Jump to content

Coronavirus Mega-Thread.


numnuts
 Share

Message added by Grumpy Owl,

This topic is for all general discussion regarding the current COVID-19 pandemic. There are of course numerous other related topics for discussing specific aspects of this pandemic in more detail. And there are other parts of this forum for more 'off-topic' discussions.

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

I find that concerning. No fuckin business of any member of the public's who can and cannot do anything. 

 

So the same as before then, no danger, I'm exempt, full stop. Did this at the dentist surgery Monday, some bitch behind the counter giving it the I have to wear a mash unless I'm medically exempt bull shit to me. Just said I was exempt, end of story. This is it you see, they have to challenge, which they won't because they all know they can't. Fuckin idiots, I hope people don't wear masks. 

Yeah. I just say I'm exempt when challenged.

 

Ends the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Velma said:

Severely immunosuppressed people should be offered a fourth dose of the vaccine in Scotland. Fucksake.

My mother's one of those. She's just had her forth jab. Loves her weekly visit up the doctors for more tests. She practically has more drugs in her cupboard than a pharmacy. She had an anaphylactic reaction and was rushed to A & E 10 years ago and carries an Epi-pen around, then in 2019 she went into kidney failure with sepsis. She nearly died, but does not see the link between her health conditions and the amount of prescription pills she is on. It started with the HRT then she'd put on weight and had high blood pressure (more pills again) then she was diagnosed with type 2 Diabetes. She takes a concoction of 10+ pills a day, but cannot see that the medical profession overprescribing pills has actually caused her such problems. Thankfully my reluctance to take the vaccine hasn't affected our relationship. She knows my views on the medical profession.

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said:

I read the document.

 

As usual with these theories the foundations of the argument are based on errors and misunderstandings.

 

Page 12: "The only real law is the common law, i.e. the unwritten custom and usage of the people, which the judge may not affect: e.g. see U.S. Constitution, Amendment VII." 

 

No. The seventh amendment retained the right to trial by jury for certain civil matters. Nothing more.

 

Page 16. The ninth Amendment. This is is clarifying language emphasizing that the constitution should not be read restrictively. 

 

Tenth Amendment. This means that the states prevail over the federal government other than powers expressly conferred on the federal government under the Constitution.

 

You can't go from these Amendments to what the author claims "There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the created entity to commandeer its creator."

 

To pick one example, the Commerce Clause does exactly that. It empowers the Federal Government to regulate commerce.

 

Besides, the US Civil War largely reversed the tenth amendment. It was fought over the secession of the Southern States. Nothing to do with slavery.

 

Page 17: "As one of the people you have all natural rights. You are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative (so long as you do not encroach on the sovereignty of another). You are outside and above the Constitution."

 

In Leviathan Thomas Hobbes deconstructs the divine right of kings argument. Leviathan was written in the backdrop of the English Civil War.

 

The English Civil war established the sovereignty of the people. Through parliament and its legislative enactments.

 

The War of Independence in the US overthrew King George III. So no divine right of kings in the US either.

 

The author is conflating a natural rights argument with the divine right of kings.

 

The natural rights argument goes "I am sovereign over my body. Since I am sovereign over my body I own what my body produces etc." This gives rise to life liberty and the right to own property. Property being what is produced by the body. Just as I own my body so does my neighbor own his. So if I take his flat screen TV I am violating his natural law right etc.

 

This was John Locke's original formulation.

 

Thomas Jefferson changed this personal property concept to the right to pursue happiness when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

 

Now, the justification for government is that people have given some of these these natural rights to government when it is established by for and on behalf of the people.

 

For the record I do not agree with this argument. I am just stating that it is the justification for the State.

 

But my point is that these rights are derived in natural law and not through the divine right of kings.

 

Page 20.

 

"COURT OF RECORD. A court of record must conform to four requirements:

 

1. power to fine or imprison for contempt

2. keeps a record of the proceedings

3. proceeding according to the common law (not statutes or codes)

4. the tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge)

 

You will only find all the above Items in the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Editions of Black's Law Dictionary. The Fifth and later editions only show items 1 & 2."

 

Okay. Let's have a look.

 

Black's Law Dictionary 2ed Black's Law Dictionary 2ed Edition by Henry Campbell Black - PDF Drive 

 

Court of Record p 291 - See Court.

 

Court p 284. Courts of Record and Courts not of Record. "the former being those whose nets and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded. for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not or record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and In which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded." 

 

So another fail.

 

I've looked at many of these common law arguments over the years.

 

All of those I have seen grossly misunderstand the origins of law.

 

You'll get yourself into a lot of trouble relying on these arguments.

 

Thanks for your input S.O.S

 

What are your thoughts  about coming from this from the laws of commerce position?

 

https://www.thehighersidechats.com/cal-washington-the-inpower-movement-babylonian-commerce-the-notice-of-liability/

 

If you are truly informed and speak to them in their language, they appear to shit their britches.

 

 

Edited by MarcusOmouse
Wrong name
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KingKitty said:

I became aware of this a few months ago, as I tend to use the self-check out at my local grocer (USA). The camera seen my wallet in hand and "suggested" that I had an unpaid for item in hand, while showing me a video of me with my wallet in hand. I proceeded to show it one of my fingers on that hand.

Co-Op in th UK have been trialling facial recognition tech which came in for some criticism,didn't stop them though

Why on earth does a supermarket chain need to use facial recognition technology....and more importantly....where is the data going ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ink said:

Just looking at the new bullshit mask 'rules' .... could one of you read this paragraph (from the explanatory memorandum) and highlight a certain aspect?

 

12.3 The Department has considered the fact that some people may be deterred from visiting the settings where these Regulations apply due to them being required to wear a face covering either because they cannot source a suitable face covering or they have protected characteristics (e.g. a disability) which makes it difficult to wear a face covering. The definition of face covering used is broad and includes any covering that securely covers the mouth and nose. As such, the Department considers that it will not be prohibitively costly or difficult for people to obtain a suitable face covering. The Department has also included a range of exemptions to ensure that this policy does not unfairly discriminate against those with protected characteristics. Furthermore, the policy will be supported by a communications campaign that will make clear that some people are exempt from these regulations and people should be challenged by members of the public for not wearing a face covering. This Regulation requires people to wear face coverings in many of the same places that they were required under previous regulations. Compliance with regulations was high, and most people are familiar with the requirement.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/1340/pdfs/uksiem_20211340_en.pdf

 

It does, by the way, allow any 'reasonable excuse' for not wearing a face nappy.

 

7.8 A person is not required to wear a face covering if they have a “reasonable excuse” for not wearing a face covering. Transport workers are exempt from having to wear face coverings. A non-exhaustive list of circumstances in which a person has a reasonable excuse is set out in regulation 5, and includes an inability to wear a face covering because of medical reasons or disability, to avoid the risk of harm or injury, or for eating and drinking or taking medication. Nobody who has a reasonable excuse and is therefore not wearing a face covering should be prevented from visiting any setting because of the requirements in these Regulations. Furthermore, people do not need to show proof of this reasonable excuse under the Regulations. Further information on this is available in the relevant guidance published on GOV.UK.

 

This part would seem to be (in part) created to stop businesses like the Cardiff cinema ....

 

Prohibition on preventing a person from wearing a face covering

7.—(1) A person responsible for carrying on a business in a relevant area must not prevent, or seek to prevent, a person (“P”) from wearing a face covering while P is present in the relevant area, except for a purpose set out in regulation 5(g) or (h).

(2) In this regulation—

(a)business” includes any undertaking, whether carried on for profit or not;

(b)a business is carried on in a relevant area if any part of the premises from which the business operates is in the relevant area.

(c)relevant area” means any place where a person is required to wear a face covering under these Regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, eddy64 said:

so anybody get the sinister nhs email, they were  suspiciously quick to produce a new test :-

 

 

 
 

Get Your Omicron PCR today to avoid restrictions

 

NHS scientists have warned that the new Covid variant Omicron spreads rapidly, can be transmitted between fully vaccinated people, and makes jabs less effective.However, as the new covid variant (Omicron)has quickly become apparent, we have had to make new test kits as the new variant appears dormant in the original test kits.

What happen if you decline a COVID-19 Omicron test?

In this situation, we warned that testing is in the best interests of themselves, friends, and family. People who do not consent or cannot agree to a COVID-19 test and refuse to undergo a swab must be isolated.

 

How do order Omicron PCR test?

You can order your Omicorn pcr test via NHS portal by clicking the link below:

 

 

https://nhs-order-pcr/COVID-10-omicron-research/

 

 

What happen if you are positive?

If positive, they must isolate for 10 days and should be reported to Public Health England.

 

 

Getting difficult to tell the difference between official scammers and unofficial ones. Note that Public Health England is not healthy at all - it's an organisation that was spun out off the chemical/biowarfare establishment at Porton Down. The place where they tested out nerve gases on National Servicemen, under the pretense of common cold research..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pete675 said:

 

Getting difficult to tell the difference between official scammers and unofficial ones. Note that Public Health England is not healthy at all - it's an organisation that was spun out off the chemical/biowarfare establishment at Porton Down. The place where they tested out nerve gases on National Servicemen, under the pretense of common cold research..

Isn't there a private company at Porton down with a prominent politician as a major shareholder ?

sure i read something recently about it ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

waterpipes??

 

PART 2

Places where face coverings need not be worn

 

6.—(1) The following premises—

(a)restaurants, including restaurants and dining rooms in hotels or members’ clubs;

(b)cafes and canteens;

(c)bars, including bars in hotels or members’ clubs;

(d)public houses;

 

(e)any business which consists wholly or mainly of the provision of, whether for payment or otherwise—

(i)a waterpipe to be used for the consumption of tobacco or any other substance on the premises, or

(ii)a device to be used for the recreational inhalation of nicotine or any other substance on the premises;

 

(f)any other premises, or part of premises, which are being used wholly or mainly by people eating or drinking.

 

(2) The exemption in sub-paragraph (1)(f) does not apply in relation to any part of the premises in which people are not eating or drinking.

7.  Premises (other than registered pharmacies) providing wholly or mainly medical or dental services, audiology services, chiropody, chiropractic, osteopathic, optometry or other medical services including services relating to mental health.

8.  Photography studios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My trouble is I have been around all of their bullshit far too long, how do you mean Javid you cant, if we want to save Christmas you need to roll up your sleeve and get jabbed? when I already told them what you were at.

As you were feeling the water with your bullshit, I thought I would warm it up for you, don't go getting scalded very nasty burns.

Edited by Sheepy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JABBED:

 

11/29/21
Exclusive: Forced to Get Vaccine to Remain on Lung Transplant List, 49-Year-Old Who Survived COVID Dies After Second Moderna Shot

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Amy Bolin said in order to be approved for a double-lung transplant, her husband had to be fully vaccinated for COVID even though he’d had the virus and recovered. After his second Moderna shot, he developed a pulmonary embolism and heart condition and died before he could get new lungs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MarcusOmouse said:

Thanks for your input S.O.S

 

What are your thoughts  about coming from this from the laws of commerce position?

 

https://www.thehighersidechats.com/cal-washington-the-inpower-movement-babylonian-commerce-the-notice-of-liability/

 

If you are truly informed and speak to them in their language, they appear to shit their britches.

 

 

I'll have a listen later.

 

In general terms the system is run by the intelligence services. What Epstein and Maxwell were doing was to set honey traps to corrupt people in positions of power. Someone who wants to be part of the system allows themselves to be filmed in various compromising activities in exchange for wealth and status.

 

As Morpheus posted it is Satanic Ritual Abuse and pedophilia.

 

And yes it is very prominent in places like Australia.

 

So now the intelligence services have a corrupt judge in place. They do not need to corrupt the entire judiciary and I am not saying that every judge is corrupt.

 

They just need to corrupt enough of them and control the allocation of cases.

 

So once you are a person of interest a little brown envelope will find its way onto the judge's desk. The judge will rule against you no matter what the evidence and legal arguments.

 

If you are not a person of interest you may get a fair hearing. But if you are a person of interest forget it. No matter how strongly the facts and how strongly the law is in your favor.

 

The judge will lie in their judgment and ignore the facts.

 

The media will spin it and obscure facts.

 

The intelligence services will intercept your communications and ensure that your story doesn't reach any honest journalist.

 

The only reason some people win against the system is that, for now, the courts want to give the appearance of probity. But that is changing. Now the tyrants are doubling down and the law is going to be ignored completely.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They know the jabs cause bloodclots:

Study aims to find reason for rare blood clots in people vaccinated against Covid

30 Nov, 2021 13:51

The £1.6-million project will see scientists from across the UK research the occurrence of the adverse condition clinically known as thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). It is expected to look at how common TTS was in the general population before Covid-19 and compare this against the cases identified after the pandemic began.

Noting that the most common side effects from Covid-19 vaccination were mild reactions lasting for two or three days, the statement said the study will examine changes in the body leading to the “unique combination of blood clots and low platelet count” seen in TTS.

https://www.rt.com/uk/541748-study-covid-vaccine-blood-clots/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Golden Retriever said:

More censorship, this time from Twitter.

 

 

Dead easy then isn't it, don't use Twitter. They'll rue their policies, looks like it's taking effect already, as well as ol' Jackie boy handing in his resignation. Something is afoot, so many resignations recently, in the media as well. Very strange events and all on the start of the Maxwell trial. Very weird, I wonder if the resignations have something to do with that trial. 🤔

Screenshot_20211130-192545_DuckDuckGo.jpg

Edited by Morpheus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Firebird said:

Dutch ''health'' minister is saying they already know 'precisely' where the unvaccinated live, and what their reasons are for not being vaccinated.

 

its interesting listening to these politicians saying that they know where unjabbed people live as if we don't also know where they live....so what is their point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

They know the jabs cause bloodclots:

Study aims to find reason for rare blood clots in people vaccinated against Covid

30 Nov, 2021 13:51

The £1.6-million project will see scientists from across the UK research the occurrence of the adverse condition clinically known as thrombotic thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS). It is expected to look at how common TTS was in the general population before Covid-19 and compare this against the cases identified after the pandemic began.

Noting that the most common side effects from Covid-19 vaccination were mild reactions lasting for two or three days, the statement said the study will examine changes in the body leading to the “unique combination of blood clots and low platelet count” seen in TTS.

https://www.rt.com/uk/541748-study-covid-vaccine-blood-clots/

It's the vaccine.

 

Where do I go to collect the money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Macnamara said:

 

its interesting listening to these politicians saying that they know where unjabbed people live as if we don't also know where they live....so what is their point?

 

I know. It's just that saying something like that comes across as a threat and when leaders say something like that it should ring alarm bells amongst the general public. It may be subtle, it may not, but the language has radicalized a lot.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Firebird said:

 

I know. It's just that saying something like that comes across as a threat and when leaders say something like that it should ring alarm bells amongst the general public. It may be subtle, it may not, but the language has radicalized a lot.

 

its strange that they forget that we know where they live too. They live among us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

I hope people don't wear masks. 

I really don't care if they do, it amuses the hell out of me, if you cannot read a box tough luck, I laugh at the stupid fear in their eyes watch next time you see them. I had one on my head in the garage earlier just for the fun of it, some bloke said shouldn't that be worn on your face? I said what do you mean? he said that mask, I said what mask. he said the one on your head, I said I don't have a mask on my head, he walked off. Jog on then.

Edited by Sheepy
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.
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...