Tom and Kate have no right to be involved, rules judge

I was delighted when the coroner suggested that parents Tom Evans and Kate James ought to be allowed to join in, as interested parties, with my legal challenge against his decision that Alfie’s death didn’t need investigatingThe Christian Legal Centre tried to prevent me from serving the court papers on Tom and Kate, so I went back to court last Wednesday to apply for the court’s help in getting to Tom and Kate the good news of my legal challenge, enabling me to recover from the Christian Legal Centre’s treachery in keeping from their clients the news of my involvement, from May onwards.

Behind closed doors today, Mr Justice Butcher ruled, without the 30 minute public hearing for which I had applied, that Tom and Kate are not entitled to know about my legal challenge, and don’t necessarily even have any interest in whether the coroner’s decision was right or wrong.  The judge did put the ball back in the Christian Legal Centre’s court though, by ordering me to ask them to send Tom and Kate copies of his order today. 

Tom and Kate will be entitled to apply to have Butcher J’s order set aside.  I hope they will.  It is bad enough that I had to apply for judicial review before I’d managed to make contact with Tom and Kate and get their approval.  Now the court wants to exclude them from the entire process.  I strongly suspect an intention to get my case chucked out before Tom and Kate have time to pipe up that they want to join in with it.

This is the order that I had applied for:  Draft order sought

This is the order that judge Butcher actually made.  Judge for yourself whether this is justice.

Finally, I’d like to congratulate Tom and Kate on the birth of their second son.  I had applied for my judicial review claim to be stayed for eight weeks, to give them a breathing space, because I’d heard that they had number two on the way.  I am annoyed that Butcher J has put this quite unnecessary pressure on them to deal promptly with a case I suspect he wants to seek chucked out before Tom and Kate even have time to get legal advice about it.  The establishment does not want an investigation.  Nor does it want Tom and Kate back in court again, this time asking for an investigation.


Filed under Alfie Evans, Children's Rights, Family Rights, Law, Pro-life

42 responses to “Tom and Kate have no right to be involved, rules judge

  1. Full marks for your perseverance and stolid determination in the face of such sinister stonewalling from numerous quarters, John. It is absolutely *outrageous* that the parents of poor little Alfie should – in such a cavalier fashion – be denied the status of “interested parties” in a case concerned with investigating the morally squalid circumstances that brought about the death of their son…

    I hope and pray that your admirable tenacity persists, so as not to be deflected from your desire to seek righteous justice for Alfie and his parents, and with a view to ensuring that such an appallingly callous act is not allowed to recur in our nation.

    Every Blessing To You,
    Louis C.

  2. Lorraine Watterson

    John; ******** asked me to get in touch with you.

    [Ed: In Lorraine Watterson’s comment I have asterisked over the name of the individual who asked Lorraine Watterson to get in touch with me, because the person has complained that she is getting “trolled”, bombarded with messages of “hate”.]

    • I’d be delighted to be in touch with you. But how? Your commenting on a public blog, and my commenting on your comments, isn’t very private. You can find my contact details, such of them as I publish, on the “Contact” tab of this blog. I have your email address now, so I’ll email you too shortly.

      Link to my contact details:

      I suggest you send me an email or open a Facebook/Messenger chat or text my mobile. Less good (I find) is Twitter because I cannot delete Twitter conversations off my phone without also deleting them off Twitter itself. Please avoid Twitter for conversations with me.

      This decision of the judge yesterday is terrible. I tried to get an eight-week breather for Tom and Kate because I’d heard about the pregnancy. This judge rejected that and has now put the pressure on Tom and Kate to apply to have his order excluding them set aside if they don’t want to be excluded. If they are excluded, as the judge intends, my case will likely be thrown out. I brought the case partly to give Tom and Kate a chance to support it, their having missed the 3-month deadline themselves. The judge’s mischievous order yesterday is fairly obviously an attempt to get the judicial review thrown out because without Tom or Kate on board nobody will even notice that that has happened.

  3. Ticky

    Sounds like a fair enough decision to me. If you can’t find them you can’t serve them.

    • It strikes me that you cannot have read the draft order or any part at all of the application I made, or you would not think that the decision was “fair enough”. Tom and Kate had and still have a right to participate in my judicial review claim. The order of Butcher J is crafted in order to deprive them of that right and to kill off my claim as soon as possible and with the minimum of publicity. It is a cowardly decision.

      The police and the coroner and the Christian Legal Centre are all able to get the claim served on Tom and Kate. If the judge wanted Tom and Kate to have their rights, he’d have given me the injunctions and directions I asked for, requiring these others to co-operate getting the paperwork to Tom and Kate. He didn’t want that. He wants to bury my legal challenge.

      As it happens, the paperwork has now been served on Tom. I am awaiting now the information I need to put onto a Certificate of Service.

      • Ticky

        I did read it, I just didn’t think it was in any way realistic if you had any idea what you were doing.

        • I put together the draft order on the fly, and asking for the moon, because when I tried to put in an application for directions without a draft order, a staff lawyer insisted it had to have one, notwithstanding that there was a pair of yes and no tickboxes on the N244, to say whether there was a draft order with the N244. (You can see where I altered that part of the N244 in biro.)

          What I expected was to see a duty master that day, just me and the journalist who had been sent to meet me, for a friendly conversation in which the master came up with a fair and practical solution to the service problem that preserved my position and that of Alfie’s parents. That’s what might have happened over in QB, but they don’t work like that in Admin, I was told, even though it’s technically part of QB. So I expected to have to return to London to make my application another day.

          The decision of Butcher J was taken without a hearing, depriving me of a day (well, a half-hour) in court. The decision taken was totally prejudicial to the position of the interested parties. That the parents were interested parties was suggested first by the defendant coroner and accepted by me. The order insinuates that including Tom and Kate as interested parties was some hair-brained scheme of my own.

          It really feels to me like a political decision. The thrust of my pled grounds for JR is bolshie. This Butcher fellow is probably a bit of a patrician. I believe he has stitched me up. With this coming at the end of a long list of mishandlings of the case, I don’t have a lot of confidence in the system.

          The doctrine that the state can withhold a child from mum and dad by court order backed up by force of arms, and then say that this wasn’t state detention when the child dies (as the state always intended he would), stinks. It is the triumph of lawyerly sophistry over common sense. Somebody had to cry foul. I have done that. It’s not my fault if countless others are completely missing the point.

        • Fin

          I think this man has a wealth of knowledge of what he is doing. As he stands for ‘the unspoken’ I believe he is miraculous in his perseverance and determination to get the justice deserved…the obstacles being put in place merely strengthen the need for this to go ahead…it strikes me that you are happy to live in a corrupt and unjust state as is present!Sad times!!!
          Hopefully the grace of God will prevail and the book that is sworn on in court will deliver the truth!

          Well done John on all your efforts and Good Luck. We pray that we will be honoured as citezens in our ‘free’ country to know what happens in our medical institutions that apparently ‘care’ for our most vulnerable!!! At present it frightens me to think such ‘care’ would be inflicted on me/ 1 of mine!!!

  4. Thanks John. Have passed it on to a few, and posted it as a public post on facebook. Bev Pattenden

  5. Please would you post the link to the *document* (*proof*) “That the parents were interested parties was suggested first by the defendant coroner…” to you, John, as I’m rather perplexed at not being able to find this “suggestion”, despite having been through all the communications you had with Andre Rebello OBE. i.e. My reading of your own documentation on this to-date, specifically with “the defendant coroner” was that he’d basically told you that: 1) He knew his job; 2) He wasn’t required to hold an inquest; 3) He spelled those facts out to you; 4) He basically told you that YOU were NOT “an interested party”, which is correct; and 5) He ended his correspondence with you, rather tersely might I add but, deservedly so, by telling you that he was NOT prepared to enter into any further correspondence or communication with you! In the light of these 5 points, I would be grateful if you would produce the missing document which states the opposite of this and suggested to you that you had a right to keep pursuing this without having the [rightful] “interested parties” (Tom and Kate) on-board to start with. Thanks in anticipation, John!

    • I hadn’t uploaded the formal pre-action correspondence, but it is referred to in my Statement of Facts Relied On. I have now uploaded the relevant letter here, in which the coroner suggests including Tom and Kate as interested parties.

      Your numbered points are all addressed on the Claim Form, in the Grounds for Judicial Review, or in the statement of Facts Relied on.

      My opinion and the coroner’s as to Tom and Kate’s rights (that they have a right to know what is happening and to make informed decisions as to whether they support or oppose my action or are indifferent to it) is closer to yours than it is to the extreme opinion put into effect by Mr Justice Butler, that Alfie’s own parents have no interest in a court case to determine whether the coroner made the correct decision on the facts when he decided that there was no need to investigate Alfie’s death.

      Thank you for your diligence. I wish there more like you, who bother to read some of the information, enough to notice what is missing. Only a tiny fraction of those who engage at all, engage to that level. Well done.

  6. LucyP

    I don’t understand why you believe that the child’s death needs investigating in this matter. If the child had been an adult, then the matter would not have involved the coroner at all. It only has, because all children’s deaths have to be reported to the coroner.

    The cause of death in this case is barn-door obvious. The child’s medical condition was rehearsed enough times in the UK courts at hearing after hearing. The Courts gave permission for the withdrawal of treatment. Everyone knew what the outcome of that was going to be, none more so than the parents.

    And after all this, someone whom I assume is totally unconnected with the case or the family, involves themselves, to challenge a totally expected and sensible decision of the coroner. For what purpose?

    And you want the parents to be involved in the challenging the coroner too. Why? They would have involved themselves had they wanted to. They are patently familiar with legal proceedings and challenges.

    Everything that you applied for in your draft order was refused.

    The Judge just wanted to get your application for JR to be heard without delay. Clearly it is going to be refused. You need to hope that the Evans’ don’t intervene in this matter, because if they do, you will have 2 sets of costs to pay, plus your own, when your application is inevitably refused!

    • If a child has stopped receiving treatment, by an order of the court that was made for the purpose of hastening that child’s death in the child’s best interests as the court determined them to be, and the same court order prohibited the child’s removal from one hospital to another outside the jurisdiction of the court even after the first hospital has stopped treating the child, because the court wanted to prevent the child from receiving any treatment elsewhere, and that child died in the first hospital subject to that court order, then if that doesn’t count as death while in state detention, then I’d like to know what does.

      If the coroner had reason to suspect that Alfie died in state detention, then he did not have the option not to investigate Alfie’s death. If I noticed a coroner breaking the law, and did nothing about it, I’d be ashamed of myself.

      I don’t know why so many people are so alarmed at the thought that there might be an inquest, if I win this court action.

      • Ticky

        No one is worried about an inquest, because there won’t be one. You will lose. You have it in your head that the coroner “broke the law”. He didn’t. You don’t understand the purposes of inquests. You are applying a twisted an amateurish interpretation to the Coroners Act and wasting the court’s and corner’s time, and taxpayers’ money on what looks like an ego trip.

        Your assumptions are wrong. The order didn’t prohibit removal from the hospital. The court stepped into the shoes of the child, so it was making the decision as if the child himself had made it. So the state’s order was the same as the child’s will, so he wasn’t being “detained” by the state. Also, there are European cases that say that when someone is physically unable to leave hospital due to treatment, it isn’t detention. So the coroner had no reason to suspect state detention.

        Lots of things count as state detention. Serving prisoners, for example. Those in long term social care.

        You have lost every aspect of this case at every turn. You are likely to get a whopping costs order against you.

        • Thank you for commenting again.

          You seem to understand the situation. The only difference between how you explain the situation and how I explain it myself, is down to what Bertram Russell called emotive conjugation. E.g. I am firm, you are obstinate, he is stubborn. The language you use expresses some of what I say in my grounds for judicial review etc. But you choose your words so as to put a certain spin on the bare facts of the matter, a spin that amounts to an attempt to insult me, insinuating that I don’t understand what you do understand.

          It isn’t true that I have “lost” anything yet.

          • Ticky

            It’s not a spin, it’s the legal position. You’ve made two applications so far, both of which failed. If they’d been opposed, you’d have to have paid costs.

            • Certain of the chosen words and phrases in which you express yourself when stating reasonably accurately what the “legal position” is, are not expressions you’d find in a statute or a court judgment. They are social media “debating” language, not legal language. They are ways of saying what you are trying to say that is objectively true, which are calculated to influence a reader to have contempt for me rather than respect. That is what I meant by “spin”, and emotive conjugation. “I bring out the salient points with superb clarity. You indulge in spin.”, as it were. Look up “emotive conjugation”.

              • Ticky

                Are you some kind of lawyer then? In which case you probably understand the legal points better than me.

                • I’ve never been a solicitor or a barrister. Have you read the JR claim form, grounds and facts?

                  • Ticky

                    Yes. They didn’t look like they’d been written by a lawyer, so that kind of makes sense.

                    • Which bits, in particular, didn’t look to you as though they’d been written by a lawyer, and why/how? Mind you, I’m not surprised. I had a tough task, to plead the case I am pleading, for the entire audience I was pleading it to. No bread-head solicitor or barrister would have been likely to have played to the gallery and the stalls at the same time like I decided to.

                      I was striving to achieve a style of writing that got my points across to the casually-interested general public, the judges who would read my pleadings and decide the outcome, journalists looking for a story, politicians I might need to lobby if and when I lost, conspiracy theorists and armchair political activists, potential sympathisers from the pro-life movement, my co-religionists, and barristers who might take over from me who’d be willing to work pro bono. (I got a phone call yesterday from one of the said “I’ll take over for free” barristers, offering to take over from me now that I’m at an impasse. I hope not too late.) So, my style was doomed to be somewhat hydrid.

                      All the same, I’m intrigued to know what gave me away. In my experience, lawyers write as differently from one another as any of them write differently from any of the ways in which I write myself. I’ve even had dealings with one barrister who clearly wasn’t as on-the-ball as me.

                      If you look at my Statement of Violations for the European Court of Human Rights in my Gagged Dad v UK application, in this bundle immediately after the initial application form, you are looking at a document that was a collaborative effort between myself and Roger Kiska. Can you tell which numbered paragraphs are his work and which are mine? What is it that gives this away?

        • Fin

          So the child committed suicide?
          That in itself is illegal.

      • Fin

        I see a clear divide of people. I am pleased people are still interested. I cannot understand people from the other side and like you John I am happy to politely debate our opposing views. This is beyond comprehensible that the parents were told that there was no chance that once life – support was removed, beautiful Alfie would pass away. As we are aware they did not administer the IV drugs that Tom was so adverse to and rightly so…On 26.04.18 Tom spoke about wanting to take Alfie home. Previously he had papers to say that he had removed Alfie’s care from the hospital. They wanted him to travel (having 2 standby medical teams waiting to transport him) Tom was threatened with arrest, that touching his own dear child would have him in court for abuse!! Those amazing young parents…endured 5 days of that beautiful ‘brain dead child’ breathing independently!!! The speculation in itself should warrant a public inquest! How can this be viewed as dignity to our vulnerable? What kind of end of life care is this in our hospitals? Yes maybe there was no recovery to be had – but why was he denied the chance? The president of Bambino Gesu came here, Tom went to the Pope…this is all beyond comprehension… and all because “We knew what the end would be” is enough to just brush this precious life aside??? I am praying that you and the family can get to the truth…and that all involved follow the procedures and do what is right. Love and blessings to all xXx

        • There seems to be a polarisation between those who say that there should be an inquest because they suspect that something untoward happened, and those who say that nothing untoward happened, so there’s no need for an inquest. I am one of the few who says that there should be an inquest because of the circumstances of the death, whether or not anything untoward happened.

          It is like wondering around no man’s land alone, getting sniped at from two different trenches at the same time.

          And sniped at too by those who seem to think that the statutory criteria for holding an inquest are whether the deceased’s family have asked for an inquest. How dare I guess what Tom and Kate will want? So ask those who themselves have guessed what Tom and Kate want, reading their suppositions into their observation that Tom and Kate are (they say) “ignoring” me.

          • LucyP

            Yet you censored by post that demonstrated why at law your claim is bound to fail, and my post that questioned who was really behind your litigation. I wonder why?

            • Lucy, I am only aware of ONE post of yours that I have not allowed to be published, not two posts as you appear to be claiming. Are you telling me that I missed one that is still waiting to be moderated?

              I took the trouble to write to you at length last night, sending you back all the text of your long comment so that you could edit it. I opened up to you considerably. I made it clear that I am not going to publish on my blog what I know to be a false accusation against a named individual who has already been subjected to a certain amount of unpleasantness, and who has certain vulnerabilities.

              I have told you which part of your long message you must remove, before resubmitting it, if you want me to publish your comment. The majority of that post, the part that “demonstrated why at law [my] claim is bound to fail”, was excellent, and I’d be delighted to publish it and “like it” myself. I cannot publish your speculations against a named individual, especially when I know them to be untrue, as I told you they were in my email last night.

              Please, submit an edited post, one that isn’t, like the first one, potentially libellous, not only on your part, but also on my part if I neglect to “censor” it.

          • Ticky

            There is also a third group that says that the statutory criteria for an inquest are not met. Those are the ones you should be worried about, as they include lawyers and at least one judge so far.

            • Correct. That third group is indeed the group I should be and am worried about. Specifically, I am worried that a High Court judge who is part of that group, takes a decision on the papers alone that my grounds for judicial review are “totally without merit”. That would kill off my claim without an argument in open court that the press would be likely to report. Any other outcome, and there will be at least one hearing. I already know that if there is a hearing, there is likely to be press coverage. That means I shall have succeeded in sparking discussion of the issue that I am raising.

              What I don’t understand, is why those who are in the third group sometimes have really intense emotional agendas. They think I’ll lose, which, fair enough, is a reasonable opinion. But they go beyond reason in their hostility towards me for daring to raise the dispute in the first place they think I’ll lose. They want me to lose. They even want to talk me out of trying. That emotion is what I don’t understand.

              Some say that they are “NHS trolls”. But what is their motive, if that is true? I don’t understand why NHS staff wouldn’t jump at the chance an inquest would provide, to shut up once and for all the conspiracy theorists who accuse NHS staff in effect of murdering Alfie (quite unnecessarily if he was on the brink of inevitable death anyway). Why would “NHS trolls” not want their NHS colleagues cleared of all wrong-doing in a coroner’s court. Why would they prefer to have the facts kept from the public?

              But that leaves the question why some show such dislike of me. What is their emotional investment in there not being an inquest? It is a mystery to me.

  7. It is difficult for those who lack tenacity to see the need to stick to a point that appears to be ‘lost’ purely on the grounds of principle.

    I have two friends – both octogenarians, who have been fighting their cases for over twenty years because they know they were corruptly cheated of justice in the very courts to which they had taken their cases, confident in British justice.

    Now, although much older, they remain obdurate in their belief that they were right in taking the matter to court, but their views of British justice are most definitely tarnished.

  8. Pingback: Tom and Kate have no right to be involved, rules judge « Musings of a Penpusher

  9. LucyP

    So what is the update on the progress of the claim? Did the CLC acknowledge your letter sending a copy of the claim? Did they confirm that they had forwarded it to the parents? When is the next hearing?

    • Thank you for asking.

      I didn’t send the CLC a letter with a copy of the claim. I sent them an email with a copy of the order that ordered me to send the CLC a copy of the order, asking them to forward the order to the parents. That’s what I was ordered to do. The CLC has acknowledged receipt of that, but not confirmed that it has complied by forwarding the order to the parents as I requested, ordered by the court to request this.

      I have written to the court to say that I now have a barrister who is proposing to amend my claim, and therefore asking the court to delay its permission decision on the papers. At the moment, I am therefore waiting for other people to do what they must or should do. I’m not doing anything myself. There is no next hearing date.

      • LucyP

        But how can your claim be amended? Your claim is for JR of the coroner’s decision not to hold an inquest. You have already been told by the coroner and 2 High Court judges that you have no standing to bring the claim; and that even if you had, then your claim would still fail, as there is no requirement at law for an inquest in this case. How can your Barrister get around those facts?

        Are you not just stalling for time, once again, because you know from the last hearing, that the Judge wanted to get on with the claim, and that shortly, the Court will consider your claim, “on the papers”, and reject it. They will also order you to pay the coroner’s costs, as the coroner’s counsel has already asked.

        Why are you even bringing this claim? You are hundreds of miles from Liverpool. Did you ever meet the child, or the family, or know them prior to the media coverage? Have you contacted a family member or been contacted by them about this claim? Specifically [Family member’s name redacted]?

        • I applied for permission to amend the claim on the claim form itself. That was because the coroner had not, and still has not, supplied a statement of the reasons for his decision. As I now have a barrister, I am no longer concerning myself with legal questions.

          I have not “been told by … 2 high court judges” that I have “no standing to bring the claim”. I was told by one high court judge that I had no standing to bring the emergency application for an injunction that would have prevented a cremation without a post-mortem, had that been planned. (As it happens, cremation was not planned.)

          I am bringing the claim because I believe that Alfie’s death took place in the broad circumstances that the Parliament had in mind when Parliament legislated that there must always be an inquest when a deceased dies in any kind of state detention. I had expressed interest in knowing the when and where of the inquest, and of learning its verdict, only to be told that the coroner intended to flout that law. That I had never met Alfie or any other family member and live far from Liverpool is neither here nor there.

          I do not intend to respond to speculation as to with whom I may or may not have had contact, or even to publish comments that contain speculation naming suspects. For that reason, I have redacted the name of an individual from your own comment.

          • LucyP

            The coroner has told you clearly why the law does not require an inquest. HHJ Garner told you in detail. Read the transcript that you have uploaded! He even sent his clerk to obtain his book on coroners so that he could explain it to you. Are you seriously suggesting that HHJ Butcher didn’t also tell you that your claim was hopeless?

            You can redact and you can refuse to comment. Why is that? What are you hiding?

            Please tell me why on the “Army” Facebook page, there was a comment, from a John Allman, with your photo, which starts:

            “Hi (the name you redacted)”

            and continues:

            “I’ve contacted that solicitor that we talked about”

            You’re not being honest about your motivation for bringing this claim are you? You are clearly talking to a family member about it. Have you been asked to bring it on behalf of that family member?

            • Everything you need to know about my motives, is contained in the wording of my claim. I am not only entitled to redact your speculation about named individuals who do not want me to publicise their identities, I would be behaving wrongly if I allowed you to stir trouble up in that way. If you have a quarrel with the person you named, whose name I redacted, take that up with him or her.

              Garner J gave his prejudicial opinion on a question that wasn’t up for decision that day, without hearing that question argued. On 14th May he predicted the failure of a claim that wasn’t even drafted then, which was filed on 27th July and issued on 4th August.

              The coroner merely agreed with himself. He would, wouldn’t he?

              My motivation for bringing the claim is my belief that when the state overrules parents, declaring that a care plan that is intended to be fatal is in a child’s best interests, there ought to be enhanced scrutiny of the state’s decisions after the success of that plan, i.e. after the death of the child that the state had ruled for the best. By enhanced scrutiny, I mean the verdict of a jury after the facts become public knowledge in a coroner’s court, after testimony tested by means of cross-examination. I don’t think it is safe to leave unscrutinised successful child euthanasia decisions by judges who are to be regarded as benign and infallible. Judges are well-known to be capable of perverse sophistry when it suits them, calling white black, and black white. In cases like this, which are a type of euthanasia, I believe that there ought to be an opportunity for the general public (through a jury of its members) to call a spade a spade, if necessary shouting out that the emperor is naked.

              Now, what is YOUR motivation for setting out to discourage me, for prying into matters of no concern to you, and for speculating about what you rightly do not know and are not entitled to know?

  10. gerhard

    Thanks for reminding the coroner of his duty. The Kelly case was a classical show of investigative incompetence. At a time where parliament discussed that phone companies had to automatically reveal the phone location to the emergency services upon 999 calls and where it had been used a year earlier in the case of locating the girls in the Soham murders I was always intrigued why the last point of contact for Kelly’s phone was never mentioned as it would have been asking the obvious.
    Considering the hospitalisation of Alfie at the age of 6month which is way past the 3rd booster vaccines a direct impact of the vaccination is unlikely, but the involvement of autoimmune reaction against the brain would have been in need of clarification, as would have been an infectious cause for the destruction of brain tissue. After all, whilst the child may have died of the destruction of it’s brain, the failure to investigate the cause of the destructive change by declaring it a natural death is in my eyes criminal negligence in the eye of protecting the public. In this respect the location of Alder-hey might have been particularly unlucky due to their past history of withholding specimens of children for scientific research and they have failed themselves in not demonstrating the need for taking specimens. And surely they would have been given the parents consent to take tissue biopsies to hopefully rescue other kids from asimilar fate

    • LucyP

      What total nonsense. The Coroner is completely in the right on this one. Have you read what the High Court Judge (who wrote a book on Coroners) has already stated to Allman? Have you read the response from the Coroner’s Barrister? This case has no merit whatsoever. The only question is whether Allman should pay the costs or whether those for whom is he fronting this litigation should pay them.

      Allman also brought a case against a Coroner in 2012. The High Court Judge said that it had no prospect of success.

      • Gerhard may have an opinion different from yours. He may be mistaken about certain facts. But what he wrote most certainly isn’t “total nonsense”. He wrote comprehensibly, in English. enabling you both to understand what he wrote, and to disagree with what he said, so he cannot have written “nonsense”. It made sense to you.

        • LucyP

          Everything that he wrote was rubbish. It was completely wrong at law and in fact. He doesn’t know who you are, or your history, your family circumstances, or your mental health. He gives you a compliment to which you are not entitled. Therefore he wrote nonsense.

          • Gerhard possibly knows who I am just as much as you do. Apart from my name, what do you actually know about me anyway? Anything that you didn’t get off the internet, because I put it there myself, that is?

            Nothing in my history, or family circumstances, or to do with my “mental health”, would be relevant to the discussion, if you knew anything about these matters. (Do you think you do? If so, I think you are speculating.)

            Gerhard didn’t “compliment” me. He just said “thank you”. His values are different from yours. He approves of something that you disapprove of, that’s all. Please get over it.

            Gerhard didn’t say anything wrong “in law”. We both know that, because he didn’t make any assertions at all about the law, so he couldn’t have been wrong.

            That leaves us with Gerhard’s assertions of facts – just a few of them. If you think anything Gerhard said was factually wrong, please would you get to the point and say what facts you think Gerhard got wrong, and what the true facts are about the matters he mentioned?

            If Gerhard was talking rubbish, or nonsense, you wouldn’t be able to contradict him, because you wouldn’t know what you were contradicting.

            Finally, I am quite happy to keep on letting you have your say, even publishing comments of yours that I don’t think are fair or polite. But I reserve the right to say when I think you have allowed emotion to cloud your reason, sharpening your tongue.

Likes, follows and comments cheer me up!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s