedy............erm....
Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Actually I think the title is enough.
Ring ring, Hello, is that the government, please promote my right to freedom of association to me.
Certainly Sir, who is it pestering you.
It's you dear Government, and you won't will you, because in the spirit of brotherhood, you are a big bullying shit head of a brother aren't you.

Maybe this from the preamble is what they need to re read.
Stressing that all members of the international community shall fulfil, jointly and separately, their solemn obligation to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of any kind, including distinctions based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and reaffirming the particular importance of achieving international cooperation to fulfil this obligation according to the Charter,

So it looks to me like, rather that us being obliged to do all this hunting around to find the key to our freedom, its actually something that the state and all of them in it, should be actively assisting us in.!!!

[squark]

UN Declaration of Human Rights
Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Association has the same linguistic root as Society. They can't force you to be in their Society and so, as we already know, can't force their statutes on you, statutes being the rules of a society.

I like this stuff you know. In fact section 1,Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
To me that says we have the right to start our own society, associated with the present one.

Am I wrong or does it say.....
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security
So if not in the Society, you can't claim Social Security.......

But there is also
Article 23
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
I asked very specifically upon signing on, what are the terms and conditions of this contract, and was told, "you sign fortnightly, look for work and fulfil our reasonable requests."
Thats it?
Thats it!
No mention of Societies or citizenship, status, standing, jurisdiction, none of that.
Just an allowance for job seekers.

[squark]

And this too
Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Again, no mention of citizenship, just EVERYONE HAS,

Does £65 a week do that?

[Dreadlock]

What makes you think you are human? I know I'm not.
Humans get their rights from persons, such as the E.U or U.N. What persons give they can take away.
Man gets his rights from God and only God can take them away...

In my opinion this whole "human" business is one of the biggest traps that has been made for us to fall into.

[squark]

Dreadlock that seems a bit daft to me. What evidence do you have that God did not make a system where the biggest meanest bully gets the lot and bullied some scribes into writing a book to distract you. I think Equality is plenty fair.

I guess I have heard enough now to accept being a man, human and having a person, It's more about taking control of that person and steering it some place I feel more comfortable in. Sorting out my contracts and relationships to exclude the arseholes.

Heck, its the first set of rights I ever was offered (notice they seem to be given unconditionally). I'm gonna get what I can from them. The UK govt HAS COMMITTED ITSELF TO UPHOLD THESE RIGHTS. Allegedly

The only other one I ever heard of was "you have the right to remain silent".
I did think if you get given that right when arrested, all of us must have that right all the time.......!

What you name sonny boy.
Tell me officer, do I have the right to remain silent?
Barstard

[Dreadlock]

You're missing the point. Whether or not you accept the bible as your truth is your business. But it is considered to be the truth in the system of law which we have.
God created man not hu-man, therefore only God can lawfully take away man's rights - not likely to happen any time soon.

If you claim to be human your rights come from another source entirely the U.N or E.U for example. I'm not sure about the U.N but E.U statute certainly has clauses which allows them to revoke the "rights" they give - which in fact means they are not rights at all but merely privileges.

Given that the U.N did not come into existence until the 1940s and the E.U even later, where did people get their rights before the creation of these organisations? Are we to believe that people had no rights prior to their establishment?
Are the "rights" given to humans by these organisations comprehensive or are there notable omissions? Do either of them state the right to bear arms for example? I think not... and that's one hell of an omission.

The fact is that rights cannot be created or lawfully taken away, they simply exist. If you claim to be human you are diminishing your status and giving government power over you. Why claim to be less than you are? Why look to government for your rights? Far better to know your rights and assert them as a man, rather than beg for them as a human.

[Mog]

The only natural right we started with would be the right to defend ourself (originally from something that wanted to eat us) and probably the right to kill anything smaller than us or that we were capable of getting the better of !
We then move into the ideas of right and wrong as well as fair and unfair which are open to different interpretations by people who wish to bend these to suit their own agenda.

To tell anyone (police, court or mates down the pub) that you are not human will only have one outcome

[Dreadlock]

To tell anyone (police, court or mates down the pub) that you are not human will only have one outcome

Too true Mog. Which just goes to show how dumbed down and ignorant most people are.