Archive for September, 2013


Posted: September 24, 2013 in Uncategorized

After a number of years preaching to family and friends that without YOUR consent, without answering to the name, we are safe, I fell for the old trick of answering to my name.

BANG, BANG, BANG on my front door this morning.

I jump out of bed, rush down stairs, open the door, ” yes” say I.

” Mr Prisoner” says the man.

Again… ” Yes, what d’you want” says I, bleary eyed not fully focusing on things.

” I’m a debt collector and I’ve come for the car parked outside” says the man.

Well when I say man, I mean THUG.

Quickly he flashes some laminated card in my face, says he has an order from Northampton Bulk Court to seize the vehicle and strides away to get his wheel clamp from his van.

Fuck, Fuck, Fuck I say to myself. If I had not answered to the name things wouldn’t have got any worse.

But I did, and things got worse. FUCK.

I run back upstairs wake my Son ( the ‘owner’ of the vehicle) get dressed and run back down stairs to find the THUG clamping the car.

I stand between the clamp and the front wheel and refuse to move. Son gets in the car.

Thug never asks if we are willing to pay to prevent distress, never shows I.D. to my Son, refuses to show any paperwork authorising him to seize the car.

Now, as an aside, my Son has been out of the country for the past 5 months so knows nothing about of any court action or warrant being issued, until Thug turns up at our door.

Son rings the POLICE, “…Thug trying to steal my car” he says.

Police duly arrive -5 mins. top-, where are they when your being burgled? But if it’s in the defence of a debt collector they’re there pronto.

No1 Bobbie speaks to Thug and checks paperwork ( we aren’t allowed to see), No2 Bobbie speaks to us, assures us that he’s only here to prevent breach of peace. We ask No2 if we can see the SIGNED COPY OF WARRANT, he says he’ll ask No1. No1 says there is a signed copy, not here mind, but we not allowed to see it. WTF.

No1 says I must move from the car or I will be charged with, get this…” obstructing an officer of the court”. WHAT!!! he’s a fucking debt collector for FUXAKE not an officer of the court at all.

Thug finishes clamping the car wheel and rings for Tow truck.

No1 Bobbie says he can’t get involved with a civil matter, again we ask to see the signed warrant, ” bailiff doesn’t have to show you” says No1.

“He’s not a bailiff he’s a debt collector” says I, ” same thing” says No1.

No2 Bobbie whispers to Son and me “… if you hadn’t answered to the name, there’s nothing debt collector could have done”,… ” I fuckin’ hate these bastards, we go to houses where people being thrown out, bailiffs don’t give a shit, horrible arrogant bastards, but we can’t get involved”

So I end up paying for Son to keep his car.

If you dear reader don’t want to hand over hard earned money to the animals at EQUITA…….


BTW, this is not over, we have most of  the matter recorded and will seek remedy of one form or another.


Council Tax Legal? 3

Posted: September 19, 2013 in Uncategorized

Angry Man-V-Wigan Council

Just after High Noon Friday 13th September

Wigan and Leigh Courthouse

There gathered the Angry Man and 10 observers in the hope of seeing Justice prevail in favour of the people, not the councils or their bosses the corporations.

And of course the obligatory PLOD*

Twenty minutes before the start of proceedings the court usher invites the representatives of the council into the court, we know not why. We could hazard a guess as to why, maybe you could, what think you?

Eventually the people are invited in, proceedings begin.

The Judge enters, sits down, the council representative swears on the Bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and…………………. proceeds to LIE!!!!!

……….” this man lives in a band ‘A’ property, a DOMESTIC DWELLING, he owes so much money to the council in unpaid taxes” blah blah.


Just what the fuck is a DOMESTIC DWELLING. There has never been such a thing as a domestic dwelling mentioned in any of the Acts THEY rely on.

At this point the Judge took over the role of the council representatives and in so many words demanded that the Angry Man prove the council had no claim.


The council brought the claim but where not asked to prove their claim. How does that work?

The Angry Man then explained to the court the contents of his response to the councils claim, how Section 64 Hereditaments of the ’88 Act defined Non-domestic property, and is therefore liable to a charge, how Section 66 of the ’88 Act defined Domestic property that is not liable to a charge.

That if Domestic property was liable to a charge then the ’92 Act would have included Section 66 Domestic Property, but it is not included and therefore not liable.

Makes sense to us.

But apparently the omission of the section seems to make it inclusive.

The Angry Man continued, and brought in the ‘Rating (Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill’.

Standing Committee B

Tuesday 8 May 2001


[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Rating (Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Bill

Ms Armstrong:

The 1988 Act uses the same definition of a hereditament as was used in the General Rate Act 1967. Section 64(1) of the 1988 Act states:

“A hereditament is anything which, by virtue of the definition of hereditament in section 115(1) of the 1967 Act, would have been a hereditament for the purposes of that Act had this Act not been passed.”

Section 115(1) of the General Rate Act 1967 defines a hereditament as

“property which is or may become liable to a rate, being a unit of such property which is, or would fall to be, shown as a separate item in the valuation list”.

 The Judge dismissed this as … ” it is only a bill”

After several exchanges of the Angry Man reading from and quoting from the relevant Acts the Judge said; ” the council believe your interpretation of Hereditament is wrong”


The Angry Man stayed calm ( we’re not sure we could have) and continued to impress with his knowledge and understanding of  the Acts the council know nothing of.

But eventually the Judge said;

” I don’t agree” ” in my opinion you are wrong”

” So you are going to issue a Liability Order for the council?” said the Angry Man.

” I’m afraid I am” said the Judge.

” Then I shall appeal to the Hight Court”

” Fine” said the Judge, “then I shall read out my judgement,… in the matter brought before me today by Wigan council for liability order, blah, blah, council tax, blah, owed by Angry Man, blah, blah,”, ” ….council interpretation challenged by the Angry Man, blah, but the council don’t need to answer because the Angry Man is wrong”

The Angry Man then asked the Judge if there was some form of collusion between the Judge and council, as the council were invited by the court usher into the court twenty (20) minutes before the people. The Judge seemed to take exception to this and looked upset, “I was in my chambers until the usher called me to say everybody here” that he hadn’t spoken to anyone from the council that day.

The Angry Man asked if the Judge was ‘on his oath’ today?

Judge said ” yes” and proceeded to quote it from memory.

So, there we have it. A liability order was granted by the Judge to the council, because it seems, the Judge agreed with the councils’ interpretation of the LGFA 1992, that Domestic is the same as Non-Domestic, that the Legislatures had forgotten to put Section 66 Domestic Property in the ’92 Act, but that didn’t matter, that the council don’t have to prove their claim, but the Angry Man has to disprove a claim he didn’t make.

Really, lets be honest, you couldn’t make this shit up.

We would suggest that anyone who thinks that an injustice has been handed down to the Angry Man, print off or copy the first COUNCIL TAX LEGAL post, amend it to suit you,add your moniker to it and post it off to your MP, local councillors, police commissioner, local paper, indeed any one you think might be interested in seeing justice done.

* WTF are plod being brought to civil hearings for?



Posted: September 12, 2013 in Uncategorized

Just a few thoughts about  Council Tax

Just what the FUCK is Council Tax ?

Is it a tax imposed for living/residing/inhabiting in a specified geographical area ?

Is it a tax for enabling us to use the services provided by the council in that specified area?

LGFA 1992;

1 Council tax in respect of dwellings.

(1)As regards the financial year beginning in 1993 and subsequent financial years, each billing authority shall, in accordance with this Part, levy and collect a tax, to be called council tax, which shall be payable in respect of dwellings situated in its area.


Is there no such thing as Council Tax?

Is the tax that the councils impose just one fucking huge SCAM? Is the only tax that councils may legally levy NON-DOMESTIC RATES, but the councils call it council tax?

You see, if you have been following the previous posts about council tax, you will have noticed an omission by Government, particularly the Conservative Government of 1992 who vomited this nonsense all over us after the failed attempt at POLL TAX. The omission was to not tell us that the General Rate Act 1967 had been replaced by the LGFA 1988, and that act had been replaced by the LGFA 1992.

If we look at the GRA 1967 in detail we see the LGFA 1992 with a few word changes. The General Rate Act 1967 never went away !!!

It just got a fancy new name.

Just take a look at some of the sections of the ’67 act, notice the words in bold

16 Liability to be rated in respect of occupation of property

Subject to the provisions of this Act, every occupier of property of any of the following descriptions, namely—



(c)coal mines;

(d)mines of any other description, other than a mine of which the royalty or dues are for the time being wholly reserved in kind;

(e)any right of sporting (that is to say, any right of fowling, of shooting, of taking or kilhng game or rabbits, or of fishing) when severed from the occupation of the land on which the right is exercisable,

shall be liable to be assessed to rates in respect of the hereditament or hereditaments comprising that property according to the rateable value or respective rateable values of that hereditament or those hereditaments determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Or this

115 Interpretation

(1)In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the following meanings respectively, that is to say—

” dwelling-house ” means a hereditament which, in accordance with Schedule 13 to this Act, is used wholly for the purposes of a private dwelling or private dwellings;

” hereditament” means property which is or may become liable to a rate, being a unit of such property which is, or would fall to be, shown as a separate item in the valuation list;

” profits basis “, in relation to the valuation of a hereditament, means the ascertainment of the value of that hereditament by reference to the accounts, receipts or profits of an undertaking carried on therein;

Now, we all know the meanings of the words DWELLING and HEREDITAMENT, but look at that  …” profits basis” in relation to the valuation of a hereditament, …well I never. Who would have thought that Government would leave out that little detail from the ’92 act.

 There is no such thing as Council Tax, it’s just a tax the council may levy – NON DOMESTIC RATES – on non domestic property, but called Council Tax.

When the Tories fucked up with Poll Tax, underestimating the mood of the people, they panicked and re-introduced the GRA 1967 as it’s replacement but under a new name Council Tax. For over 20 years we have been scammed with council tax, but to make it worse our parents were also scammed with the General Rates. Our parents should not have been paying for the privilege of living in Domestic Properties.

Unfortunately we cannot make part two of the


But we will be reporting the outcome early next week.

inmate 000003