WCE Player Refusing Vaccination

[mount eerie]

Well you kicked off with this:



Which is also complete and utter nonsense.

The idea that you can simply decide whether you’re a person or not, and therefore decide whether you consent to the laws of the jurisdiction you’re in, is just … nothing. It’s not a thing.

If you’re in the jurisdiction the laws apply to you. Test it out if you like. Go put a dent in the bonnet of a police and then tell them you’re a living person of substance and don’t consent to the laws against criminal damage. See what happens.

If I put a dent in the bonnet of a police car, I would be committing harm and loss and would therefore be subject to the law, and rightfully so.

If I were presented with a parking ticket, where no harm or loss was caused, I would conditionally accept that offer to contract upon proof that the offerer had jurisdiction over a living man.

 

[Chief]

Are you reading from Wayne Glew's version of the constitution?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Are you reading from Wayne Glew's version of the constitution?

Either him or Brian Shaw.

 

[The 747]

If I put a dent in the bonnet of a police car, I would be committing harm and loss and would therefore be subject to the law, and rightfully so.

If I were presented with a parking ticket, where no harm or loss was caused, I would conditionally accept that offer to contract upon proof that the offerer had jurisdiction over a living man.

Yeah nah. You try that and see if it works. It doesn't. Words are not magic.

 

[RAPPA]

Why the need for name calling?

Because the crap you are spouting is unmitigated nonsense, and the crap you repeat, for whatever reason, is absorbed by people who don’t know any better, and we end up in a “blind leading the blind” scenario.

 

[sr36]

If I put a dent in the bonnet of a police car, I would be committing harm and loss and would therefore be subject to the law, and rightfully so.

If I were presented with a parking ticket, where no harm or loss was caused, I would conditionally accept that offer to contract upon proof that the offerer had jurisdiction over a living man.

What I don't get is that you claim to recognise common law. Yet common law is just precedent and even if governments couldn't originally pass laws enforceable without consent, like you seem to be suggesting, there's an enormous body of precedent of them doing so. Their right to do so has been upheld by the judiciary, it is not under question by the judiciary, so under common law, governments can now pretty clearly pass enforceable laws that don't require consent.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Yeah, they almost certainly will.

They'll stick around for a little while yet to punish anti-vaxxers a bit more, then will be wound back.

I'll be very interested to see how that plays out. I see SA has already wound back the mandates for coppers.

I live in Vic but because I worked in WA was much more in tune with the mandates over there.

A great many people resisted the vaccination mandates, a great many people lost their jobs because they held their ground, an even greater number succumbed to the very real prospect of losing theirs jobs, homes and possibly families so in the end gave in to the mandates.

I'll be interested to see the reaction from people who feel like they were compelled to be vaccinated against their will if mandates are wound back and also the reactions from people who held their ground, lost their jobs and now will be able to probably get them back again, will they be magnanimous winners or will they rub it in with, 'I told you so'.

Politically I'll find it very interesting.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I spent months working alongside 2 others in a team of 3 who bombarded me with their law / mandate / legislation crap, both of them struggled to put a coherent sentence together at the best of times but now all of a sudden knew everything, 'do your own research ', and were continually showing me these legal letters written by one of Australia's 'top barristers', who would never seem to put their name to any of them.

They would change the personal details in the letters to suit their own circumstance and send them off to management / HR and tell me all about it. They never received one single response, not even an acknowledgement that they had even been looked at. For all their garbage and posturing, they are both still sitting at home, unemployed because in the end they refused to be vaccinated.

 

[kane249]

and were continually showing me these legal letters written by one of Australia's "top baristas", who would never seem to put their name to any of them.

efa

 

[Nevillle Monkeyrod]

All I see is this fiasco ended the same way as every time a WC player finds themselves facing career ending troubles. With no convictions.

 

[kane249]

All I see is this fiasco ended the same way as every time a WC player finds themselves facing career ending troubles. With no convictions.

He got vaccinated, what convictions would you like to see applied for (eventually) doing what was required of him?

 

[RAPPA]

I spent months working alongside 2 others in a team of 3 who bombarded me with their law / mandate / legislation crap, both of them struggled to put a coherent sentence together at the best of times but now all of a sudden knew everything, 'do your own research ', and were continually showing me these legal letters written by one of Australia's 'top barristers', who would never seem to put their name to any of them.

They would change the personal details in the letters to suit their own circumstance and send them off to management / HR and tell me all about it. They never received one single response, not even an acknowledgement that they had even been looked at. For all their garbage and posturing, they are both still sitting at home, unemployed because in the end they refused to be vaccinated.

Organisations like Red Union led a lot of people astray with $hit advice, preparing pro-forma template letters to issue to their employer in an effort to halt the inevitable conclusion in relation to their employment. It was bad advice

 

[Nevillle Monkeyrod]

He got vaccinated, what convictions would you like to see applied for (eventually) doing what was required of him?

Convictions has two meanings:
a formal declaration by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law that someone is guilty of a criminal offence.
"she had a previous conviction for a similar offence"

a firmly held belief or opinion.
"she takes pride in stating her political convictions"

Not sure you grasped the joke.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

The sign of a good joke is always a follow-up comment including dictionary definitions.

 

[Nevillle Monkeyrod]

A sign of an erudite poster is proving people are witless.

 

[JackOutback]

It was a good joke.

 

[Forward Press]

Because the crap you are spouting is unmitigated nonsense, and the crap you repeat, for whatever reason, is absorbed by people who don’t know any better, and we end up in a “blind leading the blind” scenario.

I learnt long ago not to bother with 'sovereign citizen' types - they are pedants that think they 'get you' on technicalities when in reality as soon as they are before a court of law they will be laughed at and sent on their way with a fine or jail time.

Nothing you say will convince them that they are wrong - they are intellectually superior free thinkers that did their own research, so by extension your arguments are intellectually inferior and to be pitied.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I learnt long ago not to bother with 'sovereign citizen' types - they are pedants that think they 'get you' on technicalities when in reality as soon as they are before a court of law they will be laughed at and sent on their way with a fine or jail time.

Nothing you say will convince them that they are wrong - they are intellectually superior free thinkers that did their own research, so by extension your arguments are intellectually inferior and to be pitied.

They’re even intellectually superior to the (dozens of) judges that consistently dismiss their nonsense arguments. Either that or the judges are all in on the conspiracy.

 

[Malifice]

If I put a dent in the bonnet of a police car, I would be committing harm and loss and would therefore be subject to the law, and rightfully so.

If I were presented with a parking ticket, where no harm or loss was caused, I would conditionally accept that offer to contract upon proof that the offerer had jurisdiction over a living man.

Take that Sov Cit s**t elsewhere please.

 

[sr36]

Take that Sov Cit sh*t elsewhere please.

Good tongue tier.

 

[sr36]

They’re even intellectually superior to the (dozens of) judges that consistently dismiss their nonsense arguments. Either that or the judges are all in on the conspiracy.

The nonsensical thing is that judges make the common law that these people claim as the only law. Effectively they're saying, we don't recognise laws passed by elected governments that have been mandated or gone through two houses of review, we only accept laws that are created by judges giving their judgements on the laws that governments pass. I'd say it's next level of crazy, but it isn't, it's a step down from QAnon

 

[Chief]

And if it were the case that all law was maritime law or whatever, the government would just pass a law saying "no it isn't".

 

[The 747]

I'm not posting on Bigfooty, I'm just travelling in this vessel....

 

[mount eerie]

Are you reading from Wayne Glew's version of the constitution?

I have summoned the Chief who can only contribute mockery?

Is this the standard you set?

 

[mount eerie]

Because the crap you are spouting is unmitigated nonsense, and the crap you repeat, for whatever reason, is absorbed by people who don’t know any better, and we end up in a “blind leading the blind” scenario.

I agree that the blind leading the blind is dangerous, but I made the claim that law is distinct from legislation, and I provided evidence.

This claim can be verified by numerous legal dictionaries as well as case law.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?