Earthlinggb's Blog

The “Trial” Of Kenneth Clarke MP

Posted in Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on December 2, 2013
A Clarke Evasion

A Clarke Evasion

FIRST OF ALL: LET’S CORRECT SKY NEWS. THIS IGNORANT, STUPID REPORTER IS GIVEN A SCRIPT FROM WHICH TO ASK QUESTIONS. IN IT SHE SAYS THAT BILDERBERG CANNOT CREATE LAWS. WHAT A STUPID WOMAN! AS YOU WILL SEE AHEAD, THE TREASURY PLAINLY STATES EXEMPTIONS ON AN FOI REQUEST BECAUSE IT RELATES TO “THE FORMULATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY” FROM WHERE LAWS ARE CREATED!!

 

The following email was sent to Clarke, by me, in 2009.

Dear Mr. Clarke,

I wonder if you would be kind enough to shed some light on a number of various issues which are troubling me and many of the British electorate. There are just simply so many questions – all questions. And from what I have managed to research, you may just be the man who can answer these questions. They are quite horrifying if truth be known.

You see, there seems to be a strange series of events over the course of decades which seem to be inextricably linked and would have much of the UK electorate wonder if there is something at play from forces whose goal is to attack and deconstruct the sovereignty of our nation (and all nations) thereby, in effect, being at war with our nation. Could this possibly be the case? And could it possibly be that our representatives in government and shadow government are inadvertently enabling such to be achieved?

Please allow me to explain. I am sure that the details of this and the impact it seems to be having on the UK will come as a deep shock to you.

This group called “Bilderberg”.

While you, Mr. Clarke, have attended many Bilderberg conferences in the past, it concerns me greatly that you may have no idea of what the Bilderberg agenda is so I thought I would enlighten you. It may then have the impact of having you reconsider whether you attend any future conferences. Of course, it may just be that you attend on the pretext of working with such a group when, in fact, you are simply engaging in some form of covert checking on those of our government and others who may be supporting the Bilderberg agenda.

I am sure you know of the Rockefeller and Rothschild families. The International bankers and “philanthropists” who have built up such considerable wealth over the centuries that the overall wealth of these families eclipse the likes of Mr. Gates’ billions by an order of magnitude. Their “charities” and foundations are countless in number and, more often than not, they have tax free status. Meanwhile Mr. Rockefeller is one of the major shareholders in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Mr. Rockefeller, in fact, within his own memoirs, states the following:

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

I also include here, a link to a very well researched and 100% factual article re David Rockefeller: http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/third_section/The_Proud_Internationalist_2006.pdf

That said, I believe I need to bring it to your attention that Mr. Rockefeller was one of the founding members (along with Dennis Healy) of Bilderberg in 1954 and is on the steering committee.
Further to this, Mr. Rockefeller is also a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and the Council of the Americas; These “Think Tanks” having their “cousins” in the UK and Europe with organisations such as the European CFR and the RIIA (Chatham House) plus others.

You see, while Bilderberg state and restate (ad infinitum) that NO policy is made at such conferences, this of course would be the case since many of the attendees are not a party to the overall agenda. Meanwhile, the policy is simply communicated through the great number of “Independent Think Tanks” as mentioned above. One can see many examples of reports and papers from the CFR, for example, finding their way into the UK Parliament and being used as “very well researched and highly thought of” organisations’ reports which should steer government thinking. It really is not at all difficult to work out what is happening here. For those in government and political circles who understand what Bilderberg is (and the interconnectivity between Bilderberg and the “Working Groups”), such reports will be given significant attention and weighting even though they are provided many times by non-UK, national sources.

What is further of interest re Bilderberg is that, under Chatham House rules, it never divulges what is discussed and presented and never attributes anything said to any of the participants. This seems to create a major issue when considering the persons who attend the Bilderberg conferences from the UK as I am sure you can imagine.

Mr. Clarke, just think of how such meetings/discussions could be construed. To apply Chatham House rules to a conference which includes statesmen and women from a vast number of different sovereign nations could be seen in the same light as there having been members of the UK government having clandestine private meetings with Adolf Hitler during the 2nd World War. To have such meetings is simply a breach of our Constitution.

I would therefore appreciate your consideration of such and your comments.

UK Parliament questions re Bilderberg

What is of further concern is the following. For, as I am sure you are aware, although the following were simply allegations based on Mr. Blair and yourself having forgotten all about the expenses which were paid during what you describe as a “political conference” in 1993; the greater impact of our ministers attending such conferences was not picked up on by the investigation:

86. That leads me to my second question which is, at the moment, a serious allegation will be of course investigated but should we put an onus on those making allegations that they should provide a threshold of evidence for those allegations? At the moment, if the allegation is serious enough, an investigation may well follow.

(Mr. Clarke) “I suppose you could apply the test of whether there is any prima facie evidence or any evidence to support this allegation and I imagine that the Committee do throw out cases where you are met with a vehement denial from the Member of Parliament and where there is no indication whatsoever of there being anything to support the allegation. I do not remember one happening quite like that where someone has been accused of something without there apparently being the slightest grounds. The ones I had in mind were where the allegation, so called, is probably true but the answer that most politicians and most sensible Members of Parliament would give is, “So what? What influence can this possibly have had on the conduct of a Member of Parliament if what you say is true?” I hesitate to go on about my own case but that was my reaction to the allegations against me. The only reason that anybody knew that I had not paid my hotel bill was because somebody wrote to me asking what I had paid for. The Bilderberg conference is surrounded by slightly green ink conspiracy theories so people write to you about it and somebody asked me the question and I wrote back saying that I had paid my own air fare and then discovered that some Greek sponsors, whom I could not recall, turned out to have paid the hotel bill for everybody so that, when I came to pay my hotel bill, it had been paid and I left. If you like, that was true. I think the Committee should have said, “So? What has this unknown Greek done that has somehow possibly led to political advantage being obtained with Tony Blair and Ken Clarke when they found that, fortunately, this conference was sponsored and they did not have to pay for the hotel?” Especially when certainly I had paid my own air fare to get there in the first place. I had attended a political conference and flown home again. I had done nothing else. I did not even know the identity of the company, no doubt, which had paid the hotel bill.”

Now, fully appreciating your point that you, personally, trusting your unimpeachable integrity, would anticipate no political advantage by attending such a conference as per your statement: “..I think the Committee should have said, “So? What has this unknown Greek done that has somehow possibly led to political advantage being obtained”, may I suggest, with the utmost respect, that such a statement may be somewhat naïve of you in regards to others who may have attended. Since, although flight costs of perhaps a few hundred pounds were incurred – and even if you had incurred accommodation costs – such a small investment from those within your circle of influence, when compared to their income, is extremely small change when that investment could result in a very comfortable position within the hierarchy of the EU for instance. Or, alternatively, as some kind of advisor status, let’s say, within a company such as…. Who could we say?… JP Morgan Chase for example?

And the following:
Examination of Witness (Questions 78 – 99) 


TUESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2001 

THE RT HON KENNETH CLARKE

I could add more and I do refer to the one which actually did not cause me any damage when I was linked with Tony Blair when we were mildly rebuked by the Committee for not declaring that we had not paid a hotel bill at a political conference a few years ago, a conference to which I had paid my own air fare, so I had spent hundreds of pounds attending this conference. I do recall that, at first, neither Tony Blair nor myself found it easy to remember whether we had actually paid for the accommodation or not when we had been there, but both of us were separately investigated. That is not my prime motive, my mild indignation on that occasion rapidly passed and I did not make any protest at the time”.

It’s perhaps, sensible that you did not protest further for it may well have shed greater light on the subject and could have caused greater issues for you, which I am sure would have been unwarranted.
For, you see, it is definitely valid to suggest that, given the goals of the Bilderberg Group and understanding the various connections between the Bilderberg Group and its working groups such as the CFR, to continue an association with such would be akin to treasonous activity would it not? Perhaps I am wrong, but if so, please do me the courtesy of enlightening me.

Now, with respect to other issues which are clear from the UK Parliament Hansard text and other Parliamentary notes:

Mr. Blair’s denial of Bilderberg attendance.

PRIME MINISTER
Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister in which years since 1993 (a) he and (b) other Government Ministers have attended meetings of the Bilderberg group. [93240]
The Prime Minister: The information requested is not held centrally.

PRIME MINISTER
Bilderberg Group
Norman Baker: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 12 October 2006, Official Report, column 862W, on the Bilderberg Group, if he will provide the information requested in respect of himself since 1997. [95308]
The Prime Minister: I have not attended any such meetings.

Why would Mr. Blair be so reticent in admitting to having attended such conferences? As many of our politicians have in the past. When questioned, as will be seen below, the answers provided offer no illumination on the subject (if answered at all).
Mr. Blair did not answer the first question because it was asked of “The Prime Minister” and not of “Tony Blair”. So therefore it was re-asked from the time he had become Prime Minister in 1997. It could be construed, could it not, that he would not answer the first question because, in fact, he had attended in 1993 (along with yourself) while not wishing to divulge such information. A “canny” scot indeed!
Further, while Mr. Blair answers in the negative, it has been strongly reported that Mr. Blair did, in fact, attend the Bilderberg Conference in 1998 also.

Bilderberg 1960s:

Roy Jenkins 

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 8th and 9th October to Holland to attend a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Conference; 148W what was the object of the Conference; and what other activities were undertaken by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary during this visit. 

§ Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State attended the meeting on 9th October in a personal capacity as one of the two British members of the Steering Committee. The other member on this occasion was the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett). The Steering Committee discussed the agenda for the next Bilderberg Conference, which is a forum for discussion of various international questions. No other activities were undertaken during this visit.

An example, dating as far back as the 1960s, of the ever continuing wish of our Members of Parliament and Prime Ministers to steer well away from answering questions relating to Bilderberg in any significant way at all. What could possibly be the issue Mr. Clarke considering it is consistently stated that Bilderberg is just an opportunity for tea and crumpet and a jolly good chat?

1977 Torquay Bilderberg Conference:

HC Deb 28 April 1977 vol 930 c373W 373W 
§

Mr. Gwilym Roberts asked the Prime Minister what members of Her Majesty’s Government had agreed to go to the Bilderberg Conference in Torquay and in what capacity; if he will ensure that the Government will not be represented at future conferences of this type; and if he will make a statement. 

§ The Prime Minister: I understand that this was a private occasion which all participants attended in a personal capacity. The question of representation of Her Majesty’s Government or of their consent to the conference being held did not therefore arise.

As previously stated, Adolf Hitler wanted a European state. Let us not debate the detail of how he went about trying to achieve it or we may have to go into the detail of how, also, he was financed wouldn’t we?
The point is, “personal capacity” or not; such a meeting with Hitler by any one of our MPs would have constituted treason given the objective.

Bilderberg mentioned in relation to EEC policy:

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS’ MEETINGS)HC Deb 24 May 1977 vol 932 cc1195-203

§ Mr. Skinner When the Agriculture Ministers meet, will my hon. Friend convey to them the fact that there is a large body of opinion in this country, represented in this House, who would pay scant regard to these Continental laws? Will he tell them that, so far as we are concerned, they can get stuffed with all their regulations about pigmeat and so on? Will he also make some inquiries about the meeting last weekend at Leeds Castle? Since we contribute nearly 20 per cent. of the total income of the Common Market, I want to know what I am getting for my money. I want to know what took place at that meeting. Why did the Commissioners hold their meeting in secret at that castle? What were they talking about? It is all right for the Minister to come here and trot out a few remarks about odd meetings about nothing in the Common Market, but what is happening at Leeds Castle and at Bilderberg Conferences and the like?

§ Mr. Judd I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend’s concern on the last point to the attention of my right hon. Friend. On the first point, thanks to the very forceful performance on behalf of British food producers and consumers by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I think that the Commission and all our colleagues in Europe are well aware of the concerns of the British people.

My concern here is obviously with the issue that the EEC (and latterly the EU) has been foisted upon the British public commencing with the sedition activity of Edward Heath’s Conservative government in 1972, aided by many others including the FCO of all organisations! Again, however, Bilderberg, with its globalist objectives have been linked with the commencement of the EEC and continuing support of the EU which brings us, along with NAFTA/NAU, ever closer to global government, contrary to both the American and British constitutions. While aspects of both constitutions are being repealed (and laws such as the Treason law), they have been repealed AFTER what have essentially been treasonous events and activities. This, then, supports the entirely valid conclusion that such repeals are themselves, treasonous and therefore void.

e) Classified Bilderberg documents under the 30 year rule
Now, let’s take a look at a couple of documents which are held with “Portcullis” within the UK Parliament:

Portcullis: UK Parliament website.

Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP 
RefNo S/214

Title Bilderberg Conference 
Date 1979 
Level File 
AccessStatus Closed 
ClosedUntil 01/01/2010 
Location 36

Papers of Arthur Edward Alexander Shackleton, Baron Shackleton (1911-1994) MP 
RefNo S/228

Title Bilderberg Conference 
Date 1977 
Level File 
AccessStatus Closed 
ClosedUntil 01/01/2008 
Location 36

Both documents are under the 30 year rule! Why on earth would this be for a simple discussion forum which creates no policy? Note that the second document should have been opened in 2008. It seems it has been kept closed even after the 30 years are now over!
“Just tea and crumpets and a chance for people to talk openly”; yet, not open to the public or to any media scrutiny whatsoever. Democracy and a free society exists I see. Ironically, we speak of democracy allowing freedom of speech yet the Bilderberg feel they are not free to speak freely? What a bizarre “twist” of reality we have here.

The EU Question:
Now, since the Bilderberg Group and its affiliates have been in existence since pre – EEC and EU, as we have covered, and it is very well established, the EU and the forthcoming NAU are both in keeping with the overall Bilderberg agenda for the destruction of the nation state (not by politicians for the benefit of their electorate but for the benefit of a group of people with no interest in nation states but every interest in profit); It is absolutely clear that the EU has been constructed for that very purpose.
The problem is that we have very clear evidence, from other documentation, which was held under the 30 year rule from public view, that the Conservative government formed under Edward Heath, along with support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the BBC and others, committed the crime of sedition and treason in taking the UK into the EEC.
The documentation supporting this allegation is plentiful and extremely precise. It makes incredible reading. Our own government fraternising with “the enemy” and make no mistake, where the British Constitution is under attack and the sovereignty of our nation usurped by our very own government and shadow government officials, this is fraternising with the enemy.
I attach a copy of a letter from Leolin Price CBE QC regarding the veracity and seriousness of Mr Albert Burgess’s investigation of the evidence surrounding the Heath government’s entire procedure regarding the EEC.
I, therefore, feel it is necessary to bring to your attention (and the attention of all your parliamentary colleagues) the danger in collaborating with not only the Bilderberg Group but any and all organisations associated with such. This can extend to organisations such as the EU itself and, on a lower level, a very strange “charity” by the name of Common Purpose.
Meanwhile, the Fabian Society and Demos and many other “Think Tanks” do “excellent work” in communicating the socialist “values” to the electorate.

4. “None Dare call it Conspiracy”:
There is a book which is named “None Dare call it Conspiracy”:
An online copy of this book may be found here: HYPERLINK “http://www.scribd.com/doc/4368440/None-Dare-call-it-conspiracy” http://www.scribd.com/doc/4368440/None-Dare-call-it-conspiracy
The book made enough of a furore in the 1970s to be brought up within Parliament on more than one occasion.

DEFENCEHL Deb 26 June 1979 vol 400 cc1357-476 

Lord MACLEOD of FUINARY 

”Nor is it just for money. How many people know another American book of yesteryear by Garry Allen called None Dare Call it Conspiracy? It has sold over 3½ million copies in the United States. Its contents are one reason why more and more young Americans just are not going to play, if a war comes. This book points out not merely that it was the German bankers, Warburg Brothers, who put up £25 million to put Lenin in power in Russia, and who also assisted Trotsky to go from the United 1450 States to join him, but that they also sold nuclear armaments to Russia, not just to get money but to control the Communists so that, if they gain permanent power, the bankers will control them by the vast sums which they are owed back by Russia. The book is, chapter and verse, about foundations; it is chapter and verse about persons, well-known names; it is chapter and verse about the Council of Foreign Relations; and it is chapter and verse about Bilderberg Conferences in Europe—names and all, open to a hundred occasions for criminal libel, which somehow has never been brought. The address where that book can be obtained in this country is: KRP Publications, 245 Cann Road, London, E.11.”

I repeat: “..about Bilderberg Conferences in Europe—names and all, open to a hundred occasions for criminal libel, which somehow has never been brought” 

The question is: Why have these libel cases never been brought?? 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords…
The MEDIA
Considering the BBC’s involvement in 1972 when the Heath government took the UK into the EEC stating such a move would never threaten UK sovereignty, one may also look at and consider the media involvement within such issues as we see today and wonder, again, at how reports such as the most recent “Summer of Rage” can be disseminated to the general population, suggesting an events (or events) which have yet, and may never, take place. One could almost suggest that the media are being rather careless in reporting such possibility since it could be construed as “planting the seed” of unrest – almost in fact, an act of terrorism according to today’s “thinking”.
One could further consider there to be a purpose (a “Common Purpose”?) to spreading such fear and anxiety.
It is interesting, at this juncture, to note the complete blackout of media journalism when it comes to reporting the Bilderberg Conferences to the point of card carrying journalists being arrested (on some trumped up “charge”) while trying simply to cover the conference in Turnberry for instance; The only media being allowed as “rapporteurs” at the conferences being “Economist” journalists. Other journalists have been invited (hand picked) of course but they are then covered by the Chatham House rules. It may be added that such journalists would not wish to break those rules for various reasons. I have personally contacted one such journalist who simply offered me the same old story that the conference was “utterly harmless”. Of course, this may have been the case for Ms Mary Ann Sieghart, not being one of the “inner circle” of course. “Utterly harmless” yet documents pertaining to Bilderberg are locked up for 30 years!!

Meanwhile, I have spoken with other so called “journalists” on this subject and while they are initially “all ears” and promise to return calls, those calls never come. I contacted the Scotsman for instance who continued to ask more and more questions on the subject of Bilderberg and when I mentioned “Common Purpose”, all communication ceased. It wasn’t until I checked the ownership of the Scotsman and found it was owned by the Pearson Group, did the reason for the cease come into view. Sir David Bell is Chairman of Pearson Inc, Non-Executive Director of The Economist and Chairman of Common Purpose International.
‘The Economist’, in a rare reference to it in 1987, said that the importance of the meetings was overplayed but admitted: “When you have scaled the Bilderberg, you have arrived.”

Please see the attachments which detail the communication (or lack thereof) with Mary Ann Sieghart and also a copy of the report by Nic Outterside at the time of the Bilderberg meeting in Sintra, Portugal. The latter makes for very enlightening reading.
At the end of this document, I bring to your attention a report from May 2003 from the Asia Times. While the entire western media (at least those which are not truly independent) are unwilling to cover anything to do with Bilderberg, Asians have, generally, never been invited to attend Bilderberg. It is no surprise then that such a report was generated from a mainstream publication within Asia!
People, generally, like to keep their jobs and, with that in mind, one could postulate that this may be the reason for the lack of willing to discuss and/or cover Bilderberg in Western media. This, however, then allows the agenda of Bilderberg to continue and for most people to be entirely in the dark as to their overall purpose (which I shall not expand upon in this document) or to even have heard of the group.
However, as will be seen from the attachment entitled “BBC Correspondence”, simple interrogation leads to revelations of remarkable incompetence that, I would suggest, would not occur if such an organisation was entirely independent. And we pay a licence fee for our TV which is purely based on the upkeep of a BBC which is either entirely incompetent or entirely controlled. Take your pick!
Once one can enjoy TV without payment of a fee to support such incompetence, I may decide to let go of my hard-earned salary. Meanwhile I do not wish to conditioned by deceptive news reporting while paying for the “honour”.

Pen ultimately:
Written questions, with evasive answers, tabled by Patricia McKenna MEP [Green Party – Ireland] to the European Commission, 3 Dec ’98, in response to previous answers (see below)

Bilderberg Meetings: (Priority question)
Can the Commission explain more clearly its answer to my question H-0933/98, where it insists that participants attend Bilderberg *in a private capacity*, against all the evidence that these are far from being purely private meetings. If they are such, why does the Commission announce them in its Press Communiqués, published by Reuters – would it announce a Commissioner attending a conference on stamp-collecting, if that were his or her personal hobby?
And why is it that the Commissioners attending tend to be relevant to items on the agenda – Commissioner Van den Broek for Enlargement, Former Yugoslavia and Turkey, Commissioner Bjerregaard for Global Governance (applies to climate), Commissioner Monti for the European economy (Internal Market), or Commissioner Brittan for the EU/US Market Place. And most recently, at Turnberry, Minister George Robertson was ferried by military helicopter, on the clear understanding that he was present in an official capacity, just as happened in the past with Prime Minister Blair and then Minister Kenneth Clarke, now a member of the Steering Committee.
[Is this correct Mr. Clarke? That you were (and possibly still are?) a member of the Steering Committee of Bilderberg? If so, then that would surely make it improbable that you are not aware of the ultimate goal of these people and how it is in direct conflict with the British Constitution. It would also suggest that it is highly unlikely that you would not know specifically who the sponsors were who covered the hotel bill in 1993. This is simply a suggestion however as it seems implausible that you could be a member of such a steering committee.]
Does the Commission actually expect Members of Parliament to accept that British Ministers are attending these meetings in their official capacities, while Commissioners attend the same meeting in a private capacity?
And, why would the police exclude, and even arrest and charge, card carrying journalists if these were genuinely private meetings, whereas, if that were actually so, it would be the responsibility of the organizers to control access to the meetings by journalists, and the police would merely provide security checks to ensure the safety of the participants.
Since former Commissioners have continuing rights from, and duties to, the European Union, surely it behooves them to answer questions on these meetings, should the Commission so choose to ask them, and will the Commission now undertake to ask all former Commissioners still living whether they attended these and other similar meetings during their time as Commissioners.
P-3880/98EN

Answer given by Mr. Santer on behalf of the Commission (19 January 1999)
The Commission’s reply that Members of the Commission who attended Bilderberg meetings expressed their personal views means that they were not representing the Commission, that they did not speak on behalf of the Commission and that their comments were not binding on the Commission. Naturally they were invited to attend the meetings mainly on account of their functions. The Commission considers that its Members should be free to express their views on subjects relating to the work of the Community, in particular during exchanges of views in international forums, without their participation being in any way binding on the Commission.
And finally:
While we have been led to believe that this present Financial Crisis was never expected (view any interviews you wish with any of the UK cabinet or the US Executive Branch) while Alistair Darling is on record in 2008 saying he did not anticipate this even as late as 2008; I would most appreciate your considered response on the following – reported from the Bilderberg conference way back in 2003, of which you were an attendee:

ASIA TIMES 22ND MAY 2003: “An influential Jewish European banker reveals that the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West is on the brink of total financial meltdown; so the only way to save their precious investments is to bet on the new global crisis centered around the Middle East, which replaced the crisis evolving around the Cold War.” Full article: HYPERLINK “http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html” http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html

What an incredibly accurate report from as far back as 2003.
There is simply no way, without accepting some people have a crystal ball; that this could have been reported without inside knowledge by those who participated in the Bilderberg 2003 conference. Note also that it says “..the ruling elite in Europe is now telling their minions that the West…”.
Not a suggestion that we have a problem that needs resolving but simply telling what is going to happen!
To anyone with some modicum of intelligence, this would suggest an orchestrated planned event/series of events. However, surely that is just not possible Mr. Clarke.

Who are these “minions” that the report speaks of? After all, the Bilderberg conferences are surely only attended by the so called global elite of industry, BANKING and politics. So, this leads to the question that if these so called “elite” are simply “minions” then who is dictating policy?

Meanwhile, if you know the location of this crystal ball I refer to, I would appreciate it if you would advise the coordinates since I would wish to pay it a visit before taking my first ever trip down to Ladbrokes.

From what I understand, this year’s Bilderberg Group Conference will be held in Greece. It may be worth all the copied MPs to consider their decision on whether to attend such a conference (if “lucky” to have been invited) considering all that I have just brought to your, and their, attention.

I look forward to your response. I am only a simple man as I’m sure you can tell; Just one of the “dumb electorate” as some may say. So please pardon my incapacity to recognise all of the above (and so much more) as just coincidence and of no significance whatsoever.

Kind Regards,

Earthling

This is the reply I received:

A Clarke Evasion

And now, with regard to the latest news on Clarke and a possible Lisbon Referendum:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/05/ken-clarke-lisbon-treaty-referendum

UPDATE 5th October 2011. Mr Clarke you are outed by your very own treasury as one lying son of a bitch!

FOI Act: Paragraph 35 (1) a: information relating to the formulation of government policy.

I gotcha Clarke! It took two years but I knew that letter and your reply would sink you. And you were sunk by your very own treasury’s response to an FOI request! How wonderful!

Now, what does all this result in?

Well read the following and you will see the CLEAR indictment of Ken Clarke (and it goes for Ed Balls, George Osbourne, David Cameron, Tony Blair and those who have all gone before them):

This “Code of Conduct” has been broken by all on so many levels it is astonishing –

Code of conduct for MPs Duties of Members Integrity Openness Honesty Financial gain

Ken Clarke attended this 2003 Bilderberg Conference when all participants were advised as follows –

Asia Times May 2003 Asia Times May 2003 2

Ken Clarke then joins Centaurus as an advisor (how does he know what to advise this Hedge Fund group? well, it is abundantly obvious is it not?). It is PRECISELY what Alan Greenspan did shortly before the Mortgage crash also in joining John Paulson’s Hedge Fund. Paulson then went on to make a KILLING in the mortgage default market –

Ken Clarke Centaurus

Remember particularly here, the MP’s Code of Conduct: Financial gain

And, finally, where Ken Clarke LIES to a member of the Public by saying NO POLICY was made at Bilderberg, Her Majesty’s Treasury blatantly contradicts this lying assertion by Clarke by quoting EXEMPTION 35 (1) a

FOI Bilderberg 1 FOI Bilderberg 2

MR CLARKE. YOU ARE A LYING, CORRUPT BASTARD AND I SENTENCE YOU TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR TREASON. YOUR BILDERBERG COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOLLOWING YOU SOON ENOUGH!

BILDERBERG 2013: ALEX JONES AND MICHAEL MEACHER ADVISED OF THIS ISSUE. MEACHER WAS A LITTLE RETICENT BUT HE SUPPORTED MY COMMUNICATING IT ALL TO SPEAKER JOHN BERCOW. THE INTERESTING THING HERE IS THAT JOHN BERCOW IS ON RECORD IN PARLIAMENT, MANY TIMES, QUESTIONING TONY BLAIR ABOUT BILDERBERG. THIS, OF COURSE, BEING BEFORE HE WAS MADE SPEAKER.

MY TAKE ON THIS? “WE’LL GIVE YOU A JUICY ROLE, JUST SHUT UP ABOUT BILDERBERG!”

Commons Speaker John Bercow

Commons Speaker John Bercow

Commons – Prime Minister Tony Blair’s written answers (20 May 1999) Bilderberg Group


Mr. John Bercow MP: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) of 7 May 1999, Official Report, columns 476-77, on the Bilderberg Group, what official (i) transport and (ii) funds have been used to facilitate attendance at Bilderberg meetings of members of his Government; which members have attended meetings; what reports they have made on the meetings; and what subsequent communication they have had with others attending on subjects discussed at the meetings. [84213] [John Bercow MP]

The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, only one member of this Government–the Defence Secretary–has attended a meeting of the Bilderberg Group. He provided a detailed account of his attendance in answers to the hon. Members for Ludlow (Christopher Gill MP) on 23 July 1998, Official Report, column 609, and for Hereford (John Keetch MP) on 20 July 1998, Official Report, column 434.

And now, on Monday 10th June 2013, Ken Clarke, once more repeats his lies in Parliament:

It isn’t only Clarke, of course, who is involved in what is, ultimate and in actual fact, treason. It is the entire British parliament and you can include the monarchy also because the monarchy’s job is to keep their oath to the British people and maintain the sovereignty of the United Kingdom FOR the people. But getting simple stuff like this through most people’s heads is practically impossible.

As for the “communications” with Bercow and Meacher: Read from the bottom up ( I can’t be bothered to copy and paste each in a top down mode):

    • Bilderberg Association’s charitable status!‏

    Earthling
    29/06/2013
    To: nursej@parliament.uk, michael.meacher.mp@parliament.uk
    Dear “Mr Speaker”,

    Please reply….

    Please DO NOT suggest you cannot comment due to having to remain “politically impartial” about what is consistently promoted as a “Private gathering”. That is simply ridiculous, evasive and, as a Parliamentarian, you are bound to the Parliamentary oath. I suggest you re-acquaint yourself with it.
    YOU ARE OUR REPRESENTATIVES! DON’T YOU DARE FORGET THIS!
    Now, in your own words, I wish to hear your justification of a Private Association which is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP and which has SECRET documents locked up by the 30 year rule being given Charitable status in this “democratic” nation of ours.

    If you refuse to answer this, I wish to know who it is who I can complain to about your evasion and your disrespecting your Parliamentary oath? Thank you.

    A serious complaint has been registered against the Bilderberg Group’s charity, the ‘Bilderberg Association’, with the UK’s Charity Commission.

    The complaint was launched by a member of the public on the basis that the ‘Bilderberg Association’ could bring the Charity Commission into disrepute and damage public trust in charities, by allegedly not complying with UK charity law.

    The ‘Bilderberg Association’ is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP, and engages in one sole ‘charitable activity’ – funding the Bilderberg Meetings.

    The Bilderberg Meetings are annual, private conferences attended by 140 of the world’s most powerful people, including bank bosses, CEOs, high-ranking politicians, and royals.

    The ‘Bilderberg Association’ claims that its objectives are “to promote the study of, and public education in international affairs, economics and the social sciences”.

    In furtherance of its objectives, the Bilderberg Association claims that it “organises meetings and conferences in the UK and elsewhere and disseminates the results thereof by preparing and publishing reports of such conferences and meetings and by other means” (in their ‘Annual Report and Accounts’ 2008-2012).

    However, as one of the most prolifically secretive meetings in international politics, the Bilderberg meetings have no known role in “public education”, despite this claim. The Bilderberg Group has also consistently refused to ‘publish reports of such conferences’, despite this being another of their claims to charitable status.

    A Bilderberg meeting is, according to the official website, “a forum for informal, off-the-record discussions about megatrends and the major issues facing the world”, and is of an entirely “private nature”. After the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, attended the recent Bilderberg Meeting 2013 in Watford, UK, Downing Street refused to publish minutes of his discussions within the group.

    Tax-free corporate funding of a private talking shop between politicians and the meeting’s benefactors cannot be identified as an activity for ‘public benefit’ – particularly since the contents of Bilderberg meetings are withheld from the public. Without discernible public benefit, the Bilderberg Association would not meet the statutory requirements for charity status.

    From the ‘Bilderberg Association’ Annual Report and Accounts, 2007

    To claim for charitable status in the UK, and thus benefit from tax-free funding, a charity must demonstrate that their aims are for public benefit – broadly, to “advance education or religion or relieve poverty”.

    Furthermore, the Charity Commission deems that “a political purpose cannot meet the public benefit requirement and so cannot be a charitable purpose”. A ‘political purpose’ means any purpose directed at furthering the interests of any political party; or securing, or opposing, any change in the law or in the policy or decisions of central government or local authorities, whether in this country or abroad.

    Of significant concern is that the Bilderberg Association’s committee member and trustee, Cabinet minister Kenneth Clarke QC, MP, claimed to have ‘forgotten’ that he was a trustee of the charity when questioned in parliament.

    The Charity Commission must respond to the complaint within 15 days.

    Details of the complaint sent to the Charity Commission are shown below:

    Please provide a summary of the evidence:

    I am concerned that ‘The Bilderberg Association’ is misleading the Charity Commission, and thus the public, as to its stated ‘Specific objectives’ and ‘Activities’. It’s actual objectives and activities would be highly unlikely to qualify for charitable status. Therefore, large amounts of money, it would appear, are possibly being unlawfully exempt from tax.  Full details are set out below.

    Please set out any additional facts and information about the serious issue that you wish to report:

    The Bilderberg Association engages in one single charitable activity, which is ‘Contributions to the running costs of Bilderberg Meetings’, which are the controversial (having come under recent parliamentary scrutiny and allegedly breaking the Ministerial Code) private meetings between politicians (including the Prime Minister) and heads of corporations and banks. However ‘The Bilderberg Association’ claims that its ‘Specific objectives’ are ‘to promote the study of, and public education in international affairs, economics and the social sciences’; and under ‘Activities’ the Association claims that it ‘organises meetings and conferences in the UK and elsewhere and disseminates the results thereof by preparing and publishing reports of such conferences and meetings and by other means’ (in their ‘Annual Report and Accounts’ 2008-2012). However, the Bilderberg Meetings, as entirely secret meetings, have no role at all in public education, as the results of meetings are not in fact disseminated, and no reports are published. Bilderberg Meetings are in fact, by their own admission, characterised by ultimate secrecy. Therefore, it would appear that the objectives and activities of The Bilderberg Association (at least in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012 for which I have been able to obtain accounts) are identifiably false and misleading. 

    The most recent identification of Bilderberg Association funding comes from their 2008 accounts, whereby the Association claims to have received £50,000 each from Goldman Sachs and BP. However, only £50,000 appears in their yearly income (although 2 x £50,000 = £100,000). I am concerned about the real objectives of the Association since they clearly do not match their falsely stated objectives and activities; and since the Association is funded by Goldman Sachs and BP, and goes on to fund the private meeting of Goldman Sachs’ and BP’s CEOs with MPs and Cabinet ministers. This bears the hallmarks of illegal lobbying.

    Details of attempts you have made to get the charity to address this issue. Please provide details of when you reported this issue to the charity and the outcome: 

    The Bilderberg Group is uncontactable. I have contacted several Members of Parliament who share my concerns including some of those subsequently mentioned. 

    Michael Meacher MP, Dennis Skinner MP, and Tom Watson MP have questioned Bilderberg Association’s Committee Member and trustee, Kenneth Clarke MP in parliament. It concerned me greatly that the oversight of the charity is desperately lacking – in response to Tom Watson MP’s question, Ken Clarke MP claimed to have ‘forgotten’ that he was a Committee Member and trustee of the Bilderberg Association.

     

     

    Sincerely,

    Earthling

     

    FW: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg‏

To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.
29/06/2013
To: michael.meacher.mp@parliament.uk

FYI…

And when one is treated like an idiot by our “esteemed” Parliamentarians, please do not expect an ounce of respect in return.

If Mr Meacher enjoys Ken Clarke supercilliously lying to his face in Parliament (because one is removed from the House if one has the audacity to state that the other is actually lying) and abides by parliamentary rules – which ensure you never can say what you mean – then that’s his choice. I’m not in Parliament so, ironically, while you all believe you have “parliamentary privilege”, in this particular case, I have greater privilege. Among all the lying creeps in that building, Ken Clarke far outshines most! Then you have little bootlickers like Bercow……


From: Earthling@hotmail.com
To: nursej@parliament.uk
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 11:22:23 +0000

Dear Joanna,

Having received Mr Bercow’s reply:

A question for you: Do you enjoy being treated like a fool? Is it a fetish developed by the people who work for these idiots who “lord” over us yet are only our representatives?
The reason I ask is because the replies which I receive from the likes of “Mr Speaker” are so incompetent and transparent in their attempts to evade and also to deceive, that I have to scratch my head in wonder that people such as yourself may actually kiss their feet for all I know.
The evasions and deceptions they apply to questions posed by me and so many others, are actually applied to you also (assuming you understood the nature and essence of what is being asked and referred to). In your assumed choice to ignore the utter crap that emanates from these people, I have to assume that you do not understand much of what is being asked?
So, with that, please pass this follow up question to “Mr Speaker” (who doesn’t appear to speak much in his initial reply):
IF, as Ken Clarke suggests in answer to Michael Meacher’s questions, the Bilderberg conference has nothing to do with Parliament and it is purely a private occasion, then how on God’s earth can Mr Bercow respond saying that, due to his position requiring him to be politically impartial, he cannot comment?
Bilderberg has “nothing to do with politics” according to Clarke! How then would Bercow commenting on it be “politically partial”?
We’re not all logical incompetents Ms Nurse!
So, again, please ask “His Speakerness” to reply in a less incompetent manner and answer the original questions I put to him.
Thank you and Kindest Regards,
Earthling

From: nursej@parliament.uk

To: NURSE, Joanna

Hi Joanna,

Thanks for advising. Yes I certainly do wish to receive a full reply to all points referred to both, in my email and within the letter I sent to Mr Clarke originally but which received a stock reply from him. I say stock reply because I am aware of others who received precisely the same letter from the MPs they contacted but, simply, with their MPs signature on the bottom. Evidence the, if such were needed, that the public is given lip service by their representatives and that a general template had been supplied to all attendees (and perhaps others) to reply to constituents’ and the public’s questions. Specific questions, therefore, being entirely ignored and simply a standard answer as reply which doesn’t answer anything at all.
My address is:
xxxxxxx
Thank you and regards,
Earthling

To: Earthling@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:38:38 +0000

Thank you for your email, which was sent to Mr Speaker’s constituency office email address.

 

If you would like to receive a reply, please provide me with your postal address, as that is the Speaker’s preferred method of correspondence.

 

Due to the high volume of emails and letter received by the Speaker, please understand that there is often a delay before a response is sent.

 

From: Earthling@hotmail.com]
Sent: 22 June 2013 13:03
To: MEACHER, Michael
Subject: RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg

 

Mr Meacher,

 

What else would I have expected? The UK Parliament is a corrupt hotbed of criminals. There is not ONE of you which I could point to and say “I 100% trust that man”. If you remember, while at the Bilderberg protest, I mentioned to you that you spoke of the Conservative attendees in your speeches but never once referred to Ed Balls (you saying that Ed Balls was not a government minister – which actually matters not one bit). While you all play your “tennis game”, Mr Meacher, you all swerve the issues when they lie at your door and evade and all of your evasions, whichever side of that phoney left/right fence you are on, maintains the status quo. But then that is what your actual job is. To maintain that status quo.

However, I will offer you something to think about: Whilst you play your games and maintain the paradigm – looking after your own interests as a whole – in the future, whatever family you may have (offspring) are going to inherit what you tried so hard to maintain for yourselves today. If you think your family will be protected from this New World Order Mr Meacher, then you are very naive. The people running this show eat you up and use you and then they spit you out just as quickly. Your offspring means NOTHING to them. By all means ignore my words Mr Meacher but, trust me, you will forever regret doing so.

 

Lastly, the reply from Bercow: Again he plays the game but he makes a big mistake (you all do for those of us to whom you are all transparent). His point that “his position requires him to be politically impartial”, I hope you recognise for what it is. Mr Clarke states in answer to you that this Bilderberg conference is a private gathering and has nothing to do with Parliament therefore. If it is “private” and in no way “political” (embarrassingly transparent as it all is), then Bercow’s comment is senseless. But then what’s new?

 

Parliament: Parler – to speak, Mentir – to lie. A House full of it!

 

So, my point: Let’s see what you’re really made of. If it’s anything like my own MP (Damian Green), then I already know! A man in abject fear of being put on the spot and on the record…..

 

 Bercow letter 2

Earthling

RE: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg‏

To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.
MEACHER, Michael (michael.meacher.mp@parliament.uk)
11/06/2013
To: Earthling

Dear Mr Earthling,

Thank you for your email which I will bring to Michael Meacher’s attention.

Regards,

Monica Masson

PA

 

Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP

Oldham West & Royton

House of Commons

020 7219 6461

 

Oldham Office

11 Church Lane

Oldham OL1 3AN

0161 626 5779

 

From: Earthling@hotmail.com]
Sent: 11 June 2013 12:46
To: BERCOW, John; MEACHER, Michael
Subject: Michael Meacher’s question re Bilderberg

 

Dear John,

 

I spoke with Michael Meacher at the Bilderberg protest on Saturday. He advised me that I can, and should, contact you and that I would receive a reply from you regarding this issue with Government Ministers attending Bilderberg conferences.

I wrote a letter to Ken Clarke in 2009 regarding his attendance and I put quite some detail in it as you will see. I received a “stock reply” from Mr Clarke (others have received exactly the same replies from their MPs who have attended) which evaded ALL of my questions, points and detail.

In 2011, there was a Treasury response to an FOI request which then entirely contradicted Mr Clarke’s assertion that the conferences are attended in one’s “personal capacity” when it stated George Osbourne attended in his official capacity.

 

Now, the blog also mentions you John because, before becoming Speaker, you asked a number of times about Bilderberg to Tony Blair. Why did you ask such questions? What was your concern? Your concern was precisely the same as mine and all the Bilderberg protestors who attended on Saturday and the other days. You know what the problem is John and, whether attended in a personal capacity or not, the attendees are not invited on the basis of their golf handicap. They are invited on the basis of what they can achieve within their Public function!

 

My demand is, therefore, that Ken Clarke (and all other UK Parliament attendees) be brought up on the charges which you know apply due to the subversion of their Code of Conduct oath and Constitutional law. And since when did a private meeting with “no policy objectives” require that documents relating to it be locked up under the 30 year rule of secrecy?

 

John, understand that, if you want and demand respect for your position then so do I and the citizens of this country since, after all, you are the public servant who is meant to be representing us!

 

I would, therefore, ask (but in asking I fully expect) a considered, detailed reply once you have read the blog. I send you the blog to read rather than “reinvent the wheel” and re-write it in this email.

 

Thank you and Regards,

 

Earthling

 

PS: I make NO apologies for the language on the blog or videos.

 

 

Advertisements

10 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Hector Vector said, on December 3, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    A well written excellent article. My only criticism is that it could be a little clearer regarding who’s word are being read – some italics helped but I kept having to scan back to try to work out whether I was reading quoted text or your words.

    • earthlinggb said, on December 5, 2013 at 2:55 pm

      Hector, thanks. I totally agree with you. Sometimes I am just far too “liberal” with the way I do these blogs – so much to say and yet trying to not spend hours and hours over it all – that I miss the “readability” aspect. I’ll specifically re-format this blog to ensure that people know what are my words and what are not. It is essentially, one long email sent to Ken Clarke by me however a few years back.

  2. Will said, on December 4, 2013 at 11:34 am

    Interesting. I agree with Hector’s observation that it is sometimes hard to track where the quotes begin and end. I would also argue that Clarke’s statement in Commons is of considerable value as a rare case of a Steering Committee member going on record at length about what Bilderberg does. Of course his answers are predictable in downplaying its role in influencing and shaping elite consensus, but it’s just about the longest statement in Hansard on Bilderberg by someone actually involved with it.

    I would also suggest that Bilderberg goes beyond Chatham House rules, which are usually about non-attribution of any statements and opinions to any particular person (which means a public record can be published):

    “When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.” http://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/chathamhouserule

    Bilderberg is about keeping the entire record what was said at each event out of the public eye.

    I am also intrigued by your suggestion that “many” Bilderberg attendees “are not a party to the overall agenda”, which is not made at the meetings. Perhaps it is not made, but it might be disseminated given that the late Jim Tucker and Daniel Estulin (despite some flourishes) seem to report policy directions from each meeting. You also say that the policy disseminated publicly through think-tank repors, which are then taken up by governments. That may be true, but can you give us some examples?

    • earthlinggb said, on December 5, 2013 at 3:18 pm

      I’d agree Will that Bilderberg goes beyond CH rules as you’ve suggested.
      Re your last paragraph: During a Bilderberg conference, what is being done generally is listening to all sorts of opinions (even though from the same class of people) while those who appear the “right stuff” will then be supported in their efforts within their daily political careers (such as the choice of PMs and Presidents etc) but what I’m saying is that all the attendees have their particular interests, specific areas of expertise (if you wish to call it expertise) and they will be looking to push their agendas within their specific areas. They (many of them outside the steering group who may just have been invited once, perhaps twice) will not necessarily see the overall agenda and how their specific agendas will fit in or be used to achieve it (whether as a direct positive contribution OR even a hegelian-style controlled opposition). Yes Estulin and Tucker have reported policy directions (as the Asia Times article does also in the blog) but that does not mean that they are written as policy directly nor does it mean that everyone who attends have necessarily been part of that particular discussion (I understand they have various smaller discussions/presentations within the overall Bilderberg meetings).
      Re the think tank reports: I cannot give specific examples (although I have seen them on the Parliamentary website and took copies of them on my laptop a few years ago which was then stolen by the police and I lost TONS of data that I had) and show you them (I’d have to re-search them again) but I have come across parliamentary discussions time and again where the CFR (US and European) and The Trilateral Commission reports have been considered by Parliament as important during the consideration of policies. If I do find them again I shall let you know. Not only have such reports been mentioned as “well respected” but some of the people involved in the parliamentary discussions (and Lords discussions) have been members of these groups.

      • Will said, on December 6, 2013 at 9:47 am

        Bilderberg is perplexing and the lack of transparency naturally makes it difficult to assess the extent to which it’s merely a wonderful networking opportunity and chance for some off-the-record chats, as David Rockefeller, Ken Clarke and other participants have suggested, or a gathering which has as its intended outcome more tangible policy impacts. I’m sure that on the sidelines of Bilderberg some government participants, such as Clarke, might take the opportunity for some semi-formal diplomatic discussions, and that for many participants it is great for networking and to spruik for business, career advancement etc, purely on the level of meeting fellow participants with the right connections. But at the same time it would be naive not to assume it has a higher political agenda, given that it was intended to improve elite transatlantic relationships. Just proving it, given the lack of transparency will be difficult…but not impossible.

        • earthlinggb said, on December 6, 2013 at 12:18 pm

          Will, the Treasury itself has proven it. They admit it is a policy creation event for the British government as is shown in their response to the FOI request.

          • Will said, on December 7, 2013 at 12:05 pm

            Earthling, not quite. It would seem that Treasury has struggled to explain exactly what capacity – whether private or official – Osborne attended the Bilderberg meeting. In the letter you cite, it is an official capacity, while in a response to Alexander Baron it is both: he attended on a private basis, but took the opportunity for meetings on the side in his official capacity as Chancellor (see http://www.financialreform.info/f_r_bild_reply.pdf). This is probably not unusual, and I would be most surprised if a Minister at an ostensiblyl unofficial event did not take talking points and briefings, especially if senior officials from other countries were going to be there as one never really stops being a Minister of the HM’s Govt until one is no longer a minister.

            Bilderberg is clearly an event with opportunities for formal policy discussions on the “perhipery” (as the letter to Baron says), but I don’t think these letters fully address Bilderberg’s less tangible role in consensus formation and reinforcement.

            • earthlinggb said, on December 7, 2013 at 12:09 pm

              Wow Will, you’re splitting hairs! If Osbourne attended, he attended in an official capacity (as did all others). If it were not for their official capacities, none of them would be invited. As for the treasury then backtracking and saying he attended in an official AND a private capacity – come on man!

          • Will said, on December 8, 2013 at 6:20 am

            Sorry for the hairsplitting! And yes it’s true Osborne was invited because he was someone important, namely because he is Chancellor. That’s paradox that the lack of transparency fails to resolve: an secretive conference with a lot of important people, the outcomes of which we are told are of no consequence.

            It’s just that I don’t think the FOI responses, the two different versions, are confirmation that Bilderberg is more than Clarke admits to, or as much as many critics of Bilderberg believe. But enough of this, I will explore this issue in a paper I’m working on why Bilderberg matters later in 2014.

            • earthlinggb said, on December 9, 2013 at 3:59 pm

              Which of the two versions are true Will? You know the answer to that. Osborne nor any of them would be attending if not for their official capacities. Period. When you then put together an entire bunch of various stuff from over the years such as the 30 year rule applying to Bilderberg documents when it is simply a “tea and cakes” get together and then you see answers from as far back as the 60s and 70s relating to attendance of it in Parliament where the “Private v official capacity” question is raised and/or answered and the answers show an absolute fear of stating the attendees attended in an official capacity, it is more than obvious. I really don’t see your problem in coming to grips with that.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: