Michael (of Bernicia) Waugh, UK bankster-buster

[NYGman]

You know he isn't wrong, but his timing might be off. To be honest at some point 17 out of 17 people will die who have had any of the shots. In fact we're all going to die eventually. So statistically at some point in time his one out of 17 stat will be correct. However right now isn't that time.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

You know he isn't wrong, but his timing might be off.

Reminds me of an Orson Wells quote. "You want a happy ending? Well, that depends on when you stop telling the story."

[SpearGrass]

I played his video, some nice pictures, some barely concealed antisemitism, some Vogon poetry, and a rousing call to the people of Britain to go out into the street on the 21st December at 7 p.m. and shout "I’m as mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it any more!". So listen out.

[longdog]

I played his video, some nice pictures, some barely concealed antisemitism, some Vogon poetry, and a rousing call to the people of Britain to go out into the street on the 21st December at 7 p.m. and shout "I’m as mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it any more!". So listen out.

FTFH

[aesmith]

I just had a look at his 1 in 17 web page, and the actual report that bases his claim on ..
https://www.thebernician.net/incriminat ... lity-rate/
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... rience.pdf

For the life of me I can't see any figures or calculation that comes out as 1 in 17. However he starts off on the wrong foot in any case, the report only lists adverse effects, it does not state how many people received the vaccine, and only covers the period up to February 2021. On that basis you can only ever say "one in however many of those who reported any adverse effect", which is a long way from "one in however many who received the vaccine". I still can't make it 1 in 17 even then.

[John Uskglass]

If you look at the table he's working from, the total number of cases is 42086.

However, for some reason he decides the total is less than that:

The screenshot above, taken from the incriminating Pfizer Safety Study [dated April 30 2021], shows that, out of 21,325 known outcomes within 90 days of ‘vaccination’, 1,223 [5.74%] suffered fatal adverse events.

That does give you the 1 in 17 figure. Using the full total gives you 1 in 34. However, I suspect he's misunderstood what the 'case outcome' figures mean. As far as I can see they relate to the effects of Covid on the sample group.

Just as with the 'Midazolam Murders', he's arguing that people who died of a fatal disease were in fact killed by their treatment.

[aesmith]

I saw that, but I can't see how the 21,325 is derived.

[John Uskglass]

I can't see how the 21,325 is derived.

Took a while to figure it out, but he's subtracted the figures for 'Not recovered at time of report' and 'Unknown' from the total cases in the final table.

And, it's obvious in retrospect, but the 42,086 is the number of adverse events. BUT the total of Pfizer vaccines administered in the EU alone up to April 2021 was some 92 million!

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covi ... pean+Union

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Folks. Never gift your children a trust fund. It rarely turns out well.

I've said it before but O'Bonkers is just too stupid to understand how stupid he is.

[John Uskglass]

With just a few days till the Great Shout At Clouds, Waugh has now published some of the 'evidence' he proposes to rely on for his PCP.

https://www.thebernician.net/the-defend ... t-hancock/

I must admit to having skimmed it, as it's the usual Bill Gates Vaccine Conspiracy bollocks. Waugh concludes with:

Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that the 1st defendant and Bill Gates had both the motive and the opportunity, from 24/01/2019 to 24/01/2020, to agree that the ‘COVID-19 Pandemic’ would be used to maximise ‘vaccination’ uptake in the UK and the rest of the world.

It is also logically feasible that the 1st defendant agreed to do so in order to secure Gates’ support of any future Conservative Party leadership bid he might make, or in the event he ever becomes Prime Minister; as well as for the purposes of securing and fulfilling obligations related to other past and future material gains, from the UK Government’s commercial partnership with the ‘vaccine’ industry.

(1st Defendant is poor old Matt Hancock)

Given that afaik maximising vaccine uptake is not a crime, if this is indicative of Waugh's argument, I find it hard to believe that even he expects a real court to accept the PCP as valid. It looks to me very much as if this is for the Play Court.

[longdog]

The one thing I don't see anywhere in there is any actual evidence or, as you say, any crime at all. It's just him whining about things he doesn't like.

[John Uskglass]

The logorrhoea continues, with three more postings to date.

Again, I can't pretend to have read them in detail, but here are the charges levelled against:

Chris Whitty (2nd defendant)

The prosecution alleges that the public statements made by the 2nd defendant over the course of his tenure as CMO have unequivocally confirmed him as a vocal advocate of the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ uptake, as per the mutual agenda of the UN, the WHO, GAVI, CEPI, Oxford University, UCL, LSHTM, Sheffield University, Imperial College and the UK Government.

https://www.thebernician.net/the-2nd-de ... is-whitty/

Patrick Vallance (3rd defendant)

Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that the 3rd defendant and Bill Gates had both the motive and opportunity to agree that a future ‘pandemic’ should be used to maximise ‘vaccination’ uptake in the UK, during his tenures as President of Research and Development at GSK and Chief Scientific Advisor [CSA] to the UK Government.

The prosecution also alleges that the public statements made by the 3rd defendant over the course of his tenure as CSA have unequivocally confirmed him as a vocal advocate of the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ uptake in the UK, from which he stands to make significant financial gains from his shareholding in GSK. A blatant conflict of interests, if ever there was one.

https://www.thebernician.net/the-defen ... k-valance/

Neil Ferguson (4th defendant)

Upon the evidence, the prosecution alleges that, at any time since his consultancy work for GSK, through his ‘vaccine’ related research at Imperial College, to his ‘pandemic’ policy design for the WHO, the 4th defendant and Bill Gates had both the motive and opportunity to agree that the Imperial College Model would be used to justify the 4th defendant’s advice to the WHO that a worldwide ‘pandemic’ should be declared; that the predicted threat of millions of deaths should be used to justify his proposed lockdown policies [just like it was in Sierra Leone]; and that the maximisation of ‘vaccination’ uptake should be the non-negotiable condition of those Draconian impositions being lifted; for the purposes of creating the ultimate ‘safe market’ for ‘vaccines’, as per Gates’ agenda and in pursuance of the UN Sustainable Development Goal to immunize the population of the world from every illness and disease imaginable.

https://www.thebernician.net/the-defend ... -ferguson/

They're right bastards over at the UN, aren't they? Imagine wanting to see people prevented from dying of diseases. Slow painful death was good enough for the indigenous inhabitants of these ancient lands...

More seriously, unless the PCP has more substance than this the court cat could work out it's totally without merit. Got to be a Play Court job, surely?

[TheRambler]

The logorrhoea continues, with three more postings to date..............

More seriously, unless the PCP has more substance than this the court cat could work out it's totally without merit. Got to be a Play Court job, surely?

Well, apparently he was a comedian; maybe that explains it? After all it is quite funny

TheRambler

[longdog]

So in summary.... His 'prosecution' alleges that some people had the motive and the opportunity to do something that's not even illegal and, even if it were, he has no evidence they actually did the thing with the thing that blah, blah, blah led to the thing.

This has obviously been run by the same "top barrister" that declared the last failed effort to be the peak of legal perfection and the most prima of facie he's ever seen.

Even compared to PCP v 1.0 and v1.1 this is lamentable. The expression "just phoning it in" springs to mind and I'm sure the expression "utterly lacking in merit" will spring to the mind of The Chief Magistrate.

Got to be a Play Court job, surely?

It certainly looks that way. That's the only sort of court that is going to give this shite the time of day.

[John Uskglass]

Only a few short hours to go before Waugh's followers take to the streets for the shoutathon.

And how many will there be?

Followers on Gab - 55.
On Minds - 14 views of his message today promoting the event.
His Bitchute channel hasn't been updated since 26 November, and his Odysee one since 3rd December.
On Telegram - 170 following.

Oh, he's just posted that the PCP has been submitted.

I'll go over there and have a look...

[Larry Spoons]

Just had a quick glance. Obviously cobblers.

Two obvious howlers:

1. He's keeping the location of the Magistrates' Court secret - that's going to make it tricky for the defendants to show up.
2. He's applied for arrest warrants - you would have thought that the barrister advising him would have pointed out that as a private prosecutor he would need the consent of the DPP for arrest warrants to be issued.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Just had a quick glance. Obviously cobblers.

At the risk of repeating myself, O'Bonkers is just too bonkers to realise how bonkers he is.

Parents. Never ever set up a trust for your children. This is what will happen to them

[longdog]

At the risk of repeating myself, O'Bonkers is just too bonkers to realise how bonkers he is.

I haven't completely ruled out the possibility that he's sane but as thick as pig-shit to be honest

[SpearGrass]

Is there a link?

I guess he means that the application for a summons is to an unnamed magistrates' court. Trouble is that the Criminal Practice Direction requires all cases involving ministers or Parliament to be considered by the Chief Magistrate, so wherever it lands, it will be off to Westminster anyway. In the vanishingly unlikely event of a summons being issued, the judge will assign the magistrates' court for the hearing. It's then up to Waugh to serve the summons and prove he has.

Private prosecutors can obtain arrest warrants provided the offence is imprisonable or the defendant's address is unknown. The DPP's consent is only required for a limited range of offences when the offence is alleged to have been committed outside the UK (done to stop foreign leaders being arrested when they come to London). However even if the court can issue a warrant, and even if the offence has some colour of legality, a court would only issue a warrant if certain the defendant would not come on invitation (and the offence couldn't be dealt with in absence). If the chance of a summons in this case is vanishingly rare, the chance of a warrant is so slight to be indistinguishable from no chance at all. We can expect a minister to respect a court order (usually), so there is no ground for a warrant.

I have three possible diagnoses:

a) dumb as as bag of spanners
b) delusional disorder (persecutory type)
c) chasing financial contributions

[John Uskglass]

The latest is at
https://www.thebernician.net/midazolam- ... es-court/

Nevertheless, for legal reasons, we will not yet be releasing the identities of the first eight defendants PUB is seeking to charge, indict and convict of Midazolam Murders by government policy.

So, the unidentified 'criminals' are having charges laid against them in a court that's being kept secret?

Well that all seems in accord with Magnum Carter...

And not at all like bullshit.

You may well wonder why, having just named four people as 'defendants' just the other day, Waugh is now being so coy.

Given that he states in today's post that his case is that:

We will however initially seek to prove three all too similar cases of murder with Midazolam, each in a different location and at a different time, between October 2016 and April 2021.

In each case, the following things transpired:

1 The victim was prescribed Midazolam for conditions they were not known to be suffering from, after being placed on the end-of-life pathway.

2 The victim was then denied essential care and services and treated as if they were already dead by NHS staff.

3 The Midazolam doses were given to the victim until they stopped breathing and died.

4 The wishes and well being of the victim and their family were callously ignored.

5 No consent was given by either the victim or their next of kin for them to be prescribed Midazolam.

I suspect that he has named eight other people in the PCP. Others will no doubt be able to give an opinion, but my first thought is that he realises he may be laying himself open to defamation proceedings? Could you sue if named in a clearly without merit PCP?