Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[longdog]

There are questions about who installed the security camera that caught Hancock at it and who leaked the footage.

I don't do conspiracy theories as a rule but it really wouldn't surprise me if the leaked video had something to do with his boss... You know who I mean.

Maybe not the most likely explanation but I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

[John Uskglass]

Without wanting to go too much into the politics of it, here's Jolyon Maugham of The Good Law Project showing how the grown ups do holding ministers to account through the legal system.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/stat ... 8184281099

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Without wanting to go too much into the politics of it, here's Jolyon Maugham of The Good Law Project showing how the grown ups do holding ministers to account through the legal system.

You mean the fox killer?

[John Uskglass]

You mean the fox killer?

Well, you know what they say - when litigation won't do the job, reach for the baseball bat...

More seriously, I wouldn't hold him up as a paragon for a number of reasons, but I thought the contrast between his approach, citing actual documentary evidence found as a result of meticulous research, and Waugh's was striking.

Oh, and I really like foxes, even though they wind the dogs up when they come round on bin night. Got some lovely camera trap footage from the woods across the way.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

More seriously, I wouldn't hold him up as a paragon for a number of reasons, but I thought the contrast between his approach, citing actual documentary evidence found as a result of meticulous research, and Waugh's was striking.

True. I followed him on Twitter for years. Then for no reason he turned into a sanctimonious git (or perhaps, as I agreed with him enough on certain topics, I'd turned a blind eye and he'd always been like that!)

Doesn't mean that he still doesn't do useful work.

[JamesVincent]

Oh, and I really like foxes, even though they wind the dogs up when they come round on bin night. Got some lovely camera trap footage from the woods across the way.

There for awhile, while I was in a tent, momma fox had a den across the little valley we were in and I got to listen to her kits getting hungry all the time. They're cute little things but they get annoying fast at night.

[John Uskglass]

Well, colour me shocked. Waugh's latest communication, an interview with one Mark Devlin on YouTube, claims that Hancock's fall from grace was a set up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CROIxIGYfJI&t=1417s

(relevant section at about 13 minutes in)

He begins the interview by claiming that he and the 'ex-detective' knew from the start that the case would be thrown out, but this was always part of their master plan to get a hearing at the High Court. Yeah, right.

What other revelations there might be past around the 20 minute mark, I couldn't say, as I'd reached the limits of my tolerance.

[Philistine]

You mean the fox killer?

Well, you know what they say - when litigation won't do the job, reach for the baseball bat...

More seriously, I wouldn't hold him up as a paragon for a number of reasons, but I thought the contrast between his approach, citing actual documentary evidence found as a result of meticulous research, and Waugh's was striking.

Oh, and I really like foxes, even though they wind the dogs up when they come round on bin night. Got some lovely camera trap footage from the woods across the way.

When and where I was growing up in Ontario, there was a $5 bounty for fox tails. Now, you guys have them rummaging through the bins at Tolworth Towers. Crazy. They're your equivalent of our trash pandas.

[longdog]

Well, colour me shocked. Waugh's latest communication, an interview with one Mark Devlin on YouTube, claims that Hancock's fall from grace was a set up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CROIxIGYfJI&t=1417s

(relevant section at about 13 minutes in)

He begins the interview by claiming that he and the 'ex-detective' knew from the start that the case would be thrown out, but this was always part of their master plan to get a hearing at the High Court. Yeah, right.

What other revelations there might be past around the 20 minute mark, I couldn't say, as I'd reached the limits of my tolerance.

I skimmed it but at least we have a new prediction for the next unmissable event. He seems to resigned to the fact that the Queen's Bench will throw out his appeal but then he can demand to make a personal appearance or something or other. I really can't even be arsed looking up if the Queen's Bench is the right forum for an appeal and I very much doubt he has either.

But we can expect the next gripping instalment at the end of next month.

His determination to battle on in the face of failure and his own lack of legal acumen would be almost admirable were it not for the fact this is so obviously him playing reble to an audience of morons.

One of the bits I also caught was him still claiming his "TGBMS gorunds" case was a massive win... I'm sure he'll be portraying his failed PCP attempt in the same way in a few years.

[Hercule Parrot]

Hercule,

My suspicion is you are thinking of one of a number of publications by Grant Lester and Paul Mullen:

https://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vex ... rulous.pdf

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 3DBC3697D5

Thank you for those papers, but my recollection is from somewhere else. I will try to find it, but my research methods are terribly cavalier these days.

As an interesting divergence (or not) I was fascinated to learn that the word sycophant originally referred to malicious or false litigants - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycophancy

[grixit]

Well, colour me shocked. Waugh's latest communication, an interview with one Mark Devlin on YouTube, claims that Hancock's fall from grace was a set up.

Heh, i called it!

[Juisarian]

His determination to battle on in the face of failure and his own lack of legal acumen would be almost admirable were it not for the fact this is so obviously him playing reble to an audience of morons.

I never bother to observe our subjects in their natural habitat but now I'm curious what sort of audience of morons he has, can anyone give me an overview of their quantity and quality?

In my head I always imagine these people would be completely unknown if it wasn't for sites like Quatloos.

[aesmith]

I skimmed it but at least we have a new prediction for the next unmissable event. He seems to resigned to the fact that the Queen's Bench will throw out his appeal but then he can demand to make a personal appearance or something or other. I really can't even be arsed looking up if the Queen's Bench is the right forum for an appeal and I very much doubt he has either.

He rambles on and I can't be bothered to listen to it all but at one point he says he's going to appeal by Case Stated, which would indeed to be the High Court. But as far as I understand it this appeal route only applies on points of law and not matters of fact, so no evidence would even be looked at. I've no idea if this route is even possible where no verdict was reached. Later he seems to be rambling about a jury, which would suggest something completely different, or just pure fantasy.

By the way he's another banging on about a report that there have been no convictions under the Coronavirus Act, and ignoring (or ignorant of) the fact that there have been plenty of convictions under the various bits of secondary legislation (such as The Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020)

[longdog]

He rambles on and I can't be bothered to listen to it all but at one point he says he's going to appeal by Case Stated, which would indeed to be the High Court. But as far as I understand it this appeal route only applies on points of law and not matters of fact, so no evidence would even be looked at. I've no idea if this route is even possible where no verdict was reached. Later he seems to be rambling about a jury, which would suggest something completely different, or just pure fantasy.

If it needed to be on a point of law that would conceivably leave open an appeal on the basis that the DCM wrongly adjudged the evidence to be hearsay. From what I've seen his application was ~130 pages of rambling nonsense and 800+ pages of prima facie evidence shit he printed off from the crank end of the internet. Pretty much a textbook definition of hearsay.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Later he seems to be rambling about a jury, which would suggest something completely different, or just pure fantasy.

The underpinning of their beliefs is that they are so righteous that they believe that if their "incontrovertible facts" can bypass a Judge and presented to a jury comprised of men from the Clapham omnibus, that they would prevail.

Of course, what is more likely to happen is that a public transport traveller will equate him to the Jasper Carrott "Nutter on the bus" protagonist.

[aesmith]

If it needed to be on a point of law that would conceivably leave open an appeal on the basis that the DCM wrongly adjudged the evidence to be hearsay.

Let's qualify all my comments as being from a layman, so please point out if I'm on the wrong track here. So my understanding is that whether or not his evidence is hearsay is a matter of fact not of law. And that can't be determined without examining the evidence, which an appeal on Case Stated does not do. The point of law would be "was the DCM correct to dismiss the case because the evidence is only hearsay?".

[John Uskglass]

The underpinning of their beliefs is that they are so righteous that they believe that if their "incontrovertible facts" can bypass a Judge and presented to a jury comprised of men from the Clapham omnibus, that they would prevail.

From what I could make out, Waugh is not so delusional that he thinks a jury would be involved in his appeal, but he does think that somehow a hearing in front of a judge, as opposed to a decision on just the paperwork, will work in his favour.

My guess is that it's a matter of ego and attention. He thinks he's cleverer than any old judge, and will demonstrate that to his own satisfaction given the platform of a courtroom. The inevitable defeat will, it goes without saying, be down to judicial cheating. Furthermore, he gets attention in the court, and more important, he is able to trumpet his moral victory to the waiting masses, and gain the reward of sycophantic interviews of the type we're discussing.

To that extent, he may be being honest when he now says he always expected to lose, because it was always about the theatrics rather than the result. However, you would have thought that at least some of his following might begin to wonder about the contradictions between his position now and the much more bullish stance he was taking previously.

[SpearGrass]

There are two ways Waugh could appeal. One is by case stated. He asks the judge to state a case, i.e. say what facts he found (where there are facts to find) and why he decided to do what he did. The High Court then has to decide whether it was contrary to law or in excess of jurisdiction. The district judge might counter this by refusing, certifying the application to state a case to be frivolous. As Lord Bingham said: ‘I think it very unfortunate that the expression ‘frivolous’ ever entered the lexicon of procedural jargon. To the man or woman in the street ‘frivolous’ is suggestive of light-heartedness or a propensity to humour and these are not qualities associated with most appellants or prospective appellants. What the expression means in this context is, in my view, that the court considers the application to be futile, misconceived, hopeless or academic." So the DCM might well do that, however the litigant can then try to get to the High Court by applying for judicial review of the refusal. If the High Court decides refusal was unreasonable, it may go on to decide the case, or send it back to the judge to state the case. That wouldn't be necessary here, as all the material necessary will be available as it was all in writing.

Then there is the straight route for judicial review of the decision to refuse. In a judicial review also the High Court must decide whether the order the judge made was contrary to law or in excess of jurisdiction. In this case Waugh would have to persuade the High Court that there were prima facie grounds to issue the summons, that it wasn't an abuse of process, and no reasonable judge could have found otherwise. Ditto for the friv certificate, if the judge issued one.

However in each case it's an application for judicial review, you have to apply. A single judge decides if it's got a hope in hell, and if it hasn't he refuses to allow it to go any further.

So there are formidable hurdles here.

Whether something is hearsay or not is a question of law, not fact. It's whether it satisfies the definition of hearsay in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, or any of the preserved common law categories. So, if a summons was refused because the judge concluded that the only way to prove this the case was through inadmissible hearsay, then he's going to refuse the summons, because none of that evidence is going to get before the trial court. However you don't need to be a barrister to see that there was an awful lot more wrong with this application than that.

[notorial dissent]

So in essence, does it all come down to O'Wahhh being stark staring bonkers, or is he an attention seeking narcistic conman?? I'm not sure that it can't be both, but the more I think about it, I am inclined more towards the latter than the former. I really can't imagine that he is living off the pittances he is able to get out of his flock of gullees, but I can see him craving the attention and adulation, even if pretended, that he is getting from them since he doesn't seem to have any other kind of real life that I can ascertain, and it certainly doesn't appear that Daddy actually prepared him for ever being anything but a parasitical wasteoid.

[longdog]

I really can't imagine that he is living off the pittances he is able to get out of his flock of gullees

I was under the impression that he was independently wealthy and living off the seven digit estate his father left him. What bit of it wasn't pissed up the wall with legal fees that is.