Courtenay Heading again

[FANDL]

5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

That's fairly horrible - and at the same time absurdly self-dramatising.  But the problem with the self-dramatising is that they can sometimes commit bad actions because that's part of their way to attract the attention they crave.  It's the uncertainty as much as the threats that are the worry and stress.

On the other hand I suppose, in those circumstances he could hardly deny sending it.

Her full “article” on the “political prisoner” is fairly comical including attacks on Michelle Hayward as well as Rachel Glover: 

https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/ilse-of-man-political-prisoner-and

The comments section is certainly madder than IOM Today:

https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/ilse-of-man-political-prisoner-and/comments

Edited June 2 by FANDL

[Fred the shred]

This woman seems a really nasty piece of work surely there is a law against inciting hate.

[rachomics]

Well, there's a good reason I usually ignore any link with "substack" in the URL. The last time I clicked a link like that it was a full article trying to tell "the internet" that I personally murdered everyone at Abbotswood because of the PCR test. 

Edited June 2 by rachomics

[rachomics]

Case in point:

[FANDL]

39 minutes ago, Fred the shred said:

This woman seems a really nasty piece of work surely there is a law against inciting hate.

They’re just deranged. There isn’t much difference here to the MAGA lunatics in the US who will believe that an election was stolen and that their hero really isn’t a fraud perpetuating rapist for the rest of their lives despite any and all clear evidence to the contrary.

In the Hayward write up ..

https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/virus-faker-michelle-haywood-ilse

.. there is also a classic piece of deflection where someone working for the IOM police apparently made her feel “stressed” and “unsafe” for pointing out in an email that she’s a harassing lunatic who he will report to the authorities in Canada if she continues to harass him. These people are so far down the rabbit hole they’re having regular tea parties with the Mad Hatter and the Cheshire Cat.

The common theme between here and Canada though appears to be that the counties who took the most draconian and authoritative approach to the pandemic seem to have anecdotally also created the most, and the nosiest, pools of deranged covid nutters.

Edited June 2 by FANDL

[lfc84]

He's a prick. Hopefully he's dealt with soon.

[Knoxville]

Its the turds on X that support him, JESUS!!!!!

John Patrick Cleary, or SCS on Facebook..........that guy is as unhinged as him 😂

[Roger Ram]

Guess who is back rallying his troops.!

Edited July 11 by Roger Ram

[Idleweiss]

Look at them though. They’re just deranged smurfs. 

[Albert Tatlock]

12 minutes ago, Idleweiss said:

Look at them though. They’re just deranged smurfs. 

.

Where are you all coming from?
From a planet where we belong

Is that place the planet Earth?
No, it's one run by a Smurf.

Why are you all stupid twats?

Wearing blue and silly hats,
We all hope you catch the flu
Cos with no jab...it will end you

[Non-Believer]

Count of 4 at one point on Parliament Square this morning, the most there's been for weeks 🤭

[Roger Mexico]

Two things mildly irritate me about these people:

Surely it should be "Justice for the Jabbed"?  Every time I see the slogan I think "Who's Jabbed?  And isn't it normally spelled 'Jabed?'".

And, because the Covid vaccination wasn't compulsory, presumably none of these anti-vaxxers actually had them.  Nobody held down Heading and stuck needles in him.  So they're protesting on behalf of other people. Who don't care.

Of course the main objection to them is that they are delusional obsessives peddling nonsense and some people may be taken in by it to the extent of making bad medial decisions for themselves or their families.  But they're also delusional obsessives who can't even get their story right.

[Sheldon]

1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said:

Wearing blue and silly hats

I'm glad they wear those stupid shirts because, like the stripes on a wasp, it's nature's way of letting you know to steer well clear of the poisonous twats.

[WTF]

52 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

.

And, because the Covid vaccination wasn't compulsory,

it was if you wanted to keep your job in some types of employment.

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

isn't it normally spelled 'Jabed?'".

No, because that would change the pronunciation to a short sharp a rather than the long flat a

 

1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said:

Covid vaccination wasn't compulsory

But it was between January 2021 to early 2022 if you wanted to work, or continue, in health and care settings. It wasn’t mandatory, you couldn’t be made to have it, but it could have consequences if you didn’t.

The legality of that was considered in the English High Court and the ECtHR.

While the regulations didn’t technically make vaccines mandatory, they did create strong pressure for all care workers and frontline health and social workers to be fully vaccinated, by making it very difficult for them to work without this. The courts found this pressure to be lawful under human rights law.

On the 2 November 2021, the High Court decided in the case R (Peters and Findlay) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, that the regulations requiring care homes to ensure that only individuals who have been double-vaccinated are allowed to enter was lawful. The judge stated that the regulations did not make the vaccination mandatory. Instead, they allowed the individual to make their own decision about vaccination, but created an additional consequence for that decision. The judge also stated that the regulations were lawful under Article 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life), particularly in light of the ECtHR case of Vavřička.

In April 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) confirmed in the case of Vavřička and Others v. The Czech Republic that punishment for non-compliance with a mandatory vaccination scheme (such as a fine, or stopping children from getting a place in school) were lawful under Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In order to comply with Article 8, these penalties had to be considered proportionate to protect public health and had to be introduced in law.

The judge also determined that because the Government was protecting Article 2 (the right to life) of those living in care homes, it had a lot of leeway to implement any measures and to make political and social decisions based on the evidence.

The High Court also decided that the double vaccination rule was lawful under Article 14of the ECHR (the right to be free from discrimination). Article 14 does not provide a free-standing right to non-discrimination, but requires that people are able to enjoy all their other rights in the Convention without discrimination. The High Court found that any discrimination resulting from the regulations was justified in the context of the pandemic as it was required to protect the lives of others, especially the urgent requirement to protect care home residents from COVID-19.