You know what? I’m getting bloody sick of transparent, obvious shit where people are in bed with other people and promoting all of the “need for change” across all fronts AND YET, if you are at all quick on the uptake know who is who and have done ANY amount of homework, you can see, quite clearly, that the elite of this world WANT this “awakening” and they WANT us to scream for change and demand change and march and shout about it all. They are creating the conditions and they are publicising and propagandising about it all as they have their “actors” in place to be the pied pipers who will offer the solutions and make them SOUND just exactly what people want – like “The Reset’s “TEAL TAX” for instance. All they need say is “What if you didn’t have to pay tax but all the Corporations did at 1%? Then instead of the inland revenue taking in £500bn a year, they’d raise upwards of £1.4 TRILLION.” People will go ape about this because, on the surface, it sounds great.
IT ISN’T! The people shoving this idea toward you don’t expect the vast majority of you to think past the “headlines” (because people generally don’t in any circumstance). However, that’s another story for another time.
What is it that is staring us in the face now?
POSITIVE MONEY! God they don’t half get around huh? They don’t half get the foundations and charities funding them also. So much so that it isn’t just the UK Parliament they are into with their ideas and having MPs listen to them, they are spanning countries now.
What they’re also doing is bringing Martin Wolf to your attention and saying “Isn’t it great that this issue is finally getting attention and being debated”.
SURE it is! BUT, as I have said time and time again (it’s even the case with “everyone’s favourite” Max Keiser), the elite are pushing this information out there into the mainstream while, at the same time, they have their placemen (and that includes the likes of Keiser and Positive Money) to tell you what the solution is. Just like it is the same elite who own the world’s energy companies who are promoting Climate Change and Ecoscience etc.
MARTIN WOLF IS A BILDERBEGER FOR GOD’S SAKES! HE’S IN WITH THE BILDERBERG BRICKS AND MORTAR! AND POSITIVE MONEY DON’T KNOW THIS?
I attended a POSITIVE MONEY conference in Edinburgh a few years back. I was positive about going and my thought of supporting it in any way I could. I walked out that night having been effectively silenced for questioning them on one or two specific points and, of course, my support went no further. THESE PEOPLE ARE PLACEMEN.
I can’t help you see this if you do not fully, as yet, understand money and what it is. If you don’t then you will never get it – the penny will never drop (excuse the pun).
Rockefeller et al WANT their new currency system. The guy has admitted wanting a supranational banking government. There is NO NEED for banks to exist. Period! In fact, it is the existence of banks which is the problem along with their loaning you your own value and charging you interest on it.
IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU, LIKE SO MANY, WILL THINK POSITIVE MONEY IS THE SOLUTION. AND IN DOING SO, YOU ARE WALKING RIGHT INTO THE TRAP THAT THE ELITE ARE BEGGING FOR YOU TO DO!
GOLD IS NOT MONEY!
SILVER IS NOT MONEY!
FIAT PAPER IS NOT MONEY!
THEY ARE FORMS OF CURRENCY WHICH ARE, THEMSELVES, INVESTABLE!
IT IS YOU WHO ARE MONEY!
YOU DO NOT WANT AN INVESTABLE CURRENCY!
YOU JUST WANT A CURRENCY RECOGNISED AS NOTHING MORE THAN A MEANS OF EXCHANGE AND ONE WHICH HAS NO INTEREST ASSOCIATED WITH ITS ISSUANCE!
IT IS VERY VERY VERY SIMPLE!
Stop being so fucking lazy and expecting to be spoonfed! You want spoonfed? POSITIVE MONEY AND MARTIN WOLF (in sheep’s clothing) will be happy to spoonfeed you – CRAP!
You wanna get fucked in the ass again and again? Be my fucking guest!
Don’t worry I can hear you now: “How can such an uncouth character with language like that expect to be listened to?”
I’m uncouth bud because I’m bloody sick of your laziness and/or your ignorance. While if you wish to be spoken nicely to then you go ahead and listen to the Tony Blairs and David Camerons of this world. Heck! Listen to Her Majesty! They’ll massage your fragile little ego for you
AND FUCK YOU UP THE ASS WHEN YOU’RE BUSY TELLING YOUR FRIENDS HOW LOVELY YOU FOUND THEM TO BE!
You’re so fucking easily fooled. You’d rather someone smile in your face and screw you without your knowing than have someone say you’re a fucking idiot while trying to help you out!
Make your choice!
I think I might be just about to step back into the matrix anyhow. I’ll leave the blog up for posterity or, alternatively, you can stick it up your posterior.
Learn Mathematically Perfected Economy or forever be bullshitted!
Golly gosh!! How timely!
The first American President in decades to visit Malaysia. What a coincidence! And just 7 weeks after MH370 flies off the radar. Enough time, then to let things settle down to a great extent and see where the cards lie.
But also, a US President’s calendar isn’t such that they just decide to pay a “State visit” to Malaysia and book their flights through Thomson holidays a few days before because they got a cheap deal. This visit has been planned and prepared a long time ago. Does no-one else consider that absolutely perfect, coincidental timing of such?
Barack Obama is the first US President to visit Malaysia since Johnson in 1966. How about that?
The article goes on to say:
Malaysia is a growing partner of the United States, which seeks to deepen that relationship, Rhodes said.
Topics of discussion between the two leaders will include trade, security and regional issues, he said.
Trade being the Trans Pacific Partnership and security and regional issues, of course, shall be “Hey Najib my man! Have you found that plane of yours?” with a big beaming Obama smile on his face. “Now let’s discuss our mutual interests shall we? 1. We don’t like this Warcrimes tribunal you had. 2. We don’t like this anti TPPA rhetoric. 3. Your plane COULD be found with passengers and crew alive and you all made into heroes if you just follow the plan. What do you say Najib?”
One of the security detail then whispers into Obama’s ear (a little like that day at the school for George Bush) “Sir, we’ve already shot them all”.
“Strike that” says Obama. “We’ll find the plane but if there are any bodies we’ll just bring up the chinese ones because, as you know, it’s a muslim thing to be buried at sea anyhow. Well that’s what we told the world in relation to us getting rid of the evidence… I mean burying Osama Bin Laden. Best let dead dogs lie right Najib?”
The Malaysian Prime Minister, Najib Razak, is being steered by US and British interests.
While Malaysians and Chinese are throwing their venom at the Malaysian government, they are throwing it all in the wrong direction. Sure the Malaysian government are going along with it but why? Do you think that, politically, the Malaysian government have a strong hand as compared to the British and US governments? Or the Chinese government for that matter?
Here is Najib just a couple of weeks ago:
Here he is on CNN just a day or so ago:
In the first video he’s telling you that he’s relying on Inmarsat and the AAIB in the UK. He’s got no choice. He didn’t have to accept it did he? But then IF he hadn’t informed at the “earliest opportunity” and the media came out and stated that Malaysia had been provided with such analysis but hadn’t accepted it, then he would have to deal with people assuming he and his government were hiding this also. So the man is between a rock and a hard place. He gives a press conference stating the analysis’ results and, to give such results he can hardly then state “But I don’t believe them” can he? So what the hell do you expect him to do? He’s being TOLD to believe them
In the second video, however, while then “couching” his initial disbelief, he is sowing seeds of that disbelief. At the same time it makes no sense whatsoever that we are now told that primary radar picked up an aircraft turning back but they don’t know if it was MH370. If it wasn’t MH370 then they must know which aircraft it was because, if they did not know what type of aircraft and where it was originally heading (therefore have an understanding of the, as yet, unidentified plane’s flight path) then how would they know it had “turned back”? Yes they could say they saw a plane on radar making a 180 degree turn BUT, if they didn’t know the purpose or the destination of that plane, how could they conclude a “turn back”? They also state it wasn’t a threat. How could they know this without first identifying what type of plane it was (civil or military) and how would they not consider something wrong whichever type of civil aircraft it may have been? So they MUST have known what plane it was. If it wasn’t MH370 then which airline was it? And what’s the story behind THAT “turn back”? All of this is ignored.
None of this holds water. So PM Najib is holding back something here but WHY is he? I doubt it’s because he and Malaysia wish to.
However, additionally, in the second video (the most recent with CNN) he will not state outright the plane has been lost (and yet we’re talking about death certificates?) because, as he says, he is considering the families feelings in this. No, he’s not. IF he knew 100% the plane was lost and it was where Inmarsat said it was (forgetting it cannot be found for the moment) then he would be bringing closure to the families (as he already tried to do based on his statement a month ago) then it would be that (and the proof) that would be considerate of the families’ feelings. He’s not stating it’s lost because can’t. The “authorities” have not done a good enough job yet to achieve that level of confirmation needed.
“We are as sure as we can possibly be” says Inmarsat and the “experts” from UK and the US. So that’s a “NO” then. It’s not a yes and when faced with such a direct question “Are you sure?” It’s a yes or no answer. Anything else automatically defaults to “NO”.
There are people who know exactly where that plane is and what happened to it. The rest is a wild goose chase as I’ve said from the beginning. IS it Diego Garcia? Who knows? I don’t. I have only said I have strong suspicions of it being so and why the globalists would carry out such a ‘project’. The ONLY reason why that scenario is deemed “crazy” and not investigated by any “authority” is because the “authority” IS globalist! Why do you think Najib is now submitting his document to the United Nations before releasing it to the people? Why does the United Nations ICAO have to give its “blessing” to the Malaysian government for such a release of information?
Who owns the United Nations? And please don’t say it’s a few countries on the Security Council. Please don’t give me that naivety when it is, with a little research, obvious to anyone who runs that show.
Here’s another thing from Sky News. Notice anything?
It goes on to say:
“A public opinion poll published last week found that more than half of Malaysians believe their scandal-prone government – which has controlled the country for 57 years – is hiding the full truth about the plane’s disappearance.”
A subtle little addition to suggest that the Malaysian government is a “regime” of sorts. Well they all are aren’t they? I’m not making excuses for ANY government. They ALL have their drive for power (and corruption) and the biggest of them are Her Majesty’s government followed closely by the American government (which is just the brawn of Her Majesty and the City of London anyhow).
I have said from the beginning that, at least in part, this whole episode is to destabilise the Malaysian state. I stick to that 100%.
Glad to see, however, that the relatives are not accepting the death certificates. It’s quite obvious that Najib understands why. He IS in between a rock and a hard place and every last word he comes out with while pressured, is going to be twisted by one faction or the other. He can’t win.
And it goes on to state:
“The Malaysian government, which has primary responsibility for the investigation, has been accused of mismanaging the search, concealing information about the tragedy and of being too slow to update families of the missing on developments.”
Every shot is being fired at the Malaysian government but very few at Inmarsat, AAIB, UK and American governments. Yes questions may be being asked of how accurate the analysis has been but NO-ONE is suggesting that the information provided could be being provided for nefarious reasons. And yet, not an ounce of evidence or debris to back it all up. 95% of the search area has now been completed and nothing. And yet, it was based upon Inmarsat’s analysis and Australia talking about one ping after another (having the first “ping” seemingly detected by China). Narrowing down and narrowing down the search zone based on so called “pings” yet, in this narrow searched zone, nothing found. Now some are saying (again unidentified US defence personnel) that the search could take years. If that is the case then these pings were not pings from a black box, so what were they? We will never get the answer to that because answers are NOT what they are looking for.
This is a study in trying to cover up a real story and trying to stitch together an “official story” while wearing down the families and interested parties to a point where the official story is accepted (once more) and years later, when it has all died down, a headline or a 7th page news item or news item at the end of the 6 o’clock news, states that debris and black boxes have eventually been found. The actual black box recordings will never be released but perhaps transcripts will – written by officials of course – and the entire event will, like so many others, continue to be discussed here and there as if the official story was real, correct and anyone questioning it, a nutter.
Wear them down. Just keep wearing them down. Add a great deal of confusion and unidentified, anonymous statements and opinions by “experts” to deflect from fundamentals which the majority view as reality because officialdom says so but which, from day one, were highly questionable.
And once more we have people murdered for an agenda and the perpetrators walk away scot free because they are officialdom. The perpetrators construct the story after all.
As they say “History is written by the winners”.
The international team searching the Indian Ocean for the Boeing 777 are now considering the seemingly impossible scenario of the aircraft having ‘landed’ somewhere, instead of crashing in the southern Indian Ocean.
The Malaysian-led investigation team, along with experts from Inmarsat and the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, had to rely on an Inmarsat communications satellite, which did not provide any definite details, including the aircraft’s direction, altitude and speed.
One of the sources told the New Straits Times: ‘A communications satellite is meant for communication…the name is self explanatory.
Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.
“Inmarsat have done sterling, incredible work and we are certain it crashed into the sea where they said it did……. well, ok maybe not”
And people laughed at me. 🙂
Don’t you love it when what you’ve been saying and showing for weeks proves to be correct? Sorry, I do.
which did not provide any definite details, including the aircraft’s direction, altitude and speed
They really have very few places to go now with this MH370 issue.
Their lack of transparency, lack of logic and scientific honesty, their outright lies and propaganda have all served to put them in a bit of a bind. They’re taking this “search” to the last possible step and they can either come up with a black box (looking more and more unlikely) and/or debris (also unlikely given it would have been found by now floating) or they can say they took the bluefin down as far as it could go and it either malfunctioned or they couldn’t take anymore chances with it.
But here’s where the real story is:
The Malaysian government and the Australian government (think “Her Majesty’ Commonwealth”, the US, Australia and perhaps even Singapore) are now negotiating a contract. A “treaty” in a sense which transfers all (or some) liability for the “story” to Australia.
Haha. The people are offered no involvement in this decision. This is international law at work between two “legal persons” in the form of the Malaysian government (a legal person) and the Australian government (another legal person). The victims families are given no say in this matter because these two “legal person” authorities have decided that their interests outweigh the interests of the people. Malaysia is saying “if you want to go with this story Australia and the west, then we’re happy to allow you to as long as you provide the Malaysian government with legal protection regarding any and all lawsuits which may arise out of this and, if your story unravels, we are in the clear legally.”
Further, the Malaysian government can now say to both, its own citizens and chinese that they do not have authority over any of the found black boxes and plane parts (if ever found which, I would imagine, will be “found” at a much later date). So the chinese cannot hold Malaysia responsible. I wonder if Malaysian Airlines will also be covered by this “insurance”? Somehow, I think not. Just the government. MAS might just be held out to dry on this.
The Australians, British and the US will now simply come up with the story, present whatever they wish to the world in the ongoing weeks, months and years and the whole thing will be wrapped up nice and tightly.
IF there were actual persons lost on that flight, their families will now be told a little story and told to shut up just like the 9/11 families. You weren’t loud enough folks. “Philip Wood’s fiance” did a good job too.
Not much else to say on this topic. It’s transparent as it is.
Globalists 3 World’s population 0
Contact the mobile operator and ask.
So the intelligence services are saying there was a call and the Malaysian authorities saying there wasn’t. This is something they would have known within the first few days of the event.
Which mobile carrier did he use allegedly? Maxis? Telekom Malaysia? DiGi? There’s only a handful of them.
Then if you get a “Yes” then have the carrier publicly state it and also advise which base station in the network it connected to.
Otherwise, be quiet. Whoever are feeding these stories anonymously should be charged with some form of obstruction of an investigation. At best, they are sick little bunnies.
Meanwhile, the media should not even print anonymous sources and information they cannot verify but they do and why? It writes the narrative and causes the confusion wanted.
Why is George Galloway pushing this story?
I once spoke with George Galloway on his radio show and I just had time to mention “The Grand Chessboard” of Zbigniew Brzezinski and he cut me off for being a “Conspiracy theorist”. I simply asked the man if he had read the book – that is all. As soon as I did that, he cut me off and referred to me as a “Conspiracy theorist”.
And YET “Gorgeous George”, who thinks every word that is uttered from his tonsils should be taken as fact, is pushing THIS “theory”. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?
Hey George: You’re an ASS! You talk a lot of truth mate but don’t kid a kidder. All your “truth” also has an agenda behind it.
Yes, I have strong suspicions that that plane went to Diego Garcia (if the story is real at all) but I’m a “Conspiracy theorist” George so what do you expect? You’re not! You’re an “upstanding politician and member of the UK Parliament!” You don’t DEAL in conspiracy theory George! You don’t even talk about REAL books!
But here you are pushing Jim Stone’s story of a totally black iphone photo taken somewhere on Diego Garcia by some passenger who STUCK his iphone up his rectum? Excuse the pun George but don’t talk SHIT!
So let’s consider the possible scenarios here:
1. An actual physical hijacking.
What did Philip Wood do George? Put up his hand and ask to go to the toilet then ram his iphone up his ass? Did he ask a stewardess if she had some KY jelly on her?
Or did he just decide to drop his keggs in front of the passengers and hijackers or sat quietly in his seat with a blanket over him and shove a rather hard, unforgiving, quite large rectangular metal phone up his anus? Does Sarah Bajc, his girlfriend know about this George? Have you called her to tell her how real this is? Go on George. Call Ms Bajc and tell her that you are absolutely certain this is what her boyfriend has done and he’s still alive on Diego Garcia!
2. The flight was remotely hijacked and Philip Wood had all the time, patience and consideration that, when they landed, he would have to have his phone stuck up his ass in case he was searched by American forces personnel.
So then what? He’s in a cell by himself? In the pitch black. While these professional American forces hijackers or CIA never thought of using “wands” on the passengers to ensure they had no metal on them? A wand that can pick up a sliver of a piece of cigarette foil paper stuck in the corner of the back pocket of a pair of jeans (I know this because, due to that, I almost received an anal examination at Los Angeles Airport a few years ago until I finally located a tiny sliver of the stuff right in the corner of my jeans pocket).
So then Philip whips out his phone and send a picture message. Ok, so we assume that Diego Garcia is totally open to all and that every telecommunications network operator is on that island. Philip lived in China – about to go to Malaysia but he retained an AT&T mobile line JUST IN CASE he was hijacked right? Or SPRINT or any one of the other American based mobile operators. Ok, let’s assume that too. Because we certainly couldn’t assume China Mobile had a network connection on Diego Garcia could we George?
So then we assume that Philip, in a pitch black (no windows) room was able to get a signal. We then have to consider why he would wait 10 days before sending this pic (dated 18th March) AND, if we assume it was because he was, somehow, never alone out of the sight of his captors, we then have to believe that in those 10 days, his captors (American soldiers or CIA) did not find his iphone on his person or up his ass! He has had to go to the toilet how many times in that time? Let’s say once a day (assuming they’re getting fed) so, each time he goes, he has to shit out the phone and then stick it back up his ass am I right?
George Galloway: PISS OFF you idiot!
Go collaborate with Wood’s “fiance” and both of you go on record with that story.
You know this entire MH370 story is bullshit so you’re just playing the game. You don’t care that you’re talking shit because you know the whole story is shit.
HC Deb 11 July 1995 vol 263 c527W 527W
§Mr. Llew Smith To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with his Chinese counterpart in regard to the provision of munitions to the combatants during the Iran-Iraq war by factories based in China but funded by N.M. Rothschild Bank. 
§Mr. Arbuthnot [holding answer 6 July 1995]: I am aware of no such discussions.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further reports his Department has received to indicate that British arms firms sold arms to Iran via Singapore during the Iran-Iraq arms embargo; if he will list those companies involved; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. Freeman [holding answer 20 June 1995]: Following the statement by the President of the Board of Trade on BMARC, Departments have, as a prudent measure, started to research some associated areas of defence exports to Singapore. It is too early to draw even tentative conclusions. Any evidence of illegal activity will of course be brought immediately to the attention of Customs and Excise, the independent prosecuting authority, for its consideration.
Nice eh? To make sure they didn’t have any problems with British export licencing and to keep their name out of the Iran -Iraq war issue as far as possible, the Rothschilds sent arms (Chemical WMDs? Although it doesn’t matter what they were) to Iran/Iraq (probably both) from their globalists little outpost in China. And you think, when thinking about world geopolitics and wars, that it’s all to do with the west versus the east, the US or UK versus China or Russia?
Listen and listen good! It’s a globalist V the rest of us issue. The globalists get the job they want done from anywhere on planet earth! That’s why they’re CALLED “GLOBALISTS” and that’s why Rockefeller speaks about “conspiring with others (internationalists as he calls himself and them) around the world”.
Meanwhile, here’s another Rothschild thing from Parliament archives:
Note how Tam Dalyell (and this goes for all other parliamentarians) shits himself at the idea of stating what he has stated outside of parliamentary privilege because he knows Rothschild would come after him in litigation. And you wonder why these guys keep their mouths shut most of the time? If Rothschild doesn’t know they shag babies then the Rothschilds will destroy them in court. NOT by necessarily winning but by the sheer knowledge they have the money to keep the case going on and on and bankrupting the other party.
Official Secrets Act (Prosecution Policy)
HC Deb 06 February 1987 vol 109 cc1291-8 1291
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter LLoyd.]
§Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spent 22 minutes of the previous debate on human rights deploying the same arguments as I anticipate he is likely to deploy in the Adjournment debate. Is it possible, in those circumstances, that those of us who were not able to make a speech on the Human Rights Bill because of the hon. Member for Linlithgow’s actions should be able to take part in the Adjournment debate and deploy some of the important arguments that we were seeking to deploy on the Human Rights Bill?
§Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I cannot rule or make a judgment on a hypothesis.
§Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will be disappointed, because there is another, different aspect to the issue.
Charmingly, the Solicitor-General began his speech this morning with what he said was a platitude. I should like to start with a non-platitude. While not being his easiest parliamentary colleague, and, trying though he may find me from time to time, being over-inquisitive, I have had every courtesy from an approachable and forthcoming Attorney-General. It is no platitude to wish him a speedy return to full health.
I heard the Solicitor-General this morning and I thank him for attending the Adjournment debate. In my opinion, in the 1950s he was the most eloquent Oxford president ever to come to the Cambridge Union. He was extremely eloquent this morning.
May I say at the outset that I gave the Attorney-General a copy of my speech in relation to the possible prosecution of Lord Rothschild and Mr. Bernard Sheldon on Monday, since it raises issues of byzantine difficulty and daunting delicacy, which should not be sprung out of the blue on any Minister. Knowing the Solicitor-General, I am sure that he will respond to this in the same spirit of considered seriousness.
The purpose of the first part of my speech is to give the Law Officers an opportunity to tell Parliament—these issues are ultra-party— what on earth they propose to do to clear up the Augean stables of inconsistency in prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act. The Law Officers will understand that my deep interest in these matters was born during the 11 days that I spent in the Old Bailey, in Mr. Justice Sir Anthony McCowan’s court, during the trial of Clive Ponting.
Why prosecute Clive Ponting and dither, understandably—I do not use that word in a pejorative sense—over prosecuting Victor Rothschild? Why send Sarah Tisdall to prison for months and do nothing about Bernard Sheldon, albeit he is approaching retirement, in relation to Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West? Why fail to prosecute Bernard Ingham for the selective leaking of the Solicitor-General’s letter? It looks as if there is one prosecution policy for the influential, the famous and the distinguished and another prosecution policy for the more junior, hitherto less famous, civil servants.
1292 Compared with what Victor Rothschild set in train, with Peter Wright and Harry Chapman Pincher, anything that Clive Ponting put in my way melts into insignificance, in terms of national security, if not political embarrassment. There is an apparent inconsistency of policy, and it would be helpful to the House to know on what principles those discriminating practices are justified and on what basis discrimination is authorised by Ministers.
It is to the position of Lord Rothschild that I wish to refer. If, for the first time, I shelter under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, it is because Lord Rothschild can be a litigious man and, secondly, I do not think that what I am saying is to his discredit. I refer to 26 November—[Interruption.] Hon. Members had better wait and hear what I shall say. I refer to 26 November, when I asked the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to proceeding against …. Mr. Arthur Franks, formerly head of MI6, and …. Lord Rothschild for breach of confidence in relation to information on matters of state security given to authors. The Attorney-General replied: I am considering with the Director of Public Prosecutions the allegations made in respect of the two named individuals.”—[Official Report, 26 November 1986; Vol 106, c. 268.]
I returned to the subject on 1 December 1986, and the Attorney-General said: The matter remains under consideration.” — [Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 415.]
On 18 December 1986, I asked the Prime Minister whether she will now release Lord Rothschild from his obligations of confidentiality as a former member of the security services; and if she will make a statement.
The Prime Minister replied: All present and former members of the security services owe a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the Crown. They may not make unauthorised disclosures of information acquired in their work. Any requests for authorised disclosure would be considered in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 18 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 613.]
Let me offer necessarily truncated points. First, in the 1930s, international Jewry, of which the Rothschilds were one of the leading families, were aghast at the anti-semitism that was then rampant in Germany. Secondly, Victor Rothschild may, as the author Douglas Sutherland suggests, have recruited Guy Burgess for a minor role in one of the Jewish intelligence services. Thirdly, as an understandably passionate anti-Fascist, Victor Rothschild may have had relations with Comintern agents. Talk of spying is jejune nonsense. Anyhow, a good agent is one who gets from foreign powers more than he gives.
Fourthly, the events of long ago fade into the past. Sleeping dogs from the 1930s and 1940s were rightly, in my view, allowed to lie. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. But in 1979, Britain gets a new species of Prime Minister. On 15 November 1979, the new Prime Minister makes a statement on Blunt, against advice, with the aplomb of a cow in a china shop. Sir Charles Cunningham tells me that Sir Anthony Blunt’s activities as an agent of both sides many years previously were fully known to successive permanent secretaries at the Home Office.
Fifthly, I believe that Lord Rothschild was extremely angry about the Prime Minister’s reaction on Sir Anthony Blunt. Some of us believe that Sir Anthony Blunt’s memoir, given to his brother, and now lodged in an institution in London, will reveal a complex story, part of which is that Sir Anthony Blunt was asked by a former member of the security forces whose name I have given to 1293 the Attorney-General, and by Guy Liddell, to help get Burgess and Maclean, by that time embarrassments both, out of the country.
Sixthly, in the summer of 1980, Lord Rothschild had the Prime Minister to his flat in Saint James’s. He is subsequently quoted in the press as saying: She does not understand intelligence matters.
Seventhly, Lord Rothschild then came to believe that his own reputation was at stake, especially after the Prime Minister’s statement on Sir Roger Hollis on 23 March 1981, which appears in the Official Report at column 1079. At his own expense, Lord Rothschild brought Peter Wright from Australia. He discussed with Wright certain material which appeared to constitute a contravention of section 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1920. Section 7 states: Any person who attempts to commit any offence under the principal Act or this Act, or solicits or incites or endeavours to persuade another person to commit an offence, or aids or abets and does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence under the principal Act or this Act, shall be guilty of a felony or a misdemeanour or a summary offence according as the offence in question is a felony, a misdemeanour or a summary offence, and on conviction shall be liable to the same punishment, and to be proceeded against in the same manner, as if he had committed the offence. If the Attorney-General would decide to prosecute Lord Rothschild in open court, it would be possible to ask questions which are causing much public concern and which Lord Rothschild would then have to answer on oath. These are some of the questions that might be asked. First, how does Lord Rothschild explain his involvement with Sidgwick and Jackson over the Pincher-Wright book? While it is possible that Sidgwick and Jackson would consult Sir Arthur Franks about possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911, that would not explain Lord Rothschild’s involvement.
Secondly, why should Lord Rothschild expose himself by suggesting an unlawful enterprise to Mr. Wright, namely that he should breach the Official Secrets Act and then procure a writer, Mr. Pincher, to act as a channel for royalties?
Thirdly, why should Lord Rothschild fly Wright to London if, as has been suggested, all he needed was a testimonial to protect himself against suggestions that he had been a Soviet agent?
Fourthly, why pay Wright? Why introduce him to Harry Chapman Pincher? Why should Mr. Pincher pay him half the royalties?
Only by proceeding in open court on oath can obscurities be made less obscure. Only by proceedings in open court can there be an end to doubt and to the suspicion of discrimination.
I ask the Law Officers why they will or why they will not prosecute Victor Rothschild. If they decline to prosecute, apologies should be winging their way to Sarah Tisdall and Clive Ponting.
Even more clearly, the Law Officers owe Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting an explanation as to why they take no action against Mr. Bernard Sheldon for briefing Mr. Rupert Allason — alias Nigel West — who incidentally, and I do not intend to make much of this, is Conservative candidate for Torquay, for his books. I want to make it clear that I do not wish to enter the argument about Mr. Allason being Conservative candidate for Torquay.
If I am asked in general terms after my comments this morning about sources, part of my reply would be that 1294 there is an urgent need for an appeal body to which civil servants, policemen, service men or people in the intelligence services can go without jeopardising their careers if they believe that they have been abused. That is the official policy of the Labour party put down by the Cirencester and Tewkesbury amendment at the party conference at Bournemouth on the Sunday. I was interested to hear on the radio that Nigel West — alias Rupert Allason—said at 8.15 am on 5 February that he supported the idea of such an appeal body.
Finally, yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I raised with the Leader of the House the question of the Interspace articles with regard to Zircon. The question was whether the knowledge of Zircon or Skynet IV was in the public print at least two years ago. The Leader of the House said that he would draw that matter to the attention of the Solicitor-General.
I will leave the matter there, because the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have a very serious interest in these matters.
§The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew) I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his kind good wishes for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and for his kind remarks about him, which are much appreciated. May I also thank him for his kind reference to me. I am grateful to him for having given the Law Officers advance notice of the contents of his speech, which was a helpful gesture. Even so, he made several allegations to which, as I shall explain, I shall be unable to respond.
The main theme of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was whether Lord Rothschild should be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. On 17 December 1986, the police were requested by the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate allegations that Lord Rothschild and Mr. Chapman Pincher had committed offences under the Official Secrets Act. The police investigation is continuing and no decision can be taken until the Director of Public Prosecutions is given the police report, which will then be sent to the Attorney-General, or to me if the Attorney-General has not yet returned to his duties.
In those circumstances, and in accordance with the normal practice of the Law Officers, I cannot comment, except to say that I am satisfied that the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered by the police officers who are carrying out the investigations. As far as I can recollect, most, if not all, of the allegations formed part of the evidence given by Mr. Wright in the proceedings in Sydney and, as allegations, they are common knowledge.
I emphasise once again that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has no discriminatory policy in considering cases submitted to him under the Official Secrets Act. Each case is considered openly upon exactly the same criteria, and there is no foundation for a claim that importance or seniority in rank provides a person who is under investigation with any advantage.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question today which is already the subject of a question on the Order Paper for priority written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It relates to the publishers of the Interspace newsletter in respect of an article or 1295 articles that might be considered to refer to the Zircon project. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter raised in the written question and which he has raised today will be the subject of consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has authorised me to inform the House that, on having considered the report by the head of the Civil Service, and on the material before him, he has decided after consultation with, and with the full agreement of, the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, that there is no justification for the institution of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 in respect of any of the persons concerned in this matter” — [Official Report, 23 January 1986, Vol. 90, c. 451] —that matter being the one raised by the hon. Gentleman a considerable time ago relating to the Westland affair. I mention that in relation to the name which he mentioned today of Mr. Bernard Ingham. I do not recall that, in the copy of the speech which he furnished to the Attorney-General, he said that he would make allegations against Mr. Bernard Ingham to the extent that he has done today. The words that I have just uttered formed the basis of a statement on 23 January 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
In the context of remarks about the book, “A Matter of Trust” written by Mr. Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Bernard Sheldon, who is an official. He asks why the Attorney-General has not prosecuted Mr. Sheldon. The answer is simple and I trust that it is welcome. I am informed that there is no evidence at all to show that Mr. Sheldon has committed any offence under the Official Secrets Act. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Mr. Sheldon in connection with the recent searches of BBC premises. I am informed that neither that official nor the security service had any involvement at all in any decisions or actions relating to this matter. During the last debate the hon. Gentleman made allegations about my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and his Department in connection with the search of BBC premises. Having had no notice of the allegations made in that debate, perhaps I may be permitted to say that in his answer in another place on Wednesday 4 February my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate set out the circumstances in which the search warrants were applied for and granted.
I am informed that there is no foundation for the allegation that the Crown Office, alarmed at the enormity of what it was being asked to do, made a direct or indirect approach to the Prime Minister’s office and that the Crown Office was told by the Prime Minister’s office to allow special branch officers to take everything and anything from BBC Scotland. I am informed that at no time was the Crown Office in communication with the Prime Minister’s office. I understand that yesterday the hon. Gentleman told my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland that he would not expect him to be in his place today for this debate. Therefore, I find the allegations made earlier today a little surprising.
§Mr. Dalyell That was simply because as a Scottish Member I know that it is difficult to be here on Friday.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about that, and no doubt it is an explanation. When officials enter the public service they know that throughout their service they will be unable to speak in their own defence to answer criticism and that they must rely on their Ministers to do that for them, especially when 1296 criticism is unfounded. The hon. Gentleman thinks it justifiable to allege that named officials should be prosecuted for offences under the Official Secrets Act. I have already repeated the Prime Minister’s words about Mr. Bernard Ingham and I should now like to say something about Mr. Bernard Sheldon.
The hon. Gentleman earlier made a speech about human rights, but has not provided a scrap of evidence to support his allegation about Mr. Sheldon. Either he has evidence, as The Independent reports him as claiming he has, in which case it is disgraceful that he has not provided it, or he has none, in which case it is disgraceful to allege an offence.
§Mr. Dalyell This is part of the problem and the reason why I said in my speech that it is of great urgency to institute some kind of appeal body to which civil servants, service men, intelligence officers or policemen who think that they are being maltreated can go without jeopardy to their careers. That is important and that is why I raised the subject at my party conference and was one of those who made it helpful to be the policy of the party.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew Civil servants must be defended by their Ministers when they have no means, at present at any rate, of speaking in their own defence. However, officials are entitled to rely on more than defence by their Ministers. They are entitled to expect that hon. Members, protected as they take pains to be by privilege, will treat officials fairly. I regret that Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Ingham, both of whom have had careers of great dedication and distinction with successive Governments, have been unfairly treated in the Chamber.
§Mr. Dalyell Before the Solicitor-General sits down, may I remind him that I am talking about men of considerable power. I worked closely with the late Dame Evelyn Sharp and know how civil servants should properly be treated. The difficulty arises when civil servants become so powerful that they are not accountable in the normal sense of the word. That is why I had an Adjournment debate on the role of the Prime Minister’s press officer, saying that we were dealing with the most powerful “man” in British politics. Later several of the Solicitor-General’s colleagues vouchsafe to me—that I was quite right arid that he is the most powerful—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making an intervention. He cannot speak for a second time.
§ 3.5 pm
§Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Does the hon. Member have the consent of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Solicitor-General to speak?
§Mr. Dalyell Most certainly.
§The Solicitor-General Yes.
§Mr. Cash I am most grateful for an opportunity to speak. We have just had a debate on human rights in which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a speech which stretched the procedures of the House. He has now made a series of apparently groundless allegations against certain people. I was not privy to that speech and I can only form a judgment on the basis of what he said. He said nothing specifically and he substantiated nothing with evidence.
1297 There are times when we have reason to be worried that the hon. Gentleman is as much interested in grabbing headlines as in getting at the truth. I suspect that that is true of what happened earlier this morning.
Campaigns such as the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of an appeal body, which was apparently endorsed at the Labour party conference, raise central questions about the nature of authority and where it resides.
§Mr. Dalyell That is absolutely right.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman says that I am absolutely right, but I suspect that we disagree fundamentally about where the centre of gravity must remain.
Self regulation and the constraints that people impose on themselves to ensure a proper balance of responsibilities and, by contrast, the right to speak, are issues which go to the heart of the matter. We have become increasingly fed up — I am sure that is true for the country as well — with people who believe that their unsubstantiated opinions which appear in the media or here, and which are drawn from a fairly limited range of information, can be used to make assertions and inferences—
§Mr. Dalyell rose—
§Mr. Cash I shall, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later. Such clashes of opinion ought to be resolved in the proper and normal way, which is within the framework of law prescribed by our procedures and Acts of Parliament. We are increasingly fed up with invasions of privilege.
§Mr. Dalyell The hon. Gentleman says that I have made unsubstantiated allegations. That was the type of speech which was made against me for 18 long months before the Old Bailey Clive Ponting trial substantiated everything that I had tried to say.
I named Colette Bow in the House and there was the matter of the Solicitor-General’s letter. Who has since been proved right about that? The Solicitor-General will not comment but, with regard to his letter, I was attacked time and again by Conservative Members, but who now thinks that I have been wrong?
§Mr. Cash I have a straight and simple answer. If the hon. Gentleman was proved right in the courts before, he should make the unsubstantiated allegations that he made today outside the House and prove his point in the courts. That is my direct and simple answer to him. Will he reply to that?
§Mr. Dalyell If I go to a court of law and name names, people’s careers are in jeopardy — not mine, other people’s careers. I have to make a judgment whether what I have been told is the truth or not. From my inquiries in Scotland, I believe that every word that I am saying is true.
§Mr. Cash The record has to stand for itself. The only person’s reputation that will be harmed by what has been going on here this morning is the hon. Gentleman’s. I have offered the hon. Gentleman an opportunity, which he is not prepared to take up. If he thinks that making statements and allegations within the privilege of the House will enable him to be able to justify what he has to say, when what he is doing—because he knows perfectly well that everything he says will be splashed over the newspapers tomorrow — is not damaging people’s reputations when they cannot reply to him, then he is absolutely wrong and we are fed up with it and the way that he carries on.
§Mr. Dalyell If there is going to be anger, I am exceedingly angry about what was done in BBC Scotland, which was a wholly un-British thing to do. What happened in Glasgow was horrific. That was something that has never happened in Britain before. I have been here for nearly a quarter of a century and previous Prime Ministers — the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), Mr. Harold Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home—know that I have behaved impeccably towards them. This is a different kind of Government and a new species of Prime Minister. As a Member who has been here for a quarter of a century, I do not like it.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he is shielding himself behind the privileges of the House.
§The question having been proposed after half-past Two o’clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§Adjourned at eleven minutes past Three o’clock.
Ever wondered why these sorts of people intermarry? Well, when you combine wealth you protect yourself enormously because those who would wish to attack you don’t dare because they know you can spend them into bankruptcy. Whereas, if you were to marry a pauper, you just have what YOU have and your spouse brings no further protection to the table. If you wish to maintain your class as the ruling class, you continue to marry within it.
HC Deb 20 June 1995 vol 262 cc231-2W 231W
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department was informed that British arms were being exported to Iran via Singapore; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) when his Department received notice of allegations that BMARC was exporting arms via Singapore to Iran. 
§Mr. Freeman In 1991 my Department was made aware of allegations to this effect as a result of evidence given to Trade and Industry Select Committee.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the types of military equipment exported to Iran via Singapore by the British firm BMARC. 
§Mr. Freeman As stated by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 13 June 1995 at columns 595–606, there may be grounds for believing that the final destination of GAM B01 naval guns, spares and associated ammunition exported by BMARC could have been Iran. This type of equipment is fitted in many surface ships of the Royal Navy and other naval forces including the Singaporean navy.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made to his Department during the period of the Iran-Iraq arms embargo to permit British arms to be sold to Singapore. 
§Mr. Freeman The Ministry of Defence receives frequent inquiries from British companies who are interested in exporting defence equipment to Singapore or other countries. We do not keep records of all such inquiries.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of arms exports sold to Singapore since 1980. 
§Mr. Freeman It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal the value of defence exports to individual countries. However, the value of exports by geographic region is contained in table 1.11 of UK defence statistics.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports his Department has received that British arms exports are currently being sold to Iran through Singapore. 232W
§Mr. Freeman It is not normally the practice of my Department to comment on intelligence reports. The possibility of British arms exports to Iran through Singapore, or other countries, is kept under regular review interdepartmentally and appropriate action taken.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the normal procedure undertaken by his Department following requests from the Department of Trade and Industry for information on British arms export licences; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. Freeman The Department of Trade and Industry normally circulates export licence applications, to the FCO and MOD. Unless the exports concerned have already been the subject of MOD scrutiny they are normally circulated within MOD for the appropriate operational, security and intelligence assessments. A MOD view is then co-ordinated and sent back to the DTI.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department adopts to prevent British arms from being sold to Iran; and if he will list the changes to these procedures in the last 10 years. 
§Mr. Freeman All export licence applications are looked at on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the available evidence and our national and international policy commitments.
In the case of Iran, since December 1984, this has been undertaken by a Ministry of Defence working group and an interdepartmental committee, which includes representatives from FCO and DTI.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the duties of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the export procedures of British arms; 
(2) what role the right hon. member for Thanet, South, (Mr. Aitken) had in respect of the export of arms to Singapore while acting as Minister for Defence Procurement. 
§Mr. Freeman The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has responsibility within MOD for, inter alia, promoting defence exports within Government policy. He also has ministerial responsibility in relation to the advice on exports his Department gives to the Department for Trade and Industry, as licensing authority.
Ok. Where do I start?
How do I PROVE to people who do not wish to accept that what I am telling them is absolute fact?
If we really do have families of missing MH370 passengers then do these families just want “closure” (it would increasingly appear so) given by people who are lying to them from start to finish, OR do they want to step up the discussion to find out what TRULY happened to their relatives? Or do they just not care because, perhaps, this entire story has been a hoax from the beginning?
It’s up to the families to prove they are actually REAL families! This may sound crazy to people reading this that I am saying this BUT, ask yourself (I have asked myself): Would you, having a loved one on a flight and being told it just “disappeared”, while then being “guided” by one contradiction after the other and amazingly fortunate occurrences, to a conclusion that your loved one ended up at the bottom of the Indian Ocean and NEVER being given proof of this, accept it? You KNOW (because if you don’t you seriously are really quite inept, I’m sorry) that there has been political turf wars going on and intelligence agencies crawling all over it while these same intelligence agents have been “feeding” the story and conflicting messages (precisely for the required confusion which all leads to people simply saying they want “closure”) since the day it disappeared.
Me? I don’t understand you if you are one of those families. I either don’t understand you and, therefore, can never sympathise with you, or you are actually non existent because, knowing what I know and seeing clearly what I see, I KNOW – if it were my relative – that they did not end their lives at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.
So who ARE you people is what I want to know?
1. Inmarsat: Triangulation from a SINGLE satellite!
This is triangulation –
In trigonometry and geometry, triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by measuring angles to it from known points at either end of a fixed baseline, rather than measuring distances to the point directly (trilateration). The point can then be fixed as the third point of a triangle with one known side and two known angles.
You need at least TWO reference points – in this case, it would have to be a second satellite OR another plane which spotted MH370 or SOMETHING – a boat at a known set of coordinates. BUT YOU CANNOT TRIANGULATE WITH ONE SATELLITE AND THEN BY ANALYSING OTHER BOEING 777’s FLIGHTPATHS ON COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DAYS AND HAVING NO GEOSPATIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH MH370! If someone did this they should be winning the Nobel prize for physics!
I’d PAY to hear this explanation of how they did it! Even then I wouldn’t believe it!
Watch this IDIOT try and speak to you like a weather forecaster about Inmarsat’s amazing analysis:
2. Black box pings
I wrote about the fact that, to detect such pings, the Haixun or the Ocean Shield would need to be within a mile or two of the position of the plane underneath.
I provided this is back up for my claim:
I further support this statement by the following now…
What does the above tell us?
Quite a few things actually.
1. I mentioned in a previous post re Angus Houston that I did not believe this claim that ocean depth and, therefore, pressure, would have such an impact upon the Black box frequency. What we see now is that it is being said that “older equipment can make the frequency drift”. This is bullshit for one major reason: The manufacturer is suggesting that they have sold a black box to an airline with no “lifetime guarantee” that, throughout the stated lifetime, the frequency will not drift? Then that company should be out of business. It should state in the specification and support agreement that the equipment should be operationally checked at certain intervals. I would then doubt that such servicing checks were not carried out. You DO NOT just casually make a statement like this. Find out who the manufacturer was and ensure Boeing never use them again IF it is, in fact, Boeing who contract out this item. To supply into the airline industry and to people like Boeing, you must go through the most rigorous testing and quality procedures. I know! I can assure you of that!
2. They have introduced the above excuse (no excuse at all as I have just pointed out) along with the pressure excuse AND the battery lifetime excuse (battery lifetime has ZERO effect upon an electronic equipment’s frequency of transmission. It either has enough power to transmit or it dies and doesn’t transmit. It doesn’t act like Robbie the bloody Robot!). Again, they are clouding the issue to cover ever possible way out. BUT they’ve screwed up. You know why? Because, listen to this video once more. It says that the Haixun picked up the signal at 37.5KHz! So, we have a perfectly working 37.5KHz at such ocean depth pressure from chinese analysis but we have a 33KHz signal (a frequency used in ocean echo sounding) from Ocean Shield because the manufacturer has said at such pressure, the frequency would drift! Caught out in a lie once more! This is incredible stuff!
Now I’ve already said the Haixun and the Ocean Shield HAVE to be picking up completely different signals because they were about 500+ kilometres apart – therefore impossible to be the same source. As it says in the last paragraph above: “It is designed to detect signals at a range of (only) 1.12 miles”. IMPOSSIBLE that the two ships can be picking up the same signal. AND YET, Houston and friends have used those two entirely different signals (if signals at all because I 100% believe this entire thing to be a scripted story) to “narrow down” and, once again, “triangulate”. So now we have two reference sources for the black box being two different ships. The PROBLEM being they are suggesting “triangulation” of ONE target when it CANNOT be the same target!! This really is a joke and it is transparent to any scientist on planet earth!
Here is what they have done by using absolutely incorrect and totally misleading CRAP to have people believe they have narrowed down the search corridor for the black box:
Points 1 and 2 are about 400Km apart (in these diagrams although, elsewhere, it was stated the ships were 300 nautical miles apart and about 560Km). The ping locator on Ocean Shield has a range of 1.12 miles and the black box is about 3 or 4 Km under the surface. This means the ship has to be directly above the wreckage to detect. So think about that for just one microsecond.
1. The impossibility the two ships have detected the same source so to then draw a line between the two and suggest this line represents where the black box is, is just pure voodoo junk trash! The black box can ONLY be located directly below where either ship is. Now, if you located a 37.5KHz signal (Haixun) and a 33KHz signal (Ocean Shield) and the black box was known to transmit at 37.5KHz, which one would YOU suggest had picked up the right signal? So WHY are they going with the Ocean Shield one at all and almost ignoring the Haixun?
2. IF the box can only be detected by a ship directly above it (which it can only be) then WHY has Houston suggested this ridiculous, misleading strip between point 1 and point 2? Why has he said they have to get even closer to decide to send down a submarine or UAV or divers?
Not ONE ounce of this makes sense and it doesn’t because we are getting fed total bullshit!
“Honeywell Aerospace, which made the boxes in the missing Malaysia Airlines plane, said the Underwater Acoustic Beacons on both the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder operate at a frequency of 37.5 kilohertz plus or minus 1 kilohertz.” Not 33KHz then! Even so, I am very surprised at the lack of precision of such a device.
Ok, so I can’t stop watching and researching the news. Ok I grant you that. However, what you are about to read is going to blow your mind. (After a short detour). Angus Houston has fcuked up! He’s been FAR too keen to blow his mouth off and far too soon!
Unless, that is YOU can tell ME what “BIG NEWS” means other than something exceptionally significant after all these weeks.
ANGUS HOUSTON KNEW HE WAS GOING TO FIND PINGS FROM THE BLACK BOX BEFORE THEY WERE FOUND.
THE MAN HAS AN INCREDIBLE CRYSTAL BALL!
Ok, on now to the main event of this evening: In the red corner, we have “Angus” Houston, wearing the Queen’s colours and those of the RAAF. A born and bred Scotsman schooled at Strathallan school, no less, in Forgandenny, Perthshire. Elite born and bred then and conditioned through life. He is now a Companion and Officer of the Military division of the Order of Australia. He joined the RAAF in 1970 and has never looked back. Angus says he has some big news to give “tomorrow” (and he said this on Thursday 3rd April). In the blue corner, we have another scotsman who never went to Strathallan, despises the Queen and her entire clan and their hangers on and is willing to call Angus a lying, deceptive bastard. Not lying that he had “big news” but lying in the sense of how he possibly could know he’d have “big news” the next day! We’ll get to it in a moment or two.
Strangely, however, he was also given an award by Malaysia of all countries. Searching out why he got that was rather difficult but I got there. He was stationed in Malaysia in 1999/00 WITH NATO. There is a “Five Power” agreement in place between Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, UK and New Zealand.
Angus Houston was the Commander of IADS (CIADS) during 1999/00. Nothing entirely dramatic about that. Just a fact.
However, it would seem, from the bottom, final paragraph of this rather long (and edited by me) document, Najib wasn’t too happy with the FPDA membership. So ANOTHER western alliance that Malaysia weren’t too interested in, similar to the TPPA. And, ironically, we have Angus – with his previous Malaysian award – now taking charge of the search for the plane while the RAAF and Australians are saying “What we can assure you (to the world audience) is our professionalism”. A dig at Malaysia AND, perhaps, China?
Let’s move on….
Another thing that the western media and western “experts” and “specialists” have been full of, is the suggestion that Malaysia’s radar and airspace defence is piss poor. OH NO IT’S NOT!
If you haven’t heard of Thales (French) and Raytheon (American) – although I’m sure most of you have heard of the latter – they are two of the world’s top suppliers of defence equipment. Malaysia, just last year (February) had upgraded and then completed full system acceptance on a brand new Command and Control centre including new long range radar supplied by Thales/Raytheon. One other thing to note about this is that there is no way, then, that western military and/or intelligence could NOT know the capabilities of Malaysia’s defence radar system! So for the west to suggest that Malaysia was not forthcoming with such data is absolute, utter trash.
“Western arms makers” want to sell! Who do they want to sell to and why? To South East Asian countries in case of a threat by who? China? Russia? Why would the latter wish to attack them? I’ve never seen any suggestion they have thought that way. It’s hardly worth attacking just for the sake of the Spratly Islands for god’s sakes! And these countries are not America. Perhaps they don’t feel the need for arming themselves to the teeth? Ah but they’ve GOT to because the UK and US want to sell arms because that’s just about the only fcuking market they have that they produce for in any great volume and profit! PLUS, they want the South East Asian countries to be on our side in the next war don’t they? And they don’t want them siding with China or getting too close to China economically. But remember, I’m still talking about globalists here.
Oh my god! Malaysia didn’t scramble fighter jets! Well they only had ONE plane in this case. What happened when America had FOUR planes in their airspace and ONE of them heading into the PENTAGON? (so we’re told). America, do us all a favour and shut your big fcuking mouths! (American government that is and Pentagon and intelligence). Because you’re as transparent as single K glass window and full of shit!
Ah! The International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Mr Huxley, jabs his nose in and says “there are other elements” as if to suggest that, while they now have invested in some of the best kit, Malaysians are just not quite as smart as Americans! You condescending, up your arse piece of shit. Your country is DYING Huxley and it’s dying from the inside as you’re getting eaten alive by globalists. Nobody needs to attack you. You’re falling apart because your people can’t quite grasp they’re being invaded by a cancerous growth internally. That’s how good YOUR ‘training and morale” is. America: Falling apart at the seams just like my own country the UK for exactly the same reasons and due to exactly the same people.
Anyhow, let’s get on to Mr Houston shall we?
ANGUS HOUSTON – YOU HAVE A PROBLEM!
You’re caught lad. Red handed!
I happened to have come across this little article:
I thought “What an interesting statement to make”. For a reason which shall become apparent immediately I hope.
So I checked the CNN report referred to:
April 3rd was Thursday. Angus was priming the press for “big” news. Hmmm… what could “big” news be? They had found the plane? Or, at least, they had found a black box? After ALL the “big” leads, what would a “big” man like Houston have which he considered “big” enough to be called “big”? It would just have to be “big” wouldn’t it?
WELL WOULDN’T IT?… B I G…..BIG!!
Note the date of this article: April 4th – Friday.
So, as you can see, on friday, there was no BIG news, no big new clues. The info based on the same kind of analysis etc while Houston, himself says Just “The area of highest probability…. best data…” etc so absolutely nothing new on friday at all…… until!
Now LISTEN closely to the following:
Remember, the “pin-point (but “rough”) accuracy of the satellite “models’ that were done in a week or two when it would normally have been a year’s worth of work and they never had done anything like this before and they called it “triangulation” when it can’t be because you need more than ONE satellite to triangulate to any degree, told us exactly the area where the “plane went down” and it was about 2000 miles off the south west coast of Perth Australia. But NOW, it’s not. NOW, all of a sudden with MORE “analysis”, it’s hundreds of miles further north because the analysis told them the plane was travelling faster therefore took up more fuel quickly. And YET, there is NO WAY they can tell what speed that plane was doing nevermind direction or altitude. You can believe me or not but I’m telling you that is a fact. A doppler analysis would NOT give you direction in the first place. Nearer or further from the satellite yes but not anymore than that.
“37.5KHz” – Houston and the chinese ship and the authorities are now being “CERTAIN” that this is the case. Then IF that IS the case you tell me? Why won’t they say “We’ve found it”? I’m saying IF they are so certain which they are saying they are AND the news is stating “surely this is the strongest lead so far”. Yes he says nothing confirmed as of yet BUT the “authorities” are stating very strongly – almost without a doubt – that it was a 37.5KHz pulse. If so, then, considering we don’t know of ANY other plane which was meant to have crashed down there AND there is no other equipment which pulses at 37.5KHZ because that will be reserved for black boxes, then it can ONLY be the MH370 black box can’t it?
And here is our Queen’s long term RAAF man this morning (Sunday 6th April) giving his “big news”. He is stating the pulses were picked up on saturday and, at earliest, friday.
At this point, I will state categorically, that IF they find a black box it will have been DROPPED there!
“The Haixun icked up the signal yesterday (FRIDAY) lunchtime.” This means the above article was written and published Friday morning BEFORE the signal was picked up.
The chinese reporter then says signals had been picked up over friday and saturday. There were NO signals reported on THURSDAY! Not only that but the Australian reporter then goes on to say that the Haixun wasn’t even meant to have been involved in the underwater search and it was only in the past 24 hours that they found out it had a black box detector onboard. Now COUPLE this with the fact that the now NEW area of search (there are, in fact 3 or 3 new areas) STILL covers a very large region of ocean and, we are aware that a boat needs to be somewhere in the region of just 1 or 2 miles from the black box to pick up its acoustic pulse, that is one HELL of a stroke of luck! Just give it a moment’s thought. That really is one hell of a lucky little tugboat! It MUST have a lucky chinese take away on board.
Take a look at how long it took to find A330’s black box:
Here’s another few articles to fill in blanks:
Now, here’s another little problem. The Haixun is reported to have been 56 miles away from the location (they assume) of the black box. The “Ocean Shield” is saying it picked up a 37.5KHz signal from 300 (THREE HUNDRED) nautical miles away.
[Correction: The above is suggesting the debris was spotted 56 miles away not that the sounds were picked up that far, However, the 300 nautical miles still stands and that is impossible from what I read and what is shown here regarding the range over which such pulses can be detected]
BUT the question then is: Is this person talking shit?
“Only from a distance of a few miles….. Sarah McComb, CHIEF of the recorders division at the NTSB.. ‘I don’t think the range is quite 5 to 10 miles…'”
Is Sarah incompetent? Doesn’t she know what she is talking about? I have read elsewhere that the range is only a couple of miles or so. So HOW 56 miles? And HOW 300 nautical miles?
However, forget all the black box pulse detail for now…..
The BIG question is
HOW DID ANGUS KNOW ON THURSDAY THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE BIG NEWS TO GIVE ON THE OPERATION THE NEXT DAY WHEN NO-ONE WOULD KNOW THAT LITTLE HAIXUN WOULD PICK UP 37.5KHz PULSES ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY?
I’ll tell you why Angus knew: Because Angus is a part of those “in the club” who are running this “show” and writing the script!
I think Angus got a little excited and ahead of himself. A little like WTC 7 on 9/11.
If you have another theory for what Angus’ “big news” could have been (and KNOW what it was which I’ve missed on friday) then I’m all ears!
Having been pointing to the U.S. (Globalists) and affiliated intelligence agencies since just about day one plus providing the reasons as to why they would stoop to such depths, plus providing information about Boeing’s patent for remote control of planes by CIA and, finally, questioning Diego Garcia, I think I can say I am vindicated for doing so.
This is an unannounced “war”. Wars are for political and economic power. 9/11 commenced a few but this just may be the point at which we begin to see mainstream “light” being shed upon who really is behind all of this from 9/11 to MH370. Because it certainly wasn’t (and isn’t) “Al Qaeda”.
What was the last direction that aircraft was pointing in according to radar? Forget this satellite arc crap! Provided by a British company tied to the British and American governments for its entire existence (contracts). But that last known direction does not reflect what the western globalists want us to consider does it? It says “Whoa! I’m going to Garcia!”
Disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 370: The Trillion Dollar Question to the U.S. and Its Intelligence Services
Malaysian media should pose critical questions to the US and its Intelligence Services and not to the Malaysian Government
By Matthias Chang
Global Research, March 29, 2014
Future Fast Forward
Matthias Chang is a prominent Malaysian lawyer and author, who served as political secretary and adviser to former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammad.
Let me state from the outset that I totally agree with the press statements by Malaysia’s Defence Minister and Acting Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein that “we have conducted ourselves fairly, responsibly and history will judge us for that.”
And to a mischievous and presumptuous question from a correspondent of the Financial Times, Datuk Seri with confidence and integrity rightly said without any fear of contradiction that, “I don’t think we could have done anything different from what we have already done.” Well done!
The Financial Times, CNN and other foreign media ought to pose similar questions to the US and its intelligence services and stop insinuating that Malaysia has not been transparent and/or engaged in a cover-up. Foreign media should stop engaging in dirty politics!
It is my hope that following the publication of this article, Malaysian mass media will focus on questioning the integrity of the US’s assistance to Malaysia in the first three weeks of the SAR mission, notwithstanding its recent offer of more assistance.
I take comfort that my reservations about the US and its intelligence services as well as other intelligence services closely linked to the US, especially British secret service, have been more than vindicated by Reuters in its news report on 28th March, 2014 entitled Geopolitical games handicap hunt for flight MH370 (see below)
The search for flight MH370, the Malaysian Airlines jetliner that vanished over the South China Sea on March 8, has involved more than two dozen countries and 60 aircraft and ships but has been bedevilled by regional rivalries.
… With the United States playing a relatively muted role in the sort of exercise that until recently it would have dominated, experts and officials say there was no real central coordination until the search for the plane was confined to the southern Indian Ocean, when Australia largely took charge.
Part of the problem is that Asia has no NATO-style regional defence structure, though several countries have formal alliances with the United States. Commonwealth members Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia also have an arrangement with Britain to discuss defence matters in times of crisis.
As mystery deepened over the fate of the Boeing 777 and its 239 passengers and crew, most of them Chinese, it became clear that highly classified military technology might hold the key.
But the investigation became deadlocked over the reluctance of others to share sensitive data, a reticence that appeared to harden as the search area widened.
“This is turning into a spy novel,” said an envoy from a Southeast Asian country, noting it was turning attention to areas and techniques few countries liked to publicly discuss.
Ultimately, the only country with the technical resources to recover the plane – or at least its black box recorder, which could lie in water several miles deep – may be the United States. Its deep-sea vehicles ultimately hauled up the wreckage of Air France 447 after its 2009 crash into a remote region of the South Atlantic.
While Putrajaya has been forced to reveal some of the limits and ranges of its air defences, the reluctance of Malaysia’s neighbours to release sensitive radar data may have obstructed the investigation for days.
At an ambassadorial meeting in the ad hoc crisis centre at an airport hotel on March 16, Malaysia formally appealed to countries on the jet’s possible path for help, but in part met with polite stonewalling, two people close to the talks said.
Some countries asked Malaysia to put its request in writing, triggering a flurry of diplomatic notes and high-level contacts.
‘It became a game of poker in which Malaysia handed out the cards at the table but couldn’t force others to show their hand,“ a person from another country involved in the talks said.
As in the northern Indian Ocean, where Chinese forces operate alongside other nations to combat Somali piracy, current and former officials say all sides are almost certainly quietly spying on and monitoring each other at the same time. (emphasis added)
The United States has taken advantage of the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight to test the capabilities of China’s satellites and judge the threat of Chinese missiles against its aircraft carriers, reports our sister paper Want Daily.
Erich Shih, chief reporter at Chinese-language military news monthly Defense International, said the US has more and better satellites but has not taken part in the search for flight MH370, which disappeared about an hour into its flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing in the early hours of March 8 with 239 people on board. Shih claimed that the US held back because it wanted to see what information China’s satellites would provide.
The above is the reality which we have to confront. Therefore, desist any attempt to label the above mainstream media articles as a “conspiracy theory”. Reuters has let the Genie out of the bottle!
Malaysia’s Minister of Transport Datuk Seri Hishammuddin gave hints of Malaysia’s difficulties (as his hands were tied by intelligence protocols and or refusal by the relevant foreign intelligence services and diplomatic reluctance) but our local media failed to appreciate the nuances of his statements by not directing their questions at those parties that have failed Malaysia as their neighbour and in their duties under various defence treaties and arrangements.
Malaysian media, please read at the minimum three times, the sentences in bold AND WAKE UP TO THE REALITY that our country has been badly treated even though our country put all its national security cards on the table so that countries whose nationals are passengers on flight MH 370 could come forward with sincerity to assist in resolving this unfortunate tragedy which is not Malaysia’s making.
Malaysia is but a victim of this tragedy whose plane, MH 370 was used for a hidden agenda for which only time will reveal.
In my previous article posted to the website on the 27th March, 2014, I exposed how Israel is exploiting the tragedy to create public opinion for a war against Iran, a Muslim country that has close ties with Malaysia.
At the outset of the SAR Mission, all concerned stated categorically that every scenario, no matter how unlikely would be examined critically with no stones left unturned – terrorist hijacking, suicide mission, technical failures, inadequate security, criminal actions of the pilot and or co-pilot etc.
Given the above premise, families of the passengers and the crew of MH 370 have every right to ask the following questions of the US and other countries that have sophisticated technologies to track and monitor airplanes and ships in all circumstances.
Such questions should not be shot down by those who have a hidden agenda that such queries amount to “conspiracy theories”. Far from being conspiracy theories, we assert that the questions tabled below and the rationale for asking them are well founded and must be addressed by the relevant parties, failing which an inference ought to be drawn that they are complicit in the disappearance of MH 370.
Lets us begin.
1) Was the plane ordered to turn back, if so who gave the order?
2) Was the plane turned back manually or by remote control?
3) If the latter, which country or countries have the technologies to execute such an operation?
4) Was MH 370 weaponised before its flight to Beijing?
5) If so, what are the likely methods for such a mission – Biological weapons, dirty bombs?
6) Was Beijing / China the target and if so why?
7) Qui Bono?
8) The time sequence of countries identifying the alleged MH 370 debris in the Indian ocean was first made by Australia followed by France, Thailand, Japan, and Britain via Immarsat. Why did US not offer any satellite intelligence till today?
9) Prior to the switch of focus to the Indian ocean, was the SAR mission in the South China seas, used as a cover for the deployment of undersea equipment to track and monitor naval capabilities of all the nations’ navies competing for ownership of disputed territorial waters? Reuters as quoted above seems to have suggested such an outcome.
10) Why was there been no focus, especially by foreign mass media, on the intelligence and surveillance capabilities of Diego Garcia, the strategic naval and air base of the US?
11) Why no questions were asked whether the flight path of MH 370 (if as alleged it crashed in the Indian Ocean), was within the geographical parameters of the Intelligence capabilities of Diego Garcia? Why were no planes deployed from Diego Garcia to intercept the “Unidentified” plane which obviously would pose a threat to the Diego Gracia military base?
12) The outdated capabilities of the Hexagon satellite system deployed by the US in the 1970s has a ground resolution of 0.6 meters; what’s more, the present and latest technologies boast the ability to identify objects much smaller in size. Why have such satellites not provided any images of the alleged debris in the Indian Ocean? Were they deliberately withheld?
13) On April 6th, 2012, the US launched a mission dubbed “NROL-25” (consisting of a spy satellite) from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The NROL-25 satellite was likely rigged with “synthetic aperture radar” a system capable of observing targets around the globe in daylight and darkness, able to penetrate clouds and identify underground structures such as military bunkers. Though the true capabilities of the satellites are not publicly known due to their top-secret classification, some analysts have claimed that the technology allows the authorities to zoom in on items as small as a human fist from hundreds of miles away. How is it that no imagery of MH370 debris was forwarded to Malaysia, as this capability is not classified though other technologies might well remain classified? (Source: Slate.com)
14) Could it be that the above capabilities were not as touted?
15) However, in December, 2013, the USAtlas V rocket was launched carrying the spy satellite NROL-39 for the National Reconnaissance Office, an intelligence agency which is often overshadowed by the notorious National Security Agency (NSA), only it scoops data via spy satellites in outer space. The “NROL-39 emblem” is represented by the Octopus a versatile, adaptive, and highly intelligent creature. Emblematically, enemies of the United States can be reached no matter where they choose to hide. The emblem boldly states “Nothing is beyond our reach”. This virtually means that the tentacles of America’s World Octopus are spreading across the globe to coil around everything within their grasp, which is, well, everything (Source: Voice of Moscow). Yet, the US with such capabilities remained silent. Why?
It cannot be said that it is not within the realm of probabilities that the US may not want the plane MH 370 to be recovered if rogue intelligence operators were responsible for the disappearance of MH 370.
If the above questions have been posed to the US and other intelligence agencies and answers are not forthcoming, I take the view that the Malaysian government ought to declare publicly that our national sovereignty and security have been jeopardized by the disappearance of MH 370 and that the relevant intelligence agencies have been tacitly complicit in the disappearance of MH370.
By coming out openly to explain the predicament faced by our country, Malaysia may prevent a hostile act against a third country.
I therefore call upon Malaysian mass media to be courageous and initiate such queries as only the US and other intelligence agencies can give definitive answers to the above 15 questions.
It is futile to demand answers from Malaysia as we are not in any position to supply the information as we do not have the capabilities of the global and regional military powers.
Malaysians must unite behind the government so that our leaders need not feel that they are alone shouldering this enormous burden.
The Reuters article:
(Reuters) – The search for flight MH370, the Malaysian jetliner that vanished over the South China Sea on March 8, has involved more than two dozen countries and 60 aircraft and ships but been bedevilled by regional rivalries.
While Malaysia has been accused of a muddled response and poor communications, China has showcased its growing military clout and reach, while some involved in the operation say other countries have dragged their feet on disclosing details that might give away sensitive defence data.
That has highlighted growing tensions in a region where the rise of China is fuelling an arms race, and where several countries including China, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are engaged in territorial disputes, with the control of shipping lanes, fishing and potential hydrocarbon reserves at stake.
The Malaysian Airline jet, which disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, was last officially detected hundreds of miles off course on the wrong side of the Malaysian peninsula.
As mystery deepened over the fate of the Boeing 777 and its 239 passengers and crew, most of them Chinese, it became clear that highly classified military technology might hold the key.
A reluctance to share sensitive data appeared to harden as the search area widened.
“This is turning into a spy novel,” said an envoy from a Southeast Asian country, noting it was turning attention to areas and techniques few countries liked to publicly discuss.
With the United States playing a relatively muted role in the sort of exercise that until recently it would have dominated, experts and officials say there was no real central coordination until the search for the plane was confined to the southern Indian Ocean, when Australia largely took charge.
Part of the problem is that Asia has no NATO-style regional defence structure, though several countries have formal alliances with the United States. Commonwealth members Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia also have an arrangement with Britain to discuss defence matters in times of crisis.
“There is … a pressing need for regional security structures to take a few leaps forward,” said Air Vice Marshal Michael Harwood, a retired Royal Air Force pilot and former British defence attaché in Washington.
The risk, he said, was that the search instead became seen as a national “test of manhood” and driver of rivalry.
Already, several governments have been openly competing in announcing findings and satellite images.
Malaysia’s acting transport minister Hishammuddin Hussein, who is also the country’s defence minister, has defended the international effort to find the jet.
“All countries involved are displaying unprecedented levels of cooperation, and that has not changed,” he said.
But while Kuala Lumpur has been forced to reveal some of the limits and ranges of its air defences, the reluctance of Malaysia’s neighbours to release sensitive radar data may have obstructed the investigation for days.
At an ambassadorial meeting in the ad hoc crisis centre at an airport hotel on March 16, Malaysia formally appealed to countries on the jet’s possible path for help, but in part met with polite stonewalling, two people close to the talks said.
Some countries asked Malaysia to put its request in writing, triggering a flurry of diplomatic notes and high-level contacts.
“It became a game of poker in which Malaysia handed out the cards at the table but couldn’t force others to show their hand,” a person from another country involved in the talks said.
It was not until a week later that Malaysia announced a list of nations that had checked their archives.
Beijing, meanwhile, was dramatically upping its game.
Its ability to deploy forces deep into the southern hemisphere is particularly striking. Beijing has sent several deployments into southern waters in recent months, including warship visits to New Zealand and South America, while its icebreaker “Snow Dragon” helped rescue personnel from a trapped Russian icebreaker in the Antarctic late last year.
“China are deploying because that’s what great powers do, and there must be a political expectation for them to (do so),” said one former Western military officer. “How well they do it, only the USA will currently know (through surveillance and signals intelligence), and time will tell.”
With five Chinese ships heading to a new search area in the Indian Ocean on Friday, experts say China is revealing military capabilities it lacked just a handful of years ago.
Chinese officials have also spoken of the growing number of satellites it has put to the task, a sensitive topic nations rarely disclose.
“A decade ago, China wouldn’t even have been in this game at all,” says Christopher Harmer, a former U.S. naval aviator and search-and-rescue pilot, now senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War in Washington DC. “It really shows how far they have come, much, much faster than most people expected.”
Ultimately, the only country with the technical resources to recover the plane – or at least its black box recorder, which could lie in water several miles deep – may be the United States. Its deep-sea vehicles ultimately hauled up the wreckage of Air France 447 after its 2009 crash in the South Atlantic.
So far, Washington has sent two Poseidon maritime reconnaissance aircraft to the southern Indian Ocean search as well as an underwater drone and its Towed Pinger Locator, specifically designed to detect the signals from black boxes.
As in the northern Indian Ocean, where Chinese forces operate alongside other nations to combat Somali piracy, current and former officials say all sides are almost certainly quietly spying on and monitoring each other at the same time.
Military secrets, meanwhile, remain the last thing on the minds of those still hoping for news of missing relatives.
“I don’t care about the secrets. I just want my son to return,” Liu Guiqiu, mother of missing passenger Li Le, told China Central Television.
(Reporting by Peter Apps in London, Tim Hepher in Kuala Lumpur/Paris, Additional reporting by A. Ananthalakshmi; Editing by Will Waterman)
Well, about a week ago, I put out a blog named “TPV: The people have spoken David”. However, it would seem they have roared. That’s what you wanted though David isn’t it? The people to roar like your Lion?
You should be proud of them. Aren’t you? 😉
Here was the funding a week ago:
And here’s the funding today:
Not only have you just managed to raise slightly over £3000 David and team but you’ve dropped the goal from £250K to just £50K. And it doesn’t even look like you’re going to hit anywhere near that!
I have to admit. I do get a modicum of pleasure knowing that people are no longer falling for it David.
I’m so glad for them!
After all, you’ll get your money. If the state gives you an OFCOM licence then they will surely back that up with the funding you require to do that propaganda job they want you to.
The trouble for them is – Are they investing in a lost cause now?
I don’t mean to blow my own trumpet – but BY GOD I do when, if ever, a little Barrister shit, MP, lawyer or judge dismisses (or dares to dismiss) what I have been blogging about re the “LEGAL PERSON”.
I have challenged any and all “Legal Eagles” on this matter both, in my blogs and directly. The ONLY defence they have is a non defence and that is to simply dismiss any discussion because THEY are “Legal People” and THEY should know!
NO, I’m dreadfully sorry you little arrogant, overpaid, oath taking, incompetent fools but you are now, with this, fully put on notice. The following cannot be dismissed one iota – neither could many of my previous blogs on this subject but NOW, I have even MORE concrete agreement by your very own: THE COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW!
So, listen you snotty nosed, wig wearing little creeps, don’t fuck with intellect!
Setting the scene: “This suggests that it is the component concepts – NOT PERSONHOOD ITSELF – that are INDISPENSABLE for grounding our moral and legal institutions about rights.”
This is precisely what I have been saying all along. However, the Columbia Law Review goes on to explain why this is in their terms. The discussion around Davis is crucial to appreciate here. You must also recognise what a dilemma the courts are in here. The original mid level appellant court – IF such a ruling had stood – would leave President Obama today and all “family planning” (Planned Parenthood for example) centres plus others, open to charges AND prosecutions of murder and manslaughter. This is literally what the American courts were dealing with here and they could not possibly allow that decision to stand.
You must then understand this: The line between murder and not murder lies solely upon opinion and solely upon a fundamental legal concept which they must, in all respects, protect from the general public’s understanding of it. For it is this fundamental concept which not only provides them with discriminatory control regarding “what type of person you are” (e.g. citizen, subject, illegal alien, homosexual, heterosexual, pregnant woman, racial minority, religion, sex etc etc) but also the absolute power of life and death. For example, if you are NOT recognised as a PERSON, you have NO “Human Rights” today. While they bestow personhood upon inanimate bodies with NO morality whatsoever. A Corporation’s primary basis for existence is, and has always been, recognised in law as PROFIT. Such being recognised in law is PRECISELY why the Corporation (think now The Trans-atlantic Partnership Agreement) can SUE a country’s government in the courts for trampling upon its rights. It’s MAJOR “right” being to make a profit! Yet a Corporation, while the trustee(s) are the employees, the Directors and the shareholders (the latter being the real beneficiaries), the Corporation itself (nothing more than a piece of paper precisely equivalent to how you and I’s birth certificates are used) is where the interest (Right) lies.
To explain: From the University of Pennsylvania law review and American law register…
The RIght or interest is held by the Corporate person – a non living entity. A PIECE OF PAPER which has been bestowed the “right” in law, to make a profit. The CONTROL lies in the hands of those whose job it is to pursue this interest which the Corporation has and, as such, within what is called the “nexus” of their position as a representative of such a non living entity with such rights, the REAL LIVING PERSON (human being) is, effectively, given a pass to pursue such interests in whichever way he/she deems fit. The Corporate “veil” of Personhood then protects (Limited Liability) the human beings from a vast number of actual crimes they will commit on behalf of this corporation. This is why you consistently look at the news of Banks simply paying fines and those who literally, physically and with MENS REA, commit the crimes as they control the activity of the Corporation. The Corporation as an organisation of many people also allows, then, those such as Lloyd Blankfein and many others to simply say “I didn’t know”. The worst that can happen, generally, is that he would be sacked by the Corporation for negligence or incompetence. It rarely happens however and why? Because he, in fact, has pursued and achieved the very aims of the corporation/bank that the shareholders (the real beneficiaries) want.
Ok, returning to the Human side of “Human rights” and the “person”…. I hope you can see, quite clearly, the predicament the courts were in.
At this juncture, I would only speculate as to why the court would not wish to explicitly say that the embryos could be treated like property. As I see it, that would ALSO cause the state a very big problem because then it could be relied upon by PARENTS that the child is the PROPERTY of their parents rather than the property of the STATE.
The “first position” of the American Fertility Society (you see? it is all opinion and they need to be VERY careful which opinion they choose in every circumstance and that they leave “margins” for arguments in other cases. They cannot afford to have absolute written law with no margin for argument – it is why the US constitution, for example, is under attack – as is the UK’s). was that the embryo is a human being (subject?) directly after fertilization. It then states that such a “view” (opinion) requires that it be accorded the rights of a person. Yet, later, this journal goes on to contradict this view and, as we know, Jade Jacobs Brooks – a British teenager, a living, breathing, human being, was not accorded such rights as a person because she was not recognised by the law as a person because she did not have a valid birth certificate.
“In all three positions, the concept of the person looms large”. Indeed it does!
“the embryo’s lack of personhood justifies the withholding of rights”. Along with previous blogs with statements made by the UN, law sources etc, this, once more, provides concrete proof that, until one is recognised as a person, one has no “rights” which are, erroneously, referred to as “Human Rights”.
“The quandary encountered by the court in Davis represents a general problem within legal reasoning.” Indeed because legal “reasoning” does not allow itself to be bound by logic. It cannot afford to do so. Logic would infer solid law. Think about that for a few moments. For one thing, if there were solid laws (which there certainly could and should be but they are made slightly “gaseous” by added complexities and purposefully) then there would be no need for LAWYERS! Lawyers PRACTICE “law” and they are there to ARGUE concepts. Many of our legal cases go on and on purely to give the legal system, through the use of judges hearing “arguments”, the time to decide which OPINION (or fusion of opinions) provide the correct result for the State’s agenda. That is all this total rubbish is for.
“But these sources frequently offer conflicting guidance on the exact content of the concept of the person or its relationship to the idea of human beings.” Indeed they do and for a purpose. Meanwhile “the IDEA of human beings”? They’re suggesting even human beings are an “idea” now?
(Is person a broader category than human being or merely a synonym?) – Do you remember my blog entitled “The human rights Act deception” where I challenge the Barrister upon this very issue and prove to him that his idea of the two being synonymous is total hokum and proven hokum! The LOGIC of his stance is impossible. While it is clear that a human being is NOT a Business/Corporation I would hope you appreciate!
“Rather than illuminating human rights claims, the concept of the person often obscures them. This suggests that, despite appearances, the concept of the person is unnecessary for human rights”.
“By exploring these three categories of arguments, it becomes clear that the concept of the person cannot be the foundation for a human rights claim.”
“To take just the most obvious examples, the U.S. Constitution ascribes Fourteenth Amendment rights to persons, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes reference to human beings, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes reference to both..”
So, we arrive at another core issue: “All persons are equal before the law”. It is patently untrue and unworkable under the assumption (or concept) of “the person”. I mention in a previous blog that, according to the human rights act, one “right” is the right to be recognised AS a “person” before the law. I then point to the obvious here: If it is a “Right” then you have the “right” to WAIVE that “right”. If you are not offered that choice then it is not a right at all and they are simply lying. Which they are! However, here is the issue when it comes to, not embryos, but living, breathing human beings and “All persons are equal before the law”. It is a beautifully simple demonstration of the use of “the person” concept as a discriminatory one for purposes of control of all various “categories” of “persons”.
Now, you cannot possibly get any clearer than that stated above regarding Roe v Wade compared with the wrongful death cases. On one hand, the “law” treats a fetus as property belonging to the mother to do with as she wishes (within a certain timescale which is totally arbitrary and changes like the wind similar, then to whether homos are perverts and “non-persons” or the age of consent.) literally allowing her to murder her child, while, on the other hand, in the case of wrongful death, the mother (or father or any “person” causing injury to the fetus and death), with a fetus of the same age, CAN be charged with its murder. Treating the fetus, in this case, not as property of the mother but a “person” with full rights. This does nothing but prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that the “law” is constantly tailored to fit the wishes of the state because the reality of all of this is, transparently, that the “person” is the PROPERTY of the state.
This is why it is madness for homosexuals to actually BEG to be recognised as “persons” with full rights by the state. They are literally begging for the slavery we are all under. Every marriage, every birth, every registration of any and all property we may own, is literally a begging to the state that our existence, our actions and our needs are recognised AND, therefore, regulated (controlled). We literally hand ourselves over as bonded property of the state and, insodoing, we give them THEIR RIGHT to treat us as they do.
WE ARE CONTRACTING WITH THEM IN TOTAL IGNORANCE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING WHILE THEY COERCE US TO DO SO BECAUSE WE HAVE, FOR GENERATIONS, ACCEPTED AND ACQUIESCED TO SUCH, SUCH THAT, FOR THOSE WHO WILL QUESTION IT, THE VAST VAST MAJORITY WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND A WORD WE SAY AND WILL DEMAND THAT WE REMAIN THE BONDED SLAVES THAT THEY ARE IN THEIR IGNORANCE. AND IT IS ALL DONE “FREELY”. FOR IF IT IS NOT, THEN UNDER LAW, ANY CONTRACT SIGNED OR ACCEPTED UNDER COERCION IS NULL AND VOID AND ANY CONTRACT WHICH IS SIGNED WHEREIN A PARTY TO THAT CONTRACT WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH FULL DISCLOSURE, IS ALSO NULL AND VOID. THE PROBLEM IS FOR US WHO UNDERSTAND THIS, IS THE IGNORANT MASS AND THE FACT WE DO NOT LIVE UNDER “LAW” BUT UNDER THE FORCE (FOR THAT IS WHAT IT IS) OF A DEMOCRACY WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY MAJORITY RULE.
Does the above consider the further conflict: If the person is dead and is no longer a person, therefore possessing no rights, then from where are the rights derived when it comes to executing an estate? You may suggest that, while alive, the deceased had appointed an Executor for this BUT, the deceased is now dead and no longer exists as a person. Therefore, the Executor has no legal identity of a person to Execute for! How does an Executor execute for a non existent person?
How do you legalise the immoral? You create another category of person: The “Brain dead”. You may then harvest their organs. This, of course, has many uses and points to many elite wishes/agendas but I’ll leave that up to you to consider. Again, however, it displays the problem and contradictions totally inherent with the concept of “person”.
Ah! Animals. Dolphins and India spring to mind once more. Remember when reading all of this, that none of it is arguing for any position on the basis of who and what is deserving of rights. It is simply pointing out how the arguments in each case expose the issue with the “person” as a concept. The entire journal article, therefore, pointing at the concept as one which is fundamentally flawed and used to legalise what are discriminatory opinions.
What if you have MPD and you haven’t paid your council tax? 😉 Everytime the council knock at the door, you could say the person responsible for paying it wasn’t in! When it came to court, could they make you bankrupt and/or throw you in jail if you did not present the court with “Jimmy” while the name on your birth certificate is Bob? Or vice versa. Yet, there are times when the courts literally have distinguished between one legal person and another within the same body. THINK about that!
The “law” truly is an ass! It cannot make up it’s own mind about the very fundamental concept of what it prosecutes!
So now we come to another “person”. A “person” which truly doesn’t exist. It is a piece of paper; a document sitting in Companies House. It has no heart, no brain, no soul. It is effectively dead but it “speaks”. It “speaks” through “mediums” called Directors and employees. They do this “spirit’s” bidding even to the extent of real human beings detriment AND to their own detriment. They give it power. They pursue its aims – not necessarily because they really care about its aims (most people hate their job) but because they, themselves are “bribed”. They receive this thing called “money” to do precisely what this document wants. The document is “dead” (non-living) but it “speaks” and acts. A corpse is dead and an orator speaks. This is why it’s called a Corporation.
What if you removed the “person” status of a Corporation? Certainly, they could still exist and operate, they just simply would not have rights. The rights (and duties) would fall to the owners/Directors and employees. Do you think, then, these Corporations would begin to act more responsibly? I think so. Real people’s necks would be on the block and, after all, it is these real people who take all the actions of the Corporation. It is not a dead document which does, it is real people with no conscience and the knowledge they are protected from prosecution to a great degree by the Corporate veil. None of this is rocket science. It is all very very simple. You’d then ask how does the corporation enter contracts and hold property etc? It doesn’t, its owner(s) does. For instance, everything in Microsoft’s name would have been owned by Bill Gates personally. All property, all employee and customer contracts made with Bill Gates NOT “Microsoft”. Of course, he could delegate the administration of all of this to others if he wished but it would be his name – not as a “Microsoft” representative, but as Bill Gates, who assumed ALL liability. Of course, the Titans of business and banking would scoff at this suggestion but only because it would scare the living daylights out of them.
Subjecting a Corporation to criminal liability simply means that it is the Corporation which is solely liable for the actions of real human beings. What can you do with a piece of paper? Throw it in jail? Burn it at the stake? Hang it with a paper clip? No, all you can do is fine it and that is all that is ever done. While those controlling it walk away having, many times, been those who have committed acts of genocide, murder, financial terrorism (resulting in deaths). As you will see above, everything a Corporation is and does is related to real people. Of course that is the case because it is real people who commit the actions and who gain or lose from such. Entire countries and peoples affected by the creation of a few words on a page.
While, I have blogged before about the fact that all states and nations (including the EU now) are “Legal persons” and if they are, then all persons are equal before the law. I have then explained how THEIR justifications of states and nations having “higher rights” than we, does not hold water because, just as it is necessary for all nations within Europe to hand over their sovereignty freely to the EU – that being a fundamental of law and law of contract, as stated earlier, would null and void any contract signed under duress – the same applies to we, the people, handing our sovereignty (that is our powers) to a nation state apparatus. Again, the legal world cannot argue against these fundamentals of their own law.
Now, you will read from the above, that the author of this piece suggests the concept of the person is essentially adequate where there is no controversy around what a person is, such as adult human being for example (however we do know, re homosexuality and transexuality etc, that there IS controversy) BUT, he goes on to mention that the person is a “cluster concept”. He omits to mention the various “clustering” (categorisation – therefore, discrimination) which is practiced throughout the legal world based upon sex, religion, colour, married status etc and that such “clustering” can (and does) have the effect of provisioning more rights to some than to others. The perfect example being the contract between an employer and employee. You may sign a contract (and a contract which has all terms laid out plainly) but the employer decides to break that contract in the knowledge that statutory law, essentially, gives no recourse to the employee unless the employee has been with the company for at least 2 years. Such a stipulation is not stated in the actual contract but the government, in their wisdom (and it is wise because they know on which side their bread is buttered) assumes control of the employer/employee situation as it does the husband/wife contract. However, IF you as an employee, happen to be a pregnant woman, a racial or sexual minority, then you have a stronger set of “tools” to fight with. These “tools” – simply being your categorisation of “person” – are effectively, increased rights.
The law, itself, is entirely discriminatory and for its own purposes and it uses the “cluster concept” of the legal person everyday and applies it to what the author suggests are obvious persons.
Please note the obvious from the above: (a), (b), © and (d) ARE synonymous with being a human being, therefore, the NEED to be referred to, or bestowed the “title” of “person” is unnecessary. Even titles such as “Mr”, “Mrs”, “Dr”, “Miss” and “Ms” are not only used to denote sex but also status. The forms we are asked to fill out regarding “equal rights” – whether they be for a job application or otherwise, are there NOT to provide EQUAL rights but to administer political objectives. Once more, that clarifies the use of the “person” and the titles and categories it requires to ensure that various groups and subgroups of human beings are treated differently and NOT equal. The sheer statement that it is to ensure “equality” is a total fabrication for, with this information, the government (and the courts on the legislative’s behalf) drives positive discrimination. How many times have you heard “We need more women in government”? Or “We need more blacks in the police force”? Or “We need more gays…”, “We need more interdimensional soul rabbits”.
The PERSON and its “clustering” (categorization) is nothing more than a vehicle for social control. It promotes political aims and it suppresses the whole idea of “free market enterprise” for example and the right of choice based upon not who is best for a position but, due to statistical requirements of having a group of people – either in a corporation, the police, the government – which category one must choose in a given situation. This is fundamentally discriminatory!
The government and the courts state that discriminatory practice is unlawful BUT, it is absolutely clear: They are the worst offenders!
“What really matters for purposes of settling a human rights claim is the biological concept of the human being”. Spot on!
But, while he doesn’t state this, it is then emphatic that “Human Rights” should not be offered to juristic persons (corporations). This then feeds back into the idea that the rights and responsibilities must sit with the “persons” (humans) who take the actions and decisions within the corporations. By providing corporations with “human rights” the world has undermined the human rights of humans! It has undermined the reality that a human life is of prime importance.
“We would then be obliged to offer a completely independent basis for granting rights to those entities.” Yes indeed! While those rights should never, at any time, be placed higher in the pecking order or conflict or suppress the human rights of human beings. But they do because of the “clustering” of the concept of “person”.
“It also produces the uncomfortable situation of arguing whether someone is a person in order to determine if he or she gets human rights.” And there you have it. Please read my blog The Human Rights Act deception and consider and review the situation which Jade Jacobs Brooks found herself in.
“The benefit of this view is its power to ascribe rights to group agents such as corporations and nation-states.” Note, this is ONLY a benefit to those who would wish to ascribe such rights to these assumed “persons”. There is no benefit to wider humanity in doing so as I hope I have just clarified. Also, as I have touched on, there is no need to ascribe person rights to such. Once can simply ascribe the rights and responsibilities to the humans controlling them. But remember, the author of this Columbia law review article lives within the system. Yes he questions it – and insodoing, points us to the realities – but he will never attack it substantially.
Above, the idea of “rational agency” is once again mentioned as enough to provide for rights and responsibilities. But is it? Remember, the rationality of a corporation is stated in its fundamental documents. Its rationale is to make profit. If, then, a court is convened to consider the rationality of the corporation’s actions, it is clear that the terms within the “birth certificate” of the corporation (i.e. its Article of incorporation) will be considered by the court. Its purpose is to make a profit for its shareholders. Its purpose does not state that it will be or act as appropriate for the benefit of humanity. Therefore, the court will rule that, in its actions, it is acting rationally. Of course there is further complexity in this but that is the bottom line and from where the court begins in its determinations. A corporation has no soul. It has no heart. It has no humanity. The people controlling it for the benefit of the shareholders (and the shareholders themselves) are then able to pursue their greed with impunity. This is why no bankers go to jail!
Remember that, just as I talk about the concept of the corporation as a “person”, the same analysis can be applied to the state, government etc. Again, they are complemented by human beings who control and direct the “ship of state”. One simply needs to ask oneself: What is the goal of the state? It must have one. The vast majority of people assume it is one where their wishes are pursued by representatives. I would think, by now, that naive view is being crushed underfoot wouldn’t you? Once more however, just as there is a “corporate veil” there is an even more opaque (and protected) State veil! And why wouldn’t it protect and obscure itself? It has to. The state is a mafia plain and simple.
“Since the corporation is a valid subject of human rights – e.g., it deserves the right to property – then corporations deserve to be called persons.” But no, they do not. The writer is first assuming that corporations deserve the right to own property to come to the conclusion they deserve personhood. Step back Mr and consider your first assertion first. Who says they deserve the right to own property? Make that argument first before you use it to assert the second assumption.
“This does not mean that personhood is empty or should be eliminated from the lexicon of human rights dialogue;” However the reality is that it should and every word stated by the writer clearly demonstrates this. His assertion here is simply the assertion, once more, of someone who operates within the system and simply cannot afford to state it as it should be. He is accepting of the basic ideology of the legal fiction concept of the person while, at the same time, he is making arguments which clearly show it is fundamentally flawed and is the most dangerous concept to human rights as one can get.
While here is an interesting statement: “Being married consists in certain lower level facts……the intention to raise a family together…”. No, entirely wrong. Two homosexuals do not get married with the intention of raising a family do they? Not even all heterosexuals who get married necessarily wish to raise a family. In fact, why would anyone wish to raise a family in this world as it is? If I were 25 again I would seriously consider not having children. What? To have them grow up into this system of utter control? Where the entire fabric of society is breaking down? No, I fear for my kids that I do have and that, fundamentally, is why I write this stuff. Not that they necessarily care!
Ah but of course the legal system wishes to recognise “Common law” marriages (whilst it ignores common law just about everywhere else and almost tries to insist that such does not exist in many aspects of law) because, with the numbers of people who are simply not married but living together, the state sees that as a loss of control. So what does it do? It preys on people’s needs and/or greed within the system which exists and has ensured such needs and greed exist by saying “We will recognise common law marriage” and those who are in such relationships think “ah! That’s nice of them”. Again similar to the now “We will recognise gay marriages”. Of COURSE they will! If they didn’t, they have no control over them. And the gays have BEGGED them to take control over their freewill!
We’re talking stupid here! Real serious ignorance and naivety. “Please legalise my actions! Please recognise them and accept our registration so you may then take control over our affairs!”
“These concepts were “infecting” legal theory because they could not be defined through experience. Cohen argued that these metaphysical concepts distract judges from seeing that their decisions are based on social policy, economics, and other extralegal considerations.” Just as I pointed out above: The law is only a reflection of social control imposed by a state/governmental agenda. Period.
“For example, biological human beings and rational agents might have different rights. Individual human beings and corporations need not be treated the same.” Whereas, as long as corporations are included within an umbrella group known as “persons”, along with human beings, then the corporation (AND the state/nation. intergovernmental legal person – UN, the EU etc) shall undermine the primacy of the human being and the human spirit. Non living entities used as vehicles by living entities who wish to have power and control over all others so as to shape the world precisely as they wish.
“Groups demanding human rights have not only used the concept of the person to achieve remarkable change…”. Yes, but once more, our author here approaches this from the standpoint of someone who sees politics (as it presently exists) as a necessity. And yet, politics IS the very vehicle of social control. Take politics out of law – eradicate it altogether – approach the question of human rights from a purely “libertarian” standpoint which states each and every human being has inherent rights and no corporation or state has the right to interfere whatsoever, then you have no need for these groups to use the vehicle of the “person” to create such change. They are using a vehicle for control to argue for rights that they should have anyhow and by arguing for the vehicle of control to recognise those rights, they are, in effect and in reality, providing that vehicle with MORE control!
The facts as stated above, confirm the fundamental truth of the matter. There is a fundamental difference/distinction between the legal person and the human being. The courts and state legislators use the former as a form of social control and for the state’s agenda.
There is a website by the name of “UKhumanrightsblog” by Crown Office Row ( http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-parasites-peddling-pseudolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/ ) which is attempting to demonise and target those who are understanding these concepts and how they are used. The website states this:
“The Freemen, alongside other groups with similar creeds, believe that if you change your name and deny the jurisdiction of the courts, you will be able to escape debt collectors, council tax and even criminal charges. As this member of the Occupy London movement, “commonly known as dom” wrote in guardian.co.uk (of all places) “if you don’t consent to be that “person”, you step outside the system“.
As you may have guessed, this magical technique never works in the courts, but judges are often flummoxed when faced with the arguments, which are odd and in many ways risible. But what has been lacking is an authoritative, systematic judgment explaining, in detail, why that is. Until now, that is.”
It then justifies its position, in part based upon this statement by a Canadian judge:
“Persons who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authority, and circumvent social obligations, appear to fall into those two categories. That they do so, and for profit at the expense of naive and vulnerable customers, is worse.”