Hannah Shotbolt- An English Rose

[CrankyBoomer]

I never met the bloke concerned but going back to the 1990s, the firm where I was a legal secretary dealt sometimes with another firm where a solicitor (ex-solicitor?) had at one time been in prison (something to do with money). I think the firm where the chap worked got round it by not having him personally deal with money. I don't know what methodology the firm used. That was to do with conveyacing (real estate for non-Britons) so didn't involve going to court.

That said, I would have thought the courts have had enough time to sort out EWE. I know there are such things (well such people) as litigants in person and McKenzie Friends.

[John Uskglass]

The down side of course being that if you have a law degree you must know that the FMOTL theories are all complete bollocks. That means you go from getting the benefit of the doubt and being labelled stupid or ignorant or both to there being no doubt you are just dishonest.

To play Devil's Advocate - An atheist could get a degree in theology the better to be able to argue with believers. My mum studied Theology to PhD, and although she was CofE, used her knowledge to baffle Jehovah's Witnesses at the door.

As for being dishonest being a barrier to FMOTL success, I refer you to the career of Mr Michael Waugh

[AnOwlCalledSage]

To play Devil's Advocate - An atheist could get a degree in theology the better to be able to argue with believers. My mum studied Theology to PhD, and although she was CofE, used her knowledge to baffle Jehovah's Witnesses at the door.

My C at 'O' Level Religious Studies was enough to baffle JWs. I would invite them in for a cuppa. I was put on a "Do not call list".

[Normal Wisdom]

Her conviction for glassing a teenage girl in the face (GATGITF) prevents her from being an actual solicitor I believe.

To be pedantic and IIRC (and I have an annoyingly useless memory for such trivia), that incident took place at a fancy dress party in 2011. She threw a bottle at a girl she was arguing with, missed but hit another girl (dressed as Red Riding Hood) in the face, damaging her teeth. I don't recall what dearest Hannah was dressed as although Joan of Arc might have been appropriate. I also recall that bringing her nascent legal expertise to bear her response to the accuasation was something like "Yeah I dun it, so f*****g what?". In a separate incident a couple of years earlier she punched a girl and 'glassed' a barman.

I can certainly see where having a law degree would be a great advantage for an FMOTL type. Much more impressive than just having a collection of old law books. It's going to make your arguments about 'legalese' and all the rest seem that much more credible. Combine that with being a personable young woman, and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that you could end up making more money than as an entry level solicitor, if your social media operation is slick enough.

Bet Waugh would love to add her to his crack legal team.

The down side of course being that if you have a law degree you must know that the FMOTL theories are all complete bollocks. That means you go from getting the benefit of the doubt and being labelled stupid or ignorant or both to there being no doubt you are just dishonest.

Hannah would have us believe that almost every legal professional, lecturer and student that she has encountered have been nothing but admiring of her ability to puncture the orthodoxies of the fusty legal profession with her insightful alternative opinions.

[SpearGrass]

I don't think the comparison with the atheist with a theology degree is apt, save in one possible scenario. After the degree, the atheist has the same knowledge as a believer: she just lacks faith. But lawyers don't need faith, they just need to know.

If she'd done a proper law degree she must know that statute outranks common law, etc etc. So, she's either NOT done a proper law degree, or she wasn't listening and the standard at her institution was very low so that she passed regardless, or, yes, she's studied law on the basis that it's just fiction, and has no bearing on the real world.

But it's hard to see how you could spend several years learning law on that basis. Apart from anything else, it's pretty boring. But also it reprogrammes your brain - your reasoning is different afterwards. A lot of my colleagues simply can't see how people can fall for this stuff, because their minds don't work that way. I tell them that they should be consoled in realising that all that dreary study (and the student loans) really did make a difference.

[longdog]

To play Devil's Advocate - An atheist could get a degree in theology the better to be able to argue with believers.

That's certainly true but it wouldn't help if you then went on to argue that the head of the catholic church was the chief rabbi. That's roughly comparable to having a law degree and arguing that any of the FMOTL nonsense is anything other than nonsense.

I'm sure there are people who claim that the head of the catholic church is the chief rabbi by the way. You know... All that Church of Satan bollocks.

[longdog]

My C at 'O' Level Religious Studies was enough to baffle JWs. I would invite them in for a cuppa. I was put on a "Do not call list".

Without wanting to downgrade your O Level Grade C (better than I managed) that's hardly surprising. There is a theory, and a rather good one, that the reason the JW's and the LDS send out such obviously ill prepared evangelists is because they expect them to meet people like you and me. It has little to do with expanding the faith or saving sinners and everything to do with reinforcing dependency on the church.

They are told the world is ungodly and hostile and then they get sent out, often knowing little to nothing about their own religion, only to get the entirely predictable reaction they do get. This proves the world is ungodly and hostile and the only safe place is in the bosom of the church... Give me all your money.

In all my years of arguing with doorstep evangelists I have met precisely one that has any real knowledge of the bible. And he was a very nice freelance guy from West Africa unaffiliated to any church. He was so nice that the conversation soon went off topic (much like this thread) and on to such important theological issues as the best breed of dog and my complete inability to make plantains edible.

[John Uskglass]

If she'd done a proper law degree she must know that statute outranks common law, etc etc.

But also it reprogrammes your brain - your reasoning is different afterwards.

Intuitively you'd think that the equivalent of these statements would be true of studying science at degree level, yet there are scientists who believe in creationism. True, most of them are in fields where there isn't a direct conflict between their immediate area of study and their beliefs, but this list (which can be sorted by relevance of qualification) shows that there are some for whom that isn't true.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_ ... scientists

There's a discussion on Slate about this which quotes this comment from a reader which I think is apposite.

dallasd: I did once meet an astronomer who was a young earth creationist. But she compartmentalized. The Big bang theory was true when she was at work, but at home she was a creationist.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... ience.html

Which all goes to show as we say up here - 'nowt so queer as folk'.

[John Uskglass]

Well, this is embarrassing...

If I'd actually watched this video of Ms Shotbolt's prior to jumping in with both feet, I'd have heard her say quite clearly at about 3:30 that 'Common Law stuff' doesn't work, followed by an account of her time at law school where she talks about not getting on with the lecturers and most of the other students because of her beliefs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SD4ksK-8UE

Of course her ICC prosecution stuff is still bollocks, but if she's renounced FMOTL, it raises the question of whether she should still be discussed here?

[longdog]

Almost all of the FMOTL theories aren't based on common law, not even their own entirely imaginary crackpot version. The "common law" part of footlerism is only a small part of the whole canon of bullshit so the fact she's abandoned that doesn't mean she's abandoned anything else let alone everything else.

[noblepa]

Almost all of the FMOTL theories aren't based on common law, not even their own entirely imaginary crackpot version. The "common law" part of footlerism is only a small part of the whole canon of bullshit so the fact she's abandoned that doesn't mean she's abandoned anything else let alone everything else.

To FMOTL, "Common Law" doesn't mean what is taught in law school and what you and I understand it to be. To them it means law that is made up on the spot by "common people".

[YiamCross]

Intuitively you'd think that the equivalent of these statements would be true of studying science at degree level, yet there are scientists who believe in creationism. True, most of them are in fields where there isn't a direct conflict between their immediate area of study and their beliefs, but this list (which can be sorted by relevance of qualification) shows that there are some for whom that isn't true.

I'd be interested to know what field of science, if any, is not in direct conflict with creationism. Either way, anyone who believes in creationism has demonstrated such a complete lack of judgment as to safely assume they have zero ability to think critically or reason on the basis of the evidence. In the same way that much of the FOOTL nonsense claims the roots of its validity are deeply buried in biblical law and comes from the creator as well as a re-invention of what common law actually is makes anyone who espouses its superiority over man made statutes well worth ignoring.

Veering wildly back onto the subject of this thread, for which apologies, whilst the delightfully Croydon-facelifted HS does in fact say common law doesn't work she fails to disown it on the basis that it's complete nonsense and leaves open the possibility that she might still believe it's the PTB who impose their false vatican inspired statutes on the long suffering masses in opposition of their true god-given natural laws.

She certainly says a few moments later that she has no intention of becoming a solicitor or applying to the bar so I think it's safe to say she has no legal right to practice law or claim that she might have any legitimate reason to offer legal advice to a paying punter. Or anyone.

[longdog]

I'd be interested to know what field of science, if any, is not in direct conflict with creationism.

That would depend on how you define creationism I suppose. I can't think of any science that doesn't conflict with young earth creationism.

But if you are talking about some sort of ill defined version where god created the universe 13.8 billion years ago (plus seven days?) then that's a different matter. It's unfalsifiable and therefore not science but at least it doesn't conflict with very much science.

The world is not short of theist scientists, which seems rather odd to me, but I suppose they can compartmentalise their rationality in a way I wouldn't be able to do.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I'd be interested to know what field of science, if any, is not in direct conflict with creationism.

Okay. I'll bite. Computer Science. I may be biased as that's my degree. It's true that most people who are acclaimed as computer scientists are actually engineers or marketing gurus (Musk, Sinclair, Berners Lee et al), but it is ultimately a science based discipline thanks to the work of people like Turing and von Neumann.

I'll also exclude Chomsky. Yes, we had to study him and he had some insight which was relevant to complier theory, but I count "cognitive science" as also being engineering or simply social linguistics.

[John Uskglass]

First off, can I recommend Ted Chiang's 'Omphalos' from 'Exhalation', which is a very clever exploration of what it would be like to do science in a universe where young earth creationism was true.

I'd be interested to know what field of science, if any, is not in direct conflict with creationism.

Chemistry? It doesn't matter to chemists how the elements were created, just what their properties are now and what you can do with them.

Going back on topic. In this video from 2018, Ms Shotbolt explains that the FMOTL stuff doesn't work because the state has the power to impose its laws on you. To be honest, as a libertarian communist, I can agree with quite a lot of what she says about the compromises you make between your ideology and the organs of the state for a quiet life!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTaSHpobVSg

At that point she still had a soft spot for Kate of Gaia though, so not quite a sinner who hath repented...
Seems now to be more of a 'mainstream' conspiracy theory type.

Fair play to her though, works for a living, studied hard, and puts her kid's welfare first, so a cut above most of the others featured here.

[jcolvin2]

Chemistry? It doesn't matter to chemists how the elements were created, just what their properties are now and what you can do with them.

Decay rates of radioactive isotopes (used for dating)?

[YiamCross]

I'd be interested to know what field of science, if any, is not in direct conflict with creationism.

Chemistry? It doesn't matter to chemists how the elements were created, just what their properties are now and what you can do with them.

I did think that myself but I thought, hell, why shoot myself down in flames before I've even started. Personally I've always argued that abiogenesis is the inevitable outcome of the right mix of chemicals, physical conditions and time so chemistry is the unavoidable and fatal flaw in any creation story. Evolution takes over the story of life as a consequence of the chemistry of DNA and protein formation once the chemical pump has been primed, so to speak.

Then again, there is a view that chemistry is just a small sub branch of physics and consequently would be ramming any creationist claims amidships at full steam along with the main vessel.

And computer science is an actual science? Next thing you'll be claiming philosophy is a science. I'll get me coat now...

[AnOwlCalledSage]

And computer science is an actual science? Next thing you'll be claiming philosophy is a science. I'll get me coat now...

Yes. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers on the nature of computing. Quantum computing falls in this bracket although, as Prof Brian Cox would argue, everything in science is physics so it probably doesn't matter anyway.

However, there are many strands of it which are engineering in the way that applied physics is not technically a science and most people's interface with the subject is via the engineering aspect.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is just bald men arguing over a comb in pubs.

[longdog]

Philosophy, on the other hand, is just bald men arguing over a comb in pubs.

Men with pony-tails is my experience. Not that that excludes partial baldness of course.

But then to be a bit philosophical for a moment... Aren't all pub arguments philosophical? After the second pint at least.

I'd argue that the one me and my mate have been having for years, whilst constantly changing our position, as to which is the third best* Carry On film is one of the thorniest philosophical issues of our day.

*We've given up trying to choose between "Cleo" and "Up The Khyber" as first place and just awarded them joint first / second.

Fakir! Off!

Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me.

And so on.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

*We've given up trying to choose between "Cleo" and "Up The Khyber" as first place and just awarded them joint first / second.

I have a PVR on which I save my favourite films. A quick consultation of my menu shows that I have 3 Carry On films saved. There is an answer to this question.

Cleo and Khyber obviously. But my third one: Carry On... Follow That Camel. Not just top notch Carry On japes, but Phil Silvers as well!

Although I do love Screaming. "Do you mind if I smoke?" and "Frying tonight!" always raise a chuckle.