Quatloos!

Posted: **Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:41 pm**

Philistine wrote:
NYGman wrote: Just curious, what are the chances the logo they are using was actually made, and copyrighted by someone else.

While a simple white Dragon on a black flag is not unique, that dragon has a lot of detail, someone must have spent time on it. Granted, my knowledge of historical flags is lacking, and this could be public domain.
No, like this:

https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/B ... areer/2021

They shopped it to white though.

Not quite. Darn close, though. Google Images sure thinks it's the same. (The tongue/flames are different, and the curve of the tail is a bit different, too, among a couple of other subtle differences.)

There is an even closer match on Wikipedia, of all places:

Again, though, the tongue is different, and again there are a couple of other minor differences, so I don't think it's a direct copy-and-paste job. It'd be a tough call to say they've cribbed from Brimstone; they probably both copied from the same source, which could be the Wikipedia image, or all three could come from some other common source.

All I know is that all those Sunday mornings playing the Hocus-Focus did not entirely go to waste.

Posted: **Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:15 pm**

NYGman wrote: Would love for the owner (if there is one) to sue them for its unapproved use without compensation... Maybe just wishful thinking

More realistically, the copyright owner would try to get them to stop using it. I doubt they want their artwork associated with such a shitty, hateful organization.

Posted: **Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:34 am**

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:29 am**

I doubt that, even if they get the party approved by the Electoral Commission, they'll be able to raise the funds required for standing in one constituency at a General Election.

Posted: **Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:51 pm**

It's hard work and costly to stand in a General Election if you want to run even a half decent campaign.

Since they're a new party, just standing a paper candidate won't cut it if they want to get that £500 deposit back.
They'll need to put out at least one leaflet and canvassing would be absolutely essential.

Somehow I can't see them mustering enough supporters.

Posted: **Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:29 am**

Firthy2002 wrote:It's hard work and costly to stand in a General Election if you want to run even a half decent campaign.

Since they're a new party, just standing a paper candidate won't cut it if they want to get that £500 deposit back.
They'll need to put out at least one leaflet and canvassing would be absolutely essential.

Somehow I can't see them mustering enough supporters.

are you trying to say it will just.................drag-on?

Posted: **Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:46 am**

They need to get a certain percentage of the vote to get the deposit back. Some mainstream UK parties lose their deposits despite putting on a reasonable campaign.

Posted: **Wed Sep 13, 2017 4:58 pm**

So, if I'm reading this right, they are going to form a crackpot political party of maybe 5-10 crackpots? Assuming that any of them are or will be registered to vote, that means maybe 10 votes come the tally. And they expect to actually accomplish anything other than waste money they don't have?

Posted: **Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:21 pm**

notorial dissent wrote:So, if I'm reading this right, they are going to form a crackpot political party of maybe 5-10 crackpots?

Yup. Their supposed Judicial Reviews are just as fanciful. I'll wager they are thrown out without any substantial hearing, because they are based upon imaginary concepts of law (eg A61).

Posted: **Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:44 pm**

This looks like the front cover of a document in the public domain. Waste of time copying it, then. Let's see.

Ah yes, quoted here....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... s-ago.html

Why on earth is he attempting to resurrect this old chestnut & calling it treason? After all, the related Parliamentary petition (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/162714) raised such a great deal of interest.

Hercule Parrot wrote: Yup. Their supposed Judicial Reviews are just as fanciful. I'll wager they are thrown out without any substantial hearing, because they are based upon imaginary concepts of law (eg A61).

Agreed - especially as it's irrelevant. Events and history have apparently passed by (or over) Mr Moore without leaving a lasting impression, surely a result of his incredibly thick skin.

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:00 am**

More begging

And the Dragons 3rd in command showing what a racist party they actually are

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:49 am**

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:09 am**

Gibberish.

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:11 am**

Is that moron suggesting the government must pay compensation at 1% to the people of the UK?

That is the most incomprehensible gibberish imaginable.

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:44 am**

Have you noticed the date on the letter?

11/9/2107

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:31 pm**

JimUk1 wrote:Is that moron suggesting the government must pay compensation at 1% to the people of the UK?

That is the most incomprehensible gibberish imaginable.

I think he is suggesting that the government must pay compensation of 1% to him. Failing that, I'm sure he envisions some sort of finder's fee at least.

Calling it gibberish is an insult to word salad generators everywhere.

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:14 pm**

Gregg wrote:
JimUk1 wrote:Is that moron suggesting the government must pay compensation at 1% to the people of the UK?

That is the most incomprehensible gibberish imaginable.
I think he is suggesting that the government must pay compensation of 1% to him. Failing that, I'm sure he envisions some sort of finder's fee at least.

Calling it gibberish is an insult to word salad generators everywhere.

I think you are entirely right, the 1% is intended for the currently impecunious Mr Moore, particularly as he has his PayPal begging bowl out and hasn't two pennies with which to scratch his arse.

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:23 pm**

As for it being "gibberish", he's really just a second drawer piker. This, my friends, is lifted from a HATJ associated forum on the I U-V blog.

Someone who gets better drugs than I ever had wrote:Robert Sweetman says : REPLY
July 24, 2017 at 10:49 pm
Do you know how to live in harmony and balance without money? Before there was Money,there were the highly magnetic ley lines, that the 12 Human Tribes and 12 Klans that were the last group in the harmonic history of earth tells us, that we as Human Tribal members had 3 Pole DNA I have an original copy smuggled out of a Vatican Draco lab, the original 3 Pole Trinary Base 9/DNA energetic configuration that allowed us to manifest With thought alone using the ley lines of magnetic energy,before the Draco altered both the poles to put ice there where electric current can’t conduct in fresh water versus salt water that GAIA is changing it all back to original 3 pole ley line configuration She is sending g out currently our 3 pole repair signal and why they worked overtime, to setup thrir Gwenn Towers,microwave cel phone towers to drown out with electronic smog,GAIAs signal. You also need Salmiak a trade name for God salt in Scandinavia that allows for lght transfer between phosphorus pole in the First two poles to light up with the 3rd and now you HAVE 3 poles lit and it repairs the pole 1 and 2

Now, that's some extra strength,must have a special permit to use, gibberish.

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:22 pm**

1% of the fiscal loss?
More word salad from some idiot trying to appease to other idiots.

What fiscal loss is he referring to? Does he mean British membership in the EU? (Britians contributions, minus what Britian takes back from the EU?)

It's as if he learnt the word 'fiscal' last week.

I presume he means economic loss, which is a far more complex subject that even professional economic professors struggled with during the Brexit debate.....

And yet this simpleton seems to think he knows everything about it.

Posted: **Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:59 pm**

Good grief, this is nonsense. If it is the required letter before action (as titled), then why does the text say that the application for JR has been made? And what government decision are they asking the court to review? JR can only be used to challenge a specified state action (or inaction) occuring no more than 3 months previously. This imaginary JR seeks to overturn decisions made 40 years ago, it is absolutely going to be struck out at sift.

In a further twist, the letter goes on claim that the government cannot carry out the demanded actions, thus providing a further ground for strike out. A JR which seeks to compel an impossible action by a public body is inherently an abuse of process.

What an extraordinary waste of time and paper.

Quatloos!

Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons

Re: Meet the Dragons