Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[John Uskglass]

It's a slow day at work today, so I've trawled back through Waugh's site.

Here's the previous assassination attempt tale.

https://www.thebernician.net/stabbed-i ... -loved-me/

And here are previous accounts of how he's been sabotaged by thievery.

https://www.thebernician.net/cyber-atta ... ns-update/

https://www.thebernician.net/warning-to ... rosecuted/

What are the odds eh?

[longdog]

So in summary...

1) He got food poisoning.

2) He fails big time at choosing trustworthy associates, has no concept of document control and wouldn't know data security if it bit him on the arse.

3) Basically the same as 2) but earlier... Proving he never learns.

[John Uskglass]

According to Waugh's latest boast, his Three Magick Letters have prevented children from being given covid vaccinations.

https://www.thebernician.net/scouse-dad ... on-nephew/

Having engaged the foregoing process to stop his son being ‘vaccinated’ whilst at school, following the child’s mother initially granting consent, indomitable Scouser, Michael Green, decided that he would deliver a copy of the first notice to his ex.

Shortly after she read it, she called Michael to tell him that the notice was enough to change her mind and she had decided to notify their son’s school to withdraw her consent for him to be vaxxed last week.

I am extremely happy to say that, after just one notice, the school governors agreed that the child could not be ‘vaccinated’ without full and informed consent from both parents, which cannot be granted for an experimental gene therapy, which has not undergone any double-blind placebo studies of the short and long term potential health impacts.

Well, that may or may not be true. We aren't given anything verifiable, but to be fair, if the child were identifiable, we'd be crying the odds. However, the next bit sounds unlikely to me.

During the same period, Michael also sent the first notice to his nephew’s school, after his foster parents granted their consent for him to be vaxxed.

However, this was a much more problematic situation, on the basis that both state appointed legal guardians had already consented, which was technically all the law required for that to transpire.

Nevertheless, the powerful effect of the first notice was such that the school governors were not prepared to take the risk that they would be held accountable for any vaxx injuries suffered by Michael’s nephew.

Therefore, their only recourse was to overrule the consent granted by his foster parents, which resulted in the boy being given exemption from being jib-jabbed, with chemicals which might well sterilize a large proportion of the the 30% of British children who have been injected during the past couple of weeks, in the event that the COVID-19 vaxx causes the infertility the study at the link below alleges it does.

From my understanding of the law regarding parental rights, it would be inconceivable for the consent of legal guardians to be overruled by school governors, unless they were spectacularly misinformed, or there was a court order or such in place.

But perhaps I'm wrong? It's been a while since I was a Clerk to Governors.

[aesmith]

There is provision for the child themselves to over-rule parental consent. But that would have to be properly assessed on a case by case basis, and I can't see that MoB's twenty pages of gibberish from one who is neither the child nor their guardian is going to be considered.

[longdog]

From my understanding of the law regarding parental rights, it would be inconceivable for the consent of legal guardians to be overruled by school governors, unless they were spectacularly misinformed, or there was a court order or such in place.

But perhaps I'm wrong? It's been a while since I was a Clerk to Governors.

I'm not at all sure the school governors even come into it. If it's anything like it was when I was at school at BCG vaccine time, and I see no reason why it should be any different, you get a form to take home, you bring it back and if parental consent is given you get the jab. I suspect the only person who had much to do with it from the school's point of view was the school secretary and she didn't make any decisions. She just drew up the list.

More O'Bonkers fantasy.

[John Uskglass]

I'm not at all sure the school governors even come into it.

You're right.

How are schools involved in the consent process?

Whilst schools may host immunisation services, they are not responsible for securing parental or child consent, for assessing Gillick competence or mediating between parents and children who may disagree about whether or not to consent.

This is the role of registered nurses in the SAIS, who have extensive experience and the expertise to handle these issues and are professionally accountable for their decisions. Legal accountability for offering COVID-19 vaccines to children and young people sits with the SAIS and not with the school.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... or-schools

[longdog]

I am indebted to m'learned friend.

[longdog]

Looking at that page I see this...

Thus far, in excess of 10,000 people have downloaded the process, of whom an estimated two thousand have sent at least the first notice to the governors of the school of the child concerned

.

...and yet for the life of me I can't find a 'download' link for his drivel just a link to a .pdf. Now either I'm missing it, which is possible, or he has absolutely no way of knowing how many people have "downloaded" it. How many people have clicked on the link is well within the realms of possibility.... He just needs to look at the logs if his host makes them available or allows him to configure the site to record clicks per page. Download? Not as far as I can see. That would involve a "save as" at the user's end and he wouldn't know anything about that.

[Hercule Parrot]

...every CEO of every UK bank soils their undercrackers at the mere mention of my name in legal proceedings ...

Remarkable narcissistic grandiosity, from a fellow who hasn't achieved or won anything in his entire career of fantasy litigation. I would be astonished if many CEO's even recognised his name. It will surely be on the Loony List, so that any correspondence from Waugh is diverted to the legal dept (or binned) without ever reaching the CEO's desk.

[John Uskglass]

More TML bullshit from Waugh in his latest posting.

https://www.thebernician.net/pubs-three ... ng-vaxxes/

Following the success of my administrative processes to stop vaxxing in schools and care homes, here lies PUB’s three notice process to deal with the clear and present threat that UK employers will be insisting that their employees take the experimental COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ to continue working.

As far as I can see, the vaccination of school students continues, albeit with administrative issues. And nothing suggests that the policy of mandatory vaccinations for care home staff is not moving forward. Needless to say with the exception of the not at all made up 'Scouse Dad', Waugh can produce no evidence of his 'success'.

And what happens if your employer ignores your TML?

Unless the employer directors abandon their plans to mandate staff ‘vaccination’ with an experimental, DNA-altering toxic-soup, PUB will hold them criminally liable for acts ancillary to genocide against care workers, in multiple breaches of well-established international law and conventions.

Furthermore, using a Common Law Lien process developed over the course of the past thirteen years, the injured parties will be able to obtain damages secured against the personal legal estates of the employer directors, for the injuries caused by their gross civil wrongdoings.

Needless to say, the templates for that non-judicial process of obtaining damages payouts will be posted at thebernician.net in due course, along with a webinar which will cover any question and queries people are likely to have.

However, it is anticipated that many of the employer directors who are served the preceding three notice process will either suspend or terminate any and all plans to mandate staff ‘vaccination’, rather than risk both bankruptcy and prison by ignoring or dismissing the serious issues raised.

Outside of care homes, I'm not aware of any employers currently requiring vaccination as a condition of employment, but assuming that there are, in a large organisation with an HR/legal dept, I suspect that anyone trying this on will be called in for a rather frosty interview.

[longdog]

Unless the employer directors abandon their plans to mandate staff ‘vaccination’ with an experimental, DNA-altering toxic-soup, PUB will hold them criminally liable for acts ancillary to genocide against care workers, in multiple breaches of well-established international law and conventions.

So the PUB will hold them criminally liable but not real courts.

Furthermore, using a Common Law Lien process developed over the course of the past thirteen years, the injured parties will be able to obtain damages secured against the personal legal estates of the employer directors, for the injuries caused by their gross civil wrongdoings.

A common law lien process not recognised by real courts and therefore not enforceable.

Needless to say, the templates for that non-judicial process of obtaining damages payouts will be posted at thebernician.net in due course, along with a webinar which will cover any question and queries people are likely to have.

"Non-judicial" = Not enforceable in real courts.

However, it is anticipated that many of the employer directors who are served the preceding three notice process will either suspend or terminate any and all plans to mandate staff ‘vaccination’, rather than risk both bankruptcy and prison by ignoring or dismissing the serious issues raised.

No risk of bankruptcy or prison because... See above.

More waffle that means nothing. I can see why he would want to steer clear of the real courts though. Given his 100% record of abject failure in them.

I wonder what happened to his private prosecution for murder... I'm sure we were told to expect an update in a week and that was more than a few weeks ago.

[Arthur Rubin]

Isn't filing an unjustified (judicial) lawsuit against your employer grounds for termination with extreme prejudice?

[longdog]

Isn't filing an unjustified (judicial) lawsuit against your employer grounds for termination with extreme prejudice?

Possibly but it would probably be unwise for an employer to sack somebody who is threatening legal action in these circumstances even if the threatened legal action is complete nonsense.

If I were an employer and I got these letters I would reply saying words to the effect that the letters had been placed on their file and the requirement for vaccination stands. I wouldn't waste any more time on them than that.

[Wakeman52]

Not necessarily MOB's paperwork, but fits the MO.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... protesters

[John Uskglass]

More details in the Liverpool Post article linked in the Guardian one.

https://www.livpost.co.uk/p/telegram-ch ... ng-schools

“I stand under common law,” says the man. “I am here on behalf of concerned parents to hand over these lawful, legally binding documents to you… you personally will be held responsible if any child suffers death or harm from these experimental vaccines.”

It certainly seems coincidental that Waugh claimed a 'scouse dad' had been taking up the nutter cudgels.

[wserra]

From the linked Liverpool Post article:

they have served “notices of liability” to headteachers, which are based on dubiously interpreted items of common law.

In precisely the same manner that the proposition "1+1=3" is based on dubiously-interpreted items of mathematics. "Dubiously" is pretty understated.

[Hercule Parrot]

Isn't filing an unjustified (judicial) lawsuit against your employer grounds for termination with extreme prejudice?

Not automatically, but there is certainly a possibility that the employer may dismiss on the grounds of "breakdown in trust and confidence". This does not have to arise from misconduct in the workplace, or a disciplinary finding. Interestingly (or not) this is a mutual term. So if the employer's behaviour causes the worker to lose trust and confidence in the relationship, eg treating them with open contempt or wilfully endangering them, the worker may secure a constructive dismissal finding with damages.

In the present circumstances, I think the tone and content would be pivotal. An employment tribunal would be unlikely to accept immediate dismissal of a worker who presented an anxious protest and set out their belief that X or Y should not be forced upon them, citing religious objections or whatever. The employer would be expected to respond reasonably and try to resolve the dispute.

Would be very different if the worker 'served' the aggressive, hyperbolic nonsense proposed by Waugh. If a worker accuses their employer of collusion in genocide, compares them to Nazis and threatens them with jail or bankruptcy etc, an ET might well find this to be a irreparable breach of trust and confidence.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

In the present circumstances, I think the tone and content would be pivotal. An employment tribunal would be unlikely to accept immediate dismissal of a worker who presented an anxious protest and set out their belief that X or Y should not be forced upon them, citing religious objections or whatever. The employer would be expected to respond reasonably and try to resolve the dispute.

It's been a while, but with my old union workplace rep hat on, it is possible to mandate such an action if the employer issues it as a reasonable request in the circumstances. e.g. their business requires contact with the public or at risk populations. It is also a legal requirement for employers to take reasonable steps to reduce workplace health risks.

It is also legal (at least in England) to request proof of vaccination by using duty of care obligations, although special measures have to be taken with the handling of that information as it is health data.

Some ethical vegans will refuse any treatment that they believe has been tested on animals. It's not been tested in court, but "I believe this because of something I read on the interwebs" is unlikely to pass the test for a protected belief.

It would, however, probably be sensible to mandate lateral flow tests for those who are unable or refuse to be vaccinated. That is a reasonable request from an employer and takes any appeal to discrimination because of "belief" out of the picture. I'm unaware of any religion that bans the sticking of a cotton bud up the nose.

The ECHR dismissed a case brought against the Czech Republic for requiring mandatory vaccination of children as a justifiable interference with human rights because of the need for herd immunity, and I'd expect the UK Supreme Court would still follow that.

You are absolutely correct that summary dismissal without following HR processes would likely lead to a tribunal deciding that it was unfair, but this only applies after 2 years employment. It wasn't my particular location so I wasn't directly involved in the case, but an employee was ordered to be reinstated after being summarily dismissed and marched off the premises for looking at (I shall use the standard euphemism) NSFW web pages.

Whilst summary dismissal would in most cases be inappropriate, suspension would probably be okay and depending on the contract (e.g. a zero hours one) could be without pay.

[wserra]

I'm unaware of any religion that bans the sticking of a cotton bud up the nose.

Well, there is the Great Green Arkleseizure.

[John Uskglass]

Waugh's most recent posting is a departure from his covid related flummery.

https://www.thebernician.net/leicester- ... cates-him/

Leicester Hospital Holds Man Prisoner & Forcibly Medicates Him

Edited highlights:

On 20th October, 2021, Carl Scrivens, of Coalville, Leicestershire, was relaxing at home when a gaggle of social workers, council employees and police started to bang on his door.

He politely informed them that he did not want to speak with them and that they should leave but they ignored him, and, aided and abetted by the police, his front door was then battered down, before he was kidnapped and ‘sectioned’ by way of a plainly void warrant.

This warrant has been purportedly initiated by an unidentified individual named Ntoko Collins but the grounds for the application are self-evidently non-existent, on the basis that the warrant gives the following two options for the substantiating grounds:

a) Has been, or is being, ill-treated, neglected or kept otherwise than under proper control.

b) Being unable to take care of himself, is living alone.

(Delete as appropriate)

Since neither ground was appropriately deleted, the warrant is void ab initio for being fatally incomplete upon its execution with unreasonable force.

Once again, there is no material evidence substantiating the completely spurious claim that Carl is somehow mentally unfit, nor has there been any form of mental health assessment conducted.

A blatant lie, seeing as how you can't be sectioned without a MHA.

Moreover, the grounds relied upon are completely false and the only signature on the void warrant is that of PC Aciens, who is not qualified to assess anybody’s mental health.

In any event, the warrant is demonstrably invalid because it has not been signed by a “Justice of the Peace, sitting at Leicester Magistrates Court on 19/10/21”, as it falsely purports to have been.

At this point you may be wondering how come Waugh has stuck his oar in.

However, it is worth stressing that Carl attended a mortgage possession hearing, initiated by Santander over purported arrears, on 20th September 2021, at which the judge ruled against him in his absence, due to the fact that the bank named ‘Carl Tudge’ as the defendant and not ‘Carl Scrivens’.

The judge ignored this blatant fact and issued a possession order against Carl’s property, in spite of the evidence that the mortgage relied upon is fraudulent, in the absence of either a valid contract or deed, in fatal breaches of sections 1 and 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

This is no mere coincidence, as it would seem that the judge was disgruntled over the fact that Carl blew wide open both the fraud of the purported mortgage and the fact that the entirety of the bank’s claim was based on a manifest fraud surrounding his real legal name, ‘Scrivens’.

As presented by Waugh (and who knows what the full story is), it would seem that Mr Scrivens/Tudge tried using Waugh's pseudo-legal arguments and unsurprisingly failed. Reading between the lines it may be that he did so in a manner that lead to concerns about his mental health, though of course it could be that the stress of repossession caused a breakdown.

But what about the 'fact' the bank proceeded against the wrong name?

Carl presented the documentary evidence of an ancestral line of registered births that goes back to 1862, when his great great grandmother falsely gave her ‘illegitimate’ child the name of Tudge.

Which leads Waugh to this frankly astonishing conclusion.

Which, in and of itself, is evidence that Carl is clearly of sound mind, given that it would otherwise be impossible to present a substantive case in such a precise and measured manner, under the pressure of being threatened with the loss of his home and without any legal training or representation.

I've skipped a long section about Scrivens/Tudge being 'subjected to forced medical treatment', (injected in his buttocks with 100mg of Zuclopenthixol) where Waugh shoehorns in his previous obsession with Midazolam.

Seasoned observers will not be shocked to learn that Waugh concludes with a typical empty threat.

PUB has therefore put those responsible for the crimes against a PUB beneficiary on their final warning notice, stating clearly that the sectioning of Carl Scrivens is void and he must be discharged immediately.

Indeed, all necessary criminal and civil proceedings will now be issued against all those responsible for his unlawful detention and experimental medication by force.

Whatever the actual facts of the case are, I think we can be certain that Waugh's intervention is unlikely to be helpful. Indeed one might go so far as to argue that he is exploiting the crisis of a vulnerable person.