Chrisy Morris - Parking Tickets and Bailiffs.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I imagine the BNP stuff is going to come back and hurt him badly once he has been exposed

IMO the BNP involvement isn't really that important. If truth be told it is a thinly veiled attempt at attacking the arguer rather than their argument. I believe that what is most important is for it to be shown that Chrisy's legal "theories" are wrong. It is irrelevant if Morris is or is not a racist because that does not alter the validity of his claims about "fake" warrants etc etc. The documentary is about Chrisy battling with bailiffs. Concentrating on exposing his pseudo-legal babblings as being out and out bullshit is all that needs to be done. Smearing Chrisy's character does not make him wrong. Proving he is wrong in law does make him wrong.

[Philistine]

I imagine the BNP stuff is going to come back and hurt him badly once he has been exposed

IMO the BNP involvement isn't really that important. If truth be told it is a thinly veiled attempt at attacking the arguer rather than their argument. I believe that what is most important is for it to be shown that Chrisy's legal "theories" are wrong. It is irrelevant if Morris is or is not a racist because that does not alter the validity of his claims about "fake" warrants etc etc. The documentary is about Chrisy battling with bailiffs. Concentrating on exposing his pseudo-legal babblings as being out and out bullshit is all that needs to be done. Smearing Chrisy's character does not make him wrong. Proving he is wrong in law does make him wrong.

Well said. Ad hominems are a logical fallacy. Although it could be said that taking money or support from the BNP shows character (or lack thereof) and is therefore open to criticism. Anything seems to go here on the UK forum at Quatloos where people are even criticized for being short. Your point is well made at any rate.

[Angolvagyok]

I imagine the BNP stuff is going to come back and hurt him badly once he has been exposed

IMO the BNP involvement isn't really that important. If truth be told it is a thinly veiled attempt at attacking the arguer rather than their argument. I believe that what is most important is for it to be shown that Chrisy's legal "theories" are wrong. It is irrelevant if Morris is or is not a racist because that does not alter the validity of his claims about "fake" warrants etc.

Well said. Ad hominems are a logical fallacy. Although it could be said that taking money or support from the BNP shows character (or lack thereof) and is therefore open to criticism. Anything seems to go here on the UK forum at Quatloos where people are even criticized for being short. Your point is well made at any rate.

I would like to see him directly questioned on it as he has consistently denied having anything to do with the BNP beyond them funding some leaflets for him. Breaking down his legal theories might be a bit in depth for what is a show about bailiffs, but there's an opportunity to expose him as a liar right there in his very recent past.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I would like to see him directly questioned on it as he has consistently denied having anything to do with the BNP beyond them funding some leaflets for him. Breaking down his legal theories might be a bit in depth for what is a show about bailiffs, but there's an opportunity to expose him as a liar right there in his very recent past.

But the problem is that even if you can expose him as being a liar it would not prove his claims regarding law are wrong. His whole act is based upon and revolves around law. So what if he lies about his association with the BNP? So what if he admits to being a member of the BNP? It is all irrelevant. It does not follow that being proven to be a liar or indeed a racist means your claims about law are incorrect. All it would prove is that you are a liar and/or a racist. It is his pseudo-legal bullshit that needs to be exposed. It needs to be exposed as.....erm.....pseudo-legal bullshit.

[JimUk1]

I would like to see him directly questioned on it as he has consistently denied having anything to do with the BNP beyond them funding some leaflets for him. Breaking down his legal theories might be a bit in depth for what is a show about bailiffs, but there's an opportunity to expose him as a liar right there in his very recent past.

But the problem is that even if you can expose him as being a liar it would not prove his claims regarding law are wrong. His whole act is based upon and revolves around law. So what if he lies about his association with the BNP? So what if he admits to being a member of the BNP? It is all irrelevant. It does not follow that being proven to be a liar or indeed a racist means your claims about law are incorrect. All it would prove is that you are a liar and/or a racist. It is his pseudo-legal bullshit that needs to be exposed. It needs to be exposed as.....erm.....pseudo-legal bullshit.

Guys, I don't know why your all bickering.

As I have said, all it will do is expose him as a freeman, or more precisely, someone who has little idea how the world works.

We all know those with genuine hardships are directed accordingly and genuine mistakes by the councils or courts are corrected (normally).

All I can see this idiot doing is exposing himself as a moron who has a platform on social media within an echo chamber of fellow idiots who will eventually be exposed as the idiots they are.

We must remember John Witerick and Commonly Known as Dom were given column space in the Guardian; only to be shot down by the general public. So to me just let him do it. Like Tom, the public won't allow his BS to spread.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I am not bickering
The problem I see is that very often this type of documentary does not examine the validity of the claims made by the individual they are featuring. It is similar to the PLD bullshit. The newspapers did report that the barons who "invoked" clause 61 had been booted out of the House of Lords but at no point (AFAIA) did they make the case that in law the barons were wrong. In the case of the Chrisy Morris documentary it would only take a five minute televised interview with a lawyer to show that Morris talks out of his arse.

[exiledscouser]

Hmmm. I for one wouldn't go within 100 miles of a Ch 4 documentary maker still less put my face (best for radio!) on the telly.

I personally dislike his politics but it's a bit of a risk putting yourself on offer like this; every skelington in your cupboard is going to come out. The love child to that one night stand in Romford. The neighbors you fell out with years ago. And yes, your political leanings.

Ask yourself-would any of you put your boat out there in this way?

[JimUk1]

I am not bickering
The problem I see is that very often this type of documentary does not examine the validity of the claims made by the individual they are featuring. It is similar to the PLD bullshit. The newspapers did report that the barons who "invoked" clause 61 had been booted out of the House of Lords but at no point (AFAIA) did they make the case that in law the barons were wrong. In the case of the Chrisy Morris documentary it would only take a five minute televised interview with a lawyer to show that Morris talks out of his arse.

I think this is a noose to be honest. I can't see CH4 airing this without explicit legal advice, which I suspect they would want to wash their hand of.

I can't see it being purely Morris' stories without a counter story as is usually the case remember dispatches what channel 4 used to do?

I think it's the beginning of the end for this moron and I'm glad it's being aired in public because as we have seen with dear old Pete and others, the British public simply ain't that stupid!

[rumpelstilzchen]

This is what Morris has posted:

Finally. If it's what they showed me, I'm happy. It's a more sympathetic view on how our vulnerable are bullied by those with 'authority' and should appeal to, and help quite a few. I did my best and didn't take a penny.

Right now there are a few trolls heads exploding with rage that we got it on one of the big 5 channels at near prime time.

If Channel 4 fail to report that Morris has been convicted because of his actions and they do not refute his claims it is possible that some viewers will fall for his pseudo-legal nonsense.

A note to Chrisy:
Chrisy my old son. Those people who are exposing your inaccurate beliefs are not trolls. Quite the opposite in fact. They are people who are pointing out that your claims about law are wrong. They are simply telling the truth. Their knowledge of law is greater than your own. You ain't no lawyer, Chrisy.

[noblepa]

<snip>

A note to Chrisy:
Chrisy my old son. Those people who are exposing your inaccurate beliefs are not trolls. Quite the opposite in fact. They are people who are pointing out that your claims about law are wrong. They are simply telling the truth. Their knowledge of law is greater than your own. You ain't no lawyer, Chrisy.

Don't you see that this proves he is right??? Everyone knows that lawyers don't know the law.

[Hercule Parrot]

IMO the BNP involvement isn't really that important. If truth be told it is a thinly veiled attempt at attacking the arguer rather than their argument. I believe that what is most important is for it to be shown that Chrisy's legal "theories" are wrong. It is irrelevant if Morris is or is not a racist because that does not alter the validity of his claims about "fake" warrants etc etc. ...

Up to a point, but I think it's a mistake to see these as wholly separate aspects of Mr Morris's philosophy. The BNP angle "sticking up for ordinary White British people, fighting the multiculturalism forced on us by the cosmopolitan elites" has a degree of alignment with his general anti-authority stuff - obstructing Police, Courts and Bailiffs, cutting off wheelclamps, etc.

Seems to me that Chrisy wants to foment disaffection from the normal democratic and legal processes, in favour of taking matters into your own hands (or calling on some thugs to do it for you). A classic tactic of revolutionaries, terrorists and insurgents, to discredit and replace the official justice system so that the community looks to you for protection and thus becomes complicit in your activities.

Think about Belfast, PIRA kneecapping drug-dealers and murdering anyone who would serve as a police officer or judge. ETA did the same in the Basque, AQ & ISIS are doing it in sandy places right now... You can't trust the state, the state is illegitimate and corrupt, anyone who co-operates with the state is an enemy of the people, if you need anything fixed then you come and talk to us.

Clearly Chrisy's pathetic bigoted BNP pals don't belong in the same league as the effective and dangerous groups mentioned above. BNP is just another splinter group of embittered racists, fragmented from the NF, Britain First or EDL. But they would like to be effective, and they apply the usual tactics (eg the EDL trying to 'patrol' communities in their paramilitary uniforms and armoured landrover).

In that context, Chrisy's presentation as "cheeky, plucky champion of the underdog" is clearly a façade. What gets him out of bed in the morning is the hope of an opportunity to provoke confrontation and chaos. The more that people lose confidence in police and courts, the more chance for his Facebook thugs to impose their own version of justice.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The point I am trying to make is that being right about law while also being a racist is entirely possible. Proving someone is the worst racist in the world does not prove their claims about law are wrong. IMO the easiest way to dismiss Morris as a charlatan is to concentrate on debunking his so called legal "theories". That is easily done. Proving him wrong on that point leaves him with nothing. Focusing on his alleged political persuasion IMO is a detraction and draws attention away from debunking what needs to be debunked.

[He Who Knows]

However, Rumpelstilzchen, this is a documentary not a court of law. You have to look at the subject in the round when broadcasting to a public who prefers Jon Snow, Cutting Edge and The Last Leg as opposed to Jeremy Kyle, X Factor and Big Heads. The indy film company that filmed this, Nine Lives Media, owes it to Channel 4 viewers to spell out that Chrisy Morris is someone who poses with a group of BNP-ers that funded his Heybridge parish election campaign, as well as someone who wipes dog poo on car door handles, stalks a FB member's wife and kids up north, has a criminal record for obstructing a court enforcement officer, takes his kid into court as a human shield...ad nauseum. I hope Producer/Director Cat Lewis hasn't made this publicity-seeking narcissist look like a latter day Robin Hood. http://www.ninelivesmedia.co.uk/#/people

[rumpelstilzchen]

What I would like to see at the end of the programme is the presenter, Morris and a judge having a disussion. I would say that three to four minutes would be enough time to show thst Morris is clueless.

[letissier14]

[Hercule Parrot]

The point I am trying to make is that being right about law while also being a racist is entirely possible. Proving someone is the worst racist in the world does not prove their claims about law are wrong.

Yes, and you're absolutely right. It's a well-made point. But the corollary point is that debunking the legal theories which Chrisy Morris currently purports would be unlikely to change his underlying motivations and objectives. He would simply find another pretext to continue in his preferred behaviour.

Chrisy isn't a leader or thinker in the sovcit/FMOTL movement - he hasn't written or developed anything and he displays no understanding or interest in the theories of the movement. He isn't a leader or teacher, he doesn't organise or plan, he's a gadfly sovcit who turns up here or there when there's a chance for some trouble. I would speculate that he doesn't actually have any sincere belief in the FMOTL mumbo-jumbo, and that he knows full well that it is all hogwash.

What Chrisy really enjoys is the opportunity to flaunt, taunt and provoke, to undermine authority and justice. He enjoys his social media reputation as a fearless, heroic rescuer, and he isn't going to surrender the massive ego reward this provides. Inside his head, he and his mates are living a child-like re-enactment of "The A-Team" every day. Which compensates for the lack of their ordinary achievements - family, career, creativity etc.

And, for Chrisy in particular, there also a special glee associated with intimidation. We know he relishes the Hard Man reputation, and identifies with the gangland "Profession of Violence" ethos. You don't want to cross Chrisy, 'cos when he gets that look in his eye you'd better understand that he'll go all the way, blah blah. There's a simple schoolyard bully's pleasure in applying that threat to minor officials from banks or power companies, watching them pale and lose their composure.

After another longer-than-I-expected post, in summary I do agree with your point. Chrisy's advocacy of magical unicorn law could be challenged and de-bunked, and it would be enjoyable to watch that happen. But, I am also entirely sure that within 4 weeks he would be back on Facebook, again promoting himself as the champion against corrupt authority, under a new pretext.

And I think that the new pretext would probably be more directly drawn from his the political and racial beliefs. Nobody is sticking up for the decent white people who built Britain, the cops and courts are soft on Muzzies, look at this lovely old pensioner frightened in her own home, here comes the hero to save her.

[Hercule Parrot]

If anyone is out there throwing a wobbly cos they got less than a minute airtime and are concerned - don't be. You walked away cos you couldn't be the star or influence every aspect of it, I just wanted to get a message to millions that is positive and leads to exposure of this situation that is desperately unfair. I stood the course and you bailed. When things didn't go your way you didn't try to resolve anything, you just threw a tantrum.

Interesting. This suggests some dissatisfaction amongst the "Alternate Facts Movement" before the programme has even been broadcast. To be fair to Chrisy, he couldn't have compelled the director to make him the star of the show. But his 'cheeky bantamweight battler' persona is perfect for stealing the spotlight in a programme like this. If the nastier aspects (violence, BNP etc) can be airbrushed out, he might yet have a new career as a subject or presenter of TV shows.

Before you all laugh uproariously, please remember the broadcasting catastrophe called Stacey Dooley. Dooley first appeared on UK TV as a consumer participant in an expose documentary about the poor conditions of overseas garment workers, where she demonstrated a remarkable talent for emoting dull-witted, superficial outrage about any subject on demand. This led to a series of further shows, and now an established media career (NB - that high-pitched whining noise is Lord Reith spinning in his grave at 23,000rpm) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Dooley

[Penny Wise]

I wonder who is upset about their lack of airtime and as no one else has seen it, how they even know about a lack of air time

[letissier14]

I have heard the names Tom Crawford, Ady Sutcliffe, Russell Burton, mentioned.

[Hercule Parrot]

I have heard the names Tom Crawford, Ady Sutcliffe, Russell Burton, mentioned.

They wouldn't stand a chance. TC is a droning monomaniacal bore, going on and on about his own situation. Ady Sutcliffe is inherently TV-repellent - his aggressive, grandiose mannerisms etc. Russell Burton's rambling tone of misplaced superiority would require a whole show to clarify one point (badly). Most of the FMOTL anti-bailiff crowd are similarly disadvantaged by their own charmless, unappealing characters.

UK reality TV filters the gems from the prolefodder, and Chrisy is going to win hands-down in that context. Like Jeremy Spake (Airport) he will come over well with sympathetic editing. An ordinary likeable bloke with a sense of humour, committed to his cause but not swivel-eyed obsessive. Someone you could have a pint with. If he can keep a lid on the darker aspects, Chrisy could become a regular "people's champion" TV star.

But that's a big if. Easy to imagine the Daily Mail or similar putting some reporters onto background, which would be disastrous for Chrisy's chances of a BAFTA...