Earthlinggb's Blog

The British Police: And here was you thinking it was just me!

Posted in Law, Politics by earthling on July 29, 2011

When the Guardian run a headline and article like this, there is pause for consideration. On one hand, it is welcome since it is becoming increasingly obvious throughout our society, that the Police are a “law unto themselves”. On the other hand, it is immensely concerning because, as we know (or should) our press is not exactly free and they are, at an editorial level, controlled to ensure that anything the state does not wish to be exposed and published shall not be. As an aside, this is very clear when one thinks of the steps taken by the state to suppress (and oppress) any and all newsmedia who would consider publishing information on the Hollie Greig abuse issue. So one must consider the possibility that this article has been given the “clear to go” by the editorial team because they have not been stopped by the higher chain of command. This is concerning in that one can consider, then, that the establishment (state) are more than happy to have such published for their own reasons.

There is another element to this story, however, which is unstated in the article itself yet, given a moment’s thought, is quite clear:

The British Police are there to protect “the Public” (indeed) but as the article states “Are they?”. Well, they are the protectors of THE STATE, the SYSTEM, this so called “democracy”. If, as the article points out, they are NOT necessarily on “our side” (i.e. the PEOPLE’S side – and I believe I may have just pointed this out before if you care to look at previous blogs) then what the article is ACTUALLY intimating is that THE STATE is not on “our side”. Now give that some thought because that is PRECISELY what this article is saying whether or not the journalist who wrote it appreciates this. The Police act on behalf of “The Crown” and “The State” as do the Judiciary etc. The Police have been given these freedoms to act as they do BY the State. It is not “by accident”.

So, then, here is the article:

 

 

Can confidence in the Metropolitan police sink any lower? Even before the past few weeks revealed the possibility of their complicity in the News of the World hacking scandal, and the past few months their brutal attitude towards the policing of students and other protesters, there were many who already had reason to mistrust those who claim to be “working together for a safer London”.

Take Ann Roberts, a special needs assistant, who was recently given the go-ahead in the high court to challenge the allegedly racist way in which stop-and–search powers are used: her lawyers claim statistics indicate that a black person is more than nine times more likely to be searched than a white person.

Or take the family of Smiley Culture, still waiting for answers after the reggae singer died in a police raid on his home in March this year. They are campaigning on behalf of all those who’ve died in police custody. Inquest, a charity which deals with contentious death, particularly in police custody, reports that more than 400 people from black and ethnic minority communities have died in prison, police custody and secure training centres in England and Wales since 1990.

Ian Tomlinson’s family may finally be able to see some justice when PC Simon Harwood comes to court in October on manslaughter charges, but if the story had not been tenaciously pursued by journalists (particularly the Guardian’s Paul Lewis) the police would no doubt be sticking to their line that a man had merely collapsed at the G20 protests and that missiles had been thrown at medics when they tried to help him.

The appointment of Cressida Dick as head of counter-terrorism following John Yates’s resignation is similarly unlikely to inspire confidence in anyone who remembers her role in authorising the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005, mistaken for a terror suspect because an officer decided he had “distinctive Mongolian eyes“.

One of the positive effects of “citizen journalism” is how much harder it makes it for the authorities to disseminate disinformation, such as the stories put out by the Met concerning Tomlinson’s death. More recently, in the case of the arrests of UK Uncut protesters in Fortnum & Mason, video footage of chief inspector Claire Clark deceiving the group into a mass arrest has proved highly embarrassing to the police, who nevertheless freely admit that arrests at protests are part of an ongoing intelligence-gathering operation. The use of undercover police officers, such as Mark Kennedy, recently found to have unlawfully spied on environmental activists, has further increased suspicions regarding the motivations for police spying, not to mention the fact that its illegalitymakes it wholly ineffective against those it would seek to prosecute. It is cheering to see those targeted fighting back against such criminalisation of legitimate protest, particularly among those too young to vote, such asAdam Castle, who is taking the police to court over kettling at a student protest last November.

But given the many allegations of police corruption, racism, spying and death in their supposed care, why does anyone feel safe when the police are around? Robert Reiner, professor of criminology at LSE and author of The Politics of the Police, describes the phenomenon of “police fetishism” in the following way: “the ideological assumption that the police are a functional prerequisite of social order so that without a police force chaos would ensue”. In fact, as Reiner points out, many societies have existed without an official police force or with very different models of policing in place. While it may be hard to imagine Britain without a police force of some kind, it is increasingly clear that those who “protect” its largest city are far from doing any such thing.

In the runup to the 2012 Olympics, we should be deeply concerned about the Met’s policies and actions, particularly when they congratulate themselves on things that appear to be utterly in contrast to the way everyone else experienced them, such as the supposed “restraint”shown by police on recent demonstrations. Before the royal wedding, many were arrested on what have been described as “pre-crime” charges, with the effect that many were banned from the city for several days for doing precisely nothing. In parliament, David Cameron described the royal wedding as a “dry run” for the Olympics. If by this he means simply a large spectacular event watched by many around the world, then that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, he means it to be yet another opportunity to pre-emptively criminalise, to increase surveillance, to restrict the movement of individuals and to condemn protesters, then we have a serious problem.

The resignation of those at the top of the police, and waning public trust in police policy in general, give us a perfect opportunity to question the Met’s organisation and tactics. It may be difficult to shake off the idea that the police are “a condition of existence of social order”, as Reiner puts it, but to stop imagining they are automatically on our side might be a good place to start.

 

 

Now, I would ask (plead?) that any of our Police force (and/or Armed Services personnel) who read this, pause for some serious reflection and soul searching and consider the content and the message behind this piece of mainstream journalism while, if you wish, considering my previous posts/commentary on the Police in this country and what it is you are not understanding/grasping about where this is all taking us. That includes YOU!

The Police are now losing their jobs (34,000 countrywide by 2014/15).

Why is this happening? It’s called “AUSTERITY”. These measures are being put in place by the IMF and the IMF’s demands are being met by our government for our government have no option (but they DO have an option). They have no option because of ONE SIMPLE FACT: WHO is in control? The Creditor or the Debtor?

Our government BORROWS money by issuing gilts and government bonds. What ARE gilts and bonds? What gives them their value? Where do they come from?

The answer is VERY simple and you need to UNDERSTAND THIS: They are guarantees to the Creditor (they are COLLATERAL) and they derive their value from US. From OUR labour (the sweat off our brow) PLUS the land, the infrastructure, forests fishing rights, every piece of REAL value within our borders and our seas and continental shelf. If this country does not generate enough GDP or GNP to pay the debt then the Creditor gets to a point where they say “How are you going to pay me?” THAT is where the collateral comes in and where the government sell off of assets comes in. The Creditor takes further and further control of these assets and the country is no longer sovereign (and the UK has not been sovereign for decades if not centuries). The wealth is then handed into private hands and this is why, more and more, the Corporations take over (which are entirely controlled by Private Banking interests because it is the private banking interests which have a complete monopoly on the issuance of currency and credit.

Now I could go ON and ON about this but for the sake of brevity I won’t and I will leave it to the readers’ intelligence to see how this PONZI scheme works! It is not a “ponzi scheme” from MY words, it is so from the words of our politicians over decades and this is shown, again, in other recent blogs of mine. Anyone from Douglas Carswell MP last year to Captain Henry Kerby in the 1960s and Lord Sudeley in 1999. AND OUR GOVERNMENT KNOW IT!

My God BEN BERNANKE (Alan Greenspan’s successor and current Chairman of the Federal Reserve System even last year has ADMITTED there is no need for ANY nation to have a national debt!

If there is no need for a national debt then there is no need for AUSTERITY measures. If there is no need for austerity measures there is no need for cuts. To ANYTHING!

So the POINT IS: POLICE WAKE THE FCUK UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE BECAUSE, AS YOU CAN NOW SEE THROUGH YOUR OWN CUTS, THE SYSTEM IS NOW ATTACKING YOU TOO!

And to the Armed Forces: YOU and YOUR FAMILY are being attacked by this system yet this same system is asking you to protect it! DO YOU UNDERSTAND YOU ARE GETTING USED TO CREATE THE VERY SOCIETY THAT IS GOING TO OPPRESS YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES? DON’T YOU GET IT?

It is very very very simple!

 

Now for god’s sakes lads WAKE UP!

THE QUEEN, UKIP, NIGEL FARAGE, LORD PEARSON & THE EU

Posted in Law, Politics by earthling on May 31, 2011

We have a corrupt Monarch who has now just released comments to the media that she believes she may be the last monarch of the United Kingdom. She cites concern regarding the potential for a Scottish referendum voting for total Scottish Independence – which, it must be added, is a joke and a lie on the Scottish people since there is NO independence while a nation is controlled by Private Banking interests through affiliation with the IMF and while, just as today all laws adopted in Scotland and the UK as a whole, are originating from our new Big Brother state, the EU, the same shall continue when Scotland simply becomes another small state like Ireland. The split up of the United Kingdom has been a long time coming and has been a necessity for the EU to take full control over this powerful, relatively rich and patriotic nation – but the Queen has known for decades this day was coming (since 1972 when we joined the EEC if not well before) ad the writing was firmly on the wall 20 years later in 1992 with the Maastricht treaty. The fact is that the Monarch has never been sovereign for decades. The even sadder fact is, she knows it and she has worked hand in hand with the agenda because it is precisely what she wishes for.

So now, your (and my) “Queen” is softening the UK public up to accept the reality of the EU. To all those Royalists and those who have scoffed at those of us who have said you no longer HAVE a real Queen or Monarchy while you waved your flags and bought your mugs and got all patriotic and teary eyed at the Royal Weddings, rather than BUY your mug don’t you FEEL like one?

She broke her Coronation Oath from the minute she stood up from the throne having been given her Crown!

 

 

182540.html

 

 

So you believe that the Royals are “concerned” about this beloved United Kingdom of theirs splitting up into nice easier swallowed chunks by the EU do you? You think Salmond’s rhetoric and the step by step approach to devolution over the years since, strangely, we joined the EEC in 1972, is al just “coincidence” do you? Are you SO blind to be unable to recognise you’ve been had and your blindness and unwillingness to listen to those who you believe are just “anti monarchists” and therefore, unpatriotic (when in fact is more precisely the opposite but we see what the Queen and Her Majesty’s Government have been doing these last few decades) STILL will have you remain in denial.

Yes Charlie, the Royals and Salmond clearly look as if they are serious foes! He’s been doing the job of suckering the Scots into the pathetic “Bannockburn” mentality for years and all for his and their benefit and the ultimate benefit of the EU. And Scots (and the entire UK as a whole) are seriously dumbed down enough to just not get it. Too proud perhaps to admit they’ve been screwed by people they trusted so they say nothing, do nothing and allow the screws to get tighter.

Imbeciles!

 

Alex-Salmond-and-the-Prince-of-Wales-are-old-chums.html

 

 

So then on to this group of people called UKIP and, particularly, their “Leaders” Farage and Pearson. Let’s look at political rhetoric and the “Pied Piper” effect it has on the blind followers who watch the antics of Farage on his Youtube EU Parliament rants as opposed to the actual facts of the matter and the LAW of the land which, if UKIP were serious in their intent to have the UK OUT of the EU, they would have attacked the core issue and the establishment powers with this a LONG time ago but refuse to do so.

You see, it’s not just Salmond who plays a Pied Piper for Scots but Farage and UKIP do a fairly decent job in a kind of reverse fashion on the English. Yet you are ALL being “had”.

 

 

The questions which would not only shake UKIP but shake the entire system. Question is: Do you wish to use and pursue them with power? Ask yourself “How much AM I really wanting to change this country and eradicate the lies and the corrupt?” Your call.

Questions:

1. Does Lord Pearson have ANY affiliation with the Rothschild family or close associates either professionally or personally?

2. Is UKIP aligned with Zionist policy?

3. If the answer to 2 above is yes then please justify the existence of a “Jewish state” when, across the world, the ideology of having a state dedicated to a particular, racial, cultural or religious philosophy is considered racist and bigoted? As you are well aware, when the BNP suggest such in any manner for the UK, they are demonised as hardened racists. YET, the British government have the audacity to support – and demand British people support – a state of Israel which is precisely the antithesis of that of the multiculturalism they demand at home.

4. Please state those documents which, together, compose the British Constitution.

5. Please confirm your understanding of the current English Bill of Rights in terms of its legality on statute and the meaning of the phrase:

“And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”
6. Do you agree with both, David Cameron and Tony Benn, that politicians do not, never have and never should have, the power to transfer such powers (i.e. the sovereignty of our laws) to any other entity?
7. For Mr Cameron to state such emphatically as he does, he must draw this conclusion from some form of written (constituted) document which is binding by law otherwise he is speaking purely for himself and has no valid basis for making such a statement. Therefore, from WHERE does he draw this conclusion?
8. Do you agree that, as a government for and BY the people, such individuals in office and entrusted with the proper lawful use of such power, have a fiduciary duty toward the people of the United Kingdom?
9. Do you agree that David Cameron, by his own words, has implicated himself for continuing the same policy which he states, absolutely clearly and unambiguously, has never been within a politician’s power to do so?
10. Do you agree that the statement by Roy Hattersley regarding the deception by our governments in the 1970s regarding our participation in the EEC not affecting our sovereignty is, therefore, tantamount to treason and sedition at law?
11. Do you agree that with the monarch taking an oath to the British people – WHICH SHE MUST DO OTHERWISE SHE WOULD NEVER BE CROWNED BECAUSE HER POWERS ARE DEPENDENT UPON HER MAKING THAT OATH – that those servants of the Crown, and in particular, Parliamentarians and the Privy Council, when swearing an oath to the Queen, are, insodoing, simply swearing, once more to the people, that their entire raison d’etre is to support and protect the monarch in HER duties to the people who she sore HER oath to?
12. Do you agree that it does not necessarily require an army or force to subvert the sovereignty of a nation but such can be accomplished “peacefully” through economic warfare and for those in governmental office to legislate supportively of such? This would, therefore, be where the crimes of sedition and treason by certain members of government such as, of all people, our very own Lord Chief Justice Ken Clarke, would enter the frame. This harks back to the question I raised to Lord Pearson regarding Bilderberg and which Malcolm Wood readily acknowledged as of concern. Yourself, Lord Pearson and others know precisely why this is of concern and your acknowledgement of it makes clear you appreciate the issue. Mr Clarke IS a serious issue! He is a steering committee member and is fully involved in the organisation as are many others.

13. Do you agree that it is pure fallacy to suggest that the United Kingdom does NOT have a Constitution codified or otherwise for, if to suggest such would suggest there is no fundamental laws which apply to the governance of this country and, therefore, it would be, in fact, an anarchy with “government” and the state simply being an apparatus by the ruling class to impose their own wishes upon the people without having any lawful basis for such? Therefore, the word “democracy” would not apply and neither would the rule of law. Do you agree it is an absolute fallacy purely from the perspective that, for a sovereign nation to exist (or have existed) would require a constitution as is the case for any nation, organisation, political party and Corporation?

14. Why are you not bringing this solidly to the attention of the British public? Considering it destroys the whole validity of the EU.

Rothschild… China, White Phosphorous, Iran and Iraq

Posted in Politics, The Corrupt SOB's, Uncategorized by earthling on February 26, 2011

MP Lazarowicz has been advised time and time again about the Rothschild influence yet has simply refused to accept what is in front of his eyes written in black and white by the UK Parliament.

From: Earthling
To: mark.lazarowicz.mp@parliament.uk
Subject: Coming soon… to the UK.
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:22:00 +0000

Dear Mark,

Don’t say I didn’t warn you Mark. Your government of today know it. They’re getting ready for it.
But while all of your colleagues keep your mouths shut to keep in line with the party, this is what you are allowing to build up.
Because you’re allowing yourselves to be bullied. You’re all weak. Just a fact Mark. You’ve lost your individuality. You’re no longer “Mark Lazarowicz” you’re “Mark Lazarowicz Labour MP”. And you and your MP colleagues feel so proud and better and above everyone else – that’s why you feel no need to reply to points which are facts and you cannot argue.
I could be wrong but I sense you picking up on all of this while it’s just too hard and too dangerous for you in your position to speak out. But don’t worry. Your weakness will be more than made up for by those who will. The unfortunate thing is – when they look to you they will ask what your modus operandi was. The answer: “To keep my job”. FAR more important than doing your job isn’t it?
You’re not going to like Britain soon Mark. I don’t like it now but then I “see” it whereas you don’t. You wish to believe it’s all going to blow over.
You’re so very very wrong. Having said that, I hope I’m wrong but I’ve seen this coming for years now. I’ve educated myself immensely to see the how’s and the why’s.

Wisconsin Capitol Building: The Police join the protestors.
breaking-wisconsin-police-have-joined-protest-inside-state-capitol

We have Police in the UK Mark who are beginning to listen too. We don’t want a mini civil war now do we? Or would the bankers profit from it? 😉

I’m just trying to get through to you Mark. When the questions are put nicely I get nothing in return or I get the BULLSHIT responses you know I just got from an evasive treasury. When someone is faced by people who show them no respect, then those people tend to be offered no respect. It’s not a preference but straight, blunt talking is needed and it’s going to be needed even more unless you people get your fingers out of your collective posteriors.

As for the attachments. Just to give you a flavour (hardly exhaustive) of the Rot of the Rothschilds which has crept in over the last couple of centuries – and never let up – while they have “advised” (and I use that term advisedly) the government on all the major sell offs of our industry. A to Z. I haven’t even touched on the Motor industry. So while all the developing world is doing great – investment, GDP growth etc BECAUSE they have basic industry – the UK has zero. Oh EXCEPT for perhaps TWO things – TWO guesses what they are Mark? ….. BANKING and???……….. ARMAMENTS/DEFENCE/WHITE PHOSPHOROUS/ DEPLETED URANIUM SHELLS to sell to Iran and Iraq and every other dictatorship Rothschild can do business with.

Is it getting clearer Mr Lazarowicz?

I wait in hope Mark to hear from a man not a mouse.

Regards,
Earthling

PS: As for the mousy quiet Darling (another weak willed Scot just doing as he’s told – but the pay is good) who has refused to answer the questions I put to him also. Isn’t this a rather interesting little statement he made a number of years ago in the commons:

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). The reason why we ask him to be brief is that we know that he can make his arguments extremely well briefly, which he does time and again——and I say that not only because he happens to be one of my next-door neighbours in an Edinburgh constituency.
The debate has been extremely useful. On few occasions that I have witnessed in the eight years I have been a Member has the House spent so much time discussing directly problems which affect so many of our constituents, and also a problem that is fundamental to the future development of the economy.
There is no difference between the two sides of the House on the principle of venture capital trusts. We all agree that it is desirable, and from time to time necessary, to use fiscal incentives to ensure that investments are made in the sectors where we need it.
The difference between us is threefold. First, we believe that the Government need to consider other sectors, which have been mentioned on both sides of the House. Secondly, we believe that there must be safeguards to ensure that, if one gives a tax incentive, one does not end up subsidising undesirable behaviour, such as the behaviour that occurred when the business expansion scheme was set up. In that respect, too, there was common ground on both sides of the House. The difference between the two sides is that those who support the Government do not appear to accept that there is a case for ensuring that there should be safeguards in relation to venture capital trusts.
I suppose that the third difference between us is that we believe that the Government have given fiscal incentives in undesirable ways, such as the business
417
expansion scheme, but the Government will not accept that the taxpayer’s money has thereby been poured down the drain. I shall perhaps discuss that later.
7.15 pm
The Minister appeared reluctant to accept that there is no difference of principle between us, so we should perhaps not spend too much time trying to make differences where none exist. Perhaps British industry as a whole will welcome the fact that there is cross-party support for the principle of encouraging investment in what is known as the investment gap, which has been identified by almost every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate.
However, I took exception when the Minister said that because no one was focusing on granny farms, as he put it, that was all right. In support of his proposition, he cited the fact that Rothschild’s supported the Government. What a surprise—Rothschild’s supports the Government. I am sure that a bank such as Rothschild’s, which has no fewer than 14 times been the recipient of public largesse, either as an adviser to the Government or as an underwriter of its flotation schemes, should say, “Well done the Government for coming up with that scheme.”
Indeed, as my hon. Friends the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, if venture capitalists do take great care in assessing the risks and evaluating the projects before them, it is scarcely surprising that the Chancellor hardly sat down after his Budget statement before our old chums at Rothschild’s announced that they were going to set up a venture capital trust. They could not have known what was in the Budget, could they? How on earth would they know what a surefire bet it was—unless, of course, they had the amazing foresight of the noble Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare?How could Rothschild’s say so confidently that it was going to set up a venture capital trust unless it had made an evaluation of the type of tax breaks available and knew that, no matter what the risk, no matter what venture it backed, it was guaranteed to obtain a suitable return?
I do not think that the Minister can rely on Rothschild’s for support, therefore, and I believe that both he and Conservative Members generally, today of all days, would do well to be very quiet about Rothschild’s and the Conservative party, for reasons that people outside and inside the House will understand.
The main subject to which successive hon. Members drew attention was the funding gap between quoted companies and small businesses, many of which are funded by family money or by bank overdraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) said, that is starting to change; nevertheless, there is obviously a funding gap and we welcome the fact that the Government are tackling it.
I want to take up an argument that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made about property. I think that we all accept that if inflation remains low—a big “if’—obviously property will not be the kind of bet that it was in the past 30 or 40 years. However, in my travels around the City of London I have been surprised how many people tell me that they are getting back into property again. We all remember the property collapses of the 1970s, the late 1980s and the early 1990s; yet people are getting back into property because it is regarded as a major asset in a portfolio.

But no, indeed, Alistair has no idea what I’m talking about when I put those questions to him now does he?
Would you care to comment Mark? No, I guess not.

Attachments:










I hope that gives a fairly decent summary to you all regarding Rothschild TOTAL influence on the UK government (along with their “Friends of Israel lobby) which you can consider having watched the following Channel 4 programme “Dispatches” Nov 16 2009:
article23997.htm

While you may then consider the following Rothschild “ADVICE” to the UK government:
article6814923.ece

While you may also consider the following Rothschild/Mandelson/Osbourne threesome:
YOU DO NOT MESS WITH THESE JEWS GIDEON! THEY DESTROY GOVERNMENTS NEVERMIND LITTLE WEEDS LIKE YOU!

George-Osborne-warned-stop-rubbishing-Rothschild-or-youre-finished.html

While you ALSO may consider this. Mandelson and Blair dine with the Rothschilds and Gaddafi:
Lord-Peter-Mandelson-spends-weekend-with-Colonel-Gaddafis-son-Saif.html

And this…. Mandelson is, in fact, very likely a Rothschild…..

Mandelsons-family-history–claim-uncrowned-King-Poland.html

While Hannah Rothschild calls him “The REAL PM”! 😉

From the Independent 24th October 2010:

And finally, you may wish to understand why our dearly departed ex PM Blair gets along so well and becomes so rich while being picked up by J.P. Morgan (another Rothschild front bank):

Blair-invites-billionaires-exclusive-No-10-party.html

Who arranged the entire thing for him? Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild, old Evelyn’s bit of fluff!

IS THE FOG LIFTING? IS IT NOW AS CLEAR AS A PLATE GLASS WINDOW FOR YOU?