Non-Payment of Council Tax!


This is another one from the Freemen of the Land. Their legal claims are often of dubious merit at law. On the other hand, they are getting somewhere, when most libertarians do little more than fawn on big business and hope for some rich sugar daddy to pay off their mortgages. And, if you look at the men who faced down the Stuarts in the seventeenth century, their reading of the law was at variance with the legal consensus. Good luck, I say, to these people. SIG

 

The true and correct: the outcome of Roger Hayes’ hearing on the 28th of October was as follows.

The story so far.

Roger Hayes has refused to pay his council tax… until the council provide a contract so that he can hold them to account (democracy) and justify the massive amount of money they are spending (wasting). Council’s response has been ‘Pay up or else’ – Roger chose the ‘or else’ option – the council obliged by trying to bankrupt him… Roger had the evidence on his side (justification for non-payment)… so the council employed the services of a corrupt judge Michael Peake. (This was the Judge arrested in the 7th March in Birkenhead – orchestrated by The British Constitution Group and many other groups/friends).

The bankruptcy was pushed through on a day when Roger could not attend. (cowards) The official receiver wrote to Roger telling him that he had been made bankrupt… and to fill in various documents. Roger wrote back saying he wasn’t bankrupt… and that it was the legal fiction that had been made bankrupt and not his responsibility and NO he would not be filling in their documents. The Official receiver then told Roger… fill in the documents ‘OR ELSE’… Being a true believer in consistency… Roger chose the ‘OR ELSE’ option. The court case on the 28th was an application for the court to ORDER Roger to complete their forms or be done for CONTEMPT OF COURT… i.e. prison.

10 mins before the court hearing at 10 am… the official receiver approached Roger and asked… ” Before we go in….?” – Roger anticipating the question and before they could finish… answered “NO” (they then confirmed they were going to ask if Roger would complete their docs).

Roger had also written to the court and the official receiver to advise that he would not consent to the hearing… but would attend to assist.

They then advised Roger that because he was so passionate in his beliefs… (meaning they knew he was right) and they BACKED DOWN. They asked the court for an indefinite adjournment (that must be a first)…which avoids them having to admit they have NO AUTHORITY over Roger Hayes THE MAN. Roger thus did not fill in their forms and remains a free man.

Conclusion.

1). The court avoided having to deal with the legal fiction issue (Whew for the court).

2). Roger controlled the outcome by withholding consent.

3). The Official receiver has confirmed that they have no authority… and finally

4). Roger does not have to pay his council tax because the council have no way of forcing him through the courts.

This is a victory and should be hailed as one. BUT… do not try this unless you are 1) PREPARED and 2) aware of all the implications.

Best wishes… and thanks for all the support. Now lets get on and win the war.

Roger Hayes.

Chairman. The British Constitution Group. http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk

About these ads

23 responses to “Non-Payment of Council Tax!

  1. Pingback: Pay less Tax » Non-Payment of Council Tax! | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  2. What a lot of crap.

    We have heard these ridiculous stories again and again. At the end of the day they always end up either paying the tax or losing their houses. They never end up having established any sort of legal principle that they don’t have to pay.

    The ‘Freemen’ are not ‘getting somewhere’, they are just failing in a tiresome manner.

  3. I would like a mass campaign of non-payment, like the poll tax.

  4. This may be the beginning of a mass resistance movement. We have never managed to get anything approaching it. As for the absurdity of their legal claims, we might recall that the dubious nature of Marxist economics did nothing to slow the Marxist overthrow of regimes all over the world. And, if these people win, their legal claims will be made the law – just as happened in the 17th century.

    I’m watching these people – watching and cheering on.

  5. I would like clarification on the contract issue – we don’t have a contract with politicians or any civil servants, yet we pay taxes. Should this argument then extend to tax in general? You have equated the argument with democracy by adding the word in brackets after it – what does that mean? Where is the link between democracy and a legal contract?
    Can we get a link to the original story – I am particularly interested in the original justification for non-payment as this is surely the most important issue. Nobody ‘wants’ to pay taxes, but if there is a valid justification that the courts will take seriously, this is what needs to be exposed.

  6. Jay, the ‘Freemen’ argue that all laws issued by Parliament are legally invalid and do not apply to them. They also argue that all taxation is invalid and they have not to pay any. Their legal reasons are a bizzare farago of nonsense based on a fantasy that Parliament can only issue laws dealing with maritime matters.

    Stupid rubbish that will achieve nothing as it is held up to ridicule and discredit all those associated with it.

    As long as they make their claims based on legal fairytales they will simply fail and be mocked. It is only when claims are made on points of actual principle that they have a chance of gaining wider support.

    The ‘Freemen’ are nutjobs doomed to fail and be subject to ridicule, anyone associated with them will be smeared by association. Stay well away.

  7. Seems that there is a bit missing from Roger Hayes story.

    He’s been declared bankrupt by the courts.

    http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/8924047.Bankrupt__Wirral_businessman_who_refused_to_pay/

  8. C.H Ingoldby
    You make a lot of incorrect assumptions and bold statements none of which are based on fact. Roger Hayes (the man) was not made bankrupt… do not believe everything you read. He still has his home, his business, his car, his money in the bank and his freedom. HIS LEGAL FICTION was made bankrupt. Roger Hayes (the man) has declined to accept the liabilities that the state has tried to impose upon him… courtesy of the legal fiction. The Official Receiver has backed down from trying to impose his authority on Roger… because without his consent he cannot do so. If you do not understand the simple principle that ‘Nobody can tell you what to do without your consent’ then you need to do more homework before you voice your opinion. Roger Hayes has been there and done it – you on the other hand have not. You are an armchair theorist – Roger Hayes has tested the authority of the state to destruction. He does not pay his council tax because he is in Lawful Rebellion against this treasonous government and he has not been made bankrupt and he is not in prison FACT.

    Ignorance is a powerful self-imposed tool of oppression.

    Roger Hayes.
    Chairman – The British Constitution Group.
    FREEMAN ON THE LAND

  9. right on Roger as commonly known….CH Ingoldbdy you are just grist for the mill and always will be until you free your mind…

    remember your masters want you to believe that;

    ignorance is strength
    freedom is slavery
    war is peace

  10. Roger Hayes has been declared bankrupt, despite his claims to the contrary.

    He has lost his legal case and yet he reports that he has won it. Such a basic inversion of the truth hardly builds confidence in his claims.

    • C H Ingoldby
      You are clearly a standard bearer for continued ignorance. Your intellectual contribution amounts to unsubstantiated claims contrary to the known facts and some childish outbursts such as ‘what a load of crap.’

      I repeat… I, the flesh and blood man has not been made bankrupt as is evidenced by the FACTS.

      You have clearly not studied the legal fiction issue, you have never been in court when it has being exposed and you have never made any attempt to debate this issue in any logical way. I on the other hand have studied it… I have been in court on numerous occasions… and I have successfully defended myself against the imposition of the liabilities imposed on the legal fiction.

      I can understand how it is that somebody who has been heavily indoctrinated into believing something finds it difficult to abandon those beliefs when confronted with new evidence… that is the challenge in discovering something that flies in the face of our indoctrination. One can either research it or keep ones mind closed.

      I too was confronted with this dilemma when introduced to the concept of the legal fiction. But rather than dismiss it outright I went to the library, studied it and made my own considered evaluation. I can tell you as a matter of fact that the legal fiction is used extensively by the courts and the legal profession – on a daily basis.

      The Oxford law dictionary defines the ‘legal fiction’ as: –
      “An assumption that something is true even though it may be untrue.” You can look it up yourself.

      WHY… would the legal profession want to make such an assumption – wouldn’t that be deliberately fraudulent? The answer is of course that it is a very clever tool of control. They impose their authority on the legal fiction and we unwittingly accept the liabilities so imposed thinking that we are the legal fiction entity, when in fact we are not. The courts accept it to be true even though it is untrue – because we do not rebut it. If we do rebut it… the court may still impose its jurisdiction on the legal fiction, but so what… it cannot extend that jurisdiction to the flesh and blood man… without the consent of same.

      The legal fiction is clever and devious… but factual all the same.

      I have been in court and rebutted the assumption that I am the legal fiction – and as a direct consequence the official receiver has no authority over me (the flesh and blood man). Unable to attach the liabilities of the legal fiction to me ‘the man’ is as much good as a cheque with no signature – worthless.

      This is why I still own my home, my car, my vehicle, my business and the money in my bank account and exactly why the official receiver asked for an indefinite adjournment… because whilst they may have authority over the legal fiction – they have no authority over me. Without my consent they are powerless to impose their authority and powerless to take any of my assets. FACT. And I am proof of that fact.

      If you think you have to accept the liabilities imposed upon the legal fiction… without your consent, then quite simply you continue to subject yourself to the indoctrination i.e. a slave mentality (indoctrination) – it is your choice.

      I on the other hand am a free man with free will and entirely at liberty to engage with officialdom as and when I see fit.

      You have the choice… do your homework and debate it with me on an intellectual level or stay in denial. Ignorance is the most effective tool of oppression.

      Roger Hayes
      A man – not a legal fiction

  11. I think there is something legally in the Freeman on the Land argument–at least in that the development of royal courts and the way they took over from baronial courts and ecclesiastical courts was achieved by appealing to people’s willingness to use those courts – they thought they would get better justice there. It was not the case that English subjects had to use those courts. However, by default nowadays the assumption is that the royal courts have rights and a status that were not assumed to belong to them in 1200. However,this business of not calling yourself “John Smith”, but rather “John: Smith”, as the acceptance of a surname is tantamount to corporatising yourself for the purposes of the state — I am pretty sure this is nonsense.

  12. djwebb2010
    Re ‘You are pretty sure this is nonsense’ –
    As difficult as it is to accept… it is true. If your name is John Smith and you start a company and call it John Smith Limited… they are entirely different entities. If you did not understand the purpose of the ‘limited’ you would be tempted to think that John Smith the owner of John Smith Limited must be personally liable for the debts of the company…. because he is the owner – but you would be wrong. You might even be tempted to say ‘you would be pretty sure this is a nonsense.’ But because you understand the notion of the ‘limited’ liability concept you do not make that assertion..

    Mr John Smith or JOHN SMITH – is recognised in the courts in same way as John Smith Limited is as an entirely different entity to the flesh and blood man who happens to be called John… with the family name Smith.

    Did your parents name your Mr? Mr can be construed in its use in the same way as limited to create a entirely different entity as can JOHN SMITH (capitalised) – the key point being that in a court they only recognise the legal fiction entity… that is the way the system has been devised…. and that is the way it works. Devious I know but true nevertheless.

  13. C H Ingoldby
    Re the admiralty law issue – you have completely misunderstood this and its purpose..

    Admiralty law in this context has nothing to do with the sea… it is just another name for the law of ‘commerce.’ The law governing trade by sea differed from the law of the land for many reasons. For example… they stopped shipping gold bullion by sea because if the vessel sank the gold was lost entirely… so they created a legal fiction ‘gold contract’ which would then represent the bullion. If the ship sank… although the contract was lost… the gold bullion would survive. The contract could be sent from one port to the other and the owner would be deemed to be the individual holding the contract. That contract could go from one owner to the other… with the gold itself remaining in the same safe location.

    The contract REPRESENTING the gold – is a legal fiction.

    Easy when you get your head around it.

  14. If I read Mr Hayes (the man) correctly, we flesh and blood bloggers and citizens don’t,in reality have to pay anything to anyone.
    I propose My Hayes write to the banks a.s.a.p.then stand for Parliament,no-make it world government leader!

  15. This is a massive misrepresentation of what “legal fiction” is. An example of a legal fiction is that a corporation is a person. Clearly it is not – it is not someone you can go up to and have a cup of coffee with, it can only act through its representatives. However, for the purposes of the law, it is a person. The advocates of this legal fiction argument misread something as a definition section saying “a person” includes a corporation to mean that a person must be a corporation. It is fundamental matters such as this that totally undermine everything they subsequently state.

    The only grounds I have seen from the “evidence” that would work in their favour are that they are not mentally competent to be party to legal proceedings (and hence cannot legally enter contracts etc, therefore they cannot be enforced against them). Pleading a lack of competency has vastly more merit than their “legal fiction” argument.

    Please feel free to launch an adhominem attack back at me – it is one of the major tools in the Freeman arsenal, along with flat out lying.

    • Azrael
      You clearly do not understand the way in which the legal fiction is being used as a means of control over you. That is not an ad hominem attack it is a simple statement of fact.

      I hope the following will enlighten you.

      Start by understanding this… NOBODY on this planet can tell you what to do without your consent. Not a judge, not the police, not the government. NOBODY. If you think they can… i.e. that they are somehow superior to you, then you are demonstrating how you have become a victim of conditioning – i.e. you have a slave mentality and you assume that their control over you is legitimate.

      We have all been conditioned to obey legislation unconditionally – we assume that we must obey the edicts of government, the police or a judge. We do not – and those of us who realise this have broken away from that control.

      Legislation refers to corporate PERSONS… i.e. the legal fiction – it never refers to the ‘man’ or the ‘woman’ that is because it cannot be directed at a man or a woman because no government has the right to tell anybody what to do… (see above). A majority thinks that the government can tell them what to do… but that is because they have never given a moments thought to the fact that we are governed by consent and not by decree.

      You have made the assumption that the PERSON referred to in legislation is YOU and you thus obey unconditionally and by obeying you are consenting.

      There is a deliberate attempt to deceive people into thinking that the persons referred to in legislation is the flesh and blood man/woman. It is not. If legislation wanted to avoid confusion it would simply include the words man/woman in the legislation.

      The same rule applies to policing. We do not have to obey the police – we are policed by consent. They get our consent when they direct the question at us of ‘Do you understand’ – meaning do you stand under… or do you consent. You reply YES… and you have consented.

      Legislation is not law. If it was then edicts by government would be called ‘Laws of Parliament’ – they are in fact ‘Acts of Parliament’ and each one of them requires our consent. We consent to these rules everyday of the week – usually by signing a form… road tax, PAYE, etc.

      Legislation is (or was) designed for our benefit… there are benefits in obeying – i.e. for the proper order of society – you will be familiar with the expression Law and Order. BUT… legislation a has become punitive and oppressive – and under these conditions we have a right to disobey them.

      That would put us on the other side of that society – without the benefits. But that is our choice.

      NOBODY however has the right not to obey LAWS… this is an entirely different argument. That is why it is important to understand the difference between laws and legislation. If you disobey laws (an outlaw) – then do not expect to be protected by them. Murder is a common law crime. If you do not respect this law for example… why would anybody want you ‘living’ next door to them… best you be bumped off first to avoid the risk of you killing them.

      Most people jump to the conclusion that if I do not have to obey legislation then I would disobey it. On the contrary – there is a greater degree of responsibility to do the right thing – to hold myself up as an example. Legislation is there to control the irresponsible – the children amongst us who cannot order themselves.

      If I park on a double yellow line and block somebody’s free passage then I am breaking a common law crime. If the double yellow lines are designed to force us to use a paying car park (a council trick) then this is legislation. I am entitled to disobey the latter but not the former.

      If I drive at excessive speed in the village endangering lives… that is a breach of common law. If I go over the speed limit but I continue to drive safely (not risking lives) then that would be a breach of legislation – and of course subject to a fine.

      I hope you now understand that the PERSON in legislation is NOT YOU… only if you consent to it being you.

  16. Hi Roger,

    Excellent, love it; I fully understand your point. It did I admit take me some time for me to comprehend it fully and what nailed it for me was a guy called Marc Stevens. He is from the USA but the principle is the same.
    The bit that made it all click into place was his explanation of a court case. He was in court for a speeding ticket and he asks the cop who he represents: the cop replies “the state of Arizona” a little further on he asks the cop: “where did you see me speeding?” the cop replies, “so and so road”, and MS then asks “where is that?” to which the cop replies: “Arizona”
    Marc then says to the cop; “so you represent the ground now do you?” the cop replies: “err err errr” He then goes on to explain that the state of Arizona was only created, achieved statehood in 1912 but it was still the ground before that point. It highlights the absurdity of it all.
    The point being it made me understand that names are not real. The ground we call Arizona has existed for millions of years but Arizona has only existed for 100 years, it is like an invisible overlay a name, a creation of the mind. It is designed to delude people. All we are, are human beings on the land and we are all equal, everything else, companies, governments, councils, names etc are fictions of the mind. If all the conscious minds of all the human beings of the world suddenly were no longer conscious, would names, councils, companies, governments exist, no of course not. It is only the conscious mind that allows the fictions to become “real”. Imagine trying to tell a monkey he is going to court.
    The other point I realised from Marc Stevens was there are only 2 ways that humans can relate to each other and that is either contract (mutual) or by force and there is no other way. So if the council do not provide a contract and the payment of council tax is not mutual then they are using force. As roger points out we are governed by consent and not by decree, we are not a totalitarian regime just yet.
    Another point is sometimes people reply by saying “you have to pay taxes to get nurses and roads”. The way I view this is, firstly they are services that can be performed by companies and we should decide if we want that service or not. The second major point is this, if we all had something like gold say and it was distributed evenly throughout the political fiction we call England to each human being, we could use that gold to trade with. If the King or queen asked for a little of that gold as a tax in exchange for accepting that his or her will was not arbitrary, e.g. by explicitly accepting that no man could be punished except through the law of the land, then that is a fair trade. The ruling King or Queen could then use that gold to spend back in the economy and so it goes back to the people who in exchange create infrastructure and build hospitals etc and receive a wage. This little merry go round can continue with he same gold circulating around and wealth being created. However the problem occurs when bankers get involved and create representations of gold and create interest. There is never enough money in circulation to pay the debt, it is debt based currency. The greedy little governments raise money by issuing bonds with interest and then want more money from the people to pay the interest to the bankers. The debt gets bigger the interest becomes more and the need for the people to pay becomes greater.
    Taking this one step further, the bankers issue computer generated numbers and give that to you in exchange for you signing over your collateral. You default and they take your house, how cool is that. What took centuries of wealth building by the people is being stolen by the bankers and is allowed to happen by a complicit government.
    We do need to wake up.
    I’ve had this discussion with people and it does take some seismic shifts to try and alter peoples thought process, governments know this and that is how they control other human beings.
    Keep up the good work Roger.

    Regards

    Andy

  17. It seems to me (and maybe this is too simplistic) that the price of citizenship (not a choice) is the taxes we pay – saying there is a choice is all very well in theory, but it is as much a fiction the the ‘legal fiction’ in question. Anyway, I wanted to pick Andy up on one simple point, he says:
    “bankers issue computer generated numbers and give that to you in exchange for you signing over your collateral” however, is it not the case that the computer-generated numbers is what allows you to have the collateral (house)?? If you dispute the bank being genuinely and truly ‘wealthy’ then you are complicit in the deception by accepting the mortgage and the house that goes with it – and in fact, the ‘collateral’ is not actually yours in that case
    Again maybe it is all just too complicated for me. but discussions and posts on this site seem to be full of the idea that I can take all the benefits of society, but they can’t make me pay for it… armchair anarchy springs to mind.

  18. Hi Jay,

    Reasonable point and I hear what you are saying.

    Janet Daley in the telegraph 17th June makes a similair observation, she says: “…..nation states have gone broke in their attempt to feed its gargantuan appetites for consumption and debt. The remedies for this began in panic and are now ending in delusion: first the banks went bust and were bailed out by governments; then the governments went bust and needed to be bailed out by – whom? International funding agencies which get their cash from – where? From central banks which will have to print gigantic amounts of money to replace all the money that simply disappeared in the bad debt that bankrupted the banks in the first place. And if we all agree to accept the illusion that this newly printed cash has actual value – if we all clap really hard and say that we believe in fairies – then the whole show can get back on the road and we will be rich again.
    But what will be required is a world-wide agreement to participate in the illusion. It will rely on every country, and every government, and every electorate, being prepared to say: “Wealth can come from thin air. It doesn’t need any basis in real income or assets to make it viable.””

    I make my claim from personal experience which I won’t go into, i suppose I’m still a little bitter but it did allow me to see what Janet Daley is talking about and at the time when I borrowed money from the bank it wasn’t for a personal mortgage but a business venture. I like most peopled believed that the bank were entering into a contract with me and they were bringing something of value to the table, I see now they were not! If I borrow computer generated money from a bank for a business venture and it goes well, they get currency I pay them with interest in return for lending me the computer generated money, if I fail then they will have had some currency payments and then they take the 30% portion i put down or collateral I put down as security. so it does not matter to the bank if I win or lose, they win. They start with computer generated numbers and one way or the other they convert it into something tangible for themselves, it is win win for them. We are the ones taking all the risk and they do not stand to lose anything. I admit I was complicit becasue I didn’t know any better at that time but I thank the experience to allow me to now see the truth.

    I suppose my persoanl gripe is why is it some people are allowed to create rules for others to follow. go back 200,000 years I could go into the wood and cut trees down and build my own home for me and my family. now I’m at the mercy of others, as you say: “the price of citizenship (not a choice) is the taxes we pay” so we are ruled by others, we are forced to pay taxes, we can’t build our own home so are forced to borrow to exist in this society with no opt out. wealth needs a basis or else it is an illusion, banks are selling illusions.

    Andy

  19. This explanation of how the financial crisis is being played out is not very accurate. The struggling Western economies are effectively borrowing from the ‘healthy’ economies (China being the prime suspect) not from the banks that started the credit crunch. Despite the charming idea of printing money – this does take place but not as you describe, it is done openly under the ‘quantitative easing’ tactics. It is not a secret that
    1. this is basically a money-printing exercise and
    2. it will devalue the currency (ie.the currrency is a little like ‘shares’ in a state – if you print more, the individual shares will devalue slightly)
    http://www.thecreditcruncher.com/2009/03/interest-rates-down-to-05.html
    Borrowing money from a bank is a risky business, but it’s also not as you describe, in my business days, Barclays became notorious for ‘pulling the rug’ from under companies – however that is the risk of borrowing. They must HAVE the money to lend it, Barclays is not in a position to print money – it must utilise assets (only on computer because they cannot literally lend you Mrs Smith’s fiver because it’s in a vault somewhere).
    Nevertheless Janet Daley accurately describes the cause of the economic phenomenon as being driven by consumption and debt. As an economy, we have thrown money and debt at the latest ‘gadget’ time and time again. I remember reading how a techie reporter had queued for hours for the first iPhone, had broken it within a week, so bought another one – hundreds of hard-earned pounds on what?? what is in essence a toy.. I don’t blame Apple, (though I believe they are complicit) I blame people who want the latest stuff and are prepared to mortgage their lives to get it. Admittedly the banks are also complicit, but they are just bowing to demand at the end of the day, you can’t expect them to have any morality about it…
    When it comes to borrowing for business, most successful businessmen have been unsuccessful on many occasions before making their millions – many have been bankrupted, and even go through it again – Donald Trump springs to mind – He couldn’t have done it without borrowing in some form or other

  20. Quantative Easing “printing money” and creating money out of thin air is two different things. I agree when you say: “Barclays is not in a position to print money” just the same as any other high street bank isn’t. I wasn’t talking about printing money I was talking about creating money as a number on a computer screen. You say it yourself: “it must utilise assets (only on computer because they cannot literally lend you Mrs Smith’s fiver because it’s in a vault somewhere).”

    So what we both agree on is that the bank has created a number on a computer screen because it can’t or whatever reason go down into the vault and fetch Mrs smiths fiver to lend you. The bank has a duty from historical observations to hold about 10% at any one time of all deposits. It can therfore lend the other 90% out to you and me including Mrs Smiths fiver. So you deposit £100 with Barclays, they are required to hold £10 on deposit and they can lend me £90. As you say they lend me the £90 but instead of going down into the vault and fetching the phsical notes they generate it on a computer screen and deposit my account. All well and good but this is where the slight of hand comes in, they lend me the £90 but they ledge it as both an asset and a liability. That means they now have your original £100 and my £90 on deposit because my borrowing has created an asset to the bank (in effect counting ones chickens before the egg has hatched). They don’t hold my £90 on deposit in a vault but on their books they now show as having £190 on deposit so they can now lend out another 90% of the new £90 asset which is £81.

    They are not printing money but they are creating money out of thin air on computer screens. When I go to Barclays and borrow £90 it is in effect your money they have lent me, but the person who borrows the £81 is in effect borrowing computer generated money. But it doesn’t end there, once another person borrows that £81 that also becomes an asset and so they can lend 90% of that all the way down. They started with your £100 deposit but their books show £243 but they only have £90 to loan so where does the other money come from, as you pointed out, “it must utilise assets (only on computer because they cannot literally lend you Mrs Smith’s fiver because it’s in a vault somewhere).” So it is all computer generated above and beyond what they are required to hold on reserve. This is how the RBS a small Scottish high street bank turned into a world-wide gigantic banking institution in just few years, having a GDP greater than some countries.

    This is one very tiny thread of what the banks get up to, like manipulating LIBOR etc etc and I suppose thinking about it what Janet Daley was talking about wasn’t about creating money out of thin air which probably confused what I was trying to get across. she was talking about QE or just printing money which is a different issue but looking at the bigger picture money out of thin air and QE amount to the same thing it is an illusion. Which ties back to my original post in that it is a creation of the mind like all the other stuff.

  21. ” On the other hand, they are getting somewhere”
    Roger Hayes has got somewhere – in the pokey for contempt of court after having been made bankrupt.