Earthlinggb's Blog

EPSTEIN’S DEAD MAN’S SWITCH

Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Paedophilia, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on August 16, 2019

I just can’t fathom these naysayers who continue to dismiss the possibility Epstein is alive and drone on and on about “Was it a suicide or was it a murder?” without giving a moment’s consideration to the third option. It makes you wonder how many alternative news sources are simply gatekeepers. I believe a lot!

That was not Epstein on that Gurney and here’s a simple and totally plausible reason why Epstein WOULD have a “dead Man’s Switch” and an ability to use it. If you don’t think he is totally hooked in to Israel and their Intelligence services while Israel continues to want control over the US congress and Senate (while it isn’t “Israel” on its own by the way, it is those who control/own Israel), then you’re just not willing to think.

From Virginia (Roberts) Guiffre’s 2015 sworn affidavit:

So not only “leniency” but even more: ESCAPE TROUBLE ALTOGETHER.

And why? Because all of that information on them still exists and the man wasn’t stupid!

“YOU PUT ME AWAY OR YOU ATTEMPT TO TAKE MY LIFE AND ALL OF THIS IS DUMPED FOR THE WORLD TO SEE”

And Netanyahu, Israel, the Rothschilds – perhaps even the Royal Family and the Vatican: All of them very happy to let the man live out the rest of his life quietly and, in the eyes of the public and the victims, “dead”. It then all disappears into the past like Jimmy Savile.

There is no honour among thieves BUT, just like the mafia families, they stick together when they, as a whole, are under threat – and they are.

Just found this today, Sunday 18th August. I concur with every word.

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD

Posted in Media, Money, Paedophilia, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on August 10, 2019

A “Dead Man’s Switch” is a backup plan in case of untimely death or incapacitation, used as a threat to protect the holder. If that person dies or fails to issue some form of communication within a set period of time, the plan goes into action automatically, making it in the interests of the threatening party to not harm that person. Provided, of course, that the threatening party knows about it.

In 2004, American librarians recoiled at the FBI’s demands to rummage through their patrons’ reading habits and use them to infer terroristic intent, and at the FBI’s gag orders preventing librarians from telling their patrons when the police had come snooping.

Jessamyn West, a radical librarian, conceived of a brilliant solution, a sign on the wall of her library reading “THE FBI HAS NOT BEEN HERE (watch very closely for the removal of this sign).” After all, she reasoned, if the law prohibited her from telling people that the FBI had been in, that wasn’t the same as her not not telling people the FBI hadn’t been in, right?

NOW, IF YOU THINK FOR ONE MOMENT, THAT JEFFREY EPSTEIN DID NOT HAVE HIS “DEAD MAN’S SWITCH” WHICH WOULD EXPOSE – IN DETAIL – EVERY LAST PAEDOPHILE HE KNEW OF (INCLUDING ANDREW) TO ENSURE HE REMAINED ALIVE, YOU ARE EXTREMELY NAIVE!

One thing about Stefan Molyneux: He’s a sucker for Mainstream news!

 

 

They’re not called “The synagogue of Satan” for nothing you know!

 

 

 

Don’t be SILLY! “They” can’t control the entire world!!

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Paedophilia, Politics by earthling on July 1, 2019

It’s now well over 10 years since I started talking about all of this. I’ve had to pay for it in various ways over that time. I have also had to take the bullshit of people dismissing it all and throwing accusations and have even landed in court due to it. I’ll land in court again if I have to.

That said, will I stick my neck out as far as I have in the past? I would if it meant anything to people (en masse) but it just seems the masses are accepting it.

Here is the CLEAREST (by far) video of part of the agenda AND a demonstration of how a man (and this stretches to ANYONE in any sector of public service including police, education, you name it) will go against what he knows to be true because “it is policy”. 1+1=3.

There is nothing to argue here. This is a man in sheer turmoil because he cannot argue what he doesn’t believe in. He is in between knowing the kid is right but knowing what acknowledgement of that would do to his career, and having to “lay down the ‘law'” purely from an authoritarian standpoint and he will take the latter route because the kid is easier to handle than the system.

How far does that go? How far would he go, depending upon the power bestowed to him, to shut the kid up? Step by step, anyone stepping out of line on “policy” and “law” WILL be dealt with more and more vigorously. And the world just says “Don’t rock the boat” just as this teacher is saying.

If you (the teacher in this scenario) just happen to stumble upon this blogpost – LOOK AT YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR AND ASK YOURSELF “WHO AND WHAT AM I?” I know what you are but you need to answer it for yourself.

It would not surprise me if this video is removed from Youtube at some point so I suggest, if you can, download it.

BUT PLEASE, FOR GOD’S SAKES, SHARE IT!

Brian Harvey: More shit surrounding the issue

Posted in Law, Media, Money, Paedophilia, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on May 3, 2019

Leah Betts eh? “Oh isn’t it an awful tragedy” said the worms in Westminster as they pushed to get their Parliamentary Bill through to crack down on ecstasy and the raves and clubs.

As is always the case, however, time and again and it will go on forever – that was bullshit.

Do you remember that video of Tim Fortescue? “They’ll do whatever we ask forevermore”?

Well keep an eye on this guy….

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/10/how-case-against-nigel-evans-fell-apart

And make sure to read the whole thing because, if you do carefully and think about it, it’s apparent that each of these young guys have been got at in one way or another – perhaps threats, perhaps money.

Think on this: Why would they have even agreed to stand in court in the first place – before their “oh it was nothing” stories – just to then all say they didn’t believe Nigel putting his hand down their pants etc was any sort of “sexual assault”.

In walks the equivalent of Tim Fortescue today (or handy men) to deal with the situation and Nigel is free. “Now Nigel, you do understand your freedom comes at a price don’t you?”. “Yes Chief Whip! Do you want a blow job?”

“BRIAN! DON’T YOU DARE THREATEN THE ALCOHOL INDUSTRY’S PROFITS!”

“HERE’S A TOAST TO LEAH BETTS!”

Brian Harvey: “I’ll make sure you never work again”

Posted in Media, Money, Music artists, Paedophilia, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on April 29, 2019

Why am I doing this?

Because I know a decent bloke when I see/hear one!

I was never an East 17 fan (though looking over what I’ve been having to research, I appreciate them more now) but what has drawn me to Brian’s story is the obvious. He was seriously screwed over. Also, I know when a guy is being 100% real.

I’d also add this: Brian does not have any mental issue whatsoever EXCEPT the strain (and depression which came with it) caused by a multitude of people who “made” off him and being thrown to the kerb by, essentially, not just the media and Tom Watkins but a UK Parliament (at least a small section of it) which needed a scapegoat and an entire country that just, like sheep, listen to what they’re told to believe and never question it.

My heart goes out to the guy. I picked up on the story no more than approx 6 months ago. It’s only the last few days that I have been doing a little “detective work” on it.

Yes, there’s Mazher Mahmood, Kemal Zorba (quite obviously a sting operation to set Brian up further – Zorba didn’t even turn up to court to testify and it’s obvious why – the phone transcripts were fiction and there were no recordings to back them up), Robert Kellaway (Sarah Arnold?… Interesting!), Conrad Brown, Glenn Mulcaire, Greg Miskiw etc. Then there’s the amateur twats like Puddick and Maloney. However, all of them and the hacking can be traced back to January 1997 when John Major made his statement in the House of Commons. WHY did he do that? Well, I think I’ve found a part of the answer.

However, this video is just an introduction to it. The follow up will put more “skin on the bones”.

Did Tom Watkins act out a personal vendetta on Brian? My opinion: Yes.

Why? My opinion: He resented Brian. Also, if Brian and John Hendy DID witness what is suggested, then the big, gay, fat bastard would definitely want Harvey destroyed. But then he’d have to ensure Brian remained destroyed.

How could Watkins get Brian’s name to be mud in Parliament? What did Parliament gain from it? Or WHO in Parliament had something to gain?

Is there a “Gay mafia”?

Honey, I shrunk my clit!

Posted in Paedophilia, Uncategorized by earthling on July 10, 2017

“Well thank god for that because I was convinced it was a penis!”

Unfortunately, it appears, more and more, there is a strong likelihood it is a penis!

“I thought this was a serious conspiracy blog Earthling?”

Well, it is folks but I’ve done years of posts – very long, in depth, serious posts – and what has it done? Diddly squat! They’re read, yes but, if you stop posting for any length of time, your audience disappears because it’s like a “hit” for them; a drug; they consistently need new stuff and it was never my intention to just be a poster of up to date “news” about what was happening around the world, in the news today and, like those that do (and create continuous youtubes like your “flat earthers” – and I have a lot to say about that too but no time to say it the way I’d like to) ask for “donations”. Never had, never will.

But, back to the point: You’ve just got to laugh at all that’s happening and it is only those with poorly performing synapses who cannot see it. So here is my point today and yes, I am a total “homophobe” so kiss my ass (knowing you, you’d probably like it). Oh and I guess because I am a homophobe, I’m “in the closet”.

So, I saw this today and my ire was raised because I could see quite plainly, not only the lying, deceptive POS who’s getting interviewed, but the interviewers who, you can see, are thinking “Who the F is this guy? What a bullshitting poof if ever I’ve heard one”.

Ariana Grande’s brother. OMFG what a CREEP! And where would he be without being the brother? It’s like Kardashians Part 2. Are these people being bedded, fertilized and grown in quiet greenhouses in the likes of California or are they being developed in pods ala “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”?

Now PULLEEEZ tell me you can recognise the pure fakery of this poof?

“Oh my goodness! I’m getting so emotional…umm…” he then stutters like mad, closes his eyes, looks down; can’t look at the camera as he tries to think how he answers this one.” As clear as Day is day and night is night – the poof is lying his gay little freakish head off.

“…Something that we’ll always do… yeah” then closing his eyes again and shaking his head while he internalises his completely shit reaction and answer to that one.

I get to be with you guys and get to.. hug you and be with everyone who comes to the show” smiling like the little freakish poof he is wanting the audience to say “aww what a nice little poof though eh? How could you not want to hug him. He’s like a fluffy tampon!” USING his obvious homo-ness to come across as cute while he wants to hug the world because he’s such a loving little poof.

“I fell in love with you and the UK and fell in love with all of you and seeing your resilience as a people was just incredible” – WHAT resilience you freak? Saying “We don’t care how many you kill, we’ll just keep brewing tea and posting little memes? ALL of that crap was stated to “endear” himself to his audience. These freaks KNOW how to “play” incompetent minded fools.

“Well it’s not in my mind… cos I believe that we can overcome all obstacles” (forget the deaths – not that I believe there were any: “The security guards wouldn’t let us use the exit.. they then shouted “Run!” and then the bomb went off”) – only a “starstruck” moron could not see the utter insincerity in this creep’s entire interview. “We’re gonna be alright, to quote Ariana Grande…” He quotes his sister as if she’s some philosophical giant! But, at the same time, he quotes her to LINK himself to her so that her fans will also “love” him! The mind manipulation in all of this is just fantastic (unless, that is, you can see right through it).

Then you have the big, over-exaggerated pointing “That’s it Susana, that’s it!” as he recognises he’s got away with another inane statement.

Susana then says “it hit your family hard…” and behind that freakish visage of his he’s saying “yeah yeah, get on with it. Let’s just promote my tour shall we?”

“You guys are SO strong.. thank you for being strong.. thank you!” WTF? HOW are “we” ‘so strong’? And why, exactly do you need to “thank” us for it? WTF ARE YOU ON ABOUT YOU LITTLE CREEP?

And then you have all the “Thank you’s” from Susana and him and HOW MANY TIMES does he take deep breaths and exhale exaggeratedly throughout this interview? He tries to make out (and so many will interpret it as such) that it’s his “emotional” attachment to the goings on in Manchester (which, as I say, was bullshit from start to finish), but the reality is, it is his real feeling behind it (i.e. nothing) that is pumping his adrenalin to get through this interview.

Finally, do you notice the absolute relief on his face when he realises it’s the end of the Manchester questions (and Susana’s ‘prodded’ points regarding how hard it must be for his family to have endured this – did he or Ariana die? No. However, what they got was massive media coverage and promotion out of it. No wonder he’s smiling). He can now smile and blow kisses and invite to the show and ask for all of his little poofy hugs.

Now, back to my point re the utter bullshit Manchester was.

Here are multiple screenshots of just ONE article covering the event. The utter tripe which is written within it, coming from, mainly, so called “eyewitnesses” just blows my little mind.

What a great quote eh? “People’s skin and blood were everywhere…. I’m still finding bits of God knows what in my hair”. After how long honey? Don’t shampoo often? Like an autograph you don’t wish to wash off your skin, I suppose you wanted a memento of the night huh? Just to say “Look! There’s a bit of dead flesh from last week!” – Absolute crap! Oh and “faeces” is yet to come!

 

Now we have the homeless geezer….

Perfect drama eh? “Tearfully described”; “cradled in his arms”; He even “pulled nails out of children’s faces” – Now, you give THAT a few moments thought. “Does not mean I haven’t got a heart and I’m not human still”. Oh dear god, I am dissolving in a pool of tears as I write this!

He’d like to think someone would help him if he needed it and lo and behold! After this what did he get? Oh the “Samaritanian drama” is intense isn’t it? Written to perfection to elicit the right response from the masses of gullible peasants. Why do we “spell” words? Because words are “spells”.

Now re-read that (and remember it as you read further down in this blog): “…centimetres in front of me”. CENTIMETRES! Does Mrs Mullen think that means a few hundred metres or something (“centi” meaning hundreds rather than hundredths” – it wouldn’t surprise me if so. There are a lot of not too bright individuals in this world after all).

“People’s skin, blood and FAECES were everywhere…”. I can just imagine her inspecting and sniffing. And how did faeces end up flying around exactly? Nails in people; Cuts from flying nails and bolts; but did people fly through the air and suddenly poop like pigeons? Is she saying that some people were torn apart in flight and that the contents of their bowels dropped on her head as they soared over her? How close were THESE people to the bomb? NANOMETERS? While she stayed entirely intact at centimetres? Must have been the weirdest bomb known to man that one! I have never read such trash in my life and what seriously annoys me further (as if these people’s “testimonies” were not enough) is that SO MANY swallow this shit (pardon the inadvertent pun).

“Steve” the homeless samaritan saw a little girl who had her legs entirely blown off but could tell him, quite matter of factly, that her dad was at work and her mum “up there”. Incredible really isn’t it? Ever had your legs blown off? Do you think you’d be conscious nevermind have your faculties fully in order? Amazing she never said “Can you pick up my legs for me? One’s over there and the other is hanging from that lighting fixture just above us”.

Remember 22 people dead, 119 injured. REMEMBER that!

Jane here was in the arena right? The bomb went off in the foyer AT ENTIRELY THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARENA AND NOT EVEN IN THE ARENA! But she saw a man (in the arena) carrying children (plural) in his arms. “Children were running for their lives. It was blood curdling” – but the blast was in the foyer!! “It seems the explosion happened at the front” – NO Jane! It didn’t even happen in the arena! Not only that, it happened at the BACK of the arena not the front! You didn’t get the memo did you? You just like the idea of being an eyewitness but have no bloody clue.

Where the explosion happened:

Gary and his wife were just 3 metres from the blast! REMEMBER THIS TOO!

A “49 year old mother” who asks not to be named (LOL) was ALSO just 3 metres from the blast! She “immediately knew it was a bomb” (well, well, you don’t say? I guess you’d have to know being 3 metres from it. In fact, kinda redundant to say you immediately knew because, if you were just 3 metres from it – YOU’D KNOW! But you wouldn’t have the presence of mind to say “Oh my! I think I’ve just been hit by a bomb blast!”). Now, 3 metres away (again) BUT “people closer to the explosion blocked the impact of the blast” and neither her nor her daughter had any issue with nails or bolts. Hmmm. REMEMBER – 3 metres!

“It was about 40ft behind us NEAR one of the exits” Not “through one of the exits. So David is saying the bomb was in the arena. Once more – total rubbish and ANOTHER “eyewitness” falls for talking shit.

“..there was an explosion behind us at the back of the arena…. we saw young girls with blood on them”. As an aside, she could clearly see through “lots of smoke” to determine this drivel. However, how/why would young girls be covered in blood IN the arena which she could see? The explosion happened OUTSIDE the arena in the bloody foyer! Further, according to people “centimetres” and 3 metres” away, they weren’t even injured by it! For god’s sakes world, wake the hell up would you? Can’t you recognise shit when you see it? Or only when you find it in your hair?

And lastly, the “piece de resistance”:

“Those men saved our lives” (I’m screaming with laughter here). Those men shouted “Run” BEFORE the explosion happened, you say. Have you never given it ONE moment’s thought “How did they know?” Have you never given it another moment’s thought as to why those men (who “saved” your lives) were blocking the exit? Remember, no-one is meant to have known that this explosion was going to happen so these security men were not blocking the door to stop you getting injured. Furthermore, however, if they were blocking the door, why did they allow people in JUST before the explosion (those who got injured and died from it allegedly)? Any and ALL those in the foyer (blocked by these security men) were placed there. These are your “crisis actors”.

Full bullshit story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4532374/Witnesses-tell-horror-Manchester-terrorist-attack.html

But here’s another thing (from the Telegraph): Our “Steve” the homeless geezer says the following –

Mr Parker, who has slept rough in the city for about a year, said he also tended to a woman aged in her 60s who was badly hurt from the bombing with serious leg and head injuries. He said: “She passed away in my arms. She was in her 60s and said she had been with her family.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/23/homeless-man-speaks-cradled-dying-woman-arms-manchester-attack/

However, not a single one of the 22 people reported dead were in their 60’s or anywhere near it and that woman has never been named as any of the other “dead”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/23/victims-manchester-terror-attack/

Now, you remember me saying “REMEMBER” during all of that above? The centimetres and the 3 metres? Ok, then here’s the point:

The circular area of a 3m radius is just over 28 square metres. In considering this explosion, keep in mind these graphics of crowd densities ( http://www.gkstill.com/Support/crowd-density/100sm/Density1.html ). Now, to be just “centimetres” or, let’s seriously consider 3 metres, away from the blast (which, of course, would be a 360 degree blast – ah, perhaps it’s from the “suicide bomber” himself that the faeces came from I suppose 🙂 ); To not be injured or touched by this blast “due to other people in the way”, there must have been a high (very high) density of people between you and the blast (remember nails and bolts as well). THEN, if YOU weren’t hit at 3m away, then HOW were 22 killed AND well over 100 people injured but you weren’t? That suggests that there was something like 150 people packed like lemmings in that 28 square meters around the bomber. People do NOT pack themselves like this particularly when moving! THINK about this – it does NOT add up! It suggests that there were literally hundreds of people in the foyer (hundreds, not just 1 or 2 hundred) at the time and that about 150 of them were packed like sardines, standing inside the 3m “event horizon”. It’s simply trash. All those injured and dead were within that “event horizon” and blocked you from being hit? Now, if the people were far more spread out and less dense than that, then it is highly unlikely that you would NOT have been hit since there would have been enough room/gaps for the 360 degree explosion of nails and bolts to have hit you.

I could go on about this for a long time but you get the picture (I hope).

So back to poofs, freaks and trannies:

Here’s why this is called “Honey I shrunk my clit!”:

It’s becoming more and more prevalent. Mentally sick people who actually require professional, psychological help, are being promoted and pushed in our face left, right and centre (and no, it is not just “the left” who are pushing and supporting this agenda). It’s even getting to the point where there is an attempt to “bully” (propagandise) straight men into accepting the potential to have a tranny male (shemale) “girlfriend” with a cock, a beard and accept it as the norm! If we don’t, we’re “homophobes” and “trannyphobes” etc and need to be re-educated (I’ll come on to re-education in a different way soon in another article). We – straight, heterosexual males – need to “overcome” our bias it seems and be tolerant and appreciate a tranny male freak’s sexuality as one we will consider (obviously based on other things like what their personality is like! lol A mentally insane guy with balls – or cut off and tucked in – but a “lovely sane personality”?). He might have a degree too! A “bright tranny” then. But it will be in “Sexual psychology” and his PhD thesis entitled “Trannies r us” got him his PhD as some marxist exam board and Professor thought it was excellent research. Then the professor goes home; puts on his wife’s bra and knickers and masturbates to photos of Caitlyn Jenner which none of us have ever seen, while singing “It’s raining men”.

Yet, while heterosexual men are demonised for not appreciating a bit of cock and hairy balls with lipstick and a “Toni and Guy” trimmed beard for a girlfriend, your homosexual neighbour isn’t castigated when he’s asked “What would you say to a bit of pussy eh?” and he replies “Yuck!” Isn’t that heterophobic or doesn’t he possess “anti vaginal” hate? No no no, Of course not!

If you can listen to this shite for more than a minute then you’re a better “thing?” than me! I say thing, after all, because I have no idea if you might be a “woman with a cock” or a “man with a vagina” PLUS, the woman with a cock might self identify as a lesbian woman with a cock and the man with the vagina might self identify as a gay, cockless, dick loving lesbian with straight tendencies”. Then again, you might be into hedgehogs rather than cocks, I dunno.

Timeout: We’re really meant to take all of this shit seriously! We are you know – MEANT to that is. The thing is, the enormous amount of effort “they” are putting into this “education” is focused at the young – the VERY young. Why? Because it is only then you can form the opinions of the new generation and ensure that, in a few decades to come, your new “norms” are entirely accepted. What “they” then do, along with the brainwashing of the young, is instil the idea (and this has gone on for decades generally) that parents and the older generations are biased and “not cool or hip” or whatever the preferred designation is now. We’ve seen this in the demonisation recently of the “old, white straight people” who voted for Brexit for example. “We” don’t have anything of any worth to pass down to our younger generations but, strangely, people like Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn – plus their friends in the establishment – do! How odd! The last time I looked at these people they were old, straight, white males and females. Who can tell what Jeremy gets up to at night though eh? Probably meets his Professor chum at the karaoke singing Gloria Gaynor songs while shagging the skeleton of Lord Greville Janner as David Cameron sits in the corner with a pig’s head begging for a bacon sandwich and a blow job!

As a quick aside: I used to live abroad and one night in a club, I got speaking to two girls (yes two!) and before I knew it, their little buddy wandered into the conversation. He was a little bum boy but a harmless little guy. At this time in my life I was ambivalent toward gaydom. However, I had to quickly put him straight (which would have been impossible in the strict sense of the word) and tell him I wasn’t interested (in him). The little bugger (or buggerer? No, he was the buggered I guess) wouldn’t let it go however. He did eventually though.

He happened to be new in town having just been sent over to work for a finance company and he was looking for a place to stay. Idiot here (me) decided to offer him one of the rooms in my newly acquired apartment and we agreed from the start that he would never bring one of his hairy ass loving chums along and that, if he wished to meet them, he’d do it at their place or elsewhere. This was my home and my rules after all right? He “totally understood” and so, for about 2 months I put up with the little bugger. During that time, he’d keep trying to “playfully” hit on me while he also kept asking if he could use my laptop. I let him and set up a new ID and he put in a password. He “wanted it to keep in touch with his family” until the company gave him one. Cut a long story short, I just happened to already have a program installed that could check keystrokes and hold all details of everything done on that laptop. I didn’t think of using it to pry on him until I sensed he wasn’t using it for family contact at all. It turned out he was going on something called “Gaydar” and contacting anybody that would give him that bit of popper powered cock he craved. However, not only that, but I also found out (through reading some of the stuff) that he was bad mouthing me saying “I can’t wait to get out of here. This guy I’m living with won’t let me ‘breathe’ so I’m leaving next friday”. The not letting him ‘breathe’ was nothing more than the agreement we had. He had every other freedom in the world in the apartment (and he bloody well used it). He had even started to go back on our agreement and he would have a guy (or guys) in his room occasionally. Now, added to this, he was also always overdue on his rent saying he wasn’t getting the pay he expected from his company but that he would make it up next month – that sort of thing. So, when I read he was leaving within a few days (oh, also I had asked him to give me two months notice if he was leaving, which he replied was no issue), I gathered up his entire belongings (holding a couple of things back which he would definitely want) and put them out on the stairway then called him up to tell him to pick them up asap. He turns up at the door with one of his “friends” and wonders what it’s all about. He has no clue I could read his mails etc. I didn’t tell him. I just said I knew he was leaving on the friday and he hadn’t told me. He probably still wonders to this day how I knew! I asked for the keys back and he wouldn’t give them so I showed him a couple of items he may yet want. He stated that they were his property and he had the right to the keys and would make a “big noise” about all of this if I didn’t give him his stuff and let him stay until he wished to leave. So then I showed him his poppers. The Police where we were wouldn’t be too keen to see them!

And that was the end of that. However the point of telling this story is that the VAST amount of outright lies – constructed stories – this little bum boy came out with while staying with me and the “drama” in which they were told (paralleling what we just saw from “Frankie” – Ariana Grande’s brother) was sickening. It was vomit inducing shit! And I could see right through it just as I can Frankie here. What I do NOT understand is the vast number of people who CAN’T see this for what it is.

These homos and trannies etc – while they all work so hard to be accepted and make friends – are among the biggest, lying bullshitters on the planet. Why? Because they have got so used to having to lie internally to themselves that they are ok with what they are (and remember a large percentage end up as suicides BECAUSE they can’t handle what they are or what they THINK they are) that they can lie, without an ounce of care or remorse, consistently to anyone and everyone. In that sense, they are very similar to a lot of women (yes a significant amount of women – perhaps not all) who cannot take responsibility for their lives and actions and are prone to immense “untruths” while expecting to be “white knighted”.

Your kids are being educated to accept all of this and they are being educated at very young ages. Furthermore, all of this is leading to (if you haven’t already seen it then you’re blind) having paedophilia being as accepted a sexual preference as homosexuality. The time is coming very soon that YOUR child just may be abused by a “woman” with a cock and beard and, at the trial (IF there IS one), “it” is going to be let off because of something fraudulently referred to as “human rights”.

Check out “Queer Kid Stuff” on youtube – for kids as young as 3 years old! THINK about it as you read the titles of the vids or watch them (god forbid). This one is all about teaching your 3 year old to understand “consent”. When you watch and listen, it all seems to make sense doesn’t it? It’s not suggesting anything sexual exactly, is it? But then that is what the whole channel is about: Sex and sexuality. And, as “she” says, subtly, “It’s good to share”. NOW, imagine if you have a 3 year old child who does not have the slightest clue what a penis or a vagina actually is nor does he/she have any conception of it being wrong for an adult to touch theirs. That child is with an adult it knows and/or trusts (he/she has no reason not to after all) and the adult says “Would you like to play a game?” – Of course you know where this is going don’t you? “It’s nice to share (and say yes to friends)”. And by that, you’re giving consent. Furthermore, if the “play” is not too “insertional” or painful, it might actually be “fun” – how would a child know otherwise?

“When you’re playing with someone you should share your toys because it is a nice thing to do”. I see? Do you? Aunty Sharon or Uncle Jimmy asks little Johnny if he’d like to play with their “toys”. “You have one too Johnny! Will you share it with me?” “Well… yes ok” says Johnny, knowing it is a “nice thing to do”.

I am getting SICK of these SICK BASTARDS!

This is NOT a “left/right issue. None of our issues actually are.

 

We live in dangerous times folks and your children’s future is at stake.

But you don’t really care that much do you?

 

Addendum:

But notice that, while content creators on youtube who speak out about stuff like this and various other political/social issues (such as myself) will get strikes and barred from the likes of youtube and Facebook, Twitter etc, Youtube is STILL allowing THIS channel to be seen by all. But then, of course, we just had youtube (and the British Parliament) have an LGBTQ day/week where youtube had videos and their logo full of the “rainbow” and Westminster had Parliament lit up with the “rainbow”.

But what do you expect from a parliament chock full of paedos?

And, before you think this is just a few “odd bods” around the world, no, it’s not. It is present in VERY significant numbers within the highest echelons of this god forsaken society of our around the planet (Sorry flat earthers, I’m still not in your camp). It is in NASA (not just a handful, we’re talking hundreds here); it’s in every national establishment you know of – monarchy, government, corporate, social, police, judiciary, you name it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3184951/NASA-employees-caught-buying-child-porn-site-showed-three-year-olds-abused-escape-prosecution-names-kept-secret.html

If you don’t understand that MI5 knew about Jimmy Saville (among many others) during all the years he was friendly and tight with the monarchy and government and you don’t understand that MI5 report to the Queen, then you’re a PEASANT!

 

 

An Early Day Motion Apology?

Posted in Paedophilia by earthling on February 17, 2015

I happened to stumble over this EDM in Parliament just as I’d finished a bowl of very green Broccoli and Stilton soup (homemade :-)) and I just about said “hello” to it again.

I’ve seen the EDM sponsored by these either ignorant idiots or (…?) but I haven’t seen anything relating to an “oops sorry!” from either one of them. Of course, I may have missed it since the parliament archives, as you know, are quite immense in scope.

But I wonder what these idiots feel like now.

But Fabian Hamilton eh? A jew, ex Leeds Councillor and not exactly stupid you would think. Then again….

Jimmy Savile OBE

Fabian Uziell-Hamilton (born 12 April 1955) is a British Labour Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Leeds North East since 1997.

He was elected as a councillor to the City of Leeds Council in 1987, stepping down eleven years later in 1998. He was elected as the chairman of the Leeds West Constituency Labour Party in 1987, and he contested Leeds North East at the 1992 general election but was defeated by the sitting Conservative MP Timothy Kirkhope by 4,244 votes, gaining a 5.9% swing from the Conservative Party to Labour.

Hamilton is a signatory of the Euston Manifesto and the Henry Jackson Society. [Take a look at these two societies if you get the chance – The HJS has Richard Perle, William Kristol, Sir Richard Dearlove (ex MI5 head) and James Woolsey (ex CIA head) as members. Ain’t that nice?]

He has been married to Rosemary Ratcliffe since 1980 and they have two daughters and a son. He has been a member of Amicus since it absorbed his former union, the Graphical, Paper and Media Union. He is Jewish and speaks fluent French.

David Jonathan Edwards (born 26 April 1976) is a Welsh Plaid Cymru politician.

John Sampson Macfarlane Leech (born 11 April 1971, Hastings, East Sussex) is a British Liberal Democrat politician.

Sir Joseph Alan Meale (born 31 July 1949) is a British Labour Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Mansfield since 1987.

Gregory Thomas Mulholland (born 31 August 1970) is a Liberal Democrat politician in the United Kingdom, and is the Member of Parliament for Leeds North West.

Richard James Shannon (born 25 March 1955) is a unionist politician from Northern Ireland.

Of course, it’s just a coincidence but……

Shannon

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215324/Jimmy-Savile-gravestone-removed-family-police-launch-hunt-BBC-child-abuse-accomplices.html

But you also have this last year from Shannon. Is he concerned about child offences now because he feels such a twat? While I wonder why the specific interest in getting data on just women offenders?

Shannon child abuse

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140430/text/140430w0003.htm

 

Nick Clegg’s 12 yr old remains celibate but…..

Posted in Law, Paedophilia by earthling on February 15, 2015

Nick Clegg and Nicky Morgan believe it is entirely normal for 12/13 year olds to participate in a bit of “hide the sausage”.

12 yr old sex

It has come to the attention of the Daily Mail that Nick’s eldest son, Antonio, now 12 – one of three sons – has made his father and mother extremely proud (why?) having stated that he aims to remain celibate until he is 17. Mr and Mrs Clegg were overjoyed by Antonio’s proclamation – why when they consider 12 year old sex normal, the Daily Mail reporter could not fathom – but they were somewhat distraught after asking the pre-teen why he had made his decision.

It appears that Antonio replied saying that he was waiting until Educational Secretary’s, Nicky Morgan, 7 year old son had hit the age of 12 in 5 years time because he really fancies the pants off him and wants to drill his butt badly! Antonio felt that his love for the 7 year old would enable him to hold off that long. It was the first time Mr and Mrs Clegg had heard their son suggest he had homosexual tendencies but they weren’t too phased about it all. After all, homosexuality and 12 year old sex is all quite normal in the 21st century and the Clegg’s support it all 100%.

1193030-nick-clegg-vice-premier-ministre-du-950x0-2

The Educational Secretary was unavailable for comment but we have learned that she has taken out a restraining order against the Cleggs. When asked why, considering she also considered 12 year old sex as perfectly natural, Mrs Morgan replied that it wasn’t so much Antonio she was concerned about being near her boy as Mr Clegg himself!

"I believe in a child's rights and if my boys wish to bugger other boys when they're 13 years old, well that's damned fine by me!"

“I believe in a child’s rights and if my boys wish to bugger other boys when they’re 13 years old, well that’s damned fine by me!”

 

How absolutely bloody peculiar Leon! (and convenient)

Posted in Paedophilia, Political History by earthling on January 22, 2015

When has anyone ever said they had a “convenient cancer”.

You COULD say 10CC: Number 10’s convenient cancer.

How peculiar! 😉

So now, await the media having their obligatory feast and a field day while they now have the guts to probe deeply into Leon as he probably probed deeply himself in one or two ways!

Leon dies

But hey, Savile’s dead so all that paedophilia and necrophilia just doesn’t exist anymore and, now that Brittan is dead, don’t worry, all that other parliamentary paedophilia happened in the 1980’s. It was just a fad we were going through. It doesn’t happen today for goodness sakes! You must be a Conspiracy theorist to think that!

Leon cover up

 

Good riddance to a dirty bastard! Death takes them all but others follow in their footsteps unfortunately. But Britain doesn’t really wish to know about Brittan and if the media and the government tell you it’s racist to speak of jews being creepy bastards but it’s entirely ok to speak of muslims all being terrorists, then those same government and media can have you believe in anything (and they do).

God bless the Queen!

Tagged with: ,

‘Uncle’ Joe just Biden his time…

Posted in Paedophilia, Uncategorized by earthling on January 17, 2015

Just to say, I’ve seen other similar kind of posts and videos showing what the uploader suggests is questionable and, generally, I think “ok, we’re stretching a bit here” but this lot just creeped me out.

I think he’s gone just a little (or a lot) too far in his “friendly, touchy feely” way. If they were MY kids I’d have them stand well away from him but then, even if requested, I wouldn’t be in that guy’s company anyhow. I question the families as much as I question him. To want to be in the presence of that guy and part of that “gang”, in my mind, you’d probably let him (if you know what I mean?).

It’s under “paedophilia” by the way because it seems “paedophilia” is “just a love for children” (really? then I must be one right?) and Biden does state outright that he likes children more than people. Interesting that since I have always worked under the assumption that children ARE “people”, “PERSONS”. Hmmm 😉

Tagged with: , ,

The “Alternative” Paedophile

Posted in Media, Paedophilia, Politics by earthling on July 6, 2014

Paedophiles in government. Paedophiles in the monarchy. Paedophiles in the media and now, Paedophiles in the ALTERNATIVE media!

I wonder who those could be? I wonder if Davey and Sean (the big mouths of TPV, the guys who keep their spending of the money they raised from you close to their chests, the guys who sell you bullshit while they literally talk a globalist talk, have the hetero haters on the shows and the ex women MPs who have something to hide too) know who the alternative media paedos are? What do you think? After all, Davey knows it all doesn’t he? He knew about Saville (but didn’t say a word before it became public knowledge and then pretended he had said something. Even his ex colleague ran a story – yes Ms Poulton – saying Davey knew about Saville before it came out in mainstream when, in fact, he had never mentioned it at all beforehand but he likes you to think he did).

There is diseased shit under every rock folks so be careful who you consider to be on “your side”.

I have so much more to say about this paedophile eruption. Not exposing any, just commentary. But, right now, I just don’t have the “bandwidth”. I’ll get around to it though.

For now, here’s Bill Maloney – a brave guy I only met fleetingly once but his head was elsewhere I guess at the time. By the way Bill, if you stumble over this: The Bradbury Pound is the entirely wrong answer (sorry to those who believe otherwise).

One of the best things people could do (but won’t) is for them to drop their belief system in “heroes” – either those in uniform or those on the TV and in positions of (seeming) power.

But they won’t and you know why? This is why:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p01zxmrv/the-men-who-made-us-spend-episode-1 (How long this will be on BBC iPlayer I don’t know but it’s the mentality – the “zombies”, those who are so easily led – which maintains the “heroes”. However, as you will see, we’re making “heroes” out of boxes too. The majority of humanity is dumb to the bone and so easy for the elite to manipulate that it’s not the elite – as perverted, sociopathic and psychopathic as they are – who are the problem, it’s the “zombies”. They are who scare the pants off me.)

And if you decide to watch the above and find it at all interesting, you may find the deeper probe into planned obsolescence even more interesting:

We’ll “buy” anything that’s “sold” to us as “Just what you need to be sexy!”

Meanwhile, back to paedophilia. There were once “perverts” and “poofs” – guys who liked to give other guys guy fluid up their ass or to swallow (let’s just call a spade a spade shall we? Or is the reality of it meant to be politically ‘correctified’ and brushed under the carpet like the time they themselves were “in the closet”? But they were given a name: “homosexuals”. Homosexuality was the mane of their “thing” rather than heterosexuality. But you see, having been given a name, the next step (over time) was to ‘normalise’ it and so those who considered it abnormal were then given a name: Homophobes and political correctness (arbitrary policy decided upon by the government(s) which you all know are corrupt – except, as in this case, when you THINK they’re doing the “right thing” under pressure from society (when in fact the elite steer what they want you to accept, you idiot)) put the negative focus on those who disagreed with the normalisation of it.

And it’s all done by ‘grassroots’ pressure groups and academics.

What we now have is the next step in human “enlightenment” which is slowly, delicately (and it will take years/decades just as it did for the homos BUT it will come and all you ‘liberal’ parents out there will have nothing to say and no comeback when your sons and daughters are being fucked (yes let’s call a spade a spade again) by old men and women whose paedophilia has been “normalised”.

Well done Mr and Mrs “Liberal” for being so liberal! 😉 But then perhaps it’s you who want to fuck kids right? But soon any criticism of you will be considered “paedophobic” or “hebephobe”.

 

Paedo natural

 

Why just males? Women are into it too! But that doesn’t fit the media narrative. It’s another attack on men.

All I’ll say to this piece is: BULLSHIT! You have to be one sick mother****** to want to have intercourse with a child!

But no, the academics and the media are working their “magic” again to slowly creep towards the acceptance and normalisation of the paedophile. Lock up your sons and daughters Mr and Mrs conservative because the liberals and the perverts are coming for them. But don’t speak out too loudly because you’ll be labeled and termed a “phobe” and, even worse, an “extremist”. Do you have christian values in this JUDEO-christian country of ours? Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You’re on a list! The tables have flipped and the once oppressed (although they brought it upon themselves for the sake of a sliver of land in the middle east) are now the oppressors and you, Mr and Mrs Christian will soon wear the yellow badge! It won’t be a star however, it will be a cross!

Diego Garcia: How it works

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. [179700]

§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. [178580]

§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. [178581]

§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.

HC Deb 24 September 2002 vol 390 cc26-156

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.

 

 

 

HC Deb 15 October 2002 vol 390 cc528-9W

Jeremy Corbyn 

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. [74654]

529W

§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”.

DG2

 

HC Deb 07 July 2004 vol 423 cc271-96WH271WH§2 pm

§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. “1. Restoration of our right of abode in the outer islands of the territory.
  2. 2. Restoration of our fundamental rights as British Overseas Territories Citizens.
  3. 3. The immediate payment of compensation.
  4. 4. The setting up of a pilot resettlement in the outer islands.
  5. 5. The setting up of a social survey in Mauritius and the Seychelles with recommendations to support the vulnerable group of our community.
  6. 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.

Mr. Tam Dalyell(Linlithgow) (Lab)

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 as uninhabited when my government first acquired them”,misdescribed the population as labourers from Mauritius and Seychelles and misled the UN into stating that the new administrative arrangements had been freely 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 had no 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 that human 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.

HC Deb 24 September 2002 vol 390 cc26-156

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.

2.45 pm

§Mr. Francis Maude(Horsham)I have only a few points to make and I shall endeavour to be brief.

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—

HL Deb 24 February 2004 vol 658 cc121-30

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.

MH370: Pilot had Diego Garcia included on his simulator

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10704769/Malaysian-Airlines-MH370-live.html

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?

Ping DG

 

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…..

SOMALIA!

Somalia

 

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!

Legal persons, Cheshire cats and the fat cats! (part 2)

person-meets-lawful-rebellion

 

Now, we’re beginning to get far more interesting. We now enter into the world of pure concept and the application of law to this concept called the “person” as a mathematical equation or statistic. We’re now at a point where there is an admission of what the “person” is and, from that, we can recognise how it is the legal system approaches its fundamental “unit” and how, therefore, the legal system can apply statute law to any and all groups which the legal system wishes to protect, elevate or otherwise. Proof, then, that you, as an individual with a mind, body and soul of your own (not to mention philosophy or morals or lack thereof) is of NO interest to the legal system. It is that very substance of our individual beings which the legal system of statutory acts cannot cope with. You MUST fall into a grouping in one way or another and in a multitude of ways, for the legal system to continue. This being the case, you can be an individual of the highest moral virtue and the legal system will dilute such to ensure you are treated the same as the worst of criminals if you just so happen to fall into the same grouping as the latter.

Essentially, then, the legal system can (and does) treat you the same way as Hitler is alleged to have treated the jews. If you are a jew, it matters not how moral you may be or even how much you may hold the same principles as a NAZI, you are a jew and you will be treated like one!

It is also like saying if you are black in America, the law enforcers are more likely to assume you to be a criminal.

Or, it is similar to saying “If you are muslim then you are most likely a terrorist”.

If you do not understand what I am saying here or my reasoning for it, I hope, in reading these pages and following the obvious intention, it will become apparent to you.

Person 4

 

Ok, let’s stop and think of just a few things here:

1. “when a case explicitly considers the legal personality of a given entity”. Think hard on what this is saying (and what we never really give much thought to). The law does not treat the “person” before a court according to that INDIVIDUAL’S personality (character). The law court simply considers the entity (Corporation, Private company, sole trader, partnership or human being of whatever race, colour, religious or political affiliation, sex, age etc) in accordance with a set of “rights and duties” which are arbitrarily assigned to such an entity based on a grouping. A perfect example of this is given in the video following where the barrister refers to this particular “person” not having much “armoury” because he is not a racial minority, homosexual or pregnant woman. It, therefore, is a prime confirmation of the grouping the law uses to determine which rights you do have and which rights you don’t have. It could not be clearer could it? And YET, the law “prides” itself in telling you that all are equal before it! What utter tosh!

Now, please tell me this could not be any clearer for you.

The thing about just applying the law of contract to an employment situation (remembering an employment contract is simply a CONTRACT like any other), is that it would handle a dispute between the employer and the employee based on a more balanced and fair assessment of  such a contract. Ignoring that even the law of contract has its issues, every person should have the same access to such law as any other person but what the government and courts have done is separated the law of contract and applied it purely to CORPORATE PERSONS while introducing statutory employment law to keep you and I, the employees, in our places. By doing so, they have elevated the stature of the Corporation above the stature of the human being. “Persons”, once more, shown not to be equal before the law. The statutory employment law is stacked against the employee. Your position has been significantly reduced by this law which says all persons are equal before it. It simply is not true when they have created divisions and compartmentalisation within law to account for it. What is their answer to that? Easy! They say “But that is the law!” What they will never acknowledge or even debate is that the law, itself, is set up fundamentally to discriminate between different groups of “persons”.

2. “according to its own particular purposes, when it is devising its own legal person”. How about that for a statement? From the very beginning of “law”, they have introduced the concept of a legal person and it has probably been as simple as this: Those who are considered such, have “rights” and those who aren’t, don’t. Just think about slavery. From then on, they have, step by step, begun the categorisation of persons while they have maintained the power (for that is what it is – pure power/force) to determine and/or decide who and what category of entity can become and be recognised as a “person”. For many years, women were not “persons” in their own right. Neither were slaves (obviously – they were property) nor homosexuals and transexuals. It is all so arbitrary that different countries have different legal regimes which either decide to recognise these groups or not. Everything is purely arbitrary and based upon political agendas!

3. “deep divisions in legal thinking”. The law cannot even agree what a person is! Can you understand, then, that just as this fundamental cannot be agreed upon, neither can categories and groupings because it is all down to opinion and political agendas. These people then enforce THEIR opinions upon you and I purely by the FORCE of law. Again it is all arbitrary application of other people’s opinions and has no basis in the fundamentals of right and wrong. It is for that reason that legal statutes are very rarely based upon fundamental morality.

4. “pure, legal artifice”. while there are other opinions, it is clear that the over-riding opinion is this one because it is this one which is applied.

5. “Other jurists are convinced that law’s person has a natural (and to some) even God given character.” This is quite obviously, then, not the version in current use otherwise there would be no such thing as a “Corporate person” unless you’re one of those (no names mentioned) who believe they do “God’s work”. God did not create the Corporation – a man-made “birth” certificate did (as it did for you and I as “persons). In the Corporation’s case, however, that birth certificate is simply a certificate of incorporation. Same thing but different nomenclature applied to two different subsets of the legal person. The natural person (you and I) receive “Birth certificates” and the Corporate person a certificate of incorporation. Somehow, these people expect us not to be able to see this. Amazing really how dumb they assume us to be.

Person 5

 

6. “which makes him morally considerable, and so commands a certain respect from law”. So, it would seem the second set of opinion which considers the “person” as a creature of nature and has “god given” character, provides for a given, specific person before a court to command respect from that court dependent upon his/her morality and, possibly, capability to argue his/her case and points as a moral and intelligent being. The first opinion does not, in any way, allow for this as we know.

7. The third type of person (or the third opinion of what a person should be) is interesting because it then begs the question: “Where is the line drawn between what society considers moral and immoral?” Who would be above the borderline and who below it and for what reason? Again, the reason being an arbitrary opinion by a legislature? What is further quite bizarre about this third opinion is, if you lined up a whole bunch of people who had never been before a court before, how would you decide who is sufficiently moral to be given “personhood” and who is not? If it then depended upon an entity committing a crime as to whether they were judged a person or not, then, on committing the crime, surely the judge/court would have to say this entity is immoral and, therefore, is not a person? If they then cannot be helf morally accountable for their actions, surely this means, then, that they cannot be jailed due to not having a “guilty mind” (mens rea). So everyone who committed a crime (and therefore was judged immoral, otherwise why prosecute them?) would be, at worst, sent to a mental institution. These people do not half get themselves tied up in their metaphysics and philosophy eh? 🙂

8. “jurists often move between different versions of the legal person……they are endowing the term with different meanings”. Now there is an admission for you!

P1, the Cheshire cat, is the one you and I know so well isn’t it? A pure abstraction based upon a concept. While see note 18 at the bottom of the page: P1 has no expectations of us as competent people but P3 does. It would appear, then, that P3 acknowledges one’s capability/capacity/competence while P1 treats you as a piece of meat belonging to a category.

Person 6

 

9. Re the reference to mathematics. Think of it this way – you remember set theorems? Sets and subsets? That is all we are in law. We have no presumed morality and competence individually. They apply law based upon categorisation.

10. “Anything can be a legal person…” and it goes on to state a few. They could decide a chair leg is a legal person if they so desired. This is fact.

11. “babies and other human legal incompetents…” Yes a baby cannot sign a birth certificate and the irony is this: The “person” (mother or father normally) who DOES sign the birth certificate is, in fact, incompetent because they are entirely unaware of the consequences of the contract that they are signing. Further, they are coerced into provisioning this baby with such a document and, thereby, “bestowing rights” upon it and yet they are unaware of this and do not even consider whether they wish to register the baby with a system which can then number it, tax it and control its contractual relationships (whether employment, marriage, whatever) throughout its entire life. Why do we go to divorce courts? If we were moral, competent, considerate people, we would be able to split things appropriately and do without such but no, we’re greedy and immoral. That is probably why there are so many divorces after all. But how is it that the law assumes jurisdiction over us as a couple? Because we have registered our marriage! It’s that simple. All we are saying to the state, by the action of getting married, is that, if things go wrong, we are handing over responsibility and authority to the state to handle our affairs because we are incompetent to do so. We don’t realise that this is all we are, in fact doing but neither do we recognise that the birth registration does precisely the same – not for a couple but for a single entity. So P1 assumes the parent is competent while P1 actually laughs at the incompetence of the parent. 🙂

12. And there you have it (we never think of these things really do we?): A ghost is a person. A deceased entity still has rights (and duties). Now think hard on that as we come to the next point about foetuses.

Person 7

 

13. Would you agree with me that a 2 week old foetus in the womb is by far a more living being than a deceased entity? Is that deceased entity going to suddenly come alive again and tap on your door at some point? So then answer me this: Why does the law not protect a 2 week of even months of age embryo in the womb? You know the answer don’t you? It’s called population reduction and it is a politically motivated agenda. If the law can justify retaining personhood for a dead entity, how can it argue that a living foetus (no matter it is living in another being’s womb) is NOT a person and not worth the law’s protection? That said, if a mother was moral, a mother would never have an abortion. If a father was moral, he would never support such. Yes there is the argument about rape and other arguments such as it may be born badly handicapped. The former, of course, is again due to immorality (an immorality I, personally, cannot understand, as I can’t many). The latter is a very difficult one to call for it is still a life yet it may be a very unfortunate life while, of course, the eugenicists would argue it adds nothing to the economy!

14. “For the logic of the system it is just as much a pure ‘concept’ as ‘one’ in arithmetic. And there you have the plain truth. A truth the legal system in practice shall never acknowledge no matter how obvious it is.

15. “Law is a self enclosed system, in this view, which does not look elsewhere for its meaning” or justification for its justification comes from the force it uses to enforce it. “The law is an ass”… “That may be, but the law is the law”. Created by and maintained by the very force which wishes to protect “the public”, “the national interest”, “national security”, ” the realm”. All of which is, in the case of the UK and commonwealth certainly, the Crown. But it is a system to protect the very people who created it and that is all it is. As such, it is a protection mechanism for a mafia.

16. “It is an artificial world whose members are to some extent arbitrary”. Need I say more?

17. “The legal personality of a corporation is just as real and no more real than the legal personality of a normal human being”. And that is entirely correct. That is why the legal person must be destroyed. The wonderful thing about this statement is that it was probably made to protect the status of corporations as persons but, at the very same time, by doing so, it exposes the reality of the person (including the subset of “natural person” therefore) in stark, cold light of day.

Why doesn't this sign say "KEEP ABORTION MORAL"?

Why doesn’t this sign say “KEEP ABORTION MORAL”?

The disease within.

Posted in Paedophilia by earthling on February 25, 2014

From the annals (or was it anals?) of Lord Fingerboy of Fuckinghamshire……

voice_clarke

1965

My Lords, we must protect the Crown and the good name of this Parliament! At present, we have a law against homosexuality and my noble Lord Boothby is, himself a homosexual. We know, among us, there are many more and what is imperative is for us to come to agreement, once more, and legislate for homosexuality so as to ensure none of our noble Lords, Members of Parliament, Judges and others within our establishment, find themselves open to coercion, bribery and blackmail. That would not do my Lords! The public must be assured that their parliamentary representatives act within the law otherwise all is lost. To ensure this, we must legalise our perversions! All say Yay! {{{{{YAY!}}}}}

LORD BOOTHBYAs I see it, the main object of this Bill is to avoid blackmail. We know that there are more cases of blackmail in connection with homosexuality than anything else in this country. I suggest to your Lordships that if this Amendment is passed, the main object of the Bill will be destroyed. We are out to avoid blackmail. I have consulted a number of eminent solicitors in the course of the last three months, some of the most eminent solicitors of all. They have said this to me and I think it is a point, “If anyone who occupies a position of public responsibility, or is in a position of public notoriety, came to us and said he was being blackmailed, rightly or wrongly, with reason or with no reason, for homosexuality, we should very much hesitate to advise him to fight the case. On balance, we should advise him to pay. But if it were Mr. John, or Mr. Smith, or Mr. Jenkins, of Wolverhampton, or Leicester, or perhaps even Edinburgh, someone who was of no importance at all, he would pay his fine of £.10, and that would be the end of the matter, and there would be no headlines in the newspapers at all”.

I sincerely believe that this is absolutely wrong. Any young man in this country is in a position to blackmail a man who is in a position of responsibility, or who is a well-known figure in this country. I have been advised—I assure the noble Earl, and I am sure he would agree with me; I cannot mention names but they are the very best solicitors—that in these cases the probability is that they would say, “Pay, and finish with it, because we can give no guarantee whatever of any safety or security”. That is what I want to avoid in this Bill above anything else.

§LORD CHORLEYIt seems to me that the two noble and learned Lords who are supporting this Amendment so strongly are so emotionally involved in this problem that they have lost the sense of proportion that lawyers ought to bring to bear on matters of this kind. The idea that something ceases to become consent because there is a gift attached to it is completely new in the whole domain of English law. It is a most astonishing proposition. They go on to say that men of over 21 years of 396age are no longer to be free agents. They are to be curbed in this sort of way by the law. When they look back on this debate in a few weeks’ time I think they will be puzzled to know how they could be led to such an emotional situation. It has never been suggested in the whole of history that men over 21 should not be free agents in respect of what they decide to do and that they should be curbed in this way. On the face of it, it is a proposition that I should have thought would not hold water for a minute.

§LORD CONESFORDI have heard more astonishing law from the last two speakers than I have heard during the rest of my legal life. It would seem that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is under the impression that bribery is no offence.

§LORD CHORLEYIs the noble Lord suggesting that this is a case of bribery? It is not within a mile of bribery.

§LORD BOOTHBYBlackmail.

§LORD CONESFORDThe noble Lord, Lord Boothby, flits from pillar to post with such rapidity, reversing what he said in his last speech with every new speech he makes, that it is difficult to keep up with him. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said that an eminent solicitor, wisely nameless—

§LORD BOOTHBYMore than one.

§LORD CONESFORDMore than one solicitor advised a person who was being blackmailed to pay up. I can only say that the most eminent practitioner in the law at the time I first began to practise told me that from time to time he had been consulted by people who were being blackmailed. He had always given the same advice—pay nothing and tell them to be damned. He said, “I know that my advice was right, but it was seldom taken”.

I am in complete sympathy with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and, so far as I understand him, with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in loathing blackmail. What astonishes me in this whole controversy is the quite extraordinary view that, if we pass this Bill or something like it, the blackmailing of homosexuals will cease. Why on earth should it? The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said, quite rightly, that to a 397public man a reputation of being homosexual could be very harmful. Therefore, the revelation that he is a homosexual—

§LORD BOOTHBYI really must protest against that. I never said that I was a homosexual—”The revelation that I was a homosexual”.

§LORD CONESFORDI said nothing of the kind. The noble Lord is not always the person concerned if he is concerned at all. I shall perhaps be saying something of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, did earlier in this debate, about which I had intended letting him off.

§LORD BOOTHBYBe careful.

§LORD CONESFORDI will be careful. If it is damaging to a public man to be known to be a homosexual, whether it is a criminal offence or not, the blackmailer can make a threat of revealing the fact, and that threat may be so severe that it may be worth buying off with money. Therefore, it is untrue to say that the mere passing of a Bill of this kind will end the risk of blackmail in connection with homosexual offences.

I share what I am sure is the hope of the Lord Chancellor, that if there is a reform of the law, blackmail will diminish; but I do not put it higher than that. Can we not get some of the advantages of a reform of the law without opening the door to something that everybody in the House, whatever his views on this problem, would think horrible—namely, a rich man using his wealth, not to buy affection, but to buy the commission of what has hitherto been a serious criminal act? That, as it seems to me, is a real risk. It is against that that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has devised this Amendment. It may he imperfect; there may be objections to it; but I am sure it deserves more respect than it has hitherto received.

Since I promised that I would deal with the noble Lord who has so consistently interrupted everybody who has been making a speech on this subject throughout this afternoon, let me come to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. At an earlier stage in the proceedings, on the very first Amendment to-day, the noble and learned Lord—

§LORD BOOTHBYI am not learned.

398

§LORD CONESFORDNo; but Lord Dilhorne is. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne said that in earlier proceedings Lord Boothby had misrepresented to the House the nature of this Bill and the nature of the Report of the Wolfenden Committee. This was indignantly denied by Lord Boothby.

§LORD BOOTHBYHear, hear!

§LORD CONESFORDVery well. Then I would recommend Lord Boothby to acquire a copy of the Hansard of May 12 of this year, and to turn to column 131. He will there find that he interrupted my noble friend Lord Rowallan with these words: All we are talking about is the Labouchere Amendment, and that is all that the Wolfenden Committee wants to be removed.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 266 (No. 73).] Lord Rowallan said: I am afraid that I cannot accept such a statement. Then Lord Jessel said this: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had been here a little earlier, he would have heard from my noble friend Lord Dundee a very full description of what happened. Then I intervened for, until this evening, the only time I have intervened on this topic, as follows: My Lords, I am not taking any side in this intervention, except to say that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is entirely wrong in saying that all we are discussing is the Labouchere Amendment, or that that was the sole subject of the Wolfenden Report.

§“LORD BOOTHBYOf course it was.

§“LORD CONESFORDOf course it was not.”

At that point the noble Earl the Leader of the House very properly intervened with the suggestion that Lord Rowallan might get on with his speech. I hope that the quotation I have made from the previous intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will show how utterly wrong he was in suggesting that my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne had misrepresented him in any way in the speech that he made, and I hope that possibly what I am saying now may induce him to—

§LORD BOOTHBYKeep his trap shut.

§LORD CONESFORD—to remain in a sedentary position until he has something worth while to say.

2014

My Lords, I am now 49 years older as I stand here before you once again, but we must protect the Crown and the good name of this Parliament! At present, we have a law against paedophilia and a few of my noble Lords, Ladies and among those in the other place, we know as we did in the 1960s regarding the homos, are pedophiles.. We know, among us, there are many more and what is imperative is for us to come to agreement, once more, and legislate for paedophilia so as to ensure none of our noble Lords, Members of Parliament, Judges and others within our establishment, find themselves open to coercion, bribery and blackmail. That would not do my Lords! The public must be assured that their parliamentary representatives act within the law otherwise all is lost. To ensure this, we must legalise our perversions once more! All say Yay! {{{{{YAY!}}}}}

However, as was done in the sixties and seventies, we must lay the groundwork for the population to come to terms with such activity. We must use every weapon at our disposal – from media to human rights pressure groups – to impress the legality, morality and normality of such acts. We must ensure that the public recognises such as simply another sexual orientation.

2050

Holy shit! The Prime Minister has just fcuked a donkey! My Lords, I am now 110 and I sit here before you with my colostomy bag but I still believe in our greater good. We must protect the good name of this Parliament even though just an inconsequential satellite of the World Zionist government on Temple Mount. At present we have a law against bestiality and a few of my noble Lords……… actually, you know what? I’m done with you fcuking perverts!

But our good old boy, Icke, can see totalitarian tiptoe’s and connections everywhere but he can’t see it in this? I guess it doesn’t fit his agenda! 😉

“Hush it up, get rid of it, protect the Crown, the Parliament and our entire way of life from the public otherwise they may want to lynch the whole lot of us!”

You’re damned right we do!

Mirror paedo judge