The Armed Forces and the Police: They LOVE their Queen. They think when they take that oath for Queen and Country it is all wrapped into one. What IGNORANT IDIOTS they are! While they do their duty their own families are getting SCREWED by the very woman and HER family they swear an oath to!
THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF STUPIDITY but what’s even worse is: Even when it’s put in black and white under their noses – never mind by a blogger but later by a national newspaper (though the newspapers never paint the whole picture in one nice big gulp. They just feed it gently over months or years piece by piece – that way the big picture gets ignored by the ignorant!) – they STILL don’t get it!
So let’s look at today’s (21st April 2012) headline in the Daily Mail for starters shall we?
Now, a blog I wrote over a year ago: The Crown: Profiting from your misery!
To all you STUPID “monarchists”: You bloody fools! Those parasitical scum are screwing you left right and centre while you celebrate a Diamond jubilee and wave your silly little flags as the Olympic team and English football teams sing their praises for her and her clan every time they win a bloody medal!
What is it you do not understand about the monarchy (who are MEANT to be ONLY a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy – funny that when so many say we have no constitution!!) through their lovely little banking friends – the Crown Estate – OWN THE SEABED?
Now just before moving on, watch this little clip of the corrupt bastard you call your Prince:
What is it you do not understand about this?
UK PARLIAMENT ARCHIVES:
11 Feb 2003 : Column 245WH—continued
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland): I am delighted to have secured this opportunity to examine the workings of the Crown Estate Commission, which is one of the slightly gloomier corners of Government business. It is an area of public life that is not often overly troubled by the bright lights of public accountability, but it has a profound and real effect on the life of my constituents and many people who live in coastal and island communities throughout the United Kingdom. It was the subject of a considerable part of my maiden speech. …….
I would be delighted if the Minister were to say today that the Government will examine the question of ownership of the seabed. Such an initiative is long overdue. However, I realise that this is a Westminster Hall debate. I have been an MP long enough now to be realistic about what can be achieved. For that reason, I have asked that today’s debate be limited to the management of the seabed. Nevertheless, it never hurts to place on record my belief that it is fundamentally obnoxious that a body such as the Crown Estate Commission should exist and should exert power in the way that it does over coastal and island communities. I speak as one who represents several island communities and was born and raised in one.
It is questionable that we should allow such a body to raise money from things on which we depend, such as piers and marinas. We have no alternative but to use them, but rent is exigible by the Crown Estate Commission on them.
Now get this:
I turn to sub-sea cabling. The Minister may be aware that a project to lay a fibre optic cable between the Scottish mainland and Shetland is under consideration, although it is rather on the back burner. It would be in tune with an important Government policy on broadband to get that cable laid, and it might well be supported both financially and politically by the Scottish Executive, the Shetland Islands council charitable trust, the Shetland Islands council and the Orkney Islands council. However, if that is achieved, the Crown Estate Commission will charge no less than £64,000 a year in rent simply for the privilege of allowing that cable to lie on the seabed.
The same situation will transpire in the event that we are able to lay electricity cables to allow the export of electricity generated by tidal or wave power or wind power in the islands, which are uniquely well placed for the development of renewable energies.
SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS RENT (PER YEAR!!) FOR A SINGLE CABLE DOING NOTHING/ZERO/NADA BUT SITTING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA ON THE SEABED!
NOW work out why there is so much emphasis on OFFSHORE WINDPOWER and work out why, while the feed in tariffs for those using solar power on their houses has been dropped so dramatically last year (41p/KW to 21p/KW) while wind energy AND PARTICULARLY OFFSHORE WIND, was not hit?
Do you get it? It is SIMPLE!! While it is possible for people to receive money back from the energy providers (the feed in tariffs) for supplying the grid, the CROWN DO NOT WANT THAT AND THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO HAVE THE REMOTEST POSSIBILITY OF BEING “OFF GRID” AND SELF SUFFICIENT!
What happens when the generation of the electricity is offshore? There is NO self sufficiency and it ensures that all of our (your) energy supply is provided by the grid and NOT YOU!
Now, since the dawn of North Sea Oil, the Crown Estate have owned that because they OWN THE SEABED AND THE MINERALS – see the blog which provides the link to the FACT that Petroleum vests with the Crown itself!! It does so for this simple reason – the Crown owns the seabed and minerals! Doing so, the Crown has been making 12.5% “royalties” (outside of the tax paid to government coffers) from the day oil was first struck in the north sea. 12.5% of the value of EVERY barrel of oil!
Now back to the wind power: Remember that £64,000 rent for a single cable between the scottish mainland and the Isle of Skye? Well think about this:
Now consider this picture of a typical wind farm set up and all the requirements. THEN consider the number of turbines and then the number of cables between the turbines and the grid back onshore. Think about that number multiplied by at the very least £64,000 per year every year JUST FOR SITTING ON THE SEABED! Then wonder: WHO THE HELL GAVE THE SEABED TO THE QUEEN AND THE CROWN ESTATE? THEN wonder once more about Tony Benn’s comments in Parliament regarding who or what the hell the Crown is in the first place? Put it all together and take a deep breath!
Then, perhaps, we can also ask them how much they are charging for the rent of every single turbine itself?
NOW can you get it through your skull as to why they don’t want you generating your own electricity? But they will “create jobs” for you to create THEIR energy generating plant so that they can get you to pay for it and pay for your energy that you are working for them to generate! YOU CREATE FOR THEM AND THEY PAY YOU PEANUTS BUT THEN THEY MAKE IT WORSE BY CHARGING YOU FOR THE ENERGY YOU HELPED CREATE FOR THEM TO CHARGE YOU! DON’T YOU GET IT YET?
Now let’s just take a quick look at ONE aspect more of this:
The Crown Estate acting as a co development partner. How nice. What the HELL does the Crown Estate know about anything? Anything at all? Nevermind the engineering of offshore wind farms. While the cost of just the development and CONSENT (consent by whom? Ah you guessed it – THE CROWN ESTATE!) is just 4% of the total cost of a 500MW wind farm. But that 4% comes to £60M! NICE! 🙂
Read the whole thing:
Now one last thing because you may read this and say “You said the Petroleum vests in the Crown and yet this says the Crown Estate doesn’t have control over the oil! So you’re wrong!!”
But listen: Even the UK bloody parliament doesn’t know who the Crown actually are! Read the blog: “Tony Benn, the straight man” – tony-benn-the-straight-man
THEN read once more: Petroleum vests with his majesty! The question then is “How many British Crowns are there?” Or is it that the Crown is something more than her majesty while she is the main focal point of it from the population’s ignorant perspective? Why, for instance, are there clauses in the Bank of England Act 1946 which are protected by the Official Secrets Act? Why is it that now, the Queen and her family are being even more protected from scrutiny by this utter manipulated and corrupt shit they call “law’?
Now here’s something else (how much do you actually need before that bloody penny drops you monarchical cretins?):
Republic warns of “historic stitch up” as Queen asks Parliament to allow royal funding changes
29th Jun 2011
Republic has described new plans to tie royal funding to Crown Estate revenue as an “historic stitch up” that could divert millions of pounds from public services.
The Queen today issued a “gracious message” asking Parliament to allow changes to royal funding which would see her paid a single annual grant based on a percentage of revenue from the Crown Estate. Proposals for the new “sovereign support grant” will be presented to MPs tomorrow and introduced in a new bill.
The royal household is currently funded through the Civil List and grants from several government departments.
Republic spokesperson Graham Smith said:
“The Crown Estate is not – and never has been – the personal property of the royals. The Windsors have no more right to its revenue than I do. To claim that it should fund their lavish lifestyle is deceitful and dishonest.”
“The Crown Estate is there to fund government and public services. If this deal goes through it will be a historic stitch up that will end up lining the royal family’s pockets.”
“We’ve seen that the royals are unable to keep their spending under control. The new grant is likely to lead to even greater waste with less accountability. It will give the royal household even more freedom over its finances at exactly the time when its expenditure should be more tightly controlled.”
“The office of the head of state should be funded like every other public body– through a budget agreed by Parliament and based on need.”
Details of the funding changes are on the HM Treasury website: leg_sovereign_grant.htm.
The Crown Estate is a land and property portfolio, managed on behalf of the Government, whose surplus revenue is paid annually to the Treasury. It is the ‘hereditary possessions of the Sovereign’, not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.
New report reveals annual cost of British monarchy ‘enough to feed an army’
23rd Jun 2011
The annual cost of the monarchy has been found to be more than the entire annual MoD food budget and the equivalent of thousands of nurses, police officers and teachers, according to a new report.
The new report by campaign group Republic has revealed that the total annual cost of the British monarchy could be over £200 million, more than five times the official figure released by Buckingham Palace.
The report describes the monarchy as ‘one of the most expensive, wasteful and financially irresponsible institutions in the world’.
The estimated cost presented in “The ‘Value for Money Monarchy’ Myth” includes security expenditure, costs of royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, all of which are excluded from official figures.
The key findings include:
* The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).
* The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.
* Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades.
* £202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme.
* The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.
* Britain’s royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.
* Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household’s exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family’s finances.
Republic will be holding a protest outside the gates of Buckingham Palace on Saturday June 25 at 1pm to raise awareness of the cost of the monarchy. The protest will go ahead despite the decision by the royal parks agency to withhold formal permission.
Republic’s campaign manager Graham Smith said:
‘This report cuts through the spin and shows beyond doubt that the British monarchy is a colossal waste of public money. The royals have shown that they are simply incapable of reining in their spending – they will continue to waste taxpayers money until the government stands up to them.’
‘In pointing out the scale of waste here we’re calling for an immediate start to opening up royal accounts. It’s time for the government to take control of the monarchy’s budget, pay the Queen a salary and make the royal household fully accountable to taxpayers.’
‘Every year we go through the charade of Palace press officers telling us what great value the monarchy is. It’s time for the royals and politicians to come clean – spending hundreds of millions of pounds on one family is morally indefensible, especially at a time of painful cuts.’
For further information or comment contact Graham Smith on 07747 608 770 or email@example.com
The report is available to download from http://www.republic.org.uk/royalfinances
The protest will go ahead outside the gates of Buckingham Palace at 1pm on Saturday June 25.
Visitors have been mesmerised by the quality that pervades every aspect – thanks to the demanding eye of a man who, in every aspect of his life, operates at the highest level.
The Rothschilds have always been well connected – Lord Rothschild’s son, Nat, has been the subject of media speculation after entertaining George Osborne and Peter Mandelson on the oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s yacht – but this family does not court publicity, preferring to operate through a network of connections behind the scenes. Indeed, Lord Rothschild rarely gives interviews, even about a subject as close to his heart as Waddesdon.
The purpose is to provide an archive and a conference centre, holding meetings on “subjects of interest to mankind, such as climate change, the environment, the Middle East, investment. Ten years ago I held a conference with Warren Buffet and people were queuing to come. I intend to do more of those, perhaps with the Saïd Business School at Oxford.
Now, it is significantly, the very last paragraph of this which is of immense interest and very telling. You see, the conference old Jacob refers to which he held 10 years ago is that conference at Waddesdon Manor which Arnold Schwarzenegger attended shortly before running for Governor of California. Furthermore, even more telling is the transcript of that meeting which was reported in the Times shortly thereafter. It was this:
Read it ( They knew! ) and recognise that these bastards not only knew what was coming but they planned it years before while the British Government (yes, even the UK chancellor, Alistair Darling, suggested he did not see the financial crash coming until 2007/2008. If not, then he was never obviously, “in the know”. You see, the Labour party (the left wing of the bird) pumped the bubble up (Tony and Gordon knew exactly what they had to do) and the right wing of the same bird (you see they are both run by the same people at the top) then imposes the austerity while there is no need for a national debt in the first place! See previous blogs on this proving it!
And lastly, Charlie linking up with the Rothschilds to invest in the very scam they preach is necessary to “SAVE THE WORLD”.
I mean, my apologies to those of you who still can’t quite grasp this but you must be as thick as dog shit not to understand what is and has been going on here for a very long time!
There was a reason I rewrote this song. Tongue in cheek yes but absolutely true nevertheless:
National Geographic: Who owns the moon? Could Richard Branson?
You may think this is crazy but just you watch!
An open letter to any and all Lawyers, Barristers, Judges who dare reply and debate this issue which destroys the mindgame you have played a part in over centuries.
Please, be my guest and attempt to make an argument against the following. I look forward to it.
The following totally destroys the Judge, the politician, the Law enforcer, the magistrate, the establishment figure, the media whore who laughs at the subject and the man or woman who simply refuses to believe what is the fact: The fact is that the State and the United Nations, the European Union – in fact ANY and ALL “nations” and constructed legal personality (legal fiction) can have absolutely no authority over a natural person under any circumstances UNLESS that “legal person” is acting as dictator and effectively destroys the widely held belief that we are all equal before the law. The ONLY fallback the State has is the argument that there is such a thing as “Supremacy of law”. We will see, however, that this simply does not hold water because it is, again, a construct of the very legal personality (fiction) which determines it.
So let’s start with the INSTITUTIONS:
The European Union
The relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights is an issue in European Union law and human rights law. The European Court of Justice rules on European Union (EU) law while the European Court of Human Rights rules on European Convention on Human Rights which covers the whole of Europe, not just the EU, but not the institutions of the European Union. The European Union (EU) is not a member of the Council of Europe and the European Union takes the view that while it is bound by the European Convention it is not bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. As seen in Article 6(2) of the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union is bound to respect fundamental rights principles. This means that the institutions of the European Union must not violate human rights, as defined by European Union law, and also that the Member States of the European Union must not violate European Union human rights principles when they implement Union legislation or act pursuant to Union law. This obligation is in addition to the Member States’ pre-existing obligations to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in everything they do. In practice, this means that the Court of Justice weaves the Convention principles throughout its reasoning. For example, the Court held that when a child has a right of residence in a Member State according to Union law, this also means that his parent(s) should also have a right of residence due to the principle of respect for family life enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Prior to the entry into force on 1 June 2010 of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU could not accede to the Convention, and the European Court of Human Rights’ did not have jurisdiction to rule on case brought against the EU. However, the EcHR has been prepared to hold EU member states liable for human rights’ violations committed within their jurisdictions, even when they were just complying with a mandatory provision of EU law.
Please recognise what this is, in fact stating: While the EU creates and demands that its laws are implemented in the member states (for example the UK), the EU, itself, is not bound by the ECHR – it is immune! So the EU may create laws which fundamentally violate Human Rights. While they create the law and the member states MUST implement them, if the member states then are found in violation of one’s human rights, it is the member states who are attacked for doing so. Yet, the member states are put in a position by the immune EU to implement the law! Make NO mistake, this is like a mafia boss telling one of his minions to murder someone because that is his ruling (and the minion does not question the Don now does he?) – that is the “law”. So the minion goes ahead and murders and the legal profession come along and prosecute the minion while leaving the Don immune for making the order. Similarly, it is precisely the issue which was deliberated upon during the Nuremburg Trials. The question was: Were those who carried out the orders of their government (Hitler), guilty of warcrimes? However……
Protocol No. 14 of the ECHR entered into force on 1 June 2010. It allows the European Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. The EU’s Treaty of Lisbon, in force since 1 December 2009, permits the EU to accede to said convention. The EU would thus be subject to its human rights law and external monitoring as its member states currently are. It is further proposed that the EU join as a member of the Council of Europe now it has attained a single legal personality in the Lisbon Treaty.
Now remember this: The EU has attained a legal personality. It is recognised by law as existing and, as such, can enter treaties (which are simply contracts). The EU is now a LEGAL PERSON. A Judge can now “see” the EU because it now exists as a legal person whereas, before, a Judge could not “see” the EU because it did not legally exist!
Now, how did the EU gain its legal existence?
Well, like any other Corporation and Nation:
On 1 December 2009, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force and reformed many aspects of the EU. In particular it changed the legal structure of the European Union, merging the EU three pillars system into a single legal entity provisioned with legal personality. The EU is based on a series of treaties. These first established the European Community and the EU, and then made amendments to those founding treaties.These are power-giving treaties which set broad policy goals and establish institutions with the necessary legal powers to implement those goals. These legal powers include the ability to enact legislation which can directly affect all member states and their inhabitants. The EU has legal personality, with the right to sign agreements and international treaties. Under the principle of supremacy, national courts are required to enforce the treaties that their member states have ratified, and thus the laws enacted under them, even if doing so requires them to ignore conflicting national law, and (within limits) even constitutional provisions The European Council uses its leadership role to sort out disputes between member states and the institutions, and to resolve political crises and disagreements over controversial issues and policies. It acts externally as a “collective Head of State” and ratifies important documents (for example, international agreements and treaties). On 19 November 2009, Herman Van Rompuy was chosen as the first permanent President of the European Council. On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force and he assumed office. Ensuring the external representation of the EU, driving consensus and settling divergences among members are tasks for the President.
Sovereign states are legal persons. A sovereign state, or simply, state, is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state. While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states. The word “country” is often colloquially used to refer to sovereign states, although it means, originally, only a geographic region, and subsequently its meaning became extended to the sovereign polity which controls the geographic region. Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The UN Charter, the Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organisations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law. The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognised.
In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognized as sovereign:
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.
Note “ying and yang”: They could not be part of the International community. The corollary of which was that recognised nations could break the law in their dealings with them! Incredible isn’t it? While, if that unrecognised country were to break international law (as was its “right” because it was not recognised as existing and the international community could break the law toward it) you can be sure that the international community would demonise it as a “rogue state” all simply due to the fact that the international community would not recognise its sovereignty! I think it’s called the international community taking advantage of a vicious circle!
In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:
…International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.
By contrast, the “declarative” theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states.
According to declarative theory, an entity’s statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. Article 3 of the Convention declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood. A similar opinion about “the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state” is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. The Badinter Arbitration Committee found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e. they exist both in law and in reality). However, sometimes states exist only as de jure states in that an organisation is recognised as having sovereignty over and being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. Many continental European states maintained governments-in-exile during the Second World War which continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. A present day example is the State of Palestine, which is recognized by multiple states, but doesn’t have control over any of its claimed territory in Palestine and possess only extraterritorial areas (i.e. embassies and consulates). Other states may have sovereignty over a territory but lack international recognition; these are considered by the international community to be only de facto states (they are considered de jure states only according to their own Law and by states that recognize them).
People may sometimes refer to “the will of the international community” to strengthen their own point of view or the opposite expression “the international community is divided” to explain a consensus has not yet been reached. In diplomacy and debate a case that includes this statement could be a sentiment of majoritarianism and a description of options to take action for the benefit of all countries. It is occasionally asserted that powerful countries and groups of countries use the term to describe organisations in which they play a predominant role, that might be interpreted as indifference toward other nations. The enactment of conflict or war may be claimed as an action of the “international community” by a superpower or coalition that could represent under half or less of the world’s population.
Ain’t that the truth!
An example of the term used by some western leaders is when denouncing Iran, for its nuclear ambitions of suspected nuclear proliferation, by stating that “Iran is defying the will of the international community by continuing uranium enrichment“. The Non-Aligned Movement which consists of 118 countries from the 193 United Nations member states, has endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium for civil nuclear energy.
Rousseau, in his 1763 treatise Of the Social Contract argued, “the growth of the State giving the trustees of public authority more and means to abuse their power, the more the Government has to have force to contain the people, the more force the Sovereign should have in turn in order to contain the Government,” with the understanding that the Sovereign is “a collective being of wonder” (Book II, Chapter I) resulting from “the general will” of the people, and that “what any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not a law” (Book II, Chapter VI) – and furthermore predicated on the assumption that the people have an unbiased means by which to ascertain the general will. Thus the legal maxim, “there is no law without a sovereign.”
The 1789 French Revolution shifted the possession of sovereignty from the sovereign ruler to the nation and its people.
De jure, or legal, sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised right to exercise control over a territory. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty. When control is practiced predominately by military or police force it is considered coercive sovereignty. It is generally held that sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. Thus, de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty has limited recognition. Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a government exercise authority?
Claims of legitimacy might refer to the divine right of kings or to a social contract (i.e. popular sovereignty). So, an interesting point here to raise in the case of legitimacy in the UK, for example: From where does the UK government and Monarch derive their legitimacy? Do they DARE state they derive it from the “Divine Right of Kings”? Do they DARE? I don’t think so do you?
External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and other states. For example, the United Kingdomuses the following criterion when deciding under what conditions other states recognise a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory;
|“||“Sovereignty.” A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country is a foreign sovereign state.||”|
— (The Arantzazu Mendi,  A.C. 256), Strouds Judicial Dictionary
External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law, such as: when, if ever, is intervention by one country onto another’s territory permissible? According to existing International law, as preached (but not practiced) by the International community through the U.N., the answer to this question is NEVER. Every last war “declared” by the west, therefore, is in breach of International law. Period!
Since the 19th century, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is “capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person.” Ten years later, they reaffirmed the result of Letson, though on the somewhat different theory that “those who use the corporate name, and exercise the faculties conferred by it,” should be presumed conclusively to be citizens of the corporation’s State of incorporation. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by statute, as U.S. jurisdictional statutes specifically address the domicile of corporations. In the international legal system, various organizations possess legal personality. These include intergovernmental organizations (the United Nations, the Council of Europe) and some other international organizations (including the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a religious order). Corporations are by definition legal persons. A corporation sole is a corporation constituted by a single member, such as The Crown in the Commonwealth realms. A corporation aggregate is a corporation constituted by more than one member.
Now, please fully appreciate that the above has just stated absolutely clearly and factually that these institutions AND the Crown itself are no more nor less than Legal Persons in their own right. As such, they are, by definition within this legal “matrix” we are all subject to, EQUAL to each and every “Natural Person” (i.e. you and I) on this earth. Again, any judge or any state prosecutor could NOT argue differently. This is simply legal (LEGAL) fact – legal fact that these institutions are LEGAL FICTIONS!
The Juristic Person.I
Author(s): George F. Deiser
Source: University of Pennsylvania LawReview and American Law Register, Vol. 57, No. 3,Volume 48 New Series (Dec., 1908), pp. 131-142
Published by: The University of Pennsylvania Law Review
The law has been playing with such a fiction for centuries, in the course of which, the fiction, instead of disappearing, as it so conveniently does for the mathematician, has increased in girth and height, and has maintained its ghostly existence, in the face of the anathema of the philosopher and the fiat of the judicial decree. In an evil day the law, like the hospitable Arab, who permitted his camel to shelter his head within the domestic tent, gave shelter to an imaginary person-the persona ficta,-then an infant, seemingly of little promise and of precarious tenure of life. The most uninformed mind has an idea of capacities, and can even follow the ramifications by which a man by marrying his first cousin, loses some of his second cousins, or becomes second cousin to his own children, but the separation of individual wills from collective wills is a task which even the academic mind has but unsatisfactorily accomplished. Person, collective property-persona ficta-the name is very nearly matter of indifference so long as we understand by it an existence distinct from the members that compose it; for, be it understood, one may be a member of this corporate body and yet deal with it-may sell to it-buy from it,-in fact, maintain business relations with it, precisely as he does with any other natural person. The matter begins with dogma; men, in law and in philosophy are natural persons. This might be taken to imply that there are also persons of another sort. And that is a fact.
Men/Women are “Natural persons” in law because a “Natural person” is, and only is, a LEGAL DEFINITION used to differentiate from a “legal person” (or “Corporate person”)
It was said by an eminent authority that when a body of twenty, or two thousand, or two hundred thousand men bind themselves together to act in a particular way for some common purpose, they create a body, which by no fiction of law, but by the very nature of things, differs from the individuals of whom it is constituted. Now the state is a body of this kind, and beginning with the state and coming down by successive gradations, we encounter by the way, the subordinate state, which, if autonomous, is the next body of this sort, the self governing county, district, or department; finally the municipal corporations such as cities, boroughs or townships. We have very little difficulty in recognizing that when the state acts, it is a different matter from the action of any member or citizen of the state. If the state owe money, it is not owing by the citizens; nor if half the citizens emigrated would anyone think of following them to collect from each, his proportion of the debt. It is not a conception that the rationalistic mind finds easy.
No? Then WHY ON EARTH has the world’s population “rationalised” the idea of bailing out Privately held banks on the demand of the State? I would like to ask each and every individual who have just shrugged their shoulders and considered it ok exactly what the hell they are thinking of? Anyhow, that is an aside on the subject of this blog.
The conception of the persona ficta is an inheritance from the Roman Law, developed and expanded by the ecclesiastical lawyers of the Middle Ages, and bestowed on modem legal thought by Savigny. Real men are united to form a fictitious being; a fiction which holds property. It has necessarily, no natural rights. The theory hence, has no regard for members; nor can the persona ficta exist except by virtue of some creative act of the state. The Juristic Person.-A right is inconceivable without corresponding relations between some individual and the community to which he is subject. If we find a right, such as that of ownership, in existence, we must discover a subject for that right. If the right attaches to a human being, he is the subject; if it attaches to a name used to designate the collective will of a group of men, the name or collective will is the subject. By advanced abstractions, by reasoning a priori, jurists have reached the conclusion, that in relation to the quality of being a subject of law, the individual, and the group of individuals as such, occupy a like position. Personality is considered therefore, an attribute not only of men, but of groups of men, acting as a unit for the attainment of a common end. The term juristic person is simply the legal expression for this fact, that above the individual or specific human existence there stands generic human existence. In other words, when we encounter the problem of defining, interpreting, explaining, the actions of human beings in groups, as such, as contrasted with the action of any members of the group as individuals, the group stands for genus, and the individual stands for species. The collective will of a group of men so acting and holding property, when recognized as a subject of law, or as having legal subjectivity, or more plainly, when recognized as capable of holding definite legal rights, is no more a fiction than is the personality of any human being. This juristic person, or collective will of the group, is not a creation of the law; the law does not create its personality, but finding a group engaged in some common pursuit, endows it with a definite legal capacity. It is capable of exercising rights, capable of committing wrongs; the former, it may vindicate; the latter it must atone for. It may seem a far cry from the question of the legality of a fine imposed upon a corporation in an amount greater than that of its capital stock, to the apparently academic discussion of its personality or non-personality, yet they are in fact so intimately related that our legal system cannot ignore the relation without affecting its stability. If men as individuals can do acts that require intent, and men acting in groups cannot, the community must restrict the activity of men in groups. For the actions of groups of men, collective actions, there is no reason, no justification, no authority but that of might. Beginning with the state, and proceeding downward to private corporations, control proceeds from the power of the strong over the weak.
“Human groups,” says Duguit, in his dramatic way is
based upon community of needs, upon diversity of individual aptitudes, upon the reciprocity of services rendered; in these human groups, some individuals stronger than others, whether because they are better armed, or because we recognize in them some supernatural power; whether because they are richer, or because they are more numerous, and who, thanks to this superior power, can impose their will on others; these are the facts. Let us call the state a human group, settled upon a definite territory, where the stronger compel obedience of the weaker, and we are agreed. Call political sovereignty that power which the stronger exert over the weaker, there is no controversy. Proceed beyond this and we enter the realm of hypothesis. To say that this will of those who rule is only imposed upon individuals because it is the collective will, is a fiction conceived to justify the power of the strong-a fiction, ingenious enough, invented by the prophets of force to legitimate force, but for nothing else.” Returning for a moment to the state, which is everywhere recognized as a person, it has been observed truly, that the feeling that even the state is a very unreal person, may not readily be dispelled.14 But the difficulty is purely subjective; the existence of personality apart from a body is insufficiently concrete. Yet the notions of ownership, or of in-corporeal rights are equally esoteric. And if personality offer a solution, the difficulty of the conception ought not to stand in the way. If now, we attempt to define our problem we shall find the facts to be these. Corporations, under existing legal systems, for judicial or legislative purposes are regarded in two ways: I. The corporation is a fictitious person or entity (as in England and the United States). II. The corporation is a real person (as in Germany, France, Spain, and some other continental countries). The problems arising under both of these attitudes are these: A. Does the corporation as a group or unit possess rights and owe duties ? B. Has the corporation as a group or unit criminal or moral responsibility? C. What is the nature of the shareholders’ interest? If again, we examine the nature of corporate existence with reference to proffered solutions, we shall find again, that the corporation is a fictitious person, or a real person, or a form of co-ownership, or a form of agency or action by representation. It remains to consider these views with reference to the extent to which they resolve the problem.
George F. Deiser. 3313312.pdf
The following is from: 0njp9-concept-legal-personality-english-law.html
The idea that a husband could not rape a wife comes down through the ages from the ancient belief that a wife was her husband’s property. The legal principle that a woman was a separate being from her husband was not established until 1882 in England by the Married Women’s Property Act – see Married_Women\’s_Property_Act
Where a party changes their gender, or wishes to change their gender, UK law has gone through a transformation. Once a gender change, although medically possible, did not alter the realities of the gender at birth for a person. That changed, as the UK began to grant rights to transexuals (recognising them as PERSONS).
By providing transexuals these rights, the UK has granted them standing to be treated as persons whose rights must be respected and who have valid claims to make against those who refuse to respect their rights to life, liberty, property, and their names. Legal personality determines and establishes the patterns which help determine the rights, duties, and powers of persons. Minority groups, be they minorities due to age, gender, religion, or other classifications, are not able to control their own destinies until the law recognizes them as having the right to exist and make demands on others.
The above crystallises the facts: ONE IS NOT A “PERSON” until the legal world recognises them as such. The transexual, although in reality a living and breathing being, was not a “person” until the legal system said so! This is crystal clear and there is no way whatsoever that the legal system can argue that YOU exist and are recognised within the legal system by the sheer fact that you literally exist. The transexual literally exists but, only recently, did they exist from a legal standpoint as a PERSON.
What the constitution says: The EU will for the first time have a “legal personality” and its laws will trump those of national parliaments: “The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states.” What it means: This really just confirms the status quo, which is that if the EU is allowed to legislate in an area of policy, its law will overtake any national laws. Equally in areas where it does not legislate, national law prevails. By having a “legal personality”, the EU will be able, as an organisation, to enter into international agreements. The old European Community had this right but the EU as a whole did not so its status in world diplomacy increases.
Now, here, one must recognise that the ONLY reason the EU law has primacy over, for example, UK law is because when the member states agree to the treaties, the entire idea of the treaties is to give the EU that power. There is no other reason. Any and all member states were and are SOVEREIGN nations and have the right to enter treaties OR remove themselves.
2950276.stm It gives the EU a legal personality – like a country, not an international organisation. This argument seems to rest on the assumption that international organisations do not have a legal personality. But most do. It also glosses over the fact that the European Community – which still exists on paper as a legally separate entity from the EU – already has a legal personality. (Whether the EU already has a legal personality is a matter of dispute.) But could the EU, if it acquired a single legal personality, end up joining international organisations or signing international treaties instead ofmember states? This has not been the practice up to now. Both the European Community and the EU have been signing treaties for years, and the European Community is a member of the World Trade Organization, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Hague Conference. This has not prevented member states from signing the same treaties and joining the same organisations. (This, as you can read in the link, is now old news but gives the reader a better understanding of things it is hoped).
A declaration to be added to the new treaty underlines that acquiring a legal personality will not authorise the EU to act “beyond the competences conferred on it by member states”. Declarations are a statement of political intent. They are not legally binding but the European Court of Justice does take them into account in its judgements. 6928737.stm
Now, let’s consider another element of “legal personality” and the ideology surrounding that of immunity of diplomats, heads of state and their “capacity” bestowed upon them by the “law”. The reader will, it is hoped, recognise how this entire legal system is corrupt from the very top to bottom to protect the interests of those who implement it.
The reason the Pope cannot be arrested and prosecuted in the UK is because he is entitled to Head of State immunity. Dawkins and Hitchens are not unaware of this problem. Apparently they have enlisted Geoffrey Robertson QC to provide an opinion stating that the pope is not a head of State and therefore not entitled to head of State immunity. Robertson elaborates on this point in a recent article in the Guardian. Robertson argues that the Pope is not entitled head of State immunity as a matter of international law because the Vatican is not a State. His arguments are simply incorrect. The Vatican has a tiny territory and a tiny population but it does fulfill the criteria for Statehood. As James Crawford puts it, in his authoritative work The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed, 2006), p. 225, after detailed analysis: “it is clear that the Vatican City is a State in international law, despite its size and special circumstances.” The size of population or territory are irrelevant for the purposes of Statehood. What is important is that the entity possesses those criteria as well as the two other criteria for Statehood – which are: a government in effective control of the territory and independence (or what is called “capacity to enter into legal relations” in the words of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1935). The Vatican as a territorial entity does have a government: the Holy See which is headed by the Pope. As Crawford’s analysis makes clear, the Holy See has its own independent legal personality (about which more later on) and that personality predates the Statehood of the Vatican. However, the Holy See is also the government of the Vatican City State. More imporantly, the Vatican is independent of any other State. Its independence from Italy which is the State that could have had claims to control that territory is recognised in the Lateran Treaty of 1929. So, since the Vatican is a State then the head of that State, the Pope, is entitled to head of State immunity under international law. This immunity is recognised by Section 20 of the UK’s State Immunity Act which extends to “a sovereign or other head of State”, the same immunities accorded to diplomats. These immunities are absolute in the case of criminal proceedings. In other words there are no exceptions to the immunity. The International Court of Justice’s decision in the Arrest Warrant Case (Congo v. Belgium) 2002 confirms that this type of immunity continues to apply even when it is alleged that the head of State has committed international crimes. So an allegation that the Pope may be responsible for crimes against humanity will not suffice to defeat his immunity.
INCREDIBLE BUT TRUE!
It should be noted that the immunity of a head of State from criminal prosecution in foreign States is there for very good reasons. In the first place, those State agents charged with the conduct of international relations are given immunity in order to allow international relations and international cooperation to continue to take place. (So understand this well: The Head of State can rape, murder and much anything else but, so as to allow continued International cooperation, they can commit these crimes and walk away. Do you accept that? If you do and if the International community does then how can the International community possibly argue that the Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan wars were legally justified? The Head of State is allowed to commit genocide and atrocities! Or is that only if they are OUR” accepted Heads of state? This is no joke folks. I sincerely wish it was!) Secondly, the immunity of foreign heads of States assures that just as States may not engage in regime change by armed force they may not achieve this end by criminal prosecutions either. It respects the fundamental autonomy of each State to determine who it is governed by.
So, again, one has to ask: What on earth was it that didn’t provide that assurance to Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein etc?
Even assuming that the Vatican were not a State under international law that does not mean that the Pope will not be granted immunity from criminal process in the UK. First of all, the UK courts in determining the question of immunity will not be asked to determine whether the Vatican is a State under international law. Under Section 21 of the State Immunity Act, the question whether the Vatican is a State is to be resolved, conclusively, by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. So as long as the Foreign Office is of the view that the Vatican is a State, the Courts are bound to accept that. The State Immunity Act aside, deference to the executive on matters of Statehood is in line with longstanding case law of the English Courts. It is almost certain that the Foreign Office will certify that the Vatican is a State, as the US executive did in a case against the Vatican in the US. Britain maintains diplomatic relations with the Holy See and has an Ambassador with the Holy See. It may be argued that this is not quite the same as recognising the Vatican as a State – and it isn’t. The embassy is to the Holy See and not to the Vatican. Nonetheless, as far as I know Britain has not objected in the past to the Vatican’s claims to be a State nor has it, as far as I know, opposed the Vatican’s accession to treaties that are only open to States. A second reason that the Pope will be entitled to immunity from criminal process in the UK even if the Vatican were not a State is because there is general acceptance of the international legal personality and in particular of the “sovereign” status of the Holy See. The relationship between the Vatican and the Holy See are complex. Crawford’s book referred to above, deals with this question very well. What is clear is that the Holy See as the central authority of the Catholic Church is not just the government of the Vatican. In addition, it has a special status in international law and has international legal personality which precedes the creation of the Vatican in 1929. What is important here is the nature of that international legal personality. Like the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta, the Holy See is deemed to have a sovereign status akin to Statehood. This includes possession of the immunities that States are entitled to. It may be significant that Section 20 of the State Immunity Act provides immunity for “a sovereign or other head of State.” Does sovereign in that context allow for entities like the head of the Holy See, the Pope, even if he were not a head of State? It may be interpreted in this way and should be. It could be argued the word “other” in that provision, militates against this interpretation. However, even if S. 20 does not allow for the immunity of Head of the Holy See, that would not preclude the argument that customary international law does. can-the-pope-be-arrested-in-connection-with-the-sexual-abuse-scandal
The Crown in Contract and Administrative Law
An essential and neglected distinction between contract and administrative law is in how each conceives of the Crown as a juristic person. This article explores the extent of this distinction, and its implications for the rule of law and the separation of powers. It offers explanations—historical, jurisprudential and pragmatic—for why contract law conceives of the Crown as a corporation aggregate with the powers and liberties of a natural person, and why administrative law disaggregates the State into named officials.
The international legal system is the foundation for the conduct of international relations. It is this system that regulates state actions under international law. The principal subjects of international law are states, rather than individuals as they are under municipal law. The International Court of Justice acknowledged in the Reparation for Injuries case that types of international legal personality other than statehood could exist and that the past half century has seen a significant expansion of the subjects of international law. Apart from states, international legal personality is also possessed by international organisations and, in some circumstance, human beings. In addition, non-governmental organisations and national liberation movements have also been said to possess international legal personality. Since 1945 the international legal system has been dominated by the United Nations and the structures that were established as part of that organisation. While the UN has been the object of significant criticism, it has nevertheless played a pivotal role both in the progressive development and codification of international law. An international organization (or organisation) is an organizationwith an international membership, scope, or presence. There are two main types:
- International nongovernmental organizations (INGOs): non-governmental organizations(NGOs) that operate internationally. These may be either:
- International non-profit organizations. Examples include the International Olympic Committee, World Organization of the Scout Movement, International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières.
- International corporations, referred to as multinational corporations. Examples include The Coca-Cola Company, Sony, Nintendo, McDonalds, and Toyota.
- Intergovernmental organizations, also known as international governmental organisations (IGOs): the type of organization most closely associated with the term ‘international organization’, these are organizations that are made up primarily of sovereign states (referred to as member states). Notable examples include the United Nations (UN), Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Council of Europe (CoE), European Union (EU; which is a prime example of a supranational organization), European Patent Organization and World Trade Organization (WTO). The UN has used the term “intergovernmental organization” instead of “international organization” for clarity.
Ok, now what is the entire point of the foregoing? Well I hope it is obvious once you read it.
The Crown itself is a LEGAL PERSON. The UN is a LEGAL PERSON. The EU is a LEGAL PERSON. The State (Nation) is a LEGAL PERSON. And YOU and every other human being (within the subject of “the law”) are LEGAL PERSONS. The only differentiation which is made is that of States and Corporations etc being given the title of “legal person” and you being given the title of “Natural person” purely to differentiate the rights, duties etc apportioned to each of these “legal personality” types. BUT THEY ARE ALL LEGAL FICTIONS.
So what does this all mean?
Well it is SO easy:
You: “Your honour, are all persons equal before the law?”
Judge: “Yes indeed they are”.
You: “Can you please assure this court and those in attendance that there is no legal person – such as a Corporate – which has any authority over a natural person?”
Judge: “Indeed I can. As I said, all persons – legal or natural – are equal before the law. One would even have to go so far as to suggest that the natural person is of a higher importance since the natural person is of flesh and blood and endowed with god given rights whereas the Corporation or man made legal person has not”
You: “Then your honour, would I be correct in stating that I, as a natural person, have every right, subrogated to no-one, to enter or decline from entering a contract with another legal person? Or, if, under any and all circumstances, I am forced to do so, or by way of lack of full disclosure, I inadvertently enter into contract with such an entity, that I shall have the legal right to withdraw from any and all such contracts?”
Judge: “Well yes but that would be dependent upon certain points of law and if, for instance, you were compelled by law to enter into such”
You: “Please would your honour give me an example of such a possible case?”
Judge: “Where statute law may enforce such a contract for example”
You: “Statute law Sir? May I ask who or what imposes such statute law?”
Judge: “The State does and it is enforced by the Crown”
You: “Haven’t we just established that both, the State and the Crown, are LEGAL PERSONS and, as such, they are, at best, equal to myself before the law?”
Judge: “Shut up smart ass! Case dismissed”
Now, they can go down the route of stating “Supremacy of law” but just as a member state (a “person) of the EU must agree by treaty the supremacy of EU law over its own, the natural person must contract with the state to agree to the subrogation of his/her god given, inalienable, unalienable natural rights.
The court and the Crown and the state may ask “do you possess a birth certificate or passport or National Insurance number or any such state conferred document BUT the state gives one no choice in the matter of requiring these documents since the state will disallow all which requires such. It is, then, the state which coercively and deceptively removes the human rights and replaces them with “person” rights.
I rest my case and ALL cases your dishonour for, before I was given a “legal personality” I was neither competent nor would I have had any legal standing (obviously since I had no legal person and could not be “seen” – recognised BY the legal system ) to state I did not wish to contract with the state and subrogate such rights.
The legal system, then, is entirely fraudulent.
I have just found the following minutes of evidence wherein Horta- Osorio of Santander (now Lloyds) is questioned on the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme. I think the reader will recognise the questioning is certainly that of a Treasury who smell one big rat – a Spanish Jesuit one!
I think, then, for anyone to consider the following previous blogposts a “stretch” in any way, would be closing one’s eyes to what is now set out before you.
Santander’s role in the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme was immense and yet it is being suppressed.
Santander is a criminal enterprise!
Please cross reference with the following two blogposts:
Spanish Jesuit Criminal 2: Ana Patricia Botin
Spanish Jesuit Criminal 3: Horta-Osario
Q2053 Mr Breed: António, could we talk about what may be referred to as “the Madoff affair” and Santander’s investments? I think some of us are quite surprised, bearing in mind the history of your bank and the good acquisitions you have made and perhaps good investment decisions. What did you do in terms of due diligence on Madoff before you put quite substantial amounts of customers’ funds into it?
Mr Horta-Osório: We are as you know a bank which is very prudent in terms of risk management and controls. In order for you to be aggressive commercially, you should have certain areas such as risk management, auditing, control and compliance as very strong areas.
Q2054 Mr Breed: What happened with Madoff?
Mr Horta-Osório: It is in our opinion absolutely impossible to stop all frauds. This, as you know, is a fraud that was very wide, of very high dimensions, supervised by the SEC and the company and the person involved previously had a very high reputation.
Q2055 Mr Breed: As a very minimum, most people would have looked at the auditing arrangements. The auditing arrangements in terms of Madoff consisted of a 78 year old man living in Florida, one qualified accountant and a secretary. What sort of due diligence did you do on that?
Mr Horta-Osório: It is easier to say that with hindsight.
Q2056 Mr Breed: Absolutely, but why did you not do it?
Mr Horta-Osório: We have strong due diligence processes. We are absolutely convinced we followed them as we normally do and, as you know, we decided to compensate all of our private clients as a commercial decision.
Q2057 Chairman: I do not think we are going to get a sorry out of you today, are we? I looked at the congressional hearings and there was a man called Harry Marcopolis who reported this from 2000 to 2008 to the Securities Exchange Commission in the United States. If you look on YouTube, you will see his evidence. I looked at it. He said, “The Key Tip-Off. It took me five minutes to figure out he was a fraud. I basically read his strategy description and knew that that was not the source of his returns. Then I knew right away by looking at his performance chart.” He made an illustration to the Committee and he said, “His performance chart was a 45 degree angle without any variation. It only went in one direction: up. It never had any variation like the market does.” That was a key tip-off. If it took Harry Marcopolis five minutes, why did a credible bank like Banco Santander get duffed up on it? Why did you lose 2 billion euros on it? I put it to you that your due diligence was absolutely and utterly duff.
Mr Horta-Osório: Banco Santander did not lose two billion euros. Santander had a small amount invested in those funds.
Q2058 Chairman: How much did you lose?
Mr Horta-Osório: We lost 20 million euros.
Q2059 Chairman: That is still quite considerable for people.
Mr Horta-Osório: According to the total size of the bank and the total fraud which was $50 billion, that is a very small amount. Within our total asset management we had a significant amount of money and a small percentage of our customers who invested in these funds. We are absolutely convinced, as we have already said publicly, that we followed the due diligence procedure, as did many other banks around the world but despite that we have decided to compensate our private customers. On top of this, because we are in the UK, I would like to add that we have no UK clients at Abbey who invested in those funds.
Q2060 Chairman: It is not that I want to fall out with you but I do not believe you in terms of how the bank went about its structure because, again, Harry Marcopolis says, “What I saw and when I saw it. I was repeatedly ignored after an eight and a half year period between May 2000 and December 2008. Detailed, repeated warnings to the SEC.” That was when it could only have been a $3 billion fraud which ended up with a $50 billion fraud. When you get a one man accounting team who was a college friend of Madoff and he has two of his family in auditing, surely to goodness, with a big company, you should have exercised sufficient due diligence?
Mr Horta-Osório: I sympathise with your comments, but if it had taken five minutes for anyone probably it would have taken five minutes for the SEC as well, which supervised those funds.
Q2061 Chairman: The SEC did not take him on, because your man was the chief executive of NASDAQ and it was the old boys’ club. When you are investing other people’s money, you should have adequate due diligence. That is the point I am trying to make to you.
Mr Horta-Osório: Yes, and I agree with you. On top of that, we have offered to reimburse those customers.
While I condemn violence and crime of any nature, there is a time when one must step back and ask the simple question: WHO are the real criminals? WHO is it that brings people to the point of violence? Could it be people who regard themselves and are regarded by others a “Pillars of Society”? Similarly, the question is raised in regard to Palestinians and the conditions which they live under and why they feel so helpless against a “machine” such as the Israeli regime and military, to wish to “punch back” in any way they can – sometimes suicidally.
One simply must look closer at these people who, while they believe they are better – and some even state “We do God’s work” – cause sheer desperation to many due to their CORRUPT TO THE CORE activities. Can I be too condemning of this protestor then? No. I can’t. It is a 21st Century version of Jesus casting the money changers from the temple. I’m no religious person but I can say he was right 100%. But Jesus had power, this one man doesn’t. Educate the rest of the population on how it all works and, together, they would have power and need not use it violently.
I’ve been wondering how Santander is suddenly THE bank and how it suddenly came from a second division Spanish Bank background to a World force in such a short time. So I had a wee delve and came up with a few things to think about….
PLEASE ALSO BEAR IN MIND WHILE READING THE FOLLOWING THAT SANTANDER IS PART OF THE ROTHSCHILD INTER-ALPHA BANKING GROUP!
From the Guardian: madoff-santander-shares
New Black Pope:
“So? What’s your point now? One minute you’re up against the “jews” and the next it is the Roman Catholic church?? ”
Well the point is this:
The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews: Jesuits of Jewish Ancestry and Purity-of-Blood Laws in the Early Society of Jesus (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2009) has led me to another remarkable element in the development of Jesuit casuistry. That is the early and important role of IBERIAN (Spanish) conversos (as Christians of JEWISH ancestry were called) in the development of the Society of Jesus, and its methodology. The evolution of sixteenth century Iberian societies contributed notably to the size and importance of the converso presence in the Jesuit order. At a time when Iberian conversos were increasingly excluded from a growing number of guilds, religious confraternities, colleges, religious and military orders, as well as residence in certain towns, the Jesuit leadership in the first three decades of the order’s history (1540-1572) opened their doors wide to candidates of Jewish descent.
Now, I’ll throw another little fish….
Santander. Where the hell did they appear from all of a sudden? Well consider this:
Emilio Botín (born 1 October 1934) is a Spanish banker. He is the Executive Chairman of Spain’s Grupo Santander. In 1993 his bank absorbed Banco Español de Crédito (Banesto), and in 1999 it merged with Banco Central Hispano creating Banco Santander Central Hispano (BSCH), which became Spain’s largest bank, of which he was co-president with Central Hispano’s José María Amusategui, until Amusategui retired in 2002. In 2004, BSCH acquired the British bank Abbey National, making BSCH the second largest bank in Europe by market capitalisation.
After attending as a boarding student the JESUIT SCHOOL of Colegio de la Inmaculada, in Gijón, he studied Law at the University of Valladolid in Valladolid and Economics at the University of Deusto in Bilbao.
A JESUIT school of all things!!
Botín was no newcomer to the banking world. His father, grandfather and great-grandfather were all bankers.
On 25 April 2008, two people died in a plane crash south of Madrid at a property belonging to Emilio Botin. Neither was a member of the banking family. The light aircraft, which was attempting to land at an airstrip on the Botin property known as El Castano, was transporting 441 pounds of hashish.
Nice huh? 🙂 But continue……
1999: Botin faced trial on criminal charges of “misappropriation of funds” and “irresponsible management.” However, in April, 2005 he was cleared of all charges.
2005: the anti-corruption division of the Spanish public prosecutor’s office cleared Botin of all charges in a separate case in which he was accused of insider trading.
January 2006: a Santander, Spain court dismissed a lawsuit stemming from the cancellation of agreements reached by the SCH board in 2004.
November, 2006: Botin was brought to trial along with four other company directors for allegedly falsifying official documents and helping clients evade taxes. Spanish press sources reported that although Botin was accused of crimes against the state, the public prosecutor resisted bringing the case to trial. Private prosecution was brought by a prominent shareholder rights group, the Association for the Defense of the Investor and Clients (ADIC), which claimed that the charges against him constituted the “biggest fraud ever committed in Spain.” Botin evaded serving a jail sentence after the case was dismissed, and an appellate court rejected an appeal brought by ADIC.
Most recently Botin’s name has been in the news because of allegations that in 1999, at the time of the BCH merger, he bribed Spain’s economy minister, Rodrigo Rato, in order to seek favor with government officials. Botin and Rato, alongside a group of former associates have been accused of engineering a deal in which Banesto, a Santander subsidiary currently controlled by Botin’s daughter Ana Patricia Botin, purchased a €6M stake in a bankrupt water utility owned by the Rato family. Rato, Botin, and Alfredo Saenz, who was then serving as Banesto’s CEO, are accused of misappropriating funds, breach of fiduciary duty, falsifying documents, and bribery. The case is ongoing.
Now, Rodrigo Rato:
He was appointed to become the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on 4 May 2004, and took up his duties on 7 June 2004. He has left his post at the IMF on 31 October 2007, following the World Bank-IMF Annual Meetings.
De Rato attended a JESUIT school before studying law in the Complutense University. So BOTIN and RATO BOTH Jesuits!!
Mr. Rodrigo Rato was the Spanish President’s Minister of Economy, who is responsible for the dismantling of the Spanish welfare state.
Mr. Rato is of the ultra-right . While in Aznar’s cabinet, he supported such policies as making religion a compulsory subject in secondary schools, requiring more hours of schooling in religion than in mathematics, undoing the progressivity in the internal revenue code, funding the Foundation dedicated to the promotion of francoism (i.e., Spanish fascism), never condemning the fascist dictatorship, and so on. In the economic arena, he dramatically reduced public social expenditures as a way of eliminating the public deficit of the Spanish government, and was the person responsible for developing the most austere social budget of all the governments of the European Community.
Gordon Brown, became Rato’s main advocate for the IMF position. Nowhere mentioned is the enormous costs this “success” has had on the quality of life of average folks in Spain. And these are the same policies that Mr. Rato is going to follow in the IMF, policies that have caused enormous pain and harm to the Spanish people, and will now be implemented world-wide. Nowhere, however, have the mainstream media reported on such important dimensions of Mr. Rato’s tenure as Minister of Economy of Spain. Quite remarkable!
Read more of what Rato did to Spain:
Rato has since joined the Santander Advisory Board as requested by Botin.
But then we also have this:
The MADOFF PONZI SCHEME!
Dec. 14 (Bloomberg) — Banco Santander SA, Spain’s largest bank, said clients had positions valued at 2.33 billion euros ($3.1 billion) invested with Bernard Madoff.
The largest of ALL banks’ exposure to Madoff. BUT…..
Santander had only 17 million euros of its own funds invested through another fund. The $3.1BILLION was CLIENT exposure!
“Mr. Picard’s own investigation concluded that Optimal had no knowledge of fraud by Mr. Madoff, according to documents filed Tuesday in U.S. bankruptcy court in Manhattan.”
“Optimal’s (Santander’s Geneva based Hedge fund) relationship with Mr. Madoff dated back more than a decade, Tuesday’s court papers say. Some 70% of its affected clients are in Latin America, according to people familiar with the situation. Many of the clients also control firms with which Santander has a relationship.”
“Much smaller enterprises feeding to Mr. Madoff include those run by two relatives of Santander Chairman Emilio Botín — his son Javier Botín-Sanz and son-in-law Guillermo Morenés.”
Spain’s anticorruption prosecutor will be looking closely at the relationship between Santander, the investment fund Fairfield Greenwich Group, and the Madoff funds, the prosecutor’s office said.
Investigators said they want to know why Mr. Botín sent one of his chief lieutenants to see Mr. Madoff in New York just weeks before the scheme collapsed. Rodrigo Echenique, who has been close to Mr. Botín for many years, visited Mr. Madoff in his New York office at the end of November. Investigators say they want to know whether Santander was aware of any problems at Mr. Madoff’s firm then. Santander declined to comment on the trip or make Mr. Botín available for comment.
Mr. Echenique also declined to comment on the trip.
Investigators say they also are focusing on the role of Fairfield partner Andres Piedrahita, a Colombian who lives in Madrid. He funneled client money into the Madoff funds, and according to marketing materials he also managed at least one other fund on Santander’s behalf that had losses from Mr. Madoff’s alleged fraud.
Mr. Piedrahita and Fairfield declined to comment.”
And where did the $billions actually go? No-one knows to this day it seems….
Using the connections of secretive Opus Dei, begun under Franco’s regime, Emilio Botin of Banco Santander co-ordinates with the President of the Vatican bank (Angelo Caloia), an alleged member of Opus Dei, which is not accountable to the Holy See of the College of Cardinals, though it is on Vatican City soil. In Puerto Rico, Botin’s Banco Santander Overseas Bank launders money for the foreign corporation Internal Revenue Service, headed by Opus Dei member Manuel Diaz Saldana, who is also Comptroller of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (ELA). Secretive Governor-Elect Luis Fortuno, and Ex-Governor Rafael Hernandez Colon, are also members of Opus Dei. Richard Carrion, head of Popular Holdings, is also on the board of David Rockefeller’s JP Morgan Chase controlled Verizon, and also launders IRS collections and illegal drug profits through offshore accounts. Botin’s Banco Santander has swallowed the assets of many UK banks for pennies on the dollar, leaving the billions in liabilities to UK taxpayers.
Now, the Vatican Bank is said to be a successful and profitable bank. By the 1990s, the Bank had invested somewhere over US$10 billion in foreign companies. In 1968 Vatican authorities hired Michele Sindona as a financial advisor, despite Sindona’s questionable past. It was Sindona who was chiefly responsible for the massive influx of money when he began laundering the Gambino crime family’s heroin monies (taking a 50% cut) through a shell corporation “Mabusi”. This laundering was accomplished with the help of another banker, Roberto Calvi, who managed the Banco Ambrosiano. Both Calvi and Sindona were members of the P2 Lodge. (Henry Kissinger is alleged to be P2)
When Pope John Paul I became Pope in 1978 he was informed about the allegations of wrongdoing at the Vatican Bank, and instructed Jean-Marie Villot, Cardinal Secretary of State and head of the papal Curia, to investigate the matter thoroughly. Pope John Paul I died after only 33 days in office, leading to claims that he had been murdered as a result of discovering a scandal. Pope John Paul I is generally accepted to have died from natural causes, although some medical experts believe that he may have died from a pulmonary embolism or an adverse reaction to the medication that he was taking rather than from a heart attack as was stated in original press reports of his death.
More on the Vatican Bank…
But would you believe…..?
The Vatican Bank is under investigation for alleged involvement in a money-laundering scheme using accounts at one of Italy’s largest banks, according to a weekly investigative magazine.
Strangely, the money laundering is in the same timescale as Madoff’s Ponzi scheme run by Santander.
And lastly, just for good measure:
Bilderberg Group –
Ana Patricia Botin, Executive Chairman, Banesto; Vice Chairman, Urbis; Member of the Management Committee, Santander Group, Madrid
Now, forgive me if I’m just stretching here but something smells here. Sure Madoff was a criminal – they all are. BUT, as we know, the criminals never get touched. They get off. MADOFF seems to be a scapegoat in my view.
Look at how many times Botin just walks away from any charges. Then look at how he’s had Rato (Spanish Government and IMF) in his pocket. They’re BOTH Jesuits. There is a strong connection to Angelo Caloia previously of the Vatican Bank (run by the Jesuits). The Spanish Jews have become Jesuits. Botin’s entire family were involved in this Madoff stuff and the Group as a whole had the largest exposure to it of ANY Bank/Fund while only 17M Euros of their own but $3.1Billion of clients’ money.
Yes Santander “made good” on some of the losses by their clients but not a lot at the end of the day. And what did they do? They offered Santander shares rather than the cash.
The bank booked a charge of 350 million euros against 2008 earnings for costs associated with the compensation program. The offer includes stock paying an annual yield of 2 percent and an agreement by clients to forgo any legal action and to keep Santander as their “preferred” bank as long as the shares stay in circulation.
So let’s just imagine for a moment that it actually was Santander and Botin/his family, who cashed in on the loss of their own clients to the tune of $3Billion or so. That cash rich injection could just allow for the buying up of a number of other banks now couldn’t it?
June 1st 2010 UPDATE:
VATICAN BANK UNDER INVESTIGATION
Santander Involvement –
GET HIM! HE’S AN ICKE DENIER!
How about that for irony? What’s worse than being a holocaust denier in the Icke camp? lol
This whole thing just has me in stitches sometimes. It’s bloody hilarious to anyone with a sparking synapse! Totally and utterly lost on Ickeans though! Truthfully, don’t you feel sorry for them? I do. I despise their incompetence but I have a heart you know!
I was listening to the TPV radio show earlier this evening when some guy was describing sociopaths and psychopaths. On almost every point I could see a picture of David Icke.
I am going to use absolute fact and David Icke’s very own words, along with a Sunday Times article which many of you will not have seen, from October 1991 which describes David Icke and the man I met perfectly. It is a factual account by the Sunday Times just a matter of a few months after David Icke appeared on the Wogan show in April of that year. The journalist did not attempt to attack Icke from a tabloid perspective in any way (as you will clearly read). He did not attempt to smear Icke as a “nutter”. Quite the opposite I would say. There was absolutely no need for the establishment at this point in time to try and “destroy” the man – he had already done that himself and was no threat whatsoever (he was talking to one man and his dog in telephone booths at the time if you remember? His own words!). This article just sticks to facts and attempts to understand the man behind the craziness.
However, what you are about to read, I believe, will shock you and make you think twice about who this guy is! As I said, I doubt whether many of you have ever seen this article (I hadn’t until just yesterday and thanks to Will for sending me it).
Now, once more, I repeat, much of this is David Icke’s OWN words and actions. Not mine. You choose to overlook and ignore? Be my guest! I’ll make comments on each page as we go along then wrap up at the end.
[I just realised after taking pics of the full pages, that you cannot read some of them as the resolution is poor so, my apologies, but I have had to enlarge the text sections and repost.]
As an introduction to the piece, there isn’t much to say on this. I will say this however: I can recognise a man who wants what he believed to be “his” England back and I can understand that because, while not being English myself, we can expand that to Britain and I can honestly say I share that with Icke. At this point, please understand that I’m not the type to just attack someone in any which way I can for the sake of having some “grudge” against them. None of this is grudge based just as Icke’s attack (or yours) on Tony Blair or Ian Duncan Smith, or any one of these bastards, is “grudge” based. Yet those people themselves and their hangers on and the establishment/government will propagandise to the nation that your attacking them is based on envy, a wish to get something for nothing (which they all, themselves, do) and a “grudge” because life hasn’t worked out for you the way you’d hoped. No life hasn’t worked out the way you’d hoped but it’s not because of you, it’s because of a system of law, a system of money and a system of control these people have put in place a very long time ago and those in “power” today in so many various positions, do their utmost to maintain that system while the REAL power wishes to destroy it and that is where David Icke comes in. Whether he knows it or not, he’s helping create the very chaos these people want and the reason he is getting on air is to do exactly that while, personally, I don’t think he’s necessarily smart enough to work this out. He’s just smarter than most of you and therefore uses his “good luck” to make a buck from a population who once mocked him endlessly. Do you think for one moment he’s forgotten that? I don’t. I believe this man has found out (just as I did) how this world works and he’s studied it and studied the people who control it and their methods and he wishes to emulate them. He wants what they have BUT he – if he ever achieved it – tells himself he would be a benign dictator. However, I’ve seen the man behind that public face and I see a guy who could be just as brutal, if not moreso. But you don’t believe that is possible do you?
Have you ever heard of Joseph Estrada? Or Megawati? If not, look them up. I have met both personally. Let me tell you, in meeting them, you simply think how lovely they are. So kind. So intelligent and manner able. They hold your stare and smile and compliment you while smiling welcoming smiles. The fact is they mean it. It’s not put on. It’s not fake. They don’t know you and they consider that it could just be that you may be in a position to offer them something. Yes, little old me. Earthling could possibly offer them something of value – you want a bet? When you are a Regional Director for a telecommunications company who, through the use of electromagnetic spectrum at the 3.5GHz range can show them that, by tax and investment, they can financially gain significantly, then they will smile at you! Get the picture? You screw with them however and they will show no mercy. Just like when you embarrass a supreme court judge in another country, he will hound you! Let me see David Icke DARE go face to face with a supreme court judge! Let me see David Icke EVER have a Barrister in the High Court of Justice in London literally run off with his tail between his legs and then come back and treat him like an equal. Never in a million years could David Icke achieve that!
Anyhow, I digress. The point is, both of these people are, for want of a better description, considered as dictators by many. I have met both and had a very relaxed, comfortable time with them.
So, on with Icke (I believe this one is readable):
Ok first of all, another little story from me: The Elton John Greatest hits reminds me of a time I was in a business meeting in Hong Kong with a telecom company by the name of PCCW. I had a couple of my colleagues with me and we were in a meeting room with a number of Hong Kong delegates from PCCW. They said we had to wait to start the meeting because their head engineer (if I remember correctly, he was the head of engineering) had yet to arrive.
Now, you may or may not know this but, in Hong Kong, people have their chinese names but they love to either use western names (first names) or, perhaps, their parents have even given them a western name. So names like Joseph and John, Michael, David, Richard etc, are all quite common. It’s not like that in China mainland or Japan or Korea however.
Well, the head of Engineering finally arrived and it was then a matter of exchanging business cards. In Asia (and particularly China and Japan), it is imperative to accept the card and look at it, spending some time considering the details of the card. I handed mine to this chap and he handed me his. I looked down on the card as I held it in both hands (another important action) and I read the name “ELTON TONG”. I shit you not! The guy’s name was ELTON TONG! I was scared to lift my face back up but I composed myself (with great difficulty). I then could not resist asking the following:
“Yes” he replied with a friendly smile.
“Elton Tong. That is an unusual name. Were you given that name or did you choose it yourself?”
“My mother and father gave it to me when I was born”
“Ah!… I wonder, were your parents, by any chance, Elton John fans?”
“Yes, yes.” he answered with a beaming smile on his face.
So then I had to ask further (while, by this time, we had taken a seat and my colleague kicked my ankle under the table to suggest I shut the hell up. I couldn’t.
“Are you an Elton John fan too?”
“Yes yes.” he replied. And so that led to me simply trying to work out what era of Elton John’s work he liked the best (as you would).
I asked him: “What is your favourite Elton John album?” Thinking would it be Captain Fantastic? Or Goodbye Yellow Brick Road? Or “A Single man”? “Too low for zero”? You know? His career having spanned about 30 odd years of music after all.
Elton replied: “Elton John’s greatest hits volumes one and two”.
By this time, I wanted to visit the toilet but the meeting hadn’t even began.
Ok sorry, I digressed again (I feel like Ronnie Corbett!).
“David Icke comes into the room, matily extending a firm handshake but casting his eyes aside”. There is that one on one issue once more that I recognised myself. He seems to be so matey, so buddy like and yet he will not hold your gaze for more than a split second. IF he does, he glazes over as if he’s a split personality – one half engaging with you while the other is on planet Icke! That is a perfect example of someone who wishes to engage IF you are saying something they wish to hear and is useful to them or if, by engagement, it’s all about listening to them. I happen to like two way conversations myself. One where I listen and they listen, I talk and they talk. That is not Ickeland however.
‘..eyes which are bloodshot and swollen as if he might have been working all night, or crying.” Well I’ve nothing to say on that score but I have noticed that, for many years, David has had a sniffing and swallowing issue as he speaks and something I noted in person also. It’s quite pronounced. Now, it could be due to anything at all. It could possibly be due, even, to some form of asthma, I really don’t know.
[Here’s an interesting thing though. Cocaine users have issues with sniffing and swallowing also because they have snorted so much cocaine that it has burned the lining in their nasal passages. I’m not suggesting that is the case here in any shape or form, I’m just pointing to a fact.
“Binge cocaine use, during which the drug is taken repeatedly and at increasingly higher doses, leads to a state of increasing irritability, restlessness, and paranoia. This may result in a full-blown paranoid psychosis in which the individual loses touch with reality and experiences auditory hallucinations. Regularly snorting cocaine, for example, can lead to loss of sense of smell, nosebleeds, problems with swallowing, hoarseness, and an overall irritation of the nasal septum, which can lead to a chronically inflamed, runny nose.”
Interesting isn’t it? Just for general information of course.]
This destructive (male) and creative (female) issue is something which people need to look at very closely because David icke is surrounding himself with people who do not seem to like males (particularly straight, hetero males) whatsoever.
Here’s an example (and remember such “comedians” – although I could never in a million years think of calling this woman funny but she tends to thinks so, so that’s cool with me – make jokes and come up with routines that connect with them in one form or another – positively or negatively. You choose what you think this is):
Hilarious wasn’t she? (while I get hassled for using the odd swear word). I’ll tell you though, I was creasing myself at this. Steve Hughes is Australian and damn he’s a good comedian (must be because he’s male right?). Cringeworthy. Anyhow.
Now consider Peter Tatchell. This hatred of men and masculinity is a thread that is running through all of what David Icke surrounds himself with. It is clear as day that, not only must you accept a quasi-spiritual and socialist agenda by Icke but you must be willing, also, to drop your masculinity. Note his words to me in his email to me: ” You have made your point very clear, Mark – you are a big brave man who doesn’t take shit from anybody. Message received.” As Icke himself continuously expresses, people’s words are expressions of them than the people they attack. I had made no suggestion of being “a big brave man”. Where did he get that from? Perhaps he just didn’t like being up against someone who could literally rip him to pieces intellectually. Perhaps he sees someone standing their ground and challenging him as someone with far too much testosterone for his liking? Perhaps, like his entourage, he despises strength and masculinity and especially hetero masculinity? He tends to like the Tatchells and the Brands of this world after all. Ever noticed that the British celebrity stylists talking of revolution are weeds? gay or very questionable in their sexuality? You have an underbelly in all of this which is attacking the male.
Hey David. I’m a hetero male mate: FUCK YOU and all your little effeminate bum chums! Clear? You want a war between hetero and homo? Go ahead.
Here’s Tatchell’s own words:
“Traditional hetero masculinity oppresses women and gay people, with sexist jibes, domestic violence, rape, homophobic taunts and queer-bashing assaults. It is also a source of the toughness and aggression that makes possible the social violence of racist attacks, police brutality, war and torture.”Freedom of opinion is the ruling principle of the universe. I’m not telling you that you have to believe what I’m saying. It’s entirely up to you to make that choice.”
Now, you consider who has been attacking the male for decades now and why. The very same agenda. Attack the male, attack the family and you have a new generation growing up who see the state as their parent. David Icke and friends are leading you down a very dark path while they throw 90% truth in your face.
You want to see more of Tatchell’s attack on hetero males? Look at this list:
The question must simply be asked: If David Icke is so supportive of all this attack on the hetero male, is he possibly queer? Or is his dick agnostic?
Indeed David. Freedom of opinion. And yet, time and time again (as has just happened today on your TPV Facebook page), you and your moderator/handlers censor and ban people from stating their opinion of you, your team, your entire organisation, how you are doing things, how little transparency you are providing to those who fund you and how thoroughly ass licking you all are while you must maintain a mindset – a hive mind – otherwise anyone who dares question or shows individuality of thinking is excommunicated like any other cult-style religion (and I’ve personally experienced a few. Not by my own involvement but through others). You are a religion Icke and your followers just simply do not recognise it. It is precisely like the “prison planet” you speak of: The best way to control people is to have them believe they are free. You have your flock believe their ideas of the universe are their own while, in fact, it is you who is dictating to them. Sure they are allowed to disagree with you but if they come close to saying “Wait a minute Davey boy, you’re talking shit”, then that’s just a little TOO free isn’t it? You’ve then got to shut that sort of freedom up and that’s the job of Sean and the boys – the “intellectual” bouncers, the “mindset bodyguards”.
The best advice we can have in relation to reincarnation and karma was offered by Christ where he said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Now, the journalist then made a mistake by suggesting Jesus never said this when, according to certain passages in the bible (Luke 6:31 for example) he did. My point on this comment from Icke is why is he even quoting a deity (Christ) which he does not believe in for one thing? Even Sean (who, on the forums, by the way, removes any and all references to “the jews”, yet does he remove criticism of christianity or Islam? I don’t know, I have never lingered on the Icke forum for any length of time) has a go at christianity:
Does he realise he’s blaspheming against his Lord and Master? Does his Lord and Master even recognise that? Or were you just “Christ” for a day David? You’ve put all that behind you. Dropped it like a sack of shit like you’ve done countless other times as we shall see. Put a few more pounds on and you could be Buddha next!
But there’s another point in all of this. Later you are going to see how David works this “Do unto others…” in with his karmic belief in vivid, yet disgusting, technicolour. Remember, all his own words but, David being David, he will (and always has) disowned anything he has said in the past which doesn’t fit the personality he now wishes to project.
He looks furious. “What have you come here to do, my friend?”
You see, the problem Icke has is that if you ever try to pull him into a normal conversation where he isn’t in control of it, he shows his true character exceptionally well. That is why he cannot maintain a one on one with anyone with the exception, perhaps, of his innermost circle. This circle will not rock that boat and they know not to because David Icke is their meal ticket. They will protect him with everything they have because by protecting him they are protecting themselves and their livelihood. I can assure you of this: If David Icke lost his audience for any reason, these same people (who no longer had their income and their meal ticket) would slag Icke off more than ever you or I could. David Icke can only ever have a very small group of people that he trusts because he knows that if he were to increase that number too large, he couldn’t control it. That’s partly why, while he sits behind TPV and comes on to give his “vision” to the world, he does not get himself fully involved in the hands on of it all and leaves it to others. You will see this same tendency revealed within this Sunday Times article from 20 odd years ago. He wishes to preach but he never wishes to do anything or to even do as he preaches. He’s his own “Rothschild” creature – the man in the shadows who comes out every now and then to make a few observations or statements then returns to his little hole planning his next step.
“I thought the point of this interview was that you would come and listen to what David has to say?” So, the interviewer must sit and listen but he must never ask questions? Have you ever heard of an interviewer who does not ask questions? Questioning is disallowed just as it is on forums or anywhere. And that’s not just today, it goes back 20 years!
“Either I must be the passive medium for his beliefs or we’re through.”
While now he is not only the reincarnation of Jesus but he was also, previously, Socrates. What happened to Plato, Aristotle and Confucius? Or George Washington and Thomas Jefferson for that matter? What a up his own ass jackass!
“..and he said Saddam Hussein is dead.” In 1991. So then let’s listen to him droning on about Saddam and Iraq in this video where no mention is made of the “fact” Saddam was already dead. He’s dropped that story also it would appear. You see it didn’t fit the context of what he was talking about in this case. The thing about liars is they find it difficult to maintain a line of reasoning when it does not fit what they are trying to achieve at another point in time. They massage story lines to fit the prevailing mood or agenda. He’s right about 9/11 and Iraq and so many other things. I don’t take that away from him. But I don’t need this guy to tell me it while he adds parapsychology, new age mysticism, talking voices and his messiah complex to it all to create a vehicle for him and him alone to emulate the very people he despises (or envies, in fact). Furthermore, this guy hates you! Why? Because it was “you” who laughed at him and now he’s getting his own back through you funding him. He said on his second appearance on Wogan what he thought about the general population in this country. Well, you ARE the general population and he’s just converting you to his point of view so that he can then capitalise on you. He despises you! Am I speaking of myself here? (as he would have you believe). Well, yes and no (at least I am honest). I don’t despise anyone (except those who would lie and abuse people) but I readily admit I despise people’s willingness to be abused. There is a subtle but immense difference. If I despised you, I would hardly be writing so much about David Icke to actually try and shake you out of your “trance” regarding this guy. I wouldn’t give a damn. The fact that I DO give a damn is compelling me to write this.
(From 1:30:15 onwards)
An interesting small point regarding his attitude to foreign travel considering he consistently makes such a song and dance of how many countries he’s visited in the last 20 years (by the way David, you have a long way to go before you reach the number I have mate – granted I did not travel to them preaching the “gospel”). He has a “terror” of flying? Well he seems to have overcome it wouldn’t you say? Perhaps he was just lying and was a lazy little bastard when he was with the BBC?
“he never stopped bitching about the squalor and the filth and the heat.” While in Mexico City? I visited Mexico City and Monterrey in 1997 – not that much will have changed – and I had to stay there for approx 8 weeks working to finalise a piece of business. During that time my feet expanded like you wouldn’t believe due to being drunk after a party with colleagues down in a place called Cuernevaca south of Mexico city. I fell asleep outside and the mosquitos bit the hell out of my feet. Next day, I couldn’t walk! I also had one of the worst flights from Mexico City to Monterrey that I had experienced (not the worst by a long shot however) PLUS I was “kidnapped” by a mad taxi driver with very little teeth (aeropuerto amigo?) and Ericsson had called the taxi firm to book the little nutter! Let’s just say we had a “collision” with a lorry carrying pipes sticking out it’s back end and we were left with no windscreen glass! It was a close call. So yes, crazy places but BOY I wouldn’t change it for the world. It’s called living!
” I think he was bitter….” Well that’s exactly what he thinks of me. Perhaps I can turn that mirror back at him then? After all, he does say that when you speak of someone you are really speaking about yourself. You see David? You need to be very careful with what you say because it can and will come back to bite you! Oh and yes I know that so well. We’ve all made our mistakes in life dear messiah! Some of us face them some of us run away from them. You do the latter David. Time and again. We’re soon at the point of making this crystal clear.
“Icke turned his mind to the Isle of Wight, a stage upon which he would soon display the prima-donna traits of bullying bossiness and insistence upon his own way which he had never exposed to his television colleagues.”
“Icke joined the Isle of Wight steam railway society and applied himself with a passion which first astonished and then rapidly discomforted the other leading members.”
“He wasn’t interested in the steady development of business plans or feasibility studies. He couldn’t be bothered with the practicalities of the problems. As soon as he realised that we just weren’t going to be dragooned into doing things his way, he went off in a bit of a huff.”
The above three statements about Icke are very telling indeed if you give them more than just a passing glance. Firstly, think about how one creates change in any organisational framework. You must actually DO something. You must engage yourself with some form of process and you cannot expect change to happen overnight and just on your say so. Plus, if you were to say “This is what I want done (or changed)”, then the question is “To what? What change and how do we achieve it?” It was interesting the other night on TPV when the ebony and ivory radio duet were asking callers what they would put in the existing system’s place and/or how it would be achieved. Why don’t you ask your guru ladies? Ask him what he proposes as strategic or even tactical steps toward change and what exactly that change would be. Go on darlings, I DARE you to put him on the spot and demand an answer from his holiness!
You see, the man doesn’t have one and you know why? He doesn’t possess a left brained qualification of any type whatsoever which allows him to work on “steady development of business plans” or “feasibility studies”. All your guru wishes to say is “All change!” and click his fingers and Sean and Deanna etc will come running and create that change for him. Well, let’s see, do either of those idiots (in my view) have the slightest clue of what needs to be done? Indeed not. They wouldn’t know where to begin either they’re so high. And as an aside, what did the British establishment do over a century ago to bring China to its knees? They introduced opium. Why? Because when you’re high, you just say “Fuck it!” and you lose any drive to make changes and that is why the establishment LOVE that you’re all calling for legalisation of a plant (which should never come into view re any legislation whatsoever anyhow). They WANT you high as kites and you want to be high as kites. You bloody incompetent minded arseholes are walking right into tyranny through your weed ingested apathy!
What GOOD is a man who preaches for change and he doesn’t know what that change needs to be? He’s worse than useless. He’s DANGEROUS! And he’s far more dangerous than Barack Obama if he had the power of the latter. Give an idiot power and what do you end up with? CHAOS. The perfect ingredient from which to bring ORDER.
THE MAN IS A (excuse my french but it is necessary) FUCKING IDIOT!
And he despises left brained qualifications because he has none (and yet he will introduce people as having them to ensure you listen to them. He’ll even take on newly qualified journalists because they’re qualified with BA’s in journalism. The man’s sheer hypocrisy smells worse than an overflowing urinal in a nightclub!
The ONLY thing this guy has that none of the rest of you have is a couple of appearances on Wogan because he was once a BBC sports presenter! And you know the Mirror articles recently giving him more coverage? Well, how about this for a “Coincidence theory”:
And it just so happens that Jane is still with the Mirror today. “Synchronicity” eh David?
Now we hit the big issues (as if the foregoing wasn’t enough):
Here is the explanation behind my last blogpost. I wanted to see how many of you would be absolutely disgusted by what I said. I wanted to you to recognise how you would react to someone saying the things I did. And here is the reason why:
“Icke was obsessed with the mentally handicapped. (we seem to know others who are also don’t we Holly? What a coincidence!). He had a messianic fervour on the subject as if he was undertaking a mission.”
“He was like a God to them”.
Look, sorry, but you have to admit, it is VERY strange that so many celebrities (and politicians, which Icke, in fact, is even now) become significantly involved in these types of charities and organisations and the parallel between David Icke and Jimmy Savile here is striking considering the former’s “knowledge” and subsequent attacks on Savile. Additionally, both of them being with the BBC and, contrary to what Icke likes you to believe, he did not, EVER “out” Jimmy Savile before he was outed by mainstream press. He SAYS he spoke about him previously but he NEVER put any of it in print nor is it seen on his videos from years ago. Nothing (unless you wish to prove me wrong which I am entirely open to). Yet, IF he says he knew about it, then why did he never report it? He was in the BBC throughout the 80s along with Savile. If he knew then, he said nothing.
There was a guest on TPV the other night – the Barrister Michael Shrimpton, full of his own self importance and hot air – but he said one very interesting thing: He knew of existing pedophiles in the government today (while he named the usual suspects who are now dead) but he said he could not name them for obvious legal reasons. What he said next, however was a total and utter contradiction of that. He said that telling the truth is entirely lawful. There is no illegality in telling the truth. The simple point is this: If that is so and he is stating fact about knowing of the pedophiles in government today, then he should (according to how own words) be able to name them. Otherwise he’s talking himself up as having “insider/intelligence knowledge” when he doesn’t. I know which it is. The latter. The man is full of crap, is a zionist sympathiser and continuously attempts to put the NWO in the hands of “the gerries” when we all know how absolute utter crap that is. Yes indeed you can refer to the NWO as a form of Nazism and that many of those (including the zionist Israeli regime) are Nazis in essence (and in fact, in fact!) but to lay the blame at the feet of germany is just preposterous bullshit. He is an establishment shill (and not a very good one). A barrister indeed. A man who, if he is one, has taken an oath to the temples of Her Majesty and the Crown. Give me a break! And TPV give idiots like him and others airtime? Truth? They wouldn’t know truth if it bit them on the ass!
But back to Icke, given Shrimpton’s obvious point that truth cannot be illegal, then why did Icke not expose Savile WAY before the mainstream did? Why did Icke tell me in the TPV studio that William Hague was “into kids” but then he has never published that in his book “The Perception Deception”? Neither has he reported it. If YOU had proof of what you were saying would you take it to the authorities and scream it from the rooftops? I bloody well would. And that is WHY both Icke and Shrimpton are two people who are full of shit!
Ah! “These efforts certainly added to Icke’s social standing on the Isle of Wight…” And that is, at the very least, precisely why he got involved. It was a show. It was to create a personality (just like Blair and all the others) to make out that he cared. He couldn’t have given a rats arse because he dropped it like a hot brick. Why? Because he wasn’t achieving what he needed from it OR because he had achieved what he needed from it and therefore had no more interest. You know as well as I that if you have a true, deep connection and love of something you don’t drop it. It continues with you and your efforts will only increase as time goes by.
Now, this is where the earlier point re “Do unto those…” etc comes in and the belief in karma. THIS is what it leads to logically and Icke even expressed it in his own words. One nasty son of a bitch then. And I don’t say that lightly. Now think back to my previous blog and how you reacted to what I said MY belief was (and it isn’t my belief, I did it for exactly this purpose now):
“… he had decided that mentally handicapped people have brought their sufferings upon themselves. In his book (The truth vibrations) he wrote “people don’t suffer from mental and physical handicaps by chance. Their souls give themselves disabled bodies on purpose to develop a part of their character and experience. Maybe they have treated a disabled person badly in the past and need to understand what it feels like. Maybe they made someone disabled. similarly, he has written that cot deaths are the result of karma. Sometimes a soul will decide to only needs the experience of growth in the womb and birth to balance its development.)”
So how many of you know of either a down syndrome, mentally handicapped or physically handicapped person? You want to tell them they deserve it and its their karma for being punished for what they did to someone else in a past life? How about David Icke at his next Wembley talk, invites Holly Greig onto the stage and, in front of his entire audience, tell her that she is being punished for a past life? Or how about this: Perhaps those who sexually abuse the handicapped are doing so because they agree with David Icke and they believe these unfortunate people deserve to be abused?
What if you took all of this to its logical conclusion? Ever thought of that? No? Then THINK about it asshole! What did Adolf Hitler think? What do the eugenicists think? Am I getting through to any one of you impotent minded blind faith followers of the (anti) christ?
These children loved Icke and he dropped them like pieces of shit like he drops everything else when he moves on to the next thing. But not only did he drop them, he then wrote they deserved their fate! What a SICK BASTARD! YOUR words Icke not mine! I told you before, you dig your own (very deep) holes with your hypocrisy and your deceptions.
“What made politics impossible for him was that he didn’t understand the political process. He simply couldn’t grasp the value of compromise. The idea that you could have a big political row with your opponents and then come back the next day and have a drink with them was anathema to him. Things were absolutely black or absolutely white for him.”
And knowing and sharing with Icke what I know of what politics is and who controls it, I actually agree with him here BUT, at the same time, it is now obvious that Icke himself has lost a good deal of that idealism (where it suits him – and we’re all prone to it) as he tries to embrace the very personalities who will be mainstream (and his ticket to mainstream) but still part of the system. He WILL compromise with them but he WON’T compromise with people like you or I because we don’t have anything to offer him.
But there’s more.
What about this issue with telling everyone they have to do the “non comply dance” while he bends over backwards and takes it up the ass from Ofcom? Well, like all that has gone before, it is a pattern:
THE POLL TAX.
TELLING THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY MUST DO AND THEN, QUIETLY, NOT WALKING HIS TALK!
“Icke is perfectly qualified to be a New Age televangelist. He is genuinely gifted in television performance and nobody could doubt the sincerity (really? or do you mean they couldn’t doubt because of his performance? I think the latter. In fact i KNOW it!) with which he holds his opinions.”
You wish to follow a man who cannot fulfil ANY commitments he makes nor do as he preaches others to do and/or takes the view he does on the misfortunes of others being due to their past lives while he believes he is a son of the godhead and he was Socrates in a past life, then you be my guest. But allow me the principle of free speech and opinion: You are fucked in the head! You’ll believe any old shit that comes your way and you are deserving of your fate.
So here is a truth challenge to THE PEOPLE’S VOICE and to DAVID ICKE.
TPV state they will never transmit anything which is libellous. That is their ONLY control. Ok. Then have David Icke come on the show, live, and repeat what he states as fact: That George H Bush is both, a mass murderer and a paedophile and a serial abuser of children. Broadcast this worldwide on the show since it is very obviously truth. It is coming from David Icke’s own lips after all and as Shrimpton says (and anyone would agree), there is nothing illegal about telling the truth.
Once he has done it, then ask your entire audience to write to the British government directly to David Cameron’s office (and/or through their MP) and demand that George H Bush is arrested if ever he steps inside the European Union or the United Kingdom.
If David Icke has proof of these allegations (and you all believe him and he is stating it as fact) then he must have the proof. Then it is not libel. IF he doesn’t have the proof, then it is libel,
You choose TPV. Is your master a liar or is he someone you will support entirely.
Put your money where your mouth is or shut the fuck up with your “truth”!
I think that’s “check” don’t you?
TPV: “Our ethos is to allow EVERYONE’S opinions!”
A guy I know called Mark decided to state his opinions on the TPV Facebook page. He was good enough to pass the comments to me and asked me why, considering the “non censorship” ethos and “we must allow everyone to have a voice even those who disagree with us”, The People’s Voice would censor him and ban him from making further comments. Yes, they happened to criticise but is that not what this “openness” is meant to be all about? He didn’t swear or curse; he stated issues relating to the presenter and her guests and how he simply felt that a good enough job was simply not being done. He did advise me personally, that he thought the entire thing was amateurish and total crap and thought he could probably do a better job sitting on his toilet with a camcorder facing him (from the waist up), but he didn’t actually say that on the FB page. He simply criticised (as any critic would and, certainly in the msm which, David Icke himself actually links to regarding the Mirror article on the death of the young boy). So what is it about Mark’s comments which were so outrageous that TPV felt they had to ban him from any further comment?
He did not post any links to my blog so it can’t be that. He replied to any and all comments/replies to his posts with respect. So what do you think TPV were so scared of huh? He was even getting flak from their supporters so then he was disallowed from responding. The posts are still there but Mark’s ability to post anymore or reply to comments has been removed.
Everyone’s opinions? No censorship? Doesn’t appear that way to me.
Here are Mark’s posts. You’ll note at the time of posting, he also had a comment section to reply to. Later, his ability to comment (and post) has been entirely removed.
The first 3 pics are taken just after he posted (within minutes) showing he clearly had access to comment. The next 3 pics are then taken 3 or 4 hours later. The posts themselves still exist but, unknown to the other posters and commenters, Mark cannot now reply to them. It’s like “disappearing” someone and allowing those who have debated with him to feel that they have “won” something. It’s brilliantly done. It doesn’t look like censorship by TPV it just looks as if Mark decided not to comment further. The posts will be forgotten and, going forward, there is no further criticism to handle. “We don’t censor” say TPV! lol
Mark even made the conscious decision not to promote Earthling’s blog. He wanted to speak for himself rather than have people think he was speaking Earthling’s words. Yet, even though this blog was not promoted in any way or even referred to, TPV felt they had to shut Mark up. 😉
Again, it appears, quite spectacularly, that this organisation does not walk its talk and that dissent of any kind is unwanted and will be dealt with.
David, Sean, Sonia: You’re scared shitless of someone that can see right through you!
MAN CREATES CORPORATE PERSON.
MAN BECOMES DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE PERSON.
MAN TERMINATES HIS DIRECTORSHIP OF CORPORATE (LEGAL FICTION) PERSON.
THIS IS TPV – THE DIRECTOR’S CUT!
The Grand media chessboard: King replaced by Bishop. Now pay your “tithes” to the Bishop!
Company founded 17th May 2013.
Two Directors appointed 21st May 2013.
David Icke fans throw over £300K of donations at company in their trust of David Icke, the Director. Free money, just like Quantatitive Easing, on the recognition of a “trust” – for that is what it is. The trust formed being that between David Icke and the people – the latter believing he will use that money in their best interests to buy all the equipment necessary to launch a TV internet channel and offer them a voice.
TPV, then, is launched and the people ignore the fact that the equipment was bought for just £20K.
Meanwhile, a twat called “Earthling” contacts OFCOM because he can’t quite figure out how David Icke is telling his entire audience that no regulatory licence is needed when even he, Earthling – not involved in media at all – can see just with a quick 5 minutes spent on google, that any tv style programming, even broadcast over internet, requires a licence by OFCOM/AVMS.
Contact made with OFCOM
Sent: 08 October 2013 14:55
To: TV Licensing
Subject: Content licensing
I am trying to understand the following from your information on the Ofcom website. Can you please tell me if it is necessary to apply for a content license, or any license, from Ofcom if one intends to set up an internet based broadcasting service from the UK with live news channels and others on a 24/7 live broadcast basis?
In other words, does Ofcom regulate such broadcasting in any shape or form?
Subject: RE: Content licensing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:29:12 +0000
Services which are broadcast from the UK via the internet are licensable. This is set out in the notes of guidance for applicants and reflects the requirement of the Audio Visual Media Services Directive.
Subject: RE: Content licensing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:01:09 +0000
I assume, therefore, you are aware of the internet TV station due for launch on the 18th November by the name of “The People’s Voice”?
Can you please confirm that this channel, run by David Icke, has applied for and been granted such licensing? It is being run as a “not for profit” enterprise, so we are led to believe (if it is not licensed as such by the appropriate authority, I would consider this to be a fraudulent claim) and Mr Icke has consistently expressed that there is no need to come under the auspices of OFCOM since he is broadcasting over internet. I believe he is incorrect from what you have just replied and I don’t consider that Mr Icke would not already be fully aware of the need to apply and be granted such a license.
Please treat this as a Freedom of Information Act request regarding a promoted “Not for profit” organisation requiring licensing, like any other, from OFCOM.
I presume there is no difficulty in responding to such a request for information. After all, you have just expressly stated that such a undertaking as Mr Icke is taking, requires a content license. I simply wish to ensure that such has been applied for and accepted.
Sent: 24 October 2013 17:49
To: Julia Snape
Subject: RE: The Peoples Voice 1-245308060
Thank you for your confirmation that you have not issued a licence to “The People’s Voice” as of today. Having originally contacted Ofcom about the need for such a CONTENT licence for internet based broadcasting, I was advised as below:
Subject: RE: Content licensing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:29:12 +0000
Services which are broadcast from the UK via the internet are licensable. This is set out in the notes of guidance for applicants and reflects the requirement of the Audio Visual Media Services Directive.
Therefore, my follow up questions are as follows:
1. I must assume, therefore, that if such an organisation has not been issued with a licence by the time of commencing broadcasting, that they shall be in breach of the statutory requirements in such an instance? This is a general question relating to any and all broadcasters and potential broadcasters of internet content. If this assumption is incorrect, can you advise me of the specific situations in which a broadcaster need not apply for and be granted a licence by OFCOM (or ATVOD)?
2. Specifically, is it necessary that “The People’s Voice” DOES have a licence (content licence) to broadcast? According to the reply above, this is the case. Is the reply correct?
3. Further, I would wish to add this: “The People’s Voice” is, as can be clearly evidenced by the continuing requests for donations by the public and the continuing promotion of the station as being “The People’s” station, suggesting it is purely being set up and broadcast FOR the “public interest”. It is the public funding it (unless I am mistaken – which is very probable in my opinion although that is not what is being “sold” TO the public). If, then, it promotes its entire raison d’être as being “in the public interest” then it is not, at all, in the public interest that they do not know and have no way of knowing whether the public’ interest is being served by the station/company (a Private Limited Company suggesting it is non profit) complying with the statutory requirements. If the public is not allowed such information then it is a clear indication that the company is acting in a private and non transparent manner and that OFCOM and present legislation is enabling such.
How, then, can it be stated that it not require a “public interest test” to provide this information for a broadcast network funded by the public? Please answer this question for me very logically.
4. Having read section 393(1) of the Communications Act, it does occur to me that for, as you say, the information to be “classified” (for that is what this is – classified and not available to the public), the “business” must have been granted a provision to operate under that act for the protection of section 393(1) to come into force. Am I correct?
393General restrictions on disclosure of information
(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, information with respect to a particular business which has been obtained in exercise of a power conferred by—
(b)the enactments relating to the management of the radio spectrum (so far as not contained in this Act),
(c)the 1990 Act, or
(d)the 1996 Act,
is not, so long as that business continues to be carried on, to be disclosed without the consent of the person for the time being carrying on that business.
So, a legislative body related to government must have given approval for “The People’s Voice” (or ANY such broadcaster) to operate under the terms of the Communications Act 2003. Again, Am I correct?
5. To be given such approval and be protected from the need to divulge such information relating to whether or not the business has a licence to operate under OFCOM, obviously then suggests that the British government are entirely approving of the expected content from such a broadcaster. Am I correct?
Please note, the above questions (4 and 5) are logical and can be answered in a general form. There is absolutely no justification for not replying to these questions in a general form then.
6. Inasmuch as you, personally, will have the knowledge of whether the station is abiding by the statutory requirements then, in your capacity as an OFCOM employee (and one, therefore, who must abide by statutory legislation as you are doing now by not divulging what is written within the Acts) please state/confirm that you, in your capacity, would, and will, flag the noncompliance of any and all broadcasters who require a licence from you (or ATVOD). This may be treated as a freedom of information act request questioning a Freedom of Information Act officer. My guess is that, as such, such an officer would have to be transparent and factual in their reply (unless the FOI Act also gives some form of “pass” for that also?).
Thank you and regards,
Thank you for your further comments and questions regarding this matter. I will come back to you again in due course once we have considered the points you have made.
Determining who should hold the licence
52. Ofcom has published guidance about who we regard as the person who is the provider of a broadcasting (i.e. TV and radio) service and should therefore hold a broadcasting licence to provide the service. Generally, the provider of the service is the person who is in a position to determine what is to be included in the service or, in the words of the Communications Act 2003, the person “with general control over which programmes and other services and facilities are comprised in the service (whether or not he has control of the content of individual programmes or of the broadcasting or distribution of the service)”.
Disqualification for Holding Licences
General disqualification of non-EEC nationals and bodies having political connections
(d)a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature;
a body corporate which is an associate of a body corporate falling within paragraph (d) or (e)
The above states quite clearly “of a political nature”. Politics is defined in the Oxford English dictionary as follows:
Politics is not confined to purely political parties, as I am sure you are aware, but stretches across fundamental philosophy, belief systems, capitalism/communism etc and, also, subversive activities.
15. Applicants with religious objects are advised to allow approximately eight weeks for their application to be considered by Ofcom in the light of the Guidance for religious bodies applying for a Broadcasting Act licence (http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/other-issues/religious- guidance). Applicants should be aware that Ofcom is under a duty to ensure that it does not license bodies with objects which are of a wholly or mainly political nature, and will consider applications carefully in the light of its duties. Applications where questions arise in relation to this issue may take a number of months to consider.
From “The Biggest Secret”
“Advancing the Agenda becomes their indoctrinated mission from very early in their lives. By the time their turn comes to join the Brotherhood hierarchy and carry the baton into the next generation, their upbringing has moulded them into highly imbalanced people. They are intellectually very sharp, but with a compassion bypass and an arrogance that they have the right to rule the world and control the ignorant masses who they view as inferior. Any Brotherhood children who threaten to challenge or reject that mould are pushed aside or dealt with in other ways to ensure that only ‘safe’ people make it to the upper levels of the pyramid and the highly secret and advanced knowledge that is held there. Some of these bloodlines can be named. The British House of Windsor is one of them, so are the Rothschilds, the European royalty and aristocracy, the Rockefellers, and the rest of the so-called Eastern Establishment of the United States which produces the American presidents, business leaders, bankers and administrators. But at the very top, the cabal which controls the human race operates from the shadows outside the public domain. Any group which is so imbalanced as to covet the complete control of the planet will be warring within itself as different factions seek the ultimate control. This is certainly true of the Brotherhood. There is tremendous internal strife, conflict and competition. One researcher described them as a gang of bank robbers who all agree on the job, but then argue over how the spoils will be divided. That is an excellent description and through history different factions have gone to war with each other for dominance. In the end, however, they are united in their desire to see the plan implemented and at the key moments they overwhelmingly join forces to advance the Agenda when it comes under challenge.”
“As I revealed in I Am Me I Am Free, and will elaborate upon in this book, the Brotherhood hierarchy today are seriously into Satanic ritual, child sacrifice, blood drinking and other abominations that would take your breath away. Yes, I am talking about some of the biggest royal, political, business, banking and media names on the planet. People like Henry Kissinger, George Bush, the British royal family and many other presidents, prime ministers and members of royalty. Fantastic? Of course it is, but since when did the truth not sound fantastic in a world of such denial and illusion?”
“….as represented by the orthodox rabbis today, makes it a religious offence to save the life of a Gentile, unless there would be unpleasant consequences for Jews not doing so. The charging of interest on loans to a fellow Jew is banned, but by Talmudic law they must charge a Gentile as much interest as they possibly can. It is demanded that Jews must utter a curse every time they pass a Gentile cemetery and that when they pass a Gentile building they must ask God to destroy it. Jews are forbidden to defraud each other, but that law does not apply to the defrauding of Gentiles. Jewish prayers bless God for not making them Gentiles and others ask that Christians may perish immediately. A religious Jew must not drink from a bottle of wine if a Gentile has touched it since it was opened. The Jewish writer, Agnon, after being awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, said on Israeli radio: “I am not forgetting that it is forbidden to praise Gentiles, but here there is a special reason for doing so – that is, they awarded the prize to a Jew.”17 These are the laws of the belief system called ‘Jewish’ which is constantly complaining about, and condemning, racism against Jews! The very belief system is founded on the most extreme racism you will ever encounter.”
“Add to that the fact that the truth of what is going on is so bizarre that most people will not believe it and you have the perfect situation for ongoing, unchallenged control.
So he’s challenging the entire system – that is his MO and he is being given a licence to operate a broadcasting network BY that system?
“Another version is Lilibet or Elizabeth and this is why the present British Queen is called Elizabeth (El-lizard-birth) and was known to her family circle as Lilibet. She is a major reptilian gene carrier who produced a major reptilian full-blood called Prince Charles. Both are shape-shifting reptilians, a fact that will be supported by later evidence. So is the Queen Mother, formerly Elizabeth (El-lizard-birth) Bowes-Lyon.”
A FACT, he says. No suggestion. A fact!
“Sir Winston’s daughter-in-law, Pamela, married the American, Averell Harriman, one of the great Brotherhood manipulators of the 20th century and much documented in .. And The Truth Shall Set You Free. Pamela Harriman, who had formerly been married to Winston’s son, Randolph, became very influential in the American Democratic Party and is widely named as the force behind Bill Clinton’s election as US president. She was rewarded by being made US ambassador to the key Brotherhood city of Paris, where she died in 1997 at the age of 76. Her son, also named Winston, is a British member of Parliament who is close to the Rothschilds. Pamela Churchill-Harriman dated Elie de Rothschild before marrying Averell Harriman. In 1995 the Churchill family were given £12,500 million of National Lottery money when they sold some of Sir Winston Churchill’s Second World War speeches to ‘the nation’. The speeches were purchased with this public money by the National Heritage Memorial Board, chaired by… Lord Jacob Rothschild. Just a coincidence, nothing to worry about. The Churchill-Harrimans are bloodline families. One of Pamela Harriman’s ancestors conspired with the Percy family, ancestors of George Bush, in the attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament in the so-called Gun Powder Plot led by Guy Fawkes on November 5th 1605. As a Harriman, Pamela represented the ‘Democratic’ wing of the Brotherhood while the Bush’s, close associates and business partners of the Harrimans, represent the ‘Republican’ wing. Both have answered to the same master to ensure that the United States, like every other country, is a one-party-state. The Bush family are close friends of the Windsors, which shouldn’t surprise anyone who has read this far because both are shape-shifting reptilians. Bush and his associate, the Brotherhood’s tireless global manipulator, Henry Kissinger, have both been knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.”
“This is why I keep saying that London is the centre of the operational level of the Brotherhood. Even greater power lies elsewhere, some of it in the Vatican, and, ultimately, I think, on the physical level, somewhere under the ground in Tibet and Asia. The people of America have been bled dry by this scam and continue to be so. Land of the Free? What a joke! And, people of America, your presidents and leading government officials know this. In turn, it must be stressed, the King John agreement with the Pope presumably gave away the sovereignty of England, also. And who controlled King John? The Templars did.
When you know what you are looking for, the truth is in your face. I said that the Virginia Company and King James I decreed that criminal courts in the colonies would be controlled by Admiralty Law, the law of the sea. What Admiralty were they talking about? The British Admiralty, of course. When a court is being run under Admiralty or maritime law, the flag in the court has to have a gold fringe around it. Look in any criminal court in the United States or the united states and you will see it has a gold fringe. The same with many other official buildings. Those ‘American’ criminal courts are being run under BRITISH admiralty law. The Crown and the Brotherhood families of Britain also control the American criminal courts and the core of that control is with the secret societies based in Temple Bar in London, the former Templar lands, the centre of the British legal profession. The Grand Lodge of English Freemasonry is in Great Queen (Isis/Semiramis) Street in London and has controlled most Freemasonry across the globe since it was formed in 1717. Through this, the British reptile-Aryans control the American judges, lawyers, police, and so on, and through other organisations, like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, they manipulate the American political system. The American judges are fully aware that their courtrooms are controlled by British Admiralty Law, but they keep quiet and take the money. The Rockefeller family are the bloodline branch managers in America for the London headquarters and it is the Rockefellers who, quite provably, decide who is going to be President. In other words, the London Elite decide. The Queen of England, Prince Philip and the main members of the British royal family all know this and are helping to orchestrate it. Who is the Grand Master of the English Mother Lodge of Freemasonry? The Queen’s cousin, the Duke of Kent.”
OFCOM withdrew Press TV’s licence (for obvious reasons) plus OFCOM will either fine or withdraw the licence/ban any and all advertisements for products which are misleading in content and yet, you are allowing a person who promulgates the view that the British royal family are reptilian, shape shifters and part of a brotherhood of pedophiles and child murderers and you do not view these teachings and the asking of donations for a channel entirely controlled by this man, as “misleading”?
I am sorry but you have GOT to be kidding me!
Finally, let me be clear that I, personally, am aware and in agreement with much of what David Icke states regarding the actual facts and workings of the political and financial system. However, this man, through his own words and teachings is exceptionally dangerous in what he is trying to achieve and by which methods and beliefs.
Either OFCOM recognise the dangerous subversive (and substantial misleadings) of David Icke and reconsider this application for a licence you have already provided or you are clearly stating that you are supportive of the aims of David Icke.
I would like to know which.
I look forward to your imminent reply on the questions put to you in my previous email and would also wish to hear (even at a later date) your reply to this regarding the decision that David Icke is a “fit and proper person” to hold a UK broadcasting licence.
OFCOM ARE DRAGGING THEIR FEET REGARDING THEIR REPLY TO THIS.
BACK TO THE DIRECTOR’S CUT
What happened on the 23rd October 2013, just 5 months and 6 days into his Directorship? It would appear (I say appear and it is fact ON PAPER) that David Icke got sacked or resigned his position. What an interesting (and unexpected?) turn of events. Now WHY would the leading man, whom you all trust with your money, resign his position as Director and leaving Sean Tabatabai (the “Bishop”) as the ONLY remaining Director of “The People’s Voice Broadcasting Ltd” company?
Now, once more, check out the timing. It is precisely around the time David Icke states that contact was made with Ofcom and that fits precisely with the timing of my communications (thus far) with them. Oh I KNOW my communications with Ofcom created a stir because I have the words of Sonia Poulton, sent to me in confidence, to prove it. You have a very kind turn of phrase Ms Poulton you “old hag” (I’m simply repaying your “compliments” dear within a similar mould. It would generally not be a level I would stoop to but having read your comments, I see it is a level you do – wonderfully “enlightened” you are then and full of “love and light” for your fellow humans UNLESS they have questions that is right? They can and should question anyone and everyone except you it would seem – then the “claws” come out ;-)).
Two possible reasons:
1. OFCOM read their own regulations and recognised that they could not provide a Broadcast licence to THE PEOPLE’S VOICE BROADCASTING LIMITED with David Icke being the Director. The decision would not hold up to scrutiny given Icke’s political motivations (read the regulations and those who are disqualified from holding a licence).
2. The conflict of interest issue I wrote about in “David Icke: Sold to the highest buddha”.
However, no matter which (and it could be both) there are many questions surrounding this “chess move” by Icke and they are questions you should be VERY concerned about unless you simply have blind faith in the man. However, even having blind faith in the man, you STILL have a problem: David Icke is now NOT “the man” (at least on paper). It is not David Icke you are now sending your donations to -if you are and he is sending them on via his “David Icke Books Ltd” then that, in itself, is a legal issue. However, whatever is happening, the fact is that you are now sending your money to ONE MAN. A man called Sean ADL Tabatabai. The question is: Do you know him? Do you know ANYTHING about this guy (except that he works for David Icke). You were sending money to David Icke and now you’re not. David Icke is now a “volunteer” (haha) just like anyone else with the exception of the inner core.
So what the hell is going on eh? 😉 There is now ONE Director of THE PEOPLE’S VOICE and it’s Sean Tabatabai.
Yet do you think for ONE MOMENT that David Icke has seriously left the control of this entire enterprise to Sean Tabatabai? What is he? David Icke’s illegitimate son? Or is he something even darker than that? He’s a 31 year old guy – in my view not that bright but that’s just my impression – but he has something on a 60 odd yr old guy. Could a 31 yr old lad be a “handler” for David icke? Does David Icke NEED a “handler”?
Or is there another interested party in TPV which actually does have the total control over it? I wrote before about there being another couple of “People’s Voice” companies started within a month of your beloved one.
Now, it is possible that, to get the licence, Icke has resigned his Directorship and shall simply be re-instated once all the hoohah calms down. Yes that can be done. TPV can employ anyone they wish as a Director – it’s just at the point of application, if the main Director is a person who is deemed “not fit and proper” then that person (and TPV therefore) would not be given a licence.
Now do you think for one second that OFCOM wouldn’t know what was going on when they saw David Icke terminate himself and yet the company STILL apply for the licence? Do you think for one second they would not be aware that David icke would STILL be the driving force behind it?
Then think of David and his “Fight the system” shit. Doing what he has done is, once more, showing you he isn’t in the least bit interested in fighting the system. He’s dodging it WITH YOUR HELP! So where is he sticking his neck out? Nowhere! He’s a fucking fraud!
Meanwhile, I’ll republish the Sean Tabatabai info from a previous blog just for the sake of those who may not have read it:
Sean Tabatabai link to globalist operations.
So who’s the guy with the strange name (with “ADL” in the middle of it? A strange quirk considering isn’t it? Not that I’m suggesting anything I just found it funny for obvious reasons).
Well Sean is a Producer – as stated – and is also Icke’s “David Icke.com” webmaster as well as his trusted partner in this venture. But he has strange connections. Now, anyone else with 47 connections on their LinkedIn profile, 2 of which (the most from one organisation) being the BBC, PLUS connections with “Newstate Partners LLP” (look them up) and “EF Education First (first for what? Conditioning students into a globalist mindset AND which has trips to Nazi Concentration Camps in Germany just to keep the holocaust in mind no doubt) would have ANY ONE OF YOU think “Ahah!!” if it were anyone else but the partner of David Icke but, since it is the partner of David Icke then “there must be some simple sort of explanation (which, you can be assured, there will be I’m sure).
Their roots with S.G. Warburg indeed while they advise governments and Central Banks on debt management etc. Yeah, he probably just does their websites too right? Plus the BBC’s, plus EF Education First – ALL globalist organisations. Sure the guy just has to make a living right?
Each of the circles on the outer ring represents one of his connections. This is where, if you hover over them on his LinkedIn page you find, amongst others, Newstate and EF. The large circle in the middle represents his largest number of connections with one organisation and that is only 2, both with the BBC.
Sure, if Icke has a LinkedIn he might even have a couple of people as connections from the BBC – who knows? – after all he used to work for them (Wogan might even be one of them! ) but Tabatabai having connections with them AND the other two is just a LITTLE teeny weeny bit strange. However, I’m sure you don’t think so so by all means carry on believing.
Now the following makes sense. Deanna Amato wanting ALL communications cc’d. Watch out People’s Voice workers, your calls and your emails are being monitored. You can take that to the bank!
UK Advertising Team
My humblest apologies to all of you Icke fans out there in never never land. I was wrong! So wrong! What can I say? Except this…….
In my blog “David Icke: The turd in the punchbowl” I offered you information (correct information) as to the costs associated with setting up what David was setting up. I pointed you to his own words regarding the costs and the quality of such equipment and, as he said, the £100K (then £300K) would be just enough to get TPV on air. I stated that this was rubbish, impossible (and David Icke did say he was “performing miracles” after all) and my calculations (again, still valid) regarding ALL of the costs to do what he was stating was being done, suggested that he could never achieve it and have change out of a couple of £million.
ALL of the above is correct and, if you have read the blog entitled “David Icke: The turd in the punchbowl” you will realise it is so. I provide detail on the costs of equipment and rental of premises plus telecom utilities (although the telecom utilities are variable but, to chi eve what he had suggested using fibre optics and, therefore, substantial leased lines to bring the highest quality broadcasts would be in excess of the example I gave). One needs to further consider the costs of other utilities such as heating, lighting, power for all equipment – costs of which are significant in such a case. All of these ongoing costs would need be taken as, at the very least, an annual contract. He could NOT say to a telecom provider for instance: “We’ll take a leased line for a month and continue month to month and see how the donations go”. Same applies to the rental on the premises and all other utilities.
However, ignoring that for the moment because to get the channel launched with the £300K, he stated quite clearly that the money would be spent primarily on the substantial cost of equipment needed (even though, as I have just said, £300K would not even cover 5 of the “top range” broadcast cameras he told you he would purchase. But ok, let’s assume he got a good deal and managed it all within £300K. What would be left to ensure, as he added, the critical personnel such as Simon Ludgate, Sean Tabatabai (very strange relationship there which I intend to cover again at some point), Sonia Poulton plus a handful of others. If you believe these people are working for nothing well, in David’s words, I’ve got a nice two bed seafront bungalow in Birmingham if you’re interested?
Simon Ludgate’s IMDB profile –
Now, am I saying Simon SHOULD work for nothing? NO not at all! Neither should Sonia nor any of the others (including the abused volunteers even though they love being abused). How can someone possibly work for nothing if it is their career? Come on people, at least be a little more “awake” please!
Here’s Simon. Nice big bright smile for the camera (although seeing him in the studio once or twice, I couldn’t recognise that smile at all – I wonder if it was already the “Icke effect”? Probably not. After all everyone smiles for a publicity shot right? :-))
Now, if you happened to view my video regarding Icke’s noncompliant compliance in an earlier blog, you may have noticed this pic of Ludgate and the following article being connected without stating exactly what that connection was.
Note the date of the article.
Note that the TPV Limited Company was “born” during late May of this year.
Note the premises for TPV weren’t acquired until approx the July/August time if you remember. Therefore, at most, the cost of having those premises plus the little utilities needed through to this month (November) would be, at the very most say £7000.
Note the amount required by the donation drive: £300K. Subtract £7000 and you arrive at £293K.
So, they bought all of that equipment with, at the most, £293K? So you still feel you got your money’s worth right? Although, as I said, correctly, there is no way it all could have been bought for £300K EVEN WITH a very good deal.
BUT I ADMIT I WAS WRONG DON’T I? ALWAYS be willing to admit when you’re wrong!
How was I wrong? Well, a TPV insider (who wishes to remain anonymous, for which I apologise but I keep my word when asked) has advised me of the following:
“Ok you can mention the £20k Teddington equipment. It was my understanding from Deanna the original quote to buy was £30,000 however Simon Ludgate negotiated down to £20,000 for all the equipment, including the cameras in the studio. The desks and pc monitors were thrown in to the deal as Teddington studio’s were clearing out and desk’s etc would have been thrown in skips, so TPV simply loaded them up.”
“It’s possible Deanna has a working visa, but I don’t know that, didn’t ever ask her. What I do know if she’s a seamstress and by default not done any work since June at least, so she must be getting paid by TPV to survive. She’s living in the apartment in Islington that was rented originally for Matt Smith and his people, so that won’t be coming cheap. Before that she was living in Camden. I believe she’s been in Hawaii the past 2 weeks, that was her plan at the end September. Not cheap to go to Hawaii …!”
Nice apartment guys!
Now, Deanna Amato is a seamstress in Australia. Yes, a seamstress. She’s been in the UK since June this year so not making an income from her seamstress activities then. So where’s the income coming from? And here’s a question: Does she have a working visa or a vacation visa? Is she paying taxes? If so, where? Or is the money being sent to Hawaii? 😉
“Another Australian, a presenter doing a show called ‘Wakey, Wakey’ called Ellisa Hawke is definately on a holiday passport from July as I have met her, had lunch with her and she cannot officially earn any money from TPV with the passport she has. Regardless, David Icke has employed her, but I don’t know if she’s being paid or not (cash in hand?).
There are many many volunteers, all doing unpaid work, and in my view the venture cannot survive on people’s good will only. It’s clear there are certain individuals being paid though.
Your blog from October resonated with me as I had so many similar experiences with Deanna and TPV.”
” I do believe there is alot happening behind the scenes that would possibly ‘kill’ the TPV venture dead if people knew. “
Well now they do! At least some of it. There’s some which is not for publication at the moment but would you believe racism? And David Icke did NOTHING about it! Once more he chose to protect his favourites within the inner sanctum of Ickeland.
Oh and I meant to add: I, personally met Matt Smith while at the studios one day. He had his father, his sister and one other over with him. He was meant to be heading up the L.A. studio. We chatted and we seemed to get along. So much so, he asked me if I’d like to work with him on some of his programmes. “Sure!” I said. A very strange look and reaction came across from Sean Tabatabai at that point and he said to Matt “Do you want to do that? You don’t have to”. I mean WTF??
Matt replied “Yeah I like the guy”. Perhaps we would have done some good things together but, unfortunately, Matt was offloaded even before I was! I was shocked. No-one would say why and yet I thought about the work his father did in the studio – he had just come off a plane from LA and got right to work. The LA studio, at least for now, is not happening (lucky Americans!). But recently I heard the strangest thing from an inside source:
“The LA studio has been cancelled. Matt Smith (ex LA child actor) was chosen to run an LA studio and he came over in late September with his lady friend, a few days later his father was also brought over to help out with the construction of the studio. I met his father at Heathrow airport. Within 4 days Mr Icke had sent back Matt Smith, his father and friend to LA as he felt TPV has been infultraited by the lady friend. So forget the LA studio for now.”
It would seem David doesn’t trust women too much. First Pamela and now Matt’s “lady friend” (I think the source is referring to Matt’s sister).
I’ll say this for Matt: He had a sunny character. Easily likeable. Perhaps that was the problem? More likeable than “Ickeable”?
WAKEY WAKEY ICKEY WIKEYS!
Ok folks, I would, if you will, like you to consider this very carefully. It is a clear as day scenario which I really do hope you can recognise for what it represents. It is VERY important that you grasp the nature of the media, manipulation, the use of “bad press” as good press and the sheer desperation to suppress REAL criticism while using fake (or so very easily dealt with) MSM criticism (in this case a “smear campaign” used to your every advantage).
David Icke and TPV are complaining bitterly about the Daily Mirror article which attempts to use the unfortunate death of a young boy about 6 months ago to “smear” David Icke and “blame” the death on him. TPV and Icke are also saying “Isn’t it strange how they are running this story JUST before we launch?”
Now, please think very clearly about this. YES, I would agree it IS very strange they are running this story just before the launch.
Have you heard the term “All publicity is good publicity”? That is what all these celebs who are just celebs because of their celebrity use. Jordan/Katie Price etc. They have nothing to offer in terms of talent so how do they create their “celebrity”? By crass, “bombshell” stories – either positive OR negative – which keep you talking about them and buying “OK” and all the other mags.
Have you heard of reverse psychology and “paradoxical marketing”? I’m sure you have heard the former but research the latter if you have not heard of that. These techniques are being used against you every single day.
Have you heard about the curiosity that killed the cat? Sure you have!
Yes, by now I figure you know EXACTLY where I’m going with this and you’d be right. The timing of that article IS perfect (while it is an OBVIOUS “smear” such that it is no smear at all for the even slightly intelligent). So why do it?
CURIOSITY for one thing. How many people reading it will wonder about David Icke and google him and check out his website and find TPV?
You have heard of stories being “placed” in news for propaganda purposes. To highlight people or points etc. To drive an emotional response (no matter if positive or negative). This is the best thing David Icke could have happen to him and HE KNOWS IT.
Why do I say he knows it?
He USES it. He actually links to the piece on his own website. Plus, because it is such an obvious smear, he gains kudos for it through the belief by fans that it is REAL attempt to attack him. It is brilliant. Not only that but Richie whatsisname is actually trying to get the journalist to appear on the show. Who guesses she will appear? She might and I would not be at all surprised if she did. Perhaps even to offer an apology, you never know!
Emily Retter is quite into her art plus she also has done freelance writing for the likes of the Mirror, the Sun, the Sunday Mail etc. Now, notice they’re all quite trashy publications which just publish all sorts of crap to a rather low brow readership but quite a mass audience of not too bright people (sorry but true). Now just imagine this for a second (it’s not that big a stretch): Let’s say Emily knows Sean, or Neil Hague or Sonia Poulton or any of the inner crew (media is a small world you know). Is it outwit the bounds of possibility that any one of them has said “Hey Emily, we know each other” or “Hey Emily, I know your editor” or even just go straight to the editor. Do not be naive. I KNOW how things work in the corporate world and they can be dirty – media is one of the dirtiest as you know!
Now think about this for a moment before saying “Yes but he needs to respond to trash like that!”
I am nothing when it comes to media. And yet, I know of a number of people now who have simply posted my blogs re David Icke to the David Icke forum and EVERY TIME this has been done, the moderators remove them on the basis that “He is a hateful, vindictive person” or similar (Yes “I-am”, I mean you). They remove the blogs rather than respond to them. They also, therefore, remove the capability of any and all who may wish to debate them on the David Icke forum. Those debates could end up being VERY negative and hateful toward me. I don’t care. That is not the point. Anyone who wishes to state their opinion to me on my blog is welcome to do so. You have to take the rough with the smooth. I will never allow comments that are pure character assassination not based upon considered points however just as I was concerned about a few comments made toward Icke (until the poster explained they were not intended to be threatening).
If David Icke is so quick and happy to actually publish (link) to a mainstream article which has an IMMENSE readership and is having a go at him, why would that be when he is absolutely suppressing all discussion and/or links to my blog on his forum?
Are you beginning to see this?
You see, I am not smearing him or attacking him on the basis of some poorly considered, trash “hit piece”. Further, David knows the circulation of the Mirror and how that can bring a tremendous number of people to his and TPV’s sites. What he WOULD NOT want is for that same number of people to read my articles on him because my articles are not trash. They are not poorly considered. They hit him hard because they actually use his very own words.
Sometimes a man’s worst enemy can be himself and his ego.
Nevertheless, brilliant promotion David. I tip my hat to you once more. 🙂
Introducing the Secretary of State for Culture, sport and media: Ed Vaizey.
On 18 May 2009 the Daily Telegraph reported that receipts submitted by Vaizey show that he ordered a £467 sofa, a £544 chair, a £280.50 low table and a £671 table in February 2007 from Oka, an upmarket furniture shop. The Commons Fees Office initially rejected the claim as the receipt said that the furniture was due to be delivered to Vaizey’s home address in West London, but was later paid when Vaizey advised the Fees Office that the furniture was intended for his second home at his Wantage constituency. Vaizey told the Daily Telegraph that we (he and his wife) “had it delivered to London because we would be in to collect it and we were driving down with it.”
When these claims became public, Vaizey said that he had repaid the cost of the Oka furniture and the antique chair which he had bought with taxpayers’ money: “I accept that the £300 armchair was an antique item and therefore that claim should not have been made. I also accept that the Oka items could be deemed as being of higher quality than necessary. I have paid back both these claims. I have not claimed for any other furniture bought for my constituency home at any time before or since.” Vaizey has described himself to be “relatively affluent”.
In November 2011, it was further reported that Vaizey had submitted expenses claims of 8p for a 350-yard car journey and 16p for a 700-yard journey.
[A comment related to my own experience of submitting expenses during my career. It takes time to fill in an expense claim. If I were to sit at my desk and fill in an expense claim for 8p and 16p, given the time taken to do so and the salary I was on which meant, in that time (5 mins?) I was paid approx £3 through salary; I would be sacked on the spot and rightly so.]
Ed Vaizey then, as much a cheap bastard as David Icke (Teddington Dave – tell them about Teddington). Luckily for Ed he works for the government however and his 8p and 16p expenses will be paid. Thank god you don’t work for David Icke Ed. But then, it can honestly be stated he reports to you doesn’t he? He’s submitted to your regulation after all.
Ed Vaizey is the man OFCOM report to at present. Ed Vaizey is part of the system (as is Ofcom) which David Icke purports to wishing to remove and destroy and his main way of doing that, he says, is for us all to play “the non comply dance”.
I want to make something clear to all you TPV workers who assume I am out to get you off the air: WRONG, I am not. What I AM interested in doing is showing YOU as well as a multitude of others, the charlatan that David Icke is (and most of his core team you work for as they get paid and you don’t). Once you’re of no further benefit to them (and I promise you this) your volunteering will be dropped. You’re a resource – cheap and to be used, abused and then, at the right time, no more. IF you have the guts you try to portray you do to take on the system then let’s see them: First, since you are supporting the network through your free labour and since you probably funded it through donations, TELL ICKE YOU WANT TO SEE THE BOOKS! Then, also, TELL ICKE YOU WANT TO DRAW THAT LINE IN THE SAND AND FIGHT OFCOM.
But you won’t will you? You’re all so defiant aren’t you? Far far easier to throw tantrums and boos at the likes of me than take on what you suggest you’re taking on. Shame you’re so full of shit and scared of your own shadow while you follow a man that doesn’t EVER walk his talk! What hope do you possibly have in taking on the system? Zero!
Anyhow, it’s this guy, Ed Vaizey, who is ultimately responsible for deciding who is and who is not “a fit and proper person” for holding a UK broadcast licence. Would you give your enemy the keys to your front door? For christ’s sakes grow up people, nevermind wake up because you’ve got a long way to go before you do that!
Sorry for the little delay that introduced but, you see, I don’t like the idea of you screwing with your audience. The people who are funding you. I also, personally, do not like to be either lied to or misled. You now have a real problem whichever way you look at it and I can state, categorically, that I would have done the same even if I had been working at The People’s Voice today.
Why? Well, for the above reasons but also for a much bigger reason:
YOU tell people to get up off their arses and fight this system. Here’s an example of you saying exactly that (as if you are some “big boy” who ever says “boo!” to the system)….
SO! Where is your “line in the sand”? Where is your fight against the system? Where’s YOUR challenge to them? SHOW YOUR AUDIENCE DAVID! WHERE IS IT?
Let’s see that walk David. Let’s see it because I’ve heard the talk!
If you don’t David, “Don’t look to me for sympathy when you’re regulated mate because you’ve got your chance now!” GET THE POINT DAVID?
So here’s your challenge David: Get your flock together with a focus and a strategy and attack the establishment through OFCOM. You have the numbers David. Actually use them! Are you “big” enough to take the challenge and show your leadership? Are your Ickolytes sufficiently motivate to support you in the fight David or have they just got enough “mouth” to throw tantrums at people like me for calling you out? You’ve got the numbers David. Instead of just droning on and offering up the same old shit and the same old faces talking about the same old shit, why don’t you USE your flock? Get them motivated to attack OFCOM and the establishment. THEN David, and ONLY then, will I sit up and listen. THEN you may be deserving of your “title”. Otherwise, you’re all mouth Dave looking for the next donation.
Now, your Ickolytes are shouting about this OFCOM regulation and they probably despise me for having inquired and brought it to OFCOM’s attention but I did it for the sake of the truth movement” you suggest you are supportive of and you wish to be the “Big Cheese” of. So “Big Cheese”, the thing about a “Leader” is he has to lead BY EXAMPLE or he’s nothing but a windbag! You see, I believe wholeheartedly that you’re a windbag and it is my wholehearted belief you’re in this for the money and the money alone.
If you were “fighting the system” as you scream at others to do, then you would not have registered your company under the Communications Act 2003 (which, ironically protects you from having to open up to your audience what you’re doing and how you’re doing it). THAT is why, although you KNEW you needed a licence (for if you didn’t then you are incompetent in your business), you didn’t wish to advise your audience for the very reason they are now communicating about – they see you’re just as controlled under regulation as anyone else.
THE ONLY WAY OUT IS TO FIGHT THE SYSTEM ICKE OTHERWISE YOU’RE PART OF IT (which I entirely believe you are and that is why I am sure you will get your licence because the establishment want you to ‘lead’ a flock down a cul-de-sac (emphasis on the word “CUL”).
The thing is – and your audience don’t even understand this – THEY think “we funded it so let’s fight OFCOM” LOL. So funny. They can’t fight on your behalf because YOU and “The People’s Voice” (you being the Company Director) are the only two “legal persons” who can fight this if you DON’T get the licence because it is only you and the legal person of OFCOM who are a party to the contract.
IF you DO get the licence however, what are you then going to tell your audience? “Oh it doesn’t matter”. LOL
Sure it doesn’t David. It doesn’t matter to you, to Sean and to “The People’s Voice” company because you will still have your business, your audience, the money and your station.
The ONLY people it matters to are those who comprise the very audience you are misleading. They can’t POSSIBLY get the unspun truth you are trying to suggest they will get. But I know, so many of them will just still blindly follow you Dave.
Last thing though Dave: You did say you could see I knew what I was talking about all those weeks ago. Well, when you want intelligence, you get it but a word in your ear – don’t fcuk with it when you do!
I WANT A REAL “PEOPLE’S VOICE” DAVID BUT YOU’RE NOT IT. A REAL PEOPLE’S VOICE WOULD HAVE A MAN IN FRONT CHARGING INTO OFCOM AND TELLING THEM WHERE TO STICK THEIR LICENCE. A REAL PEOPLE’S VOICE WOULD NOT BE REGISTERED AS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT 2003 BECAUSE A REAL PEOPLE’S VOICE JUST CANNOT OPERATE WITHIN THEIR LAW. AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE A CHARLATAN DAVID. THERE IS NO BULLSHIT YOU CAN REPLY WITH THAT WOULD HOLD ANY WATER WHATSOEVER.
You may criticise me. You may despise me in your belief that I have, somehow, attempted to cause “The People’s Voice” problems due to my having to leave the organisation. You may believe whatever you wish, it is entirely your choice.
However, I had reason to seriously question this man Icke and his proclamations about various things. I found that they did not stand up to scrutiny and I truly believed it was important that YOU were made aware of them because the organisation is promoting itself as absolute truth.
One of those major points that David Icke made was that TPV DID NOT NEED an OFCOM licence. This is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO YOU because his suggestion that this was the case was for the purpose of having you believe that TPV could not be controlled by anyone or anything EXCEPT the law of libel. This then giving you the impression that they were free to talk about anything without the fear of being taken off air. THAT WAS NOT TRUE!
Now, considering he has – via TPV live in the last few minutes – advised you that OFCOM had contacted them within the last two weeks (therefore, after my contacting them simply to ask the question whether such a licence was required and finding out TPV, the company, is broadcasting under the protection of the Communications Act 2003) and told them they required a licence, do you think for one minute that this one single guy (i.e. me) would know the position better than the entire People’s Voice organisation? Do you TRULY believe that?
David Icke has just suggested that OFCOM have just advised him of something he did not know WHILE HE HAD REGISTERED HIS COMPANY UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT 2003 – Do you TRULY believe that he did not know and do you TRULY believe that he had not planned to apply for such a licence?
TPV have now had to put back their launch. If my contact with OFCOM caused that then so be it. I make no apologies for it. However, I must state clearly that I DO NOT agree with the fact that The People’s Voice should be regulated by such and it is another example of how the establishment has things tied up. Now, if you’re smart, you can then use this information to lobby the government to drop this requirement – thereby supporting TPV. Why would I suggest you do that and that you could have a significant impact if you did, if I was wishing for the suppression of speech?
I will state again, I am on YOUR side, by being on your side, I am willing to look at anyone and criticise anyone who I see as lying to you or abusing your trust. I don’t care who it is.
As I stated in my blog “David Icke: The turd in the punchbowl”…..
Whatever the following outcome of this communication is with OFCOM, if Icke is correct in what he believes, then OFCOM are wrong or have been misleading. IF, however, OFCOM are correct then Mr Icke has been misleading. Further, I had a telecon with OFCOM and they expressed the need for ALL TV/internet to be regulated by ATVOD (and TPV are producing Video on Demand as well as live shows. As I understand it from what I was told, even while the BBC and ITV provide live shows on their respective internet channels, they are regulated by ATVOD. Hmmm. it’s somewhat of a conundrum isn’t it? According to OFCOM, he needs a licence so I guess he will have applied and been granted one? If not, David might just be in a spot of bother. Otherwise, he has applied and received one and he’s in a spot of bother with you because he has told you and all of us that he is free to say and do what he pleases because he is “regulation free” of OFCOM. And he didn’t mention ATVOD at all now did he?
Sent: 08 October 2013 14:55
To: TV Licensing
Subject: Content licensing
I am trying to understand the following from your information on the Ofcom website. Can you please tell me if it is necessary to apply for a content license, or any license, from Ofcom if one intends to set up an internet based broadcasting service from the UK with live news channels and others on a 24/7 live broadcast basis?
In other words, does Ofcom regulate such broadcasting in any shape or form?
Subject: RE: Content licensing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:29:12 +0000
Services which are broadcast from the UK via the internet are licensable. This is set out in the notes of guidance for applicants and reflects the requirement of the Audio Visual Media Services Directive.
I simply told you the truth because I am sick of you being lied to from EVERY side! But hey, shoot the messenger.
The question now is this: Now that TPV IS regulated and they have to apply for a licence, think about it. IF the establishment give him a licence then the establishment is giving him a licence to “kill” them. There is no getting away from that and you know how STUPID that scenario is.
If they allow it then there is a reason for them allowing it. That ONLY reason is that they see no threat. HOW could that possibly be?