Don’t ask me Chief, I have no opinion coz I’m thick as shit!
But that’s exactly how you want it isn’t it Chief?
Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.
“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”
He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.
Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.
Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.
But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.
Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.
Destroying the mindgame!
An open letter to any and all Lawyers, Barristers, Judges who dare reply and debate this issue which destroys the mindgame you have played a part in over centuries.
Debate or shut up!
Please, be my guest and attempt to make an argument against the following. I look forward to it.
The following totally destroys the Judge, the politician, the Law enforcer, the magistrate, the establishment figure, the media whore who laughs at the subject and the man or woman who simply refuses to believe what is the fact: The fact is that the State and the United Nations, the European Union – in fact ANY and ALL “nations” and constructed legal personality (legal fiction) can have absolutely no authority over a natural person under any circumstances UNLESS that “legal person” is acting as dictator and effectively destroys the widely held belief that we are all equal before the law. The ONLY fallback the State has is the argument that there is such a thing as “Supremacy of law”. We will see, however, that this simply does not hold water because it is, again, a construct of the very legal personality (fiction) which determines it.
So let’s start with the INSTITUTIONS:
The European Union
The relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights is an issue in European Union law and human rights law. The European Court of Justice rules on European Union (EU) law while the European Court of Human Rights rules on European Convention on Human Rights which covers the whole of Europe, not just the EU, but not the institutions of the European Union. The European Union (EU) is not a member of the Council of Europe and the European Union takes the view that while it is bound by the European Convention it is not bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. As seen in Article 6(2) of the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union is bound to respect fundamental rights principles. This means that the institutions of the European Union must not violate human rights, as defined by European Union law, and also that the Member States of the European Union must not violate European Union human rights principles when they implement Union legislation or act pursuant to Union law. This obligation is in addition to the Member States’ pre-existing obligations to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in everything they do. In practice, this means that the Court of Justice weaves the Convention principles throughout its reasoning. For example, the Court held that when a child has a right of residence in a Member State according to Union law, this also means that his parent(s) should also have a right of residence due to the principle of respect for family life enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Prior to the entry into force on 1 June 2010 of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU could not accede to the Convention, and the European Court of Human Rights’ did not have jurisdiction to rule on case brought against the EU. However, the EcHR has been prepared to hold EU member states liable for human rights’ violations committed within their jurisdictions, even when they were just complying with a mandatory provision of EU law.
Please recognise what this is, in fact stating: While the EU creates and demands that its laws are implemented in the member states (for example the UK), the EU, itself, is not bound by the ECHR – it is immune! So the EU may create laws which fundamentally violate Human Rights. While they create the law and the member states MUST implement them, if the member states then are found in violation of one’s human rights, it is the member states who are attacked for doing so. Yet, the member states are put in a position by the immune EU to implement the law! Make NO mistake, this is like a mafia boss telling one of his minions to murder someone because that is his ruling (and the minion does not question the Don now does he?) – that is the “law”. So the minion goes ahead and murders and the legal profession come along and prosecute the minion while leaving the Don immune for making the order. Similarly, it is precisely the issue which was deliberated upon during the Nuremburg Trials. The question was: Were those who carried out the orders of their government (Hitler), guilty of warcrimes? However……
Protocol No. 14 of the ECHR entered into force on 1 June 2010. It allows the European Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. The EU’s Treaty of Lisbon, in force since 1 December 2009, permits the EU to accede to said convention. The EU would thus be subject to its human rights law and external monitoring as its member states currently are. It is further proposed that the EU join as a member of the Council of Europe now it has attained a single legal personality in the Lisbon Treaty.
Now remember this: The EU has attained a legal personality. It is recognised by law as existing and, as such, can enter treaties (which are simply contracts). The EU is now a LEGAL PERSON. A Judge can now “see” the EU because it now exists as a legal person whereas, before, a Judge could not “see” the EU because it did not legally exist!
Now, how did the EU gain its legal existence?
Well, like any other Corporation and Nation:
On 1 December 2009, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force and reformed many aspects of the EU. In particular it changed the legal structure of the European Union, merging the EU three pillars system into a single legal entity provisioned with legal personality. The EU is based on a series of treaties. These first established the European Community and the EU, and then made amendments to those founding treaties.These are power-giving treaties which set broad policy goals and establish institutions with the necessary legal powers to implement those goals. These legal powers include the ability to enact legislation which can directly affect all member states and their inhabitants. The EU has legal personality, with the right to sign agreements and international treaties. Under the principle of supremacy, national courts are required to enforce the treaties that their member states have ratified, and thus the laws enacted under them, even if doing so requires them to ignore conflicting national law, and (within limits) even constitutional provisions The European Council uses its leadership role to sort out disputes between member states and the institutions, and to resolve political crises and disagreements over controversial issues and policies. It acts externally as a “collective Head of State” and ratifies important documents (for example, international agreements and treaties). On 19 November 2009, Herman Van Rompuy was chosen as the first permanent President of the European Council. On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force and he assumed office. Ensuring the external representation of the EU, driving consensus and settling divergences among members are tasks for the President.
Sovereign states are legal persons. A sovereign state, or simply, state, is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state. While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states. The word “country” is often colloquially used to refer to sovereign states, although it means, originally, only a geographic region, and subsequently its meaning became extended to the sovereign polity which controls the geographic region. Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The UN Charter, the Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organisations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law. The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognised.
In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognized as sovereign:
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.
Note “ying and yang”: They could not be part of the International community. The corollary of which was that recognised nations could break the law in their dealings with them! Incredible isn’t it? While, if that unrecognised country were to break international law (as was its “right” because it was not recognised as existing and the international community could break the law toward it) you can be sure that the international community would demonise it as a “rogue state” all simply due to the fact that the international community would not recognise its sovereignty! I think it’s called the international community taking advantage of a vicious circle!
In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:
…International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.
By contrast, the “declarative” theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states.
According to declarative theory, an entity’s statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. Article 3 of the Convention declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood. A similar opinion about “the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state” is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. The Badinter Arbitration Committee found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e. they exist both in law and in reality). However, sometimes states exist only as de jure states in that an organisation is recognised as having sovereignty over and being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. Many continental European states maintained governments-in-exile during the Second World War which continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. A present day example is the State of Palestine, which is recognized by multiple states, but doesn’t have control over any of its claimed territory in Palestine and possess only extraterritorial areas (i.e. embassies and consulates). Other states may have sovereignty over a territory but lack international recognition; these are considered by the international community to be only de facto states (they are considered de jure states only according to their own Law and by states that recognize them).
People may sometimes refer to “the will of the international community” to strengthen their own point of view or the opposite expression “the international community is divided” to explain a consensus has not yet been reached. In diplomacy and debate a case that includes this statement could be a sentiment of majoritarianism and a description of options to take action for the benefit of all countries. It is occasionally asserted that powerful countries and groups of countries use the term to describe organisations in which they play a predominant role, that might be interpreted as indifference toward other nations. The enactment of conflict or war may be claimed as an action of the “international community” by a superpower or coalition that could represent under half or less of the world’s population.
Ain’t that the truth!
An example of the term used by some western leaders is when denouncing Iran, for its nuclear ambitions of suspected nuclear proliferation, by stating that “Iran is defying the will of the international community by continuing uranium enrichment“. The Non-Aligned Movement which consists of 118 countries from the 193 United Nations member states, has endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium for civil nuclear energy.
Rousseau, in his 1763 treatise Of the Social Contract argued, “the growth of the State giving the trustees of public authority more and means to abuse their power, the more the Government has to have force to contain the people, the more force the Sovereign should have in turn in order to contain the Government,” with the understanding that the Sovereign is “a collective being of wonder” (Book II, Chapter I) resulting from “the general will” of the people, and that “what any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not a law” (Book II, Chapter VI) – and furthermore predicated on the assumption that the people have an unbiased means by which to ascertain the general will. Thus the legal maxim, “there is no law without a sovereign.“
The 1789 French Revolution shifted the possession of sovereignty from the sovereign ruler to the nation and its people.
De jure, or legal, sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised right to exercise control over a territory. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty. When control is practiced predominately by military or police force it is considered coercive sovereignty. It is generally held that sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. Thus, de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty has limited recognition. Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a government exercise authority?
Claims of legitimacy might refer to the divine right of kings or to a social contract (i.e. popular sovereignty). So, an interesting point here to raise in the case of legitimacy in the UK, for example: From where does the UK government and Monarch derive their legitimacy? Do they DARE state they derive it from the “Divine Right of Kings”? Do they DARE? I don’t think so do you?
External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and other states. For example, the United Kingdomuses the following criterion when deciding under what conditions other states recognise a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory;
| “ | “Sovereignty.” A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country is a foreign sovereign state. | ” |
|
— (The Arantzazu Mendi, [1939] A.C. 256), Strouds Judicial Dictionary
|
External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law, such as: when, if ever, is intervention by one country onto another’s territory permissible? According to existing International law, as preached (but not practiced) by the International community through the U.N., the answer to this question is NEVER. Every last war “declared” by the west, therefore, is in breach of International law. Period!
Since the 19th century, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is “capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person.” Ten years later, they reaffirmed the result of Letson, though on the somewhat different theory that “those who use the corporate name, and exercise the faculties conferred by it,” should be presumed conclusively to be citizens of the corporation’s State of incorporation. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by statute, as U.S. jurisdictional statutes specifically address the domicile of corporations. In the international legal system, various organizations possess legal personality. These include intergovernmental organizations (the United Nations, the Council of Europe) and some other international organizations (including the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a religious order). Corporations are by definition legal persons. A corporation sole is a corporation constituted by a single member, such as The Crown in the Commonwealth realms. A corporation aggregate is a corporation constituted by more than one member.
Now, please fully appreciate that the above has just stated absolutely clearly and factually that these institutions AND the Crown itself are no more nor less than Legal Persons in their own right. As such, they are, by definition within this legal “matrix” we are all subject to, EQUAL to each and every “Natural Person” (i.e. you and I) on this earth. Again, any judge or any state prosecutor could NOT argue differently. This is simply legal (LEGAL) fact – legal fact that these institutions are LEGAL FICTIONS!
The Juristic Person.I
Author(s): George F. Deiser
Reviewed work(s):
Source: University of Pennsylvania LawReview and American Law Register, Vol. 57, No. 3,Volume 48 New Series (Dec., 1908), pp. 131-142
Published by: The University of Pennsylvania Law Review
The law has been playing with such a fiction for centuries, in the course of which, the fiction, instead of disappearing, as it so conveniently does for the mathematician, has increased in girth and height, and has maintained its ghostly existence, in the face of the anathema of the philosopher and the fiat of the judicial decree. In an evil day the law, like the hospitable Arab, who permitted his camel to shelter his head within the domestic tent, gave shelter to an imaginary person-the persona ficta,-then an infant, seemingly of little promise and of precarious tenure of life. The most uninformed mind has an idea of capacities, and can even follow the ramifications by which a man by marrying his first cousin, loses some of his second cousins, or becomes second cousin to his own children, but the separation of individual wills from collective wills is a task which even the academic mind has but unsatisfactorily accomplished. Person, collective property-persona ficta-the name is very nearly matter of indifference so long as we understand by it an existence distinct from the members that compose it; for, be it understood, one may be a member of this corporate body and yet deal with it-may sell to it-buy from it,-in fact, maintain business relations with it, precisely as he does with any other natural person. The matter begins with dogma; men, in law and in philosophy are natural persons. This might be taken to imply that there are also persons of another sort. And that is a fact.
Men/Women are “Natural persons” in law because a “Natural person” is, and only is, a LEGAL DEFINITION used to differentiate from a “legal person” (or “Corporate person”)
It was said by an eminent authority that when a body of twenty, or two thousand, or two hundred thousand men bind themselves together to act in a particular way for some common purpose, they create a body, which by no fiction of law, but by the very nature of things, differs from the individuals of whom it is constituted. Now the state is a body of this kind, and beginning with the state and coming down by successive gradations, we encounter by the way, the subordinate state, which, if autonomous, is the next body of this sort, the self governing county, district, or department; finally the municipal corporations such as cities, boroughs or townships. We have very little difficulty in recognizing that when the state acts, it is a different matter from the action of any member or citizen of the state. If the state owe money, it is not owing by the citizens; nor if half the citizens emigrated would anyone think of following them to collect from each, his proportion of the debt. It is not a conception that the rationalistic mind finds easy.
No? Then WHY ON EARTH has the world’s population “rationalised” the idea of bailing out Privately held banks on the demand of the State? I would like to ask each and every individual who have just shrugged their shoulders and considered it ok exactly what the hell they are thinking of? Anyhow, that is an aside on the subject of this blog.
The conception of the persona ficta is an inheritance from the Roman Law, developed and expanded by the ecclesiastical lawyers of the Middle Ages, and bestowed on modem legal thought by Savigny. Real men are united to form a fictitious being; a fiction which holds property. It has necessarily, no natural rights. The theory hence, has no regard for members; nor can the persona ficta exist except by virtue of some creative act of the state. The Juristic Person.-A right is inconceivable without corresponding relations between some individual and the community to which he is subject. If we find a right, such as that of ownership, in existence, we must discover a subject for that right. If the right attaches to a human being, he is the subject; if it attaches to a name used to designate the collective will of a group of men, the name or collective will is the subject. By advanced abstractions, by reasoning a priori, jurists have reached the conclusion, that in relation to the quality of being a subject of law, the individual, and the group of individuals as such, occupy a like position. Personality is considered therefore, an attribute not only of men, but of groups of men, acting as a unit for the attainment of a common end. The term juristic person is simply the legal expression for this fact, that above the individual or specific human existence there stands generic human existence. In other words, when we encounter the problem of defining, interpreting, explaining, the actions of human beings in groups, as such, as contrasted with the action of any members of the group as individuals, the group stands for genus, and the individual stands for species. The collective will of a group of men so acting and holding property, when recognized as a subject of law, or as having legal subjectivity, or more plainly, when recognized as capable of holding definite legal rights, is no more a fiction than is the personality of any human being. This juristic person, or collective will of the group, is not a creation of the law; the law does not create its personality, but finding a group engaged in some common pursuit, endows it with a definite legal capacity. It is capable of exercising rights, capable of committing wrongs; the former, it may vindicate; the latter it must atone for. It may seem a far cry from the question of the legality of a fine imposed upon a corporation in an amount greater than that of its capital stock, to the apparently academic discussion of its personality or non-personality, yet they are in fact so intimately related that our legal system cannot ignore the relation without affecting its stability. If men as individuals can do acts that require intent, and men acting in groups cannot, the community must restrict the activity of men in groups. For the actions of groups of men, collective actions, there is no reason, no justification, no authority but that of might. Beginning with the state, and proceeding downward to private corporations, control proceeds from the power of the strong over the weak.
“Human groups,” says Duguit, in his dramatic way is
based upon community of needs, upon diversity of individual aptitudes, upon the reciprocity of services rendered; in these human groups, some individuals stronger than others, whether because they are better armed, or because we recognize in them some supernatural power; whether because they are richer, or because they are more numerous, and who, thanks to this superior power, can impose their will on others; these are the facts. Let us call the state a human group, settled upon a definite territory, where the stronger compel obedience of the weaker, and we are agreed. Call political sovereignty that power which the stronger exert over the weaker, there is no controversy. Proceed beyond this and we enter the realm of hypothesis. To say that this will of those who rule is only imposed upon individuals because it is the collective will, is a fiction conceived to justify the power of the strong-a fiction, ingenious enough, invented by the prophets of force to legitimate force, but for nothing else.” Returning for a moment to the state, which is everywhere recognized as a person, it has been observed truly, that the feeling that even the state is a very unreal person, may not readily be dispelled.14 But the difficulty is purely subjective; the existence of personality apart from a body is insufficiently concrete. Yet the notions of ownership, or of in-corporeal rights are equally esoteric. And if personality offer a solution, the difficulty of the conception ought not to stand in the way. If now, we attempt to define our problem we shall find the facts to be these. Corporations, under existing legal systems, for judicial or legislative purposes are regarded in two ways: I. The corporation is a fictitious person or entity (as in England and the United States). II. The corporation is a real person (as in Germany, France, Spain, and some other continental countries). The problems arising under both of these attitudes are these: A. Does the corporation as a group or unit possess rights and owe duties ? B. Has the corporation as a group or unit criminal or moral responsibility? C. What is the nature of the shareholders’ interest? If again, we examine the nature of corporate existence with reference to proffered solutions, we shall find again, that the corporation is a fictitious person, or a real person, or a form of co-ownership, or a form of agency or action by representation. It remains to consider these views with reference to the extent to which they resolve the problem.
George F. Deiser. 3313312.pdf
The following is from: 0njp9-concept-legal-personality-english-law.html
The idea that a husband could not rape a wife comes down through the ages from the ancient belief that a wife was her husband’s property. The legal principle that a woman was a separate being from her husband was not established until 1882 in England by the Married Women’s Property Act – see Married_Women\’s_Property_Act
Where a party changes their gender, or wishes to change their gender, UK law has gone through a transformation. Once a gender change, although medically possible, did not alter the realities of the gender at birth for a person. That changed, as the UK began to grant rights to transexuals (recognising them as PERSONS).
See Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism#United_Kingdom
By providing transexuals these rights, the UK has granted them standing to be treated as persons whose rights must be respected and who have valid claims to make against those who refuse to respect their rights to life, liberty, property, and their names. Legal personality determines and establishes the patterns which help determine the rights, duties, and powers of persons. Minority groups, be they minorities due to age, gender, religion, or other classifications, are not able to control their own destinies until the law recognizes them as having the right to exist and make demands on others.
The above crystallises the facts: ONE IS NOT A “PERSON” until the legal world recognises them as such. The transexual, although in reality a living and breathing being, was not a “person” until the legal system said so! This is crystal clear and there is no way whatsoever that the legal system can argue that YOU exist and are recognised within the legal system by the sheer fact that you literally exist. The transexual literally exists but, only recently, did they exist from a legal standpoint as a PERSON.
What the constitution says: The EU will for the first time have a “legal personality” and its laws will trump those of national parliaments: “The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states.” What it means: This really just confirms the status quo, which is that if the EU is allowed to legislate in an area of policy, its law will overtake any national laws. Equally in areas where it does not legislate, national law prevails. By having a “legal personality”, the EU will be able, as an organisation, to enter into international agreements. The old European Community had this right but the EU as a whole did not so its status in world diplomacy increases.
Now, here, one must recognise that the ONLY reason the EU law has primacy over, for example, UK law is because when the member states agree to the treaties, the entire idea of the treaties is to give the EU that power. There is no other reason. Any and all member states were and are SOVEREIGN nations and have the right to enter treaties OR remove themselves.
2950276.stm It gives the EU a legal personality – like a country, not an international organisation. This argument seems to rest on the assumption that international organisations do not have a legal personality. But most do. It also glosses over the fact that the European Community – which still exists on paper as a legally separate entity from the EU – already has a legal personality. (Whether the EU already has a legal personality is a matter of dispute.) But could the EU, if it acquired a single legal personality, end up joining international organisations or signing international treaties instead ofmember states? This has not been the practice up to now. Both the European Community and the EU have been signing treaties for years, and the European Community is a member of the World Trade Organization, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Hague Conference. This has not prevented member states from signing the same treaties and joining the same organisations. (This, as you can read in the link, is now old news but gives the reader a better understanding of things it is hoped).
A declaration to be added to the new treaty underlines that acquiring a legal personality will not authorise the EU to act “beyond the competences conferred on it by member states”. Declarations are a statement of political intent. They are not legally binding but the European Court of Justice does take them into account in its judgements. 6928737.stm
Now, let’s consider another element of “legal personality” and the ideology surrounding that of immunity of diplomats, heads of state and their “capacity” bestowed upon them by the “law”. The reader will, it is hoped, recognise how this entire legal system is corrupt from the very top to bottom to protect the interests of those who implement it.
The reason the Pope cannot be arrested and prosecuted in the UK is because he is entitled to Head of State immunity. Dawkins and Hitchens are not unaware of this problem. Apparently they have enlisted Geoffrey Robertson QC to provide an opinion stating that the pope is not a head of State and therefore not entitled to head of State immunity. Robertson elaborates on this point in a recent article in the Guardian. Robertson argues that the Pope is not entitled head of State immunity as a matter of international law because the Vatican is not a State. His arguments are simply incorrect. The Vatican has a tiny territory and a tiny population but it does fulfill the criteria for Statehood. As James Crawford puts it, in his authoritative work The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed, 2006), p. 225, after detailed analysis: “it is clear that the Vatican City is a State in international law, despite its size and special circumstances.” The size of population or territory are irrelevant for the purposes of Statehood. What is important is that the entity possesses those criteria as well as the two other criteria for Statehood – which are: a government in effective control of the territory and independence (or what is called “capacity to enter into legal relations” in the words of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1935). The Vatican as a territorial entity does have a government: the Holy See which is headed by the Pope. As Crawford’s analysis makes clear, the Holy See has its own independent legal personality (about which more later on) and that personality predates the Statehood of the Vatican. However, the Holy See is also the government of the Vatican City State. More imporantly, the Vatican is independent of any other State. Its independence from Italy which is the State that could have had claims to control that territory is recognised in the Lateran Treaty of 1929. So, since the Vatican is a State then the head of that State, the Pope, is entitled to head of State immunity under international law. This immunity is recognised by Section 20 of the UK’s State Immunity Act which extends to “a sovereign or other head of State”, the same immunities accorded to diplomats. These immunities are absolute in the case of criminal proceedings. In other words there are no exceptions to the immunity. The International Court of Justice’s decision in the Arrest Warrant Case (Congo v. Belgium) 2002 confirms that this type of immunity continues to apply even when it is alleged that the head of State has committed international crimes. So an allegation that the Pope may be responsible for crimes against humanity will not suffice to defeat his immunity.
INCREDIBLE BUT TRUE!
The SOVEREIGN Order of Malta: Legal person and legally sovereign.
It should be noted that the immunity of a head of State from criminal prosecution in foreign States is there for very good reasons. In the first place, those State agents charged with the conduct of international relations are given immunity in order to allow international relations and international cooperation to continue to take place. (So understand this well: The Head of State can rape, murder and much anything else but, so as to allow continued International cooperation, they can commit these crimes and walk away. Do you accept that? If you do and if the International community does then how can the International community possibly argue that the Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan wars were legally justified? The Head of State is allowed to commit genocide and atrocities! Or is that only if they are OUR” accepted Heads of state? This is no joke folks. I sincerely wish it was!) Secondly, the immunity of foreign heads of States assures that just as States may not engage in regime change by armed force they may not achieve this end by criminal prosecutions either. It respects the fundamental autonomy of each State to determine who it is governed by.
So, again, one has to ask: What on earth was it that didn’t provide that assurance to Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein etc?
Even assuming that the Vatican were not a State under international law that does not mean that the Pope will not be granted immunity from criminal process in the UK. First of all, the UK courts in determining the question of immunity will not be asked to determine whether the Vatican is a State under international law. Under Section 21 of the State Immunity Act, the question whether the Vatican is a State is to be resolved, conclusively, by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. So as long as the Foreign Office is of the view that the Vatican is a State, the Courts are bound to accept that. The State Immunity Act aside, deference to the executive on matters of Statehood is in line with longstanding case law of the English Courts. It is almost certain that the Foreign Office will certify that the Vatican is a State, as the US executive did in a case against the Vatican in the US. Britain maintains diplomatic relations with the Holy See and has an Ambassador with the Holy See. It may be argued that this is not quite the same as recognising the Vatican as a State – and it isn’t. The embassy is to the Holy See and not to the Vatican. Nonetheless, as far as I know Britain has not objected in the past to the Vatican’s claims to be a State nor has it, as far as I know, opposed the Vatican’s accession to treaties that are only open to States. A second reason that the Pope will be entitled to immunity from criminal process in the UK even if the Vatican were not a State is because there is general acceptance of the international legal personality and in particular of the “sovereign” status of the Holy See. The relationship between the Vatican and the Holy See are complex. Crawford’s book referred to above, deals with this question very well. What is clear is that the Holy See as the central authority of the Catholic Church is not just the government of the Vatican. In addition, it has a special status in international law and has international legal personality which precedes the creation of the Vatican in 1929. What is important here is the nature of that international legal personality. Like the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta, the Holy See is deemed to have a sovereign status akin to Statehood. This includes possession of the immunities that States are entitled to. It may be significant that Section 20 of the State Immunity Act provides immunity for “a sovereign or other head of State.” Does sovereign in that context allow for entities like the head of the Holy See, the Pope, even if he were not a head of State? It may be interpreted in this way and should be. It could be argued the word “other” in that provision, militates against this interpretation. However, even if S. 20 does not allow for the immunity of Head of the Holy See, that would not preclude the argument that customary international law does. can-the-pope-be-arrested-in-connection-with-the-sexual-abuse-scandal
The Crown in Contract and Administrative Law
Abstract
An essential and neglected distinction between contract and administrative law is in how each conceives of the Crown as a juristic person. This article explores the extent of this distinction, and its implications for the rule of law and the separation of powers. It offers explanations—historical, jurisprudential and pragmatic—for why contract law conceives of the Crown as a corporation aggregate with the powers and liberties of a natural person, and why administrative law disaggregates the State into named officials.
The international legal system is the foundation for the conduct of international relations. It is this system that regulates state actions under international law. The principal subjects of international law are states, rather than individuals as they are under municipal law. The International Court of Justice acknowledged in the Reparation for Injuries case that types of international legal personality other than statehood could exist and that the past half century has seen a significant expansion of the subjects of international law. Apart from states, international legal personality is also possessed by international organisations and, in some circumstance, human beings. In addition, non-governmental organisations and national liberation movements have also been said to possess international legal personality. Since 1945 the international legal system has been dominated by the United Nations and the structures that were established as part of that organisation. While the UN has been the object of significant criticism, it has nevertheless played a pivotal role both in the progressive development and codification of international law. An international organization (or organisation) is an organizationwith an international membership, scope, or presence. There are two main types:
- International nongovernmental organizations (INGOs): non-governmental organizations(NGOs) that operate internationally. These may be either:
- International non-profit organizations. Examples include the International Olympic Committee, World Organization of the Scout Movement, International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières.
- International corporations, referred to as multinational corporations. Examples include The Coca-Cola Company, Sony, Nintendo, McDonalds, and Toyota.
- Intergovernmental organizations, also known as international governmental organisations (IGOs): the type of organization most closely associated with the term ‘international organization’, these are organizations that are made up primarily of sovereign states (referred to as member states). Notable examples include the United Nations (UN), Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Council of Europe (CoE), European Union (EU; which is a prime example of a supranational organization), European Patent Organization and World Trade Organization (WTO). The UN has used the term “intergovernmental organization” instead of “international organization” for clarity.
Ok, now what is the entire point of the foregoing? Well I hope it is obvious once you read it.
The Crown itself is a LEGAL PERSON. The UN is a LEGAL PERSON. The EU is a LEGAL PERSON. The State (Nation) is a LEGAL PERSON. And YOU and every other human being (within the subject of “the law”) are LEGAL PERSONS. The only differentiation which is made is that of States and Corporations etc being given the title of “legal person” and you being given the title of “Natural person” purely to differentiate the rights, duties etc apportioned to each of these “legal personality” types. BUT THEY ARE ALL LEGAL FICTIONS.
So what does this all mean?
Well it is SO easy:
You: “Your honour, are all persons equal before the law?”
Judge: “Yes indeed they are”.
You: “Can you please assure this court and those in attendance that there is no legal person – such as a Corporate – which has any authority over a natural person?”
Judge: “Indeed I can. As I said, all persons – legal or natural – are equal before the law. One would even have to go so far as to suggest that the natural person is of a higher importance since the natural person is of flesh and blood and endowed with god given rights whereas the Corporation or man made legal person has not”
You: “Then your honour, would I be correct in stating that I, as a natural person, have every right, subrogated to no-one, to enter or decline from entering a contract with another legal person? Or, if, under any and all circumstances, I am forced to do so, or by way of lack of full disclosure, I inadvertently enter into contract with such an entity, that I shall have the legal right to withdraw from any and all such contracts?”
Judge: “Well yes but that would be dependent upon certain points of law and if, for instance, you were compelled by law to enter into such”
You: “Please would your honour give me an example of such a possible case?”
Judge: “Where statute law may enforce such a contract for example”
You: “Statute law Sir? May I ask who or what imposes such statute law?”
Judge: “The State does and it is enforced by the Crown”
You: “Haven’t we just established that both, the State and the Crown, are LEGAL PERSONS and, as such, they are, at best, equal to myself before the law?”
Judge: “Shut up smart ass! Case dismissed”
Now, they can go down the route of stating “Supremacy of law” but just as a member state (a “person) of the EU must agree by treaty the supremacy of EU law over its own, the natural person must contract with the state to agree to the subrogation of his/her god given, inalienable, unalienable natural rights.
The court and the Crown and the state may ask “do you possess a birth certificate or passport or National Insurance number or any such state conferred document BUT the state gives one no choice in the matter of requiring these documents since the state will disallow all which requires such. It is, then, the state which coercively and deceptively removes the human rights and replaces them with “person” rights.
I rest my case and ALL cases your dishonour for, before I was given a “legal personality” I was neither competent nor would I have had any legal standing (obviously since I had no legal person and could not be “seen” – recognised BY the legal system ) to state I did not wish to contract with the state and subrogate such rights.
The legal system, then, is entirely fraudulent.
This guy Ben Lowry, isn’t someone I have spent much time listening to regarding his discussions on the “freeman” stuff but, having come across this video, I can only say that he has it 100% correct. The foregoing concludes that and, again, there is no lawyer or judge on this earth who could defend this.
As for Albert Burgess and his disdain for anything which he sees as running along the lines of “freeman” stuff, he’s even unwilling to read this. I have respect for Albert’s knowledge re the Constitution but I cannot, in all honesty, state that I have any respect for his absolute reluctance to acknowledge this for what it plainly is. His knowledge of the law should even have the effect of making him realise the reality of it yet he absolutely refuses to do so. Logic and facts ignored WILFULLY! It is impossible to respect wilful ignorance!
And it is that Albert which loses you your audience. Such a damned pity man! Your ideas of treason are absolutely right on the basis of the British Constitution being what it is but even the British Constitution is nothing more than legal fiction. Legal fiction, however, which has those in office who have meant to abide by it, breaking their own law. And the present MONARCH, Elizabeth and her motley clan, colluding with it.
New World Map: Prescience? Or Pre-planned?
CRYSTAL BALLS REALLY DO EXIST AND REALLY DO WORK IT SEEMS.
Just as today’s map of the world was all planned out, so is tomorrow’s. You can find out how it’s planned if you research.
TONY BENN: The straight man!
It has to be said though Tony – and I am sorry – what on earth happened to your son’s integrity? Hilary doesn’t hold a candle to you!
TRY TO DEFINE THE CROWN?
While it is entirely undemocratic and answers to noone.
Tony Benn: Would have been Britain's Ron Paul (perhaps even better).
Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
The debate is beginning to get to the central question, which is not the details of how we handle the security services or the official secrecy, but the constitutional relationships that are changed by the legislation that is to come before us. I believe that I am expressing an anxiety that goes far beyond the party of which I am a member about the evidence that has come to light regarding the threats to freedom by those who were supposed to defend it. Therefore, I consider that the proposals made by the Government in the Prime Minister’s speech from the Throne are far from being evidence of liberation, and offer evidence of tightening up. We should look at that first.
There is no question whatsoever—I am not seeking to blame everybody in the security services—that there have been people working in high positions in MI5 and MI6, who have used the power vested in them under the so-called well-tried mechanisms of the Maxwell Fyfe directive to undermine political democracy in Britain.
Secondly, those people have done so outside any form of ministerial control. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has been Home Secretary, and others in Governments of whom I have been a part have occupied that position, and I cannot believe that they knew what was going on. If they did not know what was going on, the Maxwell Fyfe directive was wholly ineffective in its operation—and I understand it is to be weakened in the new legislation.
Thirdly, when evidence of this behaviour came to light, far from the Government pursuing the law breakers for their law breaking, they pursued the man who described the law breaking for his description of it. A Government who purport to pursue a policy of law and order made no issue of the fact that in Mr. Peter Wright‘s book—after all, he was a serious and respected member of the intelligence services—he described crimes that were committed, and made no attempt to investigate those crimes or bring him to justice. His only offence was that he wrote about them.
Then, of course, we come up against the justification for their action, and that is where the constitutional areas become most important. Anyone who has read any of the histories on these matters will know that the security services do not feel in any way responsible to the Government of the day. They believe they are responsible to the Crown. They represent the Crown in order to deal with subversion. I shall try to define the Crown and subversion in a moment.
Two new elements have rightly been brought into the debate by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), which must be put upon the record. First of all, the British security services are supervised completely by the American security services. I know that because I had responsibilities for many years for those areas that were a part of what was called the “special relationship”. The Americans control our security services, supervise them, lay down the rules under which they operate, and warn them against people whom they regard as unreliable in Britain, because that is the condition upon which the United States makes nuclear weapons available to us.
The second threat—rather more shadowy but none the less real—is that, within a federal Europe, it is the intention of the Commission that security would be seen as a federal function, in part because the internal frontiers will cease to matter, and the Community will have to tackle what it defines as subversion on a federal basis.
The methods used by the security services must be set out. There is widespread vetting not only of civil servants, but, of course, of those in defence industries. The Clerk of the House and all the officials of the House are vetted by the security services. This was revealed in evidence submitted to the Committee of Privileges of which I am a member. That says a lot for the division between the legislature and the Executive, because the Executive vets the officials of the legislature. The BBC is vetted down to the level of anyone is involved in the preparation of current affairs or news. The research assistants of Members of Parliament are vetted. We know that from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who brought the matter to the House.
The security services penetrate other services and actions of our national life. I shall give three examples. Cecil King, who purported to be a newspaper proprietor or a manager, was an agent of MI5, as was Tom Driberg, a former chairman of the Labour party. Lord Rothschild, who, when I worked closely with him, I took to be an industrialist brought in to help our think tank, was actually working for MI5 throughout that period.
Massive telephone interception and the opening of letters occur. Charles II nationalised the Post Office in 1660 because he wanted to see what people were writing to one another. Therefore, the Home Secretary is carrying on a good tradition in trying to intercept postal and telephone services and to legalise it. The Home Secretary is the most appropriate person to be moving the Bill, because when I tried to make a speech in 1976 in a church in his constituency at Burford to celebrate the Levellers, he wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to get the grant for the Workers’ Educational Association withdrawn. He is therefore consistent in his opposition to dissent in any century by anybody.
Hon. Douglas Hurd (Witney)
rose—
Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
I have the correspondence.
Hon. Douglas Hurd (Witney)
I remember inquiring 12 years ago why the taxpayers’ money was being used to help the right hon. Gentleman support the Levellers in Burford.
Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
The right hon. Gentleman, with the sort of naivety that adds to his charm, confesses to the charge that I laid against him, that when he heard I was to speak at a church in Burford about the Levellers, he wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to try to bring pressure to bear so as to withdraw a grant from the WEA that had invited me. He has confirmed my argument, and he is consistent. He does not believe in dissent in any century, including the present one.
The other area in which the security services have operated is in redefining subversion. There is no doubt that the phrase that became popular during the miners’ strike of “the enemy within” had been defined much earlier by the security services. The enemy within includes the trade union movement and many members of the Labour party and peace movement. That definition was undoubtedly one of the factors that led to the attempt to destroy Harold Wilson. In my opinion, it was also used, but for different reasons, to remove the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), because the security services thought that he was too weak.
The methods used by the security services include the collection of damaging information and fabricating misinformation—as with the forging of Ted Short‘s bank account, which was leaked to Chapman Pincher. So much for lifelong confidentiality, when the security services regularly use certain journalists to feed out damaging information to destroy people they do not like. One cannot overlook the fact that Peter Wright confirmed Anthony Nutting‘s claim that Sir Anthony Eden ordered the assassination of another head of state, President Nasser. Anthony Nutting confirmed on television what Wright had written.
The question one must now ask is, what safeguards will there be under the new Act? Supposing Ted Short, as Lord President, had appealed to discover whether his bank account had been forged, to whom would his appeal have gone? Would it have gone to the Cabinet? No. Would it have gone to the Prime Minister? No. It would have gone to a commissioner appointed for the purpose by a previous Government.
When Bruce Kent‘s telephone was tapped, what safeguards would have existed then? If he had written to whoever it may have been and asked, “Is my phone being tapped?”, the only answer he would have received was not whether his phone was being tapped but whether the security services were abusing their rights—and those rights are covered by warrant and by a commission. The victims do not know what is being done to them, and the perpetrators do not wish to make complaints that might reveal the crimes they are perpetrating. The exceptions are one or two people such as Clive Ponting and Cathy Massiter, who were moved by their consciences, to act.
I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not. The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.
I asked the Home Secretary whether Ministers, who, after all, are Crown servants, will be covered by the new rules. It will be difficult to bind the Prime Minister to lifelong confidentiality as Bernard Ingham, on her instruction, breaches it at 11 o’clock every morning for the benefit of selected lobby correspondents who never make clear what has gone on. Are we really saying that anyone who is elected to Parliament, who becomes a Minister and discovers things he believes that it is in the public interest should be made known, will be bound to confidentiality for life? Or will anybody else? I have cited Ministers as they are uniquely accountable to those who elect them.
The reality is that there is nothing different about security. In its proper sense, security is part of the country’s defence forces, and no one denies that the country needs defence forces. But contrast the way security is treated with the other parts of the defence forces. Every year Parliament debates defence policy, but it never debates security policy—I am not talking about security operations. Parliament never discusses the definition of a subversive person—which is currently based on a phrase written years ago by a civil servant for Lord Harris in the House of Lords. We have never discussed whether as a Parliament we believe that being a member of CND makes a person subversive. That was decided by the Ministry of Defence, which told Cathy Massiter to bug Bruce Kent.
Parliament debates defence policy and votes a budget for the country’s defence establishment. It does not know the budget of the security establishment. Parliament knows the Chiefs of the Defence Staff and can ask parliamentary questions about defence matters. The issue is only confused by those who say that we cannot be told about individual security operations. Of course nobody wants to know a rumour that a bomber is coming to London. We do not want a parliamentary question that leads to the Minister responsible replying, “We think that a bomber is staying at a Bayswater hotel.” That is not the point at issue. The question is whether a state within the state, employing people with no feeling of responsibility to the Government elected by the people of this country, can continue as it is.
The Government wish to conceal information because that suits their book. I dare say that all Governments will want to conceal information—[Interruption.] It is not my purpose to make a party point. I hope that hon. Members will give me some credit. I am trying to raise a matter that is of equal concern in all parts of the House and to every elector. It would not alter matters very much if my right hon. and hon. Friends were occupying the Government Benches and those of hon. Gentlemen were seated on the Opposition Benches. I am clear about that. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the record, they will find that, as a Cabinet Minister, I raised the same questions on the Labour party’s national executive and submitted a memorandum that warned of the dangers. That was 10 years ago.
When one considers that the Government sent in the police to remove the Zircon film, and the prosecutions of Tisdall and Ponting, one realises that the real conflict concerns both sides of the House and those who elect us. We have heard much about the oxygen of publicity for Sinn Fein. Democracy lives by the oxygen of information. If one cuts off the oxygen of information and releases instead the poisonous gas of secrecy, misinformation and news management, one destroys the basis on which this House safeguards our people. The House of Commons is the real guarantor of the liberties of the people, not those individuals in little offices who have their own ideas about who is subversive and who engage in bugging, blackmailing and in destroying the reputations of those whom they do not like.
Democracy’s second safeguard is conscience. There is no substitute in law, administrative action or court ruling for the person, be they man or woman, who says, “What is being done is wrong and I shall speak my mind and take the consequences.” If one removes the safeguard of conscience from people who, in the course of their work, may come across something they feel it would be in the public interest to divulge—whether one gaols them, punishes them, or makes them into public villains—they would only be doing what we told the Germans at the Nuremberg trials they should have done, which was to disregard unjust orders—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Of course that is what the Nuremberg trials were all about.
Parliament must protect these principles. In many ways I share the view of the hon. Member for Thanet, South. Next week I shall have been here 38 years. I have never known a House of Commons that has been so craven in surrendering one of its rights after another—surrendering powers to the EEC, accepting 120 foreign bases, and now, in the name of security, handing over even greater powers to the Executive. If we do not stand up here and now it will be too late—
Mr Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)
I am approaching my last sentence.
We must make a stand here and now or we shall find that, in the name of freedom, we are surrendering our liberties.
WHO THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE? WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY? AND WHY ARE THEY IMMUNE TO LAW?
BECAUSE ROTHSCHILD’S A JEW? AND THEREFORE, BRINGING CHARGES WOULD BE DEEMED ANTI-SEMITIC?
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North)
To ask the Attorney-General whether he is considering bringing any prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act arising from the “Spycatcher” episode.
Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)
No, Sir.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he is not yet prosecuting Lord Rothschild?
Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)
My answer as to why no prosecution was being brought was given several months ago. To bring such a prosecution would not have been in conformity with the Attorney-General‘s published guidelines for prosecutors.
Mr Michael Fallon (Darlington)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it extraordinary that, even after yesterday’s outrage, the Opposition still do not support the need to uphold the duty of confidentiality of those who work in our security service in order to defend the country from terrorism and subversion?
Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)
I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There seems to be a certain ambivalence in the attitude of Opposition Members to that litigation. I venture to suggest that if we were not prepared to incur the cost of litigation to uphold the duty to which my hon. Friend has referred, the cost would very soon be more than money.
TRY TO DEFINE THE CROWN?
SO WHO THE HELL IS IT THAT ARE PROSECUTING US?
AN UNKNOWN, CENTRAL STATE WITHIN A STATE, SUBJECT TO NO-ONE AND SUBJECT TO NO PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY?
AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE WANTS TO DO WHAT? PROSECUTE WHO? FOR WHAT?
WHO IS PROSECUTING US?
As for this piece of absolute trash:
Sir John Morris (Aberavon)
I, too, wholeheartedly welcome the Attorney-General back to his place in the House.
What is the prime consideration in relation to prosecutions? Is it damage to national security, or is it political embarrassment? Does the Attorney-General maintain consistency in his approach to Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting and to others such as Mr. West, Mr. Pincher, Lord Rothschild and the security men who may have leaked information to those people? Has not section 2 of the Official Secrets Act been virtually put out to grass and replaced in practical terms as a damage limitation exercise by actions for breach of confidentiality?
Mr Michael Havers (Wimbledon)
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind remarks. He used the word prosecutions, not for the first time during my questions. In fact, the proceedings in Australia are civil proceedings. There is no way in which we can prosecute under the Official Secrets Act in another country. With regard to the action in Australia, the principle has been brought out clearly today that it is the Government’s determination to establish that once a man joins a service in which he promises to keep secret for the rest of his life all that he finds, that principle should be upheld.
So you cannot prosecute in another Commonwealth country where the Queen is the Head of State? Her Majesty had her Governor General destroy the Government of Gough Whitlam in 1975!
So Her Majesty can do that but Her Majesty cannot prosecute in Australia, an individual who has broken the law relating to her Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act? Didn’t we just say it is the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE?
Then if the CROWN can’t prosecute certain people then what sort of CROWN is this?
I’ll tell you what sort of CROWN it is: It is a CROWN, within which ROTHSCHILD plays a very significant part alongside his lackey Lizzie!
Jacob strikes again!
No, no, no, your honour. I am not implying anything at all.
I’m stating it as fact: You’re ALL on the take! And from the moment that prick Rothschild swore his Torah oath and took a seat in Parliament (and you lot changed the requirements of oath taking just for him) you were all owned.
The Trojan Horse of Rothschild. The Cabinet and majority of Lords and MPs of any use: Owned by this clan.
Mr Mike Hall (Weaver Vale, Labour)
One report that has not been referred to so far is the third report, into the mining operations of British Coal. I shall refresh the memory of those who do not remember the details of the sale of British Coal. The Government sold British Coal in December 1994 for the reported sum of £926 million. However, the PAC drew attention to the fact that the Government, in preparing British Coal for privatisation, had spent £37 million specifically on those preparations. They had spent another £582 million on minor redundancies. A post-sale adjustment to the price reduced it by £6.4 million. Another £136 million was deferred. Logic and mathematics show that the Government received only £212 million in cash for the whole of the British coal industry.
That is not the full story. Before the Government sold British Coal, they wrote off £2 billion of debt and, at the point of the sale, they wrote off another £1.6 billion. The class IV vote for 1994–95 shows that in that year the taxpayer was receiving £112 million per anum from British Coal in interest payments. The Government had only to keep British Coal in public ownership for another three years and we would have had more money in the public purse than they received for selling it—unless we take into account the fact that, because British Coal was sold, the Government were able to reclaim £2 billion from the surplus in the British Coal pension fund. Even taking that into account, by my reckoning the taxpayer is still £1 billion out of pocket. Only this month, we have heard of the problems now besetting the privatised British coal fields.
I am very concerned about the role of Rothschild in that privatisation. It was awarded a £9.1 million contract to advise British Coal on the sale. Initially, firms were invited to tender for the provision of advice on the preliminary sale. Rothschild was the preferred bidder for the preliminary work, but it was then appointed, without further competition, to advise on the whole sale. The decision was taken by the then Secretary of State for Energy, now Lord Wakeham. It was contrary to the guidelines set out in the PAC’s eighth report in 1993 about open competition for Government business. It was probably also outside European guidelines. What concerns me most is that on 20 May 1996, when we took evidence on the sale of British Coal, we were told that Lord Wakeham was then working for Rothschild.
But then money certainly does talk because, let’s face it, this is one ugly little prick:
Nat & "date": I wonder what her P&L requirements are? Or perhaps it's the asset side of the balance sheet? Or, perhaps, she's more interested in the cash flow.
Different female, same questions.
"No really, the Earth will die and us with it if the family doesn't succeed in having your governments tax you so that we can buy up large swathes of land and forest (anything woth a buck or two in fact) and "protect" it from you but for you if you see what I mean? Ah ok, for us then once we depopulate.
He wants to save the world from Plastic!
What is it with so many people that they just seem completely unable to put 2+2 together and make 4?
But sorry Nat. Even as a guy, I have to say, you got the ugly gene mate! Yer dad obviously hasn’t been too good at keeping apace with the eugenics/genetics fraternity. He’s been too busy studying the weather!
ORDER! ORDER!
DO NOT DARE SUGGEST OR IMPLY ANYTHING WHICH IS CLEARLY OBVIOUS AND THAT THE PUBLIC MAY DEMAND IS THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED!
But Investigated by whom? You can see clearly what the issue is – as can they – yet they refuse to allow such to be discussed. It is this “People elected (or not) to this house can do no wrong” ideology. It raises them above the law for it is not to be implied, nor discussed.
Guthrie: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath; Officer of the Order of the Bitish Empire; Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order; Chief of the Defence Staff between 1997 and 2001 and Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the British Army, between 1994 and 1997; non-executive director of N M Rothschild & Sons, Colt Defense LLC, and Chairman (non-executive) of Siboney Ltd
You try working for both, a car manufacturer (as a buyer) and have a non executive directorship in a supplier to the car manufacturer who sells the latter parts. See how far you get!
We cannot allow this shit to go on! But, for some reason, we do.
You think this man made his money from being a good Military Officer?
Guthrie Eric Joyce (PPS (Rt Hon John Hutton, Secretary of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Falkirk, Labour)Fundamentally, it is true that how much money we spend as a nation on defence is a big issue. We frame it in terms of a proportion of our gross domestic product or sometimes we talk about increasing expenditure in real terms. Whatever we do, there is an argument to be won with the public at large. For that reason, when we talk about the military covenant, we should think in those terms—of the public at large—rather than just in terms of the relationship between Ministers, the Government and service personnel.I want to add a mild note of criticism. People generally tend not to criticise the Royal British Legion and, on the whole, I do not either. I do think, however, that a touch of some aspects of its campaign over the military covenant has jumped into that space for criticism. It may have been done for good campaigning reasons, but it has jumped into that space where people have tended to view the campaign as a criticism of the Government. I find it slightly peculiar that the Royal British Legion put on events at party conferences, yet did not allow Ministers to speak on the grounds that it would be political. Why come to party political conferences? It seemed rather peculiar. The Royal British Legion's campaign has largely been sound and appropriately delivered, but some aspects in the margins should be thought about again more critically before it launches into its next big campaign on whatever subject.Guthrie
Eric Joyce (PPS (Rt Hon John Hutton, Secretary of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Falkirk, Labour:
I would now like to say a few words about what I believe to have been disgraceful behaviour in the other place, which was co-ordinated and organised by the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. These are people who want to put themselves above politics, yet they will quite happily stand at the launch of a perfectly legitimate “Way Forward” Tory party document. I realise that Conservative Way Forward is more a Tory think-tank than an official party document, but it is preposterous in the extreme to think that former chiefs of staff can write a foreword to a political pamphlet and then try to pretend that they are above politics. That is a farce. Frankly, although I realise that they have a great deal to contribute—they are enormously talented and capable officers—if they want to put their political cards on the table, let them do it, but let us not shilly-shally about what their political sentiments are.
BlackBerrys are a miracle. I think I am right in saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am allowed to get some data on my BlackBerry as I am sitting here. I say that because this may not be a complete list. I do not think that General Guthrie mentioned the fact that he was a paid director of Colt Defence, Siboney Ltd, Sciens Capital, and Rothschild; or that Field Marshall Inge mentioned that he was a paid director of Aegis, which clearly has interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
- Sir Evelyn Rothschild
They are excellent companies, by the way, and I know that they will be very excited and pleased to see themselves referred to in this place today. Lord Boyce is a paid director of WS Atkins and of Vosper Thornycroft. I may be wrong, as I have just had a quick perusal of the Hansard from the other place. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what the rules are and I doubt whether they have broken any of them. However, I will say that former chiefs of staff are probably earning more from their directorships than paid Members of this House and that if they do not want to declare those directorships and if they want to get politicised and personalised—
- Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 12 December 2007, c355)
Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It is one thing to refer to the qualifications and interests of Members of the other House, but he must be careful not to imply anything else when he makes these remarks.
- Hansard source (Citation: HC Deb, 12 December 2007, c357)
Eric Joyce (PPS (Rt Hon John Hutton, Secretary of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Falkirk, Labour)
I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me just say that if they want to become personalised and politicised and to earn lots of money from interests that they do not declare before they make a speech, that will enormously devalue how they are perceived. That would be a great pity, as it would devalue their advice and their comments, which would be highly regrettable.
Just have the balls to say it Eric: They’re on the take!
Come on folks. Stop letting these bastards take the piss out of you all. Make your voices heard.
Climate Change: Lord Rothschild will make it all go away!
DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD, IF SCOTLAND, ENGLAND, IRELAND AND WALES, SELL ALL OUR NATIONAL ASSETS TO YOU FOR YOUR EXPLOITATION AND CONTROL, WILL YOU PLEASE ENSURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOES NOT EFFECT THE BRITISH ISLES?
Jacob: YES MY SON.
Is Alex Salmond your man?
Jacob: YES MY SON.
Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat)
Needless to say, I am delighted to participate in the debate, which highlights the success of the Lib Dem-led campaign to save our forests. Roseanna Cunningham showed excellent timing when she announced the U-turn on the morning of the upbeat Lib Dem conference, so I thank her for that.
As Sarah Boyack was correct to say, it is time to move on, and the Liberal Democrat amendment does so constructively. What we witnessed in the past few months was not about new inventive ideas to tackle climate change or being creative, although those terms were drummed into us; rather, a brazen and reckless attempt was made to undermine one of Scotland’s most valuable assets by selling it off to the highest bidder.
Throughout the discussion, the Government resorted to petty personalised attacks on the Liberal Democrat campaign and treated industry, individuals and organisations—indeed, anyone who disagreed with its so-called great proposal—with contempt. Mike Russell even accused others of being theatrical. Such an attitude from a minister is shocking and, considering the potential impacts of leasing on Scotland and the scale of what was proposed, it was sheer arrogance to assume that the proposal could be pushed through Parliament by piggybacking on the simplistic idea that it would solve all our climate change problems.
Throughout the debate in January, Mr Russell accused the Liberal Democrat contribution and response to the consultation of being “fact free”. He said:
“There is nothing so dishonourable as politicians who don’t do their homework while confidently trotting out wildly inaccurate statements for political benefit.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2009; c 14498.]
In fact, the Liberal Democrat response has proven to be entirely accurate and has reflected the views of land-based organisations, tourism providers, foresters and wood processors at every stage. Those businesses have been in serious limbo since last November and, in January, 19 of the main wood processors sent the minister a letter stating exactly that. That limbo was due to the Government’s mad proposal and to the Tories, who did not stand up against it initially and made their U-turn only after their Scottish National Party masters. Mike Russell ignored everyone, decried their expertise and passed them off as scaremongers who did not do their homework—what arrogance and ignorance.
Throughout the debate, references were made to the Stern report, but nowhere in that document did Lord Stern conclude that 100,000 hectares of Scotland’s most commercially viable forests should be sold to the Rothschild banking group for a notional sum of up to £200 million for 75 years. In that same debate, Mike Russell pronounced in prophetic fashion:
“Although leasing is not a new idea, I believe that its time has come.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2009; c 14497.]
Its time had come—its time to be buried with all the SNP’s other misguided flights of fancy.
Who would have thought that, within a month, Mr Russell would be removed from his minister’s position, obviously for flogging that dead horse? I welcome the new minister’s U-turn, even though Ms Cunningham had thought the leasing proposal a “cunning plan” in January. I am sincerely relieved that sense has prevailed: the decision has removed the guillotine of uncertainty that was hanging over rural communities, which can now invest for the future.
It is now time to move on. We have an opportunity to implement, under the Forestry Commission’s stewardship, sensible measures that will generate income for renewables, access, tourism and new tree planting and will guarantee the wood supply for our businesses. The Government should now concentrate on doing its best for Scotland through real and tangible measures to tackle climate change.
I move amendment S3M-3727.4, to insert at end:
“and further calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a comprehensive sustainable land-use strategy, taking into account the strategic economic, social and environmental impacts and benefits of forestry, agriculture, recreation and other land uses and setting out, where appropriate, the contribution each can make in dealing with the consequences of climate change.”
Crud-ass
From: Earthling
To: jon.cruddas@compassonline.org.uk
Subject: RE: After the veto – what future for Britain in Europe?
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:59:06 +0000
Jon Cruddas MP
It’s been a dramatic and tumultuous week for Britain’s future in Europe. It is why leading figures from Compass, Policy Network and the Social Liberal Forum have written to The Guardian criticising David Cameron’s use of the veto and urging all on the centre-left to get behind a European Financial Transaction Tax, you can read the letter published today by clicking here.
Off of the back of this week’s political events we would like to invite you to a special Westminster Debate we have organised in partnership with Policy Network entitled After the veto: what future for Britain in Europe? from 6pm – 7.30pm on Tuesday 17 January in the Commons (speakers to be confirmed). Spaces are very limited and we expect demand to be high – click here to register now.
We have organised this debate because at Compass we fundamentally believe that Britain’s future and that of the good society does indeed lie in Europe.
It is why in 2008 I published with Andrea Nahles, a leading figure in the German SPD, Building the Good Society. Now our network stretches across twenty European nations as we’ve been building the idea of Europe and the good society. Conferences and events are taking place across the continent on the themes of equality, sustainability and democracy.
With key elections in France and Germany in 2012, for the European Parliament in 2014 and then the UK in 2015 it is critical the centre-left builds a set of ideas, polices and organisation for the good society in Europe and takes power on that basis.
That is why we’re also delighted to announce that a major new book on this theme has just been published entitled The Future of European Social Democracy: Building the Good Society edited by Henning Meyer and Jonathan Rutherford. Click here for full details.
So if you care about Britain’s future at the heart of Europe and that of a good society, we would ask you to do two things. First, sign up to the event in January; second get your copy of the new book.
Now is the time to get engaged in the debate on the future of Europe.
Jon
JON CRUUDAS MP, MEMBER OF THE COMPASS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
ADOLF HITLER: “Can I have my V2 back please?”
Previously unreleased material dating back to World War 2 has been unearthed by a BBC researcher which sheds some light on the mental state of Adolf Hitler in the last years of the war.
The V-2 rocket (German: Vergeltungswaffe 2, i.e. retaliation weapon 2), technical name Aggregat-4 (A4), was a ballistic missile that was developed at the beginning of the Second World War in Germany, specifically targeted at London and later Antwerp. The liquid-propellant rocket was the world’s first long-range combat-ballistic missileand first known human artifact to enter outer space. It was the progenitor of all modern rockets.
Over 3,000 V-2s were launched as military rockets by the German Wehrmacht against Allied targets during the war, mostly London and later Antwerp. The attacks resulted in the death of an estimated 7,250 military personnel and civilians.
Apparently, the BBC researcher has uncovered details relating to private telephone calls from Hitler to Winston Churchill, during which, he requested for the return of those rockets which had malfunctioned and, while landing in the middle of London, had not detonated. The transcripts reveal that Hitler became more and more upset during these calls to Churchill and that Churchill would make tape recordings of the calls and play them back to his ministers during the weekly “Rum and Cigar” nights at Number 10. Churchill is believed to have remarked that the recordings would provide hours of light entertainment for his guests considering the sheer naivety and, dare I say it, “chutzpah” of the German Premier.
Further detail refers to Hermann Goring statements relating to the requests:
Hermann Goring admitted that he did not think it likely that the rocket would be returned.
“We are very clearly making known our concerns. We submitted a formal request for the return of our lost equipment, as we would in any situation. Given Britain’s behaviour to date, we do not expect them to reply,” he said.
He said that despite numerous “provocations” from Britain, the Reich would continue to pursue a “diplomatic approach”.
Since the papers have been released just in the last 48 hours, Pentagon officials, Members of the Senate and Congress and also the Whitehouse itself have made the following statements:
“The guy was obviously off his trolley!”
“That mad German”
“The only reason he finance the development was because he issued his own currency therefore he didn’t have huge debts to repay the jewish bankers…… oops! Can I say that?” Anonymous.
“The man was clinically insane!”
“Never trust a nation that starts talking in terms of a ‘Fatherland’….. No, ‘Homeland’ is totally fine!”
Benjamin Netanyahu is reported to have said: “The Master Race my arse! WE’RE the Chosen ones….. always have been always will be!”
A reporter for Haaretz asked Netanyahu what the difference was between the ideology of a people thinking they were the “Master Race” to one thinking they were the “Chosen People”? To which Netanyahu replied:
“Do you think God chose Hitler? Even today, it’s our money and Lloyd Blankfein captues it so well when he says ‘We do God’s Work’. Anyhow ‘Chosen Ones’ sounds nicer doesn’t it?”
However, today, we have just learned the following. After years of sabre rattling and threats from the USA and Israel on Iran, President Obama has just requested the return of his drone.
Officials at the Pentagon and Whitehouse have been contacted but have declined to comment.
US asks Iran to return captured drone
President Barack Obama has said the US government has requested that Tehran return the surveillance drone captured by Iran’s military earlier this month.
Mr Obama said he would not comment on classified intelligence matters, but confirmed: “We have asked for it back. We’ll see how the Iranians respond.”
"CAN I HAVE MY DRONE BACK PLEASE?"
Iranian TV broadcast pictures of the intact RQ-170 Sentinel last week.
Tehran said the aircraft was brought down using electronic warfare; Washington insisted it malfunctioned.
Earlier on Monday, Iranian state TV reported that military experts were in the final stages of recovering data from the drone.
A member of the Iranian parliament’s national security committee, Parviz Sorouri, said the information they extracted would be used to “file a lawsuit against the United States over the invasion” by the aircraft.
‘Provocations’
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that she did not think it likely that the drone would be returned.
“We are very clearly making known our concerns. We submitted a formal request for the return of our lost equipment, as we would in any situation. Given Iran’s behaviour to date, we do not expect them to reply,” she said.
She said that despite numerous “provocations” from Iran, the US would continue to pursue a “diplomatic approach”.
The Revolutionary Guards, whose officers were filmed inspecting the drone on Thursday, said it crossed Iran’s eastern border with Afghanistan and travelled 250km (155 miles) inside its airspace, before being brought down in a cyber attack.
However, US officials have said that intelligence assessments indicated that Iran neither shot down the aircraft nor used electronic warfare or cyber-technology to force it from the sky. They blamed a malfunction.
They are, however, concerned that Iran or its allies may be able to determine the chemical composition of the drone’s radar-deflecting paint, or copy its engine, control systems, and sophisticated cameras and sensors, which allow it to monitor the ground from high altitude.
The Iranian government has sent a letter of protest to the United Nations, accusing the US of “provocative and secret actions” violating international law, and warning against any “repetition of such actions”.
A former US official has said the Pentagon was using the drone to keep watch on Iran’s controversial nuclear programme. Western powers believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, which it denies.
Back to the V2:
Missile strikes were often devastating, causing large numbers of deaths—160 killed and 108 seriously injured in one explosion on 25 November 1944 in mid-afternoon, striking a Woolworth’s department store in New Cross, south-east London. It is alleged that Adolf Hitler adored Pick n Mix from Woolworth’s but, at the onset of WW2, there was an embargo on the store from exporting to Germany. That pissed Hitler off! For some unexplained reason, however, it would appear that, while the embargo stopped candy from being exported, it didn’t stop Standard Oil from keeping the machinery of the Nazi Army from operating.
Well, that’s war for ya!
After these deadly results, British intelligence leaked falsified information implying that the rockets were over-shooting their London target by 10 to 20 miles. This tactic worked and for the remainder of the war most landed in Kent due to erroneous recalibration.
The final two rockets exploded on 27 March 1945. One of these was the last V-2 to kill a British civilian: Mrs. Ivy Millichamp, aged 34, killed in her home in Kynaston Road, Orpington in Kent, evidencing the German re-calibration.
A Spokesman for the Bank of England explained “We couldn’t have these rockets exploding in the City old Chap! There’s Rothschilds and high class people to think about and prime real estate you know! Ivy who did you say?”
Mrs Millichamp was unavailable for comment.
Is it just me or has the world gone insane and these puppets of Rothschild and Co are just taking the piss now?
EU Parliament: Bilderberg. The shit is hitting the fan!
Or, if you prefer, here’s another way of putting it:
leave a comment