Earthlinggb's Blog

Queen Elizabeth: You’re trash “ma’am”

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on March 9, 2014

What, exactly, is a “Troll” when the word is used so liberally in the internet world?

I’ve found myself called it myself for simply dropping ONE comment on a page stating my opinion. The Mirror, here, seems to be using the same “tactic” – for want of a better word which eludes me at the moment – of calling people trolls. I always assumed that a troll was someone who would simply either post something over and over again to the same forum or someone who would “follow” another individual and continuously comment in some irritating or threatening manner like a stalker through cyberspace. That would be my definition of a “troll” anyhow. But an individual just simply stating their opinion on an open forum once or twice can hardly be labeled a troll because that would mean everyone who ever posted a comment on a social media network site would be a troll!

No, what it appears to be, is another example of the establishment (or anyone else really) who simply wishes to use some pejorative to create another “layer” in the social fabric mindset which suggests that you don’t wish to be labeled such because it’s like being labeled a homophobe or a racist or even…wait for it… a “conspiracy theorist” So, anyone who has an opinion and is willing to state it when another then reads it and doesn’t agree or like what they read, will be labeled by the latter a “troll” just like the days at school when one of the ‘A set’ would label one of the other kids in some derogatory fashion hoping the rest would follow his/her lead.

We are literally back at kindergarten folks and “The Mirror” is leading the way. A “journalist” no less. No debate on whether the posters may have a point – which, of course, they most certainly do – but such a debate gives the other side a voice doesn’t it? That said, if the Mirror’s idea is to not give the other side a voice then they’re showing their mental incompetence (no surprise then) by actually publishing an article and providing an outlet for that voice, whether the Mirror wishes to be derogatory toward the “trolls” or not.

Certainly, the comments are extremely derogatory regarding the Royal family but then, when trash is trash, you call it trash. You call a spade a spade don’t you? If you don’t then I don’t wish to know you because you are obviously one of those politically correct, brainwashed, brain-dead morons and I have known a few of them in my time. I was even related to such a clan at one point. Never again! 🙂

The point is, I don’t need to tell you (and nobody does) how parasitic this family is. It’s clear as day. Yet you still have the ass lickers as in the following photo:

aff271d05234610eff3d247bb44a3e782db0ed81

Just look at them stand there smiling. So happy to be able to have a story to take away of the day “I met Prince Philip”. WOOPEEFUCKINGDOO! You got to meet some old, rank codger who’s been abusing you and your families for decades while you fight for him and his clan thinking you’re fighting for freedom! God I detest you assholes. So, if the order ever does come to shoot the dissenters, go ahead. I’ll ask for no mercy from you ignorant grunts. How’s your ma doing? Getting on well with her pension while she’s wrapped up in blankets because she’s in fuel poverty? Well that’s British democracy for ya in 2014 Private! Can I just say your “protection” of the “realm” is shit!

Queen parasite

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-royal-family-labelled-parasitic-3218400

While the bitch of Buckingham and family make serious millions per year (that’s ignoring the hidden investments) and yet how much of that enormous wealth would it have taken for her two cousins to have been given a decent life in one of the many palaces and private homes of the royals which litter this country? For most people, it is a lack of financial capability to give their family members what they would like to if such a family member is handicapped or ill in any way, but you have absolutely no excuse.

But let’s even ignore the money and finances needed to take care of your own family. Let’s look at the fact you hid them away and then actually made out as if they were dead decades ago. That takes a special kind of trash that does “ma’am”. But then you’re a royal so you certainly are “special” kind of trash aren’t you? But it also reflects you and your clan’s eugenicist leaning so well. You could not possibly have the country perceive anything but perfection in your “blue bloodline” now could you? So what happens if the new baby Prince ends up with autism or something worse? Though I’m sure that will never happen because I’m sure there will be no mercury being pumped into his veins now will there? No massive doses of chemicals for our future King (hopefully, you’ll all be a bad dream by the time he’s ready to be King).

You’re not only parasites “ma’am” but you psychopaths and trash. The worst sort of trash too. I’d rather bow to trailer trash than your sort of trash “ma’am”. They’re worth so much more than you in human terms. They’ve truly been unfortunate. You’re just simply inherently, trash.

Quen eugenecist 1

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/463398/The-Queen-s-hidden-away-cousin-Katharine-Bowes-Lyon-dies-at-87

No, I’m no “Troll” ma’am. This is MY page! It has no “Crown copyright” on it!

So, if you please ma’am – Piss off!

To think the poor women even curtsied to an animal like you if they saw you on the TV.

Tell Phil he needn’t come BACK as a virus, he already is one!

One does have one’s standards you know and not one of your brood meets mine!

Scotland’s “Crown”: Solid proof the Queen runs the show!

Posted in Political History, Politics by earthling on March 8, 2014
HC Deb 10 February 1998 vol 306 cc185-201185

§Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 18, line 11, leave out from `be’ to end of line 13 and insert `elected by the members of the Parliament’.

§The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst)With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 254, in page 18, leave out lines 19 to 27.

No. 313, in clause 43, page 18, line 36, leave out ‘or’.

No. 275, in page 18, line 38, at end insert ‘or— 

  1. (e) the First Minister being admitted to a hospital under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, becoming subject to a guardianship order or having a curator bonis appointed on his estate’.

No. 76, in clause 44, page 19, line 9, leave out `with the approval of Her Majesty’. No. 276, in page 19, line 10, after ‘appoint’, insert `up to a total of ten’. No. 277, in page 19, leave out lines 11 and 12.

No. 87, in page 19, line 11, leave out `seek Her Majesty’s approval for’ and insert ‘make’.

No. 88, in page 19, leave out line 14.

No. 89, in clause 46, page 19, line 32, leave out `with the approval of Her Majesty’. No. 75, in page 19, line 35, at end insert— ‘(2A) The First Minister shall not make any appointment under this section without the agreement of the Parliament.’. 186No. 90, in page 19, leave out line 37.

§Mr. CanavanI shall speak to amendment No. 44 and the other amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Amendments Nos. 44, 76 and 75 are substantive and the others are consequential.

Amendment No. 44 proposes that the First Minister should be elected by Members of the Scottish Parliament rather than being appointed by the Queen and holding office at Her Majesty’s pleasure. As the First Minister will be primus in paribus, or first among equals, it is more appropriate that he or she is elected by his or her parliamentary colleagues than appointed by the Crown.

In the early stages of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, members of the convention signed a document referring to the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. It seems to me that the concepts of the sovereignty of the people of Scotland and of the sovereignty of a monarch are mutually exclusive. (Yes, indeed they are!) The amendments propose that, if the First Minister is not directly elected by the people of Scotland, he or she should be elected by the people’s representatives in the Scottish Parliament.

I dare say that Opposition Members, and perhaps the Minister, will argue that the role of the monarchy is a mere formality in respect of the governance of the country or the countries that used to be part of the British empire. However, not all that long ago a Labour Prime Minister was ousted from his job in Australia because of the interference of the Governor-General, the Queen’s representative. (And I have previously written about Gough Whitlam, the Australian PM and how all of it came about via the Queen’s mafia. Glad to see confirmation of it once more in parliament)

In 1974, there were two general elections, and the first resulted in a hung parliament. No party had an overall majority in Parliament, and Harold Wilson was the leader of the party with the largest number of Members. However, the Queen did not call Harold Wilson to the palace. In fact, she called the defeated Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), to the palace and asked him to cobble up some kind of coalition agreement with Jeremy Thorpe, the then leader of the Liberal party. There was a long hiatus in which, in effect, there was no Government. Harold Wilson, who was the leader of the biggest party, had to wait in the wings until he was called to the palace to form a Government.

§Mr. WallaceI am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument and I am sure that he would not want there to be any inaccuracy. He will also agree that Jeremy Thorpe and his Liberal colleagues showed good sense by not supporting Edward Heath. Is not the point that Edward Heath had the advantage of incumbency—

§The ChairmanOrder. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is referring to a right hon. Member. (and paedophile)

§Mr. WallaceI apologise, Sir Alan. I was speaking from a sense of history, as I was just a boy at the time. It was actually my first vote.

The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was the incumbent Prime Minister at the time, so it was not a matter of the Queen sending for him. He had to tender his resignation. I am sure that even the 187hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) would have thought it an abuse if the sovereign had summoned the Prime Minister and demanded his resignation.

§Mr. CanavanThat is exactly what the Queen should have done after the February 1974 general election. Whatever the will of the British people, as expressed at the ballot box, it was quite clear that they no longer wanted the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup to be their Prime Minister. The Queen should have summoned him to the palace and sacked him and then called Harold Wilson, but for reasons best known to herself, she did not do that. Sometimes I wonder about the so-called neutral role of the monarchy in respect of politics. (Do you really or are you just gently making the point?)

§Ms Roseanna CunninghamThe hon. Gentleman will know that I am very much in favour of reducing the work load of the monarch—preferably to zero. I was interested to hear the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I do not know whether he knows what happened in Australia, but in contradiction to his point about 1974—which may be true, but I do not know as I was not here at the time—when the Australian Labour Government were sacked and a general election was called, the Liberals, or the Tories, were appointed in the interim and therefore were in government throughout the election. That is an interesting point as it illustrates the other side of the coin from that referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about the monarch’s neutrality, which remains to be proved. (How is it, if we live in a true, free, open democratic country, that even our MPs and Lords question and do not know the exact position of our constitutional monarchy who, we are told, has no power?)

§Mr. CanavanI am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention as it shows the inconsistency of the monarchy or its representatives when they take a role in the running of Governments or Parliaments.

We have to bear in mind too that, if the political pundits are correct, there will be a much greater probability of a hung Parliament in the Scottish Parliament because of the system of proportional representation. The amendments would minimise—in fact remove—the possibility of any interference by the monarchy as to who should be the First Minister and form the Government.

My amendments Nos. 76 and 75 propose that Parliament’s agreement should be required in appointing not only the First Minister but other Ministers and that there should be no role for the monarchy in appointing other Ministers or junior Ministers.

Another anomaly in the Bill is that, under clause 46, the First Minister would require Parliament’s agreement before seeking the Crown’s approval of the appointment of a Minister, whereas the First Minister could appoint junior Ministers without seeking Parliament’s approval. I think that that would be a bad thing and that all ministerial appointments should be subject to Parliament’s approval. A Scottish Parliament should not simply ape the patronage system of this place, where the power of patronage is widely open to abuse. As I had started to say, the Crown is the very pinnacle of the patronage system, although in practice the Prime Minister exercises many of those powers.

We have witnessed many examples—and are perhaps witnessing current examples—of appointments that are made without any reference to Parliament or much democratic accountability. We must remember that the 188First Minister of Scotland will have tremendous patronage powers, because, presumably, he or she will inherit all the patronage powers currently held by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for hundreds of public appointments across Scotland. We are talking not about the appointment of a mere coterie of Scottish Cabinet members and junior Ministers but about patronage over hundreds of public positions across Scotland. (So what this is saying is that, once Alex is in, he has total control of who he appoints to ensure he has all his buddies surrounding him to fully support his exploitation of Scotland and become a very very rich little fat bastard. With the Queen’s acceptance that is)

We should make the First Minister and the First Minister’s ministerial colleagues as accountable as possible to the people of Scotland through elected representatives.

§Mr. SalmondI am very sympathetic to many of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. However, it seems that clause 43 is something of an advance on the current situation at Westminster, where someone is to be called to the palace—presumably the head of the leading party in the general election. The clause states that the Scottish Parliament will nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister. That seems to go part of the way towards achieving the more satisfactory situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined, and away from the process of mystification that we could have in this place if there were a hung Parliament.

§Mr. CanavanI agree that the Bill proposes a ministerial appointment system that is better than our current system at Westminster, where Ministers can be appointed without any reference to Parliament. We once had a rule in the parliamentary Labour party that, if someone was an elected member of the shadow Cabinet, he or she would automatically become a Cabinet member when Labour was elected to government. In at least two cases that I know of, that did not happen after 1 May. Furthermore, I know of at least one Minister whose appointment might not have been accepted had it required parliamentary approval. [HON. MEMBERS: “Name him.”] I forget his constituency, but I believe that he has something to do with the millennium dome.[Interruption.] Yes, he is the Minister for the dome.

§Mr. SalmondIs the hon. Gentleman’s bleeper going off?

§Mr. CanavanI have it switched off.

As I said, the two concepts of sovereignty of the people and sovereignty of the monarch are mutually exclusive. If we really believe in sovereignty of the people, Members of the Scottish Parliament should—as proposed—be elected by the people and accountable to the people. Similarly, Ministers should be elected by the elected representatives of the people. In that way, the Scottish Government or the Scottish Executive would be more accountable to the people of Scotland.

(Notice, at this point, Alex Salmond keeps his powder dry and says nothing in response to this statement by Canavan. Now why do you think that would be? It’s because he is not going to agree to sovereignty of the people when he knows he must retain sovereignty for the Crown and Queen)
6.15 pm

§Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring)I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore)—who said that Labour Members are clones—was not in the Chamber to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). It is nice to know that he still shops for his speeches at Republicans—’R—Us, adding a bit of colour to the Labour Benches. (Liam Fox: Zionist ass licker of her majesty and liar who used depleted uranium against Libya)

189I shall speak to amendment No. 275, which deals with the important issue of the mental health of Members of Parliament, which is not a laughing matter but a serious issue that is important both for Members of Parliament and for the protection of their electorate—to ensure that representation of the electorate is maintained.

§Mr. McLeishJust for the record, is present company excepted from the deliberations?

§Dr. FoxThe Minister is asking me to give a professional opinion, which I do not think I want to stray into right now.

I wonder how many hon. Members realise that the Mental Health Act 1983 has special provisions for section orders for Members of Parliament. Should, for example, an hon. Member fall ill with a mental health problem, a complex procedure will come into play. First, the doctor signing a section order or the person who is in charge of the hospital where the Member is detained will notify the Speaker. Secondly, the Speaker will appoint someone from the Royal College of Psychiatrists to look after the Member. If that Member is still detained under a section order after six months, the seat will become vacant.

I do not know why there should be such a provision for hon. Members in this place, but not for those in the Scottish Parliament. I think that Ministers have simply overlooked the matter, and I look forward to the Minister bringing the Scottish Parliament into line on that point. It is quite a serious and important matter, which should not be belittled.

§Dr. Lynda ClarkCould the hon. Gentleman advise the Committee of the number of occasions when that provision has been used?

§Dr. FoxI do not think that it matters whether it has been used: the provision is there to protect the electorate should a Member of Parliament be absent for six months and unable to represent his or her constituents. One would hope that the provision would never have to be used and that hon. Members do not suffer in that way, but it is there to protect the electorate. It is, therefore, important.

In tabling amendment No. 276, we wanted to examine a different aspect of the Bill. Our amendment would limit the size of the Scottish Executive. “Erskine May”, for example, limits the Prime Minister’s freedom of manoeuvre in establishing the number of places in his Cabinet, yet this Bill places no limitation on the size of the Scottish Executive. The Bill provides for an unspecified number of Ministers plus an unspecified number of junior Ministers. The Scottish Office is currently run by the Secretary of State and five Ministers. One would not wish a situation to arise—which has occurred elsewhere—in which the number of Ministers was increased simply to keep Members quiet, by appointing more of them as Ministers. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West dealt with the matter of patronage in his speech.

When I was at the Foreign Office—although I do not suggest that it might happen in the Scottish Parliament—one of the Governments whom I dealt with was the Government of Nepal. As the coalition Government started to crumble, one side of the Parliament consisted of 130 Members, of whom 85 were Ministers. I see the hon. Member for Falkirk, West smiling—perhaps because 190he foresees the possible bonanza. However, it will happen only at the taxpayers’ expense. If we are to avoid “jobs for the boys” gibes, we shall have to ensure that we are not writing a blank cheque for Members of the Scottish Parliament or giving unlimited powers of patronage to the First Minister.

§Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus)Not content with limiting the powers of a Scottish Parliament, the Tories want to limit the number of Scottish Ministers to fewer than those in a football team—and for ever more. Surely the size and shape of the Scottish Cabinet is up to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. It is again clear that the Tories have no trust or faith in the Scottish people or their democracy. (Nothing to do with trust in the scottish people. It is to do with there being no trust in politicians by another politician because he knows what a bunch of corrupt gits look like because he is one. Neither are YOU saying that such a call would be made by the scottish people themselves but by the scottish government ministers, so we’re back to square one asshole!)

§Dr. FoxQuite the reverse—the issue is about having less faith in politicians than in the people. (Hah! I hadn’t even read this before I made the above comment! How about that?! :-))‘t are concerned with the ability of politicians to rein themselves in when offered a blank cheque. We have tabled the amendments from the point of view of protecting the electorate from politicians. (This is Liam Fox saying this! How do these people say what they say without going red in the face? How about protecting us from you then you corrupt bastard!) When the people of Scotland voted in large numbers in favour of the proposals in the referendum, I do not think that they ever wanted to give such a blank cheque to the Parliament or for there to be an unspecified number of Ministers.

Given that in this House Ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister, and that the First Minister will have to have the Scottish Parliament’s approval, it would be excessive to stipulate that all Ministers had to be approved by the Scottish Parliament. To introduce an American style of approval of Ministers, such as that welcomed by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, would be excessive control over the First Minister’s freedom. Such control does not apply in Westminster, and the case has not been made for it to apply in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the Minister will reconsider.

Now we get into the “meat” of it all…..

§Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East)I shall speak in support of the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The amendments would delete the following phrases: appointed by Her Majesty from among the members of the Parliament and shall hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure”, with the approval of Her Majesty”—in clauses 44 and 46— seek Her Majesty’s approval”, and shall hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure”. in clauses 44 and 46.

I would not want the group of amendments to be represented as an attack on either Her Majesty or the monarchy. That would be a misreading of the intent behind them. It is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West and I hold certain views about the legitimacy of an hereditary institution exercising what should be democratic power in a democratic society. I for one have never understood those who argue for modernising the British constitution and who speak about sweeping away powers of hereditary peers, while at the same time talking about entrenching the powers of an hereditary monarch. (No mate, neither do I nor many of us)

191 I very much take to heart my hon. Friend’s arguments, particularly those on the 1974 election and what happened to Gough Whitlam in Australia. (Now, you SNP supporters out there: If you do not understand what happened in this case, for one, then you have no idea what this has to do with Scottish “independence” do you? And why you NEED to know!) The future role of the monarchy is not at the heart of the amendments. The amendments focus on the Scottish Parliament’s right democratically to elect Ministers who will hold office in the Scottish Government after 1999.

The Bill technically says that the First Minister shall be appointed by Her Majesty and hold office at Her Majesty’s approval. We know that that is a constitutional fiction. We know that the Queen will not in fact appoint anybody in the Scottish Parliament. She will do so only on the advice of the British Prime Minister and the British Cabinet of the day. (as you will see, this isn’t actually true and he may well have been playing “Devil’s advocate” here. On the face of it, she “takes advice” but she already tells her ministers what “advice” she wishes to take and they simply then tell her majesty what she wishes to hear) We are really talking about the right of the United Kingdom Government and Cabinet to appoint the First Minister, other Ministers and junior Ministers in a Scottish Parliament. Without the approval of the UK Cabinet, that could not go ahead—otherwise, the provision would not be in the Bill. Even the right to hold office is contingent on the continuing approval of the British Government and Cabinet.

There is danger in such a system. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said in an earlier debate that we cannot always assume that the British Cabinet will be in sympathy with the Scottish Parliament and necessarily want it to stand on its own feet, as the Minister would like.

§Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale)I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument most closely. He seems to be making a case for a separate Scottish Head of State. If that is so, why is he sitting on the Government Benches and not with the Scottish nationalists? (Interesting comment because, as you are aware, the SNP as “Scottish nationalists” do not make the case for a separate Head of state do they? At least not a change of who that Head of state is!)

§Mr. McAllionI do not think that I have referred to the Head of State. My opinion on the Head of State—which I presume the hon. Gentleman seriously wants to hear, or he would not have asked—is that the Queen could do a lot worse than put herself forward for a referendum to endorse whether she should be the Head of State. The legitimacy of the Queen’s role will always be questioned as long as she does not subject herself to the consent of the people.

If I were a monarchist—which I am not—I would be arguing for the Queen to call a referendum on her role in the British constitution. If, in such a referendum, she received the endorsement of a huge majority, as everybody says she would, I am sure that that would improve her situation. Others of us would also like a referendum so that we could vote for the kind of Head of State we wanted. It is not a matter of treason to want a democratically elected Head of State—although, judging from the Tories’ comments, it would sometimes seem so.

The heart of the problem is the relationship between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. All the phrases—which the amendments would delete—mean this: the Scottish Parliament would be allowed to appoint its own Ministers only so long as they met with the approval of the Westminster Parliament and Government. That lies at the heart of my objections.

§Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)I think that the clauses about which the hon. Gentleman is complaining mean the complete opposite of what he is saying. The very reason why it is stipulated that the Scottish First 192Minister will hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure is that that asserts absolutely and categorically that he has a direct link with the sovereign, which cannot be overridden by the United Kingdom Prime Minister in devolved matters. That is an essential protection under our present constitutional arrangements. (Question: Why does he need the link? ;-))

§Mr. McAllionThe hon. Gentleman is arguing as if the Queen had real constitutional powers. (Yes he is, because she does as is becoming obvious with every word) We have always been told that, of course, she does not have any real powers, because all constitutional power is exercised on the advice of the British Prime Minister. She would not dare to do anything on her own that a British Prime Minister would not allow her to do. (Of course not because that would give the game away. So, with the PM being a Crown Minister also, he keeps Her Majesty’s secrets, one of which is that he “advises” her rather than the reality which is she tells him what it is she wants him to advise her of! She gets rid of PMs she doesn’t like! Gough Whitlam being just one. I would posit that Maggie Thatcher was another due to her “No!” stance on Europe) Now, all of a sudden, the argument is very different. The hon. Gentleman is saying, “Yes, the Queen does have constitutional powers.” He is agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, who is concerned about the powers that an unelected monarchy exercises in the British constitution. I am increasingly concerned about the hon. Gentleman’s tone and the way in which the argument is developing. (You know precisely what the “Crown” is mate so don’t play silly buggers!)

§Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)The hon. Gentleman needs to consider the implications of what he is saying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested, it matters not whether in practical terms the Head of State uses the power, but it matters from where the power is derived. The practical exercise of power and the source of power are two quite different things. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the clauses. (No they are not two different things. Only power can exercise power. The PM exercises that power delegated to him/her. This was a bullshit statement and transparent)

§Mr. McAllionThe hon. Gentleman, who goes to Scotland on holiday only occasionally, also totally misunderstands the situation. I will tell him where the source of the power of appointment in a Scottish Parliament is. It is the people who elect that Scottish Parliament. There is no need for any reference to the United Kingdom Government, Cabinet or heir to the Head of State. A Scottish Parliament will be democratically legitimate because it will be elected by the Scottish people; it should be allowed freely to appoint its Ministers. That is the bottom line for those of us who agree with the Claim of Right and who believe that sovereignty rests with the people and not with the institution in Westminster. (He’s right in his ideology but totally naive! Or, again, is he just playing a game here? Feigning ignorance?)

Worse than that, throughout the debates, there has been a tension between the UK Parliament wanting to keep control and a leash on what the Scottish Parliament might do, and those of us who want the Scottish Parliament to get on with the job of governing Scotland’s domestic affairs free from interference, control and any dependence on the British Parliament.

§Dr. FoxBut the logic of that position is to move to independence, not devolution. The hon. Gentleman is arguing for a separate Scottish Parliament. (Never Liam! Very observant of you!)

§Mr. McAllionThe Tories have a blanket approach to this debate. They envisage only two possibilities: either there is a toy town Parliament that is under the control of the British Parliament, or there is independence. They say that time and again, but they are wrong. There is a middle position, in which sovereignty is shared between the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments. The Scottish Parliament does not need to seek anyone’s approval for 193the appointment of Ministers—it has the approval of the Scottish people, which is all the sovereignty that is required. That is not to argue for independence. (Notice the word “sovereignty” in all of this and notice he makes the point that there is a difference between the words “sovereignty” and “independence”. This is why I ask Scottish nationalists what it is they want? You see, I have no interest in “Independence”. I want sovereignty! Yet, many nationalists can’t understand what I’m saying so they lambast me for being a unionist! Yet the reality is that I am WAY more “nationalist” than they are!)

Earlier, we debated whether, if the Scottish Parliament broke down and did not work, that would lead to independence or whether it would benefit the Tories and lead us back to a United Kingdom unitary state. I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond): if the Scottish Parliament is a success, it will greatly increase the confidence among the Scottish people. Yes, the Scottish Parliament will argue for more and more powers to be devolved to it—there is nothing wrong with that. The real wreckers of the Scottish Parliament, who are sitting on the official Opposition Benches, do not want the Scottish Parliament to work, so they want the Bill to contain all these various control mechanisms.

6.30 pm

I have great sympathy with the idea that the number of Ministers should be restricted, not only in the Scottish Parliament but in this Parliament. The example of Nepal was cited, where of 130 Members 85 are Ministers. Everyone who is not a Minister wants to be one, so the Executive have complete control over the legislature, much as they have in this Parliament. As a point of principle, I want the Executive to be limited, but not to 10. I want a series of Departments to be set up under the Scottish Parliament, each with its own Minister, so that there are separate Departments for housing, health and local government. The Scottish Parliament should be able to decide on the number of Ministers and whether that number should be limited.

There is much to be said for Bank Benchers having the power to hold the Executive to account. Any Parliament that is worth its salt has to have a number of independent Back Benchers. The trouble with the Westminster Parliament is that there are not enough independent Back Benchers—the Executive tightly control the Back Benchers, which is the wrong way round. We could easily ensure that the Scottish Parliament gets things the right way round, but that will not happen if we check and limit its powers to get on with its own business.

The aim of the amendments is simple. It is for the Scottish Parliament—not for Westminster, the monarch of the United Kingdom state or anyone else—to decide who the Ministers are in the Government of the day in Scotland, as the Scottish Parliament alone will be elected by the Scottish people to fulfil that task.

§Mr. Donald Gorrie (Edinburgh, West)There is only one Liberal Democrat amendment in this group. It is a tidying-up amendment that relates to amendment No. 275, which was tabled by the Conservatives. We fully support that amendment, as it deals with the important issue of the mental health of the First Minister. There is a risk that the First Minister will suffer from megalomania. We already have a Secretary of State who single-handedly decides where the Parliament should be, so there is no knowing what may happen when power goes to people’s heads in the Scottish Parliament and they are corrupted, as all people in power always are. By the law of averages, Conservative Members must sometimes be right—on this occasion, we believe that they have a good point.

We do not agree with the two other points that Conservative Members have made. First, we do not see why there should be a limit on the number of Ministers 194in the Scottish Cabinet. The Scottish Parliament may decide to operate totally differently from Westminster—for example, there may be a flat structure rather than one that includes Secretaries of State and junior Ministers. It should have the scope to approach matters in a modern way and to organise its affairs as it wishes. The electorate will soon respond if there are jobs for the boys and girls, and will punish those responsible. Things can be left to the good sense not of the politicians, but of the electorate. (That’s what the US Constitution framers thought! Look what’s happened there! Are these people for real?)

Secondly, the Conservatives have moved against what we believe is one of the Bill’s best proposals—the introduction of the concept, which is new to Britain, that Parliament must approve all the Ministers. That is a great step towards democracy, and it is a pity that the Conservatives want to remove it.

I shall now deal with the points made by the hon. Members for Falkirk and for Dundee, East and West respectively, I think, although I never remember—

§Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)There is a subtle difference.

§Mr. GorrieThe difference is not so subtle.

The hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) are two of the most refreshing hon. Members, and we have the greatest sympathy with the angle from which they are coming. On this occasion, however, although we understand their argument, we do not agree with it. We believe that the matter is covered in clause 43(1), which states: the Parliament shall within the period allowed nominate one of its members for appointment as First Minister”. That makes it clear that the Parliament chooses the First Minister. As I said, it also has the power to approve the Ministers.

There is a good argument for continuing to mention the Queen in this context. People may feel that there should be a different constitutional structure, but that is a debate for another day. Under the existing structure, the fact that the Queen has the same relationship to the Scottish premier as she does to the British premier gives legitimacy and status to the Scottish Parliament. It demonstrates that the Scottish Parliament is not a toy town Parliament, a parish council, a regional council or a city chambers—it is a Parliament with a direct relationship to the Queen. (Note: ONLY legitimacy IF a direct relationship with the Queen!)

The language may be archaic, but the point at issue is sound—the Scottish Parliament should choose the First Minister. The Parliament will meet to elect the First Minister; he or she will not have to drive in a horse and carriage across the road to Holyrood palace, although the Queen will do whatever she usually does and bless the premier, perhaps—I do not know, as I have never been present at such an occasion.

Clause 47 deals with civil servants. Liberal Democrats strongly believe that a new atmosphere should be created, in which the civil servants are responsible to the Parliament and do not work for the Government only. This is not the appropriate time to ensure that that happens, but when the Parliament’s methods of operation and Standing Orders are considered, we shall push strongly in that direction. Civil servants should continue 195to advise Ministers, but they should also give information to and have much more open discussions with Members from all parties in the Scottish Parliament.

§Mr. DalyellGiven the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), I have a sneaking suspicion that he has read the first leader in this morning’s The Scotsman.

I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question. If there is a conflict of opinion over a United Kingdom reserved matter, whose advice will the Queen take? Will she take the advice of the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament or that of the Prime Minister of the UK? If the matter is a devolved one, will the Queen take the advice of the Prime Minister or of the First Minister? Furthermore, if the matter is devolved but the UK Parliament is legislating under clause 27(7), whose advice will the Queen take—that of the Prime Minister or of the First Minister? (And here you have the strongest of evidence of the Queen’s ultimate power: The two PM’s -or, in this case, at the time, the PM of Great Britain and the First Minister of Scotland – have to COMPETE regarding who’s advice the Queen ultimately takes. It shows, then that it is not the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen today which the queen just accepts in some form of acquiescence, but she CHOOSES which advice she wishes to take. That is, after all, what makes her and her Crown “SOVEREIGN”. No-one dictates to her, it is quite the opposite. If she decides on one of their “advices” then the other has to take it on the chin. SHE is the decision maker! And it is the decision maker who wields the power! Just as in the case of a board meeting with the CEO – the Directors can make their pitches and give their advice but once that CEO decides, that’s it. The Directors do his bidding or else)

§Mr. GrieveI broadly welcome clause 42. Its purpose is to emphasise the importance of the First Minister’s role and his direct relationship with the sovereign. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) does not like the principles underlying that but, as has properly been said, unless there is a change in our constitutional arrangements, it will be wise to observe constitutional conventions, so as to ensure a good working relationship between Westminster and Edinburgh and to secure the status of the Edinburgh Parliament. The First Minister should be appointed by Her Majesty and hold office at her pleasure; that will be an important constitutional safeguard, which will be to the advantage of the Scots.

In tabling amendment No. 254, my concern was that, although clause 42 (1) to (3) properly sets out the First Minister’s role, subsections (4) and (5) go off the boil and refer to a curious hybrid entity. Subsection (4) mentions a person designated by the Presiding Officer in circumstances where, I infer, the Parliament has not nominated someone for appointment. I do not want to get involved in an exercise in semantics, but as the Secretary of State and the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution are here, I ask them to consider carefully whether clause 42 is properly drafted. The references in it to the designation “by the Presiding Officer” of a First Minister ad interim, while Parliament makes up its mind, would be better transferred to clause 43.

Clause 42 should define simply and neatly what the First Minister is supposed to do. Some other part of the Bill should emphasise what the designated First Minister is supposed to be. I assume that he or she is to be the person appointed to stand in for the First Minister if the office is vacant, and so is supposed to have all the powers, rights and obligations that the First Minister has. If that is the case, it would be sensible not to leave the wording in this hybrid condition. The legislation should make it clear that we are talking about a First Minister ad interim, who holds office at Her Majesty’s pleasure exactly as any other Minister would do. As that is a non-party political issue, will the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution look into it?

In conclusion, there has been some discussion of the role of the advice given by the First Minister and by the Prime Minister in the event of conflict—a matter 196raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is obvious that that is a real live issue. In defining the role of the First Minister, it is important that his status should be emphasised and that his direct position as the adviser of the Queen on matters relating to devolved issues should be at the forefront. In so far as clause 42 does not do so, I ask the Minister to look at it again and consider whether there should be some rejigging along the lines I have suggested in amendment No. 254 and the associated amendment, No. 255, which has not been selected because it relates to clause 43.

§Mr. SalmondI am surprised that there was not more enthusiasm from the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) for limiting the number of Ministers. If the Minister of the dome has any say in the appointments, I suspect that neither of those hon. Gentlemen is knocking at the door of ministerial office at present. Indeed, if the Minister of the dome has anything to do with it, the public gallery is the nearest that they may get to the Scottish Parliament. We all hope that that will not be the case and that more democratic processes will be allowed to be carried forward. However, we should be grateful to those two hon. Gentlemen for enabling us to have an important debate.

Tory Members should not misunderstand the position that has been put forward in the amendments. It is not an attack on the monarchy, or the Queen as Head of State, but an attack on one aspect of the royal prerogative, particularly as it applies to the choice of Ministers. That is a legitimate argument. If the amendments were successful, the Queen would remain Head of State, but one aspect of the royal prerogative as regards the appointment of Ministers in a Scottish Parliament would have been removed.

Certainly, it is difficult to argue with the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West that the position of the First Minister, and indeed other Ministers, should depend on the approval and appointment of the Scottish Parliament as opposed to an aspect of the royal prerogative.

6.45 pm

We heard a fascinating interchange between the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Dundee, East. The latter argued that because the Queen normally takes advice from her first Minister, the Prime Minister, and therefore exercises the functions of the royal prerogative on the advice of that person, it could be a dangerous intervention in the ability of a Scottish Parliament to choose its own Ministers. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield says that the clause is some form of entrenchment because it would give the First Minister of a Scottish Parliament a direct line to the head of state and therefore would put that person as a Prime Minister inter pares with the United Kingdom Prime Minister in terms of the relationship with their Head of State.

The interchange was fascinating and not one to which I had paid close attention before this debate. (Bloody lying toad. He’d have given every thought to it. He’s playing ignorant) The question has to be resolved one way or the other and the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution would do the Committee a service if he could adjudicate and tell us whether the interpretation of the hon. Member for 197Beaconsfield or that of the hon. Member for Dundee, East was correct. The logic of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is impeccable in the amendments and I am sympathetic to them, but that issue, which determines in practical terms the position of the Scottish Parliament and its standing with regard to the sovereign and her advisers, needs to be clarified.

Finally and briefly, Conservative Members seemed concerned about protecting the people from the Scottish Parliament, but many people in Scotland voted for that Parliament to protect them from the Conservative party. (Because they’re ignorant enough Alex, to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than work on a real workable solution to both of you) The need to box in the Scottish Parliament’s powers, as opposed to leaving them for the Standing Orders of a Scottish Parliament, betrays an underlying attitude that is not reconciled to the reality of that Scottish Parliament. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, although perhaps not some of the Back Benchers, are still in a process of denial as far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned. They may not like hearing this, but the Conservative recovery will not start until that process of denial in Westminster comes to an end.

§Mr. McLeishFirst, on the point made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about mental health issues, I have consulted the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) who is a neuro-surgeon, but he did not want to offer any suggestions to the Committee at this point. However, he suggested that the Scots are slightly better at differentiating between those who have a mental health problem and those who do not. I shall leave that as a question for the Committee. (haha! Cracking. Talk about a put down!) Interestingly, paragraph 9 of schedule 7 amends the Mental Health Act 1983, so the procedures to which the hon. Member for Woodspring referred will apply in a modified way to the Scottish Parliament. I will touch on some of the more serious issues when I refer to the amendments.

To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) who made a point about this—I do not know whether it was a slip—the Bill provides no role for the United Kingdom Government in the selection of the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers and junior Ministers, so there is no locus for this Parliament or this Government in that regard. I do not know whether that was his point.

§Mr. McAllionCan my hon. Friend make clear the distinction to which the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred? If the Scottish Parliament chooses a First Minister and proffers that choice to the Queen for appointment, but the advice of the British Prime Minister is not to accept the choice, whose advice would the Queen follow? (So. Repeated. And the fact that she chooses who to follow is the proof of her power. If, as the government continuously wishes to tell us, she must follow the advice of her Prime Minister, then how could it possibly be that a PM would end up putting himself in the position where he has competition? Logic, my friends, logic! They give the entire game away with this debate.)

§Mr. McLeishThe British Prime Minister would have no locus in that appointment.

§Mr. McAllionMy hon. Friend is clearly stating that the Queen would take the side of the Scottish Parliament, as set out in the Bill, against the British Prime Minister. Therefore, the British Prime Minister does not exercise sovereign control over the affairs of this country. (Absolutely correct! BINGO!)

§Mr. McLeishThe Scottish Parliament would approve the appointment of the First Minister. The Presiding Officer would submit that appointment to the Queen and that would be it. We are talking about a substantial 198devolution of power and responsibility to the Scottish Parliament. Devolution means devolution. It will be up to the Scottish Parliament to approve the First Minister, the Scottish Ministers and the junior Ministers. Of course, those appointments will then be approved by the Queen. It is straightforward and there are no complications.

§Mr. DalyellI will not ask my hon. Friend for an answer off the top of his head, but will he write to me, because this question is not as simple as he makes out? Clause 27(7) states: This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland. In the light of that, I think that my hon. Friend should give me a considered answer in a letter.

§Mr. McLeishI shall be happy to write to my hon. Friend, but we should make it clear that clause 27(7), and the debate on it, is about sovereignty and the ability of the Westminster Parliament to make laws in any area, devolved or reserved. This evening, we are talking about the First Minister, and I repeat that he or she will be selected by the Parliament after the election and the choice will be passed to the Queen by the Presiding Officer. That is the process.

§Mr. SalmondThe point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is wrong, because it relates to legislation, not to appointments. However, is it not correct that, under clause 27(7), the UK Parliament could legislate to change the method of appointing the Scottish First Minister?

§Mr. McLeishWe have debated the issue and points have been exchanged across the Committee; the view taken depends on one’s political perspective. We have made the point that this measure devolves substantial powers to Scotland—it is about devolution, not separation or independence.

The Government cannot agree to amendments Nos. 44, 76 and 87 to 90, which were tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Dundee, East. The amendments would remove the involvement of Her Majesty in the appointment of the First Minister, other Scottish Ministers appointed under clause 44 and junior Ministers appointed under clause 46.

The Scottish Ministers, headed by the First Minister and assisted by the junior Scottish Ministers, will exercise, on behalf of Her Majesty, her prerogative and other executive functions in relation to devolved matters. (They are DELEGATED her power. It is exercised on BEHALF of her. It is not THEIR power) They will, in effect, be Her Majesty’s Government in Scotland (not a scottish sovereign government. Not even under independence with the Queen as Head of state) in relation to devolved matters. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate that the Queen should appoint the First Minister; that she should approve the appointment of other Ministers and junior Ministers to the Scottish administration; and that each of those appointees should hold office at her pleasure.

The involvement of Her Majesty does not, of course, exclude the involvement of the Parliament. On the contrary, in line with the White Paper, the Bill provides a significant role for the Scottish Parliament in the appointment of the Scottish Executive. It is a point worth making that in this place, Ministers are not approved or, selected by the House, but the Scottish First Minister and the other Scottish Ministers will be approved and voted on by the Scottish Parliament.

199That is a significant step forward in the scrutiny of the Executive. It starts at the foundation: the people will have spoken in electing Members of the Scottish Parliament who then, for the first time and unlike here, will have the ability to influence who represents the people of Scotland in ministerial posts. The significance of that step should not be lost on the Committee this evening. We see no need to amend the Bill in the way proposed, and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West withdraw the amendment.

I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West and for Dundee, East in support of amendment No. 75. The nature of the post of junior Scottish Minister will differ from that of a member of the Scottish Executive. The nature of their task will be to assist the Scottish Ministers in the exercise of their functions. With that in mind, the Bill proposes a simpler mechanism for their appointment. Nevertheless, I am also aware that the Scottish Constitutional Convention recommended that all Ministers should require to be confirmed by simple majority of the full Parliament.

I am therefore happy to accept the intention behind amendment No. 75 that the Parliament should be involved in the appointment of junior Scottish Ministers. I therefore undertake to bring forward an appropriate Government amendment on Report. With that undertaking, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West not to press the amendment.

The Government cannot agree to amendment No. 254. The provisions in the Bill are intended to ensure that there is always someone able to perform the functions of the First Minister and act as head of the Scottish Administration. In practice, it is expected that each First Minister will hold office until replaced by his or her successor. However, circumstances could arise where the post falls vacant, for example on the death of the First Minister or if the First Minister is temporarily unable to act—that may fall partly into the definition proposed by the hon. Member for Woodspring. In such an event, a caretaker can be appointed to fulfil the role, pending the nomination and appointment of a new First Minister.

§Mr. GrieveI understand that point, but the clause as it stands conveys the impression—it may be no more than an impression—that the person who is acting is somehow a different animal from the First Minister, whereas my understanding is that an acting First Minister would still hold office at the Queen’s pleasure and have all the First Minister’s powers. That is the point that is opaque in the clause as it stands.

§Mr. McLeishThat is a reasonable reflection, but I must get on and cover some more of the points raised in the debate.

The mechanism for appointment of such a caretaker reflects the exceptional and transitory nature of the appointment. It lacks the formalities of the appointment of the First Minister precisely so as to avoid conveying the impression that the person is the First Minister rather than a temporary incumbent. On balance, the Government believe that the arrangements should be kept as simple as possible. The Presiding Officer is well placed to be able 200to judge which Member of the Scottish Parliament has the capacity and political credibility to fulfil that important role and I believe that it should be left to the Presiding Officer’s discretion.

The Government do not accept amendments Nos. 276 and 277. Amendment No. 276 would restrict the number of Scottish Ministers whom the First Minister can appoint. It would be inappropriate to do that, for a variety of reasons. The First Minister will have to seek the agreement of the Scottish Parliament; therefore, within the group of 129 MSPs, there is accountability and a chance to make a judgment on the number of Scottish Ministers. The Parliament will be able to withhold its approval if it thinks that there are too many nominations. In addition, through its control of salaries and allowances, the Parliament will be able to limit to a reasonable sum the expenditure on ministerial salaries.

There is a feeling on both sides of the Committee that the matter should be left to the Parliament. It is a question of maturity and of adopting a sensible perspective. Ultimately, the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament will be accountable to the people of Scotland for their actions. That will, in our view, provide the proper means of ensuring that the size of the membership of the Scottish Executive is truly appropriate.

§Dr. FoxWe are missing a great opportunity. Such a self-denying ordinance would have sent a signal to the Scottish electorate that a blank cheque is not being handed over. I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the amendment, but we shall press it to a Division.

§Mr. McLeishThe Committee is not offering a blank cheque to anyone. We are setting up a mature, serious and responsible Parliament, and it will be up to the Members of that Parliament to decide what Ministers are required to carry out the functions and represent the interests of the Scottish people. That is appropriate and proper. We do not share the Opposition’s concerns, and I hope that they will not press the amendment.

The Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 275 and 313, which are both unnecessary and inappropriate. The circumstances described are unlikely to arise in practice, and if they did, there are mechanisms in the Bill to deal with the problem. If at any time it appeared to the Presiding Officer that the First Minister was unable to act for whatever reason, including mental illness, it would be open to him or her under clause 42(4) to designate an MSP to exercise the functions of the First Minister.

Should it become clear that the First Minister’s inability to carry out his functions was not going to be merely temporary, he would be expected to resign. In the unlikely event of his being unwilling to resign, the Scottish Parliament could effectively remove him and his Executive through a vote of no confidence. That would require the First Minister to resign and would, in turn, lead to the appointment of a new First Minister. That may seem a drastic course of action, but the likely political reality is that there would be a general recognition of the need to address the problem and the Parliament could act to ensure that the matter was resolved without delay. In any case, I submit that clauses 42(4) and 43 provide a serious process to deal with a potential problem. First, there is a temporary acceptance and accommodation of the fact that the First Minister is unable to do the job; then there is a proper procedure to repair the situation.

201The Government cannot accept amendment No. 278, which would remove from the First Minister some valuable flexibility to tailor the structure of the Scottish Administration to the demands upon it. In view of the time, I shall now sit down.

§Mr. CanavanThis is a somewhat historic occasion, as it has been many years since I last tabled an amendment that was accepted in principle by the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that. I am pleased that the appointment of all Scottish Ministers, whether the First Minister, other Scottish Ministers or junior Ministers, will be subject to the approval of the Scottish Parliament. I am not convinced of the arguments for the role of the monarchy in the appointment of Ministers, but I shall not press that point. I shall seek to withdraw amendment No. 44 at the end of the debate and I look forward to the Government tabling an amendment similar to my amendment No. 75 on Report.

§Mr. WallaceJunior Ministers will not be members of the Scottish Executive under the terms of clause 41. Will the Minister explain why?

§Mr. McLeishThe simple answer is that we shall have the First Minister and the Scottish Ministers, and we hope that the junior Ministers will have a supportive role in the work carried out by the other Ministers.

§Mr. CanavanI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

§Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to 
Forward to 

For Queen AND Country?

Posted in "Climate Change", Finance, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on November 28, 2013

The Armed Forces and the Police: They LOVE their Queen. They think when they take that oath for Queen and Country it is all wrapped into one. What IGNORANT IDIOTS they are! While they do their duty their own families are getting SCREWED by the very woman and HER family they swear an oath to!

THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF STUPIDITY but what’s even worse is: Even when it’s put in black and white under their noses – never mind by a blogger but later by a national newspaper (though the newspapers never paint the whole picture in one nice big gulp. They just feed it gently over months or years piece by piece – that way the big picture gets ignored by the ignorant!) – they STILL don’t get it!

So let’s look at today’s (21st April 2012) headline in the Daily Mail for starters shall we?

The real news (but just a snapshot of it) next to Cowell just to distract the attention. “Oh I don’t understand wind farms etc… sounds boring anyhow… so I’ll read the Simon Cowell segment”. GOD this country is SO THICK and yet it then moans constantly about being screwed!

Now, a blog I wrote over a year ago:  The Crown: Profiting from your misery!

To all you STUPID “monarchists”: You bloody fools! Those parasitical scum are screwing you left right and centre while you celebrate a Diamond jubilee and wave your silly little flags as the Olympic team and English football teams sing their praises for her and her clan every time they win a bloody medal!

What is it you do not understand about the monarchy (who are MEANT to be ONLY a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy – funny that when so many say we have no constitution!!) through their lovely little banking friends – the Crown Estate – OWN THE SEABED?

Now just before moving on, watch this little clip of the corrupt bastard you call your Prince:

What is it you do not understand about this?

UK PARLIAMENT ARCHIVES:

11 Feb 2003 : Column 245WH—continued

Seabed Management

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland): I am delighted to have secured this opportunity to examine the workings of the Crown Estate Commission, which is one of the slightly gloomier corners of Government business. It is an area of public life that is not often overly troubled by the bright lights of public accountability, but it has a profound and real effect on the life of my constituents and many people who live in coastal and island communities throughout the United Kingdom. It was the subject of a considerable part of my maiden speech. …….

I would be delighted if the Minister were to say today that the Government will examine the question of ownership of the seabed. Such an initiative is long overdue. However, I realise that this is a Westminster Hall debate. I have been an MP long enough now to be realistic about what can be achieved. For that reason, I have asked that today’s debate be limited to the management of the seabed. Nevertheless, it never hurts to place on record my belief that it is fundamentally obnoxious that a body such as the Crown Estate Commission should exist and should exert power in the way that it does over coastal and island communities. I speak as one who represents several island communities and was born and raised in one.

It is questionable that we should allow such a body to raise money from things on which we depend, such as piers and marinas. We have no alternative but to use them, but rent is exigible by the Crown Estate Commission on them.

Now get this:

I turn to sub-sea cabling. The Minister may be aware that a project to lay a fibre optic cable between the Scottish mainland and Shetland is under consideration, although it is rather on the back burner. It would be in tune with an important Government policy on broadband to get that cable laid, and it might well be supported both financially and politically by the Scottish Executive, the Shetland Islands council charitable trust, the Shetland Islands council and the Orkney Islands council. However, if that is achieved, the Crown Estate Commission will charge no less than £64,000 a year in rent simply for the privilege of allowing that cable to lie on the seabed.

The same situation will transpire in the event that we are able to lay electricity cables to allow the export of electricity generated by tidal or wave power or wind power in the islands, which are uniquely well placed for the development of renewable energies.

UK Parliament – Crown Estate

SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS RENT (PER YEAR!!) FOR A SINGLE CABLE DOING NOTHING/ZERO/NADA BUT SITTING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA ON THE SEABED!

NOW work out why there is so much emphasis on OFFSHORE WINDPOWER and work out why, while the feed in tariffs for those using solar power on their houses has been dropped so dramatically last year (41p/KW to 21p/KW) while wind energy AND PARTICULARLY OFFSHORE WIND, was not hit?

Do you get it? It is SIMPLE!! While it is possible for people to receive money back from the energy providers (the feed in tariffs) for supplying the grid, the CROWN DO NOT WANT THAT AND THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO HAVE THE REMOTEST POSSIBILITY OF BEING “OFF GRID” AND SELF SUFFICIENT!

What happens when the generation of the electricity is offshore? There is NO self sufficiency and it ensures that all of our (your) energy supply is provided by the grid and NOT YOU!

Now, since the dawn of North Sea Oil, the Crown Estate have owned that because they OWN THE SEABED AND THE MINERALS – see the blog which provides the link to the FACT that Petroleum vests with the Crown itself!! It does so for this simple reason – the Crown owns the seabed and minerals! Doing so, the Crown has been making 12.5% “royalties” (outside of the tax paid to government coffers) from the day oil was first struck in the north sea. 12.5% of the value of EVERY barrel of oil!

Now back to the wind power: Remember that £64,000 rent for a single cable between the scottish mainland and the Isle of Skye? Well think about this:

Charlie, invest in this, go around the world promoting the doom of the planet like the young David Rothschild. Also invest in Tamar energy (biomass) with me, Jacob and Evelyn and make speeches at the EU Parliament so they know who’s boss, and I assure you, you’ll be the richest King ever as you screw your subjects to the wall mate. Just watch the energy prices rise! 🙂

Now consider this picture of a typical wind farm set up and all the requirements. THEN consider the number of turbines and then the number of cables between the turbines and the grid back onshore. Think about that number multiplied by at the very least £64,000 per year every year JUST FOR SITTING ON THE SEABED! Then wonder: WHO THE HELL GAVE THE SEABED TO THE QUEEN AND THE CROWN ESTATE? THEN wonder once more about Tony Benn’s comments in Parliament regarding who or what the hell the Crown is in the first place? Put it all together and take a deep breath!

Let’s just ask one of many questions of this Crown Estate: “How many turbines are anticipated and how much is the rental PER CABLE PER YEAR for them to sit on the seabed doing SOD ALL?”

Then, perhaps, we can also ask them how much they are charging for the rent of every single turbine itself?

NOW can you get it through your skull as to why they don’t want you generating your own electricity? But they will “create jobs” for you to create THEIR energy generating plant so that they can get you to pay for it and pay for your energy that you are working for them to generate! YOU CREATE FOR THEM AND THEY PAY YOU PEANUTS BUT THEN THEY MAKE IT WORSE BY CHARGING YOU FOR THE ENERGY YOU HELPED CREATE FOR THEM TO CHARGE YOU! DON’T YOU GET IT YET?

Now let’s just take a quick look at ONE aspect more of this:

The Crown Estate acting as a co development partner. How nice. What the HELL does the Crown Estate know about anything? Anything at all? Nevermind the engineering of offshore wind farms. While the cost of just the development and CONSENT (consent by whom? Ah you guessed it – THE CROWN ESTATE!) is just 4% of the total cost of a 500MW wind farm. But that 4% comes to £60M! NICE! 🙂

Read the whole thing:

Crown Estate – Guide to making a fortune and screwing the people of the UK by ensuring grid tied offshore wind farming. And charles and Co LOVE IT!

Now one last thing because you may read this and say “You said the Petroleum vests in the Crown and yet this says the Crown Estate doesn’t have control over the oil! So you’re wrong!!”

But listen: Even the UK bloody parliament doesn’t know who the Crown actually are! Read the blog: “Tony Benn, the straight man” – tony-benn-the-straight-man

THEN read once more: Petroleum vests with his majesty! The question then is “How many British Crowns are there?” Or is it that the Crown is something more than her majesty while she is the main focal point of it from the population’s ignorant perspective? Why, for instance, are there clauses in the Bank of England Act 1946 which are protected by the Official Secrets Act? Why is it that now, the Queen and her family are being even more protected from scrutiny by this utter manipulated and corrupt shit they call “law’?

Now here’s something else (how much do you actually need before that bloody penny drops you monarchical cretins?):

Charles: Richest King in history!

Osbourne licks Charles’ arse!

Republic warns of “historic stitch up” as Queen asks Parliament to allow royal funding changes

29th Jun 2011

Republic has described new plans to tie royal funding to Crown Estate revenue as an “historic stitch up” that could divert millions of pounds from public services.

The Queen today issued a “gracious message” asking Parliament to allow changes to royal funding which would see her paid a single annual grant based on a percentage of revenue from the Crown Estate. Proposals for the new “sovereign support grant” will be presented to MPs tomorrow and introduced in a new bill.

The royal household is currently funded through the Civil List and grants from several government departments.

Republic spokesperson Graham Smith said:

“The Crown Estate is not – and never has been – the personal property of the royals. The Windsors have no more right to its revenue than I do. To claim that it should fund their lavish lifestyle is deceitful and dishonest.”

“The Crown Estate is there to fund government and public services. If this deal goes through it will be a historic stitch up that will end up lining the royal family’s pockets.”

“We’ve seen that the royals are unable to keep their spending under control. The new grant is likely to lead to even greater waste with less accountability. It will give the royal household even more freedom over its finances at exactly the time when its expenditure should be more tightly controlled.”

“The office of the head of state should be funded like every other public body– through a budget agreed by Parliament and based on need.”

NOTES

Details of the funding changes are on the HM Treasury website: leg_sovereign_grant.htm.

The Crown Estate is a land and property portfolio, managed on behalf of the Government, whose surplus revenue is paid annually to the Treasury. It is the ‘hereditary possessions of the Sovereign’, not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.

New report reveals annual cost of British monarchy ‘enough to feed an army’

23rd Jun 2011

The annual cost of the monarchy has been found to be more than the entire annual MoD food budget and the equivalent of thousands of nurses, police officers and teachers, according to a new report.

The new report by campaign group Republic has revealed that the total annual cost of the British monarchy could be over £200 million, more than five times the official figure released by Buckingham Palace.

The report describes the monarchy as ‘one of the most expensive, wasteful and financially irresponsible institutions in the world’.

The estimated cost presented in “The ‘Value for Money Monarchy’ Myth” includes security expenditure, costs of royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, all of which are excluded from official figures.

The key findings include:

* The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).

* The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

* Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades.

* £202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme.

* The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.

* Britain’s royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.

* Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household’s exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family’s finances.

Republic will be holding a protest outside the gates of Buckingham Palace on Saturday June 25 at 1pm to raise awareness of the cost of the monarchy. The protest will go ahead despite the decision by the royal parks agency to withhold formal permission.

Republic’s campaign manager Graham Smith said:

‘This report cuts through the spin and shows beyond doubt that the British monarchy is a colossal waste of public money. The royals have shown that they are simply incapable of reining in their spending – they will continue to waste taxpayers money until the government stands up to them.’

‘In pointing out the scale of waste here we’re calling for an immediate start to opening up royal accounts. It’s time for the government to take control of the monarchy’s budget, pay the Queen a salary and make the royal household fully accountable to taxpayers.’

‘Every year we go through the charade of Palace press officers telling us what great value the monarchy is. It’s time for the royals and politicians to come clean – spending hundreds of millions of pounds on one family is morally indefensible, especially at a time of painful cuts.’

NOTES

For further information or comment contact Graham Smith on 07747 608 770 or graham@republic.org.uk

The report is available to download from http://www.republic.org.uk/royalfinances

The protest will go ahead outside the gates of Buckingham Palace at 1pm on Saturday June 25.

Visitors have been mesmerised by the quality that pervades every aspect – thanks to the demanding eye of a man who, in every aspect of his life, operates at the highest level.

The Rothschilds have always been well connected – Lord Rothschild’s son, Nat, has been the subject of media speculation after entertaining George Osborne and Peter Mandelson on the oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s yacht – but this family does not court publicity, preferring to operate through a network of connections behind the scenes. Indeed, Lord Rothschild rarely gives interviews, even about a subject as close to his heart as Waddesdon.

The purpose is to provide an archive and a conference centre, holding meetings on “subjects of interest to mankind, such as climate change, the environment, the Middle East, investment. Ten years ago I held a conference with Warren Buffet and people were queuing to come. I intend to do more of those, perhaps with the Saïd Business School at Oxford.

Lord Rothschild: My manor from heaven.

Now, it is significantly, the very last paragraph of this which is of immense interest and very telling. You see, the conference old Jacob refers to which he held 10 years ago is that conference at Waddesdon Manor which Arnold Schwarzenegger attended shortly before running for Governor of California. Furthermore, even more telling is the transcript of that meeting which was reported in the Times shortly thereafter. It was this:

Read it ( They knew! ) and recognise that these bastards not only knew what was coming but they planned it years before while the British Government (yes, even the UK chancellor, Alistair Darling, suggested he did not see the financial crash coming until 2007/2008. If not, then he was never obviously, “in the know”. You see, the Labour party (the left wing of the bird) pumped the bubble up (Tony and Gordon knew exactly what they had to do) and the right wing of the same bird (you see they are both run by the same people at the top) then imposes the austerity while there is no need for a national debt in the first place! See previous blogs on this proving it!

And lastly, Charlie linking up with the Rothschilds to invest in the very scam they preach is necessary to “SAVE THE WORLD”.

Charles’ Rothschild links and the screwing of a nation.

I mean, my apologies to those of you who still can’t quite grasp this but you must be as thick as dog shit not to understand what is and has been going on here for a very long time!

There was a reason I rewrote this song. Tongue in cheek yes but absolutely true nevertheless:

National Geographic:  Who owns the moon? Could Richard Branson?

You may think this is crazy but just you watch!

Destroying the mindgame!

Posted in Law by earthling on November 28, 2013

An open letter to any and all Lawyers, Barristers, Judges who dare reply and debate this issue which destroys the mindgame you have played a part in over centuries.

Debate or shut up!

Please, be my guest and attempt to make an argument against the following. I look forward to it.

The following totally destroys the Judge, the politician, the Law enforcer, the magistrate, the establishment figure, the media whore who laughs at the subject and the man or woman who simply refuses to believe what is the fact: The fact is that the State and the United Nations, the European Union – in fact ANY and ALL “nations” and constructed legal personality (legal fiction) can have absolutely no authority over a natural person under any circumstances UNLESS that “legal person” is acting as dictator and effectively destroys the widely held belief that we are all equal before the law. The ONLY fallback the State has is the argument that there is such a thing as “Supremacy of law”. We will see, however, that this simply does not hold water because it is, again, a construct of the very legal personality (fiction) which determines it.

So let’s start with the INSTITUTIONS:

The European Union

The relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights is an issue in European Union law and human rights law. The European Court of Justice rules on European Union (EU) law while the European Court of Human Rights rules on European Convention on Human Rights which covers the whole of Europe, not just the EU, but not the institutions of the European Union. The European Union (EU) is not a member of the Council of Europe and the European Union takes the view that while it is bound by the European Convention it is not bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. As seen in Article 6(2) of the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union is bound to respect fundamental rights principles. This means that the institutions of the European Union must not violate human rights, as defined by European Union law, and also that the Member States of the European Union must not violate European Union human rights principles when they implement Union legislation or act pursuant to Union law. This obligation is in addition to the Member States’ pre-existing obligations to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in everything they do. In practice, this means that the Court of Justice weaves the Convention principles throughout its reasoning. For example, the Court held that when a child has a right of residence in a Member State according to Union law, this also means that his parent(s) should also have a right of residence due to the principle of respect for family life enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Prior to the entry into force on 1 June 2010 of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the EU could not accede to the Convention, and the European Court of Human Rights’ did not have jurisdiction to rule on case brought against the EU. However, the EcHR has been prepared to hold EU member states liable for human rights’ violations committed within their jurisdictions, even when they were just complying with a mandatory provision of EU law.

Please recognise what this is, in fact stating: While the EU creates and demands that its laws are implemented in the member states (for example the UK), the EU, itself, is not bound by the ECHR – it is immune! So the EU may create laws which fundamentally violate Human Rights. While they create the law and the member states MUST implement them, if the member states then are found in violation of one’s human rights, it is the member states who are attacked for doing so. Yet, the member states are put in a position by the immune EU to implement the law! Make NO mistake, this is like a mafia boss telling one of his minions to murder someone because that is his ruling (and the minion does not question the Don now does he?) – that is the “law”. So the minion goes ahead and murders and the legal profession come along and prosecute the minion while leaving the Don immune for making the order. Similarly, it is precisely the issue which was deliberated upon during the Nuremburg Trials. The question was: Were those who carried out the orders of their government (Hitler), guilty of warcrimes? However……

Protocol No. 14 of the ECHR entered into force on 1 June 2010. It allows the European Union to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. The EU’s Treaty of Lisbon, in force since 1 December 2009, permits the EU to accede to said convention. The EU would thus be subject to its human rights law and external monitoring as its member states currently are. It is further proposed that the EU join as a member of the Council of Europe now it has attained a single legal personality in the Lisbon Treaty.

Now remember this: The EU has attained a legal personality. It is recognised by law as existing and, as such, can enter treaties (which are simply contracts). The EU is now a LEGAL PERSON. A Judge can now “see” the EU because it now exists as a legal person whereas, before, a Judge could not “see” the EU because it did not legally exist!

Now, how did the EU gain its legal existence?

Well, like any other Corporation and Nation:

On 1 December 2009, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force and reformed many aspects of the EU. In particular it changed the legal structure of the European Union, merging the EU three pillars system into a single legal entity provisioned with legal personality. The EU is based on a series of treaties. These first established the European Community and the EU, and then made amendments to those founding treaties.These are power-giving treaties which set broad policy goals and establish institutions with the necessary legal powers to implement those goals. These legal powers include the ability to enact legislation which can directly affect all member states and their inhabitants. The EU has legal personality, with the right to sign agreements and international treaties. Under the principle of supremacy, national courts are required to enforce the treaties that their member states have ratified, and thus the laws enacted under them, even if doing so requires them to ignore conflicting national law, and (within limits) even constitutional provisions The European Council uses its leadership role to sort out disputes between member states and the institutions, and to resolve political crises and disagreements over controversial issues and policies. It acts externally as a “collective Head of State” and ratifies important documents (for example, international agreements and treaties). On 19 November 2009, Herman Van Rompuy was chosen as the first permanent President of the European Council. On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force and he assumed office. Ensuring the external representation of the EU, driving consensus and settling divergences among members are tasks for the President.

Sovereign states are legal persons. A sovereign state, or simply, state, is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state. While in abstract terms a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states. The word “country” is often colloquially used to refer to sovereign states, although it means, originally, only a geographic region, and subsequently its meaning became extended to the sovereign polity which controls the geographic region. Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The UN Charter, the Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organisations express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of their existence as persons under international law. The right of nations to determine their own political status and exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognised.

In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognized as sovereign:

The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was sovereign if another sovereign state recognized it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognized nations did not have to respect international law in their dealings with them.

Note “ying and yang”: They could not be part of the International community. The corollary of which was that recognised nations could break the law in their dealings with them! Incredible isn’t it? While, if that unrecognised country were to break international law (as was its “right” because it was not recognised as existing and the international community could break the law toward it) you can be sure that the international community would demonise it as a “rogue state” all simply due to the fact that the international community would not recognise its sovereignty! I think it’s called the international community taking advantage of a vicious circle!

In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:

…International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it is not recognised, but it takes no notice of it before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a subject of International Law.

By contrast, the “declarative” theory defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into relations with other states.

According to declarative theory, an entity’s statehood is independent of its recognition by other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. Article 3 of the Convention declares that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood. A similar opinion about “the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state” is expressed by the European Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. The Badinter Arbitration Committee found that a state was defined by having a territory, a population, and a political authority. Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e. they exist both in law and in reality). However, sometimes states exist only as de jure states in that an organisation is recognised as having sovereignty over and being the legitimate government of a territory over which they have no actual control. Many continental European states maintained governments-in-exile during the Second World War which continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their countries were under Nazi occupation. A present day example is the State of Palestine, which is recognized by multiple states, but doesn’t have control over any of its claimed territory in Palestine and possess only extraterritorial areas (i.e. embassies and consulates). Other states may have sovereignty over a territory but lack international recognition; these are considered by the international community to be only de facto states (they are considered de jure states only according to their own Law and by states that recognize them).

People may sometimes refer to “the will of the international community” to strengthen their own point of view or the opposite expression “the international community is divided” to explain a consensus has not yet been reached. In diplomacy and debate a case that includes this statement could be a sentiment of majoritarianism and a description of options to take action for the benefit of all countries. It is occasionally asserted that powerful countries and groups of countries use the term to describe organisations in which they play a predominant role, that might be interpreted as indifference toward other nations. The enactment of conflict or war may be claimed as an action of the “international community” by a superpower or coalition that could represent under half or less of the world’s population.

Ain’t that the truth!

An example of the term used by some western leaders is when denouncing Iran, for its nuclear ambitions of suspected nuclear proliferation, by stating that “Iran is defying the will of the international community by continuing uranium enrichment“. The Non-Aligned Movement which consists of 118 countries from the 193 United Nations member states, has endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium for civil nuclear energy.

Rousseau, in his 1763 treatise Of the Social Contract argued, “the growth of the State giving the trustees of public authority more and means to abuse their power, the more the Government has to have force to contain the people, the more force the Sovereign should have in turn in order to contain the Government,” with the understanding that the Sovereign is “a collective being of wonder” (Book II, Chapter I) resulting from “the general will” of the people, and that “what any man, whoever he may be, orders on his own, is not a law” (Book II, Chapter VI) – and furthermore predicated on the assumption that the people have an unbiased means by which to ascertain the general will. Thus the legal maxim, “there is no law without a sovereign.

The 1789 French Revolution shifted the possession of sovereignty from the sovereign ruler to the nation and its people.

De jure, or legal, sovereignty concerns the expressed and institutionally recognised right to exercise control over a territory. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. Cooperation and respect of the populace; control of resources in, or moved into, an area; means of enforcement and security; and ability to carry out various functions of state all represent measures of de facto sovereignty. When control is practiced predominately by military or police force it is considered coercive sovereignty. It is generally held that sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. Thus, de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty has limited recognition. Internal sovereignty is the relationship between a sovereign power and its own subjects. A central concern is legitimacy: by what right does a government exercise authority?

Claims of legitimacy might refer to the divine right of kings or to a social contract (i.e. popular sovereignty). So, an interesting point here to raise in the case of legitimacy in the UK, for example: From where does the UK government and Monarch derive their legitimacy? Do they DARE state they derive it from the “Divine Right of Kings”? Do they DARE? I don’t think so do you?

External sovereignty concerns the relationship between a sovereign power and other states. For example, the United Kingdomuses the following criterion when deciding under what conditions other states recognise a political entity as having sovereignty over some territory;

“Sovereignty.” A government which exercises de facto administrative control over a country and is not subordinate to any other government in that country is a foreign sovereign state.
— (The Arantzazu Mendi, [1939] A.C. 256), Strouds Judicial Dictionary

External sovereignty is connected with questions of international law, such as: when, if ever, is intervention by one country onto another’s territory permissible? According to existing International law, as preached (but not practiced) by the International community through the U.N., the answer to this question is NEVER. Every last war “declared” by the west, therefore, is in breach of International law. Period!

Since the 19th century, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is “capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person.” Ten years later, they reaffirmed the result of Letson, though on the somewhat different theory that “those who use the corporate name, and exercise the faculties conferred by it,” should be presumed conclusively to be citizens of the corporation’s State of incorporation. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by statute, as U.S. jurisdictional statutes specifically address the domicile of corporations. In the international legal system, various organizations possess legal personality. These include intergovernmental organizations (the United Nations, the Council of Europe) and some other international organizations (including the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a religious order). Corporations are by definition legal persons. A corporation sole is a corporation constituted by a single member, such as The Crown in the Commonwealth realms. A corporation aggregate is a corporation constituted by more than one member.

Now, please fully appreciate that the above has just stated absolutely clearly and factually that these institutions AND the Crown itself are no more nor less than Legal Persons in their own right. As such, they are, by definition within this legal “matrix” we are all subject to, EQUAL to each and every “Natural Person” (i.e. you and I) on this earth. Again, any judge or any state prosecutor could NOT argue differently. This is simply legal (LEGAL) fact – legal fact that these institutions are LEGAL FICTIONS! 

The Juristic Person.I

Author(s): George F. Deiser

Reviewed work(s):

Source: University of Pennsylvania LawReview and American Law Register, Vol. 57, No. 3,Volume 48 New Series (Dec., 1908), pp. 131-142

Published by: The University of Pennsylvania Law Review

The law has been playing with such a fiction for centuries, in the course of which, the fiction, instead of disappearing, as it so conveniently does for the mathematician, has increased in girth and height, and has maintained its ghostly existence, in the face of the anathema of the philosopher and the fiat of the judicial decree. In an evil day the law, like the hospitable Arab, who permitted his camel to shelter his head within the domestic tent, gave shelter to an imaginary person-the persona ficta,-then an infant, seemingly of little promise and of precarious tenure of life. The most uninformed mind has an idea of capacities, and can even follow the ramifications by which a man by marrying his first cousin, loses some of his second cousins, or becomes second cousin to his own children, but the separation of individual wills from collective wills is a task which even the academic mind has but unsatisfactorily accomplished. Person, collective property-persona ficta-the name is very nearly matter of indifference so long as we understand by it an existence distinct from the members that compose it; for, be it understood, one may be a member of this corporate body and yet deal with it-may sell to it-buy from it,-in fact, maintain business relations with it, precisely as he does with any other natural person. The matter begins with dogma; men, in law and in philosophy are natural persons. This might be taken to imply that there are also persons of another sort. And that is a fact.

Men/Women are “Natural persons” in law because a “Natural person” is, and only is, a LEGAL DEFINITION used to differentiate from a “legal person” (or “Corporate person”)

It was said by an eminent authority that when a body of twenty, or two thousand, or two hundred thousand men bind themselves together to act in a particular way for some common purpose, they create a body, which by no fiction of law, but by the very nature of things, differs from the individuals of whom it is constituted. Now the state is a body of this kind, and beginning with the state and coming down by successive gradations, we encounter by the way, the subordinate state, which, if autonomous, is the next body of this sort, the self governing county, district, or department; finally the municipal corporations such as cities, boroughs or townships. We have very little difficulty in recognizing that when the state acts, it is a different matter from the action of any member or citizen of the state. If the state owe money, it is not owing by the citizens; nor if half the citizens emigrated would anyone think of following them to collect from each, his proportion of the debt. It is not a conception that the rationalistic mind finds easy.

No? Then WHY ON EARTH has the world’s population “rationalised” the idea of bailing out Privately held banks on the demand of the State? I would like to ask each and every individual who have just shrugged their shoulders and considered it ok exactly what the hell they are thinking of? Anyhow, that is an aside on the subject of this blog.

The conception of the persona ficta is an inheritance from the Roman Law, developed and expanded by the ecclesiastical lawyers of the Middle Ages, and bestowed on modem legal thought by Savigny. Real men are united to form a fictitious being; a fiction which holds property. It has necessarily, no natural rights. The theory hence, has no regard for members; nor can the persona ficta exist except by virtue of some creative act of the state. The Juristic Person.-A right is inconceivable without corresponding relations between some individual and the community to which he is subject. If we find a right, such as that of ownership, in existence, we must discover a subject for that right. If the right attaches to a human being, he is the subject; if it attaches to a name used to designate the collective will of a group of men, the name or collective will is the subject. By advanced abstractions, by reasoning a priori, jurists have reached the conclusion, that in relation to the quality of being a subject of law, the individual, and the group of individuals as such, occupy a like position. Personality is considered therefore, an attribute not only of men, but of groups of men, acting as a unit for the attainment of a common end. The term juristic person is simply the legal expression for this fact, that above the individual or specific human existence there stands generic human existence. In other words, when we encounter the problem of defining, interpreting, explaining, the actions of human beings in groups, as such, as contrasted with the action of any members of the group as individuals, the group stands for genus, and the individual stands for species. The collective will of a group of men so acting and holding property, when recognized as a subject of law, or as having legal subjectivity, or more plainly, when recognized as capable of holding definite legal rights, is no more a fiction than is the personality of any human being. This juristic person, or collective will of the group, is not a creation of the law; the law does not create its personality, but finding a group engaged in some common pursuit, endows it with a definite legal capacity. It is capable of exercising rights, capable of committing wrongs; the former, it may vindicate; the latter it must atone for. It may seem a far cry from the question of the legality of a fine imposed upon a corporation in an amount greater than that of its capital stock, to the apparently academic discussion of its personality or non-personality, yet they are in fact so intimately related that our legal system cannot ignore the relation without affecting its stability. If men as individuals can do acts that require intent, and men acting in groups cannot, the community must restrict the activity of men in groups. For the actions of groups of men, collective actions, there is no reason, no justification, no authority but that of might. Beginning with the state, and proceeding downward to private corporations, control proceeds from the power of the strong over the weak.

“Human groups,” says Duguit, in his dramatic way is  

based upon community of needs, upon diversity of individual aptitudes, upon the reciprocity of services rendered; in these human groups, some individuals stronger than others, whether because they are better armed, or because we recognize in them some supernatural power; whether because they are richer, or because they are more numerous, and who, thanks to this superior power, can impose their will on others; these are the facts. Let us call the state a human group, settled upon a definite territory, where the stronger compel obedience of the weaker, and we are agreed. Call political sovereignty that power which the stronger exert over the weaker, there is no controversy. Proceed beyond this and we enter the realm of hypothesis. To say that this will of those who rule is only imposed upon individuals because it is the collective will, is a fiction conceived to justify the power of the strong-a fiction, ingenious enough, invented by the prophets of force to legitimate force, but for nothing else.” Returning for a moment to the state, which is everywhere recognized as a person, it has been observed truly, that the feeling that even the state is a very unreal person, may not readily be dispelled.14 But the difficulty is purely subjective; the existence of personality apart from a body is insufficiently concrete. Yet the notions of ownership, or of in-corporeal rights are equally esoteric. And if personality offer a solution, the difficulty of the conception ought not to stand in the way. If now, we attempt to define our problem we shall find the facts to be these. Corporations, under existing legal systems, for judicial or legislative purposes are regarded in two ways: I. The corporation is a fictitious person or entity (as in England and the United States). II. The corporation is a real person (as in Germany, France, Spain, and some other continental countries). The problems arising under both of these attitudes are these: A. Does the corporation as a group or unit possess rights and owe duties ? B. Has the corporation as a group or unit criminal or moral responsibility? C. What is the nature of the shareholders’ interest? If again, we examine the nature of corporate existence with reference to proffered solutions, we shall find again, that the corporation is a fictitious person, or a real person, or a form of co-ownership, or a form of agency or action by representation. It remains to consider these views with reference to the extent to which they resolve the problem.

George F. Deiser. 3313312.pdf

The following is from: 0njp9-concept-legal-personality-english-law.html

The idea that a husband could not rape a wife comes down through the ages from the ancient belief that a wife was her husband’s property. The legal principle that a woman was a separate being from her husband was not established until 1882 in England by the Married Women’s Property Act – see Married_Women\’s_Property_Act 

Where a party changes their gender, or wishes to change their gender, UK law has gone through a transformation. Once a gender change, although medically possible, did not alter the          realities of the gender at birth for a person. That changed, as the UK began to grant rights to transexuals (recognising them as PERSONS).

See Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism#United_Kingdom

By providing transexuals these rights, the UK has granted them standing to be treated as persons whose rights must be respected and who have valid claims to make against those who refuse to respect their rights to life, liberty, property, and their names. Legal personality determines and establishes the patterns which help determine the rights, duties, and powers of persons. Minority groups, be they minorities due to age, gender, religion, or other classifications, are not able to control their own destinies until the law recognizes them as having the right to exist and make demands on others.

The above crystallises the facts: ONE IS NOT A “PERSON” until the legal world recognises them as such. The transexual, although in reality a living and breathing being, was not a “person” until the legal system said so! This is crystal clear and there is no way whatsoever that the legal system can argue that YOU exist and are recognised within the legal system by the sheer fact that you literally exist. The transexual literally exists but, only recently, did they exist from a legal standpoint as a PERSON.

LEGAL SUPREMACY

What the constitution says: The EU will for the first time have a “legal personality” and its laws will trump those of national parliaments: “The Constitution and law adopted by the Union institutions in exercising competence conferred upon it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states.” What it means: This really just confirms the status quo, which is that if the EU is allowed to legislate in an area of policy, its law will overtake any national laws. Equally in areas where it does not legislate, national law prevails. By having a “legal personality”, the EU will be able, as an organisation, to enter into international agreements. The old European Community had this right but the EU as a whole did not so its status in world diplomacy increases.

Now, here, one must recognise that the ONLY reason the EU law has primacy over, for example, UK law is because when the member states agree to the treaties, the entire idea of the treaties is to give the EU that power. There is no other reason. Any and all member states were and are SOVEREIGN nations and have the right to enter treaties OR remove themselves.

2950276.stm It gives the EU a legal personality – like a country, not an international organisation. This argument seems to rest on the assumption that international organisations do not have a legal personality. But most do. It also glosses over the fact that the European Community – which still exists on paper as a legally separate entity from the EU – already has a legal personality. (Whether the EU already has a legal personality is a matter of dispute.) But could the EU, if it acquired a single legal personality, end up joining international organisations or signing international treaties instead ofmember states? This has not been the practice up to now. Both the European Community and the EU have been signing treaties for years, and the European Community is a member of the World Trade Organization, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and the Hague Conference. This has not prevented member states from signing the same treaties and joining the same organisations. (This, as you can read in the link, is now old news but gives the reader a better understanding of things it is hoped).

A declaration to be added to the new treaty underlines that acquiring a legal personality will not authorise the EU to act “beyond the competences conferred on it by member states”. Declarations are a statement of political intent. They are not legally binding but the European Court of Justice does take them into account in its judgements. 6928737.stm

Now, let’s consider another element of “legal personality” and the ideology surrounding that of immunity of diplomats, heads of state and their “capacity” bestowed upon them by the “law”. The reader will, it is hoped, recognise how this entire legal system is corrupt from the very top to bottom to protect the interests of those who implement it.

The  reason the Pope cannot be arrested and prosecuted in the UK is because he is entitled to Head of State immunity.  Dawkins and Hitchens are not unaware of this problem.  Apparently they have enlisted Geoffrey Robertson QC to provide an opinion stating that the pope is not a head of State and therefore not entitled to head of State immunity. Robertson elaborates on this point in a recent article in the Guardian. Robertson argues that the Pope is not entitled head of State immunity as a matter of international law because the Vatican is not a State.  His arguments are simply incorrect. The Vatican has a tiny territory and a tiny population but it does fulfill the criteria for Statehood. As James Crawford puts it, in his authoritative work The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed, 2006), p. 225, after detailed analysis: “it is clear that the Vatican City is a State in international law, despite its size and special circumstances.” The size of population or territory are irrelevant for the purposes of Statehood.  What is important is that the entity possesses those criteria as well as the two other criteria for Statehood – which are: a government in effective control of the territory and independence (or what is called “capacity to enter into legal relations” in the words of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States 1935). The Vatican as a territorial entity does have a government: the Holy See which is headed by the Pope. As Crawford’s analysis makes clear, the Holy See has its own independent legal personality (about which more later on) and that personality predates the Statehood of the Vatican. However, the Holy See is also the government of the Vatican City State. More imporantly, the Vatican is independent of any other State. Its independence from Italy which is the State that could have had claims to control that territory is recognised in the Lateran Treaty of 1929. So, since the Vatican is a State then the head of that State, the Pope, is entitled to head of State immunity under international law. This immunity is recognised by Section 20 of the UK’s State Immunity Act which extends to “a sovereign or other head of State”, the same immunities accorded to diplomats. These immunities are absolute in the case of criminal proceedings. In other words there are no exceptions to the immunity. The International Court of Justice’s decision in the Arrest Warrant Case (Congo v. Belgium) 2002 confirms that this type of immunity continues to apply even when it is alleged that the head of State has committed international crimes. So an allegation that the Pope may be responsible for crimes against humanity will not suffice to defeat his immunity.

INCREDIBLE BUT TRUE!

The SOVEREIGN Order of Malta: Legal person and legally sovereign.

It should be noted that the immunity of a head of State from criminal prosecution in foreign States is there for very good reasons. In the first place, those State agents charged with the conduct of international relations are given immunity in order to allow international relations and international cooperation to continue to take place. (So understand this well: The Head of State can rape, murder and much anything else but, so as to allow continued International cooperation, they can commit these crimes and walk away. Do you accept that? If you do and if the International community does then how can the International community possibly argue that the Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan wars were legally justified? The Head of State is allowed to commit genocide and atrocities! Or is that only if they are OUR” accepted Heads of state? This is no joke folks. I sincerely wish it was!) Secondly, the immunity of foreign heads of States assures that just as States may not engage in regime change by armed force they may not achieve this end by criminal prosecutions either. It respects the fundamental autonomy of each State to determine who it is governed by.

So, again, one has to ask: What on earth was it that didn’t provide that assurance to Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein etc?

Even assuming that the Vatican were not a State under international law that does not mean that the Pope will not be granted immunity from criminal process in the UK. First of all, the UK courts in determining the question of immunity will not be asked to determine whether the Vatican is a State under international law. Under Section 21 of the State Immunity Act, the question whether the Vatican is a State is to be resolved, conclusively, by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. So as long as the Foreign Office is of the view that the Vatican is a State, the Courts are bound to accept that. The State Immunity Act aside, deference to the executive on matters of Statehood is in line with longstanding case law of the English Courts. It is almost certain that the Foreign Office will certify that the Vatican is a State, as the US executive did in a case against the Vatican in the US. Britain maintains diplomatic relations with the Holy See and has an Ambassador with the Holy See. It may be argued that this is not quite the same as recognising the Vatican as a State – and it isn’t. The embassy is to the Holy See and not to the Vatican. Nonetheless, as far as I know Britain has not objected in the past to the Vatican’s claims to be a State nor has it, as far as I know, opposed the Vatican’s accession to treaties that are only open to States. A second reason that the Pope will be entitled to immunity from criminal process in the UK even if the Vatican were not a State is because there is general acceptance of the international legal personality and in particular of the “sovereign” status of the Holy See. The relationship between the Vatican and the Holy See are complex. Crawford’s book referred to above, deals with this question very well. What is clear is that the Holy See as the central authority of the Catholic Church is not just the government of the Vatican. In addition, it has a special status in international law and has international legal personality which precedes the creation of the Vatican in 1929. What is important here is the nature of that international legal personality. Like the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta, the Holy See is deemed to have a sovereign status akin to Statehood. This includes possession of the immunities that States are entitled to.  It may be significant that Section 20 of the State Immunity Act provides immunity for “a sovereign or other head of State.” Does sovereign in that context allow for entities like the head of the Holy See, the Pope, even if he were not a head of State? It may be interpreted in this way and should be. It could be argued the word “other” in that provision, militates against this interpretation. However, even if S. 20 does not allow for the immunity of Head of the Holy See, that would not preclude the argument that customary international law does. can-the-pope-be-arrested-in-connection-with-the-sexual-abuse-scandal

The Crown in Contract and Administrative Law

Abstract

An essential and neglected distinction between contract and administrative law is in how each conceives of the Crown as a juristic person. This article explores the extent of this distinction, and its implications for the rule of law and the separation of powers. It offers explanations—historical, jurisprudential and pragmatic—for why contract law conceives of the Crown as a corporation aggregate with the powers and liberties of a natural person, and why administrative law disaggregates the State  into named officials.

129.abstract

The international legal system is the foundation for the conduct of international relations. It is this system that regulates state actions under international law. The principal subjects of international law are states, rather than individuals as they are under municipal law. The International Court of Justice acknowledged in the Reparation for Injuries case that types of international legal personality other than statehood could exist and that the past half century has seen a significant expansion of the subjects of international law. Apart from states, international legal personality is also possessed by international organisations and, in some circumstance, human beings. In addition, non-governmental organisations and national liberation movements have also been said to possess international legal personality. Since 1945 the international legal system has been dominated by the United Nations and the structures that were established as part of that organisation. While the UN has been the object of significant criticism, it has nevertheless played a pivotal role both in the progressive development and codification of international law. An international organization (or organisation) is an organizationwith an international membership, scope, or presence. There are two main types:

Another difficulty regarding the claimant’s ability to have a cause of action
concerns their legal personality. In order to establish a duty of care it must be proven
that at the time of the injury the claimant was a legal person, which is problematic in the case of the unborn child.
Although in the realm of medicine it is an agreed upon fact that a child
commences to exist before birth and that the child’s “ante-natal development”
should be taken into consideration, English law refutes this notion contending that it
is a firmly established principle of law that a child does not receive an “independent
legal status” until it is born. (Please notice here that the circumstances of the unborn child still residing in its mother’s womb is PRECISELY the circumstances by which the married woman, previously, was considered a “non person” who was the property of her husband. The child does not exist as a person but is one and the same as, and the property of, the mother)
Furthermore, L.J. Dillon also acknowledged the fact that a fetus does not
have legal personality in English law, as verified in the cases of Re F (in utero) and
Paton v. B.P.A.S.. However, he placed emphasis on “other contexts” in which the
English courts have integrated the civil law axiom “’that an unborn child shall be
deemed to be born whenever its interests require it.’”12 On this basis the Canadian
Supreme Court made its ruling in Montreal Tramways v. Leville and contended:
“To my mind it is but natural justice that a child, if born alive and viable,
should be allowed to maintain an action in the courts for injuries wrongfully
committed upon its person while in the womb of its mother.” (Here, it is stating that once, and only if, the child is then physically born, will it then be able to sue its mother – or another – who caused it to suffer a tort while still within the womb)
However with each of these approaches theoretical difficulties arise and contradict Common Law’s standpoint that the damage suffered must have occurred at the time the claimant was a legal person, thus at birth or post-natal. Where a child is born and has injuries perpetrated while in the womb, the harm is “to be sustained by him at the moment of his birth and not before, since prior to his birth he had no legal personality.
index.php?page%3Dredirect%26id%3D158+does+a+court+possess+a+legal+personality&hl=en&gl=uk

Ok, now what is the entire point of the foregoing? Well I hope it is obvious once you read it.

The Crown itself is a LEGAL PERSON. The UN is a LEGAL PERSON. The EU is a LEGAL PERSON. The State (Nation) is a LEGAL PERSON. And YOU and every other human being (within the subject of “the law”) are LEGAL PERSONS. The only differentiation which is made is that of States and Corporations etc being given the title of “legal person” and you being given the title of “Natural person” purely to differentiate the rights, duties etc apportioned to each of these “legal personality” types. BUT THEY ARE ALL LEGAL FICTIONS.

So what does this all mean?

Well it is SO easy:

You: “Your honour, are all persons equal before the law?”

Judge: “Yes indeed they are”.

You: “Can you please assure this court and those in attendance that there is no legal person – such as a Corporate – which has any authority over a natural person?”

Judge: “Indeed I can. As I said, all persons – legal or natural – are equal before the law. One would even have to go so far as to suggest that the natural person is of a higher importance since the natural person is of flesh and blood and endowed with god given rights whereas the Corporation or man made legal person has not”

You: “Then your honour, would I be correct in stating that I, as a natural person, have every right, subrogated to no-one, to enter or decline from entering a contract with another legal person? Or, if, under any and all circumstances, I am forced to do so, or by way of lack of full disclosure, I inadvertently enter into contract with such an entity, that I shall have the legal right to withdraw from any and all such contracts?”

Judge: “Well yes but that would be dependent upon certain points of law and if, for instance, you were compelled by law to enter into such”

You: “Please would your honour give me an example of such a possible case?”

Judge: “Where statute law may enforce such a contract for example”

You: “Statute law Sir? May I ask who or what imposes such statute law?”

Judge: “The State does and it is enforced by the Crown”

You: “Haven’t we just established that both, the State and the Crown, are LEGAL PERSONS and, as such, they are, at best, equal to myself before the law?”

Judge: “Shut up smart ass! Case dismissed”

Now, they can go down the route of stating “Supremacy of law” but just as a member state (a “person) of the EU must agree by treaty the supremacy of EU law over its own, the natural person must contract with the state to agree to the subrogation of his/her god given, inalienable, unalienable natural rights.

The court and the Crown and the state may ask “do you possess a birth certificate or passport or National Insurance number or any such state conferred document BUT the state gives one no choice in the matter of requiring these documents since the state will disallow all which requires such. It is, then, the state which coercively and deceptively removes the human rights and replaces them with “person” rights.

I rest my case and ALL cases your dishonour for, before I was given a “legal personality” I was neither competent nor would I have had any legal standing (obviously since I had no legal person and could not be “seen” – recognised BY the legal system ) to state I did not wish to contract with the state and subrogate such rights.

The legal system, then, is entirely fraudulent.

 

Tony Blair, D notices, Princes, Popes, Politicians, “Pop pickers”, MI5, AND PAEDOPHILIA!

Posted in Paedophilia by earthling on October 27, 2012

Search Hansard for statements relating to paedophilia in the Cabinet and provide “assurances”?

Cameron! Are you off your fricking nut as well as a criminal acting for the very bankers that want this stuff to happen? Cameron, you’re a dead man walking as are all the Lords and MPs in this establishment. This country will eventually come to the point of also decapitating the royal family.

But that is exactly playing into the hands of the bankers who want this to happen while you think they’re the people who are going to keep letting you play this game. Once you’re of no further use mate, they will hang draw and quarter you. Mark my words!

The following is JUST the Labour Party. You can be sure that just as many reside in the Conservative and LibDem ranks. Edward Heath was a paedophile yet that still hasn’t “come out” while Tom Watson suggests paedophilia reaches into the core of the British Government. Was it Thatcher’s aide? Or was it Tony’s? It doesn’t matter in a sense because this country is now waking up to the FACT that this country is a corrupt, steaming pile of shit with paedophilia lurking in every dark recess and corner of the street as well as in the dark corners of Whitehall. Westminster, the Houses of Lords and Parliament AND, what shall never come out (although it is obvious to those of us who have researched this in any depth and who are not in the slightest surprised by the facts now being brought to the country’s attention and to those of the population who would simply call us “mad conspiracy theorists”) is that this paedophilia stretches into the core of the British Monarchy.

It is not a “Big Society” we have in this country, it is a sick society!

The Labour Party’s Convicted Paedophile List.

1. Liam Temple Labour Councillor Inciting a child into ‘gross’ indecency
2. Stewart Brown Labour Party Lord Mayor Child Pornography
3. Sam Chaudry Labour Party Lord Mayor Elect & Labour Party Councillor Child Rapist
4. Nicholas Green Labour Party Lord Mayor Labour Party Councillor 13 rapes & assaults on Children
5. Keith Potts Labour Party Councillor Junior School Governor
6. Alan Prescott Labour Party Councillor Molesting Children in a ‘Care-Home ‘Where he worked
7. Terry Power Labour Party Councillor Sex attacks on boys
8. Joseph Shaw Labour Party Councillor Child Pornography
9. George Harding Labour Party Councillor Indecent assault on a child
10. Lee Benson Labour Party Councillor Child Pornography
11. Raymond Coates Labour Party Councillor Child rape
12. Les Sheppard Labour Party Councillor Sex attacks and rapes on Children
13. Martyn Locklin Labour Party Councillor Rape & Indecent assault on boys
14. Nelson Bland Labour Party Councillor Child Pornography
15. Greg Vincent Labour Party Councillor Child Pornography Films
16. Alec Dyer Atkins Labour Party Councillor Member of the ‘Shadows Brotherhood ‘Peadophile Ring. 42,000 images of Children being abused
17. Keith Rogers Labour Party Councillor 2,000 images of child pornography
18. Paul Diggert Labour Party Councillor Grooming children & child pornography
19. Peter Tuffley ( worked also for NSPCC & Barnardos ) Labour Party Personal assistant to Hazel Blears Caught in bed with a 13 year old boy
20. Mark Trotter Labour Party Member & Super Activist Child rapist with Aids
21. Yusef Azad Labour Party on the Greater London Assembly Computer seized in anti-Child Porn Operation
22. Gilbert Benn Labour Party Councillor Molesting a boy
23. David Spooner Labour Party Councillor Master…ed in front of Two little Children
24. Mark Tann Labour Party member & Activist Repeatedly raped Two girls under Eight years old.
25. Iestyn Tudor Davies Labour Party Councillor Repeatedly raped a Child

PLUS+

26. John Friary Labour Party Councillor Grooming a child on facebook
27. Steve Carnell Labour Party Councillor Downloading Child and Animal Porn
28. Toren Smith  Labour Party Councillor Found Guilty of 94.000 Images of Children Being Abused
29. Johnathan Phillips  Labour Party Councillor Downloaded Child Porn on His Memory Stick. It Was Found in The Town Hall After a Labour Party Meeting
30. Phillip Lyon Labour Party Aide to Tony Blair His House of Commons Office Was Searched And He Was Found Guilty of Child Pornography
31. Mark Burton Labour Party Councillor Sexual molestation of child. Trial continues..
32. Neil Redrup Labour Party Councillor Found Guilty of opening sexually explicit content in front of child.
33. Timothy Edmeads Labour Party super activist and events organiser to Labour Lord Mayor guilty of sex assaults on 3 children.
34. Adrian Cirket Labour Party councillor and GMB union official downloading hundreds of sickening images of child abuse in his family home where he lived with his wife and three children..35. Darren Geoffrey Pedley Labour party councilor and chairman of the board of governors at Sandbrook primary school found guilty of downloading and distributing child pornography…36. Labour Councillor for Leicester Manish Sood found guilty of Grooming School kids for sex…37. Evil Labour Party Councill  Candidate & Junior School  Governor Richard Harris  Found guilty of offering  Junior  school children £500 for sex.

.

38. Ex Deputy Labour Party Lord Mayor John Johnson was charged with downloading hundreds of images of child molestation. Some of the images depicted sadomasochistic rituals with children being tortured and raped by multiple adults.

.  Tory Party General election candidate, Michael Powell – Convicted and jailed for 3 years for downloading hardcore child porn.

.  Tory Party Councillor (Wickbar/Bristol) Roger Talboys – Convicted and jailed for 6 years for multiple sex attacks on childre

.  Tory Party MP (Billericay) Harvey Proctor – Stood trial for sex offences of a sado-masochistic nature against teenage boys, and    was forced to resign.

.  Tory Party Councillor ( Stratford-upon-Avon ) Christopher Pilkington – Convicted of downloading hardcore child porn on his PC. Placed on sex offenders register and forced to resign.

.  Tory Party councillor ( Coventry ), Peter Stidworthy – Charged with indecent assault of a 15-year old boy.

.  Tory Party Mayor ( North Tyneside ), Chris Morgan – Forced to resign after being arrested twice in 2 weeks, for indecent assault on a 15-year old girl, and for suspicion of downloading child porn.

.  Tory Party Liaison Manager on the London Assembly, Douglas Campbell, who’s job includes running the Tory GLA website – Arrested for allegedly downloading child porn. He is currently suspended while the Police investigation continues.

.  Tory Party Councillor (Folkestone – in Leader, Michael Howard’s constituency), Robert Richdale – 41 year history of crime, involving 30 convictions and 5 prison sentences. Richdales enormous criminal record, which covers 10 pages of A4 paper, includes convictions for assault, theft, causing death by dangerous driving, forgery, drugs offences, possession of an offensive weapon, and sex attacks against underage schoolgirls. The Tory Party election campaign literature described Richdale as “a family man” who had a “compassionate personality”

.  Lib-Dem Council candidate (Tower Hamlets), Justin Sillman – Convicted and jailed for 2 years for sexual abuse of young boys.

.  Lib-Dem Councillor and Mayoral Candidate ( Sheffield ), Francis Butler- Prosecuted for indecent assault of a young boy.

.  Lib-Dem Councillor ( Stockport ) Neil Derbyshire – Sexually assaulted a 16-year old boy in a public toilet. He was caught with a plastic bag containing lubricant, plastic surgical gloves, a condom, and underpants.

.  Lib-Dem Councillor ( Preston ), Bill Chadwick – Charged with: Making an indecent photograph of a child, Incitement to rape, Incitement to murder, Incitement to kidnap, and Incitement to torture. Chadwick’s gay lover – Alan Valentine, is also a Lib-Dem councillor.

The Dunblane massacre:

Lord George Robertson (ex UK Defence Secretary 1997/98 and Sec Gen of Nato) was the referee on Thomas Hamilton’s shotgun licence.

Blair government insider Lord Robertson has threatened to sue Scotland’s leading independent newspaper over internet allegations that he not only used his influence as a Freemason to procure a gun licence for child killer Thomas Hamilton, but was also a member of a clandestine paedophile ring reportedly set up by Hamilton for the British elite. On 13 March 1996, Hamilton, armed with four hand-guns, opened fire on a junior school class, killing 16 children and one teacher before turning the gun on himself

Tony Blair’s closest confidante’s is a practising paedophile, are even suggesting that this particular scandal, and not Blair’s repeated lies and fabricated reports in regard to Iraq, may well prove the downfall of a government mired in sleaze and corruption. The Sunday Times is reported to have obtained an FBI list ofLabour MPs who have used credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, and Blair has responded by imposing a massive news blackout, failing however to stop the arrest of one of his most important aides, Phillip Lyon.
The latest allegations came to light following a campaign to lift the secrecy on the Dunblane massacre. Large sections of the police report were banned from the public domain under a 100-year secrecy order. LordCullen, an establishment insider, also omitted and censored references to the documents in his final report. Parents and teachers were advised to concentrate their efforts on a campaign to outlaw handguns instead of focusing on how the mentally unstable Freemason, already known by the police to be a paedophile, had obtained a firearms licence for six handguns. Hamilton allegedly enjoyed good relations with both local Labourluminary George Robertson and Michael Forsyth, the then Scottish Secretary of State and MP for Stirling. Forsyth congratulated and encouraged Hamilton for running a boy’s club. Hamilton was also found to have exchanged letters with the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth.

‘commons clerk on trial after IT find thousands of images of children performing sexual acts’

Tony Blair’s closest confidante’s is a practising paedophile, are even suggesting that this particular scandal, and not Blair’s repeated lies and fabricated reports in regard to Iraq, may well prove the downfall of a government mired in sleaze and corruption.

The Sunday Times is reported to have obtained an FBI list of Labour MPs who have used credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, and Blair has responded by imposing a massive news blackout, failing however to stop the arrest of one of his most important aides, Phillip Lyon.

Lyon used his computer “to pursue his interest and perhaps curiosity in this type of material. He searched for it on the internet and, when found, downloaded it for his delectation later”, said Ms Karmy-Jones.

Lyon, 38, from Stanford le Hope in Essex, denies 12 specimen charges of making an indecent image of a child between October 2001 and April 2002. “It is like a drug, you try one and you want to try something harder, and it has a snowball effect,” he is alleged to have told officers when arrested.

Lyon worked in the Upper Table Office, where he met MPs, the Speaker, and Deputy Speaker while checking parliamentary questions and administering early day motions. “He needed skills in computing and the internet,” said Ms Karmy-Jones. “He is an intelligent individual, and knew full well what he was doing.” When first interviewed, he allegedly told police he did not distribute material – “I just look at pictures.”

Ms Karmy-Jones told jurors: “This case is about child pornography – what others might call photos of child abuse. When I say child abuse, it may sound harsh, but it is the nature of these images which is central to the case. They are unpleasant and disturbing.”

She said the issue might be whether it was Lyon who downloaded the images. “We say it is clear he was that man.”

Under Blair’s government paedophiles get off with a slap on the wrist and never seem to suffer the full weight of the law – no shock there then!

In 1999, an international investigation of child pornographers and paedophiles run by Britain’s National Criminal Intelligence Service, code named Operation Ore, resulted in 7,250 suspects being identified in the United Kingdom alone. Some 1850 people were criminally charged in the case and there were 1451 convictions. Almost 500 people were interviewed “under caution” by police, meaning they were suspects. Some 900 individuals remain under investigation. In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair’s government.

However, Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting in a gag order on the press from publishing any details of the investigation. Blair cited the impending war in Iraq as a reason for the D-Notice. Police also discovered links between British Labour government paedophile suspects and the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution from Belgium and Portugal (including young boys from the Casa Pia orphanage in Portugal).

Tony Blair: stifling investigations of paedophiles in his Labour government.

According to media reports, the names of 2 former Labour Cabinet Ministers said to be `Household names` appear on the `Operation Ore ` list of subscribers to hard-core child pornography. The same FBI investigation, which led to the arrest of rock star Pete Townshend. So who are they Mr Blair?Now let’s consider the Tony Blair connection. The supercilious, criminal, treasonous little twat who ran this country for his Rothschild handlers for a decade before handing over to another potential contestant for paedophile. Blair had a hunger for power and prestige (and money) and he still has. He is a ravenous, craving mass of corruption – he has to be. He has to follow the demands of his Rothschild handlers because one way or another, the little shit is compromised.

Now let’s consider the Savile situation. While the British Media, BBC etc etc wish to keep it all “Savile” and perhaps a few other celebrities, it all goes far far deeper than that.

Second Palace memoir links Savile to Charles and Diana

Andrew Morton warned of Jimmy Savile’s closeness to the Prince and Princess of Wales in 1992 in his Diana biography, as I noted on Friday.

Now I see Sarah Goodall, a Lady Clerk at St James’s Palace, talked about Savile’s role as a royal marriage counsellor to Charles and Diana in her 2006 memoir The Palace Diaries.

“He arranged for them to meet in Dyfed in Wales so they could comfort flood victims together in public,” Goodall says in the book, ghosted by Lord Monson. “Their Royal Highnesses weren’t speaking at the time, so to bring them together was quite a feat…

“I stand there stunned at the thought of Jimmy Savile, the TV personality who utters curious warbling noises and dresses in weird clothing, helping His Royal Highness and the Princess of Wales to fix their relationship.

“Jimmy Savile may do great work for charity and children but he hardly seems the best qualified or most appropriate person to give marital advice.”

Later she expresses astonishment that the shell-suited star of Jim’ll Fix It is given a knighthood — but concludes that,  if he manages to save the royal marriage, perhaps he deserves it.

Now switch your brain into gear for a moment: A man like Savile or ANY celebrity (or non celebrity) who would get close to the monarchy – they would be vetted. There is no doubt of this not even a ball hair of doubt. So MI5 and others would know PRECISELY what Savile was. MI5 know what Prime Ministers have for breakfast and how often they release a stool per day. So let’s not play STUPID buggers shall we? I mean, of course, you can if you wish, that’s your prerogative but, if you do, please don’t get upset if I call you a fcuking fool! Ok?

Just an example:

You need to understand ONE thing: MI5 are British Intelligence, yes BUT, as “british Intelligence” they do not look after the British Public. Their remit is to “Defend the Realm” That “Realm” is the interests of the British Monarchy and establishment. YOU are not “The Realm”. What a hilarious and naive thought!

MI5 protect the interests of the Queen and Monarchy and they vet the BBC! Now THINK about that! It doesn’t take a lot of thinking and it is fact. You may be a British Citizen (or “subject” of the Lizard) but if you do not act in a way that is acceptable to the power establishment, then that same MI5 shall treat you as the “subversive” you are. That MI5 also were involved in the 7/7 bombing – a false flag attack on the UK mainland to achieve the same goal as the false flag in the US called 9/11. ALL to have the populations of the UK and US believe there was a bogeyman out there just waiting to blow you up and, therefore, ensuring that you will accept the further infringement of your rights under the con of protecting you and that you would support the UK/US/UN imperialism against those countries who will not play ball with global world government and, therefore, they are “Rogue nations”.

They don’t vet the BBC? They don’t work for the Crown? Really? Then let me repeat:

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

“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.

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.

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 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.”

 

Now, if you think for one moment that the British Intelligence services did not know about Jimmy Savile and do not know about so many others – including those in the Royal Family of which Louis Mountbatten was just ONE – then you are, quite frankly, immensely naive, ignorant or, just a simple minded idiot. So then, WHY would Prince Charles and the rest of the Monarchy (while Diana couldn’t stand Savile, it seems, from reports) entertain this sleazy little entertainer? Do you also think that THEY did not know? This sordid little shit was on the inside of the Royal Family because the British Royal Family are into what he was into!

 

Now consider Esther Rantzen and the rest of the BBC multitude who knew what was going on. Think about who shut these people up. The heads of the BBC right? Noone else would or could have (assuming Esther isn’t into it herself and who could blame you if you now seriously questioned that?). So the head honchos at the BBC silenced anyone who would have been prepared to speak out. Now why would the heads of the BBC protect this sleazy little bastard? I mean, it wouldn’t just be for ratings. They could sack him, get rid of him and the BBC would carry on with other entertainers. No-one would really miss Savile as such. So why? Because Savile was being protected by even higher powers (OR the BBC Executives were a part of it). There are no two ways about it, it is one or both of the two scenarios. However, let’s look at the former: Who would be protecting him? Well, as the man himself would say, “I can get jobs done”. Those “jobs” would extend into the Royal family itself. They would include work on behalf of Israel. Was Savile a Mossad agent? Sound crazy? Well how about this man?

Cliff Richard – MI5/6 Agent.

Yes indeed! Cliff Richard was (and may still be) a British Intelligence asset.

Recently declassified MI5 papers sensationally reveal that Peter Pan of pop, Sir Cliff Richard, was recruited by British intelligence services in the late 1950s. He remained a frontline agent throughout the cold war.

Squeaky clean Sir Cliff went by the code name Harry Web-of-Deceit amongst Whitehall officials. Cliff’s paymasters gave the bachelor boy (although apparently ‘a bit of a James Bond on the side’ according to one anonymous source) a brief to release his soft pop balladry as a smokescreen for more clandestine activities. Having successfully established himself as a sleeper in the pop world he was ‘activated’ in 1968, during his performance of Eurovision entry, Congratulations, at London’s Albert Hall in 1968.

‘Sir Cliff was Mr Wiretap himself’ explained Tony Newbold, a retired intelligence officer ‘It was bloody brilliant: nobody suspected a thing. He was the best bug-er we had – a departmental accolade that spread, I’m afraid – for which I would like to humbly apologise.’

Now look at this photo of Savile with Peter Sutcliffe and Frank Bruno. What a VERY odd combination! But there’s something in that handshake that leads us back to George Robertson, Thomas Hamilton and the freemasonry fraternity.

You see, if you look at any freemasonry outfit, they are all heavily involved in child charity. The Freemasons get heavily involved with the disabled, children and families with “social problems” from alcohol to drug abuse. Now before going off on some rant saying “freemasons do good work” etc, perhaps some of them do. Perhaps. But the whole ethos of freemasonry is secrecy (just look up Parliamentary archives and you will see numerous instances of it). Good does not work in the darkness of secrecy, it works in broad daylight. What better wat to get your hands on kids who are vulnerable either physically, mentally, emotionally or all three? No better way than acting as Savile did! Does that mean all freemasons are paedophiles or even have the slightest idea of what happens higher up the chain? NO!. Freemasons, as we all know, do not get introduced to the “greater secrets” until they achieve the level above their existing degree so HOW could a freemason ever say “We don’t do that?” They do not even know the detail of the degree above!

 

BBC 5 LIVE 6th November 2012: Freemasonry paedophiles:

Somehow, I feel this video won’t stay up long on Youtube so download while you can.

You’ve got to ask yourself why Frank Bruno would want to visit Broadmoor and meet with people like Sutcliffe while he also met with Ronnie Kray. Again, introduced to him by Savile. What was the point?

Bruno is another big children’s charity man. I am not suggesting anything by that but it shows that even the innocent (if a freemason ex boxer who did cocaine can be called innocent) can be used by the users, totally unaware of the practices of the other.

No! Of Course Prince Charles would have not the foggiest idea of who and what Jimmy Savile was. Don’t be ridiculous! The Prince, his father and mother just happen to be the people who the British Intelligence services report to.

Ah! “The British Intelligence services didn’t know that Savile was a paedo”?

Please look in the mirror closely at your scalp to see if there are any scars left over from your lobotomy!

The Prince may regret his association with the master paedo? No, not at all. He’ll be reminiscing of the good times won’t you Charlie?

Meanwhile, isn’t it bizarre just how many Princes get close and have such good relationships with paedos? We had Philip with Louis, Charlie with Jimmy and Andrew with Jeffrey!

So what the hell is the problem with Harry flashing his dick and ass at the world? Quite normal really comparatively speaking! He’s perhaps just getting warmed up!

Then you have Harriet Harman! Bets please!

 

Anyone want the big fat cigar?

 

UPDATE 28th October 2012:

Thank you Sonia! The Daily Express (for those of you who require mainstream media outlets for your “truth”) states it:

“Then there is the question that overshadows the whole Savile ­inquiry: why was he allowed to ­become so close to royalty and government? Surely it is the job of the security services to investigate the lifestyle of those who have access to our figureheads?

Yes indeed it is Sonia and you can take it to the bank that the Security Services AND, therefore, the Royal Family knew exactly what he was!

And now another update: 5th November 2012:

The Sunday Times!

But while they get close and so many will ask these questions regarding Charles’ “judgement” in befriending Savile, they will NEVER go close enough for the sheer fear of being destroyed – either the reporter, the Editor or the paper itself and its owners. So, above we see the Daily Mail saying ANDREW BROUGHT THE ROYAL FAMILY INTO DISREPUTE. Now we have CHARLES DOING THE SAME – EVEN WORSE! While Andrew’s article points to “sordid association” and “unwise”. STRANGE HOW BOTH BROTHERS HAVE HAD RELATIONSHIPS WITH PAEDOPHILES ISN’T IT? BUT WILL THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA PICK THIS UP AND RUN WITH IT ASKING REAL QUESTIONS?

How is it just “unwise” of either of them? When you get TWO of them it becomes a little more than “unwise” don’t you think? How about a mainstream headline asking the question:

ARE OUR ROYAL FAMILY – the SAXE COBURGS of GOTHA who are defrauding the British people of £millions by way of using a Constitutional office’s right to hold the mineral rights of the Commonwealth – also PAEDOPHILES?

And don’t say that is slander because ANY other family who just so happened to have long standing relationships with two different paedophiles would be investigated by the Police for paedophilia themselves while just about 100% of society would be demonising that family and shunning them. But no, not our royals eh?

This is a SICK COUNTRY and it is sick because it is run, at the very top, by sick people!

Rebekah shag you yet Davey boy?

Or is it just the norm with you, the wife, Rebekah and the Obama’s etc having an inter-racial gang bang in chequers? Do the girls and boys from the primary school down the road get called in occasionally to party too? Not suggesting anything, just asking a question. The answer is either yes or not so nothing to get hot and bothered about Davey boy!

For Queen AND Country?

Posted in "Climate Change", Finance, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on April 22, 2012

The Armed Forces and the Police: They LOVE their Queen. They think when they take that oath for Queen and Country it is all wrapped into one. What FUCKING IGNORANT IDIOTS they are! While they do their duty their own families are getting SCREWED by the very woman and HER family they swear an oath to!

THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF DUMB-ASSED STUPIDITY but what’s even worse is: Even when it’s put in black and white under their noses – never mind by a blogger but later by a national newspaper (though the newspapers never paint the whole picture in one nice big gulp. They just feed it gently over months or years piece by piece – that way the big picture gets ignored by the ignorant!) – they STILL don’t get it!

So let’s look at today’s (21st April 2012) headline in the Daily Mail for starters shall we?

The real news (but just a snapshot of it) next to Cowell just to distract the attention. “Oh I don’t understand wind farms etc… sounds boring anyhow… so I’ll read the Simon Cowell segment”. GOD this fucking country is SO THICK and yet it then moans constantly about being screwed anally!

Now, a blog I wrote over a year ago:  The Crown: Profiting from your misery!

To all you STUPID “monarchists”: You bloody fools! Those parasitical scum are screwing you left right and centre while you celebrate a Diamond jubilee and wave your silly little flags as the Olympic team and English football teams sing their praises for her and her clan every time they win a fricking medal!

What is it you do not understand about the monarchy (who are MEANT to be ONLY a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy – funny that when so many say we have no constitution!!) through their lovely little banking friends – the Crown Estate – OWN THE SEABED?

Now just before moving on, watch this little clip of the corrupt bastard you call your Prince:

What is it you do not understand about this?

UK PARLIAMENT ARCHIVES:

11 Feb 2003 : Column 245WH—continued

Seabed Management

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland): I am delighted to have secured this opportunity to examine the workings of the Crown Estate Commission, which is one of the slightly gloomier corners of Government business. It is an area of public life that is not often overly troubled by the bright lights of public accountability, but it has a profound and real effect on the life of my constituents and many people who live in coastal and island communities throughout the United Kingdom. It was the subject of a considerable part of my maiden speech. …….

I would be delighted if the Minister were to say today that the Government will examine the question of ownership of the seabed. Such an initiative is long overdue. However, I realise that this is a Westminster Hall debate. I have been an MP long enough now to be realistic about what can be achieved. For that reason, I have asked that today’s debate be limited to the management of the seabed. Nevertheless, it never hurts to place on record my belief that it is fundamentally obnoxious that a body such as the Crown Estate Commission should exist and should exert power in the way that it does over coastal and island communities. I speak as one who represents several island communities and was born and raised in one.

It is questionable that we should allow such a body to raise money from things on which we depend, such as piers and marinas. We have no alternative but to use them, but rent is exigible by the Crown Estate Commission on them.

Now get this:

I turn to sub-sea cabling. The Minister may be aware that a project to lay a fibre optic cable between the Scottish mainland and Shetland is under consideration, although it is rather on the back burner. It would be in tune with an important Government policy on broadband to get that cable laid, and it might well be supported both financially and politically by the Scottish Executive, the Shetland Islands council charitable trust, the Shetland Islands council and the Orkney Islands council. However, if that is achieved, the Crown Estate Commission will charge no less than £64,000 a year in rent simply for the privilege of allowing that cable to lie on the seabed.

The same situation will transpire in the event that we are able to lay electricity cables to allow the export of electricity generated by tidal or wave power or wind power in the islands, which are uniquely well placed for the development of renewable energies.

UK Parliament – Crown Estate

SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND POUNDS RENT (PER YEAR!!) FOR A SINGLE CABLE DOING NOTHING/ZERO/NADA BUT SITTING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA ON THE SEABED!

NOW work out why there is so much emphasis on OFFSHORE WINDPOWER and work out why, while the feed in tariffs for those using solar power on their houses has been dropped so dramatically last year (41p/KW to 21p/KW) while wind energy AND PARTICULARLY OFFSHORE WIND, was not hit?

Do you get it? It is SIMPLE!! While it is possible for people to receive money back from the energy providers (the feed in tariffs) for supplying the grid, the CROWN DO NOT WANT THAT AND THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT YOU TO HAVE THE REMOTEST POSSIBILITY OF BEING “OFF GRID” AND SELF SUFFICIENT!

What happens when the generation of the electricity is offshore? There is NO self sufficiency and it ensures that all of our (your) energy supply is provided by the grid and NOT YOU!

Now, since the dawn of North Sea Oil, the Crown Estate have owned that because they OWN THE SEABED AND THE MINERALS – see the blog which provides the link to the FACT that Petroleum vests with the Crown!! It does so for this simple reason – the Crown owns the seabed and minerals! Doing so, the Crown has been making 12.5% “royalties” (outside of the tax paid to government coffers) from the day oil was first struck in the north sea. 12.5% of the value of EVERY barrel of oil!

Now back to the wind power: Remember that £64,000 rent for a single cable between the scottish mainland and the Isle of Skye? Well think about this:

Charlie, invest in this, go around the world promoting the doom of the planet like the young David Rothschild. Also invest in Tamar energy (biomass) with me, Jacob and Evelyn and make speeches at the EU Parliament so they know who’s boss, and I assure you, you’ll be the richest King ever as you screw your subjects to the fucking wall mate. Just watch the energy prices rise! 🙂

Now consider this picture of a typical wind farm set up and all the requirements. THEN consider the number of turbines and then the number of cables between the turbines and the grid back onshore. Think about that number multiplied by at the very least £64,000 per year every year JUST FOR SITTING ON THE SEABED! Then wonder: WHO THE FUCK GAVE THE SEABED TO THE QUEEN AND THE CROWN ESTATE? THEN wonder once more about Tony Benn’s comments in Parliament regarding who or what the FUCK the Crown is in the first place? Put it all together and take a deep fricking breath!

Let’s just ask one of many questions of this Crown Estate: “How many turbines are anticipated and how much is the rental PER CABLE PER YEAR for them to sit on the seabed doing FUCK ALL?”

Then, perhaps, we can also ask them how much they are charging for the rent of every single turbine itself?

NOW can you get it through your skull as to why they don’t want you generating your own electricity? But they will “create jobs” for you to create THEIR energy generating plant so that they can get you to pay for it and pay for your energy that you are working for them to generate! YOU CREATE FOR THEM AND THEY PAY YOU PEANUTS BUT THEN THEY MAKE IT WORSE BY CHARGING YOU FOR THE ENERGY YOU HELPED CREATE FOR THEM TO CHARGE YOU! DON’T YOU GET IT YET?

Now let’s just take a quick look at ONE aspect more of this:

The Crown Estate acting as a co development partner. How nice. What the FUCK does the Crown Estate know about anything? Anything at all? Nevermind the engineering of offshore wind farms. While the cost of just the development and CONSENT (consent by whom? Ah you guessed it – THE CROWN ESTATE!) is just 4% of the total cost of a 500MW wind farm. But that 4% comes to £60M! NICE! 🙂

Read the whole thing:

Crown Estate – Guide to making a fortune and screwing the people of the UK by ensuring grid tied offshore wind farming. And charles and Co LOVE IT!

Now one last thing because you may read this and say “You said the Petroleum vests in the Crown and yet this says the Crown Estate doesn’t have control over the oil! So you’re wrong!!”

But listen: Even the UK bloody parliament doesn’t know who the Crown actually are! Read the blog: “Tony Benn, the straight man” – tony-benn-the-straight-man

THEN read once more: Petroleum vests with his majesty! The question then is “How many British Crowns are there?” Or is it that the Crown is something more than her majesty while she is the main focal point of it from the population’s ignorant perspective? Why, for instance, are there clauses in the Bank of England Act 1946 which are protected by the Official Secrets Act? Why is it that now, the Queen and her fucking family are being even more protected from scrutiny by this utter shit they call “law’?

Now here’s something else (how much do you actually need before that bloody penny drops you monarchical cretins?):

Charles: Richest King in history!

Osbourne licks Charles’ arse!

Republic warns of “historic stitch up” as Queen asks Parliament to allow royal funding changes

29th Jun 2011

Republic has described new plans to tie royal funding to Crown Estate revenue as an “historic stitch up” that could divert millions of pounds from public services.

The Queen today issued a “gracious message” asking Parliament to allow changes to royal funding which would see her paid a single annual grant based on a percentage of revenue from the Crown Estate. Proposals for the new “sovereign support grant” will be presented to MPs tomorrow and introduced in a new bill.

The royal household is currently funded through the Civil List and grants from several government departments.

Republic spokesperson Graham Smith said:

“The Crown Estate is not – and never has been – the personal property of the royals. The Windsors have no more right to its revenue than I do. To claim that it should fund their lavish lifestyle is deceitful and dishonest.”

“The Crown Estate is there to fund government and public services. If this deal goes through it will be a historic stitch up that will end up lining the royal family’s pockets.”

“We’ve seen that the royals are unable to keep their spending under control. The new grant is likely to lead to even greater waste with less accountability. It will give the royal household even more freedom over its finances at exactly the time when its expenditure should be more tightly controlled.”

“The office of the head of state should be funded like every other public body– through a budget agreed by Parliament and based on need.”

NOTES

Details of the funding changes are on the HM Treasury website: leg_sovereign_grant.htm.

The Crown Estate is a land and property portfolio, managed on behalf of the Government, whose surplus revenue is paid annually to the Treasury. It is the ‘hereditary possessions of the Sovereign’, not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.

New report reveals annual cost of British monarchy ‘enough to feed an army’

23rd Jun 2011

The annual cost of the monarchy has been found to be more than the entire annual MoD food budget and the equivalent of thousands of nurses, police officers and teachers, according to a new report.

The new report by campaign group Republic has revealed that the total annual cost of the British monarchy could be over £200 million, more than five times the official figure released by Buckingham Palace.

The report describes the monarchy as ‘one of the most expensive, wasteful and financially irresponsible institutions in the world’.

The estimated cost presented in “The ‘Value for Money Monarchy’ Myth” includes security expenditure, costs of royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, all of which are excluded from official figures.

The key findings include:

* The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).

* The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

* Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades.

* £202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme.

* The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.

* Britain’s royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.

* Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household’s exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family’s finances.

Republic will be holding a protest outside the gates of Buckingham Palace on Saturday June 25 at 1pm to raise awareness of the cost of the monarchy. The protest will go ahead despite the decision by the royal parks agency to withhold formal permission.

Republic’s campaign manager Graham Smith said:

‘This report cuts through the spin and shows beyond doubt that the British monarchy is a colossal waste of public money. The royals have shown that they are simply incapable of reining in their spending – they will continue to waste taxpayers money until the government stands up to them.’

‘In pointing out the scale of waste here we’re calling for an immediate start to opening up royal accounts. It’s time for the government to take control of the monarchy’s budget, pay the Queen a salary and make the royal household fully accountable to taxpayers.’

‘Every year we go through the charade of Palace press officers telling us what great value the monarchy is. It’s time for the royals and politicians to come clean – spending hundreds of millions of pounds on one family is morally indefensible, especially at a time of painful cuts.’

NOTES

For further information or comment contact Graham Smith on 07747 608 770 or graham@republic.org.uk

The report is available to download from http://www.republic.org.uk/royalfinances

The protest will go ahead outside the gates of Buckingham Palace at 1pm on Saturday June 25.

Visitors have been mesmerised by the quality that pervades every aspect – thanks to the demanding eye of a man who, in every aspect of his life, operates at the highest level.

The Rothschilds have always been well connected – Lord Rothschild’s son, Nat, has been the subject of media speculation after entertaining George Osborne and Peter Mandelson on the oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s yacht – but this family does not court publicity, preferring to operate through a network of connections behind the scenes. Indeed, Lord Rothschild rarely gives interviews, even about a subject as close to his heart as Waddesdon.

The purpose is to provide an archive and a conference centre, holding meetings on “subjects of interest to mankind, such as climate change, the environment, the Middle East, investment. Ten years ago I held a conference with Warren Buffet and people were queuing to come. I intend to do more of those, perhaps with the Saïd Business School at Oxford.

Lord Rothschild: My manor from heaven.

Now, it is significantly, the very last paragraph of this which is of immense interest and very telling. You see, the conference old Jacob refers to which he held 10 years ago is that conference at Waddesdon Manor which Arnold Schwarzenegger attended shortly before running for Governor of California. Furthermore, even more telling is the transcript of that meeting which was reported in the Times shortly thereafter. It was this:

Read it ( They knew! ) and recognise that these bastards not only knew what was coming but they planned it years before while the British Government (yes, even the UK chancellor, Alistair Darling, suggested he did not see the financial crash coming until 2007/2008. If not, then he was never obviously, “in the know”. You see, the Labour party (the left wing of the bird) pumped the bubble up (Tony and Gordon knew exactly what they had to do) and the right wing of the same bird (you see they are both run by the same people at the top) then imposes the austerity while there is no need for a national debt in the first place! See previous blogs on this proving it!

And lastly, Charlie linking up with the Rothschilds to invest in the very scam they preach is necessary to “SAVE THE WORLD”.

Charles’ Rothschild links and the screwing of a nation.

I mean, my apologies to those of you who still can’t quite grasp this but you must be as thick as dog shit not to understand what is and has been going on here for a very long time!

There was a reason I rewrote this song. Tongue in cheek yes but absolutely true nevertheless:

National Geographic:  Who owns the moon? Could Richard Branson?

You may think this is crazy but just you watch!

By WHOSE authority? Elizabetto Mussolini’s!

Posted in Law, Uncategorized by earthling on January 2, 2012

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who thinks they have authority over you because the system is set up corruptly to have them think that?

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who thinks they have authority over you because you are presumed a “subject” of Her Majesty simply because you were born in this country (itself a legal fiction) and your parents were coerced (and were ignorant of the contractual terms they were signing up to) into registering your birth AS a subject of Her Majesty?

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON that, contrary to all LAW, should have no more right over your person than you do over theirs?

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who has bought a debt from another party (a commercial transaction), refers to itself and its BUSINESS as a Commercial enterprise and has been given the title “Sheriff Officer” by the government to suggest its legitimacy in coercing you into paying up?

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON because the LEGAL PERSON (Council in this case) from whom they bought the debt, could/would not answer your questions nor take notice of the issues you had but simply stated you MUST pay and if you have any issues, to contact an ombudsman – an ombudsman who is part of, and paid for by, the same corrupt system which is coercing you? Do you think it would go your way under ANY circumstances? If it did, it would be the end of the road for the entire con and they can’t have that!

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who states they are acting on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in collecting such local government taxes? I guess they are because it is Her Majesty the Queen who, by Royal Prerogative, makes the decision to fight illegal wars and while a massive portion of the country’s debt is used to fight these wars, Her Majesty wants it paid back.

Getting hounded by a LEGAL PERSON who, if it came to it, would have Kenny McCaskill and Alex Salmond and then possibly even Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, support their corner to keep the con going while Clarke himself, is a criminal of the highest order against the Constitution (highest law of their making) and if Her Majesty doesn’t know this then Her Majesty is a twat!

If you are, then read the following:

First of all, definitions. These definitions, as you can tell if you read the link, are from a respected legal source so please, under no circumstances, suggest “theory”. It is getting old and worn out.

About In Brief

What is In Brief

In Brief is a growing legal resource providing information on the laws of England and Wales.  It contains articles on a variety of legal issues, written in layman’s terms by ourteam of writers. They have extensive legal knowledge and experience in their particular area of the law and provide high quality information on the topics we cover.

In Brief aims to be the largest source of legal material of its kind anywhere on the Internet.  A site devoted to informing the public about laws relevant to them and providing people with an encyclopaedia of articles onEnglish law.

english-law.htm

Legal Personality

Only legal ‘persons’ can become liable or pursue an action under the law.

Types of legal person

  • A natural person i.e. a human being
  • An artificial person i.e. a corporation

index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_804

Need I say more on the fact that a NATURAL PERSON is a legal term under the umbrella definition of a LEGAL PERSON?

No, I thought not. Thank you!

Ok, now we have that out of the way, let’s consider a Judge or Magistrate’s position and WHO HE/SHE WORKS FOR!

Magistrates’ Court

Magistrates, also known as Justices of the Peace, are unpaid trained members of their local community.

Virtually all criminal court cases start in a magistrates’ court, and more than 90 per cent will be completed there.

The more serious offences are passed on to the Crown Court, either for sentencing after the defendant has been found guilty in a magistrates’ court, or for full trial with a judge and jury.

Magistrates deal with three kinds of cases:

  • Summary offences. These are less serious cases, such as motoring offences and minor assaults, where the defendant is not usually entitled to trial by jury. They are generally disposed of in magistrates’ courts.
  • Either-way offences. As the name implies, these can be dealt with either by magistrates or before a judge and jury at the Crown Court. Such offences include theft and handling stolen goods. A defendant can insist on their right to trial in the Crown Court. Magistrates can also decide that a case is so serious that it should be dealt with in the Crown Court – which can impose tougher sentences if the defendant is found guilty.
  • Indictable-only offences, such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery. These must be heard at a Crown Court.

If the case is indictable-only, the magistrates’ court will generally decide whether to grant bail, consider other legal issues such as reporting restrictions, and then pass the case on to the Crown Court.

If the case is to be dealt within a magistrates’ court, the defendant(s) are asked to enter a plea. If they plead guilty or are later found to be guilty, the magistrates can impose a sentence, generally of up to six months’ imprisonment for a single offence (12 months in total), or a fine, generally of up to £5,000. If found not guilty (‘acquitted’), defendants are judged innocent in the eyes of the law and will be free to go – provided there are no other cases against them outstanding.

Cases are either heard by two or three magistrates or by one district judge.

Who are magistrates?

Justices of the Peace, as they are also known, are local people who volunteer their services. They do not require formal legal qualifications, but will have undertaken a training programme, including court and prison visits, to develop the necessary skills. They are given legal and procedural advice by qualified clerks.

District judges are legally qualified, paid, full-time professionals and are usually based in the larger cities. They normally hear the more complex or sensitive cases.

There are approximately 30,000 magistrates, 140 district judges and 170 deputy district judges operating in the roughly 330 magistrates’ courts throughout England and Wales.

Justices’ Clerks

Because magistrates do not need to have legal qualifications, they are advised in court on matters of law, practice and procedure. This advice is provided by Justices’ Clerks and Assistant Justices’ Clerks.

Magistrates in the criminal court

Over 95 per cent of all criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates’ court.

Magistrates hear less serious criminal cases including motoring offences, commit to higher courts serious cases such as rape and murder, consider bail applications, deal with fine enforcement and grant search warrant and right of entry applications. They may also consider cases where people have not paid their council tax, their vehicle excise licence or TV licences.

All magistrates sit in adult criminal courts as panels of three, mixed in gender, age, ethnicity etc whenever possible to bring a broad experience of life to the bench. All three have equal decision-making powers but only one, the chairman will speak in court and preside over the proceedings. The two magistrates sitting either side are referred to as wingers.

Most of the cases are brought to court by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) but there are other prosecution agencies such as RSPCA, Environment Agency, Department of Work and Pensions, English Nature etc.

Where a defendant pleads not guilty a trial will be held where the magistrates listen to, and sometimes see, evidence presented by both the prosecution and defence, decide on agreed facts and facts in dispute and consider whether the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Having found someone guilty or when someone has pleaded, the magistrates proceed to sentence using a structured decision making process and sentencing guidelines which set out the expected penalty for typical offences. They will also take note of case law and any practice directions from the higher courts and are advised in court by a legally qualified adviser.

For a single criminal offence committed by an adult, a magistrate’s sentencing powers include the imposition of fines, Community Payback orders, probation orders or a period of not more than six months in custody (a total of 12 months for multiple offences). Magistrates may also sit in the Crown Court with a judge to hear appeals from magistrates’ courts against conviction or sentence and proceedings on committal to the Crown Court for sentence.

So, let’s just face the indisputable fact that, while the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) brings a case before the court – and, in the case of a non payment of Council Tax in Scotland, it will be a Sheriff Officer who states they are authorised by Her Majesty – the Magistrate (or Judge) WORKS for the SAME CROWN! Meanwhile the prosecuting lawyer is a member of the Bar and if ANY lawyer or solicitor does NOT operate within the rules and procedures dictated by the Crown THEY WILL BE DISBARRED!

So, you have an “unholy trinity” facing you which, under no circumstances, will allow natural law (or even their OWN law) to interfere with their judgement upon you. You start to attack the fundamental basis of law and even their own stated law and they will simply refuse to listen and, worse, may imprison you for having the audacity (and intelligence) to destroy their mind game. You will be held in “Contempt of court” which simply means you are QUESTIONING them!

The Judge and the Crown state that one cannot be offered a fair hearing or trial if there is any other party in the proceedings who has a conflict of interest! Do you see a conflict of interest here? The entire set up is a conflict of interest!

Now, if you do not recognise a coercive mafia and dictatorship before you then you are simply past help!

Ok, let’s move on:

Here we have a “Charge for payment of Money”

Let’s go through this stage by stage:

1. Applicant: City of Edinburgh Council.

What do they want? Well, for over 2 years they have wanted my payment of Council Tax. Simple.

Why do they want it? Because that’s the “law” and “everyone has to pay the local government for services rendered – Police (joke), Roads (joke), Libraries, schools, Fire services, Rubbish collection, Trams (BIG joke!), Climate change initiatives (MASSIVE joke!), payment of Council workers PENSIONS, etc etc…..

2. Against: Me! Why? Because I made it clear that I refused to pay a tax to any UK government body because:

a) the UK government have broken their own laws and are committing treason in taking this country into the EU (fact – look up the Bill of rights which they continue to use when it is advantageous to them to do so). It states “No foreign STATES”. What is Brussels? So Her Majestic one (whether by a gun to her head or not) has sold this country out. She is not “ruling” (and neither is her government) by the law of her realm (unless she now sees the EU as her realm?). She has broken the Monarch’s oath and her Ministers have allowed her to do so.

b) If I assume the part of “subject” then the above kicks in. If I do not (and I don’t because I am subject to no-one and if the UK government wish to use force by way of their Domestic terrorist unit, aka Police, then let them show their hand to the entire country in an open court of law with a jury who happen to have logical intelligence) then I do not assume the capacity of a “legal person” whose “benefits” were COERCIVELY conferred upon me at birth when I had neither capacity nor capability to make my own decision as to whether I would accept such a role.

c) The British government have committed warcrimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and have been found, on numerous occasions, to have lied to the British people. This is fact and it is proven. Meanwhile, the overall national debt (which is entirely unnecessary to have at all) is used, in great part, to fund such illegal wars.

d) The local governments are nothing more nor nothing less than coercive tax collectors. Meanwhile each individual taxpayer pays income tax, road tax, VAT and the list goes on. ALL of it misused and abused from kickbacks to Councillors and their favourite European or British corporation who then charge extortionate amounts for a tram system that screws up the entire city of Edinburgh, to a complete and utter con called “Climate change” pushed by the United Nations “Agenda 21” and the Club of Rome whose agenda is to push people into cities, allow the buying up of the countryside by corporations and why? For their own kickbacks.

e) Ken Clarke – Lord Chancellor. Working for Bilderberg and the very same crew who control the UN, Club of Rome and the system of banking who paid off Tony Blair handsomely because he did exactly as he was told. He worked for the bankers and not the people. Ken Clarke and the crew are all on the inside track and write legislation for the banking crew while they also benefit from it because they are then privy to the future impact analysis of that legislation and are even told what to invest in. You CANNOT get any more corrupt than that. It is legalised insider trading!

3. Summary warrant: Simply means that I get no hearing (neither do you). They are not interested in one “legal person’s” defence nor reasoning against the actions of another “legal person”. What happened to “All PERSONS are equal before the law”? They don’t want and can’t have or allow you to speak before a court and jury to state your case because then they would collapse. One must remember that the court, as well as the Council and the BUSINESS (corporation) known as “Scott & Co” are ALL “legal persons” as are you. BUT, these legal persons work together whereas we, as 60+ million “legal persons” do not. This tight knit little “mafia” want their money because the system, set up by the legislative of the UK tells them it is all necessary while that same legislative in either Holyrood or Westminster (it matters not) are ALL on the take from the banking community (or the City of London and the Crown). Bear in mind that the Crown is ALSO a legal person (legal fiction) yet it is one legal person dictating to another legal person (you). Now HOW does that work? Anyhow, a summary warrant is just that  – the disallowance by the state (who say they are there for your protection – haha) of allowing you to expose them for what they are. Criminals and their own legalised mafia.

4. Local Government Finance Act 1992: A statute (not a law) applied to you because the vast vast majority of the population are entirely ignorant and just go along with it all. Democracy is a wonderful thing for the authoritarian government. Use the majority’s ignorance to keep the minority in line. And the majority equate democracy with freedom! Effectively, then, they build their own prison. “I’m not interested in politics” says Joe, “it’s boring”. “Oh good”, says Cameron and his ilk, “we can turn the screws ever more tighter then”.

And that is precisely what they’re doing! The bankers will reward them the more they screw you. It’s that simple! You stay ignorant and enjoy it however!

5. Walter McGill (Capacity: Sheriff Officer) – Poor Walter (can I call you Wally?). Just doing his job because that’s what he’s paid to do. He doesn’t have a clue about any of this and doesn’t want to. He just wants to get his job done and fcuk anyone who doesn’t do as they’re told by these legal persons who seem to be more important legal persons (even though they are artificial legal constructs) than the natural person. The artificial legal person is given precedence in law over the living, breathing natural person. Wally’s just a robot. Perhaps he’s good at making tea too!

And ALL in her majesty’s name! A woman of flesh and blood who has been crowned as the office holder (only a CEO in effect) of Monarch. A TOTAL legal fiction

But wait….. How very strange! Read the following:

Disqualification of sheriffs principal and sheriffs.

(1)A sheriff principal to whom this subsection applies, or a sheriff, shall not, so long as he holds office as such—

(a)engage, whether directly or indirectly, in any private practice or business, or be in partnership with or employed by, or act as agent for, any person so engaged; . . . F6

3)The sheriff principal of any sheriffdom, not being either a sheriff principal who is restricted by the terms of his appointment from engaging in private practice or a sheriff principal to whom subsection (1) above applies, shall not, so long as he holds office as such, advise, or act as an advocate in any court, in any cause civil or criminal arising within or coming from that sheriffdom.

Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971

Now let’s just take another look at “Scott & Co” shall we? The name says it all of course but just for further clarification:

AN INTRODUCTION TO YOUR PARTNERS IN COLLECTION

Scott & Company is a professional partnership with a strong reputation for service delivery and excellent performance. This reputation has been built on the back of an unrivalled blend of centralised and decentralised services and a total commitment to quality management.

Our services are provided UK wide and are managed totally in-house. We enjoy a particularly dominant position in the enforcement, recovery and investigations marketplace in Scotland.

Our business continues to expand through service excellence, reputation management and key acquisitions.

David McLaughlin
Managing Partner

Scott & Co

How nice David. Do you get paid well for being as coercive as you possibly can? How much do you buy the debt for? Or alternatively, how much commission do you get paid for squeezing that money out of people? Your “business”? Ah so you even admit it is a business. Well that’s good and honest of you David but tell me? Two things:

1. If you didn’t provide such good service and delivery (in terms of coercion) then your business wouldn’t make much of a profit would it? When are you going to be provided with firearms David? Anytime soon? Or do you expect to just keep using the Domestic terrorist unit (aka Police) to ensure you apply that pressure to people?

2. What does it say above David re the disqualification of Sheriffs? Read slowly David: Part (a) David. Yes read again David. Now read your intro David: “Partners in collection” and your company is a private practice/business YET you actually state that you are Sheriffs? HOW does that work David?

And yet, it will be totally ignored David won’t it? You break the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act just by existing in the form you do and you work on more coercion means more profit yet you get away with it. If I were to walk into court and show this to a judge, your little mafia would kick into gear and the freemason judge would have me banged up for contempt. Nice little club you have going there David! 😉

Debt Recovery

The Scott & Co Group provides consumer and commercial debt recovery services to a range of public sector and prominent private sector organisations operating in the retail, utility, financial services and other sectors.

We provide a fully comprehensive service encompassing pre-litigation recoveries utilising our sophisticated contact management processes and field resources, litigation and enforcement, and door collection services.

We manage the litigation and enforcement requirements of our clients in-house.

Our services are provided throughout the UK from our network of 14 offices. Although we engage sophisticated volume debt management processes, we strive to provide a personalised service to our clients and their customers.

We are members of the Credit Services Association, the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation, the Institute of Directors and the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers.

Ah! The “Society” of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers while providing a personalised service to to your CLIENTS and their CUSTOMERS. It’s a nice business David when you have a corrupt government behind you isn’t it? So the Crown makes the rules, the Crown wants payment, the Crown uses you (while you profit) to enforce that payment. When you can’t because people like me ignore “you” as a legal person (Scott & Co) it pisses you off. You run off to the Sheriff Court (oh but wait, you ARE the Sheriff!) and get a summary warrant which you then state is “In her majestic one’s name and authority” (another legal person and fiction) and boy she wants paid doesn’t she? So she has created, by way of her government, a quasi government/corporate state to ensure the Crown gets what it wants (that’s called FASCISM David! Are you a fascist David? Looks like it from where I’m standing). I guess wee Alec is entirely in tune with it all to right? After all, he loves Her Majesty and also he loves the Windpower off the coast all based upon that con called “Climate Change” which will end up imposing further Carbon tax Europe wide and wee Alex is a Europhile because, by getting out of the political union with England and Wales gives him the title of PM of Scotland – an EU Fiefdom!

But you don’t mind being a PERSON David do you? You don’t mind the PERSON in the form of the artificial company of whatever type, having precedence in law over you! You don’t mind the Climate con ramping up costs of living/fuel and the tax applied to petrol and the price going through the roof while the old woman starves or freezes to death in her poorly maintained home in the centre of 21st century Glasgow or Dundee or Edinburgh? Nah David, you don’t give a FUCK because it isn’t going to affect you is it? Why? Because you have the “law” behind you while you make ever increasing profits out of others misery and you personally make a rather decent salary out of it all which, itself, will increase exponentially as this police state ramps up! Were you a leech in a previous life David?

Meanwhile David, you will presume of me that I am some sort of benefit sucking hippy right? 🙂

Let me make this clear David. I am speaking to the LEGAL PERSON (an artificial construct) by the name of Scott & Co here: YOU ARE A FUCKING CORRUPT CRIMINAL!

So then back to the “Law” for a moment:

The “law “IS an ass but let’s just consider what even it says shall we?

A basic principle: It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest.  Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua

And BOY do you have an interest!

While, as we can see with all of these Corporate persons given precedence over the natural person, we do not live under natural law any longer and have not for a very long time. So just as we have artificial persons calling the shots (in league with the legal person known as the Crown – and we don’t even know who or what the Crown is while it prosecutes us), we have UNNATURAL JUSTICE (which isn’t justice at all in any form or fashion) jailing people for non crimes! ALL good for business though when the jails (thanks again to Kennyboy Clarke) are all being privatised! Funny that isn’t it? Can you imagine a private business running a jail with no inmates? Not very profitable now is it?

[No, we do NOT know who the Crown is:

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

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.

While, as you will readily see from this statement by Tony Blair (just before he became the lying scum Tony Bliar), something smells with the National Grid:

HC Deb 14 February 1995 vol 254 cc792-6 …

Mr. Blair   Following the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment last Thursday to reducing inequality, may we now put it to the test? As the national electricity grid is an absolute monopoly subject to no competition, will the right hon. Gentleman act against the excesses of the few regional electricity chiefs who stand to make £50 million out of share options on the back of it?

§The Prime Minister   I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I find much of his opposition to share options rather synthetic since a good deal of his leadership campaign was financed out of the proceeds of share options.

And do you know why there is such a monopoly while you believe you actually have a choice in suppliers? Because those “suppliers” are licensed to BILL you while the natural resources of the UK are exported and our needs imported to a great extent. And why? Because globalisation is the game and it is far more profitable to the Crown when the Crown owns and controls every last aspect of fuel and minerals and the seabed from whence they came. They then licence out the seabed (for example £64,000 per year in perpetuity for a single fibre optic cable lying on the seabed. For nothing. ZERO. NADA. Now think about the offshore wind farms, the turbines themselves and the cables laid from each turbine to the national grid which, when once laid, the investment is sunk – literally in this case. Yet the Crown charges £thousands per cable and per turbine just for sitting there in perpetuity. Add to this new knowledge you may have that Petroleum is vested in Her Majesty and that each and every Oil company who had and has wanted to be licensed has paid approximately 12.5% of the value of ALL oil pumped to the Crown because the Crown owns the mineral rights! THEN wonder at the cost of your petrol! Look it up, it’s all found in this blog.]

Now here’s an interesting story from Canada where the Crown is also enforcing its “law”. The problem is that the couple got it wrong while, even if they got it right, the Crown would STILL screw them!

“The couple maintains that, with proper interpretation of the law and proper arrangement of your business affairs, you can legally receive income as a “natural person” rather than a taxpayer, and thereby avoid income taxes.”

story.html

So where did they fundamentally go wrong? They stated they were “natural persons”. By doing so they applied a legal term to themselves and, as such, accepted the idea that they were legal persons and, as we all know, legal persons are subject to legality. They accepted the designation “natural person” thereby accepting the designation “legal person” which is imposed upon a human being by a state through the registration of birth process where one accepts (although one is too young to possibly do so AND, further, the full disclosure by the state of what it means – an abridging of your entire natural body of rights to that which the state says you have plus a legal enforcement of duties upon you – was never provided to you or your parents) that one is subject to another legal person’s rules.

I have already painstakingly, demonstrated in other blogposts the fact that YOU are a legal person and the State is a legal person as well as the Crown, the UK and the EU. The ONLY non artificial legal person with a will of its own is YOU. This is what the artificial legal person DOES NOT wish you to understand because, if you do, it is the end of the road for these corrupt bastards. In THEIR OWN LAW, ALL “persons” are equal before it!

However, to all of you Monarchists out there (such as Mr Albert Burgess) you accept the immunity from such law by a Queen and her lackeys because of some form of mental delusion which makes you bow at another’s feet! You’re PATHETIC in that regard.

But, after all this above guess what? I’m going to pay you! You know why? Because you’d get away with daylight robbery anyhow while sequestrating me (declaring me bankrupt which me, as a human living being would not be but my “legal person” would be). And that’s how you do it you bunch of fuckers. That bankruptcy would allow me no loans, no credit, I wouldn’t be able to buy a house even though I have a huge deposit for one. I would probably never get a job. So what you do is you make life fucking difficult for those you “conferred the benefits” of citizenship (or subjection) to. And I don’t intend to be a martyr when I recognise the ignorance and idiocy of the majority of the country who would just bay for my blood! You win you corrupt bastards!

THE SAD PART BEING THAT THE IGNORANT MASS OF POPULATION OF THIS COUNTRY WILL SUPPORT YOU IN YOUR CORRUPTION BECAUSE THEY WILL SAY “IF I HAVE TO PAY IT YOU HAVE TO PAY IT” WHILE THEY DON’T RECOGNISE THE REALITY THAT IF THEY SUPPORTED OTHERS THEY WOULD BE SUPPORTING THEMSELVES.

DEMOCRACY IS GREAT ISN’T IT? IF I WERE A DICTATOR THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD WANT. DEMOCRACY: MAJORITY RULE AND THE MAJORITY IGNORANT. PLAY THE “DIVISION GAME” AND YOU CAN FCUK THEM ALL UP THE ASS AS MUCH AS YOU WANT AND THEY WILL NEVER LET THE PENNY DROP!

You have a choice “ma’am”: It’s either in your name and you’re a fascist OR it’s not in your name and you’re a waste of space? Which is it?

SNP checkmate!

Posted in Law, Political History, Politics by earthling on July 8, 2011

Update December 5th 2011:

Kirk, What were you saying lad? Do you want to have another stab at your answer and your ignorant suggestion that the Crown Estates belong to the Crown but not to Her Majesty?
Or would you like to explain to the people of Scotland (and of the UK) the difference between “The Crown” and “Her Majesty”? Would you wish to explain what the “Crown Corporation” is? Thanks buddy!

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL

HL Deb 11 November 1976 vol 377 cc659-754

Lord PARGITER
My Lords, may I draw attention to one thing that is rather interesting. I think this is the first occasion on which the immunity of the Crown has been challenged.

§The Earl of KINNOULL
My Lords, I think I can answer the noble Lord on that point. I am speaking about the Crown Estates, which is a corporate body, a very large landowner and is nothing to do with the Crown itself. It is a corporate semi-quasi public Government body.

§Lord PARGITER
Belonging to Her Majesty, my Lords.

§The Earl of KINNOULL
No, my Lords; it does not belong to Her Majesty. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will confirm that.

The Earl of CAITHNESS
My Lords, I should like to answer on behalf of the foresters, having put my name to the Amendment. I think the reason why we have excluded forestry is that there has not been a report satisfactorily conducted at the moment. There is a report in progress and I think we deleted forestry until that report had been put before the public.

§The Earl of PERTH
My Lords, perhaps I may just intervene about the position of the Crown estates, because I happen to be the first Crown Estate Commissioner. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is wrong in saying that the property does not belong to the Crown: it does. What happens is that the Crown of its own volition may cede its rights for the period of the reign but when the time comes a new Sovereign has the opportunity of resuming the property. I hope that this will help the House and clear up the point.

 I think the above puts paid to wee Kirk’s ignorance (or innocence?). Grow up lad and stop being such a condescending little fool to your elders who may just know a thing or two more than you! After all, Alex wouldn’t want you or your SNP sheep to understand this now would he?

 

 

 

I had a response from some young condescending little prat by the name of Kirk Torrance from the SNP. He can’t quite grasp it can he?

Whereas, I sincerely hope YOU can. At the very least, even if you can’t – as an SNP supporter – I’d think you’d wish to understand it rather than just accept the ignorant dismissiveness of a young lad who gets paid to do a media job by the party and has not been out of diapers that long!

While the thing is, I have the arrogant little ass over a barrel (as I do Salmond) because, as you will note, he states it clearly that only if Scotland gets control of the Crown Estate, can we benefit financially from it. Do you see the absolute admission in that? No?

Well, it’s this: IF Scotland were truly sovereign and independent, then we would not need to control a “Crown Estate” because the Crown Estate would have ZERO to do with Scotland (no matter WHO currently controls it). And THAT is where the little lad makes this bullshit clear as day. So let’s see Salmond drop the monarchy and drop the Crown Estate. If Scotland is sovereign then it’s sovereign. We’ll create our OWN Crown eh Alex? CHECKMATE asshole!

Now, I am happy to have this “debate” in public SNP. Are you?

Meanwhile, you evade the direct questions Kirky! Perhaps it’s more than your job’s worth to do so huh? 😉

UPDATE Wed 13 July 2011:

From: Earthling
To: kirk.torrance@snp.org; info@snp.org
Subject: RE: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:25:38 +0000

Oh dear Kirk! Seems I have upset you! I’m not on the defensive lad, you are. Don’t apologise – it’s empty and you’ll get none from me!

Meanwhile, you ignore every factual element of that which I have brought to your attention. Not me making sweeping generalizations Kirk. Not at all.

Fantasizing and moaning about invisible enemies? LOL
How old are you Kirk? And is it difficult for you to follow logical, factually based reasoning?
You’ve failed to respond in any way to absolute fact you have been presented with. No comment on Bernanke and his remark. Or the parliamentary minutes over decades to support it all. I guess Douglas Carswell, Captain Kerby and Lord Sudeley as well as a host of American Congressmen are all “Conspiracy theorists Kirk? Is that what you’re saying? Or is it just that you don’t understand it? Are you thick Kirk?
You have not responded to the CIA issue in funding the European Movement during the early 70s campaign. You brush it all off as “fantasy” and fallacious”. What drug are you on Kirk? Ritalin?
You admit the Crown Estate administers and profits from the resources throughout the UK and yet you can’t grasp that, if Scotland were a fully independent nation, then the we wouldn’t require the profit from the Crown Estate because the Crown Estate would then only have England, N Ireland and Wales. Are you seriously incapable of logically deducing this?
But that is not going to happen is it? Because the Crown Estate won’t LET Scotland go and Salmond needs to negotiate to access Scotland’s portion of the estate WHEREAS, if we were truly independent, no negotiation is necessary because we would tell the Crown Estate where to go.
But Kirk refuses to see this. And you wonder why anyone would consider taking the proverbial out of you? 🙂
Working hard? You could work as hard as you want Kirk but if you’re ignorant it’s a total waste of energy. Try working smart but then, no, the SNP doesn’t want SMART they just want you to stay dumb!
Question them Kirk and see how long you’d last! But you don’t have the balls do you? It’s a nice little number working in the SNP office.
You’re a boy doing a wee job for the SNP in media and you think you have it sussed. Oh the arrogance!
Proof by verbosity? The writings are backed up and mostly from Parliament! Seriously, how hard are the arteries in your brain Kirk? You’re a little too young for that aren’t you?
Kirk take your accusations re “Culture of Conspiracy” and stick them where the sun don’t shine lad. If you’re incapable and impotent minded to simply throw wild unsubstantiated tripe like that then I just haven’t got the time or inclination to educate you.
The only reason I’ve bothered to take the time to respond to you today is because your demonstrable willful ignorance and stupidity is just providing a little fun. The big fish is a Salmond! 😉
I wish you all the best though. Another few years and you’ll grasp a little more I’m sure. Once life hits a little harder!
Earthling

Subject: Re: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
From: kirk.torrance@snp.org
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:48:48 +0100
CC: snp.hq@snp.org
To: Earthling

You’ve clearly been upset with what I said and for that I’m sorry – it wasn’t my intention to put you on the defensive.

But I must say that your repeated emails with wild and unsubstantiated assertions about me, and how I’m somehow facilitating a coverup; satisfies me that I was completely correct in my analysis of your positions. In a phrase: you’re talking absolute nonsense!

By all means entertain your beliefs, but know this, those of us who see [substantiated rather than fallacious] problems in the system are working hard to make this country the best it can be as opposed to fantasising and moaning about invisible enemies.

Everyone flirts with conspiracy theories at some point in their lives because they are exciting and give you a sense that you know things that others don’t – which can give a sense of empowerment. But, in complex reality simple conspiracy theory models just don’t stack up to scrutiny.

To address the only point you’ve made that values consideration: “Now, in my belief that we still have a democracy, when it comes to the point you have just made re “causes”, I would consider it democratic to allow Scottish nationals to state their views (not MY “cause”) on a Scottish Nationalist page.

There are two fallacies here:

The Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalisation AND the Fallacy of False Clause
Firstly, the SNP Facebook page is property of the Scottish National Party which is a political party – you seem to be confusing the party with the Scottish Government – they are not the same thing. The SNP forms the Government of Scotland and if you would like to make your claims on Scottish Government websites then that is your prerogative and it would be up to the Civil Service to decide whether or not to allow you to do so.

Because you understand the SNP form the Government of Scotland you believe they are one and the same [sweeping generalisation]. Now since you feel hard done by because the SNP (as a party), don’t think it’s reasonable to endorse your beliefs by allowing you to post them on party property, you jumping to the conclusion that the SNP Scottish Government are silencing you and in doing so are acting undemocratically [in you doing so, you are committing the fallacy of False Cause [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)].

Additionally…

You then go on to commit the fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion and Affirming the Consequent by saying: “Furthermore, if it is not a “cause” that the entire Scottish public should know about from your perspective, then I would have to assume, as I do, that the SNP is defrauding the Scottish people.”All conspiracy theorists and cranks use a tactical approach that is very well demonstrated in your videos and writings. It’s called, “Proof by Verbosity” and it is a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
It is very likely that the ideas of others you’re read and which have brought you to your conclusions would have used this technique to convince you of all this “forbidden knowledge”. In actuality, it’s all nonsense.This is the only reason that I’ve bothared to take the time to reply to you today – I won’t let such gumf be spoken about the SNP and the decision we’ve made in keeping discussions around the party web properties in the realms of reality and logical reasoning.
You’re clearly passionate and talented, however the content of your arguments are totally built on fallacies (no matter how much you assume that correlation implies causation – because it simply doesn’t).
I sincerely hope that you’d put your energies into something more constructive and worthwhile by perhaps in the first instance seeing that your arguments are built on very unstable ground.

I’d like to suggest a good book for you to read called: “A Culture of Conspiracy” [read for free here http://www.scribd.com/doc/11443886/A-Culture-of-Conspiracy] or buy at http://amzn.to/r0MxhL .I think this will be the only reply you’ll be getting from me as I just don’t have time for email sparring – particularly when I am appalled at the errors in deduction.
I wish you all the very best though.
Kirk

From: Earthling

To: kirk.torrance@snp.org; snp.hq@snp.org
Subject: FW: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:17:49 +0000

And one further thing Kirk buddy!

Nothing “sinister” re the EU? Really?
Now tell me – were you even remotely aware of this? Meanwhile, do you understand the first thing about Constitutional Law?
You need to learn a few things Kirk!
Pause and listen before you consider the fact that the CIA were involved in funding the European Movement in the 1970s as some “fallacy”.
As I said Mr Torrance. Consider before assuming the intellect of those you respond to and dismiss. Dismissiveness in ignorance is not an attractive quality, it is just simple arrogance.
Regards,
Earthling


From: Earthling
To: kirk.torrance@snp.org; snp.hq@snp.org
Subject: RE: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:50:36 +0000

Hi Kirk,

May I first state that this so called “abuse and insult” has nothing to do with people simply not accepting MY world view. I tend not to wish to be abusive nor insulting in any way but when faced with what I consider insulting condescension, I tend not to take that too well either. So the point may be made – who’s opinion do you find it useful to agree with? I tend, however, not to go running off making complaints about what I find insulting. I tend to have a stronger disposition that some it would seem.
As for having my “own cause”. That is patently ridiculous to suggest such. Furthermore, this is a democracy am I right? What is the SNP page if not one for your “own cause”? Such hypocrisy in your remarks Kirk. Now, in my belief that we still have a democracy, when it comes to the point you have just made re “causes”, I would consider it democratic to allow Scottish nationals to state their views (not MY “cause”) on a Scottish Nationalist page. Furthermore, if it is not a “cause” that the entire Scottish public should know about from your perspective, then I would have to assume, as I do, that the SNP is defrauding the Scottish people.
Please be more specific with regard to which style or type of logical fallacy you refer to. I think it is clear to a blind man to be honest Kirk, that once you consider the attached document from Hansard, which states it quite clearly, that the oil/petroleum is vested in Her Majesty; when you consider the £38m that the monarchy (the Queen personally) is making from the offshore windfarm income and once you consider facts such as there is NO true allodial title to land for anyone in this country; it is patently obvious that Her Majesty controls practically every resource in this country. I find your naivety and ignorance overwhelming. So, if you would be so kind, do not attempt to brush me off with some assumption that I accept internet information at face value without fact checking or accuracy. Unless, of course, you wish to state that the information which is posted in Hansard is fallacious and untrustworthy? By all means do!
You may also, then, wish to state that our printed media perpetrates a lie when stating categorically that the Queen owns the seabed? If that is so, then I suggest you and the government of the United Kingdom sue them for libel!
I fully recognise that “Crown property” should NOT be the personal property of the Queen for the Queen is but a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH and holds an office by swearing an oath at her Coronation which she has since broken MANY times! However, as Upton Beall Sinclair stated: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” That quote would most certainly apply to you in this instance! While the fact remains, the Queen is personally profiting o the tune of £38m. Do you contest this? If you do, Mr Torrance, then please do so constructively, intelligently and in precise detail.
It matters not who administers the Crown Estate and, in fact, that is precisely my point: Alex Salmond wishes to administer it, in part, and that is precisely why he is wishing to retain the monarchy as the Scottish Head of State. How simple must this be for you? I can appreciate YOUR confusion however!
“Additionally, everyone is entitled to their own opinions on matters such as Europe; but to suggest there is something sinister going on is fear-mongering and incorrect”. Please do not presume to make simple statements and dismiss a subject you either are very poorly versed upon or, alternatively, you simply wish to shut down debate on. Who exactly are you to state what you do and believe it to be the last word on the matter? That is just sheer arrogance Mr Torrance!
Meanwhile, you may rest assured I have contacted the Scottish Executive regarding this. I do note, however, you have made absolutely no comment on the matter of a Scottish sovereign currency. Do you even understand this issue? I would guess the answer is either “No” or, again, you simply wish it to be ignored and dismissed.
I suggest you consider carefully before you make assumptions regarding the intelligence of people and the due diligence and care they take to check their facts. You may also wish to fully consider the currency issue before responding on it for you can rest assured I have a significant amount of factual data related to it and if you think for one moment you can dismiss it with one of your “statements” you are sadly mistaken.
Your response thus far is insulting but I shall choose to refrain from reciprocating too drastically.
I await your comments on it.
Regards,
Earthling

Subject: Re: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
From: kirk.torrance@snp.org
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 16:54:50 +0100
To: Earthling

Hi Earthling,

Thanks for getting in touch – apologies for the delay in reply, I’m sure you can appreciate how busy we’ve been of late with the by-election, etc.
You’re clearly talented at creating video presentations.
Regarding your commenting ban: in checking the records, I notice the reason why you were banned was because of some abusive and insulting comments made by you towards others who didn’t accept your world view.
Our policy is clear – we encourage intelligent and positive conversations about Scotland and the governance of the country and her Independent future, but we cannot allow our conversation forums (either online or offline) to be used as a platform by people who want to promote their own causes – especially when they are of a dubiousness and discredited nature.
For instance, your claim that the Queen owns Scotland’s oil fields and wind turbines and suggestions of conspiracy involving the First Minister of Scotland is at best a logical fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy] and at worst quackery. The Crown Estate is indeed property and area belonging to The Crown. However, it is not the private property of the monarch and is administered by Crown Estate Commissioners, who are accountable to the Westminster Parliament. I can understand however why people might get confused.
If control of the Crown Estate was devolved to Scotland then it would be Scottish Parliament that would be accountable for its management with any excess revenue from the estate going to the Scottish Government. As reported yesterday the Crown Estate has achieved record profits this year, with access to these funds the Scottish Government would be able to provide better support to our economy and help create jobs and support employment. The SNP has been and continues to campaign for control of Scotland’s share of the Crown Estate.
Additionally, everyone is entitled to their own opinions on matters such as Europe; but to suggest there is something sinister going on is fear-mongering and incorrect.
The Internet is a terrific tool and has opened up information and knowledge to billions of people around the World. Unfortunately, it has also means that people often accept information at face value without fact checking for accuracy. As a result fallacious arguments and untruths are propagated time and time again.
At this time, I’m afraid we cannot re-instate your commenting privileges as there is a 12 month ‘cooling off’ period before consideration to lift any bans.
Please feel free to get in touch directly with the appropriate offices for answers to any questions you may have in order to get the full picture of events. Contact details for MSPs can be found here: http://voteSNP.com/sh
Regards,
Kirk

— 
Kirk J. Torrance

New-Media Strategist | Scottish National Party


On 4 Jul 2011, at 16:46, SNP HQ wrote:

FYA

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Earthling
Date: Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 3:18 PM
Subject: RE: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
To: snp.hq@snp.org

Hi Susan,
Any thoughts on what I sent? Do you think the penny will drop? 🙂

An additional one Susan. Guernsey Susan. Ask Salmond about Guernsey. Ask him to explain what all of this is I’m talking about.

Meanwhile, I STILL haven’t heard from the Facebook people regarding my reinstatement. I suggested to you I wouldn’t while you promised I would.
I’m not surprised however but I would appreciate it if you would advise me why I have not heard. Thanks.
Regards,
Earthling


Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:30:45 +0100
Subject: Re: FW: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
From: snp.hq@snp.org
To:  Earthling

Hi Earthling,
I have the email thank you.
Susan

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Earthling wrote:

Hello again Susan,

Can you please just acknowledge receipt of this email so that I know, for sure, you have it?
Thanks,
Earthling


From: Earthling
To: info@snp.org
Subject: Sovereignty, Independence and the Salmond deception.
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:13:22 +0000

Hello Susan,

I started off putting together a highly detailed explanation on video for you but I’m afraid I felt it may be too much to “hit” you with for the moment so i have kept it as succinct and to the main points as possible. I believe it is detailed enough and more than adequate to capture your and your colleagues attention to issues you may have no idea about – not many people do unless they have taken the time I have (and others) to study it. I have studied this entire issue in depth and very widely over the course of almost 4 years since returning to the UK having spent 10 years as an expat in Asia.
I do not hold a PhD nor an MSC or MA in Finance, I just hold a humble degree in Physics and a University Diploma in Business Studies. I simply add that to ensure you I am no idiot! Meanwhile, you can rest assured that if Mr Salmond were presented this information by you, he would completely dismiss it and myself as ridiculous no matter whether what he is presented with is all verifiable fact which he cannot deny.
Please watch the video and then read through the detail of the attachments: All UK Parliament and House of Lords.
This entire “story” or “picture” is immense in its connotations but it is something which, unless the Scottish public and the world at large can grasp (it is simple but for some reason people cannot take it onboard), people like Alex Salmond, David Cameron, the EU bureaucrats, her majesty’s loyal opposition (if they were to get back in government) all our Chancellors (and I have called out Darling and Osborne on this as well as my local MP – they refuse to answer and/or evade) will continue this con on you, me, everyone including your own SNP colleagues who have to pay their taxes, their petrol, their heating, gas, electricity, mortgages etc etc. Sovereignty and Independence is a joke and the joke is on us.
Mr Salmond wants his little piece of the power within the EU. he simply does not wish to play second fiddle to a UK government. It is transparent when you understand what I have presented to you here. I want what you want and we all want but none of us shall have it unless we call these people to answer. To do that, it needs good intentioned, intelligent people to bring this into focus and call Salmond to account. There is simply no other way. So the question is whether people just wish to be part of a group, a “bandwagon” and toe the party line which SUGGESTS it is for the best interests of Scotland, or whether they wish to seriously work for the best interests of people. And remember, we have people dying due to these issues and this corruption.
I hope you will take this, understand it and share it. It is of fundamental importance and I, for one, despise being lied to. That is why I may occasionally use language which may offend but ask yourself, would you rather be offended by language or be lied to and offended by action which steals your wealth and freedom and makes a mockery of this so called “democracy”?
This is all just the “tip of the iceberg” regarding the information, evidence I can produce to back it all up but, in itself, it is clear anyhow. I would be keen, if the opportunity ever arose, to call Mr Salmond to account on every point made and so much more within a public forum so that the people of Scotland recognise how they are being told what they wish to hear but not the true, honest reality. That reality meaning that, effectively, nothing will improve for them “Independence” or not.
Thanks for listening.
Earthling

The Crown is profiting from your misery! Fuel bills anyone?

Posted in "Climate Change", Law, Political History by earthling on June 3, 2011

Petroleum (Production) Act 1934

1934 CHAPTER 36

An Act to vest in the Crown the property in petroleum and natural gas within Great Britain and to make provision with respect to the searching and boring for and getting of petroleum and natural gas, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

[12th July 1934.]

Be it enactedby the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1Vesting of property in petroleum in His Majesty

(1)The property in petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is hereby vested in His Majesty, and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to petroleum which at the commencement of this Act, may lawfully be gotten under a licence in force under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1918, being a licence specified in the Schedule to this Act, so long as that licence remains in force.

(2)For the purpose of this Act the expression ” petroleum ” includes any mineral oil or relative hydrocarbon and natural gas existing in its natural condition in strata, but does not include coal or bituminous shales or other stratified, deposits from which oil can be extracted by destructive distillation.

2Licences to search for and get petroleum

(1)The Board of Trade, on behalf of His Majesty, shall have power to grant to such persons as they think fit licences to search and bore for and get petroleum.

(2)Any such licence shall be granted for such consideration (whether by way of royalty or otherwise) as the Board of Trade with the consent of the Treasury may determine, and upon such other terms and conditions as the Board of Trade think fit.

(3)The Board of Trade shall, as soon as may be after granting a licence under this section, publish notice of the fact in the London Gazette stating the name of the licensee and the situation of the area in respect of which the licence has been granted, and, if the said area or any part thereof is in Scotland, the Board shall also publish the said notice in the Edinburgh Gazette.

Queenie is screwing you and you refuse to listen!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

International Law Reports.

Perhaps it does require spelling out:

The Queen owns the seabed – see the Daily Mail article – she does.
The Queen owns mineral rights all across the country AND beneath HER seabed.
The petroleum (oil) in the ground and in the seabed is vested in the sovereign – Just like the seabed is owned by the Queen (and she profits from it) the oil pumped out of her owned seabed (the UK Continental shelf) is licensed and she will profit from it. She effectively then owns the oil rights because no-one can touch her seabed unless she allows.
Now, think why our oil is all exported and we import all our requirements.
If she were to allow the use of her oil (our oil) within the UK, we would have no problems when the price of oil spiked now would we?
BUT – and here’s the BIG BUT – her “Majesty” would lose the profits within an international market where,as things stand, “her” oil can be sold to the most profitable markets.
Who benefits from that? The British people?

OH NO!!

And THAT is why we export our oil rather than use it for our own consumption!

Meanwhile:

The Crown not only owns the seabed, minerals an oil within it but the Crown also owns the Nuclear industry.

“The British Nuclear Company and all its property, rights and liabilities shall remain wholly owned by the Crown”.

british-national-nuclear-corporation#S6CV0150P0_19890405_HOC_354

Your fuel bills are going through the roof and the Crown owns and controls it all!

QUEEN BITCH ONCE MORE. Profits from exporting oil from HER seabed WHILE she demands her government to promote green tech and windfarms in the UK and, AGAIN, only built on her seabed so she profits from that too.

Our Queen is a CON ARTIST!

HOW CLOSE TO UNDER YOUR NOSE DOES THIS HAVE TO BE BEFORE THE BLOODY PENNY DROPS? THESE ARE PARLIAMENTARY FACTS! 

More…..