Like most people reading this, I've had a variety of colourful, interesting, and occasionally unprintable 'spats' with a multiplicity of different individuals over the last three years, regarding all things pantomime plaguey. But perhaps some of the most memorable disputes have been, not with the normies (who appear to think I am now so irretrievably insane, they have completely given up on me, or so a 77th bot told me on Twitter yesterday), but with people broadly on 'our side', as was illustrated by an intriguing exchange I had on Facebook in 2021, with a woman I will call Sybil.
"I can't actually believe," fulminated Sybil furiously on my wall. "That you are this thick. It's really f***ing simple. All you have to do at protests is tell the police 'I stand under common law', and then they can't touch you."
Sybil had elected to share with me this particularly ponderous piece of legal advice when I had issued a caution about an up-coming large demo in London that was at the time - given the particularly preposterous rules that were then in place - illegal (or as good as, insofar as the police would enforce 'the rules', and with physical force if necessary). The organisers of this protest were not making it clear to potential attendees that this was the case, so I was concerned that large swathes of state dissidents were being manipulated into basically handing themselves over to the police, in a way that would neither be in their nor the movement's wider interests.
As I said at the time, getting arrested as a form of political protest is absolutely fine if you're clear that that's what you're doing, and you're confident you know how to handle yourself in that situation (remember that arrest is not trivial: it's part of the penal system and is meant to act as a deterrent, so it's at best unpleasant and sometimes - especially in highly charged and volatile situations like protests - downright traumatic, a trauma that can have a wide range of ongoing effects, such as damaging future employment prospects - even if you aren't convicted).
However, getting arrested is not fine if you've been essentially baited into a trap by controlled opposition and agent provocateurs, who have enticed you into a situation where you believe you are behaving lawfully and that there is no prospect of arrest, when in fact you're not and there very much is.
That's what I was warning against, thinking especially of slightly built young mothers (who make up a large proportion of the truth movement), and elderly and more vulnerable people, getting into a situation that could be deeply damaging to them. Getting roughed up by the police and being banged up in the cells for the night because you've attended an illegal event is a young man's game (in this author's sexist, ageist opinion), and people not in that category really need to think very carefully before putting themselves in that situation. Make sure you really know what you're getting yourself into (for a start, once you're arrested, the police can legally take a DNA sample from you, by force if necessary - they don't require your consent. And, as a known state dissident, it may not be a great idea to have your DNA on police file).
In response to my issuing this caution, I attracted quite a few scornful 'Sybils' as mentioned earlier, who couldn't believe my intellectual capacity was so deficient: that I didn't understand about the magic invincibility cloak that is 'common law'; that the laws that the police operate under only apply to us if we explicitly consent, and all you have to do is revoke your consent and then they leave you alone.
"That's not how it works, Sybil," I said wearily.
"Oh yes it is. You'll see. Thicko," Sybil the legal eagle departed with.
Several days later, I watched the protest in question on a livestream, which very quickly descended into violence as riot police kettled the protestors and began assaulting them, and I saw a group of men chanting 'we stand under common law!'.
The police paid no attention whatsoever, and charged at them with their batons. I believe over 70 people were arrested at this particular event, and the police were not gentle with them. (Leading on from this, please read my article on protests from earlier this year, how the new Public Order Bill affects them, and why controlled opposition will be very strongly incentivised into luring you into attending certain events now.)
On a similar theme, I'm sure we all remember when the "current conspiratorial thing" was the Magna Carta Article 61, and how several businesses attempted to challenge lockdown restrictions by invoking this ruling. Good for them for opposing the insane restrictions, of course, but this was a completely ineffective way of doing it, because - just like invoking 'common law' at a protest - it doesn't work, because it doesn't mean anything to the enforcing officers.
I remember the video where a police team turned up at a business that hadn't shut down, a gym I think, and which had Article 61 displayed on its front door.
"Are you going to let us in?" The police asked the owners.
"We stand under Article 61," replied the owners confidently.
"I'll take that as a no," said the police. "Come on, lads."
And they simply forced entry.
The saddest thing was that you could see the absolute reeling horror and shock on the owners' faces, as they'd genuinely believed the charlatans and shysters who pushed this archaic law as a magical spell that gives you special powers, and really thought that they'd be immune from state enforcement.
So, what I gleaned from all of this was that one of the number one purposes of controlled opposition, is to trick state dissidents into breaking the law so they can be delivered into the hands of the state who can then penalise and detain them - possibly in the long-term (what are all these new mega-prisons for non-violent offenders being built for?).
Controlled opp does this by muddying the waters of "the law", knowing most people know nothing about it, and so will fall for nearly anything delivered via legalese and in an authoritative way, especially if the target group is also told, if they don't understand or aren't applying some supposed "law" correctly, it's due to their own laziness and thickness.
I joined all the 'common law' and 'Magna Carta' Facebook groups everyone else did, and relentlessly, whenever someone asked a genuinely intelligent question along the lines of, "but, honestly, I've been looking at this for ages and it really doesn't make sense...", they would get a snappy, condescending response of, "well, you obviously haven't looked into it enough or haven't understood it properly" - as 'Sybil' was trying to infer to me.
Actually I had, as had many other perfectly diligent and intelligent people, and the reason it didn't make sense to us, is because it doesn't make sense. It's nonsense, and is part of a carefully controlled psychological operation to neutralise the dissident class by baiting them into various traps, where the state can then handle them. (Please note that by saying "it's nonsense", I don't mean there's no such thing as common law, but rather, it is a branch of law, like contract law, criminal law, family law, and so on - it isn't an alternative legal system that you can opt into instead of the one we actually have).
Because, consider this: in late 2020, I attended a 'Magna Carta" meeting, organised by a deeply dubious character who since seems to have completely disappeared, where she was trying to get us to "sign an oath to a baron", including our full names, addresses, and signatures.
"Sorry," said one of the audience apologetically. "I just don't quite understand how this protects us. Could you just explain it all again because I think a lot of us don't get this properly," to which there were many murmurs of ascent around the room.
"We don't have time for that," declared the deeply dubious one decisively. "You don't need to understand it now. Just sign the piece of paper and you can get 'round to understanding it later."
And I'm sad to say that, so transfixed by this individual and their alleged 'authority', were many people, that a great deal of them did indeed sign (I didn't, thankfully - although had I been a few drinks in, as many people were as this meeting was intentionally arranged in a pub, I might well have).
So this individual then sauntered off with a data mine of the full names, addresses, and signatures of dozens of known state dissidents, and nobody has a clue what she's done with that information since.
I hope this is needless to say at this point, but, if anyone ever asserts as an advisable strategy that you should sign something you don't understand, you should not only not do that, but you should put a lot of distance between yourself and that person immediately.
What this episode illustrates is quite how on your guard you have to be around issues concerning the law, because the law is opaque and complex, not a lot of people understand it very well (including some lawyers), and so this is an area which is highly vulnerable to being exploited by controlled opposition.
Consequentially, what I've noticed is that controlled opposition relentlessly tries to scare and mislead you out of real, legal forms of challenge and protest that actually have an impact and work, and towards ineffective and/or illegal ones instead.
So, in terms of the latest Laurence Fox staged psy-op drama "arrest", the purpose of this is twofold:
The Reclaim Party, master sophists and propagandists that they (or should I say their handlers) are, intentionally released a sensationalist video of Fox in his home, surrounded by what appeared to be police (interestingly, the Guardian described these individuals as "people dressed in police uniform", rather than "the police"), and had him monologuing to the camera (who was filming this, I wonder?) about how a team of state agents were in his house "taking everything he owns", because "this is the country we live in".
No further explanation was given at that time, by either Fox or his party, as to why the police - or "people dressed in police uniform" (which certainly could be seen as inferring that these people, like Fox himself, were actors) - were there, which immediately and inevitably led to a social media storm of people saying,
"This is what happens to you if you speak out! The police come to your house for no reason! This could happen to us all!"
Which is complete and utter nonsense. The police can only enter and search your home if they have a warrant (apart from in some very limited. and unusual circumstances, such as that they credibly suspect someone will die if they don't), and warrants are notoriously difficult to get. Unless the police have very credible evidence to suggest you are guilty of a criminal offence (such as because you publicly broadcast to hundreds of thousands of people your intention to commit a crime - and yes, conspiring to commit crime is a criminal offence), they cannot just randomly enter your home because of your political beliefs.
It's a ludicrous suggestion, but because many people don't know the law (the actual law, not confected 'common law', Magna Carta rubbish), they believe this.
Consequentially, now thousands of people on our side are going to be far more guarded and reticent about speaking out, because they believe it will result in a visit from the police.
Job done, Agent Fox.
The other thing he is encouraging you to do is not - as the 'Blade Runners' do - to be careful and strategic and conceal your identity if you plan to break the law - but to publicly advertise it on prominent platforms and channels. Fox has just severely undermined the potential of the Blade Runners to be effective, by drawing police attention to what they're going to be doing and when. If he really cared about that cause and wanted to see the removal of ULEZ cameras continue to be successful, he would be getting involved carefully and anonymously, as the rest of them do, but instead, he's effectively ratted them out - and thus neutralised them.
Not many people outside of our movement were aware of the Blade Runners until yesterday, but now Agent Fox's arrest has become headline news in literally every mainstream newspaper - including my local paper in Huddersfield! - everyone knows about it, and a great deal of the wider population takes a very dim view of this kind of criminal damage and sees it as vandalism - and so this has undermined the integrity of our cause yet again, just like Fox's "shagability" remarks did.
Now, the freedom movement is being portrayed in the press, courtesy of Fox, as being made up of thuggish criminals whose homes get raided by the police, thus entirely detracting from the actual issue of what these cameras are and why the Blade Runners had been removing them.
Again, job done, Agent Fox.
And because this happened so closely to Fox's recent uncouth remarks and consequent sacking, it's all being bagged together - "unemployable and crass, foul-mouthed misogynist with criminal tendencies and a love of vandalism is unrepentant - 'I'm fightin' for freedom, innit!" - thus conflating all of us who are part of this movement with having that kind of character. That is is those kind of people who profess to be "fighting for freedom" or "defending the truth".
It's a dire, terrible, excruciating look for this movement - it could hardly be any worse, frankly - and that is all entirely by design.
As we move ever more swiftly towards pantomime plague 2.0, it's imperative that we learn from the last act and don't let the same naiveties and vulnerabilities trip us up again. Controlled opposition are going to go all out (it's by far their most dangerous function) to get you to break the law in a way you can't handle so that you are delivered into the hands of the state - and they will do this by exploiting your own lack of understanding of the law, so it's absolutely imperative we all do what we can to properly understand it. Here are some key things to know:
Firstly, nobody can "sue you for defamation" for stating your opinion about them on the internet. This is complete nonsense and a favoured weapon of controlled assets to shut down commentators when they're getting too close to the truth (with rather breathtaking irony and hypocrisy, Laurence Fox is absolutely renowned for it).
Suing someone for defamation is incredibly difficult and costly, and as a defamation solicitor I spoke to said, "the UK has some of the most robust free speech laws in the world and almost everything is covered by that. So unless you've got exceptionally deep pockets, pursuing a defamation claim is usually futile" - that's why you only ever hear about top celebrities and national newspapers 'suing each other for defamation', and not everyday people.
Please note, also, that defamation is not a criminal offence, it's a civil one, meaning all someone can pursue you for in a defamatory claim is money, they can't have you sent to prison or anything like that. So if you haven't got any significant money (which most of us small-fish commentators certainly have not), there's no point in them suing you - which, again, is why you only hear about defamation cases involving big name, wealthy people and institutions, never ordinary folk.
Also, please be well aware that you haven't been "threatened with being sued for defamation" unless you've actually received a formal lawyer's letter from a recognised legal firm and a qualified solicitor. Someone screaming on Twitter that they will "sue for defamation" if you don't stop saying things they don't like, is not a legal threat.
Leading on from this, and to reiterate again, the police cannot enter your home for any opinion you assert online or anywhere else. Please have a look through my archives and see all the incendiary, inflammatory things I've said over the years.
Have I ever been visited by the police?
You do, however, run a very high risk of attracting the attention of the police if you actively and openly break the law, and yes, publicly announcing a conspiracy to commit criminal damage, and inciting others to commit criminal damage, is against the law, so they can visit you if you do that. Not that they necessarily will (for everyone screaming BUT WHAT ABOUT CHRIS PACKHAM), but that they can, and so you shouldn't be surprised if they do.
So to be really, unambiguously clear - if Laurence Fox was really arrested (and this wasn't all staged, scripted and acted - as Calvin Robinson said, the "pretence" of arrest), it's because he broke the law, very publicly and visibly - it's nothing whatsoever to do with his political views. He's not a "hero truth teller being persecuted for speaking out", he's an idiot who is suffering the predictable consequences of literally saying on a public broadcast that, "I'm happy to be breaking the law so please do come and arrest me".
The takeaway message is to please take some time to study the law, what it actually is (and is not), and how you can use it to your advantage - which you very much can. For instance, I have assisted many people to successfully challenge mask, test, and vaccine mandates, not by breaking the law, but by using it. If you know medical ethics and human rights laws, you can use these to demonstrate that mask etc., mandates are unenforceable, and to overturn them.
Equally, when a vulnerable family was told their 9-year-old son - a cancer survivor - would not only be denied his urgent cataract surgery (the cataracts having been caused by the cancer treatment), but that social services would be involved in the family didn't submit to Covid testing, I helped this family to use the law to challenge this - which they successfully did, and the child had his operation, with no testing and no social services involvement.
You can use the law to protect yourself and to get what you want, but only if you know what it is, which is why controlled opposition is so deeply invested in making sure you don't.
Controlled opposition will also try to intentionally twist and misrepresent what I'm saying by suggesting I'm saying the current legal system is legitimate, moral, and correct. I'm not saying that at all, but I'm saying that it exists, we're in it, and that there are effective and non-effective ways of challenging it.
For example, I do not believe the law that states 17-year-olds - who can drive a car, get married, and join the army - can't buy a bottle of beer, is legitimate.
Hence, when I was 17, I bought many bottles of beer, but how did I successfully achieve this?
Scenario one: I take the beer to the counter, and the shopkeeper looks at me and says, "how old are you?"
"Seventeen," I reply. "But the law that states I can't buy beer when I can get married and join the army - both far more dangerous than drinking beer, especially the former - is ridiculous! It's not legitimate and I don't consent. So sell me the beer."
Shopkeeper: "Piss off, kid."
Or, scenario two: I take the beer to the counter, the shopkeeper asks me my age, and I say:
(Actually, you should always say nineteen, kids, 18 is too obvious, and also don't just buy alcohol, but some "grown up" items too, like a carton of olives and a copy of The Telegraph.)
You then come away with what you want, not by challenging the law but by using it (and no, you haven't broken the law by lying about your age, good God, if that was a criminal offence, most female celebrities would be in the clink...).
It's a somewhat silly example (the advice about the olives is good though), but it nevertheless proves the point. Explicitly declaring that you believe a law to be illegitimate, or publicly broadcasting that you intend to break it, is not generally a good or effective way of challenging that law, in a way that will benefit you and get you what you want. So please do learn the strategies that will, because there are very many of them, and please don't fall for the ever-more desperate psy-ops of controlled opposition to bait you into traps.
The law can be your shepherd, if you know it: but be ever vigilant of Judas Goats leading you to the slaughter house.
Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...
1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon
2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee
3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA
Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.
Find Miri AF on social media via the links below...