(UK) Elizabeth Watson

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1484
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Hercule Parrot » Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:22 pm

notorial dissent wrote:So the question comes around, was Mackay colluding with Grangar, or was he just a loan officer making questionable loans? I suspect at the time that may have been common practice, and was got lots of US and UK banks in big trouble later on. I would assume this was all hashed out in court and went no where?

My original comments on what happened stand, just now have more and better details. The scheme sounds like it was in essence a ponzi scam à la Bernie Madoff.


Your powers of acuity are vindicated. There was some interesting speculation about the exact relationship between Mackay & Grangar. In fact I think Mackay subsequently left the bank and went to work for Dobbs White. That doesn't mean he was knowingly in on it, of course. Could've been recruited as a blue chip 'prop' to cover the true Ponzi-like model.

EDIT - Yes, para 26 of same judgement -

26 - .....She replied on 22 January 2004 making a number of points which have featured in her contentions ever since then, including reliance on the fact (as she asserts it) that Mr Mackay left the bank’s employment some time after the loan had been made in July 2001 and went to work with Dobb White for some time....
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

littleFred
Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:12 am
Location: England, UK

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby littleFred » Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:25 pm

It certainly was a ponzi scheme. Did the bank or any of its employees know that it was a ponzi? Should they have known? To my mind, answers have not been established. The legal cases became bogged down in issues about statutory limitations etc, and haven't addressed fundamental questions about responsibility. (Such is the way of the law, of course.)

But I think this explains why the bank haven't vigorously pursued Mrs Watson's house. Something about washing dirty linen in public.

EDIT: added "addressed".
Last edited by littleFred on Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Chaos
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:53 pm

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Chaos » Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:52 pm

littleFred wrote:It certainly was a ponzi scheme. Did the bank or any of its employees know that it was a ponzi? Should they have known? To my mind, answers have not been established. The legal cases became bogged down in issues about statutory limitations etc, and haven't fundamental questions about responsibility. (Such is the way of the law, of course.)

But I think this explains why the bank haven't vigorously pursued Mrs Watson's house. Something about washing dirty linen in public.



The UK seems to turn a blind eye to blatant ponzi schemes and those that participate/promote in them even when evidence is put under their nose. 'simon stepsys' aka 'simon baxter' aka whatever else he's known as has rulings against him yet continues unimpeded on a daily/scheme basis. I certainly wouldn't expect a bank in the UK to be any different.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10755
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby notorial dissent » Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:20 pm

Having spent a good bit of time in the banking field, I am minded of three possibilities as far as Mackay is concerned, he was either working at the bank doing what they paid him for, originating loans without too much or any vetting, he was working at the bank and was known outside the bank as a soft touch for approval, which was to Grangar's benefit, or he was working with Grangar. The first two were quite common here during both of the banking busts, and while regrettable aren't criminal, and I saw a lot of it, three would be however, and would put the bank in it, or at least it would here. If that was a possibility then it should really have been looked at in an action against the bank, but in the actual foreclosure action probably not real viable.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby The Observer » Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:10 am

What I am seeing in my layman eyes is that the Appeal court isn't buying the allegations of Watson that the bank was the one who lured her into this scheme (at least by way of assistance). At best, I see one loan officer who apparently was helping the scammers get the victims' monies by facilitating loans, but I am willing to bet that McKay was violating a number of bank policies/rules to make those loans happen and that the Bank Of Scotland simply does not make loans out so people can put their monies into high-risk investments.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10755
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby notorial dissent » Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:22 am

I think you pretty much have it. Whether there was collusion or not is open to debate, but I wouldn't have said that whatever they were doing was best policy one way or another. The biggest problem I have with the narrative is that Watson's narrative seems to change with the moment, which I have a big problem with. In the alternative, she just may be stupid enough that this is par for the course. I've known people who can't tell the same story twice and have them compare, and when I was there to see it it gets rather painful to watch. Where it really doesn't help you is in court. For all I know, she may have or have had a valid complaint once upon a time, but I think it is sufficiently buried now as to not matter.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

littleFred
Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:12 am
Location: England, UK

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby littleFred » Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:43 am

Since that time, she's gone so far off the rails that I doubt she knows fact from fable.
notorial dissent wrote:For all I know, she may have or have had a valid complaint once upon a time, but I think it is sufficiently buried now as to not matter.

Well, it seems to me that it matters to the bank, and they'd rather it stayed buried, and she can remain in her (or the bank's) house.

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby SteveUK » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:35 am

Latest garbage. But apparently this is the winning moment - 'the game is over'. Yes it is.

FIREWORKS THAT WILL STAY IN THE SKY - READ THIS!

QB Division High Court
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand, London WC2

Dear David Jenkins and Martina Rodrigue-Taylor

Public Intervenor Notice Re: 3PB03079 & QB 2014/0039

Please pass this before HHJ Mitting and HHJ Knowles at the earliest opportunity: This is a formal Notice, being sent on the suggestion of Ms Claire Larbey, the Director of Risk at Eversheds LLP - which is copied to her, accordingly.

I had originally asked Ms Larbey to write to the Court on her own volition but she has agreed that in the first instance I ought to be the one to put the Court on notice pending her notifying her Underwriters of the Eversheds LLP Professional Indemnity insurance cover and Public Liability cover that a serious Fraud Upon the court has occurred in both my sister's case (referred to above) and our own case (8PC26793 and 2013/0079) at the hands of a few dishonest individuals who have knowingly and wilfully misled the Court for 3.5 years and 8.5 years respectively. You may, of course, wish to verify this information and 'red alert' with her directly. I had notified Ms Larbey that our lengthy phone conversation last week has been recorded in case it needs to be referred to in evidence.

Despite the strange and unjustified attempts by the High Court in recent years to prevent me from sharing the key evidence that I hold as a Witness to Ms Copeland's sorry plight (alongside our own), thus preventing her from accessing any of her Article 6 rights (as well as ourselves having the same embargo), as well as making orders in private sittings where no jurisdiction exists, and where no 'prayer' is written at the end of any of the orders including the latest one which appears to have been drafted by conflicted Paul Mitchell, acting in fraud, I now place it formally on record and in the wider Public Interest that the said 'proceedings' are clearly a nullity.

There can be no question that HMCTS are permitted nor may continue to be abused as a money-laundering vehicle for criminal activity to flourish - as is demonstrably the case here.

Irrespective of any judges opinion of me (and I am aware this has come about directly due to ongoing slander and vexatious litigation and malicious actions by Paul Mitchell serving his own vested interests for substantial pecuniary advantage and promotion to "QC" status in February this year, including his egregious efforts to try to protect his own back through years of his criminal concealment of the Truth), please may the Court take careful note that my sister and family have far too much at stake to roll over and allow these gross violations of Justice and the appalling professional misconduct, to continue. Their game is over.

Will you therefore kindly inform HHJ Mitting and HHJ Knowles that substantial documentary evidence exists to demonstrate in a criminal court that the above "claim" is 100% fraudulent and is based on fraudulently opened accounts which are not on the Bank of Scotland's ledger and were set up without any signed Mandate of authority from the named account holders to evidently launder money and misappropriate assets. The evidence is incontrovertible but has never been examined since no valid claim has ever been defined. This makes a mockery of British Justice!

Full details are given in the attached Public Intervenor's report which I emailed to David Jenkins on the eve of Ms Copeland's last court session which took place on 17 November 2016 - but I gather this was not passed on to either judge nor was it made known to Ms rodrigues-Taylor the Clerk of HHJ Mitting.

Unfortunately, although this may not be what the Court wishes to hear, at no time have HMCTS ever had lawful jurisdiction to hear this matter, because there is no regulated or registered debt. This inevitably renders all Court proceedings a futile exercise.
The rogue employees within Eversheds have tried their luck at stealing our assets but have failed and been ambushed due to my 10 year forensic investigation in to this matter. There is also no Law that allows a property to be taken by a Mortgagee from a Mortgagor, as the learned Judges must realise. The claims are vexatious and unsubstantiated in their entirety.

Both the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service have further confirmed that alleged 'debts' which fall into this category are unenforceable. Notwithstanding, does the Court realise that there is no valid contract to enforce and no Certificate of Title on Ms Copeland's current property!

The High Court will probably not even know about the above, because :-

a) Incredulously, there has never had any FACT FIND or DETERMINATION OF MERITS in any Court, and no claim has been validly issued either (this one was done as a MCOL converted to a PCOL with a false 'summary judgment' prior to any trial - the Law states nothing can be appealed before any merits of case are determined, yet both the fraudulent claim against Ms Copeland and against ourselves, involved bogus "appeals" which were "refused").

b) Counsel Mukhtiar Singh has also seriously misled the Court and violated the OC Bar Standards rules along with Paul Mitchell (after his opening words to Ms Copeland were "I can see you are a victim of fraud")

c) and no claim nor any right of claim exists because no debt exists and there is simply no forensic evidence of the same - not a single penny has ever been transferred from the Bank to Ms Copeland!

d) nor have Eversheds ever been instructed by Bank of Scotland PLC - the Court has been totally misled because of a Fraud Upon The Court by two rogue employees working within Eversheds - Timothy Pyle (who Eversheds LLP confirmed had left their firm quite suddenly at the end of January 2015 after he received warnings of possible prison sentences for committing the rost offence that any solicitor can commit). His successor, Richard Pitt, has unwisely taken over the claim but hidden heavily behind the rogue "QC Paul Mitchell, who has also totally and willfully misled the court which is a serious violation of OC1 and all the OC Rules in the Bar Standards Handbook - also being the worst and most serious offence that any barrister of leading counsel can commit.

The above-named "officers of the court" have committed gross professional misconduct and criminal acts as well as contempt of court, as they have been misleading the Court for all these years. It remains Ms Copeland's unalienable right to secure a legal remedy to have her position fully restored (and ourselves, too). Please take note that I have lodged a Professional Indemnity insurance Claim and Public Liability claim with the Director of Risk at Eversheds LLP, Claire Larbey, who has suggested that I notify the Court at the earliest of this, along with the above. It remains to be seen how the British Justice system will deal with things from here.

I am a first-hand witness to the Serious Organised Crime that is involved in this matter - which I submit is all stemming from Fraser Mackay, the ex-Head auditor of HBOS PLC (now trading as Bank of Scotland PLC).
The documentary evidence (which has never been examined or tried by the Court on Ms Copeland's case) suggests strongly that Mr Mackay is directly involved with the disappearance and misappropriation of over $200 million at 2001 values (which moneys have never been accounted for and have mysteriously vanished, confirmed in an SFO Press Release in June 2008), and HHJ Hughes QC at Winchester saw this back in December 2011 and his judgment saw through Paul Mitchell and Tim Pyle's criminal cover up - who you may wish to convene with?. Would you like to call for evidence ?

I believe that it is fair to say that it may assist the criminal courts to know that I hold the missing links:

a) that Fraser Mackay was instrumental in setting up an unknown number of fake bank accounts in collusion with disgraced ex-CEO James Crosby - abusing their positions within the Bank in a heist they had masterminded

b) that these two were instrumental in setting up a 'shadow bank' trading entity which they named IN PARALLEL SOLUTIONS, which was run ultra vires & off ledger, in a conspiracy to steal from their clients to boost "growth" and their 'offer' was dressed up as a 'Bond underwriting scheme which was risk free' (because of Dobb White's PIC insurance, underwritten by Lloyds of London);

c) that they used a spoof address (2 Robertson Avenue, Edinburgh EH11 1PZ) which the site owners confirmed to me by telephone was an "uninhabited building construction site for over 10 years";

d) that over £50 million was steered to and collected at 2 accounts set up by Mackay and David Taylor (Dobb White's accountant) at Butterfield Bank in Guernsey, where Mr Mackay had his own commission account which Stephen Myers Head of Case at the Serious Fraud Office confirmed to me on 3/3/2014 "was a source of great embarassment to the Bank" - and from there the client funds were misappropriated and stolen.

e) that Mr Mackay used just 2 of his 35 agents (who were mis-selling the fraudulent "investment" scheme on the "bank's" (Private Banking unit where he was a director cheating inside the bank) behalf, as scapegoats and 'fall guys' so that he and Mr Crosby and their criminal cohorts could walk away scot-free, having cleverly concealed their 'footprint' through the fake 'bank accounts"with no forensic audit trail, run out of the IOM being the Bank's offshore HQ - full evidence is available upon request.
They slipped up when the Bank's archive unit gave me (in Autumn 2007 before I gave evidence at the Birmingham Trial) of a print out of the fake USD account set up by Bank employee Derek Wells in July 2002, through which Wells sent nearly $546,000 without a valid instruction to an unknown bank called BANAMEX in mexico.

(This unauthorised and bogus a/c was set up in the Watson's names without any signed mandate from us and with no access to any funds therein - it appears to be the same a/c used to launder funds to bribe the US official, which appear to have come from Banamex Bank "Secured Clearing Corporation)

f) That Mr Mackay has perverted the course of justice at Birmingham Crown Court on 26 & 28 November 2007 when he purported to give evidence as an ostensible "witness" to the Prosecution counsel, by pretending to be a 'victim' of Shin Gangar and Alan White of Dobb White, yet failing to disclose it was his own fraudulent Scheme and that Mr Gangar was a mere agent of his, and failing to disclose his vested interests and his own private commission account at Butterfield Bank (which it slipped out at the Trial had $214,050 in it), where over £50 million of client funds that he steered there had disappeared into thin air, and failing to disclose the CLUB 100 he set up to reward and give incentives (using stolen client funds from Scott's Private client services), to his army of footsoldiers and agents who mis-sold his fraudulent Scheme and "introduced high net worth clients for bank business" (which was his instruction to them).

Note - I have the names of several other agents who are also solicitors aiding and assisting Mr Mackay's 'business venture' for more than 23 years prior to the 15 year sentencing of Terry Dowdell from the 1990's- one of those solicitors who is a serial thief and is being protected by Dorset police is David Ross Webb and his employee David Monk, Webb is a business partner of Martin Alan Gordon Dancey at Bournemouth County Court who created a void order dated 1/7/2015 to try to steal our family home on false papers with no claim ever issued or validated by HMCTS -

all made possible because Mr Webb, its been discovered, had withheld the transfer of our Freehold Certificate of Title and stolen all my purchase money from 2 a/cs at Northern Rock, back in December 1993 - all concealed from us for all these years and only discovered in recent months! These two have acquired more than 21 properties securitised fraudulently on the back of our Freehold Title in the past 23 years and I have the hard proof of this - they've stripped over £2.5 million from our Estate, to date - and no one is stopping them!.

g) That some of the proceeds of crime have been utilised to buy off silence from certain parties aiding & abetting the 16 year criminal cover up, including the police and especially Dorset police who have refused to investigate this matter for over a decade.

The Birmingham Case against Mr Gangar and Mr White was provably a mis-trial because of Fraser Mackay's perversion of Justice.
At all times the Bank of Scotland PLC's name has been used and has been the licensed deposit taker, but Mr Mackay has deceived the 'world' through the shadow banking set up which he artfully created with Mr Crosby - and this is not yet acknowledged in the Public domain, but needs to be as a matter of urgency and international Public Interest.
Everything I have stated here is true because it is based on the facts of the matter, and I am willing to give a sworn Affidavit to this effect and to appear as a witness in the criminal courts provided a Jury Trial is arranged.

Yours sincerely
Elizabeth watson

Founder - One Voice action group
'One Voice' action group
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

AndyPandy
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1148
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby AndyPandy » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:39 am

What I don't get in all this is where has all the money gone? The SFO estimated losses to investors of over £200m, yet Ganger and White were only ordered to repay £2.2m & £700k respectively under the proceeds of crime act, which is a calculation of how much they personally benefitted from it.

Where's the rest of it ?

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6643
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby The Observer » Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:29 pm

notorial dissent wrote:The biggest problem I have with the narrative is that Watson's narrative seems to change with the moment, which I have a big problem with. In the alternative, she just may be stupid enough that this is par for the course. I've known people who can't tell the same story twice and have them compare, and when I was there to see it it gets rather painful to watch.


That was what I noticed in the document, that the court was not buying it, in terms of allowing her to change the story once again. And which why I am suspicious of any claims that the Bank of Scotland lends money for the purpose of investing in high-risk investments.

SteveUK wrote:Latest garbage.


Yes, that document reeks of desperation. She pulled a lot of conspiracy stuff out of the koolade barrel for that.

AndyPandy wrote:What I don't get in all this is where has all the money gone? The SFO estimated losses to investors of over £200m, yet Ganger and White were only ordered to repay £2.2m & £700k respectively under the proceeds of crime act, which is a calculation of how much they personally benefitted from it. Where's the rest of it ?


Did the scammers run a high-profile façade, with fancy offices, leased vehicles, lots of staff and other high overhead costs to make themselves look like a respectable investment company? Other than that, maybe they were successful in moving money overseas to anonymous accounts - but that is risky in itself, since you have to trust someone else to watch the money and not embezzle it themselves.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4940
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:04 pm

I first learned about Quatloos (Ye Olde Quatloos) thanks to a spam fax I got in my work in-box from a guy named Jerome Schneider, who talked about what a great idea it was to move my money offshore so that people like creditors, ex-spouses and the like could never find it. The fax was illustrated by a drawing showing a guy in a lounge chair on some tropical beach, as he and a slender young thing in a tiny bikini sipped their tropical drinks, as an example of what awaited me if only I would let him handle all of my money. Schneider never seemed able to explain just what would happen if someone took my super-duper-secret investment accounts and absconded with them.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby TheNewSaint » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:10 pm

Here's what I don't understand:

The contact was Mr Fraser Mackay, Director of Client Services at the bank’s Manchester private banking division. He approved a loan of £345,000 in July 2001. The matrimonial home was subject to a mortgage securing a debt of £70,000 to Alliance & Leicester plc, but the bank was willing to accept a second mortgage, subject to that security, and stipulated this in its offer.


How was she able to borrow £345,000 against a £70,000 house? Even with a second mortgage"? That seems excessive, even by the generous lending standards of the early 2000s.

littleFred
Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:12 am
Location: England, UK

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby littleFred » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:17 pm

Huh? The existing mortgage was for £70k. The house would be worth more, in this case very much more.

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby SteveUK » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:43 pm

Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

TheNewSaint
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:35 am

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby TheNewSaint » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:56 pm

littleFred wrote:Huh? The existing mortgage was for £70k. The house would be worth more, in this case very much more.


Oh, so the house was worth more than the mortgage. That was what I was missing. Thanks.

littleFred
Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:12 am
Location: England, UK

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby littleFred » Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:44 pm

It seems that:
Elizabeth Watson wrote:Spiritual wickedness in high places and abuse of position in Public office is a criminal offence under The Fraud Act 2006

Perhaps someone changed the Fraud Act since I last read it. I wonder how it defines "Spiritual wickedness". Perhaps this will soon become an offence in its own right, for everyone, not merely those in high places.

exiledscouser
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:01 pm

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby exiledscouser » Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:28 pm

littleFred wrote:
Perhaps someone changed the Fraud Act since I last read it. I wonder how it defines "Spiritual wickedness". Perhaps this will soon become an offence in its own right, for everyone, not merely those in high places.


What, like on top of mountains and tall buildings? I'd best stay at sea level.

I tried Googling the phrase and was taken to mainly US based end-of-times "Ivan Jellical" type sites or to Ephesians 6:12 in the KJV bible. Strangely and rather disappointingly it is absent the UK legal lexicon.

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2747
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Fri Mar 10, 2017 7:01 pm

exiledscouser wrote:What, like on top of mountains and tall buildings? I'd best stay at sea level.
That immediately reminded me of an aside somewhere in the Discworld works where it is pointed out that it is not a good idea to rant at the Gods from the top of a mountain, while wearing copper armour, during a thunderstorm.
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10755
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby notorial dissent » Sat Mar 11, 2017 12:52 am

ArthurWankspittle wrote:
exiledscouser wrote:What, like on top of mountains and tall buildings? I'd best stay at sea level.
That immediately reminded me of an aside somewhere in the Discworld works where it is pointed out that it is not a good idea to rant at the Gods from the top of a mountain, while wearing copper armour, during a thunderstorm.

:snicker: :haha: A lesson lost on most all of these legal geniuses.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3526
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: (UK) Elizabeth Watson

Postby grixit » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:34 pm

ArthurWankspittle wrote:
exiledscouser wrote:What, like on top of mountains and tall buildings? I'd best stay at sea level.
That immediately reminded me of an aside somewhere in the Discworld works where it is pointed out that it is not a good idea to rant at the Gods from the top of a mountain, while wearing copper armour, during a thunderstorm.


Actually, i once read a post describing the author's invocation to Thor. He went out during a thunderstorm in a place called Storm King, held up a hammer, and chanted something he'd composed in old norse.

Fortunately for him, Thor didn't answer.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest