Earthling

Taxing you, literally, to death

Posted in "Climate Change", Agenda 21, Science by earthling on December 6, 2015

My first and my last words on Climate Change which is in print and for all to see while it’s from the same body of people who, essentially, lurk in the shadows and “advise” governments and the United Nations. One must also simply understand that the Rockefeller and Rothschild families control so many of these little known organisations – little known, not to those of us who research it all but to the vast majority of the population who just do not and have no interest in doing so but just accept everything the BBC and the rest of the mainstream press and media tell them on whatever subject.

 

While I’m glad to see this on the BBC, I think to myself “Why now? And why Piers Corbyn? There have been others who have spoken out but they have been silenced and, on a few occasions, sacked by the BBC”. So, again, why now and why Piers? Could it be the timing is perfect to undermine Jeremy Corbyn from another angle? “The Corbyn family all have ‘extreme’ views” and while it has been essentially the left who have supported and been vocal on Climate Change and the need to do something about it, the BBC then use Jeremy’s brother to create a significant split in Labour and their supporters, therefore diluting Jeremy’s position even further. Some other Labour candidate comes along to unite Labour and take on the party leadership role and they suit the establishment far better than Corbyn – Hilary Benn for example?

 

Anyhow, “Climate Change” (or “Global Warming”) was promulgated by the Club of Rome. Do your homework on the Club of Rome if you do not already know who is in it, who the movers and shakers are, how they influence, who they influence etc if you haven’t already.

Here is those first and last words:

“Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified.” “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.””

In one passage the authors conjecture about new needed enemies or rally points for global society, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”

Now really, be my guest if you simply wish to ignore what you’ve just read but remember, insodoing, you have no idea what you are allowing to happen to your children and your children’s children. Piers says it’s just a con and a fraud. It is, but it’s not just that. It has a far greater purpose than that. If you are a climate change enthusiast, totally invested in believing it to be real and you also are totally invested in the belief the world is overpopulated, then sit your children down and explain to them you are supporting their ultimate demise. Tell them you’d like them to be sterilised. In fact, sterilise them at birth. Even better, don’t have children. Not even one.

51zr8J75J6L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_

David Icke: Jim’ll fix it!

Posted in Law, Media, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on January 9, 2014

Yeah I know, it’s nothing to do with Icke but when you realise just how many hits your website gets from a “David Icke” subject heading, you’d do the same.

I’m a “whore” aren’t I? 😉 lol

But I just take the piss out of anyone who’s full of shit – if that happens to be the world’s foremost “conspiracy theorist” and legend in his own bedroom, then so be it.

As for those who think they have something to say about me, carry on. Like the guy who likes to piss his money up the wall on a saturday night having been to a “Truth gathering” but then, the next day has to check the horse racing results before deciding if he can afford a breakfast for him and his missus! Hilarious bud. Just downright hilarious. But sad.

Anyhow enjoy the TV licence “ad”! 😉

Why do I do this? Because I can and it’s hilarious. You see, I don’t take this “truth movement” at all seriously. I started off doing so because what we’re up against is serious but when you recognise what a train wreck it all is and all this “love and light” stuff so many of you go on and on about and “twoof” when, as a whole, most can’t wipe their own arse, then you take that “Icke” step back and look again and seriously piss yourself at the incompetence of it all. The bastards we’re up against are whatever they may be and yes, to an extent, they may be incompetent BUT they know what they’re doing and they don’t have to be that competent to herd you all in whatever direction they choose. Icke’s a microcosm of that capability.

But here’s another thing, your “messiah” (god you’re all pathetic wimps) keeps sating “It’s the information that’s the star” and yet, that small few of you who hang to every word spat out by his conspiratorial majesty, attempt to attack (if you can call it that – it’s more like a limp penis trying to probe a vagina) the character of the people who lay information out on a plate for you. If it’s pointing at Icke then you completely ignore your messiah’s own words (and your adopted ideology off those words).

If Hitler came alive today and told you Tony Blair was a war criminal would you believe him?

I don’t give a flying **** what you think of me. If you’re competent enough to take information and process it then you are. If you’re not then you’re a lost, sad cause.

But one last thing: Icke names those who he knows have had an impact on him. Those have only had an impact, not because of who they are but because people are reading and understanding what they are saying. All they are doing is offering information (just like Icke) and all they are then saying is “make of it what you will” (just like Icke). What is “destroying” Icke is his own lack of transparency and his own (and those around him) incompetence.

I just add if you don’t or can’t see what is plainly before your eyes then you’re stupid. God do I get flack for that but hey, you are what you are. But, it is becoming very clear that many of you are not that stupid otherwise Icke and Tabatabai would be close to that £400K by now. It will be interesting if they make it and it will be interesting if they don’t. But listen David, if people were not willing or they were unable to process the information and see it for what it is, then neither me nor Sonia nor anyone else could have an effect on you. We’re just gatherers of information and we produce it (that’s what you do). It’s the people who are deciding what they make of that info and what they make of you. Don’t try to look for scapegoats for your own lack of transparency and incompetence David. You’re a “bigger” man than that aren’t you? Aren’t you?

Greetings from the awakened people of earth David.

David Icke: SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BUDDHA!

Posted in Finance, Uncategorized by earthling on October 31, 2013

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS CAN VERY EASILY BE DONE.

THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL STOPPING THIS HAPPENING.

BE AWAKE, BE VERY AWAKE!

Could Icke have sold out to the dark side? Could the very “reptilians” who possess the personalities he speak of possess him? Is that so hard to believe? Well let’s see….

Icke's possession

David Icke: Sold to the highest Buddha!

YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS AS APPLIED TO COMPANIES: THEY ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT LEGAL PERSONS!

DAVID ICKE ALREADY HAS A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE AND, THROUGH “THE PEOPLE’S VOICE” HE INTENDS TO CAPTURE TENS TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS MORE. PERHAPS MILLIONS. NOW IMAGINE WHAT A LIZARD COULD BE WHISPERING SOFTLY IN HIS EAR REGARDING HIM HAVING A BROADCAST NETWORK ALL TO HIMSELF AND PAID (HE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE) ENTIRELY BY YOUR DONATIONS. A BROADCAST NETWORK WHICH IS ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM “DAVID ICKE BOOKS LTD” WHILE THE LEGAL SYSTEM, AS IT CURRENTLY FUNCTIONS, SEES “DAVID ICKE BOOKS LTD” AS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE “LEGAL PERSON” FROM “THE PEOPLE’S VOICE”.

Let’s start this little journey into David Icke’s “Twilight Zone” by first taking a close look at the BBC and how they do things. You will see why… promise! 🙂

Have you ever heard of “BBC Enterprises”? It started life as such but is now known as “BBC Worldwide”.

BBC Enterprises

BBC Enterprises was set up as a “mechandising arm” of the BBC. Essentially, it would take BBC content and product (for product think Tellitubbies for example, licensed to any and all sorts of manufacturers to produce Teletubbies merchandise) and sell it. Nothing wrong with that on the face of it right? But just give it a little more thought as to what is going on here. Let’s say there are 20 million homes in the UK all paying a TV licence (which goes to the BBC because the BBC “DOES NOT ADVERTISE”). 20 million homes x £145 = £2.9Billion. We (if you pay a licence) are funding the BBC Corporation per year to the sum of approximately £2.9Billion. The BBC then provides (poor and propagandised) content to us while the quality of shows and drama etc has just dropped dramatically over the years and more and more repeats (funded decades ago in some cases) are provided. If it was not for our funding of it, the BBC would not exist but, more to the point, BBC Enterprises (BBC Worldwide) would not exist. The latter sells content and product worldwide, and to us ourselves, which has been funded by us. It is like its own virtuous circle: It promotes content to us by way of the BBC broadcasting shows, characters etc (which we fund) and then BBC Worldwide sells us those same shows and characters and generates over £1billion in revenues and a healthy profit which is paid back to the BBC Broadcasting company. No, the BBC does not advertise!! It advertises every single day its own content and product (again funded by us) and has its merchandising arm sell us the content we have funded.

As an example:

BBC Enterprises2

There are 34 pages of 500 titles each page which the BBC sells to us and which they never would have been able to create without our money funding them. Essentially, we are buying our own creations. Strangely, this is exactly how the entire world works when you step back (as Icke would say but he won’t like it being done in this instance) and view it again. It is so clear. As an aside, let me give you another couple of examples of how we buy our own funded creations. Recognising all of this may shock you if you haven’t thought of it before.

1. Energy

We build national grids and offshore rigs (oil, gas, wind farms etc) and we work extracting the resources to provide ourselves with our energy requirements. We are paid, of course, to do so but we are also taxed. Meanwhile, the entire energy grid and the natural resources are owned by people who have never picked up a spade in their lives. It is suggested by these same people that it is all in public ownership and that we benefit from the income generated which is, in part, given to the treasury. But what does the treasury do with that money? It pays toward the national debt (interest on money borrowed by the nation where, globally, the only way of paying the interest is by borrowing more money from the same source which increases the debt further but is indebting the future generations). The real owners of all the resources and energy is, in the case of the UK, the Crown. I have blogged about this many times now. The Crown then licenses corporations to extract the resources (and we work for the corporations – we ARE the corporations) and the corporations (legal person entities) make a profit. This profit then being distributed among shareholders – the major shareholders being? You guessed it – the Crown and those individuals within it who have never done a real day’s work in their lives. These people then sell our resources to us which we have extracted for them and keep increasing prices on us while our salaries do not ever keep in line with the increases. We effectively build and generate our own energy and then pay for it. It is incredible what we will do and never question. We just seem unable to figure out the most simplest of cons.

2. Mortgages and housing

We build homes for ourselves. Yes we do. Builders, craftsmen, electricians, plumbers and all the other skills which go into building a home. We then take a mortgage from a bank (such a loan being unnecessary because it is we who create the money for the banks in the first place but that’s been covered numerous times now) by way of signing a promissory obligation which creates the money for the bank who then lend us our own money/value which we have to pay back (again with interest which, globally, is non existent. To pay it back we then have to “win” the race or the game of finding money from someone else). But, nevertheless, it is us, generally speaking, who build our homes. Let’s forget that the land we build upon is, once again, owned by land owners – a major landowner being the Crown – so we never truly own our homes, we simply rent them. If we owned our property we would have every right to do as we wished with it without planning approval. So we buy (and pay interest on) the very homes we build but we go a step further than that. The banks (and it is us once more that keep these legal persons called banks operating while they use our own money to indebt us with) then take the value of our properties (the promissory note we have signed to bring the money into existence for them) and sell them on. Who do they sell the values of our properties to? To you and I. How? They sell them to pension funds and the general market. Who do these pension funds etc invest for? For us! So we are buying our own properties once more. The banks then crash the property market making our properties worth far less and the derivatives sold on in the market worthless so our pensions are worthless. But what have they done in the meantime? Well, it is they who create the market conditions and it is they who then, with that insider knowledge, invest in shorting the property and derivative markets so that, as it falls, they have bet ON it falling and the money goes directly to them. How stupid is the human race?

And yet, David Icke proclaims “Human Race get off your knees” while he, as I am about to demonstrate to you, uses the exact same methods to create wealth for himself and his trusted little team.

Back to the BBC…..

Have a look at this:

BBC Worldwide

So, as I said, a revenue of over £1billion and profit of £156M returned to the BBC. ALL of it generated from coercion of you having to pay for a licence which funds the corporation and allows its shareholders to generate massive income for themselves and the various BBC employees who you look to as “celebrities” and people worthy of your praise and hero worship.

A “public service mission” which then pays profits to shareholders. It commercialises but it doesn’t “advertise”! haha What an incredible doublespeak that is.

BBC Worldwide 2

“BBC Advertising sells advertising…….”

“Be commercially efficient” – Indeed.

And oh look: “… highest standard of ethics…” etc. It’s amazing what you can state on paper or promote to your audience while keeping a straight face. It’s called “Sales” in essence and, personally, I’ve been in this arena for decades. I like to think, however, I DID have ethics in my approach – at least as far as I could afford to have them. But I know that, at the top, ethics DO NOT exist. They are merely words. I expected (naively) that “The People’s Voice” and David Icke would be different. I can assure you there is zero difference and you only have to have that “open mind” David speaks of and look at how he is doing what he is doing to recognise how you are getting screwed in precisely the same manner. Promoting yourself as ethical is such a crowd pleaser isn’t it? Getting the crowd to “buy in” to the promotion of a person or concept is especially easy when you are promoting what you know the market wants (and that’s ALL you are to David Icke – a market to tap into). Look how Tony Blair was promoted in 1997 and the landslide victory he had. People will buy anything if it’s promoted just right. In a war you are taught to know your adversary. In sales, you are taught to know your target market. You know how to press their buttons and you’ve got them just where you want them.

BBC Worldwide 3

Ok, on to David Icke in earnest.

What we have here is “David Icke Books Ltd”. (now one could theorise about the figures you see here but there’s no real point in doing that. You’d have to have access to his accounts to understand fully what is going on there so I’d rather not theorise on it).

David Icke books Ltd

This how David Icke makes his money. By selling his books (and his talks etc).

Then along comes another, entirely separate legal entity called “The People’s Voice”. BOTH companies, however, run by David Icke. He is a Director in both. Gareth, his son, is also a Director of “David Icke books Ltd” while Sean Tabatabai is a Director of “The People’s Voice”.

David likes to sell books doesn’t he?

Have you ever heard of “Transfer Pricing”? Well, once upon a time, I worked for a well known multinational telecommunications company who were at the top of their game, during which, I was involved in Business Management globally. Transfer pricing is all about the creation of profit by one division or subsidiary of the multinational company selling its product to another division or subsidiary of the same company. Transfer pricing can then be manipulated in whichever way is preferred by the divisions and the overall corporation to ensure that, on transfer from one division in one country (say the UK) to another division in another country (say the USA), the most “appropriate” pricing can ensure minimal tax being paid by the organisation as a whole.

Have a look at this:

Transfer pricing

Now, don’t go off on a tangent here and say I’m suggesting David Icke is money laundering or terrorist financing. No, no ,no. What I am saying is that “Transfer pricing” is a perfectly LEGAL and accepted way of doing business and YET, it is through such practice that such things can be, and are, achieved. Now, I’m not even suggesting transfer pricing by David Icke because transfer pricing is used between subsidiaries of the same company. “David Icke Books Ltd” and TPV are not subsidiaries of the same company. So what AM I getting at then?

“Hey, I have an awesome idea!”

“What’s that?”

“Well, I write books and I publish them. I was thinking how I could create an ever larger captive market for them and even have my own broadcasting station to promote my work. A broadcasting station which has global reach, will appeal to an even broader audience because it will broadcast everything from news and current affairs to music and art etc.”

“Yes but where will you source all the content and at what cost?”

“From the people themselves who will not only be desperate to have their voices and their art and music broadcast but who will provide their content for free.”

“Great idea but what about the investment that is needed to create this broadcasting network and keep it on air? It’s a shitload of money that’s needed for that Dave! Are you going to invest that £25K cash you have in “David Icke Books Ltd” and/or liquidise the assets of over £200K you have to fund it?”

“No no no. It will ALSO be funded by the people. I’ll do a donation drive through Indiegogo. I’m not going to spend my own money! This is not “David Icke’s Voice”, I’ll promote it as “The people’s Voice” – THEY can fund it! Although I won’t mention the obviously needed further funding coming from somewhere otherwise people will start asking questions. I mean most of the idiots out there haven’t a scooby regarding the real cost of funding a project like this and they won’t care. They’ll believe every word I say. I give them truth remember and I point fingers at corruption so how could they possibly consider me to be sucking them dry?”

“Oh man, you’re a genius! They pay for it, they provide the content free and they end up buying the content that you produce. Your very own multi-media empire spitting out your propaganda. But where does “David Icke books Ltd” come into the equation?”

“Oh come on man! It’s simple. Get with the programme! “The People’s Voice” is going to have me introducing movies, giving talks, promoting myself and the station as a whole right? So then I will also be promoting my books won’t I? Just exactly the same proven format adopted by BBC Enterprises or BBC Worldwide. Of course, I’m not getting paid by TPV – it’s for the “love of humanity” you understand. It just so happens that I have all of these books – a whole back catalogue of them too – which would then be promoted and sold through TPV as a “public service”. After all, TPV is all about truth so, to have an expense attributed to TPV for buying my “truth books” is entirely rational isn’t it? And justifiable.”

“Hey but that doesn’t make sense David! How can you profit from yourself buying from yourself?”

“Man, what is it you don’t understand about what I have just said. I’M not investing in TPV. It’s not MY money. So when TPV decides to buy “David Icke books Ltd” product for stock and then sell it to the public (who have funded TPV), it’s THEIR money, not mine, which is buying the books. TPV is an entirely separate legal entity from “David Icke Books Ltd” and so they buy, perhaps 1000 at a time? That generates profit for “David icke Books Ltd” and a rather substantial income for me. Whatever TPV then sell of those book numbers are bought by the very audience which has already bought them FOR TPV through their funding of TPV!”

“Oh Jesus Christ David, you truly are the messiah! Only he could come up with a scheme like that! It’s brilliant!”

This is how it works. VERY simple and VERY legal. Moral? That’s for you to decide….

TPV book sales

“IMAGINE FINDING A PLACE TO ADVERTISE WHERE THE BROADCASTER ENDORSES YOUR BUSINESS. HAS AN AUDIENCE THAT IS LOOKING FOR EXACTLY THE KIND OF PRODUCTS YOU PROVIDE AND RUNS PROGRAMMING THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE BENEFITS OF THOSE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.”

Stated out in the open, right under your nose! Furthermore, the legal person and company named “David Icke Books Ltd” does not, unlike all other potential advertisers and sponsors, have to pay a solitary cent for its advertising on TPV. IT IS ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT! David, I seriously do tip my hat to you!

DI books

So let’s analyse just exactly how this works:

David Icke sets up a company/broadcasting network which will advertise and promote everything David Icke related. This company, called TPV, does not receive a cent’s worth of his own money but he generates that money through donations from the public. He creates for himself FREE MONEY (JUST EXACTLY like the banks). He doesn’t even pay a cent of interest on it. There is absolutely no risk for him whatsoever. Not a penny. This new company, “TPV” will then buy assets with that money (for example, a cost to the business can be anything from buying the equipment to buying PROPERTY (YES PROPERTY). The property purchases can “justifiably” be stated as required to house certain members of the team who have travelled from different parts of the UK and world to relocate. Those members then, perhaps, pay rent of one form or another, to TPV the company which then pays off mortgages TPV may have taken out. This is all totally and utterly legal.

TPV then pays salaries to the core team of TPV while David Icke works “for free”. All of the investments TPV makes, with YOUR money, then become valuable assets to TPV and, at any point in the future – near or far future – those assets can and will be sold. Property is a very valuable asset and while you will have funded TPV’s purchase of such, when it comes to selling the asset and liquidising it into cash, who gets it? Even if that is 20 or 30 years in the future.

Meanwhile, there is an entirely separate company to TPV called “David Icke Books Ltd”. The latter is solely interested in selling David Icke’s books (would you believe?). TPV then turn to “David Icke books Ltd” and say “Hello David, we would be interested in stocking your books and selling them worldwide.” David turns to TPV (perhaps he speaks to one of it’s Directors and does a deal – he could, for instance, speak with….David Icke) and says “Sure. Sounds good. What about taking 1000 books per month as a stock and selling them on? At a retail price of about £25 each that would be an income to David Icke books Ltd of £25,000 per month or £300,000 a year. I might even give you a discount David but really, in this case, it’s unnecessary. TPV is a not for profit concern so if you buy at £25 and sell at £25 then there’s no profit right? No problem!” And David Icke, on behalf of TPV says “Sure, sounds good to me but what happens if we don’t sell that number per month?”. “No problem…” says David Icke of “David Icke Books Ltd”, “..you can just burn the excess for all I care. Take it as a loss and I still get paid.” “Ah indeed you do David. I wish I was as smart as you!” says David Icke of TPV. “You are as smart as me David, you are me! We’re all one consciousness remember? Remember who you are David!”. Then David Icke, Director of TPV, says “But David, I don’t like wasting all that money and losing it. You wouldn’t like to lose money would you?” and David Icke of “David Icke Books Ltd” states the obvious: “But David, what are you talking about? You haven’t lost a cent because all that money you are buying the books with isn’t yours! It’s money donated by the public. You’re losing THEIR money and all that money is coming across to me at “David Icke Books Ltd”. Trust me David, I WILL share it with you!”.

Icke and Icke

 

 

 

The central equitable principle applicable to directors is to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest.

The purpose of the no conflict rule is to ensure directors carry out their tasks like it was their own interest at stake. Beyond corporate opportunities, the law requires directors accept no benefits from third parties under section 176, and also has specific regulation of transactions by a company with another party in which directors have an interest. Under section 177, when directors are on both sides of a proposed contract, for example where a person owns a business selling iron chairs to the company in which he is a director,[110] it is a default requirement that they disclose the interest to the board, so that disinterested directors may approve the deal. The company’s articles could heighten the requirement, say, to shareholder approval. If such a self dealing transaction has already taken place, directors still have a duty to disclose their interest and failure to do so is a criminal offence, subject to a £5000 fine. While such regulation through disclosure hovers with a relatively light touch, self dealing rules become more onerous as transactions become more significant. Shareholder approval is requisite for specific transactions with directors, or connected persons, when the sum of money either exceeds 10% of the company and is over £5000, or is over £100,000 in a company of any size. Further detailed provisions govern loaning money.  On the question of director remuneration where the conflict of interest appears most serious, however, regulation is again relatively light. Directors pay themselves by default, but in large listed companies have pay set by a remuneration committee of directors. Under section 439, shareholders may cast a vote on remuneration but this “say on pay“, as yet, is not binding.

Finally, under section 172 directors must “promote the success of the company”. This somewhat nebulous provision created significant debate during its passage through Parliament, since it goes on to prescribe that decisions should be taken in the interests of members, with regard to long term consequences, the need to act fairly between members, and a range of other “stakeholders“, such as employees, suppliers, the environment, the general community, and creditors. Many groups objected to this “enlightened shareholder value” model, which in form elevated the interests of members, who are invariably shareholders, above other stakeholders. However, the duty is particularly difficult to sue upon since it is only a duty for a director to do what she or “he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company”. Proof of subjective bad faith toward any group being difficult, directors have the discretion to balance all competing interests, even if to the short term detriment of shareholders in a particular instance. There is also a duty under section 173 to exercise independent judgment and the duty of care in section 174 applies to the decision making process of a director having regard to the factors listed in section 172, so it remains theoretically possible to challenge a decision if made without any rational basis. Only registered shareholders, not other stakeholders without being members of the general meeting, have standing to claim any breach of the provision. But section 172’s criteria are useful as an aspirational standard because in the annual Director’s Report companies must explain how they have complied with their duties to stakeholders. Also, the idea of whether a company’s success will be promoted is central when a court determines whether a derivative claim should proceed in the course of corporate litigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_company_law

In short, if you can’t be arsed reading the above, there is recognition in law regarding the reality of doing precisely what a “reptilian possessed” David Icke is capable of doing and that the ethics are far more than suspect (because it is obvious what is happening) but, given the TPV and “David Icke Books Ltd” set up and the fact there are only two shareholders of each, all very happy with how things turn out, then the reptilian possessed Icke would get away scot free. 🙂

And all Ickeans will say is “Well he’s got to make a living!” Sure he does and he is doing so very well from your money you stupid, naive, gullible prat!

Now, TPV may WELL be a “Not for profit” enterprise or it may not. I have no evidence of either. IS it registered as a charity? Or as a “Not for profit”? There is absolutely no evidence of that but it matters not one iota! “David Icke books Ltd” is a FOR PROFIT enterprise which can entirely legally sell its books to a “Not for profit” enterprise. The two separate legal entities can conduct business with one another. The “Not for profit” taking on an expense and the “For profit” making…. well…. a very healthy profit!

There is so much more to this and the capabilities of TPV to create a vehicle for, and take all the cost for, setting up Gareth Icke with his own little music business but I could go on forever demonstrating how all this can be done and what can be done.

 PLEASE UNDERSTAND HOWEVER THAT THE FOREGOING ONLY CONSIDERS WHAT IS POSSIBLE AND LEGAL AND PROBABLE IF DAVID ICKE WAS POSSESSED BY A REPTILIAN. IT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT DAVID ICKE, THE FINE UPSTANDING TURTH GURU WHO EXPOSES CORRUPTION, WOULD RESORT TO SUCH PRACTICE (EVEN THOUGH THE DONATIONS PROVIDING HIM WITH ABSOLUTELY FREE MONEY AND THE ABILITY TO BUY ASSETS OF VARIOUS KINDS THEN SELL AT A LATER DATE MAKING A HANDSOME PROFIT PLUS THE VERY FACT THAT DAVID ICKE IS PROMOTING DAVID ICKE ON TPV, FUNDED BY YOU, IS ALL INESCAPABLE FACT).

In the UK, many nonprofit companies are incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. This means that the company does not have shares or shareholders, but it has the benefits of corporate status. This includes limited liability for its members and being able to enter into contracts and purchase property in its own name. The goals (“objects”) of the company are defined in the Memorandum of Association when the company is formed. The profits of the company (also referred to as the trading surplus) must be invested in achieving these goals and not distributed to the company’s members.

http://business.fiu.edu/newsletters/BusinessNetworks/2008/07/business_insight.cfm

I don’t have any time for this guy and his promoter, Jones, either but this speaks volumes nonetheless.

Meanwhile, check this out. EXACTLY the same wording except for one obvious element:

Here is the ad on Facebook for anyone who’s a musician and wishes to “come long” to the TPV studio to be part of a launch film for “The Banned” music programme hosted by Gareth Icke.

Banned FB

Now, here is the exact same wording for the ad which appears on a specific website for musicians/student musicians:

Banned ACM

Spot the difference? 🙂

THEY REALLY DO HOPE YOU WILL COME OF COURSE. Let’s ignore that, once more, they are advertising for a certain type of person, a certain look, a certain attitude (that THEY like of course) – what happened to “The People’s Voice”? They are very choosy of what sorts of people and look and attitude they attract for it to be solely for “the people”. People come in all shapes, sizes, ages, attitudes, types but they want CERTAIN SPECIFIC TYPES to promote a certain specific type of network/channel/”hip” (in their view). It’s kinda like turning up at the nightclub but the bouncer turning you away because they want to attract a certain crowd. But let’s forget all that.

Noticed it yet?

Well, in the Facebook “shout out” they have “Sadly, there’s no fee for turning up, but we’ll provide some food, some drinks!” – But that’s for the general dumb populace who are just avid fans of anything and everything Icke does. That’s why they’re on his Facebook page after all.

The ACM one (not an Icke page then but Icke wants to attract the muso’s and cool student types): “Sadly, there’s no fee for turning up, but we’ll provide some food, some drinks and we can cover basic travel expenses.”

Hahahaha. So they finally considered travel expenses as being important to cover – just not for volunteers giving their energy and time constantly but for those who the station are desperate to attract.

Good on ya Deanna. You certainly have your priorities sorted!

“We pay for what might be a bit more difficult to attract however serious fans are already captured so fuck them!” LOL

SO BLATANT MAN!

One last thing: “It’s raunchy, decadent…… people who look like they know how to party”

Let’s consider what decadent means.

decadent
ˈdɛkəd(ə)nt/
adjective
  1. 1.
    characterized by or reflecting a state of moral or cultural decline.
    “a decaying, decadent Britain”
noun
1.
a person who is luxuriously self-indulgent.
“for half a million dollars, he offers rich decadents the chance to lead a deadly safari”

Now, doesn’t that remind you of exactly what you would consider the “elite” (that is, in Icke’s language, “the reptilians”) are into and want from the world? Moral and cultural decline – for example, pedophilia. What a strange irony in so many ways Icke is displaying.

BUT IT WOULD APPEAR THAT HIS FOLLOWERS HAPPILY HAVE: THEIR EYES WIDE SHUT!

David Icke’s Corporate sponsors

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Uncategorized by earthling on July 7, 2013

Re-publishing this article because it was written PRIOR to my applying to TPV. I have already explained why I did and my change of heart (not so much a change of heart but thinking “I need to give these guys the benefit of the doubt”). So I did and guess what? I found I shouldn’t have! lol

Always go with your gut instinct. I MUST remember that. But the real interesting stuff here is Tabatabai’s connections. Globalist ones which you will see clearly IF you research them.

Following on from my blog entitled: David Icke: “A Central bank of his own” (https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/david-icke-a-central-bank-of-his-own/)

Icke does it again! He takes yet another step which demonstrates this is about a business venture; a media empire?; Icke’s voice not yours.

Time and again, we hear the words of politicians and bankers – they sound “good” some of the time and well justified. They say “Obamacare will provide healthcare for every family” without explaining the massive cost of doing so and the inability for you to opt out while the Congress and Senate do not have “Obamacare”. We hear him say “I won’t sign the NDAA” and he does. We hear “I will close Guantanamo” and he doesn’t. We hear “The Bush administration must stay within the law rather than illegally wiretap” and VOILA! NSA and Obama knew all about it. We hear him say “This will be the most transparent Whitehouse ever” and then journalists are targeted as are whistleblowers.

So what’s that got to do with Mr Icke? After all, I wrote the previous blog and some of the reactions of Icke’s followers were as entirely expected while some were hilarious in their naivety and gullibility. Well, Mr Icke is telling you one thing while he gets £300,000 from you to start up his venture (again, HIS not YOURS – he’s not giving YOU an interest whatsoever in it EXCEPT that he’s going to give you “the truth” – HIS truth. And of course, his followers will accept it as the truth because, to do otherwise, would have them have to admit that where they have spoken to friends, neighbours and family and invested so much of themselves into what he says – a lot of it, I admit, is fact but just enough of it is total utter bullshit and helps no-one even if it were fact! – they would lose face AND, don’t forget, they would then have to “opt out” of the “Icke gang”. People HAVE to have and be a member of SOME “gang” or other otherwise they feel lost. YET, Icke fans will say “think for yourselves”. I gotta laugh – if a lot of them thought for themselves their heads would explode!). That thing being that this is “your voice”, the “People’s Voice”. To a great extent it may well be BUT that’s just like the political parties who ask for their donations from THEIR “sheep”. Icke now has formally got himself “Icke lambs” (to the slaughter). These political donations to parties – do the parties then truly speak for the people who donate (the little guy who’s a member?) or do they speak for the large donors and the corporate donors?

Ask yourself that question then give yourself the answer which you know full well!

So you’ve donated to Mr Icke while he asks for £50 for a t-shirt and THEN – wait for it! – if you actually do wish for YOUR voice to be heard on his channel (NOT yours) then he’s only asking for £10,000 from you for a one half hour slot! You can learn to play guitar with a teacher for £10 per 1/2hour slot! Imagine giving a guitar teacher £10K for lessons. It would last you and he’d teach you until you surpassed Jimi Hendrix or Eddie Van Halen for christ’s sakes!

Anyhow, you’ve donated and get N O T H I N G except the pleasure of watching and listening to what Mr Icke decides to broadcast and you think “Hey! My 10 pence contributed to that!” YOU ASSHOLE! But don’t worry there are a hell of a lot of you so you’re in good company – part of the gang as I said. After all you’re “awake” (in your dreams!). Like George Carlin once said: “It’s called the American dream because you’ve got to be asleep to believe it”. Well with Icke it’s “If you don’t believe it or me then you’re not awake”. Sure most of you sense or can see all that is wrong in the world but that doesn’t mean you have any concept of being used like an evangelist uses his followers in their “church” where they donate and the evangelist walks away rich as hell and you are left with false hopes.

So, before I wrote my last blog on this, Mr Icke hadn’t mentioned a word about the donation v investment issue. Then he did. I don’t propose it was due to my blog on the subject BUT the timing was immaculate. This is the video he produced to “justify” what he was doing:

He has, since, gone on to accept Indiegogo’s suggestion/offer of another 10 days of “Crowdsourcing” funding for the TV channel venture.

BUT NOW, he’s taken a further step which shows his hand. Now I repeat – THIS IS A GUY THAT, UP UNTIL NOW, I PRETTY MUCH TRUSTED AS BEING ON THE LEVEL (with, perhaps, a few reservations but nothing like the reservations I have now) – I even shook his hand at Bilderberg 2013. However, I am quite simply stating this: David Icke and Alex Jones – whether or not they fully realise it – are doing a “job” for the globalists who are trying to turn this world on its head. The globalist want fear, they also want to show you the corruption and they want to create chaos and have you all in a mental state of confusion and an ignorantly based belief system that “capitalism is bad” or even “socialism” or any ism is bad. The fact is yes, they all are BUT this creation of chaos and the opening of “Pandora’s Box” showing the world how corrupt the present system is and our political leaders are is part of the globalist agenda! You even KNOW this when you read and take in what you read of their own documents PLUS if you read the protocols. They want the destruction of the present political system! I’m not saying it shouldn’t be destroyed, I am just concerned (for good reason) that the populations of the world are not going to be able to arrive at a populist solution but simply take what is offered to them!

JONES AND ICKE ARE NOT PROFFERING ANY SOLUTIONS ARE THEY? NO THEY ARE BLOODY WELL NOT!

But what they ARE doing is profiting from your misery just as the politicians and bankers are doing, From your misery, your ignorance and your gullibility!

Oh you’re NOT gullible?

How, then, is it that you are not demanding what Icke is offering to CORPORATES – Sponsorship deals! Now I’m sure that he said he didn’t want “Investors”. Didn’t he say that? I’m sure he did! But, once more, you Ickians will justify and excuse (the exact same behaviour you despise from those still not “awake” and supporting Obama or a political party or an “ism”).

“Sponsorship doesn’t mean Investor” I hear some (or most) of you say. Like the guy who turned to me and said “He’s asking for donations not investment” not recognising what a bloody stupid, obvious thing to say considering my point in the last blog was that he was asking for donations because he did not wish to give you an investment in HIS business!

So let’s look more closely at what Sponsorship means:

Corporate sponsorship can take many forms, but generally involves a company or organisation attaching its name to a charity, event, or other promotion in exchange for providing funds or paying a sponsorship fee. Corporate sponsorship is an effective means of advertising for many organisations, because it promotes goodwill. Companies are more likely to spend large amounts of money sponsoring highly publicised events due to the amount of publicity that can be generated and the opportunity to be affiliated with a good cause or popular event.

Typically a director of development from a charitable organisation initiates the contact. They begin by approaching marketing directors of different companies to solicit funding. Rather than solicit straight donations, the charity makes the offer sweeter for the company by offering sponsorship opportunities in exchange for monetary donations. The company is more likely to donate money to a charitable cause when they have the ability to gain publicity as a result.

The specific terms of the agreement are then outlined in a written contract. For example, a company is sponsoring a charity golf tournament. The terms of the agreement state that the company’s name and logo will be used on all marketing and promotional materials leading up to and on the day of the event. The company will be credited as the headline sponsor for the event in all radio and television advertising leading up to the event, and the company’s logo will appear on event T-shirts.

The company making the donation typically becomes actively involved in the charity after the relationship has been established. For example, the president or other representative of the sponsoring company may sit on the board of directors for the charitable organisation, or a representative from the sponsoring company takes an active role in helping to plan and organise the charitable event.

Now, whether or not those sponsors actually get a say or a chair on the board, the point is that Icke is going to have to keep the message(s) on the “People’s Voice” in line with the wishes of his Corporate Sponsors OR he isn’t going to get any. Not only that but these sponsors actually get something of value to them out of donating (in this case it IS an investment for them and David is quite happy to allow an investment – “but with no financial return to them you understand right?” ;-)) whereas you’re not even being offered anything of value for YOUR donation! (Except that naive belief that he’s going to be YOUR voice! LOL).

So, once more, Icke creates money out of nothing for himself (The effective “Quantitative Easing” by creating hundreds of thousands of pounds from the many’s small donations) and then he’s inviting the sponsors in – the advertisers – but no matter how much money he gets it will ALL be ploughed back into the station (let’s ignore that the “Directors” and staff – essentially Icke and his family and friends – will receive probably pretty good salaries out of this venture and as the sponsorship deals come through and advertising, so the salaries will increase. So “no profit” just damned nice salaries! 😉

But David’s going to work for free. Yes SURE he is. He won’t take a salary – of COURSE not – he’ll take a 6 monthly or yearly dividend. YOU don’t need to know that do you?

Now, here is the Company vehicle for “The People’s Voice”:

People's voice Directors

People’s voice Directors

So who’s the guy with the strange name (with “ADL” in the middle of it? A strange quirk considering isn’t it? Not that I’m suggesting anything I just found it funny for obvious reasons).

Well Sean is a Producer – as stated – and is also Icke’s “David Icke.com” webmaster as well as his trusted partner in this venture. But he has strange connections. Now, anyone else with 47 connections on their LinkedIn profile, 2 of which (the most from one organisation) being the BBC, PLUS connections with “Newstate Partners LLP” (look them up) and “EF Education First (first for what? Conditioning students into a globalist mindset AND which has trips to Nazi Concentration Camps in Germany just to keep the holocaust in mind no doubt) would have ANY ONE OF YOU think “Ahah!!” if it were anyone else but the partner of David Icke but, since it is the partner of David Icke then “there must be some simple sort of explanation (which, you can be assured, there will be I’m sure).

Newstate Partners

Their roots with S.G. Warburg indeed while they advise governments and Central Banks on debt management etc. Yeah, he probably just does their websites too right? Plus the BBC’s, plus EF Education First – ALL globalist organisations. Sure the guy just has to make a living right?

EF Education First

EF Education First

Sean's network

Each of the circles on the outer ring represents one of his connections. This is where, if you hover over them on his LinkedIn page you find, amongst others, Newstate and EF. The large circle in the middle represents his largest number of connections with one organisation and that is only 2, both with the BBC.

Sure, if Icke has a LinkedIn he might even have a couple of people as connections from the BBC – who knows? – after all he used to work for them (Wogan might even be one of them! ;-)) but Tabatabai having connections with them AND the other two is just a LITTLE teeny weeny bit strange. However, I’m sure you don’t think so so by all means carry on believing.

Why do I write these blogs about Icke these days? Because, to me, he’s now transparent. I’m not saying he’s a bad dude but I despise the way he’s actually treating you, his audience. If you enjoy being treated in such a way then more power to your elbow.

Personally, however, I don’t think you’re NEARLY awake. Just naive and FAR too trusting and gullible.

BBC & MI5

Posted in "Terrorism", The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized by earthling on December 15, 2011

The BBC and MI5. You tell people this and you even show them and, no matter, they STILL think you wear a “tinfoil hat”. The problem with such people is that is all they have as ammunition against what is plainly in their face and, if they were to allow themselves to acknowledge these things, they would become very ill at ease and, perhaps, would not be able to handle it.

The point is, the BBC is and always has been, what so many of us know: A “programmed” propaganda outfit of the establishment programming (in so many ways) what and how the British people and many over the world within the commonwealth and elsewhere, should think. Nevertheless, us Brits will still wave our little flags at a Royal family which is screwing us all to the wall. Even screwing the families of the very soldiers who, ignorantly, die for her, her establishment, their prized possessions (countries and corporations). Ahh if only the typical soldier had a brain huh?

BBC MI5

The Telegraph: BBC & MI5

TRY TO DEFINE THE CROWN?

While it is entirely undemocratic and answers to noone.

Tony Benn: Would have been Britain’s Ron Paul (perhaps even better).

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

The debate is beginning to get to the central question, which is not the details of how we handle the security services or the official secrecy, but the constitutional relationships that are changed by the legislation that is to come before us. I believe that I am expressing an anxiety that goes far beyond the party of which I am a member about the evidence that has come to light regarding the threats to freedom by those who were supposed to defend it. Therefore, I consider that the proposals made by the Government in the Prime Minister’s speech from the Throne are far from being evidence of liberation, and offer evidence of tightening up. We should look at that first.

There is no question whatsoever—I am not seeking to blame everybody in the security services—that there have been people working in high positions in MI5 and MI6, who have used the power vested in them under the so-called well-tried mechanisms of the Maxwell Fyfe directive to undermine political democracy in Britain.

Secondly, those people have done so outside any form of ministerial control. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) has been Home Secretary, and others in Governments of whom I have been a part have occupied that position, and I cannot believe that they knew what was going on. If they did not know what was going on, the Maxwell Fyfe directive was wholly ineffective in its operation—and I understand it is to be weakened in the new legislation.

Thirdly, when evidence of this behaviour came to light, far from the Government pursuing the law breakers for their law breaking, they pursued the man who described the law breaking for his description of it. A Government who purport to pursue a policy of law and order made no issue of the fact that in Mr. Peter Wright‘s book—after all, he was a serious and respected member of the intelligence services—he described crimes that were committed, and made no attempt to investigate those crimes or bring him to justice. His only offence was that he wrote about them.

Then, of course, we come up against the justification for their action, and that is where the constitutional areas become most important. Anyone who has read any of the histories on these matters will know that the security services do not feel in any way responsible to the Government of the day. They believe they are responsible to the Crown. They represent the Crown in order to deal with subversion. I shall try to define the Crown and subversion in a moment.

Two new elements have rightly been brought into the debate by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), which must be put upon the record. First of all, the British security services are supervised completely by the American security services. I know that because I had responsibilities for many years for those areas that were a part of what was called the “special relationship”. The Americans control our security services, supervise them, lay down the rules under which they operate, and warn them against people whom they regard as unreliable in Britain, because that is the condition upon which the United States makes nuclear weapons available to us.

The second threat—rather more shadowy but none the less real—is that, within a federal Europe, it is the intention of the Commission that security would be seen as a federal function, in part because the internal frontiers will cease to matter, and the Community will have to tackle what it defines as subversion on a federal basis.

The methods used by the security services must be set out. There is widespread vetting not only of civil servants, but, of course, of those in defence industries. The Clerk of the House and all the officials of the House are vetted by the security services. This was revealed in evidence submitted to the Committee of Privileges of which I am a member. That says a lot for the division between the legislature and the Executive, because the Executive vets the officials of the legislature. The BBC is vetted down to the level of anyone is involved in the preparation of current affairs or news. The research assistants of Members of Parliament are vetted. We know that from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who brought the matter to the House.

The security services penetrate other services and actions of our national life. I shall give three examples. Cecil King, who purported to be a newspaper proprietor or a manager, was an agent of MI5, as was Tom Driberg, a former chairman of the Labour party. Lord Rothschild, who, when I worked closely with him, I took to be an industrialist brought in to help our think tank, was actually working for MI5 throughout that period.

Massive telephone interception and the opening of letters occur. Charles II nationalised the Post Office in 1660 because he wanted to see what people were writing to one another. Therefore, the Home Secretary is carrying on a good tradition in trying to intercept postal and telephone services and to legalise it. The Home Secretary is the most appropriate person to be moving the Bill, because when I tried to make a speech in 1976 in a church in his constituency at Burford to celebrate the Levellers, he wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to get the grant for the Workers’ Educational Association withdrawn. He is therefore consistent in his opposition to dissent in any century by anybody.

Hon. Douglas Hurd (Witney)

rose—

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I have the correspondence.

Hon. Douglas Hurd (Witney)

I remember inquiring 12 years ago why the taxpayers’ money was being used to help the right hon. Gentleman support the Levellers in Burford.

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

The right hon. Gentleman, with the sort of naivety that adds to his charm, confesses to the charge that I laid against him, that when he heard I was to speak at a church in Burford about the Levellers, he wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to try to bring pressure to bear so as to withdraw a grant from the WEA that had invited me. He has confirmed my argument, and he is consistent. He does not believe in dissent in any century, including the present one.

The other area in which the security services have operated is in redefining subversion. There is no doubt that the phrase that became popular during the miners’ strike of “the enemy within” had been defined much earlier by the security services. The enemy within includes the trade union movement and many members of the Labour party and peace movement. That definition was undoubtedly one of the factors that led to the attempt to destroy Harold Wilson. In my opinion, it was also used, but for different reasons, to remove the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), because the security services thought that he was too weak.

The methods used by the security services include the collection of damaging information and fabricating misinformation—as with the forging of Ted Short‘s bank account, which was leaked to Chapman Pincher. So much for lifelong confidentiality, when the security services regularly use certain journalists to feed out damaging information to destroy people they do not like. One cannot overlook the fact that Peter Wright confirmed Anthony Nutting‘s claim that Sir Anthony Eden ordered the assassination of another head of state, President Nasser. Anthony Nutting confirmed on television what Wright had written.

The question one must now ask is, what safeguards will there be under the new Act? Supposing Ted Short, as Lord President, had appealed to discover whether his bank account had been forged, to whom would his appeal have gone? Would it have gone to the Cabinet? No. Would it have gone to the Prime Minister? No. It would have gone to a commissioner appointed for the purpose by a previous Government.

When Bruce Kent‘s telephone was tapped, what safeguards would have existed then? If he had written to whoever it may have been and asked, “Is my phone being tapped?”, the only answer he would have received was not whether his phone was being tapped but whether the security services were abusing their rights—and those rights are covered by warrant and by a commission. The victims do not know what is being done to them, and the perpetrators do not wish to make complaints that might reveal the crimes they are perpetrating. The exceptions are one or two people such as Clive Ponting and Cathy Massiter, who were moved by their consciences, to act.

I turn to the matter of lifelong confidentiality to the Crown, which presumably should have bound Peter Wright. Who is the Crown? Did the Queen tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Prime Minister? Obviously not. Did the Prime Minister tell Peter Wright to destroy himself? Obviously not. Did the Home Secretary tell Peter Wright to try to destroy the Government? Obviously not. The Crown is the code name we use for those central areas of Government in defence, intelligence and international relations—a state within the state—that the Government, and, I regret to say, previous Governments, did not wish to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny or discussion. The Crown is a term used to cover a concrete emplacement surrounded by barbed wire that the Home Secretary thinks needs fresh protection. It is not that he intends it to be subject to public scrutiny.

Tony Benn Crown

I asked the Home Secretary whether Ministers, who, after all, are Crown servants, will be covered by the new rules. It will be difficult to bind the Prime Minister to lifelong confidentiality as Bernard Ingham, on her instruction, breaches it at 11 o’clock every morning for the benefit of selected lobby correspondents who never make clear what has gone on. Are we really saying that anyone who is elected to Parliament, who becomes a Minister and discovers things he believes that it is in the public interest should be made known, will be bound to confidentiality for life? Or will anybody else? I have cited Ministers as they are uniquely accountable to those who elect them.

The reality is that there is nothing different about security. In its proper sense, security is part of the country’s defence forces, and no one denies that the country needs defence forces. But contrast the way security is treated with the other parts of the defence forces. Every year Parliament debates defence policy, but it never debates security policy—I am not talking about security operations. Parliament never discusses the definition of a subversive person—which is currently based on a phrase written years ago by a civil servant for Lord Harris in the House of Lords. We have never discussed whether as a Parliament we believe that being a member of CND makes a person subversive. That was decided by the Ministry of Defence, which told Cathy Massiter to bug Bruce Kent.

Parliament debates defence policy and votes a budget for the country’s defence establishment. It does not know the budget of the security establishment. Parliament knows the Chiefs of the Defence Staff and can ask parliamentary questions about defence matters. The issue is only confused by those who say that we cannot be told about individual security operations. Of course nobody wants to know a rumour that a bomber is coming to London. We do not want a parliamentary question that leads to the Minister responsible replying, “We think that a bomber is staying at a Bayswater hotel.” That is not the point at issue. The question is whether a state within the state, employing people with no feeling of responsibility to the Government elected by the people of this country, can continue as it is.

The Government wish to conceal information because that suits their book. I dare say that all Governments will want to conceal information—[Interruption.] It is not my purpose to make a party point. I hope that hon. Members will give me some credit. I am trying to raise a matter that is of equal concern in all parts of the House and to every elector. It would not alter matters very much if my right hon. and hon. Friends were occupying the Government Benches and those of hon. Gentlemen were seated on the Opposition Benches. I am clear about that. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the record, they will find that, as a Cabinet Minister, I raised the same questions on the Labour party’s national executive and submitted a memorandum that warned of the dangers. That was 10 years ago.

When one considers that the Government sent in the police to remove the Zircon film, and the prosecutions of Tisdall and Ponting, one realises that the real conflict concerns both sides of the House and those who elect us. We have heard much about the oxygen of publicity for Sinn Fein. Democracy lives by the oxygen of information. If one cuts off the oxygen of information and releases instead the poisonous gas of secrecy, misinformation and news management, one destroys the basis on which this House safeguards our people. The House of Commons is the real guarantor of the liberties of the people, not those individuals in little offices who have their own ideas about who is subversive and who engage in bugging, blackmailing and in destroying the reputations of those whom they do not like.

Democracy’s second safeguard is conscience. There is no substitute in law, administrative action or court ruling for the person, be they man or woman, who says, “What is being done is wrong and I shall speak my mind and take the consequences.” If one removes the safeguard of conscience from people who, in the course of their work, may come across something they feel it would be in the public interest to divulge—whether one gaols them, punishes them, or makes them into public villains—they would only be doing what we told the Germans at the Nuremberg trials they should have done, which was to disregard unjust orders—[HON. MEMBERS: “No!”] Of course that is what the Nuremberg trials were all about.

Parliament must protect these principles. In many ways I share the view of the hon. Member for Thanet, South. Next week I shall have been here 38 years. I have never known a House of Commons that has been so craven in surrendering one of its rights after another—surrendering powers to the EEC, accepting 120 foreign bases, and now, in the name of security, handing over even greater powers to the Executive. If we do not stand up here and now it will be too late—

Mr Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I am approaching my last sentence.

We must make a stand here and now or we shall find that, in the name of freedom, we are surrendering our liberties.

WHO THE HELL ARE THESE PEOPLE? WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY? AND WHY ARE THEY IMMUNE TO LAW? 

BECAUSE ROTHSCHILD’S A JEW? AND THEREFORE, BRINGING CHARGES WOULD BE DEEMED ANTI-SEMITIC?

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North)

To ask the Attorney-General whether he is considering bringing any prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act arising from the “Spycatcher” episode.

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

No, Sir.

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why he is not yet prosecuting Lord Rothschild?

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

My answer as to why no prosecution was being brought was given several months ago. To bring such a prosecution would not have been in conformity with the Attorney-General‘s published guidelines for prosecutors.

Mr Michael Fallon (Darlington)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend find it extraordinary that, even after yesterday’s outrage, the Opposition still do not support the need to uphold the duty of confidentiality of those who work in our security service in order to defend the country from terrorism and subversion?

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. There seems to be a certain ambivalence in the attitude of Opposition Members to that litigation. I venture to suggest that if we were not prepared to incur the cost of litigation to uphold the duty to which my hon. Friend has referred, the cost would very soon be more than money.

TRY TO DEFINE THE CROWN?

SO WHO THE HELL IS IT THAT ARE PROSECUTING US?

AN UNKNOWN, CENTRAL STATE WITHIN A STATE, SUBJECT TO NO-ONE AND SUBJECT TO NO PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY?

AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE WANTS TO DO WHAT? PROSECUTE WHO? FOR WHAT?

WHO IS PROSECUTING US?

As for this piece of absolute trash:

Sir John Morris (Aberavon)

I, too, wholeheartedly welcome the Attorney-General back to his place in the House.

What is the prime consideration in relation to prosecutions? Is it damage to national security, or is it political embarrassment? Does the Attorney-General maintain consistency in his approach to Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting and to others such as Mr. West, Mr. Pincher, Lord Rothschild and the security men who may have leaked information to those people? Has not section 2 of the Official Secrets Act been virtually put out to grass and replaced in practical terms as a damage limitation exercise by actions for breach of confidentiality?

Mr Michael Havers (Wimbledon)

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind remarks. He used the word prosecutions, not for the first time during my questions. In fact, the proceedings in Australia are civil proceedings. There is no way in which we can prosecute under the Official Secrets Act in another country. With regard to the action in Australia, the principle has been brought out clearly today that it is the Government’s determination to establish that once a man joins a service in which he promises to keep secret for the rest of his life all that he finds, that principle should be upheld.

So you cannot prosecute in another Commonwealth country where the Queen is the Head of State? Her Majesty had her Governor General destroy the Government of Gough Whitlam in 1975!

So Her Majesty can do that but Her Majesty cannot prosecute in Australia, an individual who has broken the law relating to her Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act? Didn’t we just say it is the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE?

Then if the CROWN can’t prosecute certain people then what sort of CROWN is this?

I’ll tell you what sort of CROWN it is: It is a CROWN, within which ROTHSCHILD plays a very significant part alongside his lackey Lizzie!