Posted in "Terrorism", The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized by earthling on December 15, 2011

The BBC and MI5. You tell people this and you even show them and, no matter, they STILL think you wear a “tinfoil hat”. The problem with such people is that is all they have as ammunition against what is plainly in their face and, if they were to allow themselves to acknowledge these things, they would become very ill at ease and, perhaps, would not be able to handle it.

The point is, the BBC is and always has been, what so many of us know: A “programmed” propaganda outfit of the establishment programming (in so many ways) what and how the British people and many over the world within the commonwealth and elsewhere, should think. Nevertheless, us Brits will still wave our little flags at a Royal family which is screwing us all to the wall. Even screwing the families of the very soldiers who, ignorantly, die for her, her establishment, their prized possessions (countries and corporations). Ahh if only the typical soldier had a brain huh?


The Telegraph: BBC & MI5


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)


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.

Tony Benn Crown

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.



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.






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!


Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 14, 2011


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—

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.

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.

Hansard Text and video

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!

Posted in "Climate Change" by earthling on December 14, 2011


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.”

What we need is OFFSHORE Solar!

Posted in "Climate Change" by earthling on December 13, 2011

Since when did you ever hear of Solar plants being built in the North Sea and throughout the UK’s offshore interests?

You didn’t did you? What a STUPID idea Earthling!

And indeed it is! Absolutely ridiculous!

And that is why the UK is now cutting Solar incentives! You see, while the Green renewable age began with the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth” (a MUST read for all you Friends of the Earth and Greenies) followed by “The first  Global Revolution” we can’t possibly have this:

“In a time of economic gloom, the solar industry has been one of the UK’s brightest success stories, enabling homes and communities across the country to free themselves from expensive fossil fuels.”

Because that isn’t what this game is about you silly “Environmentalists” who support etc (Rockefeller funded organisations). It’s not to FREE you! How extraordinarily naive of you! Why would those who dreamed up this entire scheme and who own and control the world’s energy resources, wish to then allow you to live freely of them? Are you seriously nuts?

The game is to “reinvent” energy but in a way that these people will still control it whether it is natural Free energy from wind or from sea or solar. If we all became self sufficient for goodness sakes, these people would lose $billions if not $trillions. Come on folks! Think will you? Finally?










Have a read:  the-crown-is-profiting-from-your-misery-fuel-bills-anyone




And here was you thinking Monopolies were illegal! It’s not only the monopoly of currency issuance by the Bank of England but also the total monopoly of the National Grid. Are you beginning to see why?


HC Deb 14 February 1995 vol 254 cc792-6 …

Mr. Blair   Following the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment last Thursday to reducing inequality, may we now put it to the test? As the national electricity grid is an absolute monopoly subject to no competition, will the right hon. Gentleman act against the excesses of the few regional electricity chiefs who stand to make £50 million out of share options on the back of it?

§The Prime Minister   I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I find much of his opposition to share options rather synthetic since a good deal of his leadership campaign was financed out of the proceeds of share options.

Now one must remember, reading the above, that your Energy “supplier” does not supply at all. THAT is a “legal fiction” and they don’t like you to appreciate that! If you “change suppliers” do you think for one moment you are getting a completely different supply of gas and electricity through your system? 🙂 It ALL comes from the same source and that source is the National Grid. It is the National Grid which is your SUPPLIER. So your “supplier” (and for that matter, the government) are letting you, in your ignorance, believe little fables. The Energy “suppliers” are basically a consortium of Customer service and maintenance people who provide you with “competition” on tariffs from exactly the same source!

There’s a lot more about that little angle but perhaps for another blog sometime!

High Court application against UK solar incentive cuts

12 December 2011

The UK High Court has agreed to hear applications by Friends of the Earth and solar companies Solarcentury and HomeSun for permission to challenge Government plans to slash financial incentives for solar electricity on Thursday 15 December 2011.

By Kari Williamson

Confirmation of the hearing follows an earlier High Court ruling rejecting permission for a legal challenge. The organisations are now asking the High Court to reverse the decision and allow a hearing into the legal challenges regarding solar incentive cuts as soon as possible.

Friends of the Earth is also asking the High Court to cap its potential legal costs for the case. International rules specify that costs should be limited in public interest cases on the environment.

The legal challenges centre around the plans by the UK Government to slash feed-in tariff subsidies for solar photovoltaic (PV) installations completed after 12 December this year.

The Government is currently running a consultation into feed-in tariffs – but the 12 December cut-off point comes two weeks before the consultation ends.

Friends of the Earth’s Executive Director Andy Atkins, says: “We strongly believe Government plans to abruptly slash solar subsidies are illegal, we hope the High Court agrees to allow our case to be heard as soon as possible.

“We’ve also asked the High Court to cap our potential costs. International rules say this should be allowed in public interest cases on the environment – we can’t afford to bring a challenge if we face unlimited liability for the other side’s legal fees.

“In a time of economic gloom, the solar industry has been one of the UK’s brightest success stories, enabling homes and communities across the country to free themselves from expensive fossil fuels.

“It’s short sighted for Ministers to move the goalposts and prematurely pull the subsidy – this will cost tens of thousands of jobs, bankrupt businesses and reduce Treasury income by up to £230m a year.”


Meanwhile, you may want to give this a little ponder because, once this infrastructure is in, there is no need to pay tariffs to Energy companies. It is truly self sustaining with just the need for maintenance. And very little of it.

Once the investment is sunk, why is there need for ongoing bills?

The answer: There isn’t!

Science Fiction or Legal Fiction?

Posted in Law by earthling on December 12, 2011

Various uses of Legal fictions. What one must remember is that each and every human being, each separate capacity (father,mother, daughter, son, teacher, Policeman etc) and each and every NATION and PARLIAMENT is a legal fiction.

The UK itself, is a legal fiction. The Queen’s powers are legal fiction. The EU’s supremacy is a legal fiction. While, as you will see, they dismiss legal fictions when it suits them. If they do not like a bill or the way a law works, they will attack the legal fictionality of it. Why? Because, when they do, they know there is no logical argument for not doing so!

What makes you a citizen or a subject of a nation? A LEGAL FICTION. All here in black and white. While it is obvious to those who understand how this MATRIX works, it is worthwhile showing it to others who don’t understand and revealing it in THEIR own words!

So, it is my hope that, in reading the following, the reader will recognise that, if a country and nationality/citizenship is purely legal fiction (which it is) then one, as a PERSON, legally recognised as a “citizen” is also a legal fiction. There is no two ways about this.  That legal fiction, in law, is refered to as a “Natural person” simply to differentiate it from being a “legal person” (a Corporation). The differentiation is then just for the law to exact its policy and regulations on different types of legal fictions – You CANNOT have a law stating that a corporation is disallowed to smoke in a public space now can you? Corporations do not give birth – although that is debatable because Corporations create subsidiaries which may be considered birth since the Corporation is considered the Parent company!



HC Deb 19 November 1964 vol 702 cc603-4603

§10.Mr. Abse            asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many debtors were committed to prison by county courts for commercial debts in 1953, and in 1963; what was the estimated cost last year of maintaining in prison such debtors; and whether, in view of the growth of professional debt purchasing companies and the increase in the granting of credit, he will, in the interests of taxpayers, review the workings of Section 5 of the Debtors Act, 1869, and Section 144(1) of the County Courts Act, 1959, which give powers of imprisonment for debt, with a view to amending them.
§Miss Bacon            928 persons committed by county courts were received into prison in 1953 and 7,047 in 1963. On the basis that prison costs worked out at about £500 a year for each inmate, the estimated annual cost of maintaining the daily average of 200 persons so imprisoned in 1963 was about £100,000, but the saving, had they not been sent to prison, would of course have been much less. The matter raised in the last part of the Question is one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.
§Mr. Abse            Will my hon. Friend agree that these mounting figures are most dis-            604            maying? Is she aware that there is a growing body of opinion which holds the view that it is wrong that the community should be subsidising the folly of those who may recklessly and of their own free will give credit? In particular, is she aware that there is a growing number of debt-collecting companies which are buying debts cheaply, trading on small commissions, and harassing people who are suffering from misfortune or their own fecklessness, and that people are beginning to believe that it is no part of the duty of the community to imprison people of this kind?
§Miss Bacon            I have a good deal of sympathy for my hon. Friend’s point of view, particularly in view of our overcrowded prisons at present, but I must emphasise that the reform of the civil law is a matter for the Lord Chancellor. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will keep in touch with the Lord Chancellor to see if anything can be done.
§Mr. Sydney Silverman            Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this may not be entirely a matter for the Lord Chancellor and may be a matter for the Administration as a whole? Does she not agree that imprisonment for debt in this part of the twentieth century is a massive anachronism that we ought to get rid of, and that the legal fiction whereby it is supposed that people are not in prison for debt but for some alleged contempt of court is itself contemptible and we ought to get rid of it?
§Miss Bacon            Yes, we will certainly look into the legal aspects of this matter. As I have said, I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed.


HC Deb 27 January 1954 vol 522 cc1753-879

Mr. Gower

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, if this right was granted, he would limit it to the people who are in actual occupation of the houses?

§Sir F. Soskice            Personally, I would. I am not tying myself to any particular scheme, but, looking at the arguments both ways, I should have thought that the people who ought to be helped by the scheme are those people who have been actually occupying lessees under long leases which are about to run out, and occupying houses which they consider to be their homes and actually to belong to them, except for a legal fiction, the origin of which stretches far away back into history to a legal accident of 100 years ago. Those are the people—

§Several Hon. Members rose—

§Sir F. Soskice            I am sorry, but I must get on with my speech.


HC Deb 09 April 1866 vol 182 cc958-65


said, he supposed that the management of certain rights included the receipt of any profit from them?

§MR. DARBY GRIFFITH            said, he understood the proposition to be a sort of adjustment between the property of the Crown and of the public, equalizing a liability on the one hand and a debt on the other. The property of the Crown and certain other matters frequently spoken of were all pure legal fiction, for the property of the Crown had been, since the settlement of 1688, arranged by the Civil List, and the Crown could not possibly resume that property. The foreshore rights were of an uncertain character originally, and had been sometimes exercised in a hostile manner to individuals.


HC Deb 17 August 1991 vol 195 cc422-35

Mr. Cryer

The Solicitor-General should clarify some of the sloppy wording in the clause. It states that if            any question arises whether a body which purports to have or, as the case may be, which appears to have lost corporate status            it will be granted a legal personality.

Corporate status is one of the prime means of crookery, fraud and milking money out of various organisations. Corporate status is granted as a convenience to allow capitalism to develop. It allows a fictional person to exist separate from the members of the organisation itself. That person has limited liability, does not become bankrupt and is not affected when the body corporate, with its separate and distinct legal personality, goes into liquidation. In that way, companies go into liquidation with their directors owing huge sums of money to them. Companies, with their separate, legal personality, lend money to the directors who form the company on extremely advantageous terms, sometimes without any repayment provisions.

§Mr. Fraser            That is illegal.
§Mr. Cryer            Yes, it is now, but I am talking about the history of corporate endeavour.We are dealing with a group of people who will be given corporate status, and who are from states which may not even be recognised, with legislation that will not be as comprehensive as United Kingdom legislation. These issues may apply to other states, and even United Kingdom legislation is not foolproof, is it?Will the legislation bring under the Banking Act 1987 all the bodies which purport to have lost corporate status or which have had that status under the laws of the territory concerned? If it does, that will ensure that the Bank of England will be able to scrutinise them. We know that under the Bank of England’s powers there is no possibility of any bank in this country engaging in fraudulent practices—unless, of course, we turn to immediate history and look at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Despite all the legislation, the Bank of England has not been able to find out what happened in that case.

POLICE BILL—(No. 392.)

HC Deb 04 August 1890 vol 347 cc1782-830

(10.27.)MR. ADDISON(Ashton-under-Lyue)

I really am quite astonished at the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Stockton (Sir H. Davey). All who are acquainted with Quarter Sessions know that they are a Court of Record, cognizant of such matters as those into which we are now inquiring, whereas the Borough Magistrates are not a Court at all in the legal sense of the word. The hon. Member for Sunderland speaks of a contest between Borough and Country Magistrates. I am well acquainted with Lancashire, and to say that there is any contest between the Borough Magistrates and the County Magistrates in that County, where there-are many Borough Magistrates, is a mere-fiction.

§*(10.29.)MR. BRUNNER(Cheshire, Northwich)            I am amazed to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that there is no jealousy between the Borough and the County Magistrates in Lancashire. At every Quarter Sessions complaints, are heard on the part of the Borough Magistrates of Manchester and Liverpool of their decisions being overridden                        1817            by the County Magistrates. I trust the Secretary of State will inform himself on this point. I can assure him that if ho does not listen with favour and consideration to the appeal on behalf of the Borough Magistrates, he will give a great deal of pain to a great many worthy supporters of the party of which he is a distinguished ornament. We have heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Addison) that Borough Magistrates are not a Court. Well, my hon. Friend, the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), who has been accused of ignorance, is well aware of that; it is a fact we have known for a long time; a fact which we dislike and which troubles us. We consider that Borough Magistrates, being such as we know them to be, are quite as capable of forming an opinion as Magistrates appointed by Lords Lieutenant of Counties. I trust yet that the Home Secretary will see fit to add these words which, by the hon. and learned Member for Stockton (Sir Horace Davey), have been declared to be necessary. I do not pretend to give a legal opinion, but it does not seem to me to be necessary that Borough Magistrates should be constituted a Court with full legal powers in order to act as a Court of Arbitration between policemen and those who govern them.


HL Deb 09 December 1915 vol 20 cc577-89


My Lords, the Bill to which I invite your Lordships to give a Second Reading to-day is of a simple character, and its object is to make provision with respect to companies of enemy character carrying on business in this country. Your Lordships require no reminder from me that trading with the enemy is in itself an offence except with His Majesty’s permission, but the legal fiction which prevents objection being taken in the case of an enemy company which is registered in the United Kingdom is one the reason for which it requires some legal acumen to discover. If instead cf being registered as a company these            578            people were engaged in an ordinary partnership and it was found out that they were alien enemies, the matter would be a very simple one indeed. But by a legal fiction —for it is absolutely a legal fiction—a company composed of twelve Germans can register under the Companies Acts here, and by that very simple process can be made, forsooth, an English company. A company so registered has been declared to be an English company, capable of doing everything that the legal person thus constituted by law may think proper to do by way of trade.

Legal fictions, I know, are not very popular with the general public. John Doe and Richard Roe have departed from among us, but they served a very useful purpose. But John Doe and Richard Roe were never allowed to be actual persons and to be so dealt with when they ran counter to common sense. An ingenious gentleman, in an action of ejectment, once pleaded that he had got a release from John Doe or Richard Roe— I forget which—but the Courts cut very short this treating of a legal fiction as a reality, for they sent him to prison for contempt of Court, and very justly. After all, legal fiction was intended as legal fiction; it was never intended that these fanciful persons should he invested with the ordinary powers of a natural person. So I think it might have been well if the Courts who had to deal with this question had recognised the fact that the legal entity is not different in its constitution when you come to deal with the question which was in debate in the case of the Continental Tyre and Rubber Company v. Messrs. Daimler. It was because the entity created has no nationality at all that the question of trading with the enemy was held not to arise.


HC Deb 26 August 1831 vol 6 cc669-96

Mr. Hunt

next moved, “that all persons who shall be excluded from voting for Members of Parliament, shall be exempt from the payment of taxes and rates, and from serving in the militia, and be protected from being compelled to serve in the navy, under the Impressment Law.” The principle on which he made this Motion was, that Taxation and Representation ought to go hand in hand. In our Law Courts it was supposed, that every man should know the law, and no man could be allowed to plead ignorance of the law, as it was presumed he had helped to make it by himself or his Representative. He wished to make this a fact instead of a legal fiction, by giving every man a right to make the law through his Representative, or exempt him from the payment of taxes to which he had never consented.

§Lord Althorp            said, that the principle of the hon. Member did not go far enough, for he ought to hold, that a person who did not vote for a Member of Parliament was not bound to obey the law.
§Mr. Hunt            thought the noble Lord was correct, and that was one reason why he wished for Universal Suffrage.

§        Amendment negatived.

§Mr. Praed            moved, that at the end of the clause there be inserted—”Provided always, that no person shall, by reason of anything herein contained, acquire a vote in the election for any city or borough, who shall, within twelve calendar months next previous to the 12th of November in                        687            the present year, or next previous to the last day of August in any succeeding year, have been in the receipt of parochial relief.”


HL Deb 21 July 1959 vol 218 cc315-56


With all deference to the most reverend Primate, that is not what the court is            338            asked to declare. The court is asked to declare that the child was born in lawful wedlock between Mrs. X and Y. Otherwise, by the laws of legitimacy as understood in this country, it could not be a legitimate child. It is that which personally I find so shocking.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, seemed to think—at least so I understood—that there was no material difference between the situation which I have just described and the situation which was dealt with by the Act of 1926, under which both the parents were unmarried at the time of the birth of the child and they merely, as it were, anticipated the ceremony. But to me at any rate, there is all the difference in the world between the two cases. In one case both were free to marry each other; in the other one or both was solemnly linked at the time in wedlock to another man or another woman. How is it possible for the court to ignore that fact? If I may say so with all deference—and this is a great impertinence—some lawyers always seem to think that by adding the adjective “legal” to the word “fiction” it makes it much more respectable, just as in politics when a Government wants to do something which is manifestly unjust to some section of the community it thinks it makes it sound better by calling it “social” justice. In both cases, the addition of the adjective is intended to produce a different and more agreeable atmosphere. But to the ordinary man, such as most of us in this House are, a fiction remains a fiction, whatever adjective is attached to it; a lie remains a lie even though it is condoned by the law.


HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083
LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:        Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and                993        Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject.        The noble Lord said: Since this is a complicated and very far-reaching Bill, it may be desirable that I should begin by explaining the purpose and effect of my Amendment…………
Apart from that, however, it is obviously a term that is quite applicable for the purposes for which it has been used by Canada and may be used by other Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are, after all, single geographical entities under one system of government, under which every member of the community has equal rights and responsibilities. But citizenship in that sense is obviously entirely inapplicable to a vast range of territories such as we have to deal with in the Colonial Empire and to an immense variety of peoples who        996        range in their standard of civilisation and of civic responsibility from the head-hunters of Borneo to noble Lords opposite. There is a very wide range within this single term of “citizenship,” and obviously there are great differences in that range in the sense of civic rights and civic responsibilities. There are also immense varieties of Governments and of rights and responsibilities, varying from universal adult franchise, as we have it here, to no franchise at all. All those variations would be brought together under the term “citizenship.” In fact, to cover the Colonial Empire the term “citizenship” must be wrenched from its proper significance. It can be defended, if it is to be defended—and this is what we dislike and wish to avoid—only as a convenient legal fiction. We dislike the fiction and we see no good reason for it. For that reason alone—the history and the proper meaning of the term—we would like to see it altered in the Bill so far as the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned.

§        In the second place, we believe that the use of this term for the United Kingdom and Colonies may have very undesirable political repercussions. Although this Parliament is, of course, still supreme throughout the Colonial Empire, nevertheless, as everybody who has lived and lives in the Colonial Empire knows, there is in the Colonial Empire a universal dislike of Whitehall government. There is a universal desire to feel that they are not dominated by a distant Legislature and administration but that, in fact, they are able more or less to conduct their own affairs without remote control. That has always been the history of the Dominions since the days when an early settler in New Zealand said that he would rather be governed by Nero on the spot than by a committee of archangels in Downing Street. That feeling is just as strong in the Colonial Empire. We have been trying to recognise that in every respect. In various ways we have been preparing and even carrying out systems of decentralisation and of regional organisation which will give more authority to those who are responsible on the spot. While, of course, there are in the Colonial Empire at the present time old Colonies with ancient Legislatures—and do not let us forget that—to whom this term will appear curiously inappropriate, the Colonies are all moving the same way.                997        Therefore, while this term “citizenship” when used in the Dominions will have an increasing significance as the Dominions grew in stature and in power, in the United Kingdom and Colonies it would have a steadily decreasing and ultimately shing significance.

§        There is no such difficulty if we remain faithful to the old term of “British subject.” That term has covered every variety of subject under every variety of Government. In is appropriate to them all, and they are proud of it. We would much prefer that no suggestion were made in this. Bill or in any other way that we are seeking to tie the Colonial Empire more closely to this country, to make it more dependent upon this country or in any way to interfere with the individual development of Colonies or groups of Colonies.

§        In the third place, there is another objection which is also deeply felt upon these Benches, and that is that the establishment of the term “citizenship” in many Colonies would be a fertile ground for political agitators. Our effort now, certainly in the African Colonies and elsewhere, is to try to give priority and emphasis to economic development and to avoid the danger that that development may be outstripped and impeded by premature political agitation. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, called attention to that danger in a remarkable speech not many weeks ago. “Citizenship,” after all, ought to mean, and in its proper sense does mean, equal rights and responsibilities. Do noble Lords opposite really suppose that, if that term is used in regard to the Colonial Empire, it will not be exploited against us by every malcontent, by every political agitator? It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”


HL Deb 16 November 1967 vol 286 cc869-80869

§        4.23 p.m.

§LORD HUGHES            My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, this Bill is based on the Report of the Scottish Law Commission Reform of the Law Relating to Legitimation per subsequens matrimonium, published in April of this year………….

As your Lordships will see, these provisions of the Bill are necessarily very detailed, but since much of it is a restatement of the existing law I propose to confine my remarks, at this stage, at any rate, to the main changes effected in the present law. The main change to which I would draw your Lordships’ attention is the removal of the present legal fiction in Scots law that legitimation confers legitimate status retrospectively with effect from the child’s date of birth. The fiction finds its origins in the Canon Law which offered as a doctrinal justification of legitimation by subsequent marriage the view that the marriage took effect retroactively by a fiction of the law from the date of conception; and thus the children were regarded as legitimate from their birth. As the Law Commission point out, however, this is nowadays little more than a legal fiction. The Scottish courts have criticised the fiction and have held, for example, that property rights of third parties cannot be affected by the fiction of retroactive legitimation.


HL Deb 15 September 2004 vol 664 cc1242-59

Lord Morgan

Secondly, and more importantly, the Royal prerogative is a fiction and a dangerous fiction. It includes a wide range of ministerial appointments and vast areas of patronage. It makes it difficult for the Royal Family. The present Queen has behaved impeccably but it is possible that a future head of state, for example, might have different views on fox hunting—I throw that out as a possibility—and that that might lead to problems. At present, the whole situation with regard to the Royal prerogative is an enormous cop-out for Ministers of any party. It has absolutely aided the growth of uncontrolled, undemocratic and unaccountable patronage—the so-called “demi-monde” of which the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has written. I believe that it also has the effect of emphasising the status of our citizens as subjects and not as citizens.

Finally, I refer to the Prime Minister. Any Prime Minister is a beneficiary of Royal prerogative. We have seen the dangers of it in the Butler report. That report showed how changes in our constitutional mechanisms have led to serious effects in our foreign policy, and it absolutely makes the case for a far more written constitution.

First, the Prime Minister’s power to declare war under the Royal prerogative should absolutely come to an end. As it happened, there was a parliamentary vote in March, before the Iraq war. But simply leaving it to one individual, particularly in the way in which the Butler inquiry showed that that decision was reached and with all the misrepresentation attached to it, means that we should go towards the American system of having parliamentary approval and should draw a great distinction between it and the fiction of the prerogative.

Finally—I know my time is up—the question of legality should be set out. If a war is to be undertaken, it should be clearly set out that it is legal and that constitutionally and internationally it is approved in law. Far too much is taken on trust. Our presently informal, secret, enclosed constitution is dangerous to our liberties and I greatly welcome the Motion that has enabled me, however briefly, to say that.

Finance Bill

HC Deb 12 July 1983 vol 45 cc778-837

Mr. Robin Cook

There is one exception to that commonsense approach, and that is income tax. The exception arises because the legal fiction is that income tax is not a permanent tax. It may have been with us since the days of Pitt. but it is not a permanent tax. It is an annual tax, and every year the Treasury considers afresh, with careful consideration. whether it requires income tax, and having reluctantly decided that it does, it brings forward a fresh clause giving authority for income tax to continue for a further year. As income tax would automatically lapse without the fresh clause, it follows that there is no law setting out the status quo for income tax as there is with VAT or other taxes.

This legal fiction has certain hilarious consequences. It means, in the context of today’s debate, that the Government are not cutting the higher rate bands on income tax by 14 per cent. On the contrary, the Government are imposing a fresh and unanticipated burden upon the higher paid. However, other consequences are rather less hilarious. The Committee is severely restricted in what amendment it can propose to such a proposal. Were the Government to propose to double thresholds for the higher tax bands, and it is not inconceivable that the Government would propose to do so in the future, it would be improper and incompetent for any other hon. Member to seek to reduce that doubling of the threshold.

The Committee would be left with the choice of accepting that doubling or voting against clause stand part. If the Committee were to vote against clause stand part, it might find itself in the same position as that in which the Opposition found themselves with the last Finance Bill in the previous Session. The Committee would also be voting against the clause that contains the authority for the standard rate of income tax. Thus, were the Committee to carry that resolution opposing clause stand part, it would abolish income tax in toto, although that is not what it would be seeking to do.

This problem flows from the legal fiction that income tax is an annual tax. Were the man in the street to be told that income tax is not a permanent tax and that the procedures of the House of Commons operate on the assumption that income tax is subject to imminent abolition, I suspect that he would consider that to be further striking proof of just how out of touch Members of Parliament were with reality. Nor does that accord with the current state of the law. In 1977 and again in 1980 the House provided explicit statutory power for the indexation of income tax, which makes sense only if we assume that income tax is a permanent tax likely to be renewed year by year.


HL Deb 21 July 1959 vol 218 cc315-56


There are, however, legal methods of meeting that situation. One—the Amendment recognises it—is that, in spite of the adultery, the parents, or rather the one parent and the other partner to the marriage, agree that the adultery shall be concealed; the married couple take the child born of adultery into their own family, into the family life, as one of their own children. Pastorally that is a legal fiction, but pastorally it is the one nearest available for the true good of all concerned, because it gives to the illegitimate child the active care of one parent and a secure home, things of which an illegitimate child should not be deprived.

Now we come to the problem of this Bill. A and B, by adultery, cause a child to be conceived and born out of wedlock. In due course—or rather, if you like, in undue course—by whatever ill or unhappy means, A and B become            320            legally married. What is to happen to the child? That is the question. It can be left with no status at all in the world, belonging to nobody. But surely none of us would like that. What then is to be its relation towards its newly married parents and to the world in general? The parents can adopt their own child. That is the course recommended by some, for perfectly good reasons; or, if this Bill passes, they can secure for the child a legitimated status: not a legitimate status, because that can never be acquired or given by any law, but a legitimated status conferred by legal machinery, just as adoption is conferred by legal machinery.


HC Deb 14 February 1881 vol 258 cc774-855


thought that if the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), and the schedule of crimes which he had placed on the Paper, were fairly looked into, the Committee would see that Her Majesty’s Government had a good opportunity afforded to them for showing that they were not animated by a feeling of Dictatorship or by the feeling of alarm which had been excited in England by their own announcement of crimes and outrages, and Fenian and other plots. It was a legal fiction that every man ought to know the law. Most men did know the ordinary law, although, perhaps, not from a legal point of view. They knew that certain crimes and immoral acts were prohibited by the law—that it was not right to murder a man, or to steal his property, or to intimidate him. But when, as was now the case, they were introducing a peculiar coercive law into Ireland which might be used in a despotic manner, it was only fair that they should define what were the acts beyond the ordinary Statute Law for which a man was made punishable. He thought this schedule of crime really covered everything that the Government and their supporters could desire to discountenance in Ireland.


HC Deb 03 June 1981 vol 5 cc1008-28

Mr. Stanbrook

It is, therefore, wrong to insist that Britain should take any more. However, we cannot resist such pressure. It arises from events that are no fault of ours. An example was the Vietnamese boat people. We felt obliged to accept 10,000 of them. They came from a part of the world for            1016            which we had no legal, constitutional or imperial responsibilities. These people were simply cast upon the high seas——

§Mr. Garel-Jones            By Communists.

§Mr. Stanbrook            Yes, they were expelled by Communists. We had no obligation to these people save in the general international humanitarian sense. In spite of all our difficulties, and with all the problems that we have brought upon ourselves by this humane attitude towards the legal fiction, the mistake in our legislation that has given us such large immigrant populations which we cannot peacefully absorb, we agreed to accept 10,000 of these people.


HL Deb 02 July 1959 vol 217 cc684-714


But, as I understand them, the promoters of this Bill say that, while that may be good law, it is very hard on the child who, through no fault of his own, but entirely through the fault of his mother (in the case with which I am particularly concerned), has to bear throughout his life the stigma of illegitimacy. I think that that is a fair statement of their point of view. In their view, that is a wrong which must be expunged. They say that it is not very difficult to expunge it; all that is needed is to make use of a legal fiction. By this convenient fiction the court, should the matter come to court, will, in certain circumstances, be empowered legally to declare that a child that has hitherto been regarded as the offspring, born at a certain date in lawful wedlock, to a certain woman and one man, shall henceforth in certain circumstances be legally transformed into the offspring, born equally in lawful wedlock, on one and the same date, of the                        699            same woman and an entirely different man. That, in effect, is, as I understand it in plain words, what Clause 1 proposes.

COMMITTEE. [Progress 15th May.]

HC Deb 16 May 1893 vol 12 cc1055-135


The hon. Member has interrupted me again and again when I referred to this matter; but he always makes a statement absolutely irrelevant to the one I make. The hon. Member has said two things not necessarily connected—two things that ought to be treated separately. The hon. Member has said that the theoretical supremacy of this Parliament cannot be disputed or disposed of. I quite agree with that, but I do not care one brass farthing for that theoretical supremacy. I know what            1120            the theoretical supremacy of this Parliament is over Australia and Canada, and I do not want to sot up in the case of Ireland a supremacy which is worth no more than the supremacy over Australia and Canada. The hon. Gentleman, so long ago as October, 1892, declared his intention to make it perfectly clear that the supremacy of this Parliament over the Irish Parliament should be limited. The hon. Member was referring to a speech made by the Chancellor of the Duchy in which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have said—            It is not a question of asking us to divest, ourselves of this power, because we could not do so.            That is the legal fiction—that is the imposture which has been exposed to-night, and the hon. Member knows perfectly well that it is an imposture. Referring to these words of the Chancellor of the Duchy, the hon. Member for Waterford in his article said—            The rights of the Imperial Parliament would remain intact; those rights would remain dormant, so far as Irish affairs are concerned. A Parliamentary compact would be entered into binding the Imperial Parliament to leave those rights dormant.            I will now quote the hon. Member again, because he is perfectly consistent, and why he should endeavour in this Committee to prove himself inconsistent I cannot imagine. This is a passage from his speech in the Debate on the Address in August, 1892—            It comes to this, therefore: that what we ask is this—that in this Home Rule scheme there shall be a specific undertaking—a clause specifically undertaking that while the Irish Parliament continues in existence the powers of the Imperial Parliament to legislate for Ireland should never be used.            Now, Sir, after that, what is the use of the hon. Member getting up and interrupting mo and trying to minimise the significance of his own words? Let the hon. Member get up and say he has changed his mind.


HC Deb 29 May 1908 vol 189 cc1405-37

MR. DUNDAS WHITE(Dumbartonshire)

said it seemed to him that the Bill would constitute an important step in securing public rights of way. They should do all they could to maintain those public rights. The rights were increasing in value every day, because under modern conditions people wanted more and more            1424            access to country districts, fresh air, and fields. He might be allowed to say that in the application of the Bill to Scotland there would have to be very considerable alterations made, and probably a new clause would be required. The principal difficulties which had arisen in England in relation to rights of way were due to the peculiar state of the law in this country. There was in England behind a right of way the presumption of dedication, and consequently any claim to a right of way might be challenged on the ground that there could have been no dedication at some particular time. He was glad to say that in Scotland they were quite free from that. The late Lord Watson, one of the highest authorities on Scots law, in Mann’s case in 1885 said—            According to the law of Scotland, the constitution of a public road does not depend upon any legal fiction, but upon the fact of use by the public as matter of right, continuously and without interruption for the full period of long prescription. I am aware that there are dicta to be found in which the prescriptive acquisition of a right of way by the public is attributed to implied grant, acquiescence of the owner, and so forth, but these appear to me to be mere speculations as to the origin of the rule.            Taking that to be the law in Scotland, the effect of the Bill as regards Scotland would seem to be to shorten the period of prescription to twenty years.


HC Deb 02 June 1965 vol 713 cc1773-912

Mr. Percy Grieve(Solihull)

The Clause is avowedly designed to penalise distributed profits and subject them to higher taxation in the hands of the shareholders than the other profits of companies. It is founded on a completely fallacious view of the nature of public and private companies. They are not, save by legal fiction, separate entities distinct from their shareholders. Their shareholders created them. Shareholders’ money gives them their lifeblood, and their shareholders can put an end to them.

As an hon. Member observed earlier, these compaines have no interest outside            1892            that of their shareholders. The money that flows into these companies is given by the shareholders to create the businesses which have made this country prosperous. What reason is there why these shareholders, drawing their revenues from their enterprises, should be penalised and be subject to a higher rate of tax than persons who draw their revenues from any other kind of enterprise? There is none whatever. This whole Corporation Tax, in its attitude towards the shareholder, is founded on the dislike of hon. Members opposite for the shareholder as a person.

Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]

HC Deb 08 April 1998 vol 310 cc370-452

Mr. Straw

The Bill will ensure earlier, more effective intervention to nip offending in the bud. It lays down that, for the first time, the principal aim of everyone working within the youth justice system will be to prevent offending by children and young people.

Child safety orders and powers for local authorities to establish local child curfews will protect children under 10 from being drawn into crime. The Bill reinforces the crucial role of parents. Parenting orders will help and support those who are genuinely trying to control their children’s unacceptable behaviour. Sanctions will be available for the minority who stubbornly evade their parental responsibilities.

When children first offend, the response should be quick, firm and consistent. The Bill replaces cautioning for young people with a statutory final warning scheme. Warnings will normally be followed by intervention to tackle the causes of the youngster’s offending. The Bill also makes young offenders properly responsible for their actions by the abolition of the legal fiction of doli incapax.

NOTE: “Doli Incapax” is a legal fictional term which, in UK law, holds that a child under the age of 10 is INCAPABLE OF CRIME. The point of pointing this out is thus: The legal world bestows rights and imposes responsibilities based upon entire legal fiction. It then provides exceptions to these rights and responsibilities for who and what it sees fit. That could be the exception for children under 10 of “Doli Incapax” or it may be an exception offered to a certain type of company/corporation to pay tax. Or, as in a case I just read of in Parliamentary minutes, they do not bestow a legal fiction on a transgendered person therefore, allowing that person to be raped without there having been a rape committed! Why? Because the transgendered person did not exist legally!

New Clause.—(EXTENT.)

HC Deb 28 November 1951 vol 494 cc1622-41

Mr. Delargy

I interrupt myself here to remind the Committee that when I speak about Northern Ireland I do not, of course, mean Northern Ireland at all. The legal term “Northern Ireland” is merely a legal fiction. I have already been obliged to give the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin), a few lessons in Irish geography, and it should be understood that when I speak about Northern Ireland I mean the Six Counties in the northeastern corner of Ireland. I hope that when I use the words “Northern Ireland” hon. Members will remember that it is simply for the sake of simplicity and convenience.


HC Deb 24 June 1998 vol 314 cc1115-43

Mr. Leigh

I am grateful for that intervention, which makes it clear that the Home Secretary and the Government take our fears very seriously.                        1125            Again, I do not want resort to hyperbole, but it has become fashionable to decry our record on civil liberties and human rights. We have nothing to be ashamed of over the past 200 years. With its unwritten constitution, our country has been a beacon for civil liberties. Amending the constitution is a very serious matter, as I am sure everyone realises. I hope that we are not taking a dangerous course.

Let me describe what could happen. Under clause 10(3)(b), a Minister can make such amendments “as he considers appropriate”. He can amend primary and secondary legislation to make it compatible with the convention. United Kingdom courts can make declarations of incompatibility under clause 4(6), which the Home Secretary was searching for earlier. Courts can make a finding that a provision of UK statute law is incompatible with the convention. Strasbourg can also make such a finding.

This is where we have the fig leaf of parliamentary sovereignty. Such directions are not meant in themselves to strike down the legislation, as happens in Canada and the United States. The ministerial power arises once a final court order has been made that cannot be further appealed against and in which there is a finding of incompatibility, or—this is the important point in clause 10(1)(b)—if it appears to a Minister that            a finding of the European Court of Human Rights            in proceedings involving our country means that            a provision of legislation is incompatible”………

I believe that we are giving unprecedented powers to Ministers. As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, the Government, who are rightly concerned about the notion of parliamentary sovereignty, are desperately trying to erect a legal fiction to protect that notion, which is precisely that—a fiction. The course on which we are embarking is dangerous indeed.


HC Deb 14 May 1857 vol 145 cc266-81266

By the law of England, a single woman was capable of exercising all the civil rights of property, and the responsibilities of property fell upon her likewise. By the highly artificial rule, which had grown up as to marriage, all these rights were denied to an English married woman, and her existence as a legal person was denied by the law. By a fiction of law, husband and wife are considered one person. Like most legal fictions, these had worked great evil, and, amongst the wealthier classes, had been got rid of by the interposition of courts of equity. The remedy was to abolish this fiction altogether, but your written laws accord with the laws of nature and good sense, and let a married woman stand exactly in the same relation to property the day after her marriage as she did the day before.

National Health Service (Amendment) Bill

HC Deb 15 April 1986 vol 95 cc795-825

Mr. Gordon Oakes(Halton)

I also support this useful little Bill. I should like to declare my interests, which are almost a mirror image of those of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). I am an honorary vice-president of the Environmental Health Officers Association, and have been for many years, and I advise the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. It is a professional body that looks after the standards and registration of pharmacists.

I should like to deal first with clause 1. The Environmental Health Officers Association has battled for years against the ludicrous concept of Crown immunity.                        815            Crown immunity is a legal fiction which held that the Queen or the King could do no wrong and that therefore a Department of State could do no wrong. There have been recent terrible incidents in old people’s homes or in hospitals for old people, and in hospitals that care for the mentally ill. Those are people who are least able to cope and need the greatest protection from the state. Things have gone badly wrong, people have suffered illness and many have died. The Bill is an advance against Crown immunity and I congratulate the Minister for taking what all hon. Members have said is but one small step.


HC Deb 28 February 1968 vol 759 cc1421-542

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon(York)

People will be thrown out of Kenya while holding British passports, and will have nowhere else to go. Horror should afflict the mind of every responsible Member to think that there will be people trying to come to this country with British passports who have been created stateless. That is what they really are. I know that technically and legally they are not stateless, but unless one has the rights of nationality what does nationality count for? If one cannot live and work in the area that has given one nationality, what does it mean that one has been given that empty legal fiction?


HC Deb 26 April 1876 vol 228 cc1658-744


Does this Bill put women on a footing of equality with men? It does not. A man does not lose the franchise when he weds—some men come under petticoat government, but that is a different thing. Frequently men are qualified for the franchise through property brought them by their wives. By this Bill the woman will lose her vote on her marriage, and the husband will exercise the privilege without the knowledge of the woman, through the protection of secret Ballot. Therefore, there is no equality in the Bill at all. And why is this to be done? Simply because by the common law of the land a man and his wife are supposed to be one and indivisible—they are supposed to be one flesh and blood. Everyone knows that that is a legal fiction; but our lawyers are partial to fiction, and even when they propose to emancipate womankind, they have not the courage to sweep away the cobwebs of the common law. Small as the Bill is, and adjured as we are not to travel beyond the four corners of this small Bill, no two hon. Members look upon it in the same light. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), whom I do not see now in his place, asked us last year not to oppose the Bill, because it was so small a measure and so excellent a measure, and because it was the logical corollary of the Bill of 1867; but my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire says it is a huge Bill of reform which is calculated in a short period to bring us to universal suffrage.

Employment Rights

HC Deb 07 March 1986 vol 93 cc568-88

Mr. Evans

A ruthless employer, Mr. Murdoch, of News International, has been able to use the law in a way which, I submit, the House never intended.

The Secretary of State at that time was the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) and the law that he put on the statute book has been subsequently amended, altered and shaped by the judges and the legal profession so as to allow what was never intended by section 17 of the Act. It has allowed Mr. Murdoch and other employers to construct a chain of limited companies to create a legal fiction of separation. If, at company A the work or the business is being interrupted by a perfectly legitimate industrial dispute, the law on secondary action can be brought into play at company X although it is owned and operated by the same employer, because a chain of small private limited companies have been erected between them, even though the same work is being done on behalf of the same employer. The workers in that context have been denied their job opportunities and denied their work. Subsequently they have been denied their rights to such things as redundancy payment and the right to claim unfair dismissal and to take such claims to a tribunal. I am sure no decent citizen would attempt morally to justify the scenario that exists at Wapping.

And finally, the DIPLOMAT. Probably with just a very few exceptions (such as the Queen for example), the DIPLOMAT has bestowed upon him the most powerful legal fiction which a corrupt individual could ever hope for. While, if not corrupt, then by the sheer exemption from law which he has, he will become so:


HC Deb 17 March 1950 vol 472 cc1407-53

Mr. Basil Nield(City of Chester)

From the course which this Debate has taken it seems to me to be quite clear that hon. Members in all parts of the House are in agreement with the general purposes of the Measure as explained by the Under-Secretary of State—that is to say, to extend special privileges to the Council of Europe. I intervene only to express some doubts whether this Bill as at present drafted is best designed to achieve that purpose. It is a short non-controversial Bill, but none the less it is one of very great constitutional importance, and I agree so much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bucks, South (Mr. Bell) has just said, namely, that where there is a proposal to extend diplomatic privilege and immunity it must have the most careful consideration by this House.

One has but to look at some of the fundamental privileges and immunities which attach to the diplomatic agent to see how important it is not to extend                        1437            these rights to other categories without the greatest care. There is a right of personal inviolability. Then there is the legal fiction which makes the house of a diplomatic agent, for example an embassy, to be regarded as within the territory of the country from which he is accredited. The position is that such an agent is not subject to the Government of the receiving Power. Several of my hon. Friends have pointed out that he is exempt from taxation, from certain local rates and from civil jurisdiction. He cannot sue or be sued, neither can his goods be seized, and he is also exempt from criminal jurisdiction.

Wrong Patrick! You’re not a person either! You’re a free man!

It’s ALL poppycock!

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 11, 2011

I think this is worth a blog all to itself:

Afghanistan: Opium Poppy Production

HL Deb 23 February 2005 vol 669 c200WA200WA

Lord Acton

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

According to the United Nations annual poppy crop survey in Afghanistan, what was the level of opium poppy cultivation and production in hectares and tonnes in Afghanistan in each year from 2000 to 2004. [HL1282]

§Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanThe United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) conducts an annual survey into the level of opium poppy cultivation and production in Afghanistan. It has reported levels of cultivation and production since 1999 as follows:

Hectares Tonnes
1999 91,000 4,600
2000 82,000 3,300
2001 8,000 185
2002 74,000 3,400
2003 80,000 3,600
2004 131,000 4,200


The UNODC figures for 1999, 2000 and 2001 were recorded under the Taliban regime. The low level of cultivation and low production figure in 2001 reflect the Taliban ban on opium cultivation; the ban did not however address the underlying causes of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, which was enforced with a mix of threat and bribery and drove up the price of opium, benefiting those with opium stockpiles.

And to finish off her sentence then (considering the increase once we went in – and it has grown even larger since):

“the ban did not however address the underlying causes of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan and was enforced with a mix of threat and bribery – (which, of course, the British government would never resort to in forcing people in this country to stop growing even marijuana never mind opium) – so we stopped the threats and the bribes and actually pay them to keep growing it”

Guthrie: “We’ll buy the poppies, then get stoned at the cenotaph! It’ll be a riot!”

Dear Lord Guthrie: May I please have your Lordfulship’s permission to cultivate 1 acre of land for marijuana or opium growth here in the UK? Once grown and well tended, I will accept a fair price for the land and product derived from it and you may then burn it to the ground if you so wish. It will allow my family to “live and feed” in this economic catastrophe that bastard you work for created. I am sure your Lordfulship’s boss, Lord Rothschild (of N.M. Rothschild of which you are a Director) would see the exceptional return on such an investment!
It’s a “radical” idea as you say but Whaddya say Guthrie dude? Deal?
“He is a Director of N M Rothschild & Sons Limited”
What happens when the Rothschilds own the ass of your Chief of the Defence staff?
A criminal conspiracy between International bankers and the Armed Forces of Her Majesty’s Government!
No, not theory: Absolute fact!
Hear him say it if you don’t believe it!
Sorry all you well meaning Forces guys out there but you have got to be fcuking thick as shit not to be able to work this shit out!
So here, this is dedicated to you:
History, then, repeats itself: 


HC Deb 06 June 1907 vol 175 cc865-948
*EARL PERCY            The hon. Member is acquainted with a part of Persia with which I am not familiar. It seems to me that the Government ought to have some security that simultaneous action will be taken by the States in the vicinity of China before we commit ourselves to definite action. My second contention is that by reducing the area of cultivation, the Government are inflicting very great hardship on India, with a minimum of advantage to the cause of morality in China………….I believe it has long been the policy of the Indian Government—I think ever since 1893—to reduce the export. But at the same time that they have reduced the export they have deliberately increased the area of cultivation, and that policy when challenged in this House was always defended on the ground that its object was not to push the sale of opium, but merely to prevent the violent fluctuations in price which would result from a temporary shortage in the crop, either in China or India, by keeping a stock in reserve equivalent to a six months’ supply. What will be the effect of departing from that policy?………….. It amounts to. £3,500,000 a year, and I do not think that anyone who reads the statement of Mr. Baker can fail to perceive that he does not regard the surrender of the opium revenue with anything like a feeling of equanimity. His argument, if I remember aright, was that it might be acquiesced in provided that it was done sufficiently slowly. But the loss to India would be not merely the loss of revenue. There is the loss to the shipping trade and the loss of a valuable staple export. The Party opposite ought to be particularly careful how they compromise the capacity of India to pay her debts by exports. The opium export trade represents a value of £6,000,000 a year, and if you take in the by-products—the seeds used for food and lighting, soap, varnish, and other chemical preparations—it amounts to a considerably larger figure than that……

Now that we smashed the Taliban, Kharzai, and we gave you a new Rothschild controlled Central Bank and we’re going to rebuild your country and give you vaccinations and mobile phones plus insurances and debt etc etc, you owe us big time! It ook a lot of dollars and pounds to divest ourselves of those missiles so it’s now time to hand over the oil and gas pipelines (NOT to the Argentinians!) and pay your jews – I mean dues!

That’s sweet looking Opium you’ve got there! 😉

The Rothschild-Disraeli Jewish pact.

Posted in Political History, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 10, 2011

Two jews who set the course of corrupt British Government from the mid 1800s until we arrive at David Cameron, Gideon Osbourne and a Rothschild yacht experience with Mandy the Rothschild!


Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild (22 November 1808 – 3 June 1879) was a British banker and politician.

The son of Nathan Mayer Rothschild and Hanna Barent Cohen, he was a member of the prominent Rothschild family.

Baron Lionel de Rothschild and his family had “contributed during the Irish famine of 1847 … a sum far beyond the joint contributions of the Devonshires, and Herefords, Lansdownes, Fitzwilliams and Herberts, who annually drew so many times that amount from their Irish estates.”

In 1847 Lionel de Rothschild was first elected to the British House of Commons as one of four MPs for the City of London constituency. Jews were at that point still barred from sitting in the chamber due to the Christian oath required to be sworn in so Prime Minister Lord John Russell introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to remove the problem with the oath. In 1848, the bill was approved by the House of Commons but was twice rejected by the House of Lords. After being rejected again by the Upper House in 1849, Rothschild resigned his seat and stood again winning in a by-election in order to strengthen his claim.

In 1850, he entered the House of Commons to take his seat but refused to swear on a Christian Bible asking to use only the Old Testament. This was permitted but when omitting the words “upon the true faith of a Christian” from the oath he was required to leave.

In 1851 a new Jewish Disabilities Bill was defeated in the House of Lords. In the 1852 general election Rothschild was again elected but the next year the bill was again defeated in the upper house.

Finally, in 1858, the House of Lords agreed to a proposal to allow each house to decide its own oath. On 26 July 1858 de Rothschild took the oath with covered head, substituting “so help me, [using a Hebrew word for] God” for the ordinary form of oath, and thereupon took his seat as the first Jewish member of Parliament. He was re-elected in general elections in 1859 and 1865, but defeated in 1868; he was returned unopposed in a by-election in 1869 but defeated a second time in the general election in 1874.

Rothschild was proposed as a member of the House of Lords in 1868, but Queen Victoria refused to elevate him to this status. She denied that this was because Rothschild was a Jew. Instead the monarch claimed it was because of Rothschild’s business activities, but few believed her. In 1885 the Queen did raise Rothschild’s son Nathan to the peerage. Nathan Mayer de Rothschild became the first Jewish member of the House of Lords.

In 1836, Lionel de Rothschild married Baroness Charlotte von Rothschild (1819-1884), the daughter of Baron Carl Mayer Rothschild of the Rothschild banking family of Naples. They had the following children:

1.Leonora (1837-1911)

2.Evelina (1839-1866)

3.Nathan Mayer (1840-1915)

4.Alfred Charles (1842-1918)

5.Leopold (1845-1917)

Nice incestuous relationship there then!


Lionel de Rothschild died in 1879 and his body was interred in the Willesden Jewish Cemetery in the North London suburb of Willesden.




HC Deb 29 July 1850 vol 113 cc396-437396

§ On the Clerk proceeding to read the Order of the Day for resuming the Ad- 397 journed Debate on Sir R. Inglis’s Motion, with reference to the request of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild to be sworn on the Old Testament,

§MR. HENLEY said:  Before the Order of the Day for the adjourned debate is read, I wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask you this question—whether, to give a proper locus standi for the discussion of the important question which is about to be raised by the Amendment put upon the notices by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, it would not be expedient that some further question should be put

Baron Lionel De Rothschild being presented to the House of Commons

to Baron de Rothschild, one of the hon. Members for the city of London, in order to get upon the records of the House the fact that to take the oath in the way he has requested—the only answer he has yet made being, that he requests to be sworn upon the Old Testament—is binding upon his conscience, and the reason why he requires so to take it?


It is as clear as daylight then, that Rothschild did NOT accept that the Christian and Jewish “God” is one and the same. IF he had argued that religion had no place in politics and that he would not swear on ANY “Holy Book” then that would present a different (and, perhaps, even acceptable) picture. But no, Rothschild demanded (and he eventually got) to swear upon the Old Testament (The “Torah”) and even IF so “binding upon his conscience”, it is clear that one’s conscience must be dealt with differently in the two books. This is unarguable logic. The question is: What IS this difference? Could it POSSIBLY include the following:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.




Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, KG, PC, FRS, (21 December 1804 – 19 April 1881) was a British Prime Minister, parliamentarian, Conservative statesman and literary figure. Starting from comparatively humble origins, he served in government for three decades, twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Although his father had him baptised to Anglicanism at age 12, he was nonetheless Britain’s first and thus far only Prime Minister who was born into a Jewish family—originally from Italy. He played an instrumental role in the creation of the modern Conservative Party after the Corn Laws schism of 1846.

Disraeli’s biographers believe he was descended from Italian Sephardic Jews. He claimed Portuguese ancestry, possibly referring to an earlier origin of his family heritage in Iberia prior to the expulsion of Jews in 1492. After this event many Jews emigrated, in two waves; some fled to the Muslim lands of the Ottoman Empire, but many also went to Christian Europe, first to northern Italy, then to the Netherlands, and later to England. One modern historian has seen him as essentially a marrano.

Disraeli turned towards literature after a personal financial disaster, motivated in part by a desperate need for money, and brought out his first novel, “Vivian Grey”, in 1826. Disraeli’s biographers agree that Vivian Grey was a thinly veiled re-telling of the affair of “The Representative” (a plagiarist then), and it proved very popular on its release, although it also caused much offence within the Tory literary world when Disraeli’s authorship was discovered. The book, initially anonymous, was purportedly written by a “man of fashion”, perhaps Ross M. Brown – someone who moved in high society. Disraeli, then just twenty-three, did not move in high society, and the numerous solecisms present in his otherwise brilliant and daring work made this painfully obvious. Reviewers were sharply critical on these grounds of both the author and the book. Furthermore, John Murray believed that Disraeli had caricatured him and abused his confidence–an accusation denied at the time, and by the official biography, although subsequent biographers (notably Blake) have sided with Murray.

Wyndham Lewis (7 October 1780 – 14 March 1838) was a British politician and a close associate of Benjamin Disraeli. Lewis married Mary Anne, daughter of John Evans, in 1816. They had no children. He died in March 1838, in London’s Mayfair, aged 57. His widow married Benjamin Disraeli in 1839 and was created Viscountess Beaconsfield in 1868.

So 1 year after his death, Benjamin Disraeli marries his widow? While Lewis was a close associate of Disraeli?….. Nice!

In 1839 he settled his private life by marrying Mary Anne Lewis, the rich widow of Wyndham Lewis, Disraeli’s erstwhile colleague at Maidstone. Mary Lewis was 12 years his senior, and their union was seen as being based on financial interests, but they came to cherish one another.

In 1847 a small political crisis occurred which removed Bentinck from the leadership and highlighted Disraeli’s differences with his own party. In the preceding general election, Lionel de Rothschild had been returned for the City of London. Ever since Catholic Emancipation, members of parliament were required to swear the oath “on the true faith of a Christian.” Rothschild, an unconverted Jew, could not do so and therefore could not take his seat. Lord John Russell, the Whig leader who had succeeded Peel as Prime Minister and like Rothschild a member for the City of London, introduced a Jewish Disabilities Bill to amend the oath and permit Jews to enter Parliament.

Disraeli spoke in favour of the measure, arguing that Christianity was “completed Judaism,” and asking of the House of Commons “Where is your Christianity if you do not believe in their Judaism?” While Disraeli did not argue that the Jews did the Christians a favour by killing Christ, as he had in Tancred and would in Lord George Bentinck, his speech was badly received by his own party, which along with the Anglican establishment was hostile to the bill. Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford and a friend of Disraeli’s, spoke strongly against the measure and implied that Russell was paying off the Jews for “helping” elect him. Every member of the future protectionist cabinet then in parliament (except Disraeli) voted against the measure. One member who was not, Lord John Manners, stood against Rothschild when the latter re-submitted himself for election in 1849. Bentinck, then still Conservative leader in the Commons, joined Disraeli in speaking and voting for the bill, although his own speech was a standard one of toleration.

In 1852, the primary responsibility of a mid-Victorian chancellor was to produce a Budget for the coming fiscal year. Disraeli, as Chancellor, proposed to reduce taxes on malt and tea (indirect taxation); additional revenue would come from an increase in the house tax. More controversially, Disraeli also proposed to alter the workings of the income tax (direct taxation) by “differentiating”–i.e., different rates would be levied on different types of income.

The establishment of the income tax on a permanent basis had been the subject of much inter-party discussion since the fall of Peel’s ministry in June of 1846. Since that time, no consensus had been yet been reached, and Disraeli was criticised for mixing up details over the different “schedules” of income. Disraeli’s proposal to extend the tax to Ireland gained him further enemies, and he was also hampered by an unexpected increase in defence expenditure, which was forced on him by Derby and Sir John Pakington (Secretary of State for War and the Colonies) (leading to his celebrated remark to John Bright about the “damned defences”). This, combined with bad timing and perceived inexperience led to the failure of the Budget and consequently the fall of the government on 17 December 1852.

With the fall of the government, Disraeli and the Conservatives returned to the opposition benches.



HC Deb 26 June 1855 vol 139 cc162-82162

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, that yesterday he took the liberty of asking the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether, under the provisions of what was commonly called “the Contractors’ Act,” Baron Rothschild had not vacated his seat for the City of London, by having entered into a contract with Her Majesty’s Government for a loan of 16,000,000l. for the public service, and whether, consequently, a new writ ought not to issue for the City of London? His hon. and learned Friend then answered that, if the question were put to the House, not in a speculative, but in a practical form, he would give his 163 opinion upon it. He now rose for the purpose of bringing the matter before the House in a practical form, and he had, therefore, put a Motion to that effect on the paper. He might have moved that the matter be referred to a Select Committee, but that would have been a sneaking and cowardly course, entertaining as he did a strong conviction that, according to the common sense and literal construction of the Act of Parliament, Baron Rothschild had vacated his seat. The House would recollect when the Act in question passed, and the purposes for which it was designed. The Act passed in 1782, and was brought forward with the avowed object of promoting the freedom and independence of Parliament. When the Rockingham Administration came into office they took up that Bill, which had been before Parliament for two or three years, and gave it their warmest support on the principle that the House of Commons was getting day by day more corrupt and the people of this country were becoming more dissatisfied with it. He would not insult the memory of the Rockingham Administration by calling them “Administrative Reformers.” They were something more, for they were Parliamentary Reformers. They struck at the root of the evil, for they said that, if there were corruption in the State, it must be the fault of the House of Commons, and so far as they could remove that blot they would do it by reforming the House itself. That Administration contained among its Members Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, and Mr. Dunning, who had previously moved the well-known Resolution, that the power and influence of the Crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. He should show by the Act itself, and by the debates upon it, that it was the intention of those who framed the Act, and of the Parliament that passed it, that contractors of Government loans should vacate their seats in Parliament, and he contended that the case of Baron Rothschild came clearly within its meaning. The heading of the contract was— ‘The contract entered into by Baron Lionel de Rothschild with Her Majesty’s Government, on or about the 20th day of April last, for a loan of 16,000,000l. for the public service.’ Now, the preamble of the Act said— ‘For further securing the freedom and independence of Parliament, be it enacted by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in this present Parliament 164 assembled, and by the authority Of the same, that, from and after the end of this present session of Parliament, any person who shall, directly or indirectly, himself, or by any person whatsoever in trust for him, or for his use or benefit, or on his account, undertake, execute, hold, or enjoy, in the whole or in part, any contract, agreement, or commission, made or entered into with, under, or from the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, or of the Navy or Victualling Office, or with the Master General or Board of Ordnance, or with any one or more of such Commissioners, or with any other person or persons whatsoever, for or on account of the public service; or shall knowingly and willingly furnish or provide, in pursuance of any such agreement, contract, or commission, which he or they shall have made or entered into as aforesaid, any money to be remitted abroad, or any wares or merchandise to be used or employed in the service of the public, shall be incapable of being elected, or of sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons, during the time that he shall execute, hold, or enjoy any such contract, agreement, or commission, or any part or share thereof, or any benefit or emolument arising from the same.’ The Act also went on to say— ‘And if any person, disabled and declared incapable by this Act to be elected, shall, after the end of this present Session of Parliament, presume to sit or vote as a Member of the House of Commons, such person so sitting or voting shall forfeit the sum of 500l. for every day in which he shall sit or vote in the said House to any person or persons who shall sue for, the same in any of His Majesty’s courts at Westminster.’ It was contended by some that Baron Rothschild, not being ineligible by reason of this contract at the time of his election, had not incurred the penalties of the Act, and that, because for other reasons he had not sat or voted in that House, he had not forfeited his seat on that account. But he apprehended that there were very few hon. Members who would maintain that opinion, because, supposing for an instant that fifty or sixty Members held contracts with the Government for twelve months’ duration, would the House say that they had not forfeited their seats because for that period they might abstain from sitting or voting in the House? The case of the Jewish question was a very different one. The hon. Member was incapable of sitting or voting in that House because he could not use the words “on the true faith of a Christian,” and in that case the House was not justified in issuing a writ. But the hon. Member stood in a very different position as a contractor. It was alleged by some that hon. Members might contract for money, although they could not enter into contracts with the Government for ships or provisions. When the Bill was 165 under discussion, it was at first proposed that contracts for loans should be excepted, but if hon. Members referred to the debates they would find that that proposal was scouted by the House. Mr. Fox said, he rejoiced to see that a new sprit of government seemed to be rising, and that a period was approaching when corruption would be banished from the Senate; and those who had the management of public affairs might safely trust to the merits of their measures for support, without having recourse to corruption. He (Mr. Duncombe) did not know whether the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hayter) would be disposed to indorse that opinion. Mr. Fox moved that the exception in the Bill should be withdrawn, and that no contractor whatever should have a seat in Parliament. It was also contended that contracts for money were more dangerous than any other species of contract. The exception was withdrawn upon the understanding that a special Bill should be brought in for the purpose. No Bill, however, was brought in for the purpose, and the only Bill bearing at all upon the subject confirmed the view which he had now stated—the 48 Geo. III., chap. 1, wherein persons were exempted from losing their seats who entered into any contract with the Government for Exchequer Bills on behalf of the Bank of England. If they entered into such contracts on their own behalf, they were not exempted; so it was quite clear that Parliament, with its eyes open, had intended by the 22 Geo. III., chap. 45, that no contractors whatever should sit in Parliament. He could not possibly understand how there could be any doubt upon the subject, and, as Baron Rothschild by other circumstances had been prevented from sitting and voting in the House, he had incurred no penalties, and so far the loss to him would not be, and ought not to be, very great. He particularly wished it to be understood that he made this Motion entirely upon public grounds, and without any reference whatever to the Jewish question. For eight Sessions Baron Rothschild had been nominally a Member of the House of Commons, but the question of Jewish emancipation did not seem to have been much advanced thereby. A short time since he asked Her Majesty’s Government whether it was their intention to introduce a measure in the present Session for the removal of Jewish disabilities, and the answer he received was, that they had no such intention. The noble Lord the 166 Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) had since addressed a letter to some of his constituents, in which he told them fairly it was a hopeless case, in consequence of the decisions which had been come to in the House of Lords, and he believed the noble Lord was perfectly right in forming that estimate of the position of the question. He believed the prejudice elsewhere was so great, and the indifference of the public out of doors was also so great, that during the present generation, at least, there was not the remotest chance of gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion sitting in that House, so long as the House of Lords had any voice in the matter. Therefore Baron Rothschild had been thus long disabled, and the citizens of London had been deprived of their fourth Member. If three Members were quite enough for the City of London, let the House be told so, and let them give that Member to some other place. But this very disablement of Baron Rothschild had relieved him from any penalties with regard to this contract. What he said was, that from the moment a Member entered into a contract with the Government, not only was he disabled from sitting and voting, but his seat became vacant. He should be extremely glad to hear the opinions of hon. and learned Gentlemen upon this subject, but he contended that, according to the honest and fair interpretation of the Act, it was quite clear there was a vacancy in the City of London at the present moment, and would so continue, as far as regarded Baron Rothschild, until the 18th of December next, when the contract ceased. Under these circumstances, therefore, ought not the House to issue a new writ? They did not want any peddling or quibbling opinions. He knew lawyers could make that opaque which was clear to all minds but their own, but he hoped that would not be the case on this occasion, and he appealed to the House to restore to the citizens of London the power of electing a forth representative by agreeing to the Motion he now proposed, that the Speaker be instructed to issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the City of London.

MR. MILNER GIBSON  Sir, my difficulty is to make up my mind whether the disqualifying clauses are to stop with Baron Rothschild. He has admitted a great number of persons, possibly Members of this House, to have shares of this loan, to enjoy what the Act calls the “profits, benefits, and emoluments arising from the same.” Now, all these Members enjoy the “profits, benefits, and emoluments” arising from the loan, and, if I have taken a correct view of this Act, they are in jeopardy as well as Baron Rothschild, and it would be competent for him or any other hon. Member, if the House at once agrees 174 to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, to find out some hon. Member upon this list and take the House by surprise to-morrow evening, and move that a new writ be issued for the borough or county which he represents. We must therefore be cautious in this matter. For myself, I confess I have no particular knowledge of the law. I have read the Act, and I understand from it that any person who enjoys any benefit arising from the loan, either directly by having contracted himself, or indirectly through another, is equally affected.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL  said, he wished the House to observe that it was dealing with a Statute which had not been enforced or applied for a long space of years. It was reasonable to suspect, therefore, some impediment or obstacle in the way of its application. If any Gentleman were bold enough to pledge himself to the opinion that the law had not been affected by any of our legislation subsequent to 1782, he might be competent to pronounce upon this question at once; but he (the Solicitor General) could not be so confident.

So, it becomes abundantly clear by this stage in the proceedings, that while there had been a long standing ACT (Law) regarding any “Contractors” (individuals loaning the government money) then being disallowed to hold a seat in the House as an MP or Lord, a vast number of them had done it with impunity. They broke the law! But it didn’t matter because it’s a BOYS CLUB. But then Rothschild comes along and he loans the government and they don’t like that (some of them at least). While Rothschild had not only, himself, provided the money but he ensured he had many other members involved which would make them speak for him AND it would make it far more difficult for the Parliament to act otherwise they’d be dismissing a great number of people – some very powerful no doubt. Furthermore, that would send a message to the public saying “We’re corrupt as hell”. Just like today!

Now THIS section is quite literally incredible. Benjamin D’Israeli, attempts to provide “cover” for Rothschild. Hard to believe he got away with this:

MR. DISRAELI  said, it appeared to him that a subject of this nature should be considered with great calmness, and that the House should not rashly adopt any course upon it without due deliberation. Now, what he felt was that they wanted that distinct proof which should be in the possession of the House, and which could be easily obtained, before they could come to a decision on a question of such consequenee. The hon. and learned Solicitor General said that there could be no doubt that Baron Lionel de Rothschild had contracted with Her Majesty’s Government, and then he took up a contract, and pointed to it as containing that proof. But he (Mr. Disraeli) was not satisfied on this point; for if that was the only proof that the hon. Member for the City of London had entered into a contract with Her Majesty’s Government, the evidence was very imperfect, as the contract bore not the signature of Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, but of N. M. Rothschild and Sons.

So D’Israeli argues that, because the contract did not have the Baron De Rothschild’s personal signature on it, it could not be considered a loan from Rothschild to the government EVEN THOUGH it was “N.M Rothschild & Sons”. In-Fing-credible! So perhaps it had a Rothschild stamp or perhaps it was signed by an officer of the company. The fact is ROTHSCHILD OWNED THE FCUKING COMPANY! It’s like suggesting every loan Goldman Sachs makes is signed by Lloyd Blankfein (and even then, Blankfein is just the CEO!).

This was OUTRAGEOUS “chutzpah” by D’Israeli. You can bet he was in on it.

Remember 16Million was one shitload of money back then! It was the equivalent of £billions today!

Also remember that Rothschild was the Trustee of D’Israeli’s Last will and Testament! So let’s just say they were “good friends”.

Now consider THIS little exchange:


THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER  said, that, as the Motion now stood, it stated that the contract had been entered into by Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, though there was nothing on the face of the contract to show that such was the case.

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild did not in his presence sign this contract.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER  I think the question just put to me is a proof of the inconvenience of discussing this question in its present form. I did not mean to state that it was not Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild who had virtually entered into this contract with the Government, but my remark merely applied to the wording of the Motion which states Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild entered into the contract with the Government, of which there was no evidence on the face of the contract.

§MR. T. DUNCOMBE  But that is no answer to my question. I put a direct and straightforward question, and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether Baron Lionel de Rothschild did not in his presence sign the contract in question.

§MR. DISRAELI  said, he objected to the question put by the hon. Member for Finsbary, which, if it were sanctioned, would place it in the power of a Minister who wished to turn a Member out of his seat to get up and put a question, having previously agreed upon the answer which would be given by one of his supporters, and they all knew how ardent a supporter of the Government was the hon. Member 182 for Finsbury. The question put by him was most unconstitutional, and one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be justified in answering.


At this point in time (1855) D’Israeli and the Conservatives were in opposition.

Disraeli was accused by William Ewart Gladstone of undermining Britain’s constitutional system, due to his lack of reference or consent from Parliament when purchasing the shares with funding from the Rothschilds.

William Gladstone

Disraeli was, according to some interpretations, a supporter of the expansion and preservation of the British Empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. In spite of the objections of his own cabinet and without Parliament’s consent, he obtained a short-term loan from Lionel de Rothschild in order to purchase 44% of the shares of the Suez Canal Company. Before this action, though, he had for the most part opted to continue the Whig policy of limited expansion, preferring to maintain the then-current borders as opposed to promoting expansion.

Here are some exchanges in Parliament during that time. Make of them what you wish. I know what I make of them: Utter pish!



HC Deb 28 February 1876 vol 227 cc1019-201019

§MR. BIGGAR  asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, or not, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, the proposed payment to Messrs. Rothschild, one of which firm being also a Member of this House, of a commission of 2½ per cent. on the amount of the Suez Canal Purchase, brings the said Member within the provisions of the Act 22 Geo. 3, c. 45; and, if so, what action the Government propose to take on the subject?

§MR. DISRAELI  Sir, it does not appear to me that this Question ought to be addressed to Her Majesty’s Government, and I may say further, that on referring to the statute which the hon. Member has mentioned, I am doubtful whether it ought even to be addressed to the Law Officers of the Crown. I read in that statute that which indicates that it is a question neither for the Government nor for the Law Officers, but one for Her Majesty’s Courts of Law. It says that any Member of this House offending under the circumstances referred to shall forfeit the sum of £500 for every day on which he sits or votes in this House to any person who shall sue for the same in any of Her Majesty’s Courts at Westminster. In these circumstances, as it appears to be open to any of Her Majesty’s subjects to sue for that penalty, I think it is not for the Government or for the Law Officers of the Crown to give any information 1020 on the subject, but for those who are directly interested in the question.

§SIR NATHANIEL ROTHSCHILD  Sir, I hope the House will allow me to make a personal statement on this matter. I feel it my duty to declare that I am not a partner in the house of which my father is the head, either in London or Paris. I have no doubt that the House will accept that statement from me; but, if it is necessary, I am authorized by my father to say that the deed of partnership of the firm of Rothschild, both in London and on the Continent, can be inspected by any one whom this House may choose to appoint.


And this concerning the detail (and complete obfuscation) of the payment:



HC Deb 21 February 1876 vol 227 cc562-661562

§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

§ (In the Committee.)

§ Question again proposed, ‘That a sum, not exceeding £4,080,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to enable Her Majesty 563 to pay the Purchase Money of the Shares which belonged to the Khedive of Egypt in the Suez Canal, and the Expenses attendant thereon, which will come in course of payment during-the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876?’’

§MR. LOWE, in resuming the adjourned debate, remarked that the first question to be settled was, oddly enough, the nature of the transaction they were about to discuss. The matter might be thought to be perfectly clear, but there was really an amount of doubt about it which it was desirable to dispel, and which he would endeavour to explain. On the first night of the Session the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said— ‘We asked the house of Rothschild to purchase those shares on our engagement to ask the House of Commons to take them off their hands. It was a great risk.’ Now, if that were really the question which the House had to consider there would be a very great probability that the House, having carefully considered the matter, would think that that was a transaction which it was not called upon necessarily to ratify at all; because the house of Rothschild having made the purchase only on the faith that the Government would recommend the House of Commons to take the purchase off their hands, no money would have passed, and it would have been open to the House of Commons to consider the whole question as if no pledge had been given. But that was not the case, he was sorry to say. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate in his statement, though the real facts of the case were stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Properly speaking, the question was not of our taking the shares off Messrs. Rothschild’s hands, but of our having purchased the shares and borrowed money from Messrs. Rothschild to pay for them. That was a simple description of the transaction, and disposed of the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury on the first night of the Session, made no doubt from the erroneous view that no money had passed. So far from no money having passed, the fact was that £4,000,000 had been lent to the English Government on the faith that they would apply to Parliament for repayment, and that was an extremely different question from the question whether we were not bound to 564 take upon ourselves the purchase made by other persons even under the recommendation of the Government. Nor was it therefore true that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was a great risk, because when money had been borrowed on behalf of the English Government—when they had had the money and actually spent it—the House of Commons would not be likely to say—” We have had the money and will not repay it.” This point, as the Committee would see, was not an unimportant one. He had now, singularly enough, to charge the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with inaccuracy—a circumstance so unlikely that it would require the strongest proof. In this case, however, he did not think there was any room for doubt. The right hon. Gentleman had moved for a Vote of £4,080,000, and that Vote was made up in this way—there was £3,976,582, the purchase money of the shares, and there was £99,414 for the commission of 2½ per cent to Messrs. Rothschild. Then there was about £4,000 for small expenses; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid these sums before the House as being the whole cost of the shares. So far, however, from that being the whole cost, the fact was that there had to be added a sum of £37,000; and for this reason, that the Messrs. Rothschild were not only to receive a commission of 2½per cent on the amount of the purchase, but were also to charge interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum on the £4,000,000 until the date of repayment. There was the difficulty. No doubt there was some misunderstanding here, for there were two accounts of what was to be done—one contained in the Treasury Minute, and the other in a letter written by Messrs. Rothschild themselves. In the Treasury Minute it was distinctly stated that the Messrs. Rothschild were to charge a commission of 21 per cent on the £4,000,000 which they undertook to provide, and also that they were to receive the interest of 5 per cent from the Khedive upon the amount advanced from the date of the advance until the date of repayment of such advance by Her Majesty’s Government. On the other hand, the Messrs. Rothschild, having been asked by the Secretary to the Treasury to state their terms in writing, gave a very different version of the affair. They write— 565‘It is also understood that we are to charge Her Majesty’s Government a commission of 2½ per cent upon the £4,000,000, and 5 per cent interest per annum until the date of repayment.’ So that it appeared from the Treasury Minute that this was to be paid by the Khedive, whereas according to Messrs. Rothschild’a Minute it was to be paid by the Government. Now, if it was worth while to write to Messrs. Rothschild to ask them to put their contract in form, one would have thought that it would have been worth while to ascertain who was right and who was wrong. That, however, did not appear to have been done, and so the matter remained in its present state. There was, however, no doubt about it. Of course Messrs. Rothschild’s letter was what they would be bound by and not the Treasury Minute, and it was the duty of the Government to pay them this 5 per cent, and they ought not to look for it from the Khedive. Of course, if the Khedive did pay it, it would really be we who would pay it all the same, because it would be intercepting money that was to come to us from the Khedive. He maintained that it was the duty of the Government to have made this sum for interest, whatever it happened to be, part of the Vote.


ONLY 135 years ago. That is like yesterday in terms of how this all works:


Lies, damned lies and corruption and it exists to this very day in another Conservative “BRITISH CHRISTIAN WITH JEWISH VALUES” Prime Minister and his sidekick, Gideon.

"Having jewish values are great Gideon, just keep well away from yachts would you? The public might just catch on!"

 “I worked for a prominent Jewish business leader for seven-and-a-half years, Michael Green… and in my downstairs loo, you’d see the proud gift I received after speaking at the 350th anniversary dinner, [a print] of Benjamin Disraeli’s house”


So PLEASE, do not suggest, and try to dismiss the facts, that history from 135 years ago has no bearing on the present. The Rothschilds have been at the core of almost every privatisation and major British government policy ever since. Just do the reading to find out!

It is interesting to note that Gladstone once sent a letter to D’Israeli, the latter asking Gladstone to join the new government, where Gladstone states the following:

“I state these points fearlessly and without reserve, for you have yourself well reminded me that there is a Power beyond us that disposes of what we are and do, and I find the limits of choice in public life to be very narrow”.—W. E. Gladstone to Disraeli, 1858

What I find interesting about it is that, while one can consider that Gladstone is speaking of “God” as the “power beyond us”, he then goes on to state that the LIMITS in public life are “very narrow”. I just wonder who/what could possibly be imposing those limits?

Although born of Jewish parents, Disraeli was baptised in the Christian faith at the age of twelve, and remained an observant Anglican for the rest of his life. Adam Kirsch, in his biography of Disraeli, states that his Jewishness was “both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine.” Much of the criticism of his policies was couched in anti-Semitic terms. He was depicted in some antisemitic political cartoons with a big nose and curly black hair, called “Shylock” and “abominable Jew,” and portrayed in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia. In response to an anti-Semitic comment made by Daniel O’Connell in the British parliament, Disraeli memorably defended his Jewishness with the statement, “Yes, I am a Jew, and when the ancestors of the Right Honourable Gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the Temple of Solomon.” One apocryphal story states that Disraeli reconverted to Judaism on his deathbed.


Judaism’s Redefiner


Benjamin_Disraeli,_1st Earl_of_Beaconsfield

Published: January 23, 2009

Benjamin Disraeli was a novelist, a statesman and a professing, practicing Christian, but to understand him one also needs to know that he was born a Jew. It was in the working out of the implications of this bare fact that his literary and political career, as well as his confessional affiliation, are to be understood. Or this, at least, is what Adam Kirsch contends in “Benjamin Disraeli,” his contribution to the “Jewish Encounters” series. “Disraeli’s Jewishness,” Kirsch writes, was “the central fact about him.” It was “both the greatest obstacle to his ambition and its greatest engine.” Does Kirsch, a contributor to The New Yorker and other publications, make good on his thesis?

For sure, he offers a rounded account of his subject. We learn that the proximate cause of Disraeli’s baptism was a quarrel his father had with his synagogue, that Disraeli himself had an incomplete education, that he was a novelist before he became a politician and was a politician for many years before he became a statesman. Kirsch acknowledges his political skills, his ability to outmaneuver his opponents (with Rothschild backing – it helps!), both by compromise and by an even greater radicalism, even his unattractive habit of identifying himself with the powerful instead of the powerless. Disraeli’s positions on the principal issues of the day are identified — his early opposition to free trade and his championing of the cause of empire, his criticism of Victorian utilitarianism and materialism, his defense of the established Church of England, his willingness to extend the franchise to defeat his liberal enemies and the eccentric grounds of his support for Jewish emancipation. All this can be obtained elsewhere, but Kirsch sets it out succinctly and authoritatively.

Disraeli was born in 1804, more than half a century before Jews were permitted to sit in the British Parliament. He died in 1881, just months before the first pogroms in Russia. That is to say, his life spanned the final years of one kind of anti-Semitism and the first years of a much more dangerous kind. The first kind sought to preserve the Jews in their pre-­emancipation condition, as far as was possible. It resisted liberal efforts to bring Jews into civil society on equal terms; in politics it maintained Christian suspicions of Judaism. It was not violent so much as exclusionary. When it failed at the legal level, it persisted at the social level — keeping Jews out of clubs, societies, universities and so on. It expressed itself in snobbery and ill-tempered condescension.

The second kind of anti-Semitism was quite different. It was predicated on beliefs in the immense power of the Jews, their malignity, their responsibility for everything that was wrong about the modern world. It was based, as Kirsch writes, “no longer on contempt but on fear and hatred.” It was lethal in its ultimate object. Jews here constituted not a vexation, but a menace.

It was in relation to the first kind of anti-Semitism that Disraeli defined himself. He sought to arrive at a self-definition that made him immune from being regarded as contemptible. He invented a bogus pedigree for himself (out of Spain, from Venice) (similar to Obama’s “Hawaii” story?), and he talked up whenever he could the intellectual and social distinctions of the Jews as a whole. As part of this project, however, he inadvertently contributed to the emergence of the second kind of anti-Semitism.

Disraeli redefined Judaism as a matter of race rather than religion, and in his ­novels “Coningsby” (1844), “Sybil” (1845) and “Tancred” (1847), he celebrated occult Jewish power, always exercised behind the scenes, and always determinative. The mysterious Sidonia (who figures in all three novels), Kirsch correctly observes, “looks like nothing so much as an anti-­Semitic hate figure.” In “Coningsby,” Disraeli has Sidonia confide, “You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate.” “Russian diplomacy,” he says, is “organized and principally carried on by Jews”; the “mighty revolution” that will come in Germany is “entirely developing under the auspices of Jews.” “The myth of Jewish superiority,” Kirsch writes, “which Disraeli had advanced to counter the fact of social inferiority, now interacted with the paranoid superstitions of anti-Semites to disastrous effect.”

There IS no “jewish superiority”, there is ONLY “Rothschild superiority” (in terms of financial wealth and that is all he needs).

Disraeli was himself the object of anti-Semitic attack in the late 1870s because he insisted that the British national interest lay in supporting the Ottoman Empire against its Christian minority communities. For this piece of “realist” international politics, he was abused as “a very Hebrew of Hebrews,” the “Jew Earl, Philo-Turkish Jew and Jew Premier,” and the “traitorous Jew,” the “haughty Jew” and the “abominable Jew.” He was a leader of the “Turkophile party,” its “most rabid element.” He was the premier of a “Jew government.” He was a wizard, a conjurer, a magician, an alchemist. He was a “man of the East,” an “Asiatic.” “For the past six years we have had an Asiatic ruler.” He was a “wandering Jew,” “sprung from a race of migratory Jews.” He was raised “amid a people for whose ideas and habits he has no sympathy and little respect.” He was a “sham Christian and a sham Englishman.” He was the “charioteer” of a “Juggernaut car,” dragging “the whole of Christendom” over the rights of the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

Most cartoons gave him an immense nose and curly black hair; he was represented as “our modern Shylock.” Many of the illustrations related him to the Devil (“the most authentic incarnation of the Evil One”). At least two portrayed him in the act of ritually murdering the infant Britannia, and in one of these his great adversary, the liberal politician Gladstone, is the distressed mother, arriving perhaps too late to save her child. And there was a note sounded for the first time, but to be repeated many times thereafter: the Jews want war, against the national interest.(and still do)

The anti-Semites of his day insisted that Disraeli was bogus in every respect but his identification with Jews and Judaism. A superficial reading of Kirsch’s book might conclude that its author agrees with this judgment. But that would be mistaken. First, because Kirsch shows that on the specifically political issues, Disraeli was promoting British interests, rather than anything that could be identified as a “Jewish” interest. And second, because Kirsch also demonstrates that Disraeli’s engagement with Jews and Judaism was an almost entirely literary affair. It was in his fiction, not in his political judgments, that he endeavored to counter “the myth of Jewish vulgarity and greed with an empowering myth of Jewish talent and influence.” “Disraeli’s imagination of Jewishness did what he needed it to,” Kirsch concludes. “It gave him the confidence to compete with the best-born men in England.”

Kirsch argues that the alternative career of Jewish leader was ever before Disraeli but that he did not want it. Though what Kirsch describes as “the dream” of Zionism had a “powerful allure” for Disraeli, “neither the conditions of Jewish life in Europe nor his own personality allowed Disraeli to play the role that would eventually fall to Theodor Herzl.” He imagined Judaism in ways that were psycho­logi­cally empowering, but paid little attention to the condition of actually existing Jewry. (As I keep saying, these people do not truly give a rat’s ass about average jews)

Disraeli was not a man who was easily discouraged. His strong desire to impress others led him in the unusual direction of provocativeness rather than ingratiation. He did not want to escape his English milieu, he wanted to triumph within it. He did indeed triumph, achieving everything in his life that he set out to achieve. It was an extraordinary career, one to which Kirsch, in this elegantly written book, does considerable justice.




The Queen/Crown: The quiet Dictator!

Posted in Law, Political History, Uncategorized by earthling on December 4, 2011

The Bitch of Buckingham!

An Overview Of The Whitlam Dismissal

A Vice-Regal Sacking

On Tuesday November 11th, 1975, the Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, dismissed Mr Gough Whitlam as Prime Minister and appointed Mr Malcolm Fraser as a caretaker Prime Minister.

The dismissal was the most dramatic event in the history of the Australian federation. For the first time, an unelected vice-regal representative had removed from office a government which commanded a majority in the House of Representatives. (equivalent to the UK’s House of Commons)

Now, let’s consider the Governor General’s role and responsibilities/authority:

The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is the representative in Australia at federal/national level of the Australian monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II). He or she exercises the supreme executive power of the Commonwealth. The functions and roles of the Governor-General include appointing ambassadors, ministers and judges, giving Royal Assent to legislation, issuing writs for elections and bestowing honours. The Governor-General is President of the Federal Executive Council and Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force. All these things are done and all these posts are held under the authority of the Australian Constitution. Further, the Governor-General acts as vice-regal representative to the Australian Capital Territory.

The Constitution provides that a “Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth . . .” The Constitution grants the Governor-General a wide range of powers, but in practice he or she follows the conventions of the Westminster system and (with rare exceptions) acts only on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia or other ministers. Even in the appointment of the prime minister, the Governor-General rarely exercises any discretion, usually appointing the leader of the largest party or coalition of parties in the House of Representatives.

Interestingly, then, in the 1975 case, the Governor General DID NOT keep to convention nor the Constitution and did NOT listen to the advice of the Prime Minsister – which demonstrates what utter shit this is! They keep to convention as long as it pleases Her Majesty! Who ELSE has the power to change the way the Constitution is interpreted by a Governor General who is not meant to have such power? And neither does it fall to Garfield Barwick. These men acted upon the instruction of a higher power! A power that the British people fail and refuse to acknowledge!

A Double Dissolution election was held on December 13th, 1975, at which the Whitlam Government was soundly defeated.

The dismissal of the Whitlam Labor Government was the culmination of a series of dramatic events which began in October, 1975 with the refusal by the Senate to pass the government’s budget bills.

Out of the Wilderness

The Labor Government had been elected on 2 December 1972 after 23 years of Liberal/Country Party coalition rule. The ALP slogan, “It’s Time”, seemed to capture the mood of the nation, although the ALP’s margin of victory was relatively slim.

Gough Whitlam

Whitlamwas the first of the new-style Labor leaders. He had been elected to Federal Parliament in 1952, became Deputy Leader in 1960 and Leader in 1967. He had experienced early success in a number of by-elections and had won 17 seats at the 1969 election to take Labor close to victory.

Whitlam took office determined to implement a wide-ranging program of reforms. Such was his devotion to his “program” that Whitlam and his deputy, Lance Barnard, ran a two-man government between December 5-19, 1972, after which the full ministry took office.

[So Whitlam was a reformist: Something the Monarchy just can’t allow to happen. His ideas were entirely contrary to the Constitution and, therefore, the Monarchy. He seems to have believed in government by the people for the people – far too dangerous an idea for Liz and her crew]

Gair Affair

Following an attempt by Whitlam to appoint the former leader of the Democratic Labor Party, Senator Vince Gair, as Ambassador to Ireland, the Opposition Leader, Bill Snedden, threatened to force an election by blocking Supply in the Senate. Whitlam responded by calling a double dissolution election for 18 May 1974 at which the government was returned.

[What is “blocking supply? Well it is very simple but one needs to read and understand the following:

A “Money Bill” is a Supply bill. The Hose of Lords (or, in this case, Senate) is by convention, AND by Constitution, disallowed from REJECTING a Money Bill.

In the Westminster system (and, colloquially, in the United States), a money bill or supply bill is a bill that solely concerns taxation or government spending (also known as appropriation of money), as opposed to changes in public law.

It is often a constitutional convention that the upper house (Senate or House of Lords) may not block supply. There is often another requirement that non-money bill type clauses may not be attached to a money bill.

Loss of supply in the lower house (House of Commons or House of Representatives) is conventionally considered to be an expression of the house’s loss of confidence in the government resulting in the government’s fall.

Now, bear in mind that the Gough Whitlam Government had both a majority in the House of Representatives AND the Senate! There was NO “loss of confidence” in this case whatsoever.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, section 1(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 provides that the House of Lords may not delay a money bill more than a month. It is at the discretion of the Speaker of the House of Commons to certify which bills are money bills, and his decision is final and is not subject to challenge. Section 1(2) of the Act states:

A Money Bill means a Public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration, or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, the National Loans Fund or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this subsection the expressions “taxation,” “public money,” and “loan” respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes.

In Australia’s case in 1975, Fraser’s Opposition rejected supply; they merely refused to consider the Bills which meant that no vote was ever taken.

The wording of the Australian Constitution on their actions is interesting. The Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, thought that the Senate had the power to do what it did. It did not! But do you seriously believe that Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice, would not know this?  Having been briefed in many of Australia’s defining constitutional cases (e.g., the Airlines case, and the Bank Nationalisation case), he was knighted in 1953. Knighted in 1953 by Her Majesty – think about that. A Knight does NOT work against his Crown!

From Wikipedia:

“During the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, he controversially advised Governor-General Sir John Kerr on the constitutional legality of dismissing a prime minister who declined to advise an election when unable to obtain passage of supply. This was significant, because Barwick and Gough Whitlam, whose government Kerr dismissed, had a history of antipathy dating from the mid-1950s.”

Barwick’s Awards:

Garfield Barwick

In June 1953, he was made a Knight Bachelor, “in recognition of service to the Public service”.

In 1964 he was appointed a Privy Counsellor.

In January 1965 he was appointed a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (GCMG), honouring his contribution as Chief Justice of the High Court.

In June 1981 he was appointed a Knight of the Order of Australia (AK), “in recognition of service to the Australian Parliament, government and the law”.

{Meanwhile, as an aside, recognise what a bastard “the law” is when it can free 12 and murder 1:

A famous example of Barwick’s astute advocacy involved thirteen Malaysians sentenced to death who appealed to the Privy Council. Twelve retained Barwick, who duly found a technical deficiency in the arrest warrants and secured their freedom. The last, whose counsel was not so thorough, was executed.

The man was executed because he did not choose the right counsel! It’s not law, it’s how well you can argue it!}

But the wording of the Constitution on this point is very interesting. Section 53 which deals with this supposed power does say, expressly, that the Senate may not amend any proposed taxation or appropriation bills. As was his way, Barwick read this to mean that the Senate could do everything else but it could not amend the legislation.

Barwick’s reading of the Constitution is therefore at odds with what the Constitution actually says. Why would a Constitution remove a particular power from the Senate but, according to Barwick, provide it with as many practical alternatives of achieving the same end as malicious minds can invent? Who needs the power to amend if an Opposition controlled Senate can hold an elected government penniless until they agree to its amendments?

If we look at what the Australian founding fathers intended, we find that section 53 incorporates, quite succinctly, the traditional understanding of the relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in respect of appropriations and taxation bills. The following passage from Wikipedia states the practice accurately:

Even before the passage of the Parliament Acts, the Commons possessed pre-eminence in cases of financial matters. By ancient custom, the House of Lords may not introduce a bill relating to taxation or supply, nor amend a bill so as to insert a provision relating to taxation or Supply, nor amend a Supply Bill in any way.

This convention, which vests the power of the purse in the popularly elected chamber, was, like the convention that the monarch only acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, incorporated implicitly into the Australian Constitution by their Founding Fathers. Both conventions had been long recognised and adhered to in the United Kingdom at the time of the Constitution’s drafting. We may suppose that the conventions were so well known at the time, that it was not considered necessary by those men, that anything more than a general statement of principle was needed. It was, after all, such a reasonable and practical way of acknowledging the source of the government’s power in the people. Barwick and the Liberal Opposition thought differently. They thought differently because they were instructed to think differently in this case. The BITCH of Buckingham Palace wields her power subtly and quietly through her Knights.

Now compare with the United States:

 United States

While the United States of America is not a parliamentary democracy, Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution requires that all bills raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives, consistent with British constitutional practice; by convention, appropriation bills (bills that spend money) also originate in the House. Unlike in most Westminster systems, there are no limits on the Senate’s ability to amend revenue bills or any requirement for the Senate to approve such bills within a certain timeframe.

We will come back to this United States situation in a moment when we introduce Evelyn Rothschild into the equation.

Changing the Senate Numbers

Despite this, the Senate continued to frustrate the government, resulting in the first and only Joint Sitting of the Parliament, allowed for under Section 57 of the Constitution.

Following the appointment of the government’s Senate leader and Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, to the High Court bench in February 1975, the Liberal government of New South Wales, under Premier Tom Lewis, refused to follow convention and appoint a Labor replacement for Murphy in the Senate. The independent Mayor of Albury, Cleaver Bunton, was appointed instead. On his departure from parliament, Lewis was permitted by Queen Elizabeth II, on the Governor’s recommendation, to continue to use the title “The Honourable”.

Following the death of Queensland Labor Senator Bert Milliner, the Country Party Premier of Queensland, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, also refused to appoint a Labor replacement, opting instead to appoint Albert Patrick Field.

Bjeke-Petersen’s uncompromising conservatism (including his role within the downfall of the Whitlam federal government), his political longevity, and his leadership of a government that, in its later years, was revealed to be institutionally corrupt, made him one of the best-known and most controversial political figures of 20th century Australia. An ironic feature of his government was that while Premier Bjelke-Petersen relentlessly preached the maintenance of law and order as a reason to suppress political opposition, a number of senior government figures, including a Police Commissioner he appointed, were subsequently jailed for corruption.

Ma’am, you make your appointments and choose your friends well!

Now, the following is a very interesting and telling point wrt the reasons of why Whitlam was under attack by the establishment:

Overseas Loans Affair

The Loans Affair, also called the Khemlani Affair, is the name given to the political scandal involving the Whitlam Government of Australia in 1975, in which it was accused of attempting to borrow money illegally from Middle Eastern countries by bypassing standard procedure as dictated by the Australian Treasury.

Note, however, the following re the Australian Treasury:

Treasury’s independence:

Treasurer Wayne Swan has previously called Henry an independent economic regulator, similar to the governor of the Reserve Bank. When asked after the 2009 Budget about Treasury’s independence, Henry replied:

Strictly of course we’re not. The Treasury Department is a department of state. It is part of the executive government. It works to the government of the day, whatever the political persuasion of the government of the day. And so in that sense of course the Treasury is not independent from government and it can never behave as if it is independent from government. But there’s another sense in which it does have a degree of independence and that is that the Treasury conducts its analysis without government interference. It’s up to the government of the day to decide whether to accept that analysis or whether to reject that analysis.
ABC Radio, Tuesday, 19 May 2009
“Bypassing Standard procedure” then? Or just rejecting the Treasury’s analysis?

The Minister for Minerals and Energy, Rex Connor, Treasurer Dr. Jim Cairns, and others, were prime identities in the scandal.

The Whitlam Government attempted to raise a loan of approximately US$4 billion. The money was intended to be used to fund a number of natural resource and energy projects, including construction of a natural gas pipeline, the electrification of interstate railways and a uranium enrichment plant.

Tirath Khemlani (1920 – 1991) played a pivotal role. He was employed by Dalamal and Sons, a London-based commodity-trading firm.

The raising of foreign loans for the Australian Government at the time required the authorisation by the Loans Council. It was common knowledge that funds were usually borrowed from European banks or financiers. Connor’s attempt to secure the loan was unusual for several reasons:

  1. The size of the loan was extremely large for the time.
  2. When a project of this scale and cost is undertaken, governments often attract foreign investment and ultimately form a business partnership, whereby the foreign investor would retain partial ownership and/or rights over the resources once the project is complete. (So there is an insight as to how the bankers take control and in this case, the zionist west was not going to allow cheap Islamic money gain leverage in any shape or form in a western and commonwealth nation). However, this option was rejected by Connor who was renowned for his desire to have Australian resources controlled and owned by Australians.
  3. The Minister for Minerals and Energy was raising the loan independent of Treasury. (Can’t have that now can we?)
  4. Rather than attempting to raise the loan from US financiers, Connor attempted to raise the loan from Arab financiers, with Khemlani acting as the intermediary. There are unconfirmed reports that Arab financiers offered lower interest rates on governmental loans than US Banks/financiers. The Middle East at the time was awash with “petro-dollars”, as the price of oil quadrupled between 1973 and 1974

Connor was duly authorised to raise loans through Khemlani in late 1974. Between December 1974 and May 1975, Khemlani sent regular telexes to Connor advising that he was close to securing the loan.

However, the loan never eventuated and, in May 1975, Whitlam sought to secure the loan through a major US investment bank (name undisclosed). As part of the loan procedure, this bank imposed an obligation on the Australian Government to cease all other loan raising activities pertaining to this loan and accordingly, on 20 May 1975, Connor’s loan-raising authority was formally revoked.

A special one-day sitting of the House of Representatives was held on 9 July 1975, during which the then Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam tabled the documents containing evidence about the loan and sought to defend his government’s position.

Beset by economic difficulties at the time and the negative political impact which the Loans Affair conjured, the Whitlam Government was very vulnerable to further assaults on its credibility. Gough Whitlam was prompted to sack Dr. Cairns from his cabinet.

Although Rex Connor’s authority to seek an overseas loan was withdrawn following leaking of the scandal, he continued to liaise with Khemlani. The Herald Newspaper based in Melbourne published documents confirming this and Connor was forced to resign from the cabinet. He was replaced by the future Prime Minister, Paul Keating.

[Note: The Melbourne Herald was owned by Sir Keith Murdoch, father of Rupert Murdoch. The latter then took over ownership in 1987]

Rupert Murdoch: His father, Sir Keith Murdoch, owned Melbourne Herald,

The Melbourne Herald newspaper journalist Peter Game tracked down Khemlani in mid-late 1975 and following an interview, he broke the story that ultimately opened up the Loans Affair. When Connor directly denied Khemlani’s version of events, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, Khemlani flew to Australia in October 1975 and provided Peter Game with telexes sent to him from Connor that refuted Connor’s denial.

On 13 October 1975, Khemlani provided a statutory declaration and a copy of the incriminating telexes sent from Connor’s office, a copy of which was forwarded to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Upon receiving the documents, Whitlam dismissed Rex Connor from his government for misleading parliament. In his letter of dismissal, date 14 October 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam wrote: “Yesterday I received from solicitors a copy of a statutory declaration signed by Mr Khemlani and copies of a number of telex messages between office Mr Khemlani’s office in London and the office of the Minister for Energy. In my judgment these messages did constitute “communications of substance” between the Minister and Mr Khemlani.”

The loans affair embarrassed the Whitlam government and exposed it to claims of impropriety. The Malcolm Fraser-led Opposition used its numbers in the Senate to block the government’s budget legislation in an attempt to force an early general election, citing the loans affair as an example of ‘extraordinary and reprehensible’ circumstances. Whitlam refused, and this led to the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.

The Loans Affair was dramatised in the 1983 ABC miniseries called “The Dismissal”.

We can’t have a western government accepting “unacceptable” Islamic financing now can we? You get your loans from the Zionists and no-one else do you hear? Otherwise non-usury may just catch on in the West! So we get our Zionist press to break open the scandal and then we have our Knights in the Senate and judiciary turn the screws even in opposition to what the Constitution says because it doesn’t matter what it says as long as you do what you’ve meant to do.

After the resignation of Rex Connor in October 1975, the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, announced that the Senate would defer passage of the Supply Bills until Whitlam called an election. Whitlam refused. There followed three weeks of constitutional crisis as the parties confronted each other in Parliament and the country.

Constitutional and Political Issues

The crisis raised a number of crucial questions about Australian democracy and centred on a disagreement between Whitlam and Fraser over the rights of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Whitlam asserted the primacy of the House of Representatives and his right to govern so long as he retained a majority there, whereas Fraser claimed that a government denied Supply by the Senate should resign. This was a fundamental dispute about how we choose Governments. The conflict also highlighted the importance of constitutional conventions in the Australian system.

Kerr & Barwick

The Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, took an active interest in the crisis, talking to both Fraser and Whitlam at various points during the period following October 15. At one point, Fraser offered to pass Supply, provided an election was called by the middle of 1976.

It is now known that Kerr sought the advice of Sir Garfield Barwick, the Chief Justice of the High Court. Barwick and Kerr met on Sunday 9 November and Barwick endorsed Kerr’s decision in writing the next day.

Remembrance Day

On November 11, 1975, Whitlam proposed calling an immediate half-Senate election, but the Governor-General rejected this advice and instead dismissed Whitlam from office. Later, Kerr issued a statement of reasons for the dismissal.

Fraser was offered a commission as caretaker Prime Minister which he accepted, and immediately sought a double dissolution election for 13 December. In the meantime, the Senate passed the Supply Bills, with the Labor senators unaware that their government had been dismissed. The House passed several motions of confidence in the Whitlam Government and instructed the Speaker, Gordon Scholes, to relay this to Kerr. The Governor-General refused to see the Speaker until after he had dissolved the Parliament. Scholes subsequently wrote to the Queen and received a letter in which the Queen indicated there was no place for her involvement in an Australian political conflict.

The Bitch of Buckingham Palace suggests she has no involvement while the letter is written to her because the people writing it KNOW it is HER government and HER Constitution! But she can’t be recognised for what she truly is now can she? Yet it is all so obvious to a 10 year old child!

At the ensuing election, Fraser’s conservative coalition was resoundingly elected.


The dismissal remains a controversial subject in Australian history. It is central to any understanding of the current debate about becoming a republic. The constitutional and political effects of the Dismissal remain of importance to anyone interested in Australian politics. OR ANY POLITICS WHERE THE BITCH IS INVOLVED!

The main players in the Dismissal have experienced different fates. Sir John Kerr’s Australia Day Address on 26 January 1976 belied the crisis about to beset him. After a drunken performance at the 1977 Melbourne Cup winner’s presentation, he was forced by public outrage to relinquish an appointment as Australian Ambassador to UNESCO. He lived in England for some years and died on 7 April 1991. Even in death, he remained controversial, the parliamentary condolences provoking a spirited intervention from Paul Keating.

Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister for seven and a quarter years, before losing an early election in 1983. Ostracised by many in the Liberal Party during the 1980s for failing to capitalise on his majorities in both houses of parliament, he was rehabilitated in the public mind during the 1990s. He campaigned against racism and media monopolies, supported an Australian republic and acted as Chairman of Care Australia. HOW IRONIC THAT FRASER THEN WENT ON TO SUPPORT A REPUBLIC!

Gough Whitlam retired from Parliament in 1978, following another massive election defeat in 1977. Ironically, he was appointed by the Hawke government as Ambassador to UNESCO in the early 1980s. When he turned 80, even Prime Minister John Howard issued a congratulatory press release.

Whitlam published an account of his years in office in 1985, calling it simply “The Whitlam Government”. Named a “living national treasure” in 1997, “Abiding Interests” is a recent publication.

Now, back to the US Senate and it’s Constitutional place.

The US Senate is filled with Lawyers top to bottom. Members of the BAR. And THIS man knows what that means. Just listen to his first response (and the veiled threat):

Now why is this piece of shit so confident? And why does he snigger at the fact the Senate is the more powerful? (and why is it so?) And if it doesn’t go through then there will be consequences which he says we will have to learn from?

Then we have this from House Representative Brad Sherman:

Now who do you think OWNS you America? Do you REALLY believe in your “Democracy”? Well you’d be right because a democracy is the worst thing you or anyone could have. Your Founding Fathers knew this but you’ve forgotten why!



“It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc……”

Prince Elector of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE?


I suggest you read it and recognise that America was simply granted privileges. You do not negotiate a peace agreement if you win a war. YOU dictate terms!

Your Federal Government is in Washington D.C. for a reason and your Federal Government and Federal Reserve are owned by Globalists (primarily British/Israel/European) and your Armed Forces do THEIR will – nothing at all to do with keeping YOU safe! The same goes for the British Armed Forces. THEY take oaths to a Crown which they think is the Queen and that the Queen gives a shit about the people of the UK.

As Kissinger said: “Dumb and stupid animals used in foreign policy”.

The “Natural Person” and the Matrix

Posted in Law by earthling on December 3, 2011

It is becoming more and more clear that even some (most?) of “they” do not even understand the terms by which we are all enslaved to debt and to a “matrix” known as the legal world.

The Matrix is: Are you “Neo” (a human being) or are you a fiction (a “person”).

The former is free the latter a slave. Period!

Case in point:


HC Deb 19 January 1993 vol 217 cc271-351

Mrs. Gorman

Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of training and the use of slush funds, I should be interested to hear his comments on the attitude revealed in article 57 and amendment No. 199. The article is sinister because it refers to the laying down of            directives for the co-ordination … by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States            in relation to the activities of self-employed persons. It is sinister because the essence of many forms of self-employment is that people can drift into them, especially when they have lost other work. If there are to be directives, laws and regulations—

§The Chairman            Order. The hon. Lady’s point is relevant. She has asked a question and perhaps she will now allow the hon. Member for Holland with Boston to answer.


§Sir Richard Body            I agree wholeheartedly with the point of my hon. Friend’s intervention. I was self-employed before I came to the House—many of us were. A self-employed person should be sufficiently endowed to be able to decide for himself or herself what type of vocational training is suitable. It is amazing that the European Community or those who drafted the treaty should go so far as to suggest that the self-employed should take part in such schemes—it should be entirely a matter for them.

§Sir Teddy Taylor            Does my hon. Friend accept that article 57 does not offer opportunities for everyone? The second sentence of paragraph 2 of article 57 refers to            training and conditions of access for natural persons.            My hon. Friend seems to have studied this matter carefully. As we know from last night, however, the Minister does not answer questions but simply reads prepared speeches. That is unfortunate, but perhaps my hon. Friend can help me. Bearing in mind the reference to “natural persons”, can he tell me what unnatural persons are? Or perhaps some Opposition Member can enlighten us.

This is a very serious point. The Bill with which we are dealing is to become the law of the land. Training and access are to be provided for natural persons but not, apparently, for unnatural persons. What on earth is a natural person? May we have an assurance—

§The Chairman            The hon. Gentleman must not keep asking the same question. He has asked what a natural person is. Perhaps he will allow his hon. Friend to respond.

9.15 pm

§Sir Richard Body            My hon. Friend is, of course, right. This just goes to show how difficult it is to translate these documents into some kind of English. At one time I did a little lecturing in company law. We used to talk about “persons”. A person can be a corporate entity. For example, I believe that, in law, ICI is a person.

§Sir Teddy Taylor            But a natural person?


§Sir Richard Body            My hon. Friend and I are natural persons. I shall not point to anyone who might be described as anything other than a natural person; indeed, all of us here are natural persons. In law, ICI, Unilever, Shell and all other such organisations are persons, but not natural persons. 

§Sir Teddy Taylor            I have great respect for my hon. Friend, who is one of the wisest people in the House, but I have to point out that he is stating what he thinks the position to be. Is there a definition anywhere? Constituents of mine will probably have to obey these laws. When it comes to training and access, I shall have to ask, “Are you a natural person?” My hon. Friend says that he thinks that he and I are natural persons. Where is the definition? This is not fun; it is a serious matter. All those who say that this Bill should be rushed through should realise that what it contains would become the law of the land. I demand that before we leave this matter we be told, by my hon. Friend or by somebody else, what the blazes a natural person is. 

§Sir Richard Body            My hon. Friend should not be quite so naive as to believe that the people who drafted this treaty, as well as those who will put it into effect, have very much interest in the people of Southend. The treaty            342            contains many examples of the way in which it will be very difficult for ordinary people, particularly those who are self-employed, to understand the laws that govern their lives, disobedience of which may result in punishment.


I hope that provides the reader with an insight as to what a natural person and a legal person are RECOGNISING that they both are defined in law and neither is “natural” but legal fiction. Both are under the same LEGAL heading of “person” but the words “natural” and “legal” are simply to differentiate (IN “LAW”) that which, outside of the legal definitions of “person”, is a living human being and  that which is purely a “person” created on paper (such as a Corporation by way of its Articles of Association OR a Nation State by way of its Constitutional arrangements just as the EU achieved a legal personality in 2009).

So here we have a Lord (and others), Teddy Taylor, who hasn’t got the first clue about what determines personhood yet there are so many people out there in the UK who would turn and listen to a Lord before they listened to a “dumb blogger nobody”. They will ask for “proof” when proof is already given but they will ask for “proof” in terms of documentation form the very people (government/state) who are using the “law” (their corrupted, devious version of it)   to oppress them. These very same people then are asking the people who the majority (vast majority) of the public distrust – the political establishment of this country – to admit what they are doing when, day by day, we see these people lying through their teeth and literally “leeching” from the good people of this country who, ignorantly and in obeyance of a corrupt regime, continue to pay their taxes while this bunch of leeches pay off their friends, pay themselves, use your tax to pay for their mortgages down to their DVDs.

All I can say is that the people of this country have a very robust form of “Stockholm Syndrome” and until they relieve themselves of it and educate themselves on the excesses of this corrupt British regime, then Britain is finished.

We have a Police force and an Armed Forces who are completely unaware of all of this and just continue carrying out their duties while their own families and everyone around them in this country lose their wealth and health and yet these IDIOTS don’t ask themselves “Why are we doing this job? We are constructing for these people the very bars of our own prison!”.



Meanwhile Teddy, if you’re listening buddy, you ain’t got a bloody clue do you? They create the “legal framework” as they go along. These bastards continue and carry on arbitrarily constructing the next paradigm regarding who and what will be considered a “person” in years to come and you know what? It might just not be YOU! What’s your IQ?

Raise your right hand and swear on Asimov’s Bible!

“As Martine explains, this colloquium was inspired by the long-running colloquium on the Law of Outer Space, which began in 1958.  She sees a connection between space law in 1958 and human rights of futuristic persons right now, in that they are both incredibly cutting-edge in 1958 and today, respectively.  In 1958, the experts decided that some things that were taken for granted, like national borders, had to be tossed out in the face of the new technology.  For instance, if a space probe is orbiting the Earth, it will violate the “airspace” of many countries whether they like it or not.  We may have to discard similar assumptions to come up with a serious legal framework for futuristic persons.  The point of this colloquium is to move forward the law on these new areas, as the law must evolve together with improving knowledge.  One crucial area is that personhood should be regarded based on intelligence and values, rather than substrate or superficial appearance.

This colloquium could go on for a long time — 10, 20, 30 years.  It won’t be done overnight, but the point is to move forward the law and ensure that the rights of futuristic persons are duly protected by the legal system as they are created.”




On 12 May 2009, The Daily Telegraph reported that Clarke had “flipped” his council tax. He had told the Parliamentary authorities that his main home was in his Rushcliffe constituency, enabling him to claim a second homes allowance on his London home and leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill for the council tax due on that property. However, he told Rushcliffe Borough Council in Nottinghamshire that he spent so little time at his constituency address that his wife Gillian should qualify for a 25% council tax (single person’s) discount, saving the former chancellor around £650 per year. Land registry records showed that Clarke did not have a mortgage on his home in Nottinghamshire, where he has lived since 1987. He instead held a mortgage on his London house, which he had most recently charged to the taxpayer at £480 per month.

Why didn’t HE go in the purge? Well, when you start to understand all of this big picture you will understand that!

They purged who they wanted rid of and they used those “sacrificial lambs” (who had done far less than Clarke and others in many cases) to give you the impression they were doing something about it. And YOU SWALLOWED IT!