Jump to content

Covid Deniers and Anti Vaxxers


John Wright
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, The Phantom said:

I am amazed how tolerant High Baliff seems to be.  Perhaps she actually finds it amusing?

I've found that people only really tend to get angry when they know they are arguing against the truth.  Would explain why the normals don't seem to get as wound up as these Anti-Vaxxer/Conspiracy theorists do when arguing the other way... 

I think the judiciary have to be ostentatiously fair with her so as to not give her even more excuses for even more appeals against decisions.  But as way remarked in another recent decision:

10. In some ways this is typical of the way Mrs Megson persistently puts the Court and the Court office in a difficult position. I want to believe that she is acting in good faith and is not manipulating the situation but, despite her contentions to the contrary, I cannot accept that she is as confused and unfamiliar with the process as she claims in correspondence.

But such people don't think they are arguing against the truth.  On the contrary they know that the truth is on their side because as far as they are concerned The Truth is that everything in the world should suit them, because they are very, very special.  So any actions they do must be right and completely justified because it is in the service of this Higher Truth.  And they get angry when for some reason other people don't go along with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

I think the judiciary have to be ostentatiously fair with her so as to not give her even more excuses for even more appeals against decisions.  But as way remarked in another recent decision:

10. In some ways this is typical of the way Mrs Megson persistently puts the Court and the Court office in a difficult position. I want to believe that she is acting in good faith and is not manipulating the situation but, despite her contentions to the contrary, I cannot accept that she is as confused and unfamiliar with the process as she claims in correspondence.

But such people don't think they are arguing against the truth.  On the contrary they know that the truth is on their side because as far as they are concerned The Truth is that everything in the world should suit them, because they are very, very special.  So any actions they do must be right and completely justified because it is in the service of this Higher Truth.  And they get angry when for some reason other people don't go along with this.

Courts are very accommodating to people  representing themselves.  I remember a case years ago and the court was very forgiving of the plaintiff.  But, the fact was that without legal representation they were unable to argue the law or present their case well.  They lost.

This lady shows an immense naivety by asking that the matter be heard in another jurisdiction and by approaching lawyers in the UK.

Perhaps the knowledge and expertise of Mr H should have been employed.  He could have explained what was what and drafted a writ with her counterclaim for half a million. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Courts are very accommodating to people  representing themselves.  I remember a case years ago and the court was very forgiving of the plaintiff.  But, the fact was that without legal representation they were unable to argue the law or present their case well.  They lost.

This lady shows an immense naivety by asking that the matter be heard in another jurisdiction and by approaching lawyers in the UK.

Perhaps the knowledge and expertise of Mr H should have been employed.  He could have explained what was what and drafted a writ with her counterclaim for half a million. 

Where is “McKenzie Friend” Barrie Steven’s or Steve England when Mrs Megson needs them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would any of them want to "acquire ownership of [their] legal fiction"?

I thought their entire point was to disassociate and remove themselves as far as possible from the legal fiction that is their name - not to own it?!

Or am I mixing up the different legal philosophies of competing bunches of loonies?

Edited by Ghost Ship
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

Why would any of them want to "acquire ownership of [their] legal fiction"?

I thought their entire point was to disassociate and remove themselves as far as possible from the legal fiction that is their name - not to own it?!

Or am I mixing up the different legal philosophies of competing bunches of loonies?

Probably the latter.  They seem to miss the absurdity of 'owning' a fiction, ie something that doesn't exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

Why would any of them want to "acquire ownership of [their] legal fiction"?

I thought their entire point was to disassociate and remove themselves as far as possible from the legal fiction that is their name - not to own it?!

Or am I mixing up the different legal philosophies of competing bunches of loonies?

From their FAQ.  Still don’t understand it.  “Unput”?

 

 

7FE2FA73-28E4-46C5-BE83-162EEA52A206.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Old Git said:

From their FAQ.  Still don’t understand it.  “Unput”?

 

 

7FE2FA73-28E4-46C5-BE83-162EEA52A206.jpeg

Q1 No, it is grammatically correct to capitalise proper nouns.

Q2 see 4.

Q3 Not sure how this works.

Q4 So, it is only putting your name on a piece of plastic, ie the name on your birth cert etc.

Q5 So, your name on government documentation is the correct one? 

What does this actually achieve in terms of freedom from government control of your name?  Apart from a nice little earner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Q1 No, it is grammatically correct to capitalise proper nouns.

Q2 see 4.

Q3 Not sure how this works.

Q4 So, it is only putting your name on a piece of plastic, ie the name on your birth cert etc.

Q5 So, your name on government documentation is the correct one? 

What does this actually achieve in terms of freedom from government control of your name?  Apart from a nice little earner. 

1. I think they mean GLADYS rather than Gladys

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

makes me laugh when the grifters come up with shit like this, half the time their protesting about being tracked , labelled, recorded, identified and then some pondscum comes up with an ID card.

Still these are the same dumbfucks protesting about tracking chips in vaccines while filming said protest on a smartphone which pretty much tracks everything you do/say/look at.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...