Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


numnuts

Recommended Posts

Just now, DarianF said:

 

To the dickhead with the hair...

 

NSW residents told to expect Covid-19 booster shots indefinitely

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/nsw-residents-told-to-expect-covid19-booster-shots-indefinitely/news-story/abda9fcf5d5344c6c8ed22bc5d939b16

 

NSW residents told to expect Covid-19 booster shots indefinitely

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle/health/nsw-residents-told-to-expect-covid19-booster-shots-indefinitely/news-story/abda9fcf5d5344c6c8ed22bc5d939b16

 

You won't be 'fully vaccinated' for long mate ;-)

 

@oddsnsods

 

Yes Israel declared that a few days ago publicly & imagine my shock OZ does same time.

 

Gonna change that meme add a syringe. Will reup lol😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Morpheus said:

Employment Lawyer Anna de Buisseret - they are breaking the law, the law states you cannot vaxxinate young people under 18 without permission because they cannot give informed consent

url: bitchute.com/video/l8JlFAwf7ByA/

 

Unfortunately, I think she is wrong about the law.  First, people aged 16 and 17 can normally give consent in a similar way to adults.  As for under 16s, in the video she refers to the judgment in Bell v Tavistock, but that did not overturn Gillick competency.  That was a case specifically about puberty blockers.  Lord Scarman's test in Gillick remains good law (albeit with some arguable points of adjustment from decisions in lower courts).

 

Is all this staged?  She comes across as a bit nutty - frankly.  Please don't think me unkind, but a 'normal' person would view her that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

 

Untityyled.jpg.1ebad3c95cf8a20720436c39c6a0dbb2.jpg

 

 

May be an image of 1 person and text that says "Labour Labour theBFD"

 

"We will continue to be your single source of truth." March 2020.
 
"If that means calling a family member or colleague out for not following the rules then we should do that. Do it with kindness, but do it" March 2021
 
".....you have to use extraordinary tools like lockdowns in order to protect people" August 2021
 
"Do not congregate. Don't talk to your neighbours.” August 2021
 
 
VApZq7Z_.jpeg.aa72d90413609f44a08ad3095ce857cf.jpeg
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Morpheus said:

People in England take over 1st public building using common law

url: bitchute.com/video/BDaq2jgLfoik/

 

"Do you stand under your oath?"

 

The question is redundant, and nonsensical.  All police officers must take an oath before undertaking their duties.  What is the point of asking him what is already implied?  

 

If you want to annoy him and waste time, a better question would be: May I see your warrant card?"  There is always the chance he's forgotten it or misplaced it, which leaves open an argument that they may be impersonating police officers, thus you will not co-operate or answer any questions until they call for back-up.

 

If they can produce warrant cards, then take an inordinate amount of time to examine them.  Put it up to the light, then audibly whistle through your teeth while saying something like: "The last time I checked one of these, it turned out to be fake.  You can never be too careful."  When he protests, say: "Yes, well you say so, but how can I tell?  Anyway, I'll have to trust you...."

Edited by Ergo Storm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, DarianF said:

Having considered the results of the Dundee gold standard for testing blokes, I can 100% confirm...... It's a bloke! State of the 5 o'clock shadow on the lip for starters. 🤣

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ergo Storm said:

 

Unfortunately, I think she is wrong about the law.  First, people aged 16 and 17 can normally give consent in a similar way to adults.  As for under 16s, in the video she refers to the judgment in Bell v Tavistock, but that did not overturn Gillick competency.  That was a case specifically about puberty blockers.  Lord Scarman's test in Gillick remains good law (albeit with some arguable points of adjustment from decisions in lower courts).

 

Is all this staged?  She comes across as a bit nutty - frankly.  Please don't think me unkind, but a 'normal' person would view her that way.

Well she is a lawyer,is ex military,has connections to the guardians 300 and stood up and spoke in parliament square quite convincingly a couple of months ago

So nutty yes,but i would happily crawl naked over broken glass to paddle in her pish and she could read the shipping forecast to me and i'd find it erotic

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ergo Storm said:

 

Unfortunately, I think she is wrong about the law.  First, people aged 16 and 17 can normally give consent in a similar way to adults.  As for under 16s, in the video she refers to the judgment in Bell v Tavistock, but that did not overturn Gillick competency.  That was a case specifically about puberty blockers.  Lord Scarman's test in Gillick remains good law (albeit with some arguable points of adjustment from decisions in lower courts).

 

Is all this staged?  She comes across as a bit nutty - frankly.  Please don't think me unkind, but a 'normal' person would view her that way.

So if she's got it wrong, what's the correct position on the law? And what's a normal person? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zArk said:

Property is my body and kids

 

Communism claims ownership of my body and kids.

 

Magna carts and common law is incompatible with communism

images.jpeg.2b345db90fe1350054aa228361161fcc.jpeg

 

My point wasn't the specifics of the two sets, merely the elites control both and as much as you have distinctions between the two they both serve the ruling hands. We have common law yes but if you have gone against the grain then corrupt judges will do what they do and you would end up potless in legal fees fighting it, as well as corrupt police bringing false charges which again will lead you into poverty fighting to clear your name, or you would just be eliminated by state. Yes you may own your own body and kids in law, but that law is so perverse that it doesent matter. If you don't own your body and kids but do as your told your fine, if you own your body and kids and do as told your fine, but on both scenarios if you rub the ruling class the wrong way it's the same outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • lake locked this topic
  • lake unlocked this topic
  • Beaujangles featured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...