UK & IRL relax covid restrictions after MAJOR complaint submitted to International Criminal Court

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck

originally posted by: DeadlyStaringFrog
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This vaccine doesn't stop people from catching it or spreading it. Old vaccines, while not 100%, stopped people from catching it. You need to stop the spread. This gene therapy is doing about as good of a job as the 2 weeks to stop the spread.

I've looked at some information about the efficacy of the vaccines against the new omicron strain.

I actually starting warming up to the idea of getting the jab by reading these reports, but it was terminology like I described that shows their deceptions and lies and in the end it only got me angrier that they were so misleading.

Prediction for your "self talk" in 2030: Man, am I glad I listened to my gut instinct and avoided those Covid vaccines!

One of the reports was from PBS, the others from universities and other sources. The PBS one followed the other reports and was simpler to understand but the points I made on the terminology used stuck out in every report regardless how technical. I can't trust the sources that do that.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: ancientlight
Very good post , bookmarked.
& ignore Ocamsrazor, just another paid government shill. There are a few on this site. No matter what evidence is presented they will still deny and ignore , so just ignore them.

Your ATS screen name, "AncientLight", explains your mature and wise view of social media reality.

Cheers

Thanks, but it's actually based on a book title ("Ancientlight" by Mary Gentle) I read it at the height of my scifi/fantasy/ufo obsession years and just loved this book

I'm curious why their legal representation is using a hotmail address.

Surely it's common practice, especially if communicating with an organisation of the stature of the ICC, for legal reps to use an email address belonging to their firm?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You do brilliantly to make that number of crass errors in so few words .

Definite detention , OR .

Write , " I must not play the fool" , one hundred times .

originally posted by: Motorhead
I'm curious why their legal representation is using a hotmail address.

Surely it's common practice, especially if communicating with an organisation of the stature of the ICC, for legal reps to use an email address belonging to their firm?

Lol, yea.

I was hoping I'm not the only one who noticed the nonsense in that.

All top legal firms use Hotmail with names like SexyLibrarianLawyerForYou11143...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: flukefox

They changed the definition because it's really not an accurate definition. There is no vaccine in the history of the world that provides complete immunity to 100% of the people who take it, not one. The new definition is just a better way to define it.

Oh that’s why they changed it ??? Yeah sure pal . Why would you be on here lying to us . Jeez I just wonder why ?

a reply to: flukefox

Easily debunked purely by going through Hansard, which details the parliamentary discussions leading up to the unlocking, and by the fact that the tories are a pro business party who never wanted to lock down in the first place.

The tories unlocked before each of the previous waves had ended, and relaxed restrictions so that people could spend more money over Christmas and the New Year.

Frankly, this is a vote winner for them and something that they want to do.

originally posted by: Motorhead
I'm curious why their legal representation is using a hotmail address.

Surely it's common practice, especially if communicating with an organisation of the stature of the ICC, for legal reps to use an email address belonging to their firm?

No credible lawyer would entertain the case as the Nuremburg Code isn't a law/legally binding. It's just a bunch of nutcases with no understanding of law or medicine - the case will be thrown out long before reaching ICC Court as all their claims are fabricated libellous/defamatory claims.

The Nuremburg Code has nothing to do with the vaccines as we're not at war, they're not experiments/experimental, clinical trial phase had ended and were verified safe and effective by MHRA prior to their approval for use.

a reply to: MykeNukem

Ok, I hear you, you are skeptical or so... however....

1. She never claims to be a "Human Rights or related lawyer", nor reputable in that respect.
In the document sent to the ICC, she describes herself as a "Lawyer and Human Rights Activist".

That is a "Lawyer" and a "Human Rights Activist", not a "Human Rights Lawyer" as you are suggesting.

2. Secondly, either this is an incredibly elaborate hoax that she's been planning pre-covid OR she is what she says she is.
Did you look at her facebook linked on her website?

In 2017, a friend of hers asks her how Law school is getting on:
www.facebook.com...

In May 2020 she was excited and nervous about the criminal law exam:
www.facebook.com...

In June 2020 she is happy to announce that she is finishing her law degree:
www.facebook.com...

Maybe Mark Sexton is also in on this elaborate hoax since in October 2020 he writes a long post about a criminal complaint he entered where he admits to being a retired police officer:
www.facebook.com...

I mean clearly she has been planning this all along, this elaborate hoax to pretend she went to law school to become a lawyer. She even has a facebook page, in which she expresses interest in common law and since 2014:
fb.watch...

3. With regards to the website, if she's just finished her degree in 2020, I highly doubt she'll be in a firm so soon unless she makes her own firm. If she is not part of a major firm and doesn't have a web background, I doubt she will have a professional looking website filled with whatever you are expecting her to have on it, nor the time to work much on it, her being a single mother and all that.

Let alone being accepted by any major firm due to the subject matter she is specialising herself in - being common law along with criminal law - because of what is going on in the world. I mean, if NHS / HSE Doctors lost their jobs over refusing to jab people or speaking out, can you imagine what could happen to a reputable law firm if they associated with all this?

She has the website domain... hannahroselaw.co.uk... meaning that she could easily set up an email account as [email protected] - would that reassure you? Perhaps she doesn't actually know how to do this and she's working within her knowledge and budget of websites.

Besides that, there are plenty of people qualified in their field and have in depth knowledge in it, but who don't actually work in the industry. I have a friend who's done a MSc in Geography and could easily become a teacher but he works as a Clerk in a shop.

So are you still telling me that you are doubting that she is a real person? Who studied Law? Who wrote and submitted this document to the ICC?

Or that the fact she is not "reputable", this discredits her knowledge in law and relevance in submitting this document?

And is Mark Sexton then? Has he pretended all this time to be a retired police officer being active against discrimination and tyranny, since his account was open in 2008 on Facebook?

If you can't make any sense from the above, then your motives on this forum may be as questionable as our friend OccamsRazor04 in the matter.


Like I said to our shill buddy OccamsRazor04:

you've went beyond the point and deflected yourself from the whole point of the topic. The point is that the UK & Ireland have backtracked very soon after the aforementioned complaint was submitted to the ICC.

If after this you are still proposing that Hannah & Mark, both evidently real people, one having studied law, the other being a retired police officer, have been plotting an evil plan to mislead everyone in an elaborate hoax that started potentially as far as 2014, then there's nothing more to say. That would be your own personal opinion / skepticism & in your own words "disinfo".
I am receptive to valid arguments, but again, there's no substance to what you have said, no research and you didn't manage to quote her description of herself accurately in the first place!

Oh and so you are also comparing her email address hannahroses11 to SexyLibrarianLawyerForYou11143 ? ... enough said OccamsRazor04... sorry, I mean MykeNukem.

a reply to: Motorhead

Fair point, it's what I thought initially until I dug into her facebook and found Mark sexton etc...
They are real people. She was actually a student and was passing her law exams in 2020.

Also, do you really think a law firm would publicly want someone like her - common law advocate - to use their firm as a means to submit this kind of a document? Have you seen what happens to NHS / HSE Doctors who speak out or refuse to jab people?

So if you are a graduate in law without a firm nor the funds to get a full on professional website made, you will most likely use any email address you can use.

Read the post above this one. I link to her facebook private profile and facebook page which is public and you can go as far back as 2014. I also link Mark Sexton's facebook, the retired police officer - who has made some posts public in recent years as they got quite popular in the whole activist movement to defend people's rights.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: flukefox

They changed the definition because it's really not an accurate definition. There is no vaccine in the history of the world that provides complete immunity to 100% of the people who take it, not one. The new definition is just a better way to define it.

They changed the definition right after bringing out the mRNA jabs. So they could call them vaccines rather than gene therapy. Who do you think you’re fooling?

a reply to: flukefox

Sorry dude.

You can't type a big enough wall of text to make this true.

I took the time to research what you had, and it's turned out to be made up garbage.

Show me some credible sources and I'll look at them.

Email the info to my lawfirm: [email protected]

Also, resorting to cries of shill when someone is trying to hold your OP to a higher standard (actually TOS imo) is poor form. Maybe learn from it instead?

No one is shilling you, lol.

originally posted by: DeadlyStaringFrog
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This vaccine doesn't stop people from catching it or spreading it. Old vaccines, while not 100%, stopped people from catching it. You need to stop the spread. This gene therapy is doing about as good of a job as the 2 weeks to stop the spread.

It's a respitory virus, vaccine can't stop you from catching respitory virus because you catch it by breathing it in, but they can help you to fight it.

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Motorhead
I'm curious why their legal representation is using a hotmail address.

Surely it's common practice, especially if communicating with an organisation of the stature of the ICC, for legal reps to use an email address belonging to their firm?

Lol, yea.

I was hoping I'm not the only one who noticed the nonsense in that.

All top legal firms use Hotmail with names like SexyLibrarianLawyerForYou11143...

I haven’t looked into the veracity of this court case yet, but I know Dr Yeadon has spoken out against the jabs and his credentials are real, I have also heard of people taking this to court.

What’s really funny though is the pandemic narrative has completely fallen apart, nobody buys it anymore even if they did to start with. It has exposed the MSM for the propaganda outlets they are, millions of people who otherwise trusted their governments and believed in the system have realised what a con it all is, and are now looking into other crimes carried out by the shady cabal pulling the strings.

All that money, power and influence and they completely screwed up. They were right about one thing though. There will be no going back to the old normal. They are finished.

originally posted by: flukefox

Now, just to address the "vaccine" terminology, which is a medical definition: Where are your references claiming the definition of a vaccine or are these just your own subjective opinions ?

Show me one vaccine that protected 100% of people from ever getting what the vaccine was supposed to protect against. What vaccine do you consider to be a vaccine?

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

The vaccine was developed against the original strain. Looking at it's effectiveness vs other strains to determine whether it was ever effective is misleading for this particular topic. Definitely relevant when it comes to mandates and whether the vaccine should still be taken.

originally posted by: flukefox
a reply to: Motorhead

Have you seen what happens to NHS / HSE Doctors who speak out or refuse to jab people?

Very little, that man who was featured on the news earlier this month got called an idiot on national television, but I don't think that anything official ever happened to him.

The only person that I'm aware of her had any serious sanctions put against them was that anti vaxxer nurse who claimed that 5g was causing Covid.

a reply to: DeadlyStaringFrog

So no vaccine gives 100% immunity to everyone. So any definition saying a vaccine DOES give immunity would mean there are no vaccines, as there are currently 0 vaccines that for sure give immunity, they may or may not, just like the covid vaccine.

The strain of covid the vaccine was developed for it DID stop people from catching it and spreading it, just not 100%, the same as every other vaccine. The vaccine does basically nothing now, but it was never developed for Omicron.

I keep seeing people talk about how the definition changed because a real vaccine gives 100% immunity to everyone like the old definition says .. but then they can't give me a single vaccine that fits that definition.

a reply to: MykeNukem

All top legal firms use Hotmail with names like SexyLibrarianLawyerForYou11143...

It says Hanna Rose is and an activist and lawyer, I doubt she even works for a legal firm if she’s an activist nevermind a top one. She’s doesn’t need to work for a law firm to be qualified as a lawyer and has probably set up the Hotmail account especially for the case. Is there some issue with that?


Regardless the PDF looks like a correctly laid out legal case to me, what the court does with it is yet to be seen.