Why? It’s very easy. Do your homework. But when you understand money and interest and the creation of it (and who actually creates it), you understand why the government will never sort out the world’s (or even the country’s) economic mess. You see, to you and I it’s a mess; to the government, they pretend for public consumption, it’s a mess, but it’s not for them. It is just how they like it.
If you wish to discard this information then, by all means, do so, but never complain about left/right and capitalism/communism/socialism/fascism and various leaders, parties and policies because, frankly, your complaints are a bore. 🙂
Now, a solution to your/our situation is available. All you have to do is understand it. Even then, it won’t get anywhere (just like your favourite party won’t unless you vote) unless you back it. Don’t talk shit and say it’s impossible and too difficult because it’s just as difficult as it was for the likes of the LGBT group to get themselves accepted in society and win the right to marriage. It took long years and significant lobbying/marching etc. The thing is, they were trying to change societal values as well as get political support. This wouldn’t be trying to change societal values but just getting as big a number of people understanding and/or supporting this for lobbying to government. 100K signatures cannot be ignored by Parliament can it? It can be not acted upon but it can’t be ignored. Get 500K in a fairly short period of time and that certainly cannot be ignored.
So here’s the question: How much do all you people out there actually want your “change” for the better for everyone?
Now the change would be along the lines of my blog “The New Economics will be mathematics”. Before you say anything (anything at all), I am more than aware that ANY purported solution would require work before implementation and retuning as it is implemented as we come to understand some of the finer nuances of it, so all I have stated, in the petition, is:
Allow open debate regarding a new, non interest based, monetary system.
It is the existing monetary system, and policy surrounding money creation, which is causing poverty worldwide while allowing a tiny minority of persons to capitalise from the system. Capitalism is neither to blame nor the panacea. There is a non-interest-based economy which can be implemented.
Captain Henry Kerby, during Parliamentary questions on April 15th, 1965, stated the following: “Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take steps to ensure that all government financial requirements should be provided by emissions, free of debt and interest…” Mr Diamond, the Chancellor, stated “No”. Mr Kerby also asked what steps were being taken to eliminate the National Debt. Mr Diamond responded: It is not the government’s policy to eliminate the debt. A system can be introduced to do just that
It does not go into the detail of what such a solution is because the petition site does not give enough words to do so. Getting Parliament to debate – even question what it is – is only a first step. To achieve that, even if you sign, you will have to share this blogpost and the link to the petition, as widely as possible since you are just as aware as I am what it takes to get thousands of signatures. “Change.org” gets the support because they have dozens of people working for them on a website. Similarly, “Positive Money”. This site is a one man band. So all I can say is help me to help you to help us to help all.
Please leave a comment letting me know if you signed.
You lose nothing but potentially, gain enormously (with no money involved) so what the hell are you waiting for? 🙂
Rodrigo Rato. Finally one caught and, hopefully, put away for a very long time.
Now, please see my blogpost from 2010 regarding Rato and Emilio Botin (now dead) of Santander. Of course, at the time of writing this blog 5 years ago, it was branded “Conspiracy theory”. Now, because it has been proven what a rat he is, it’s a “scandal” because us Conspiracy theorists are never allowed to be considered correct. Otherwise it might just catch on you know? People might actually start listening to us!
You know? I’ve never been homeless. I’ve had a few times I’ve been made redundant or sacked (particularly since 2001 and the dotcom crash). I’ve had a pretty damned good life all in all and I can’t say I’ve ever been even close to this situation (I was getting pretty close just approximately a year ago but, luckily, the clouds broke and the sun shone again).
I’ve lived in 5 different countries around the world.
I’ve had the BMWs and the 4x4s.
I’ve had the 5 star hotels and flying first class and business class.
I’ve lived in relative opulence and never had to even look at my bank balance.
I’ve spent almost two decades never having to take a loan for anything (except a mortgage) and paid cash for cars etc.
And yet, I watch this and it brings tears to my eyes as I think of all the people – millions upon millions (in fact billions) – on this earth who are in this position or worse WHEN I KNOW THE GOVERNMENTS KNOW (as do the banks) THAT IS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY FOR ANYONE TO GO THROUGH THIS! And a tear is shed because I recognise that most people want to actually help others and feel the joy of giving and helping another (even a stranger) but the bastards who run this world has made that emotion and that connection with others, something which should be driven out of us and they do it by creating the desperation, the lack of cultural and community cohesion and the creation of a system which they ensure means we have no time to think (or feel) but just enough time to think of “me”.
But, if you shed a tear for such, in that knowledge – or if you shed a tear about something else you feel an empathy for (or a sympathy) – there are literally people out there who think there is something deeply wrong and disturbed about you emotionally. And be careful, because among those people who do think that way could be your wife, your mother, your brother or sister, you best friend, your nephew, your cousin……
And they may just say something like “You have unresolved emotions”. But you know why some people will say that? Because, as I once was told “Don’t bring me down because I may never be able to get back up”. These people need to live their lives in a straight line like a D.C. current. A.C. current is just far too dangerous for them because they don’t have the strength to ride any sort of rollercoaster. At the fair, yes but if life throws them a curve ball, they lose it and it seems difficult for them to regain their composure and their path.
And why does it get to me so much and anger me that these bankers and governments are getting away with allowing this (actually not allowing it but making sure it actually happens) and how can I say that it is absolutely unnecessary? Well that’s what REALLY angers me – because it is SO simple and no matter how many times I’ve brought peoples’ attention to this one single video of Ben Bernanke acquiescing to the reality of it being unnecessary, it just seems to (and does) go right over people’s heads and YET, it is the simplest – while most explosive – admission a man has ever made. If the world took him (and them) to task on this simple admission, the world would put him (and them) in jail for the rest of their natural lives and we would get on with rebuilding this world into something far more beautiful.
And I know even people who work in banking and consider themselves intelligent who just cannot grasp this. Crazy isn’t it?
But hey! I have “unresolved emotions”. Deep and shallow don’t mix. They can for a while but then the shallow starts to irritate and, for the shallow, the deep starts to irritate. My only angle on it is this: Depth has a shallow surface but shallow never has any depth. And some do have the depth but are so scared of it to dive. A marriage counsellor once told me I could strap on an oxygen tank but the other was finding it difficult to even snorkel.
It’s all misperceptions and misunderstandings whether intended or unintended.
One day, people will read my blogs and recognise the answer always existed but they simply did not heed what they were being told.
Banks need not exist!
But they do due to a fundamental crime on humanity and that crime is the obfuscation (hiding the reality) of what money truly is and how it is created. They exist also for the very purpose as shown here:
But you are invested in the belief there is a need for banks because the very people who own them and the people (governments) who protect them, tell you so. They have economists who explain (with their PhDs) how complex it all is and, due to this, you do not listen to anyone BUT those who need and want your “investment” in the illusion of banking. You believe the banks create money. Even Positive Money will have you believe this.
But one day – as sure as eggs are eggs – you will come to the realisation that YOU create the money and when that penny drops – “POOF” go the banks!
Ah well…. one day.
There are a mass of articles scattered around this blog explaining money and law to you. You simply need to read and allow yourself to “feel” the absolute reality of them.
But my name isn’t “Davey Cameron” or “Ben Bernanke” or “Alan Greenspan” or a myriad of other names you will associate with having “authority”. And that’s the laugh in all of this. The very people conning you are the ones you consider the “authority”.
Ah well…. one day!
General Jackson who had, in his first inaugural, declared that a national debt was “incompatible with real independence”….
Scotland voted for it’s “independence” (its political independence but nowhere near true sovereignty) and it voted no. It doesn’t matter either way because, as these American writers tell you, once more, you have no true independence, liberty, freedom or sovereignty as an individual or as a nation, for as long as the debt and interest on that debt, exists.
But this is not about Scotland because Scotland DOES NOT MATTER! NO single nation matters! Many nations have split and the remaining entities declared their independence over many decades and centuries AND YET we remain – and they remain – within a system, within which, no man, woman nor child nor nation can ever achieve true independence or sovereignty. And this is why I laughed at my dear scots ‘countrymen’ as they paraded in their saltires and sang their songs and went to the polling booths to tick a box which said “Yes” but a box provided to them by the existing hierarchy while that existing hierarchy would only ever give them a vote for something which RETAINED them in a box!
You will NEVER get out of that “box” until you understand how to destroy their system. You will never understand how to destroy their system unless you take it upon yourselves to learn how they have created that system and how the vast majority do not even question it! As long as this situation remains, there will NEVER be sovereignty and freedom (or love) for any single individual on this planet.
THAT is why I laugh!I’m sorry of this upsets you!
It takes YEARS of research to understand this stuff. It takes those years of close to 24 hours a day (yes I’m not exaggerating) to be able to just “see” things for how they are and to be able to see the transparency of everything from immigration to beheadings. From Presidents selling ebola to ISIS. From 9/11 to the next financial bubble.
We’re called “Conspiracy theorists” and “extremists” who need to be taken care of by the state now (according to David Cameron) and silenced. Not because we promote extremism at all or violence on anyone but because we know and god forbid YOU (the wider public who still vote and still swallow the BBC and the mainstream news) start to figure it all out because your senses are telling you there’s something wrong with the world and you’re looking for answers and you come to blogs like mine and others’ searching for them.
If you wish to demonise a group of people, you make fun of them. If that doesn’t work, you start to suggest they’re “Dangerous extremists”. If that doesn’t work, you start to set them up with false accusations or charges. You knock at their door with your paid thugs (Police) working for the state and you remove their capability to communicate with the wider world. Yes they’ve done that recently with that guy Christopher Spivey but, before him, they did precisely the same to yours truly! But I tend to work on more fundamental issues than Chris. Chris focuses his attention on, generally, today’s newsworthy items. Those news items, however, are simply symptoms (important to expose as they are, absolutely) of what fundamentally underlies everything.
My “State thug” visit came on the heels of communication with the SNP/Scottish government which they didn’t seem too happy about, along with communications with my MP and MSP at the time and it was suggested it was all because a jew in England complained to the MET Police that I was being anti semitic (in his view). So the Police confiscated (Stole) £2000 worth of Apple MAC computer, recording equipment and a sundry of other stuff. Never to be returned and yet, no charges but told “You don’t wish to speak to me” (the Detective) “because you know my job is to take whatever you utter and use it against you”. Well, at least he was being honest and giving me a warning.heads up. So I left it and let them steal my property and went out and bought a whole new set. I think they expected I was some sort of dope smoking, benefits scrounger. Perhaps on realising they were dealing with someone just a little more “elevated” than that (NO disrespect to those of you on benefits – I am talking in terms of how I would see THEM looking at various “legal persons”), they decided to just take the stuff and let it be. However, rest assured, if I started making noises about it, they’d be sure to make my life hell. That is how Her Majesty’s constabulary and courts work on behalf of the ruling class.
But back to the subject: I’ve written quite a number of blogs relating to the money/debt/interest issue now – as well as the fundamental jurisprudence of law which supports the legal person, corporation, money and overall system in place – and here, we go back to the 1800s in America. The same singular issue has been known about for centuries and yet we still allow our “ELECTED OFFICIALS” (owned and sold by the Banking community who really call the shots) to keep our attentions on left and right and levels of taxation and black and white. When we don’t like one government/elected party, we swing back the other way to the other one. We hated Tony Blair (but loved him to begin with – well I didn’t but the country obviously did) and we “swung” back to tory. Now that we have come to the point of hating the tories it looks like we’re going to swing back to Labour. But there’s been a new kid introduced on the block called Farage and UKIP. Oh yes, a new kid but every bit as controlled as the others, just newly packaged because the elite of this country recognise we’re getting a little jaded at the “centrist” ideologies of the old school. Nothing changes and, how can it when UKIP are now simply stealing tories and others and getting them seats in parliament but it’s still guys who were part of the existing structure! So what “change” do you really think that will bring? Answer? NONE!
But you’ll believe it will. You’ll believe (desperately) that it will. And the beat goes on!
And always remember: They call it “The British system”. Why? Because it originated here and the same old names maintain it. Now think about it. If you own the system, the house never loses. One of those “Houses” is the House of Rothschild among others.
So, again, the British system and the British government state it has never been, isn’t and never will be its intention to ever pay of it debt. This is because the “British” who OWN this system, owns this country by way of the debt and always have done. Coming clean on this and then paying the debt WOULD be an act of “treason” by the British government because it would be against “Her Majesty” and remember also, it is “Her Majesty’s Government” and the Crown OWNS this place!
I received the following from “POSITIVE MONEY” today in my email. I think it is important that we look at exactly what these people say, who they collaborate with, how they gain access to The Bank Of England in the first place and how they gain access to Parliament. Also, who funds them and what their overall message is. Then we must also recognise that the bottom line of “Positive Money” is to maintain the Banking System, the Bank of England, Government spending/borrowing and, therefore, government debt. For even if they were to remove Private debt from the equation and have money spent into the economy by the government, they still promote the maintenance of the Bank of England, a tax regime, the control of the money issuance to those who a small group of people decide to issue to and, we have to assume, they do not intend, then, looking at the ownership of property, the legal control of money and property and how, still, those who have created and maintained this system of money (which “Positive Money” themselves know has been a corrupt creation from the beginning, otherwise they would not be doing the work they do) will continue to benefit from a still existing Central Banking system they created.
I’ll make comments throughout in blue and discuss the video and what is said while trying to point out the obvious (but unstated) result/reality of what is being said.
We have some seriously big news to announce!
1) Huge milestone in our campaign
When we launched the Positive Money campaign 3 and half years ago and started talking about the fact that banks create money, we were faced with disbelief and shock. A common response was: ‘I don’t believe you. I think you just made that up.’ We had to spend a lot of time and energy to convince people that this is the way the system works. And there is the first and most basic piece of misinformation – that the Banks create money. They do not create it, they are given licence to ISSUE it. This is an absolutely fundamental and important point to fully understand. It appears a subtle difference but it is not.
At that time there was no official document by the Bank of England describing how the money system really works and serious factual misinformation in economics textbooks.
That was a time when we could only dream of these kind of tweets from the Bank of England:
YES, it looks like it was copied from the Positive Money website… and NO, this is not a spoof …These are real tweets from the real Bank of England’s twitter account!
Now, after 3 and half years of hard work, after we teamed up with the New Economics Foundation and wrote “Where Does Money Come From?” in order to have something to back our arguments, now – at last – the Bank of England has released official papers explaining that money is created by commercial banks! And there’s even an official video about it!
[As an aside but perhaps an important one nevertheless, notice that this guy is reading from a script. It doesn’t appear as if he is from what you see but what you hear from his answers and the intonation of his voice and the deliberate, slow way he is speaking, he IS reading from a script. He is like an auomaton. There is another “interview” with another guy from the B of E and he is doing precisely the same. The Bank of England itself is wanting this change in the monetary system as are many “charities”/Foundations such as The New Economics Foundation and The Hadley Trust who fund “Positive Money”. However, they want to control how that change is effected and what it leads to. I suggest you look very closely at these Foundations and “Charities”. “Positive Money” while telling you 90% truth, is once more, a change agent still keeping within the remit of “Banks create money” in one way or another. Yet, they explain pretty much how it all works but still in the hope that that penny doesn’t drop]
The Bank of England is the first major central bank in the world – that we know of – to publish something as clear and explicit as this.
This means a huge milestone in our campaign for a just and fair money system. Finally, there’s a simple video and a paper to send to all those economists, academics, politicians and anyone shaking their head in disbelief! It should reduce drastically the time wasted in persuading people of all types to accept our analysis of the problems.
We’d like to say a BIG Thank you to all of you who helped us to get to this point!
2) Positive Money’s Chief Economist leaves now that Bank of England knows where money comes from…
In March 2011, Andrew Jackson joined our team and has led our research ever since. He co-authored the books “Where Does Money Come From?” and “Modernising Money“ and several Positive Money publications.
Andrew is now starting a full-time PhD with the highly regarded Professor Tim Jackson (author of Prosperity without Growth)and will be stepping back from work with Positive Money.
In a strange coincidence, on Andrew’s last day in the office, the Bank of England published the new paper mentioned above explaining exactly how money is created in the modern banking system. The paper actually references “Where Does Money Come From?”, the first book that Andrew worked on. That’s a great finish to 3 years of hard work to educate people about the reality of money!
The Peerage: http://www.thepeerage.com/p30951.htm
Just take these two points and recognise them for what they are telling you. It couldn’t be more succinct:
1. From the Office of the historian US State Department archive. Take particular note of 1980.
2. Introduction of the legal person providing for economic reforms in China from 1979 onward…
“Concerning private enterprises, promulgate later in the same year………In the early 1980s, the fact that the legal person was a notion of the capitalist law….The economic contract law (1981) was the first law in which “legal person” was formally employed.”
The year the globalists took hold of China. They needed the legal person concept to do it. The two economic/finance and investment systems cannot integrate without the concept of the legal person. It is the law which enables the monetary and economic system and the economic and monetary system which controls the law. It is a symbiotic relationship. It is law which states what money is (and it could be anything as proscribed by law – anything at all can act as a means of exchange but ONLY “money” which is a true reflection of value (assets/labour) is non corruptible) but the money wich is in use at the moment is not considered purely as a means of exchange but as an investment commodity in itself (exchange rates, money markets) just like gold, silver, bitcoin, any other present commodity money. Even gold is corruptible and is used as an investment and would be even if those gold and silver supporters go their way in making it “real money”. It is all owned by the very same people who own the existing FIAT money. FIAT is NOT the problem. FIAT essentially means it is recognised as currency by the people. There is nothing wrong with that AS LONG AS, as a currency, it is ONLY a means of exchange and represents the real economy in terms of the real assets and labour in that economy. The currency can, therefore, be digits on a screen and that is precisely what you would want in such a case.
But back to China. As crystal clear in a short few sentences as it is possible to be. The globalists got China to accept the legal person concept and, from there, Chinese Banks and Chinese corporations are heavily invested in (and therefore controlled) by globalist vehicles – Nominee accounts. Globalist multinationals can also invest capital into China and benefit from the immensely reduced wages. Americans and British (and many countries in the west) lose their jobs and careers, wealth, homes, assets etc and need to accept lower and lower wages until there comes a point where wages achieve a balance across the globe. The intention is NOT to improve living standards to any substantial degree for the east but to depress living standards to a point where the slight increase in the east meets the west.
Meanwhile, the globalists, in having sold you the “dream” of improving everyone’s living standards across the world, actually capitalise from the reducing standards in the west and, by raising the east’s slightly on aggregate, they have a more mature market with a population able to buy “trinkets” and insurance.
It’s bloody brilliantly conceived I’ll give them that.
The previous blog “Capitalizing China” can be condensed into the following simple facts:
1. From 1979 onwards the west gradually had closer and closer talks with China on their integration with the rest of the world from an economy and market perspective.
2. There was a fundamental problem which existed in China (from a globalist perspective): China did not recognise or use something called “THE LEGAL PERSON”. Such a concept did not exist in China.
3. The non existence of the legal person concept meant that the west and China could not “speak” to one another and the legal rights (invariably termed “human rights”) which were applied to CORPORATE PERSONS in the west DID NOT exist in China!
4. There was a need to integrate two very different legal systems which had two very different fundamental jurisprudences. The west using a concept called the LEGAL PERSON and China not. Someone had to “give”. That someone was China.
5. There are a multitude of what are called “Nominees” Accounts which exist as PRIVATE “subsidiaries” of Public organisations such as the Bank of England and what I have just found in Hong Kong (but US owned): HKSCC which is a PRIVATE subsidiary of the Hong Kong stock exchange.
6. Remember Hong Kong, although given back to China, is NOT fully integrated with China. It still has its own government.
7. These “Nominees” accounts DO NOT divulge who the beneficiaries are of the shareholdings which are bought through them. It is acknowledged formally, however, that those who have used BOEN (Bank of England Nominees) have been Heads of state of any and all countries. That is just the Bank of England Nominees however.
8. The HKSCC is a similar account to the BOEN (as all “Nominees” accounts are). They are entirely private (secret) accounts where the elite heads of state can invest in everything from the world’s banking institutions to the world’s largest energy and resource corporations.
9. Since the Chinese accepted the “legal person” as a fundamental of their jurisprudence, it has allowed our elite (our Presidents, Prime Ministers, Monarchy etc) to invest in Chinese banks and corporations entirely secretly.
10. Having achieved this change in the Chinese legal system and now having their money investing and controlling shareholdings in Chinese banks and corporations, they can also offshore the jobs of the west’s multinationals thereby reducing labour costs to a minimum.
11. Ok this is obvious as we know. BUT our elite have “sold” to us the idea of globalism as being to create ease in doing business and, therefore, creating jobs for us and allowing an easier flow of people between countries (ala the EU). Certainly the ease of flow of people is obvious and documented BUT has it provided more opportunity and wealth FOR any of these people? Yes for those coming into Britain and America – relative to their home state – but it has not had the effect of increasing prosperity on the aggregate, It has had the opposite effect.
12. The reality is that, yes, the “globalism” has made doing business easier but for whom? The BUSINESS/CORPORATE/MULTINATIONAL OWNERS.
13. It has reduced their costs by offshoring – made capable by introducing the legal person into chinese law.
14. It has, therefore, reduced the numbers of employed in the west. This results in people taking jobs which pay peanuts just to live and make ends meet.
15. Who OWNS the CORPORATIONS? The investors do! Who are the investors in the major chinese banks and corporations? HKSCC – a FOREIGN LEGAL PERSON and, of course, the Chinese government and elite.
16. The western leaders “cry” about the rise of China BUT it is THEIR personal investments in it which has created that rise. They then turn to us and say we must be more competitive – which means our salaries go DOWN! So they are then the investors in corporations and businesses at home and achieve reduced costs and higher and higher profits therefore. PLUS, they are invested in China in their banks and corporations and make even bigger profits due to the low wages. They work on this over time and the result is this: The world’s labour costs are evened out across the board and they are at the LOWEST common denominator.
It’s like this:
The investor class (elite) take ownership shareholdings in banks worldwide. It is, of course, these banks which provide the liquidity (including interest) to the corporations of the world which these same investors are invested in. They, therefore, own the capital AND the labour. Why do multinational corporations hardly pay an ounce of tax? Because the banks want all the profit. Who do governments borrow from? The Banks!
The Nominees accounts are secret because what is happening is that our elite are absolutely destroying people’s lives for their own profit. YES we know that but what I’m showing you here is HOW they do it. These nominee accounts have VAST sums invested in all banks and all corporations. To ensure that the corporations make the profits they make, the elite destroy the “mom and pop” businesses, the small and medium businesses, by “choking” their liquidity cashflow. That’s why our high streets are dying and it is the large TESCOS and major multinational hypermarkets which are providing everything from clothes to food. furniture (IKEA) etc etc etc.
THE NOMINEE ACCOUNT SHAREHOLDERS MUST BE SECRET BECAUSE, IF THEY WERE NOT, PEOPLE – THAT IS THE MAN IN THE STREET WHO HAS LOST EVERYTHING AND ALSO THE SMALL/MEDIUM SIZED BUSINESSMAN (PERHAPS WORTH A MILLION OR TWO) WOULD SEE THAT THE VERY PEOPLE SAYING TO THEM “THE PROBLEM IS CHINA” (OR WHATEVER OTHER COUNTRY) ARE THE VERY PEOPLE INVESTED IN CHINA AND CREATING THE MISERY!
THAT IS WHY IT IS NOT “IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST” FOR THESE NOMINEE ACCOUNTS TO HAVE TO BE TRANSPARENT LIKE EVERY OTHER COMPANY AND WHY YOU HAVE THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT COVERING PARAGRAPHS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND ACT 1946.
AND FOR THE COUNTRIES WHO DO NOT PLAY BALL – I.E. DO NOT ALLOW THEIR ECONOMY AND FINANCIAL/LEGAL STRUCTURE TO BECOME FULLY INTEGRATED WITH GLOBALIST/WESTERN (AND EASTERN) INTERESTS – THEY WILL FIND THEY HAVE A PLANE GO MISSING AND THE REST OF THE WORLD CHASTISE THEM – INCLUDING ONE OF THEIR MAJOR ECONOMIC PARTNERS (CHINA) – OR, THEY WILL FIND THEIR “REGIME” DEMONISED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND THE US AND NATO START DROPPING BOMBS ON THEM!
But the bottom line is this: Our own Heads of state and elite (bankers/politicians) are SCREWING US while they smile in our faces.
ASIA TIMES 2003 THEY ARE ADVISED WHEN IT’S COMING AND WHERE TO INVEST
I rarely say this but I have said it before I admit on one or two occasions (because they have been) but this is one of the most important blogs I have ever written and I hope you read every last damned word of it and take it in….slowly. PLEASE share this widely and get LAZY people to READ IT!
This is how America, the UK and the West is getting slaughtered. NOT by the chinese but by our own. Your enemy lies at home America! Deep in the heart of Texas and Washington. And in the UK, deep in the heart of the City of London.
You don’t need an army to take over a country. You can do it perfectly well with a fictional idea. Two words: “Legal” and “Person” that’s it. Literally. Nothing more is required.
You think this is outrageous and ridiculous don’t you? Well you carry on believing. No skin off my nose.
The Globalists have commenced their take over control of China in 1979 and, as you will see here – as simply as I can make it – they did it with those two words: LEGAL PERSON. China accepted those two words and hey presto! The entire world and every soul in it is a market and an economic unit to be parasited from.
“I’ll ruin everything you are…
I’ll give you legal person…”
I stumble into town just like a sacred cow
Visions of swastikas in my head
Plans for everyone
It’s in the white of my eyes
My little China girl
You shouldn’t mess with me
I’ll ruin everything you are
I’ll give you television
I’ll give you eyes of blue
I’ll give you man who wants to rule the world
You are aware of the BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES Ltd Private Company I assume? Wholly owned subsidiary of a PUBLIC company (so they tell us the B of E is a Public company that is) but the subsidiary is a PRIVATE offshoot. Why PRIVATE? Well, it does not come under the FOI Act does it? Just like Icke’s “The PEOPLE’S Voice” Private Limited Company funded by you. Anyhow, don’t let me go off on the Icke tangent again.
What has been in our news this last week or so?
The Bank of England has just made history (which means nothing to most people) and signed an agreement with the Chinese Central Bank to have the City of London as a clearing house for the RMB.
The City of London initiative on London as a centre for renminbi (RMB) business was launched on 18 April 2012. The role of the initiative is to consider practical measures to support the development of London as a centre for RMB business. It aims to:
Provide leadership to the wider financial markets on the technical, infrastructure and regulatory issues relevant to the development of the RMB product market in London
Advise HM Treasury on maximising London’s capacity to trade, clear and settle RMB and articulate practical next steps and long term aims for the development of the RMB market in London. Additionally, the group advises HM Treasury and other UK authorities on any financial stability concerns the members may perceive.
Develop and maintain, as appropriate, a private sector dialogue on the international RMB market with regulators in Hong Kong and mainland China to complement that which is already maintained by the UK public sector.
The City of London Representative offices in China.
The overall aim of the offices in Beijing and Shanghai is to strengthen trade and investment links in both directions between China and the UK through the promotion of world-class financial services and products. The offices work to promote ‘the City’ as a brand, covering financial services as a whole (including those under non-UK ownership) throughout the UK. The offices work to promote the services of the City – including the raising of capital, insurance, asset management, legal, accounting and other advisory services; emissions trading; London’s exchanges; and financial education, training and qualifications – to the government and private sector in China and promote awareness of the City as both a unique cluster of capital and expertise and a centre in which to locate operations.
The specific functions of the offices are to:
facilitate the business development of City firms by providing support for their visits to China;
support visits by Chinese decision-makers and senior financial services practitioners to the UK;
gain and disseminate information on market opportunities for City firms;
identify barriers to market access for financial and related business services; [These barriers to market are legal issues]
promote the UK as a physical location for representation and investment by Chinese financial services companies and provide support for inward investors;
organise visits by the City of London’s Policy Chairman and assist in planning and arranging visits by the Lord Mayor;
organise and support financial services related events and seminars.
Members of the City of London initiative:
Current members of the initiative are leading international banks with a strong presence in London and Hong Kong:
Agricultural Bank of China (UK)
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ)
Bank of China (UK)
Bank of Communications (UK)
China Construction Bank (UK)
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (UK)
The Royal Bank of Scotland
HM Treasury, the Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority are observers to the initiative. The City of London provides the secretariat.
Interestingly, this is taken from the 2012 Annual Report of the People’s Bank of China (China’s Central Bank):
“The PBC signed bilateral local currency swap agreements with central banks and monetary authorities in 18 countries and regions including Republic of Korea and Malaysia. Offshore RMB markets in Hong Kong, Taiwan, London and Singapore were in a good shape.”
So, Malaysia got in there before us.
Further, within this annual report, it states the following (there are many references to the “legal person” in fact). The way they refer to it, you can see, quite clearly, it is something new to them and they are struggling with it:
The PBC achieved significant results in statistics, survey and analytical work
“Statistics and monitoring of small rural financial insti中国人民银行年报–排版（英文）.inddtutions based on legal person was achieved.
Ok. Now, for the moment, let’s just flip back to the Bank of England Nominees….
Investigating the Bank of England Nominees Limited
The following article by Alistair McConnachie appeared in the October 2011 issue of Prosperity….
Occasionally we encounter people who refuse to believe the fact that the Bank of England is a fully, publicly-owned national institution, and has been since it was nationalised in 1946(1)
They will point to something called the “Bank of England Nominees Limited” (BOEN) to allege that there is a “secret” company attached to the Bank, into which a flow of hidden profits is presumably being directed for the enrichment of a select few. Their sources are usually unreferenced conspiracy websites.
If our reform is to gain traction, it is important that we are neither distracted by misinformation nor labour under misapprehensions about normality.
The Bank of England is Publicly-Owned
The Bank of England is wholly owned by the British government – meaning its profits go into the public purse at the Treasury. This is a plain fact and people who do not accept this are not being serious about our reform. See the statement on the Bank’s website where it states:
As a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament. The Bank’s Annual Report and Accounts are laid before Parliament each year before they are made available publicly. The principal means of accountability for the Bank is via the House of Commons Treasury Committee.(2)
Let’s look at that statement closely however because the Bank Of England Act 1946 doesn’t quite match up to what this statement by the Bank says:
Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 1998
1 Transfer of Bank stock to the Treasury
- (1) On the appointed day –(a) the whole of the existing capital stock of the Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Bank stock”) shall, by virtue of this section, be transferred, free of all trusts, liabilities and incumbrances, to such person as the Treasury may by order nominate,(3) to be held by that person on behalf of the Treasury;(b) the Treasury shall issue, to the person who immediately before the appointed day is registered in the books of the Bank as the holder of any Bank stock, the equivalent amount of stock created by the Treasury for the purpose (hereinafter referred to as the “Government stock”).
- (2) The Government stock shall bear interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum; and
the equivalent amount of Government stock shall, in relation to any person, be taken to be such that the sum payable annually by way of interest thereon is equal to the average annual gross dividend declared during the period of twenty years immediately preceding the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-five, upon the amount of Bank stock of which that person was the registered holder immediately before the appointed day.
So, all the stock in the Bank was transferred to the treasury/government BUT, on that transfer, the treasury contracted to the previous private owners of the stock in the Bank, an EQUIVALENT amount of stock in the British government! So, the Bank is owned by the government BUT the government is owned by the previous stockholders in the bank by an amount equivalent to their stockholding in the bank. FURTHER, in holding this government stock, the previous bank stockholders shall receive interest at the rate of 3% per annum IN PERPETUITY (there is no end date stated). So, in essence, it is a stock swap and nothing, in effect, has changed.
(4) After the appointed day, no dividends on Bank stock shall be declared but in lieu of any such dividends the Bank shall pay to the Treasury, on every fifth day of April and of October, [a sum equal to 25 per cent of the Bank’s net profits for its previous financial year, or such other sum as the Treasury and the Bank may agree.]
So, ONLY 50% (assuming they are stating 25% on each date rather than a total of 25%) of net profits – so after ALL costs are accounted for – goes to the Treasury. WHERE does the other 50% go?
Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 19984 Treasury directions to the Bank and relations of the Bank with other banks
Act 1998 (April 2013)_Act 1998Sections 4(4) and 4(5) repealed by section 16(4) of the Official Secrets Act 1989.
Now, if we go to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and follow this through, we get the following:
16(4) The enactments and Order mentioned in Schedule 2 to this Act are hereby repealed or revoked to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
So then we go to schedule 2 and what do we find?
(1)A person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor is guilty of an offence if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information, document or other article relating to defence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a disclosure is damaging if—
(a)it damages the capability of, or of any part of, the armed forces of the Crown to carry out their tasks or leads to loss of life or injury to members of those forces or serious damage to the equipment or installations of those forces; or
(b)otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, it endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad; or
(c)it is of information or of a document or article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects.
(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question related to defence or that its disclosure would be damaging within the meaning of subsection (1) above.
(4)In this section “defence” means—
(a)the size, shape, organisation, logistics, order of battle, deployment, operations, state of readiness and training of the armed forces of the Crown;
(b)the weapons, stores or other equipment of those forces and the invention, development, production and operation of such equipment and research relating to it;
(c)defence policy and strategy and military planning and intelligence;
(d)plans and measures for the maintenance of essential supplies and services that are or would be needed in time of war.
Read them each in turn carefully and decide which, if any, something within the Bank of England Act 1946 could have anything related to such. Essentially, then, it means that the paragraphs repealed by the Official Secrets Act within the Bank of England Act 1946, relate to matters of defence. That “defence of the realm” can ONLY be related to those documents which give detail as to WHO these bankers are who own this stock. “obstructs the promotion or protection…of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad…” (which citizens precisely?). Couple that with paragraph (c).
What is the “Bank of England Nominees Limited”?
The Bank of England Nominees is a wholly-owned, non-trading subsidiary of the Bank of England, with 2 ordinary shares valued at £1 each, as the latest Bank of England Annual Report(3) states. (the ordinary share value has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the shareholdings it deals in for third party private persons – corporate or natural persons)
A reply from Ben Norman, the Deputy Secretary of the Bank, to an enquirer Mr E Danielyan, dated 5 March 2010 explains:
BOEN acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers. It is a private limited company, incorporated in England and Wales in 1977, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank. The shareholders are the Bank and John Footman, who holds his share as nominee on behalf of the Bank. The directors are John Footman and Andrew Bailey.(4) (The Directors and shareholders of such shares have nothing to do with the value of shares the nominees deals in)
Both John Footman(5) and Andrew Bailey(6) are employees of the Bank and their biographies are on the Bank’s website. (so what? Uninterested.)
What is the Purpose of BOEN?
As the following written answer from the Commons’ Hansard from 21 April 1977(7) states, it is intended to hold shares on behalf of “Heads of State” and certain others. (Now we’re getting somewhere. Could be Her Heinous to his Holiness, to Rothschild, Rockefeller, Warburg, DuPont, Bill and Melinda Gates, President Assad, any and all Heads of state no matter what they are. Dictators or not. And let’s face it, they ALL are).
HC Deb 21 April 1977 vol 930 cc151-2W 151W
Mr. Blenkinsop asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has granted any exemptions under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Clinton Davis The Secretary of State has granted one exemption under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 in favour of Bank of England Nominees Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank of England (which means it does not have to disclose the beneficial interest holders of shares). Bank of England Nominees Ltd. have given a number of undertakings about the use to be made of the exemption. They will hold securities as nominee only on behalf of Heads of State and their immediate family, Governments, official bodies controlled or closely related to Governments, and international organisations formed by Governments or official bodies. They will in turn seek certain assurances from anyone in the eligible categories who wishes them to hold the securities as that person’s nominee. These assurances are to cover (a) the fact that the person is the beneficial owner of the securities to be held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd.; (b) that the beneficial owner will not use his interest in any securities held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd. to influence the affairs of the company in which shares are held except as shareholders in general meetings of that company; (haha. That is absolutely fucking hilarious! A shareholder who wants no control and no say) (c) that the beneficial owner is aware of his overriding obligation, under Section 33 of the Companies Act 1967 as amended, to disclose his interest to the company in which shares are held if he is interested in 5 per cent. or more of that company’s share capital. 152W
Bank of England Nominees Ltd. has also undertaken to make a report annually to the Secretary of State for Trade of the identity of those for whom it holds securities, and, provided that it holds securities for two or more people, the total value of the securities held. The contents of such reports are to be confidential to the Secretary of State.
BOEN – No Longer Allowed Disclosure Exemptions
It is important to note, however, that BOEN is “no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements”, as the following written answer from the Lords’ Hansard on 26 April 2011(8) makes clear. (But it no longer matters since it is now dormant! They have taken the money and run and they have closed down all their accounts and put their interests elsewhere, while that just so happens to have happened before June 2010 – not long, then after the economic collapse! Nice timing!)
This must mean that BOEN is no longer granted an exemption under Sec 796 of the Companies Act 2006 to the notification provisions required by Sec 793 – which it has been previously, according to Ben Norman above.
Bank of England
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited were last published; when they will next be published; and whether they intend to review whether the company should remain exempt from company law disclosure requirements.[HL8302]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): The most recent accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited are available via the Companies House website and were published on 14 June 2010. It can be seen from these accounts that the company is currently dormant. The company is due to publish its next set of accounts by 30 November this year. The company is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements and currently no other persons are exempt from these requirements.
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited will be published; whether these accounts will take into account an indemnity from HM Treasury; and whether the accounts of the company are exempt from any company law disclosure requirements.[HL8303]
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): The Bank of England will publish accounts for the asset purchase facility (APF) for the year ended February 2011 before the Summer Parliamentary Recess. The amount due to or from HM Treasury under its indemnity to the Bank will be identified. The accounts are not exempt from any company law disclosure requirements. 12
Asked by Lord Myners
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the accounts of the Bank of England, Bank of England Nominees Limited and the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund Limited are all audited by the same firm of public accountants.[HL8310]
Lord Sassoon: KPMG are the external auditors for the Bank of England and the Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited. As a dormant company, Bank of England Nominees Limited is not required under the Companies Act 2006 to appoint an external auditor.
The BOEN Company Accounts for 2010 can be viewed online.(9) These Accounts state that, “There has been no income or expenditure on the part of the Company since its incorporation and accordingly no profit and loss account is submitted.” (p.2) It has Net Assets of £2. (p.4)
As stated in Hansard, above, BOEN is a company set up with the intention of holding shares confidentially on behalf of “Heads of State” and certain others.
That is to say, presumably, HM the Queen and her “immediate family” and certain governmental bodies.
Presumably the thinking here is that if those people were to buy them through normal means, then they would be visible to staff at share dealing companies and would regularly be leaked. This could, possibly, raise various security-related matters, and it could also, possibly, raise various rumours about matters related to the economy and the health, or otherwise, of certain companies.
In any case, BOEN is presently dormant, and is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements.
Imagining strange goings-on at BOEN is a complete distraction from reality.
The truth, as with most things, is quite prosaic.
Purchase back issues of Alistair McConnachie’s Prosperity money reform journal here
And here is a link to Alistair McConnachie’s Google Profile.
(1) Bank of England Act 1946, http://www.legislation.gov.uk
(2) Bank of England, “The Bank’s Relationship with Parliament”,
(3) Bank of England, Annual Report 2011, p.69,
(4) This letter can be viewed in full and downloaded at
(5) Bank of England, “John Footman Executive Director, Central Services and Secretary of the Bank”,
(6) Bank of England, “Andrew Bailey, Executive Director, Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) – Deputy CEO designate”,
(7) Hansard, 21 April 1977, Written Answers,
(8) Hansard, 26 April 2011, Written Answers,
Now, there are quite a number of other “Nominees” companies scattered all over the place. ONE is called “Houblon Nominees” and another is “Bank of Scotland Branch Nominees”. It’s strange for all of them that, although “Live” and still have their Directors listed, each one is “dormant” or “non trading”. Isn’t that just a tad strange? 😉
There is one “Nominees” I am coming to shortly, however, which you will see has MASSIVE investments. But, for now, let’s just take a little peek at our Dear, lovely, fluffy Queen who is “so close to bankruptcy” while she ensures that the monarchy is now fully protected from any investigation via the Freedom of Information Act or any other method/vehicle.
From: In and Out of Hollywood: A Biographer’s Memoir (2009)
By Charles Higham
You may wish to look up Higham himself. His wikipedia is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Higham_(biographer) Why is it all these people same to share so many of the same perversions and issues? However, this is what he wrote in his own autobiography/memoir:
Now let’s turn to Australia for a moment:
Who owns the largest share of Australia’s Top 4 Banks
POSTED BY NESARAAUSTRALIA ⋅ JULY 15, 2012 ⋅
FILED UNDER BUSINESS, ECONOMY, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, MEDIA
**Data taken from SYB
Top 4 ANZ Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Shares %
1 HSBC CUSTODY NOMINEES (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED 446,984,331 17.46
2 J P MORGAN NOMINEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED 371,451,021 14.51
3 NATIONAL NOMINEES LIMITED 343,611,753 13.42
4 CITICORP NOMINEES PTY LIMITED 98,249,488 3.84
Top 4 Commonwealth BA Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Shares %
1 HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 210,455,886 13.59
2 J P Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 154,853,734 10.00
3 National Nominees Limited 136,450,456 8.81
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 66,664,831 4.30
Top 4 National Australia B Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of shares %
1 HSBC Custody Nominees 359,630,439 16.86
2 J P Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 260,185,567 12.20
3 National Nominees Limited 244,446,877 11.46
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 97,543,050 4.57
Top 4 Westpac BC Shareholders
Name of Shareholder Number of Fully Paid Ordinary Shares % Held
1 HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited 444,695,642 14.88
2 JP Morgan Nominees Australia Limited 379,805,564 12.71
3 National Nominees Limited 312,929,618 10.47
4 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 143,271,824 4.79
What an EYE OPENER. Still more. Who are these 4 private entities so secretly powerful? Many would think HSBC belongs to the Asians. Yet, have a look at what Wikipedia has to say.
HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited
17.46% of ANZ 13.59% of CBA 16.86% of NAB 14.88% of WBC
In fact, they’re the number one shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:
12.09% of Bendigo & Adelaide Bank and 17.00% of Bank of Queensland.
Wikipedia had this to say about them,
“HSBC Holdings plc is a global financial services company headquartered in Canary Wharf, London, United Kingdom. As of 2010 it is the world’s sixth-largest banking and financial services group and eighth-largest company according to a composite measure by Forbes magazine. It has around 8,000 offices in 91 countries and territories across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America and around 100 million customers. As of 30 June 2010 it had total assets of $2.418 trillion, of which roughly half were in Europe, a quarter in the Americas and a quarter in Asia.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsbc (accessed 21 Feb 2011).
Here is a link to their 2010 Annual Report. Here are a few of the financial Highlights listed in that report:
Pre-tax profit more than doubled to US$19bn on a reported basis.
Underlying pre-tax profit up by almost US$5bn or 36% to US$18.4bn.
Profitable in every customer group and region, including North America
Their 2009 Annual Report wasn’t too shabby either. It says that, on a reported basis, their profit before tax was US$7.1 billion
OKAY, what about the other 3 private entities deemed so secretly powerful? Let’s see.
JP Morgan Nominees Australia Limited
14.51% of ANZ 10.00% of CBA 12.20% of NAB 12.71% of WBC
In fact, they’re also the number two shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:
7.92% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 7.77% of Bank of Queensland.
JPMorgan Chase had a $12 billion profit for 2009. We found this out and read all about their success in their Annual Report.
National Nominees Limited
National Nominees Limited is the number three shareholder for all of the Big Four Banks. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Australia Bank Limited – You know the BANK that just staged a HUGE break-up. It must be an awkward break-up indeed with all of those shared assets. We think you should give them a spank purely for staging such a pathetic break-up!
13.42% of ANZ 8.81% of CBA 11.46% of NAB 10.47% of WBC
We don’t know about you, but we certainly find it a little bit strange that they own less of themselves than they do of ANZ. This certainly deserves a “Please Explain!”
They’re also a major shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:
6.35% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 10.87% of Bank of Queensland.
NAB had a net profit of $4.2 billion for 2009. We read all about their wonderful year in their Financial Year Highlights
And Last but not Least,
Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited
Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited is listed as the number four shareholder for all of the Big Four Banks. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citi Group Inc. You might know them better as Citi BANK. Citi Group Inc only has the largest financial network in the world.
3.84% of ANZ 4.30% of CBA 4.57% of NAB 4.79% of WBC
In fact, they’re a major shareholder in a few other Australian banks. They also own:
2.13% of Bendigo and Adelaide Bank and 2.57% of Bank of Queensland.
Citigroup Inc. (branded Citi) is a major American financial services company based in New York City. Citigroup was formed from one of the world’s largest mergers in history by combining the banking giant Citicorp and financial conglomerate Travelers Group on April 7, 1998. The company holds over 200 million customer accounts in more than 140 countries. It is a primary dealer in US Treasury securities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup accessed 21 Feb 2011
Citigroup suffered huge losses during the global financial crisis of 2008 and was rescued in November 2008 in a massive bailout by the U.S. government. Its largest shareholders include funds from the Middle East and Singapore. In the last two financial years, their core businesses, together known as Citicorp, were profitable with $10.6 billion and $14.8 billion in net income. http://www.citigroup.com/citi/fin/data/ar10c_en.pdf (2010) http://www.citigroup.com/citi/fin/data/ar09c_en.pdf (2009)
Now, many still think the RBA is a quasi governmental body and belongs to the people in Australia, IF these top four pillars have the freedom to create credit from nowhere, which affects the Australian Economy as a whole, who actually DOES the greater power belong to, the PUBLIC OR THE PRIVATE??? THINK ABOUT IT.
So, with that, you can see that Australia (just as much the UK and US and Canada and the west in fact) is wholly owned and controlled by the globalists
So, now, let’s turn to CHINA! (we got there eventually):
Here is the HKSCC Nominees. You would think it had its ownership and incorporation in Hong Kong wouldn’t you? But no, it is a FOREIGN LEGAL PERSON
And this is PRECISELY why the West HAD to get China to accept the “LEGAL PERSON”. To allow western interests to take hold of greater and greater holdings of China’s assets. So what happens when the Chinese build their exports to America and the west and, on our TV screens and in our newspapers, we are fed that this is “dangerous” and it is “bad for business” in the west and “We are so in debt to the chinese and it just gets larger and larger. Oh Wo is us!” Well, ever so quietly, our leaders are perfectly happy for western multinationals to go offshore and take our jobs with them because THEY are invested in not just the chinese banks (and a myriad of other banks, central and commercial) but also invested in the largest companies on earth wherever they may be. Oleg Deripaska’s “RUSAL” aluminium company, for example is the largest aluminium company on planet earth. Do you think it’s because of Oleg Deripaska? No, it’s because Peter Mandelson and George Osbourne – both “Ministers of the Crown” – support Deripaska with the advice that Nominee accounts such as HKSCC and BOEN etc, will invest in the company and build it up and make sure that European legislation and any other legislation is taken care of to ensure it becomes as large as it is BECAUSE they all, including the Queen and the City of London Bankers (Nat Rothschild for example) want their dividends at the expense of the public. It is the same for British Gas and British Nuclear fuels and the Oil companies who drill off our coast. That is why they don’t mind that our prices go up. That is why they don’t mind if everything is “offshored” to China and India and the Philippines etc. Because THEY OWN SUBSTANTIAL SHARES IN THE BANKS AND THE CORPORATIONS.
AND WHAT THEY WANT, IS TO TAP INTO APPROX 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE!
Now, flip back to the list of Banks which were mentioned re the City of London RMB China Bank agreement. Here’s one. Look at the second largest shareholder (and the third). Both of them “Foreign-owned legal persons”:
Now, here is another bank on that list:
Now take a look at this (and I promise there is a heap more), I just wish to keep this as succinct as possible (which, as you can see, it is not simply because, to understand this, it must be laid out as fully as possible):
OUR HEADS OF STATE AND OUR POLITICIANS AND SO CALLED PHILANTHROPISTS AND “TITANS” OF BUSINESS OWN MASSIVE HOLDINGS IN THE BANK OF CHINA AND ITS COMMERCIAL BANKS! BUT IT’S WORSE:
THEY OWN MASSIVE HOLDINGS IN CHINA’S BIGGEST COMPANIES. SOME OF WHICH ARE TOP TEN IN THE WORLD TODAY!
This is Petrochina’s annual report:
Then, just for one example. You have one of Her Majesty’s “Sirs” and a “Freeman of the City of London”
Sir. Malcolm Christopher McCarthy, also known as Callum, serves as the Chairman of European Operations at J.C. Flowers & Co. LLC. Sir. McCarthy served as the Chairman and Chief Executive of Gas and Electricity Markets. He served senior positions in BZW and Kleinwort Benson, as well Department for Trade and Industry, US. Sir. McCarthy’s early career was in the chemical industry, and in the DTI where he served several posts, including Principal Private Secretary to Roy Hattersley when he served as Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer protection. He served as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, US. He served as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Office for Gas and Electricity Markets. He joined Kent Reliance in 2010. He was Managing Director and Deputy Head of Corporate Finance at Barclays de Zoete Wedd, London. He also served as Director of Corporate Finance at Kleinwort Benson from 1985 to 1989. Sir. McCarthy served as the Managing Director and Deputy Head of Corporate Finance at Barclays’ investment banking arm BZW. From 1996 to 1998, he served as the Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Bank, North America and Barclays Bank, Japan from 1993 to 1996. He served as the Director-General, Chief Executive and Chairman at Gas regulator Ofgas. At Ofgem, Sir. McCarthy was responsible for the introduction of greater competition into the gas and electricity markets. He served as senior executive of Barclays PLC and Barclays Capital Services Limited. He serves as Chairman of London at Promontory Financial Group, LLC. He serves as the Chairman of the Board of Castle Trust. He served as the Co-Chairman at The Financial Conduct Authority (Financial Services Authority) from 2003 to 2008. He joined FSA in September 2003. Sir. McCarthy has been an Independent Director of IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc. since October 1, 2009. He has been an Independent Non-executive Director of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Indonesia) Co. Ltd. He has been an Independent Non Executive Director at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Macau) Limited. since December 2009. He has been an Independent Non Executive Director at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited since December 2009. He serves as a Trustee of Said Business School. He serves as Non-Executive Member of Treasury Board at Her Majesty’s Treasury. He serves as a Trustee of International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation. He serves as Member of Supervisory Board at Dutch MBS XVI B.V. He serves as Non-Executive Member of Treasury Board of HM Treasury. He serves as Non-Executive Director at OneSavings Bank Plc. He served as Independent Non-executive Director of Industrial and Commercial Bank Of China, London Ltd. since December 2009. He served as a Member of the Supervisory Board at NIBC Bank N.V. from January 25, 2011 to September 1, 2012. He served as a Director at Financial Services Authority. until September 19, 2008. Sir. McCarthy served as a Director of Bank of England from September 20, 2003 to September 19, 2008. He served as a Member of the Supervisory Board at NIBC Holding N.V from January 14, 2011 to September 01, 2012. He is an Honorary Fellow of Merton College, an Honorary Doctorate of the University of Stirling, and a Freeman of the City of London. He has an MA in History at Merton College of Oxford University, PhD in Economics of Stirling University, and MS in Business at Graduate School of Business of Stanford University.
He is the ONLY non Chinese member of the board of the Industrial Commercial Bank of China. Why?
Well it’s obvious. Here is precisely what is happening to us:
Our elite want access to China’s 1.5 billion people as a market. China’s elite say “Why do we want to give you that?”. Our elite say “Hey it’s simple Chin Chong! You give us access to your market and we’ll give you access to ours. You’re a bit behind with technology and know how so we’ll invest in your corporations and bring you up to speed. To enable that however, we need you to amend the way you interpret law. We need something called the legal person so that we are both talking the same language so to speak and so that we can “integrate”. Then while you get access to the west as a market, we can benefit from offshoring our jobs to you – you, therefore employing more of your people, increasing your GDP and making a packet. We, on the other hand, benefit from the lower wage costs and make UBER profits and dividends from our multinationals. we’ll ensure there is less competition for your goods and our chinese manufactured goods by destroying our own indigenous small and medium sized businesses and we’ll do that through our taxation system. YOU win, WE win, our people’s don’t win but hey! THAT is “globalism”. You want to maintain your power and so do we. Now, about Malaysia, We’ve both got a problem there because YOU will benefit greatly from being a powerhouse within a Trans-pacific partnership and so will we BUT these little Malaysian bastards are not playing ball! Capice? Now if we rattle them and destabilise their government, we might just get one which sees things our way. Now I know Malaysia has a “look est” policy but you could say we’re helping them to focus on their look east policy in a way because you, as their major trading partner, want the TPPA and better access to the South East Asian markets just as we do. There’s another good half a billion people at least in that area you know? So what if you, China, got very upset with your Asian neighbour over something? Oh, I don’t know, a plane disappearance perhaps with the majority of those onboard being chinese?”
Get the picture?
It’s long but it truly is worth the read.
I hope you get as much a laugh out of this as I did. Well I laughed and I cried to be honest. These people are despicable, lying, deceptive bastards and it’s so clear. Corbyn, Dalyell and, yes, even Salmond know the score regarding Diego Garcia but the Crown Agents (because that is what you become when you take the seat of government – you wear two hats – Government Minister and Crown Minister) lie and evade and deceive through their teeth.
You will see, quite clearly, how the British Government (yes mine and yours) treated the Chagossians (Diego Garcia and the other island’s population). You’ll see how it just needs the UK and the US to agree a treaty and the UK buy up the land (probably at “gunpoint”) from Mauritius for a paltry £3M and then we kick out people who have lived there all their lives and then see how they fare in a land they don’t want and which doesn’t want them.
You will also pick up that Diego Garcia is also a nuclear base. Also you’ll note that the British government (Crown) just accepts whatever the Americans tell them and don’t question – because it’s not in her Majesty’s interests to question. So if the Americans simply say “We didn’t take prisoners to Diego Garcia” that’s good enough for us. Plus you will notice that DG is out of bounds for anyone but Forces personnel.
Following from that, you will recognise how Diego Garcia does not fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court – because it has no settled population! Well, it did, but they were thrown out so now it doesn’t. It just has forces. And the United States DOES NOT WANT to have a settled population because THEN it WOULD come under the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction!
Do you see how, at every turn, International law is a crock of shit? Do you see how they evade it because they control what it means and what it applies to?
THAT is why we have to attack the legal system and the legal person – it is ALL a crock of utter shit!
But lastly, in among all of that, there is a wondrous beauty pointing to the global deception of what we have come to be expected to believe – Climate Change/Global Warming.
You will see there is no such thing. Either that or God has given Diego Garcia (of all places) a pass. Perhaps it’s Noah’s island?
Diego Garcia/Chagos Islands
HC Deb 21 June 2004 vol 422 cc1221-2W1221W
§Jeremy CorbynTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from the US concerning the depopulation of the civilian population of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands that lie within the British Indian Ocean Territories. 
§Mr. RammellThe US authorities have in the past made clear their concerns about the presence of a settled civilian population in the British Indian Ocean Territory. However, I have received no recent representations from them on the subject.
§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities exist on Diego Garcia for holding human beings against their will; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. StrawIn exercise of powers conferred on him by the Prisons Ordinance 1981 of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Commissioner for the Territory has declared certain specified premises in Diego Garcia to be a prison. This was done by orders made in February 1986 (which replaced an earlier order made in July 1982), July 1993 and December 2001. Under various provisions of the law of the Territory, persons may be arrested in execution of a warrant of arrest issued by a Court or a Magistrate, or in certain circumstances without such a warrant, and any person so arrested may then be detained in such a prison until he is brought before a Court or a Magistrate. Persons who are ordered by a Court or a Magistrate to be remanded in custody or committed to prison are detained in such a prison as also, of course, are persons who are sentenced by a Court to imprisonment following their conviction of a criminal offence.
§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many detainees, and how many shipments of detainees, have passed through Diego Garcia, or the territorial waters off it, while in transit between other destinations; whether any detainees have been disembarked at Diego Garcia, and for how long; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. StrawThe United States authorities have repeatedly assured us that no detainees have at any time passed in transit through Diego Garcia or its territorial waters or have disembarked there and that the allegations to that effect are totally without foundation. The Government are satisfied that their assurances are correct.
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Mr. DalyellThe right hon. Gentleman has used the words “overwhelming force” three times already. Does “overwhelming force” include the use of B61–11s? Those are the earth-penetrating nuclear weapons which, we are told, are based in the British Indian ocean territory of Diego Garcia. If there is to be overwhelming force, and if it is to involve nuclear weapons, with the B2 bombers that are based in the hangars at Diego Garcia, ought not the House of Commons to be told about it?
§Mr. AncramThe force that will be required is that which is appropriate and most effective in achieving the objective. I am certainly not going to speculate at this stage on what that force will be. Indeed, at this particular stage we need to make it clear that the United Nations resolution is the first objective to be fulfilled: only if Saddam breaches that will we consider the second option.
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications he has received from the USA to construct new aircraft hangars on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. 
§Mr. Mike O’BrienThe issue of possible upgrades to facilities at Diego Garcia has been discussed at annual talks between the UK and US governments. The details of these governmental talks are confidential and exempt under section la of The Code of practice on Access to Government Information, “Information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence”.
British Indian Ocean Territory
§Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North (Lab)I welcome the opportunity to debate what I consider to be a very serious issue. It touches on honesty in politics and in government, and it touches on issues of constitution and law and the way in which a group of people have been grievously treated by this country and, to some extent, the United States for more than 40 years.
The people who lived for hundreds of years on the Chagos Islands were descendents of its first inhabitants who had been dropped off there as slaves and traders or had settled there. They lived a settled existence, fishing and producing copra, and they inhabited an idyllic and pristine environment. Their problem was their location—the Indian ocean. The United States was eyeing it up in the 1950s and 1960s as a potential base, and subsequently decided to build what they euphemistically called a “communications facility” on the island of Diego Garcia. The communications facility turned out to be two of the longest runways that the world had seen and a base from which 4,000 US troops could operate. The base is now routinely used for the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the United States ‘considers it to be a crucial communications facility.
Prime Minister Wilson and President Johnson discussed the matter in the 1960s and decided to do a deal and evacuate the population of Diego Garcia to make way for the American communications facility. The Americans insisted on the evacuation of not only Diego Garcia, but the entire archipelago, despite the fact that its other islands were some distance from the putative communications facility.
The language used by the then Colonial Office was outrageous beyond belief. Simon Winchester wrote a wonderful piece on the subject in Granta magazine in which he quoted the then permanent secretary in the Colonial Office who described the population inhabiting the islands as a group of “Man Fridays” and stated that it would be simple and easy enough to move them out of the way. The deal subsequently went through and, to make ready for the American base, the British authorities proceeded to remove people from the islands. However, it was never done openly.
Only two days ago outside the Foreign Office, I met a man who was part of a demonstration there. He told me that he had left the islands in 1966 and that he was not allowed to go back, as many others were not. When they went to Mauritius or the Seychelles—mainly Mauritius—for medical treatment or education, they suddenly found that they could not go back.
When the time came for the British to remove the population in earnest, they did so —putting them on a ship, taking them to Port Louis in Mauritius and simply dumping them on the quayside. When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) speaks, I am sure that he will describe the conditions that he saw when he went to Mauritius at the time. The people were dumped there in terrible destitution. To ensure that nothing was left on the islands, the British commissioner had the problem of what to do with the islanders’ domestic animals and pets. The dogs were rounded up 272WHand gassed, all the animals were killed and the islands were left empty and uninhabited to make way for the American base.
The poor islanders were forced to eke out an existence in terrible poverty in Mauritius and the Seychelles. Ignored by everybody, they managed to survive and they never gave up two things: first, the hope, determination and desperation for the right of return; and secondly, the hope that one day, somebody, somewhere would recognise the fundamental injustice of their treatment.
Time has moved on and it is 48 years since the original and disgraceful deal was done between Wilson and Johnson, but the injustice has not gone away. I visited Mauritius a couple of years ago to meet the Chagos islanders and to see the conditions in which they live. They are very poor indeed. We have to remember, and we should remember, that the compensation that they finally won, some 15 years after the original removal from the islands had begun, was mainly eaten up by debt collectors and land agents. No one was given sufficient compensation and no one was made rich or wealthy by the process. This has been the subject of a court case that is still going on, so I cannot comment on anything more than the original facts of the case. However, it seems that the islanders were cajoled into signing what they did not believe to be a full and final settlement, and were told to accept it as such. The injustice and the poverty go on.
When I was in Mauritius, I spent a week visiting as many Chagossian families as I could. I talked to them about their lives on the Chagos Islands, when they lived there, and their lives now. They described their sustainable form of living, the type of community, religion and schools that they had and their lives in general. It was fascinating to talk to them, but one could see the hurt in their eyes at the way that they were taken from the islands and dumped on the quayside at Port Louis. Many of those families still live in desperate poverty in metal huts with outside toilets and little furniture. Although the current Mauritius Government have been kinder to them than previous ones, they are still very poor people.
Those people, however, were always going to campaign for their hope of a right of return; they would never give up. Eventually, a case was lodged in the British legal system and, in a court order of 2000, they were granted the right to return under British immigration law. It was ruled that they had the right of return. The following year, a further step forward was taken when theBritish Overseas Territories Bill was introduced in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I raised the question of the eligibility of the Chagos islanders for British citizenship, on the basis that they would be entitled to British citizenship like everyone else in overseas territories had they not been removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory. To their credit, the Government accepted the thrust of our argument, and a Government amendment was tabled and accepted in Committee. Therefore, the islanders were given the right to British citizenship. There is, unfortunately, a grey area in which I hope ministerial discretion will be used to deal with the small number of those who have fallen outside the provisions of that law.
273WHThings looked quite good in 2000 and 2001, and a compensation claim was lodged to re-open the issue. In meetings we had at the Foreign Office with the Minister’s predecessor, Baroness Amos, on the right of return and the possibility of a visit, we thought that things were going very well. Indeed, in the Commons, Ministers have asserted two things. One is that there is a right to return, and the second is that there was no impediment to anyone going back at any time. Things were looking good, and we had hope, as did the islanders.
On 10 June this year, which everyone will remember as election day, staff at the Foreign Office were not out ensuring that people were voting. Instead, they were at the palace asking the Queen to sign an Order in Council. When I was told that an Order in Council had been signed, I misheard or misunderstood. I thought that it was a statutory instrument that I would be able to pray against, as I assumed other hon. Members would, so that decisions made by Ministers would be subject to some form of democratic accountability. I had to reconsider, and I spoke to Sheridans’ Richard Gifford, the excellent solicitor who has represented the Chagossians for many years. He calmly explained to me that I had misunderstood, and that an Order in Council signed by her Majesty was law. It overrides everything in which we believe about the democratic accountability of the Government.
There are two orders: one is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order and the second is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Immigration) Order. I shall just quote a little of one, to give the Chamber a flavour of it:Subject to the provisions of this Order, the Commissionerappointed under the constitution order—may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory”.The order then goes on to declare,without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)”,that the commissioner in effect becomes the supreme Governor of everything in the territory. The order says:All laws made by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) shall be published in the Gazette in such manner as the Commissioner may direct. Every law made by the Commissioner under subsection (1) shall come into force on the date on which it is published”.We have handed power over to a commissioner. Never mind the fact that there were islanders living there and that several thousand people until that point had every right to live there; apparently, they now have no rights whatever. So much for the constitution order.
The immigration order was the second one passed, and I shall quote just two of its sections. Article 7 says:An immigration officer, acting in his entire discretion, may issue or renew a permit or may cancel a permit before the expiration, subject to the right of appeal provided in section 10.That is for people who wish to visit the Chagos Islands. Article 10 says:A person aggrieved by any decision of an immigration officer may appeal to the Commissioner, whose decision shall be final and conclusive.274WHSo the only person to whom one can appeal if one does not agree with a decision to prevent Chagos islanders going to their own islands is a commissioner appointed specifically to control the Chagos Islands in every way for evermore.
The Minister made a written statement to the House on 10 June, although frankly it should have been an oral statement and made at a time when he could have been cross-questioned about it. At least, however, we are debating the subject here in Westminster Hall today. His statement said:Following the departure of the Chagossians in the late 60s and early 70s, the economic conditions and infrastructure that had supported the community of plantation workers ceased to exist. While the judicial review proceedings were still pending, the Government therefore commissioned a feasibility study by independent experts to examine and report on the prospects for re-establishing a viable community”.—[Official Report, 10 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 33WS.]I have some comments to make on that. The Chagossians did not depart from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s; they were rounded up, taken away and thrown off the islands. Let us not beat about the bush: that was a disgraceful, immoral act. It is time that a Minister stood up and apologised for that act committed by the Government of the time and for the treatment of the Chagos islanders by succeeding Governments.
I was kindly given the three volumes of the feasibility study by the Foreign Office when it came out in November 2000, and it said that there were problems with water supply, periodic flooding, storms, seismic activity and so on, as the Minister points out. However, it did not say that no one could live there or that life was impossible on the islands. When pressed on the matter, the Foreign Office retreats into arguments about the potential cost of resettling the Chagos islanders. I have two points on that. First, they have a moral right to return. Secondly, would any Minister stand up in the House and say that the cost of keeping the population on Pitcairn, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha or the Falkland Islands was such that we were going to withdraw the entire population? They would not dare.
§Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab)My hon. Friend mentioned the Falkland Islands. Has he made any comparisons between the costs that he is talking about and the amount of money spent on defending the Falkland islanders when the Argentines invaded?
§Jeremy CorbynIndeed, the costs are on two completely different scales. The costs involved in administering the Chagos Islands are very small. At the current time, all the income from fishing licences—about £50,000 a year—is taken up by administration, and other money is paid to continue that administration. Were the islands to be resettled, however, and were there to be serious discussions with the islanders about resettling them, there would be an economy on the islands. There is fishing there, and the possibility of ecotourism or copra. Quite a lot of activities could take place on the islands. However, I do not get the feeling that there is any wish, desire, hope or intention of going down that road. The whole desire is to put the issue to one side and forget about it. That is because of an American base on Diego Garcia, for 275WHwhich I suspect nothing is paid, and because the Americans have said that they do not want anyone anywhere near their base owing to security concerns.
I think that we have every right to ensure the settlement of the outer islands—at least—and that we have a right to know exactly what is happening on Diego Garcia, which is, under the terms of the colonial order, sovereign British territory. Are there any prisoners on Diego Garcia? Is it being used for the sort of vortex of American justice such as occurs in Guantanamo Bay? I am assured that it is not. I want to hear that assurance again today and it would be much better if there were an independent inspection of what is going on.
I will make only a couple more points because I want to make sure that other Members get a chance to speak. On Tuesday, a group of Chagos islanders went to the Foreign Office to demonstrate. They handed in a petition signed by a substantial number of Chagos islanders who are living in this country legally. The petition demands:
- “1. Restoration of our right of abode in the outer islands of the territory.
- 2. Restoration of our fundamental rights as British Overseas Territories Citizens.
- 3. The immediate payment of compensation.
- 4. The setting up of a pilot resettlement in the outer islands.
- 5. The setting up of a social survey in Mauritius and the Seychelles with recommendations to support the vulnerable group of our community.
- 6. The organising of a visit to the ancestral sites in the British Indian Ocean Territory for the Chagossians living in Mauritius, Seychelles and the UK”
—and, presumably, anywhere else in the world. It seems to me that that is a minimal demand. I had a response from the Minister today and I hope that he will be able to give us further positive news on the possibility of a visit and a return to it.
Mr. HopkinsIt strikes me that there is something of a parallel between what has happened to the Chagos islanders and the highland clearances in Scotland, when the rich and powerful drove the poor and weak from the land. That has scarred and informed Scottish politics ever since. Is it not significant that two of the three speakers here today are Scots?
§Mr. SalmondI am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because I was about to come to it. One of the first and better acts of the Scottish Parliament when it came back into existence on the mound was in a debate such as this when it apologised collectively for the historic injustice of the highland clearances. They were not the responsibility of any Scottish Parliament, but it was felt none the less by all parties in that Parliament that such an apology should be offered, and that was done by representatives of all the parties. I very much hope that the Minister will do exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggested and proffer some sort of apology to the few thousand Chagos islanders who deserve not just an apology but some sign that future action and policy will be different from that in the past.
The islanders won the High Court judgment in 2000, which was in the days of ethical foreign policy. I shared the hopes that were expressed earlier that at last something would be done to rectify the historical 278WHgrievance and injustice. I accepted, as I think did many islanders, that there was an American base of long standing on Diego Garcia and that it might not be possible for all the islands to be reinhabited. However, basic rights—such as the right to visit the graves of ancestors, to occupy the outer islands and to receive reasonable compensation, and the right of the duty of care that any Government and the Crown should have over these people—should have been respected as de minimis compensation for the wrongs and injustices of the past. In fact, none of that occurred, and instead the Government, in a sneaky, underhand way, passed two Orders in Council on European election day to prohibit debate, to remove what little rights had been won and to rectify loopholes in legislation that allowed the assertion of the human rights of the islanders and their descendants.
The analysis that the islands are no longer capable of sustaining occupation because of global warming must be pretty bad news for the American military base—perhaps the runway is about to disappear under water. I have an overwhelming feeling that if Mauritius could be persuaded to send just one gunboat to the outer islands to establish the Mauritian flag again in what is arguably its territory anyway, we would decide that the islands were worth reclaiming on behalf of the Crown and dispatch a taskforce to the Indian ocean.
Global warming is an interesting concept, because it conflicts rather dramatically with what is on the US navy website. In a welcoming introduction to “The Footprint of Freedom” and Camp Justice, Diego Garcia is described as a paradise on earth and it is said that one of the best stationings that any US serviceman can have is on Diego Garcia. The website states:Although it is a British Territory, there are fewer than 50 British personnel (or Brits as they are commonly known) on the island.The Minister had better explain how the Government claim to know better than many respectable outlets of the US press. The Washington Post, for example, claims that prisoners are held on Diego Garcia for “rendering” before being transferred to Camp X-Ray. How confident is the Foreign Office in the information that the US authorities have offered it on what is happening on Diego Garcia, given that the Prime Minister seems to be revising his previous confidence in judgments that he has made about the international situation? Ultimately, the Minister should accept the collective responsibility of this and previous Governments for what has been done to the islanders. An apology should be proffered, but above all there should be a change of approach and of policy by the Government, who should offer some justice and some compensation to the islanders.
It may be thought that because of indolence or lack of concern among most Members of Parliament—there are a few honourable exceptions, who are here today such an issue is of no great moment, but it is precisely such issues that are of great political moment, because no member of the public could hear and understand what has happened to the islanders without having an overwhelming sense of injustice. If the Government cannot rectify the wrongs of the past for these few thousand people, what hope is there for their having any moral compass on the great issues of the day? Unless the Government are prepared to act and rectify the wrongs of the past, they are, in a moral sense, every bit as homeless as the islanders of Diego Garcia.
Let none of us suppose that there is a complete lack of interest in this country on this issue. When the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had the opportunity to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I was in company in Scotland. However, I subsequently heard, not only in university circles but more widely, that it was an important question. Indeed, some people went so far as to observe that it was the most sensible question asked of the Prime Minister for some weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has inspired an important debate, but perhaps it comes 40 years too late. It was in 1964 that the Government began misdescribing the long-settled population as transitory workers in order to mislead the world into thinking that they had no obligations to that population. My clear recollection is that I raised the subject with the then Foreign Secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker. Frankly, having been defeated at Smethwick and about to be defeated at Leyton, his mind was on other things. A later Foreign Secretary was George Brown. When the general problem of the British Indian Ocean Territory was raised with him, he told me, in colourful language, to mind my own business. Perhaps I was not as tough then as subsequently, but George Brown was a formidable operator in his heyday. I raised the subject on the prompting of the late Sir Ashley Miles, the biological secretary of the Royal Society. It was his concern about the Indian ocean that first raised my acute interest.
Article 73 of the United Nations casts a “sacred trust” on a sovereign power to promote the welfare and advancement of the people, but the Government surreptitiously deported the islanders and misled the world about their status. At the United Nations on 16 November 1965, the British representative Mr. F.D.W. Brown, acting on the instructions of the Foreign Office, misdescribed the islands asuninhabited when my government first acquired them”,misdescribed the population aslabourers from Mauritius and Seychellesand misled the UN into stating that the new administrative arrangements had beenfreely worked out with the…elected representatives of the people concerned”.Instead, they bought the plantations, closed them down, forced the people to leave on boats, which incidentally were horribly overcrowded, and led them to exile, where they still remain. Their lives have been a tragedy of misery, poverty and despair, the only alleviation of which has been the heartfelt desire to return to their homeland, where their villages and ancestors lie.
In 1969, on my return from Australia, I stopped in Mauritius to stay the night with the former general secretary of the Labour party, Len Williams. Harold Wilson had wanted him out of Transport house and made him Governor-General of Mauritius. His wife Margaret Williams was a very intelligent and nice lady, and she decided that I should spend a morning with some Ilois people. It made a strong impression on me.
What is remarkable is that in the same speech by Mr. Brown representing the Foreign Office, he described the wishes of the Falkland islanders, whose 280WHrepresentatives were consulted. Here we return to a previous intervention and a proper comparison with the Falkland islanders, of whom Mr. Brown said:It has been suggested that this population is somehow irrelevant and that it has no claim to have its wishes taken into account …it would surely be fantastic to maintain that only indigenous inhabitants have any rights in the Country”.He then quoted Woodrow Wilson from 1918:Peoples and Provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were chattels or pawns in a game”.Within months, the Chagos Islands had been given to the United States and the destruction of the islanders’ homes and lives was soon to follow.
These days, we are all too familiar with conducting foreign policy on the basis of false or misleading facts. The historical record now revealed by the islanders’ legal struggle has after 30 years shown that a small and vulnerable population of British subjects can safely be written out of the history book on the pretext that they are not really a population at all. There is nothing new in deceiving the world while acting in breach of civilised standards of international and constitutional law. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North in his powerful speech.
When the islanders finally won their struggle to return in the High Court in November 2000, Lord Justice Laws stated:The people are to be governed, not removed.He also stated that the Immigration Ordinance 1971 was an “abject legal failure”, which hadno colour of lawful authority.That is not my view but that of a distinguished Law Lord.
We are supposed to have an ethical foreign policy. The then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), accepted the Court’s judgment and said:I have decided to accept the Court’s ruling and the Government will not be appealing.The work we are doing on the feasibility of resettlement of Ilois now takes on a new importance. We started feasibility work a year ago and are now well under way with phase two of the study.Furthermore, we will put in place a new immigration ordinance which allows Ilois to return to the outer islands while observing our treaty obligations.The Government has not defended what was done or said 30 years ago. As Lord Justice Laws recognised, we made no attempt to conceal the gravity of what happened”.History is repeating itself with the same moral turpitude. This time, given that the islanders had already been promised that the Government’s policy was to move towards their resettlement on the islands, the new banishment is a cruel change to what has already been offered. Moreover, the reasons given are again based on inaccurate and misleading information.
The Foreign Office press statement claimed that it was the feasibility study that prevented resettlement. I am glad that this Minister is replying to the debate, and I thank him for his personal courtesy in seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and me in the Foreign Office. He cited a conclusion, supposedly made by the consultants in their executive summary, that the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to 281WHbe prohibitive. However, that was not based on any work of the consultants, whose terms of reference precluded any consideration of cost. Even if he had read only the executive summary, he would know from page 3 that the consultants reported:This report has not been tasked with investigating the financial costs and benefits of resettlements”.I feel entitled to ask where the conclusion came from. It was certainly not from the consultants.
The Minister further stated thathuman interference within the Atolls…is likely to exacerbate the stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effect of global warming.However, other things might accelerate global warming.Thus”,he continued,resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time”.Again, that judgment was not based on the work of the consultants, who stated in volume 3, paragraph 8.3:At the present time it is not possible to quantify the risk associated with climate change for the Chagos Islands.The Minister’s conclusion had crept in from somewhere else.
Finally, it is impossible to take seriously the suggestion that only a resettled population will face difficulties. Are we really to believe that the 64 islands offered back to the islanders by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, are going to sink under the waves, while the one island occupied by the Americans is to provide defence facilities for generations to come? It is the biggest military base outside the continental United States.
Only yesterday, in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Sedley referred to the shameful treatment to which the islanders were subjected:The deliberate misinterpretation of Ilois history and status, designed to deflect any investigation by the United Nations, the use of legal powers designed for the governance of the islands for the illicit purpose of depopulating them, the consequent uprooting of scores of families from the only way of life and means of subsistence that they knew, the failure to make anything like adequate provision for their resettlement, all of this and more is now part of the historical record.Moreover, he went so far as to compare those removals with the highland clearances of the second quarter of the 19th century. He stated:Defence may have replaced agricultural improvement as the reason, but the pauperisation and the expulsion of the weak in the interests of the powerful is the same. It gives little to be proud of.Now there has been a cruel new blow to this mistreated population. Their hopes, which were raised by this Government, have been dashed. Nothing in this game of cat and mouse is any less culpable than the lies and inhumanity that characterised the removal of the population.
It is not, however, too late to render justice. The right of the islanders to return to their homeland should now be recognised, and proper scientific studies should be undertaken, with proper, independent input from respected scientists whose conclusions ought to be binding on the Government.
I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to the debate. I am relatively new to this subject, but when I read the press reports a few weeks ago I could not believe that the Government, whom I so strongly support, are taking this action. I know the Minister to be a good man, and I cannot believe that his sleep is not a little troubled due to these problems.
The test of any Government, or any man or woman, is how they deal wit h injustices felt by powerless people. I urge the Minister to make a stand on this issue; if there are forces beyond his office, outside or within the Foreign Office, that are urging this course of action, I urge him to take a stand. I have looked at the press release—that is all we can go on as to the reasons why we are taking this action. I could see four: the risk of flooding; the precarious nature of life for any people who return; the effect on the delicate marine and terrestrial life caused by people who return; and the cost.
With regard to the risk of flooding, I have consulted one or two experts on the level of the land there, and a lot of it is higher than that in East Anglia. We know about flooding in my constituency of Selby, and if we accepted the argument on flooding that the Government are using, half of my constituency would be depopulated. Some outlying islands were inhabited in the past, and some were based on banks that were shifting in storms. There were tall copra trees on the islands and the inhabitants had worked out a mode of living—growing copra successfully, and in some cases raising huts on stills. The argument does not seem overwhelming to me.
We have talked about the precarious nature of the life that would face any islanders who returned to the outer islands. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was rather restrained and understated in quoting the American publicity about the islands. I shall detain the Chamber for a moment to give a little more flavour of what the US navy says about Diego Garcia in its message to its recruits. It says that Diego Garcia boastsunbelievable recreational facilities and exquisite natural beautyas well as “outstanding” living conditions. There is no mention of the threat of imminent demise from flooding. In fact, I understand that the US is seeking to extend the lease on its base, which would expire in 2016, so it is thinking long term. There is a windsurfers club, a yacht club, an annual Miss Diego Garcia competition, regular picnics to what the US describes as some of the best unspoiled beaches in the world, fishing, snorkelling and a beauty parlour. It does not sound that precarious to me.
As for the delicate marine and terrestrial life, the impact of the 1,500 US personnel, the British personnel, the 2,000 civilian contractors and the various military equipment must be at least as worrying, if it is the major concern, as the effect of some islanders returning to the outer islands.
The cost of returning is obviously a serious matter. From a preliminary scan of the literature, it is very difficult to work out whether any payment has ever been made by the US Government for the use of the island.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate and on setting out in stark terms a dark chapter in our history and the impact it has had on the Chagos islanders. Other Members have dwelt at length on the history of what has happened, but I want to focus on the immediate past, the present and the future.
On resettlement, the Government statement of 15 June, which banned all rights of return of the Chagos people to their homeland, relied in part for its justification on the findings of the June 2002 feasibility study on the resettlement of the islands. Several hon. Members have referred to that and I want to highlight a couple of points.
That report concluded that the resettlement of the islanders would be prohibitively expensive and precarious to their safety. The Minister will be aware that Jonathan Jenness, who is a resettlement expert, carried out an independent review of that study. He examined the claims that the Government-inspired report made and it is clear that the Government’s consultants were not given the task of assessing the financial costs and benefits of resettlement. The Department for International Development has not carried out, or received, any estimate of costs of the resettlement of the islands. I would be interested to know whether any Department has such figures.
On the safety of the environment, the review conducted by Mr. Jenness found that the Chagos Islands have a “benign environment” and that no available material can assess the possible consequences of global warming. As several hon. Members have pointed out, the Minister must explain why a micro 284WHclimate exists in Diego Garcia, which ensures that it is safe from global warming, whereas the rest of the islands are under threat.
On resettlement in general, the review of the study—undertaken by Mr. Jenness—says thatit is fatuous to imagine that the islands cannot be resettled…they were settled, successfully for several generations”.Of course, Diego Garcia is successfully settled by the Americans and the BIOT administration. What assessment have the Government conducted of the review by Jonathan Jenness? Can they make any such assessment public, so that we can see how they responded to the valid points he made? I hope the Minister can say whether any discussions took place between the UK and the US Governments on these matters in the run-up to the decision that was taken on 15 June?
On compensation, to which other hon. Members have referred, it is clear that the level provided was insufficient and that when the Chagos islanders entered into the arrangement that we are discussing it was not made clear to them precisely what they were signing up to.
On visitation rights, the Minister must say why the security concerns are so great that people are not, for instance, allowed to return to visit graves. Before I turn to the issue of Camp Justice, I will discuss the report in today’s papers that Mauritius may sue for Diego Garcia. Perhaps he can say also what discussions have taken place with the Mauritian Prime Minister on that subject. How many times has the UK been taken to the International Court of Justice—that is what is being proposed? Has the Prime Minister replied to Mr. Berenger’s letter? I understand that he is very angry not to have received a response. Can we have assurances from the Minister that the Government will not retaliate and perhaps take it out on the Mauritian Government in relation to subsidies that they receive for sugar?
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Mr. Tam Dalyell(Linlithgow)I echo what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said about the affront to democracy. I shall set an example by making a speech which is much shorter than 10 minutes. It is in the form of a question, and it is apposite that a Minister from the Ministry of Defence should be answering this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I have been much involved in the case of the Chagos islanders. Their lawyers told us of a problem with the Ilois returning to Diego Garcia because of the building of six huge temperature-controlled hangars. We were asked what we would do to protest to the Government about that. We asked what the hangars were for. Apparently they are for B52 bombers and, particularly, B2 bombers that have to be repaired and maintained in a particular temperature. Why does one have B2 bombers? It is particularly to carry earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, specifically the B61–11.
My question, which I hope will be addressed in the reply, is this: we are talking about a British base, the British Indian Ocean Territory, of which Diego Garcia is a part and which is a House of Commons responsibility. The House of Commons should be told if nuclear weapons, albeit tactical, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy bunkers—one can understand why the American air force may wish to have this particular weapon in relation to Iraq—are to be launched from British soil, with or without agreement by the United States air force. We should be told in the winding-up speech tonight.
First, the issue is not about human rights in Iraq. The Foreign Secretary made great play of them and the dossier covers them. We need no persuading that Saddam Hussein’s regime is about the most evil in the world today. It has committed atrocities on a scale unseen almost anywhere else, but that does not justify armed intervention 52in Iraq. If I may say so, it is something of a red herring. The debate is about something wider, more important and of greater application to the world outside Iraq.
Secondly, there can be no controversy about the evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed, and is continuing to develop apace, weapons of mass destruction. The dossier, which puts forward the evidence in a calm and measured way, makes the case conclusively. Surely that can no longer be a matter of dispute.
Thirdly, does Saddam having and developing such weapons amount to a threat sufficient in immediacy and gravity to justify armed military intervention, even as a last resort? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said in a powerful, lucid and cogent speech—I am afraid that I did not agree with much of it—the threat issue is a matter of judgment. Everyone has to make their judgment about the gravity and immediacy of that threat.
We must look at other countries that have developed weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, and ask ourselves what it is that distinguishes Iraq from, for example, India, Pakistan or even Iran. The answer is that there is clear evidence from the history of the Saddam Hussein regime that it is fundamentally an aggressive regime. He has developed these weapons, not as an instrument of deterrence to deter attacks on Iraq, but as weapons of aggression. In the past 20 years, the regime has twice invaded its neighbours. On a number of occasions, it has launched ballistic missiles against neighbouring states. It is not a regime under external threat that has developed these weapons to create a mutual deterrence, as is the case with India and Pakistan—regrettably, perhaps, but one can understand the reason for them doing so. Those considerations do not apply to Iraq.
In my judgment, this threat is clear, serious and present enough to justify decisive intervention by the international community in whatever shape that takes to enforce a disarmament of the regime.
My fourth point is about the threat to the stability of the middle east and was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend and others. We should be very clear about this: the greatest threat to the stability of the middle east is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Quite apart from the actual attacks that he has mounted against his neighbours in the past 20 years, the fact that he consistently sponsors suicide attacks by Palestinians helps to prevent the peace process that we all yearn to be restarted from resuming. It is hard to see how the successful disarming and removal of Saddam Hussein can do anything other than contribute to the stability of the middle east.
Of course, the same concerns were expressed before the Gulf war, 12 years ago, but in fact the successful conclusion of the Gulf war was the trigger for the start of the Oslo process—
Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
My Lords, first, I thank both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given the Statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we particularly welcome the context in which he started his comments. However, I think it is only fair to say that none of us envisaged the possibility of two armed aeroplanes being flown into buildings in the way that occurred on 11 September. That was a dramatic shock to the international community……
In relation to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about whether there are people being kept at Diego Garcia and elsewhere, the US has confirmed to us that there are no such detainees. Of course, we rely on that assurance.
12.46 Intriguing new line from The Malay Mail Online.
Police scouring Capt Shah’s flight simulator – which he installed in his home – have found five Indian Ocean practice runways.
One is in the Maldives.
One is on Diego Garcia.
The other three are in India and Sri Lanka.
So, not such a crazy idea after all. We have the Anwar/Globalist issue. Anwar now coming out to admit he’s related to the pilot. We know why the west wants to destabilise Malaysia and we know the CIA are active in Malaysia and have been for some time. We also know the Council on Foreign Relations is happy with Anwar and the west definitely want him as their man in Malaysia.
We know it is highly unlikely that this plane could have travelled across multiple territories such as the northern arc suggests without being spotted. The southern arc leads to nowhere. So what’s left?
Why fly over Maldives instead of direct to Diego Garcia? Well it makes sense to me. You see, by doing so (if, in fact it did) it would give the possibility of being spotted by the Maldives. It would then suggest that the plane was heading to Africa. The straight line between Maldives and Africa suggests the flight is heading toward…..
And we all know who live in Somalia don’t we? It’s full of pirates and Al Qaeda! 🙂 So we’re told by our wonderful media programming on behalf of our governments.
So then what do we expect next? Well, what I expect is for Israel to start screaming! “Oy vey! Oy Vey! They have a plane now in Somalia loaded up with nuclear bombs. The Iranians are in on it! We need to destroy Iran before they use it. They’re going to wipe out Jerusalem and the Temple Mount! Oy vey! Oy vey! The International community must now attack Iran and Somalia and destroy half the middle east so we, god’s people, can continue to live on this planet, in peace and suck the life out of every last living human creature with our monetary system!”
Ok perhaps I’ve slightly overdone what the Israeli’s might say and demand but have I? They’re fricking “religious” (yet atheist?!) nutters! And they’re desperate for a war!
So much absolute crap in all of this I wouldn’t know where to start.
I might get around to it at some point though. Just right at this minute, I’ve got better things to do and this guy’s crap is too much to take. Who’s going to play him in Hollywood’s “David Icke: Life and times of a charlatan”? – an autobiographical movie directed by George Lucas with masses of special effects otherwise it would bore you to tears! Because it’s gonna need one hell of an actor to beat what you see on these vids.
The elite will recognise that we’re not willing to DO anything but talk David? What the HELL is TPV? You slag off people for talking about it but DOING nothing? That is exactly what TPV is doing! TALKING! As for the action of getting off their arses and separating their arse from their sofa. That’s not what you want at all. You just want them to separate their money from their bank account (that’s the ONLY action you want) and then sit on their sofa watching TPV. You’re full of it man. Full of it and transparent as hell.
The elite will recognise we’re not willing to DO anything to resist? Yeah sure they will. The VERY MAN SAYING THIS didn’t even resist OFCOM! It just amazes me the shit you get away with emanating from that hole in your head mate!
“My health – I’m dying” – emotional blackmail
“If you don’t gimme your money then you don’t want (or deserve) freedom” – emotional blackmail
And you have the audacity to come across as if YOU are the only shepherd to lead the flock. Incredible arrogance man. You couldn’t lead a coup David! You couldn’t lead a coo oot of a shed!
While not one of your numbskulls noticed the massive contradiction between your statements and Richie Allen’s. You going on about TPV imminently going off air – IMMINENTLY mind! And what does Richie say right afterward? “I’m pretty certain that the People’s Voice will endure and we will survive and carry on….”
Yes Richie and so am I and always have been – look back at the blogs and you will see it stated. While I also mentioned (in text over a week ago) to a number of people, that TPV’s donations would start ramping up due to “anonymous” contributions coming in suddenly of significant amounts. Et voila! That’s precisely what is happening. 😉
Some people aren’t that stupid guys. We really aren’t. But then that’s what you hate isn’t it? To paraphrase George Carlin: “They want you ‘awake’ enough to see how you’re getting shafted but still dumb enough to not see how you’re getting shafted by others.”
Oh yes folks, TPV will endure. You can be certain of that and Davey Dyke can take it to the bank! But let me tell you this: Even IF they went off air for a while (or for good) it wouldn’t be because of a lack of funding even if you all stopped. What am I saying? They’re off the air nearly everyday anyhow with all that fantastic equipment they bought with your money.
By the way David, Ian Kelly wants to know where the £10K went which was paid to David Icke Books Ltd for TPV rather than sent through the Indiegogo site? Is THAT the money you don’t account for in the “financial report” you provided your followers (there’s no accounting showing ANY donations in that table Davey) and is it then the money you say you put into TPV “out of my own pocket”? I’d guess it probably is!
Jesus what a circus. What a joke. But there will always be those who want to pay for their enslavement thinking they are going to be given their freedom.
Just like the tray which is passed around in church and just like the televangelists offering you heaven. Some people just never learn.
Sad. Very very sad.
On today’s “show” with Richie Allen explaining the transparency situation (or total lack thereof, while you are then going to have a TPV employee provide the “evidence” of the ins and outs – while there is no legal requirement for her to do that so, even if bullshit, there’s no legal implications because it is not what TPV are producing for the authorities – but let’s ignore all that) you mentioned David, that you have nothing to do with TPV and are not a Director. But why did you start off as one and then remove yourself when it got “hot” with OFCOM? 😉 However, again that is an aside – there are SO many issues David and your little faked display of emotion and being attacked from the outside by people who don’t want the info out there (What info? I’ll give Sonia this – but not much – she was the hardest hitting person in there and while she has an ego and while she is a bit on the bolshy and feminist side (as I read her), she was, of all you, the most outspoken and ready to take anyone on – she has 100x more “balls than you do Icke, I’ll give her that) was just that, a “show”. You’re damned lucky you have an audience who can’t read fake a mile off. But then when they believe in reptilians what does one expect? Seriously!
But here’s the question David: You’re no longer a Director, the little “slag, fish and christian cunts and f*** off bitch” Sean is (incredible how so called people believing in love, light and infinite consciousness can totally ignore this little sleaze bag’s language just because he’s your bum chum. I mean people are actually throwing money at a guy who is blatantly coming out with this stuff)
BUT WHO IS THE SINGLE (or dual?) SHAREHOLDER(S) IN THE PEOPLE’S VOICE PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED?
You see David? You WERE a Director but in your explanation today, you weren’t forthcoming with that information and, therefore, did not explain why you were and are not now? While you dropped the Directorship precisely on 23rd October 2012 when you applied for the OFCOM licence. Every piece of info you have provided your audience, every shred of “transparency” has not come without it being dragged and ripped out of you. Just like the £20K. You don’t offer info, you begrudgingly give it when the shouts get too loud. Even then, you don’t give the full story. You leave little bits out (which really are not little at all). People can read you like a book Icke. Not your core cult of course, but everyone else. I never laughed at you at Wogan because I hadn’t even heard of you until around 2008/2009. I laugh at the gullibility of your audience but I don’t laugh at you (well perhaps a little I have to admit) I recognise you for what you are and one doesn’t laugh at conmen.
Now what about that question that you really do keep avoiding David about the shareholding:
Now please let’s not play games and silly buggers David. I realise there are many people out there who wouldn’t know the first thing about how shareholding works but I’m not one of them. The business has share capital. The business must have people who own that share capital. They are called “shareholders”. And please don’t go down the route of saying “Ok, yes they hold £10 of share capital, big deal” because you know it’s a big deal David. The PEOPLE would like to know simply who owns that £10 (whatever it is) worth of share capital. Why is this so difficult for you David? Isn’t this precisely the hidden tactics the very people who control the world’s corporations use? Yes, I do believe it is. But you’re not one of them are you David? You’re MISTER TRANSPARENCY!
Is it, perchance, the same shareholder of David Icke Books Ltd (of which you are neither a Director any longer – so then it’s obvious one does not need to be a Director to be in control and making the money – precisely the issue which arises when people say the Rothschilds are not directors of this that or the other Corporation or Bank then isn’t it?). David, tell me, do you think all the people who know of you or have read some of your stuff are that dumb man? Could it be that a conversation I had personally with Sean in the early days and the competence shown in the very short time I could stand your bullshit and your team’s bullshit, was just not the kind of competence you were looking for and you thought ‘maybe just a little too switched on for our liking’? Go for it son if you want to – take every swipe you want Davey.
Just tell the people. Show them the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Incorporation of the Private Limited Company by shares and show them who owns those shares (par value £10? maybe?) Just show them who owns them!
I KNOW you don’t need to make any income from the company David. How long has Sean worked for you now while only now, as you say, he is working elsewhere too to make ends meet. What about the years before that while working for you? You’re telling your audience that you paid him for work on the David Icke website and the moderation job (and “Guardian of all that is Icke” – what is he? Your illegitimate son? Your bum chum? He’s not that bright David so tell me, what is he? What’s he got on you?) but you’re not paying him now? He’s spent years with you now Davey. What has he lived on? Yet you’re telling the world that, while he is the star of it all and worked his little ass off (mein kampf? No yours babes) on TPV, it is only now he can’t afford to feed himself and yet he is the sole director of the entire company?
There’s a saying by the Scots David (while I am an earthling and only an earthling. I thought you’d understand that of all people?): “I wasn’t brought up the Clyde on a scooter!”
So by all means, you show the “ins and outs” all well massaged Davey (why don’t you have Ernst & Young do them for you? lol) but give your cult ONE more fundamental piece of information: WHO IS/ARE THE SHAREHOLDERS OF TPV PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY?
Now, for anyone who is interested:
The People’s Voice has no subsidiary companies (it is not a “parent” company of other companies which would then report their financials to the parent company) BUT – and this is ONLY a conjecture, I freely admit that – what IF TPV Limited IS a subsidiary company itself?
If that turned out to be the case then WHO is the parent company? The Parent company need not even be listed in the sense it could be an offshore “shelf company”. But do you believe that David Icke has handed entire control, directorship and shareholding to a little jerk like Sean ADL Tabatabai? Do you? Really? If you do Terry, I have a nice seafront bungalow you might like in Birmingham!
Look at the audit thresholds. TPV would be exempt. Far less than 50 employees (they want volunteers don’t they?) and gross assets £3.26M? With £20K spent on all that outdated Teddington equipment? Gross assets, once depreciation is taken into account will be pretty damned negligible). No “turnover” as such but your donations are actually considered income as would sponsorship and advertising money but it’s looking doubtful they would have a turnover of £6.5M a year and they only have to meet two out of the three criteria anyhow. IF it is a subsidiary that is…..
The Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts and Audit Exemptions and Change of Accounting Framework) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/2301) amends the Companies Act 2006 so that it aligns mandatory audit thresholds with accounting thresholds, exempts certain subsidiary companies from mandatory audit and dormant subsidiaries from preparing and filing accounts.
It also makes it easier for companies who currently use IFRS voluntarily to switch from IFRS to UK GAAP when preparing their accounts.
Date published: 6 September 2012
Effective date: accounting periods ending on or after 1 October 2012
Access the legislation The Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships(Accounts and Audit Exemptions and Change of Accounting Framework) Regulations 2012.
Audit thresholds for small companies have been aligned with accounting thresholds for small companies. Small companies will therefore be entitled to an exemption from mandatory audit if they meet two out of the three mandatory criteria:
- No more than 50 employees;
- No more than gross assets of £3.26 million;
- Less than £6.5 million in turnover.
Audit exemptions for subsidiaries
Subsidiaries will be exempted from mandatory audit if it fulfils all of the following conditions:
(a) its parent undertaking is established under the law of an EEA state;
(b) the company’s shareholders must unanimously agree to dispense with an audit in the financial year in question;
(c) the parent must give a statutory guarantee of all the outstanding liabilities to which the subsidiary is subject at the end of the financial year;
(d) the company must be included in the consolidated accounts drawn up by the parent undertaking, which must be prepared in accordance with Directive 83/349/EEC (the Seventh Company Law Directive);
(e) the use of the exemption by the subsidiary must be disclosed in the notes on the consolidated accounts drawn up by the parent;
(f) the following documents must be filed by the directors of the subsidiary at Companies House on or before the date that they file the subsidiary’s accounts:
i. written notice of the agreement in (b);
ii. a statement by the parent that it guarantees the subsidiary company under the particular section of the Act;
iii. a copy of the consolidated report and accounts referred to in (d) and the auditor’s report on those accounts;
(g) the company is not quoted within s385(2) of the Companies Act (“the Act”;
(h) it is not an authorised insurance company, a banking company, an e-Money issuer, a MiFID investment firm or a UCITS management company, or carries on insurance market activity; and
(i) it is not a trade union or an employer’s association.
A further 67,000 dormant subsidiary companies will be exempted from the requirement to prepare and file accounts if they fulfil these conditions. An annual return will still be required to be filed at Companies House.
Dormant subsidiary companies will be exempted from the requirement to prepare and file accounts if they fulfil these conditions above. An annual return will still be required to be filed at Companies House.
But lastly, to repeat: £20K for the equipment. David in his “explanation” video says he put his own money into buying equipment. What was it David? £20K for the equipment we know about? Or £150 for an IPOD?
Not only does David Icke Books Limited have £104,000 cash at bank – I’ll repeat that: CASH AT BANK! but we also have a little known company which David is the sole director of, called “Lion’s Epoch” which has £83K CASH AT BANK!
Now, going back to school for a moment, that makes £187K CASH IN BANK for the companies David Icke owns/controls outwit TPV. IF he had spent £20K of that cash for the equipment needed (as he told you all it was really expensive stuff and he needed £100K then £300K when, strangely, he had £187K of his own money in the bank – and we’re not even looking at his own PERSONAL bank balances and investments), he would have been left with £167K CASH AT BANK! Still a handsome sum of cash don’t you think? If I had that sort of money and I truly believed in what I was doing and KNEW what I was doing, I would have sank my own £20K for the equipment – I’ve made far worse investments than that with £20K I can assure you but at least I learned from them. But he came to YOU saying how desperately they needed the £300K for, substantially, the equipment and boy did they keep driving the “tremendous cost” of equipment and the quality of it when – and please do not fall for this “we did not know there was £20K of equipment at Teddington until later” because, if you do, you’re simply an idiot and deserve being fleeced, sorry – he could have went to either of the company’s banks and withdrew it without sniffing (well that might be hard in David’s case I suppose).
“Adult and other education”???? I thought his books were meant to be educational? lol
So what could this be?
Ah! I know. It could be collaboration with Daryl Hall & John Oates…..