A mother’s love eats itself

Posted in Law by earthling on April 21, 2014

Do not read further if you are unwilling to read this with an inquisitive, logical, educated, aware and open mind.

This is intended to challenge you and your very belief system. It is not intended to offend but, if it does, I offer zero apology for it. You choose to be offended rather than to consider the quite obvious outcome. Your prerogative is to ignore if you so wish. My prerogative is to present this for your consideration. There will be many of you mothers out there who simply will not wish to consider it because it will have a similar effect to giving a new software program to a robot which conflicts with its existing logic and the robot breaks down repeating “Cannot compute….cannot compute…”.mothers-love-quotes-pictures

I am a father. I lost my children to lies and corruption and I simply will never overcome the pain and anger associated with that. No matter how many days go by, how many birthdays, christmases and just every single day of life – I will never lose the pain of losing my children’s hearts to lies and corruption. I gave my children everything a father could – not just in terms of financial stability, wonderful birthdays and christmases, an international lifestyle and education but also through the hours and days and years I spent bathing them, reading to them, listening to them, playing with them, teaching them, up in the middle of the night with them for months on end while having work in the morning, returning home from exhausting business trips to park the car and then get them ready for bed, teaching them to swim, cycle, listen to their stories and their secrets and wishes, listening to them breathe in the early mornings just after midnight while sitting at the bottom of their beds, being the “umpire” in their fights and arguments together, knowing that “look” when they wanted to wrap me around their little finger – just loving the ground they walked on.

a-mothers-love-jane-brackI understand the ideology women have behind this “A mother’s love” idea. But I really do take offence to it in many ways because, while I appreciated my own mother’s love and have to question my father’s (no doubt about that), I, personally, could not have loved my children anymore than I did (or do) and there is not one man or woman on this planet who loved their children any more than I did. Their own mother would suggest that she did and what I state is trash but then she has to. She has to maintain the fiction.

However, the point of this blog is to illustrate how that very “mother’s love” (seemingly unconditional – I say seemingly because there is no such thing as unconditional love no matter what your emotions may wish to believe) is, itself, poised to destroy the very ideology inherent within it.



Many of you (a great majority in fact) – whether a mother or a potential mother – are politically correct, rabid supporters of “love” whether that love is between a man and a woman OR a man and a man. Your arguments for such a stance (having been brainwashed by political correctness AND, also perhaps, having a gay son of your own as we seem to be breeding them like rabbits these days OR is it due to environment? Government legislation based on agendas, promotion of it in literature and pop art – especially the latter where all today’s “heroes and heroines” seem to be sexually ambivalent at best and sheer raving gays at worst) vary from “how can one be anti “love” in whatever form it takes?” to “you’re back in the dark ages”, “you’re a homophobe” etc.mothers-love-is-deeper-than-ocean

If you’re a mother of a homosexual you’ll protect that choice in life by your son (or daughter) viciously. You’ll justify it in any and every way you possibly can because it is YOUR child. That is very commendable of you and it is a reflection of that deep “mother’s love” you hold so dear. However, the irony is immense. Remember the term politically correct? Ask yourself something – it doesn’t take too much thought I promise you. If something was “marginally correct” or “somewhat correct”, “legally correct”, “morally correct” even or “mathematically correct”, you’d consider the fact that, having the descriptor r adjective before the word “correct” would diminish its absolutism of being “correct” in all circumstances. a-mothers-love-kathy-yatesAfter all, if something is “correct” then it is correct. Period! But here we have “POLITICALLY correct”. Was the Iraq war “politically correct”? According to Tony Blair and the majority of politicians it was and still is because no-one has been brought before the courts on charges of war-crimes. So it MUST have been correct right? No? Are you arguing with the politicians on this? Isn’t “politically correct” correct after all? Isn’t it “politically correct” – and, therefore, correct – to protect murderers, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists under the Human Rights Act? The politicians say it is. These people have rights just like you and I. Are you disagreeing with that “politically correctness”?


mothersloveYet political correctness is precisely what has driven the homosexual community to the point that two men can now get married. It is this political correctness which has said that two men can adopt and bring up a child as their own and you, as a mother, are all for that – particularly if your own son is gay while you also like to watch all of these TV personalities and pop stars etc who are gay. They’re “cool and fun” aren’t they? They make you laugh and they do no harm to anyone – they’re just little funny gays with good dress sense and can make for fun friends and also have the added “extra” of making you – a straight woman – feel cool and bask in the reflected glory of their “friendship”. Who knows? You may even, as a woman, have suppressed sexual fantasies of your own (I’ve met a few) and it allows you to be “part of the scene” so to speak. Plus, you may be a girl in her teens or twenties or thirties even and have yet to hit that “motherhood” urge. Or you may never have the urge. Additionally, you may be a woman who’s had her fair share of violent or abusive men and it draws you closer to the gay community where you feel less fear and more comfortable. There could be a never ending number of reasons for your support and acceptance of homosexuality. While I have made my own views clear on a few posts on this blog, this particular one is not to dwell on my views but to bring something very real to your attention:

That is the irony of your position.

Here are two little gay boys – now married and now with the “rights” to adopt children – just like Elton John and partner and many others.


Our Prime Minister, David Cameron, was provided with this headline in the Independent newspaper to accompany this:

“Gay marriage: ‘When people’s love is divided by law, it is the law that needs to change,’ says PM as first same-sex couples tie knot”

Isn’t that nice of him? Isn’t that nice of the government? He and they decide to recognise that, all along, they were wrong to disallow gay marriage and control who has the right to love and who doesn’t and who can love who and who can’t. Isn’t the government and the Prime Minister so enlightened? Well aren’t they?

mothers-love 2Well let’s consider their decision in the true light of day. What they are saying is that THEY decide and THEY control who has rights and who doesn’t and who has the freedom to live and love as they wish. The PM and the government are bestowing kindness upon our little gay friends. They’ve bestowed such kindness upon heterosexuals for a long time while, I should add, that religions don’t. A muslim woman marrying outside the faith is frowned upon at best and, at worst, she is ex communicated. Similar with judaism. Christians don’t give a shit simply because christianity no longer exists and, if it does and one lives by its rules then like the muslim and jewish extremist, one is a “christian fundamentalist” and to be reviled as such. If a christian points to the teachings of jesus and his references to the “synagogue of satan” (in the King James bible which the present Queen took an oath to uphold) or points to Jesus’ “cleansing of the temple” –

“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

—Matthew 21:12–13

then one should be frowned upon in this ecumenical, accepting, politically correct society of ours.

And yet David Cameron is referring to himself these days as doing Jesus’ work with the “big society”. He speaks of his faith in christianity while proclaiming his “jewish values”. Which is it Dave? They are two VERY different religions otherwise they would be the same wouldn’t they? Don’t talk to me about this “judeo-christian” shit. That’s purely for political expediency and based on bullshit political correctness and business and geo-political strategy.rbrs_0240

But back to your “kind consideration” to offer homosexuals the same “rights” as heterosexuals. Up until 1927, the UK government hadn’t even given rights to women who, at that time, were considered the property of their husbands. So what is it that changes David? What is it the government, in their graciousness, provides to “free people” in the “free world”? If we’re “free” then why do we need your permission? I’m a heterosexual and I don’t WANT your permission or your acceptance! If I were to turn gay tomorrow (god forbid) and wish to be with a man, I wouldn’t come running to you for permission David. I wouldn’t ask for the “right” to love or to marry and, in fact, if I were to wish to be with a woman in my life from tomorrow onward, I wouldn’t come running to you then or the courts or any institution.

You can literally fuck off David. I choose to love who I wish.

Marriage? What is that? It is a contract and a REGISTRATION with the state. It provides the state with control over my and everyone else’s decisions just like the registration of a car or of a child. I don’t want you or anyone else involved or dictating my life and my actions. You don’t decide how many children I have and if I wish not to register them with you then I don’t do it! Ah! But it’s the law is it? And when registered, if I bring my children up in a way that YOU deem inappropriate, that registration gives you the right to intervene with my family. If my marriage dissolves, the registration of it gives you the right to determine who gets what from the economics to the children.

And that is what our little gay compadres want too. To be controlled by the state. And here, of all people, is little Sean and his boy wishing for the state to take on that authority over their life when Sean is meant to be an “enlightened truthseeker” – haha don’t make me laugh!

So what do we have here? Elton and David.

DSC_0257Where is “MOTHER” in that photo ladies?

Mother is non existent.

So what do you say to Elton and David ladies? Do you STILL hold to that ideology of a “Mother’s love” when speaking to them as you fully support the idea of gay marriage and the raising of children by a gay couple? Do you? I don’t think you can. I think fat little gay Elton and his lover/husband will be very offended by your suggestion that a “mother’s love” surpasses that of all others don’t you?

So where does that leave you as you have bleated for years/decades/centuries about how a “mother’s love” is unsurpassed and that it is YOU – the mother – who bears the child?

I’ll tell you where it will soon leave you: NOWHERE!

Because that thing called “political correctness” is going to rear its ugly head once more and the state will have to say (it will HAVE TO because it has given itself no other choice) that it is unacceptable to suggest that a mother’s love is worth more than a gay father’s love.

And when that becomes apparent to you mothers out there who are so accepting, politically correct and supportive of gay marriages and gay families, remember:


You will no longer have that proud pedestal to put yourself on. The question is: Do you even care anymore?

So while you proclaim that YOUR love is so much stronger than a father’s, it seems either it isn’t, because you are currently denying it by your acceptance that children do not need a mother OR you never really believed it in the first place. You see, one needs to have the courage of one’s convictions. You as a mother who accepts and supports the gay agenda, does not have that courage nor conviction. Your “love” is killing the very fabric of what you suggest that love is based upon. And you can’t even recognise it!

I never believed in the “Mother’s love” anyhow. It varies from one human to the other and I, as a father, had and have far more love for my children than their mother ever did. Some men will love their kids that much, some men won’t. But it is the same for women.

However, what you’re doing, as women, is destroying your argument and the government and state will take every advantage of that as we move in to this new paradigm. A politically correct “Father’s love” = “Mother’s love”. Oh the irony! 🙂


[But then he doesn’t exist either. Tell me? What DO you believe in these days ladies? The power of your vagina?]

Remember it was men who gave you your “emancipation” and the majority of you have no concept as to why.

That is because most of you are idiots. And before you say that is misogynist of me. No, no. I hold the same view of my own sex too.

A mother's love FB page

How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women

February 1, 2007
By Henry Makow Ph.D.

Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society.

In 40 short years, many women have lost touch with their natural loving instincts. Consequently, the family is in disarray, sexual depravity is rampant and birth rates have plummeted.

I will expand on the Rockefeller’s role, but first we need to remember that for a woman, love is an instinctive act of self-sacrifice.

She gives herself to her husband and children and is fulfilled by seeing them thrive and receiving their love, respect and gratitude.

A woman makes this supreme sacrifice to only one man who will cherish her and provide for his family. Men instinctively want to fulfill this responsibility. This is the essence of the heterosexual contract (i.e. marriage): female power in exchange for male power expressed as love. Sex is the symbol of this exclusive bond. Marriage and family may not be for everyone but it is the natural path for most.

Feminism has trained women to reject this model as “an old fashioned, oppressive stereotype” even though it reflects their natural instincts.

On Thursday a British writer reported overhearing two young women:

“All men are useless these days,” one said. “Yeah,” said the other. “The trouble is that they haven’t risen to the challenge of feminism. They don’t understand that we need them to be more masculine, and instead they have just copped out.”

That’s their logic? If women are less feminine, men will be more masculine? Men aren’t designed to fight with women. They need to be affirmed by a woman’s acquiescence and faith. When women constantly challenge them, men will “cop out” of marriage and family.

Now that love and marriage have been “discredited,” women have nothing left to exchange for love but sex. Thus, many are unnaturally obsessed with appearance and pathetically give their bodies to all and sundry.

Permanent love is not based on a woman’s sex appeal, or personality or achievements. Ultimately, it is based on self-sacrifice. We love the people who love us.

People do not realize that feminism is mass indoctrination because they cannot identify the perpetrator, the means or the motive.

Recently Aaron Russo, the producer of Bette Midler’s movies and “America: From Freedom to Fascism” identified all three confirming what I have been saying.

While trying to recruit Russo for the CFR, Nicholas Rockefeller told him that his family foundation created women’s liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity. He admitted they want to “chip us.” Google “Rockefeller Foundation” and “Women’s Studies” and you’ll get a half million citations.

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family.

A drastic paradigm shift is required to make sense of the world. The Rockefellers are part of the private world central banking cartel that also controls media, defence, pharmaceutical and other cartels. To protect their monopoly of credit and wealth, they are instituting a world police state (“world government”) using the bogus 9-11 attack and endless war as a pretext. Rockefeller told Russo about this plan a year before 9-11.

The poet Charles Peguy said, “Everything begins in faith and ends in politics.” The banking cartel needs a philosophy to justify enchaining mankind. That philosophy is Satanism. The cartel controls the world through a network of occult societies linked to Freemasonry, Communism, the Vatican and organized Jewry (Bnai Brith, ADL, AJC, Zionism.) The highest occult rank is known as the Illuminati.

Modern Western culture is Masonic. Based on Luciferianism, Freemasonry teaches that man and not God determines reality. (Naturally, they need to overrule natural and spiritual laws in order to assert their own control.) They have noticed that people are diffident malleable creatures who prefer to believe what they are told than trust their own reason or perception. Thus, for example, the media successfully promotes homosexual values that conflict with our natural instincts.

Every facet of the mass media (movies, TV, magazines, music, commercials, news) is used for indoctrination and social control with the ultimate goal of enslavement. There is a connection between what happened in Communist Russia and what is happening in America today. In both cases the central banking cartel is asserting its totalitarian control.

The mass media’s function is to distract us from this, and the imminent Iran war and North American Union. Currently they are using the global warming fracas for diversion.

In order to destroy the family, the media convinced women that they could not rely on the heterosexual contract.

Myrna Blyth was the editor in chief of Ladies Home Journal from 1981 to 2002. In her book “Spin Sisters” (2004) she says the media sold women “a career in exactly the same drum banging way that the Happy Homemaker had been ..sold to their mothers.” (38)

The Illuminati undermined women’s natural loving instincts using the following mantras:

1. Men can no longer be trusted. Using the Lifetime Network as an example, Blyth concluded “all men are 1) unfaithful rats 2) abusive monsters 3) dishonest scumbags, or 4) all of the above. Women on the other hand were…flinty achievers who triumph despite the cavemen who…want to keep them in their place.” (62-63)

2. Women are victims by virtue of their sex. Blyth says the media sends “one message loud and clear. Because we are women, we remain victims in our private lives, at work, in society as a whole.” (156) Thus women must have a sense of grievance, entitlement and rebellion. The same tactic was used to manipulate Jews, Blacks, workers and gays. (See my “Victim as Moral Zombie” )

3. Women should be selfish. “Liberation and narcissism have merged,” Blyth says. Leisure now means, “time for yourself, spent alone, or perhaps with one’s girlfriends but definitely without spouse and kids…Endless articles preached the new feminist gospel, that indulging yourself is an important part of being a healthy, well adjusted woman.” (65)

4. Sex is not reserved for love and marriage. Magazines like Glamour and Cosmopolitan urge young women to “put out on their first date,”ogle men openly” and be an athlete in bed. There is no discussion of marriage or family. (160) Such women can’t trust a man enough to surrender themselves in love.

5. Self-fulfillment lies in career success and not husband and family. “The social rewards of holding down a job are critical to one’s sense of dignity and self worth,” Betty Friedan pontificated. In fact, “most work is deeply ordinary,” Blyth observes (35-36.) (I’m not saying women can’t have jobs, only they shouldn’t be tricked out of having families if they want them.)

Thus many women are schizophrenic as they attempt to reconcile their natural instincts with constant exhortations to do the opposite. The wreckage — broken families and dysfunctional people — is strewn everywhere.

At the same time, Playboy Magazine etc. aimed a similar message at men. You don’t need to get married to have sex. Marriage and children are a bore.

This consistent media drumbeat is organized brainwashing. Society has been totally subverted by the central banking cartel, using a Satanic cult, Freemasonry as its primary instrument. Most masons are unaware of the truth but the owners of the mass media certainly are.

We used to say, “as American as motherhood and apple pie.” Only satanists would trash motherhood. Far from empowering women, feminism has unsexed many. It has deprived them of a secure and honored role and reduced them to sex objects and replaceable workers.

Luciferians promote rebellion because they are defying what is natural and conducive to happiness. Like their symbol, Lucifer, they wish to play God.

God’s love can be seen in a woman’s dedication to her husband and children. Thus the bankers must destroy it.


But you just don’t wish to accept any of this as real do you? Even when it is presented to you today by the following realities:

Two school named person

The Rockefeller President’s review and annual report of 1984 (2003 is the copyrighted copy date):

Rockefeller foundation annual report

And the Rockefeller Feminist work continues to the present:

Rockefeller feminism


Now you may say that women’s position in society needed to be improved. A right minded individual would not argue with that but remember, it was not the man in the street, your husband or your father who legislated against you as persons up until 1927. It wasn’t men per se who did any of that. It was the men (and women) in positions of political and financial power through their agenda for social engineering.

What I’m trying to point out to you is the fact that, while equality between sexes was required, it was law, and those who control law, which stifled it for so long and then these same people have developed your “feminism” for reasons NOT to your benefit. It is manipulative and it is for the destruction of the family. By all means embrace such manipulation if this destruction of the fabric of society is what you wish for but, word in your ear – you’re going to seriously regret it one day.

I have no hatred toward gays. Their sexual preference makes me sick but then a lot of things make me sick – like George Osborne’s face for example. Nick Clegg talking shit and lying to you all. David Cameron talking through his ass. Paedophiles make me sick too – lots of things do. The gay issue I have is that I know it is useful to the social engineers in further destroying the family and the gays will embrace that destruction because then there is no “norm” to point at their abnormality.

The state then has our children from two years old with a state “named person” – NOT their mother or their father – as responsible for them. The new generations then grow up not recognising YOUR authority as a mother or mine as a father but the STATE as their parent.


And “A mother’s love…”? Shut up! You can’t say that, it’s discriminatory and will make children without a mother but with two fathers think there is something wrong with them and their family. That becomes hate speech. So ladies,


Mark my words, it’s coming and you’ve opened the door to it!



Gay TV

Posted in Media by earthling on March 29, 2014

Now it becomes all so clear.

On the stroke of midnight last night, a little gay guy (I was not sure he was until now) made sure that, being in the media himself, he gets press for being one of the first gay “husbands” in the UK. And the media always make sure to cover their own and give them that much needed publicity which, in this case, Sean Tabatabai’s “marriage” certainly was.

Now all the tweets and the TPV predilection toward homosexuality and porn and, of course, their love affair with Peter Tatchell and transvestites etc all make the sense I had already sensed but could point to nothing specific which held it all together.

The “Guardian on the gates of the ethos” indeed.

Homosexuality, in a political sense, is a globalist movement and is being used to destroy the family. If you call yourself “awake” and you don’t understand something as well documented and easily understood as this, then please, don’t talk to me about your “awakened state”. You’re an ignorant twat. (Another few hundred readers have gone “poof”!)

They need to destroy the family to get at the children (physically with paedophilia and mentally with the NWO dogma being taught to them and their believing the state is their family). So all you “progressive” heterosexuals out there with children who are so “it’s the 21st century man” are fucking idiots! – just sayin’. Just like your acceptance and acquiescence all these years to the brainwashing of “political correctness” which now has you shitting yourself to speak your mind and, therefore, controlled. It has been that very same political correctness which has heralded in the gay state, the human rights of paedophiles and murderers and terrorists. And there you sit, complaining of it all and complaining about the paedophilia, the porn, etc. All of it brought about by your acquiescence to politically correct homosexuality. Do you flaunt your heterosexuality in parades up and down the country? But you’ve allowed theirs for decades and more and more, blatant sexuality has been spread over your screens and your kids have seen it while more and more of you – hetero or homo – as parents of children, have splashed your scantily clad bodies with your tattoos and your words on your profiles, across social media sites and online dating sites.

Every single one of you who has, has brought this society to what it is now as you sit and complain about your lot in life. You fucking deserve it!


But now this makes sense:

Another nice little tweet from the "enlightened" Sean Tabatabai

Another nice little tweet from the “enlightened” Sean Tabatabai

The words of an "enlightened" man. Rather misogynist but I'm sure Icke's female fans will forgive him. After all, it's only a joke right? Fish and slags. :-)

The words of an “enlightened” man. Rather misogynist but I’m sure Icke’s female fans will forgive him. After all, it’s only a joke right? Fish and slags. 🙂

Then again, perhaps there's a reason for those descriptive words toward females? :-)

Then again, perhaps there’s a reason for those descriptive words toward females? 🙂

So all you “ladies” who are so tuned in to this “The People’s Voice” in the belief it’s all about love and respect and truth, you keep believing while the guy (can you call him a guy?) who runs it along with his bum-chum, Icke, considers you slags and smelling like fish because you’re women.

You keep believing honey!

While Icke’s son already gave the game away about the plan – from day one – to be on satellite and voila! 6 months later, they’re coming to you all for your money once more to make it happen (but no, they never intended to get an OFCOM licence oh no! You thick TWAT!):

Gareth Icke SKY

Now how did the young Icke know that “not originally but eventually”? In October last year!

How dumb a fuck do you wish to be taken for?

And they’ll launch. Your money or not, they’ll do it and you know why? Because I have said from the beginning, there are backers/funders behind this little bunch of sharks.

YOUR money is just being used for “slush funds”.

Meanwhile, I have to ask the question – although I have my own opinion: Is David Icke bisexual? Because you meet him in person, there’s a lot going on behind those eyes. Those eyes hide something very very deep.

Sean Pagan


Posted in Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Politics, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on December 14, 2011


But Investigated by whom? You can see clearly what the issue is – as can they – yet they refuse to allow such to be discussed. It is this “People elected (or not) to this house can do no wrong” ideology. It raises them above the law for it is not to be implied, nor discussed.

Guthrie: Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath; Officer of the Order of the Bitish Empire; Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order; Chief of the Defence Staff between 1997 and 2001 and Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the British Army, between 1994 and 1997; non-executive director of N M Rothschild & Sons, Colt Defense LLC, and Chairman (non-executive) of Siboney Ltd

You try working for both, a car manufacturer (as a buyer) and have a non executive directorship in a supplier to the car manufacturer who sells the latter parts. See how far you get!

We cannot allow this shit to go on! But, for some reason, we do.

You think this man made his money from being a good Military Officer?

Guthrie                                          Eric Joyce (PPS (Rt Hon John Hutton, Secretary of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Falkirk, Labour)Fundamentally, it is true that how much money we spend as a nation on defence is a big issue. We frame it in terms of a proportion of our gross domestic product or sometimes we talk about increasing expenditure in real terms. Whatever we do, there is an argument to be won with the public at large. For that reason, when we talk about the military covenant, we should think in those terms—of the public at large—rather than just in terms of the relationship between Ministers, the Government and service personnel.I want to add a mild note of criticism. People generally tend not to criticise the Royal British Legion and, on the whole, I do not either. I do think, however, that a touch of some aspects of its campaign over the military covenant has jumped into that space for criticism. It may have been done for good campaigning reasons, but it has jumped into that space where people have tended to view the campaign as a criticism of the Government. I find it slightly peculiar that the Royal British Legion put on events at party conferences, yet did not allow Ministers to speak on the grounds that it would be political. Why come to party political conferences? It seemed rather peculiar. The Royal British Legion’s campaign has largely been sound and appropriately delivered, but some aspects in the margins should be thought about again more critically before it launches into its next big campaign on whatever subject.Guthrie

Eric Joyce (PPS (Rt Hon John Hutton, Secretary of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Falkirk, Labour:

I would now like to say a few words about what I believe to have been disgraceful behaviour in the other place, which was co-ordinated and organised by the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. These are people who want to put themselves above politics, yet they will quite happily stand at the launch of a perfectly legitimate “Way Forward” Tory party document. I realise that Conservative Way Forward is more a Tory think-tank than an official party document, but it is preposterous in the extreme to think that former chiefs of staff can write a foreword to a political pamphlet and then try to pretend that they are above politics. That is a farce. Frankly, although I realise that they have a great deal to contribute—they are enormously talented and capable officers—if they want to put their political cards on the table, let them do it, but let us not shilly-shally about what their political sentiments are.

BlackBerrys are a miracle. I think I am right in saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am allowed to get some data on my BlackBerry as I am sitting here. I say that because this may not be a complete list. I do not think that General Guthrie mentioned the fact that he was a paid director of Colt Defence, Siboney Ltd, Sciens Capital, and Rothschild; or that Field Marshall Inge mentioned that he was a paid director of Aegis, which clearly has interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Sir Evelyn Rothschild

They are excellent companies, by the way, and I know that they will be very excited and pleased to see themselves referred to in this place today. Lord Boyce is a paid director of WS Atkins and of Vosper Thornycroft. I may be wrong, as I have just had a quick perusal of the Hansard from the other place. I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what the rules are and I doubt whether they have broken any of them. However, I will say that former chiefs of staff are probably earning more from their directorships than paid Members of this House and that if they do not want to declare those directorships and if they want to get politicised and personalised—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker)

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It is one thing to refer to the qualifications and interests of Members of the other House, but he must be careful not to imply anything else when he makes these remarks.

Eric Joyce (PPS (Rt Hon John Hutton, Secretary of State), Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform; Falkirk, Labour)

I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me just say that if they want to become personalised and politicised and to earn lots of money from interests that they do not declare before they make a speech, that will enormously devalue how they are perceived. That would be a great pity, as it would devalue their advice and their comments, which would be highly regrettable.

Hansard Text and video

Just have the balls to say it Eric: They’re on the take!

Come on folks. Stop letting these bastards take the piss out of you all. Make your voices heard.