To be slightly fair to Bridgen, he didn't call it the biggest crime since the holocaust, he quoted a cardiologist as saying it was the biggest crime since the holocaust. But it is a shame that the pair of them can't lose this case.
I agree Hancock has a lot to answer for. In my opinion the amount of coercion that people had over the Covid jabs was wrong and a lot of people had then who didn't in my view really need them
Ah Watchet Harbour. Back in the early 1970s, whilst on a family holiday when I was a boy, my dad and I stayed up all night to watch a (what looked like to me) a huge cargo ship that had delivered a consignment of rubber depart, because I was convinced it would not be able to squeeze through the harbour entrance. Obviously it did! A long-suffering and lovely man, my dad.
There is an article in the daily Mail about a woman ( Claire Freemantle ) who had a medical episode, while driving, sadly two children lost there lives and several others were injured. The CPS decided not to bring charges. Now the daily Mail has splash this woman's face all over its paper. My concern is people may think justice hasn't been, and may do vigilante justice. What can this woman do, personally I see it as the mail is stirring up trouble deliberately. Your thoughts please
I have that 'entity in law' is the term. Like a fishing club is regarded in Law as a Society of Friends (even though their members don't often behave like friends. 😆) and is not an entity. Therefore, in order to sue the club, you must sue one of the Appointed Trustees who is responsible for the club's conduct.
There's an (IIRC) extinct volcano in New Zealand which is a legal person. The area around it is farmland and the boundry between the two extremely sharp as the volcano is pretty much all jungle.
I think you probably mean Mt Egmont / Taranaki. There's a (mostly circular) National Park surrounds it and the native bush cuts off at the fenceline, outside of which the farmers have deforested the whole landscape.
I did buy some fancy paper whilst I was there. It's got seeds in it, so when you're done you just throw it into a hedgerow. So I may break my usual habits and actually start making some notes.
@@neuralwarp let's not pretend he's some kind of esteemed epidemiologist. He was however suspended from the Commons after breaching the rules on lobbying. The world of British politics will be far better off without either Bridgen or Hancock.
3:10 The judgement seems unfair and a stretch. It assumes ordinary punters wouldn't click through the link to Bridgen - The intention to deliberately identify was inherent by including the link. And anyone using the Anti-S statement, in any context, is deliberately and knowingly intrending to cause serious harm - There's now an overwhelming body of evidence showing individuals have been adversely affected by such allegations. I don't have much sympathy for Bridgen overall, but this instance seems unjust, and it's sad the case has already been sewn up.
I didn't get to go on it. But I did think about shooting the vid with the train in the background. But they insisted on operating to their own timetable rather than waiting for me to say "Ok, ready."
Can you make a comment on if an Expert Witness in Court should understand what his duties are. Is it an excuse to say you did not understand their duties at the time. I imagine you can guess where this is coming from.
To be slightly fair to Bridgen, he didn't call it the biggest crime since the holocaust, he quoted a cardiologist as saying it was the biggest crime since the holocaust.
But it is a shame that the pair of them can't lose this case.
Write out Bridgen 100 times, and don't go to bed before you have finished your lines!
I knew it had a B in it!
"Conspiracy theory" has become conspiracy fact many times. Mr Handcock has a lot to answer for and Bridgen was and is 100% correct.
Except that Bridgen has form for stupid comments and conspiracy theories.
I agree Hancock has a lot to answer for. In my opinion the amount of coercion that people had over the Covid jabs was wrong and a lot of people had then who didn't in my view really need them
And what relevant qualification makes your view worth listening to?
Ah Watchet Harbour. Back in the early 1970s, whilst on a family holiday when I was a boy, my dad and I stayed up all night to watch a (what looked like to me) a huge cargo ship that had delivered a consignment of rubber depart, because I was convinced it would not be able to squeeze through the harbour entrance. Obviously it did! A long-suffering and lovely man, my dad.
Is that by Blue Anchor?
1:53 _"the average reader, not to prone to scandal"_
Is that even possible in the UK these days? 🤔
Animals and landscapes being able to sue. What a brilliant idea!
There is an article in the daily Mail about a woman ( Claire Freemantle ) who had a medical episode, while driving, sadly two children lost there lives and several others were injured. The CPS decided not to bring charges. Now the daily Mail has splash this woman's face all over its paper. My concern is people may think justice hasn't been, and may do vigilante justice. What can this woman do, personally I see it as the mail is stirring up trouble deliberately. Your thoughts please
My cat has commanded me to thank you for your kind words about animal rights!
Good morning to you. Another lovely video with scenery. I love being outdoors! And I do so enjoy the 'padding'😅. Thank you. 😊.
Morning Al! Interesting as always! Thanks!
I have that 'entity in law' is the term. Like a fishing club is regarded in Law as a Society of Friends (even though their members don't often behave like friends. 😆) and is not an entity. Therefore, in order to sue the club, you must sue one of the Appointed Trustees who is responsible for the club's conduct.
There's an (IIRC) extinct volcano in New Zealand which is a legal person. The area around it is farmland and the boundry between the two extremely sharp as the volcano is pretty much all jungle.
I think you probably mean Mt Egmont / Taranaki. There's a (mostly circular) National Park surrounds it and the native bush cuts off at the fenceline, outside of which the farmers have deforested the whole landscape.
@@cr10001 Yes, that's the one. Shows quite a contrast.
That's interesting. Total privilege, but also it is a 2-way barrier. How . . . fair.
Many thanks. Very interesting
0:30 'Bridgeton'? 11:22 'Coldridge' (but still love this channel!)
I did buy some fancy paper whilst I was there. It's got seeds in it, so when you're done you just throw it into a hedgerow. So I may break my usual habits and actually start making some notes.
If an animal can have personhood, it can be sued. I can call in the bailiffs to evict my mice at their own expense.
It's a shame Hancock and Bridgen can't both lose...
Why? Bridgen is a doctor raising bona fide medical concerns.
@@neuralwarp let's not pretend he's some kind of esteemed epidemiologist. He was however suspended from the Commons after breaching the rules on lobbying. The world of British politics will be far better off without either Bridgen or Hancock.
@@neuralwarp he’s not a doctor
3:10 The judgement seems unfair and a stretch. It assumes ordinary punters wouldn't click through the link to Bridgen - The intention to deliberately identify was inherent by including the link. And anyone using the Anti-S statement, in any context, is deliberately and knowingly intrending to cause serious harm - There's now an overwhelming body of evidence showing individuals have been adversely affected by such allegations.
I don't have much sympathy for Bridgen overall, but this instance seems unjust, and it's sad the case has already been sewn up.
WRONG.
Bridgen didn't say that.
He said HIS DOCTOR said this.
And to be clear: his JEWISH doctor.
Watchet wow. I've been on holiday to Watchet. Did you get chance to go on the steam heritage railway?
I didn't get to go on it. But I did think about shooting the vid with the train in the background. But they insisted on operating to their own timetable rather than waiting for me to say "Ok, ready."
Can you make a comment on if an Expert Witness in Court should understand what his duties are. Is it an excuse to say you did not understand their duties at the time. I imagine you can guess where this is coming from.
I am planning a vid on CPR Part 35, which is the bit that covers the duties of experts, and also when its a criminal case.
@@artmedialaw Thanks for the info. I look forward to it. It seems very complicated at the moment. The excuses have kept flowing this morning.
@@ianmason. I do not read the articles, I watch every word live. I can see their faces and the fact they are shitting their pants.
The sort of case you'd like both sides to lose