Earthling

The Royals: Under attack (The “Gough Whitlam” papers)

Posted in Law, Political History, Politics by earthling on July 14, 2020

Oh wow! BLOODY HELL!
I wrote about this debacle in 2011 never anticipating it would be on mainstream media in a few years.
The Monarchy is being attacked and that is one of the main pillars of the Communist Manifesto and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
There’s too much happening on the monarchy front to be ignored these days – Meghan and Harry; Andrew; now the Queen herself.

This COULD put intense scrutiny on the way the Crown works, who IS “The Crown”? And just who has what power and how?

I am anti monarchy however I know my enemy is also anti monarchy but for different reasons.

I wonder how many people recognise just how big this is?
If you want detail, read my blog on it.

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/the-queencrown-the-quiet-dictator/

 

It is imperative that we have an answer to this question: WHO IS THE CROWN? Because it is as clear as day that any elected government does not run this country either!

Don’t talk to me about “Democracy”!

Posted in Law, Politics by earthling on September 27, 2014

Not that democracy is perfect anyhow but we, in the west and in the UK do not have it!

So if anyone talks to you about our “great democracy” and “Who are you voting for?” or “What are you voting for?” please, do me a favour, laugh in their face! They’re just ignorant bastards.

all-seeing-eye-u-k

Royal Prerogative

HC Deb 21 April 1993 vol 223 cc485-92 485
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

2.20 am
§Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) I wish briefly to explore the scope and limits of the royal prerogative and its present-day usage by the Government, and to put a number of questions to the hapless Minister who has the duty of answering the debate. I want to ask him about the profoundly undemocratic practice that allows a Government to act with royal absolutism.
As I understand it, the royal prerogative denotes what remains of the monarch’s power to legislate without the authority of Parliament. As the monarch acts on the advice of Government, the procedure enables a Government to produce primary legislation without parliamentary consent—legislation which, as was made clear by the GCHQ case, may not be challenged in the courts.

Blackstone’s 18th century “Commentaries on the Laws of England” referred to the prerogative as that special pre-eminence which the King hath, over and above all other persons, and out of the course of the common law, in right of his royal dignity”— an arrangement that Blackstone described as in its nature singular and eccentrical”. In the past 10 years, some 1,400 orders have been made under the prerogative. Ministers usually imply that such orders relate to such quaint and innocuous matters as the grant and amendment of charters, and the appointment of visitors and governors of universities. Many do; but the prerogative is also applied to important international obligations and, in particular, to citizens’ rights.

The prerogative is used for the making of international treaties—which may be why from time to time, when it suits them, Ministers tell us that any Commons vote on the Maastricht treaty can be disregarded by the Government. It is also used for the declaration of war and blockade. The Government used it to commit British military forces in the Gulf war—prompting my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to observe: this is the first time in the history of this country that British troops have been sent into battle under foreign command, using the royal prerogative of war-making to do so, without the House having had an opportunity to express its view on any motion other than that we adjourn”.—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 616.] My right hon. Friend contrasted the handling of the matter in the House of Commons with the way in which both Houses of the United States Congress had debated and voted on a resolution on military action.

The Government used prerogative powers to enable the United States military to bomb Libya from bases in England. That was a matter of awesome political importance, in which—once again—the House of Commons had no status. The prerogative is used for the control and organisation of the armed forces. In the matter of civil liberties, under the royal prerogative the Government can refuse or withdraw a passport, and can forbid a citizen to leave the country. There is no legal obligation on the Government to provide a passport, which I should have thought was a fundamental right of any citizen of this country.

Jury vetting guidelines and telephone tapping are authorised by royal prerogative, apparently under an ancient royal right to intercept communications between 486 subjects. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was established by royal prerogative without statutory authority.

Most notoriously in recent times, the royal prerogative was used in 1984 to ban from membership of trades unions the staff of the Government intelligence establishment GCHQ. In a subsequent court case on that subject, the Government argued successfully that not only were their powers not open to judicial review, but that instructions given in exercising them enjoyed the same immunity. This situation derived from the fact that the legal relationship between the Crown and civil or Crown servants is governed by the prerogative, and is unlike any normal contractual relationship between employer and employee. That explains why we in this country have yet to resolve the crucial issue whether the duty of a civil servant is to the national interest or to the Government, and why there is no protection for whistleblowers in the civil service.

In any other country, the civil service would be regulated by a civil service Act that set out in law the rights, duties and constitutional position of civil servants. Here, the civil service is subject to the monarchical whims of some Minister. My first question to the Minister is, why cannot the civil service be governed by a civil service Act, and are the Clerks of this House also governed by the royal prerogative, rather than by legislation passed by the House?

The royal prerogative is used for literally thousands of appointments in the public sector, and it is the fount of Government patronage. In 1965, Lord Reid observed: it is not easy to discover and decide the law relating to the royal prerogative and the consequences of its exercise. He noted that there had been “practically no authority” on the matter since 1688.

The most extensive discussion recently of the royal prerogative was by Professor Colin Munro in a publication in 1987. He wrote: In practice … the supervision of prerogative powers does seem to be attended by greater than average difficulty. The very nature of these powers makes them less readily subject to challenge. He tells us that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, or ombudsman, has no power to examine decisions under the royal prerogative and says: the exercise of prerogatives by the Attorney General may not be reviewed. He also says: The correlation between the matters excluded from the Commissioner’s jurisdiction and the spheres of activity in which governments exercise prerogative powers is striking. We also learn from Munro that the manner of the exercise of prerogative powers lies outside the scope of judicial review, so we are inevitably brought to the conclusion that a British subject may be deported, or refused a passport, or have his or her telephone tapped or mail opened by the state without legislative authority, and that neither Parliament nor the judiciary is entitled to examine the matter.

The Minister will also know that subsidiary powers flow from the royal prerogative. The Crown’s right to have admissible evidence withheld from a court when it claims that the public interest so demands has been known as Crown privilege although nowadays its existence is disputed. Does it exist, I ask the Minister, and what does it cover? Is there still such a concept in British law as Crown privilege which exempts the Crown from justiciable matters?

487 Crown immunity is certainly alive and kicking. The sovereign—and, therefore, the Government—still enjoy a number of immunities derived from the ancient “prerogative of perfection”—that is, “The King can do no wrong.” What it means today is that Government Departments and many public bodies are not bound by a huge range of protective legislation, such as health and safety, food hygiene laws and planning and environmental regulations. I understand that that legislation does not, for example, protect those who work in the parliamentary precincts, let alone the hundreds of thousands of people in other public organisations. Therefore, to be employed in a public building means that one cannot be protected by a wide range of legislation.

Munro concludes: Behind the phrase “royal prerogative” lie hidden some issues of great constitutional importance, which are insufficiently recognised. It seems that the prerogative could be dispensed with almost entirely. The civil service and the military could be governed by Acts of Parliament, as in other countries. Telephone tapping, mail interception, deportation and entitlement to travel should be justiciable. Senior public appointments could be supervised by Select Committee. The Speaker could take over some prerogative powers, such as the dissolution of Parliament and the invitation to the leader of the party with the largest majority to form a Government.

In a recent written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the Prime Minister said: It is for individual Ministers to decide on a particular occasion whether and how to report to Parliament on the exercise of prerogative powers.”—[Official Report, 1 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 19.] It is nothing less than a constitutional outrage that Ministers should decide whether to withhold matters from Parliament. It should be the Speaker’s job to decide how the exercise of prerogative powers should be reported to the House. It should also be up to the Speaker to judge whether a Minister should answer to the House for the use of extra-statutory power.

The royal prerogative is an anachronism—an example of the overweening and authoritarian power of Government over Parliament. In truth, the purpose of our Parliament is to provide a Government and to scrutinise their actions and decisions, but only to the extent that Government will allow. That is not good enough. The royal prerogative is a chilling manifestation of the way in which our democracy is deficient, and it should be mapped by the Select Committee on Procedure as soon as possible, and then largely ended.

I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about the boundaries of the royal prerogative and the extent to which as, I hope, a democrat he thinks that government by proclamation and diktat could be replaced by a proper legislative process.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1993/apr/21/royal-prerogative#S6CV0223P0_19930421_HOC_685

 

Tony Benn BBC quote

 

THE SECURITY SERVICE

HC Deb 17 January 1989 vol 145 cc180-238

Mr. Benn The amendments touch on the nub of the Bill—what is subversion and what is national security and who should decide what is national security and who 193 should decide what is subversion? Having the Bill means that we have probably had more meaningful discussion on the Security Service than we have had in recent years.
For a long time the general public have been persuaded that it is in their interests that foreign spies and domestic terrorists should be under careful scrutiny. Communists were automatically identified with foreign spies. I imagine that if the Soviet Union had wanted spies in Britain it would not have picked members of the Communist party. However, that was one of the foolish ideas that was current. The whole thing had to be covered by the tightest security and secrecy and judges capitulated whenever they heard the magic word “security”.

The amendment is important because the definition of subversion is a political decision. Who is the enemy is a political question. We do not say that the chief of staff will announce which enemy country he intends to attack. That too is a political question. After all, security is a part of defence. We have an annual defence White Paper in which we are told what resources we have at out disposal and where they are deployed. We have an annual Army order. When I was first in Parliament an Act went through every year. Now it is an annual order. If the House does not endorse that order, the discipline of the armed forces disappears on the day that the old order expires. Why does that procedure not apply to the Security Service?

What is it about the Security Service’s political objectives that makes them different from the defence forces’ political objectives? The answer is that the decision about what is subversive has been taken by MI5, sometimes upon the intervention of Ministers. I say without any disrespect to the Home Secretary that I would be surprised if, like his predecessors, he really knew what was going on. Certainly some of my colleagues who were his predecessors did not know what was going on, because what was going on was an attempt to get the Labour Government out of office. I cannot believe that Lord Jenkins of Hillhead or my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was in charge of such an operation.

If one pursues the matter more fully, one finds that if pressed the Security Service would say that it is responsible not to the Home Secretary but to the Crown, a concept that I tried to explore on Second Reading. The Crown is a mysterious idea which implies a continuity of activity. The security services have really been protecting the status quo, which is not the same as parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy is supposed to allow one to change the status quo by political action. If one cannot change the status quo by voting, why vote? Immediately we come to the relationship between what is called national security, which is defined as the political and economic status quo, and subversion, which, in the case of parliamentary democracy, is a legal form of trying to change the status quo. The Home Secretary knows that, or his draftsmen have worked on that basis. If one then says that parliamentary democracy is trying to change the status quo by political means, one is caught by the Bill. If one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political actions, one is a subversive. The Home Secretary has put his finger on that. If one interprets parliamentary democracy as meaning that one wants to change anything, one is covered by the Bill because one is trying to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action.

194 The Home Secretary may smile and may give as many assurances as he likes, but I am defining how the Bill will work and that is how the system has worked until now.

Another aspect of the matter, which I have raised before, is that the condition under which the Americans allow us to borrow nuclear weapons is that American intelligence supervises British intelligence. The Americans have to check procedures and, for many purposes, they have to check people who are engaged in activities in which they take an interest. In a strange way, the definition in amendment No. 47 covers the Americans. It refers to the activities of agents of foreign powers that are detrimental to the interests of the United Kingdom and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person”. That would deal with James Angleton immediately, but no British Government who wished to retain nuclear weapons could implement such an amendment.

It is not only the theory of the matter that is interesting but the practice. In Field Marshal Lord Carver’s television broadcast after his resignation as chief of the general staff, he said that for most of history Britain’s armed forces were concerned with domestic security. He pointed out—and this point was interesting to me—that there have not been many foreign wars in which the British Army has been engaged. We fought the French and, a couple of times, the Germans, but for most of our history the armed forces have performed the function of security forces. That is why Parliament, in 1688, resolved that it did not want a standing army. That domestic function has been far greater, in the mind of the security services, over a long period. We have been told that the Russians were planning to invade. I do not know how many people now believe that Mr. Gorbachev is planning an attack on London. According to opinion polls, only 2 per cent. think that a Russian attack is very likely.

The concept of the “enemy within” is central to the issue. The present Prime Minister has made it explicit that the “enemy within” became the dominant consideration of the security services at the time when there was a Socialist challenge to the status quo. Trade unions are, by definition, considered to be potentially subversive by the security services. I know that because my private secretary in one of my Departments tried to take advantage of the scheme for interchange with industry. He said that he did not want an interchange with industry, but that he wanted to go to a trade union for a time. He was warned off because, in the eyes of the establishment that still runs the security services, trade unionism was subversive in itself. I am saying not that the security services believe that every trade unionist is subversive, but that the purpose of trade unionism is subversive.

I want to deal next with the peace movement. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, was able to instruct MI5 to bug the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—the Cathy Massiter case. That shows that anyone whose view of the world differs from the view that peace has been retained by nuclear weapons against the Red Army is a subversive—and that view is still held. No one should imagine that Peter Wright’s story ended with his retirement or with the acquisition of power by the present Government.

 

Mr. Benn The hon. Member may have more knowledge of these matters than I have, as he speaks with such confidence about what happened, and that illustrates my point. We should have known the information to which, apparently, the hon. Gentleman is privy and we should have had a chance to test the matter. I do not believe for a moment what he has said, but I cannot prove that, and he cannot prove the validity of his remarks, because the whole matter is covered by secrecy.
The next category of people who are considered to be subversive are the various types of Socialists. It is funny that the Communist party is held to be subversive now. As far as I can make out, it is advocating electoral pacts, so the security services do not seem to be up to date. But the people in the security services are not politically clever. I was once invited, as a Minister, to attend a conference of the Socialist International, a respectable body which was then presided over by Willy Brandt. My private secretary said to me that MI5 would not let me go. He said that the reason was that the International Socialists were on our list. He did not know the difference between the International Socialists and the Socialist International. That does not show a high level of political intelligence. There may be a need for more chemists in MI5. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea if MI5 were also to employ people who understand Socialism and realise that there are many varieties of Socialism.

I remember the case of a woman who was refused employment by the Civil Service because her father read The Daily Worker. We should not deceive ourselves that the amendment will be passed, but we can use Parliament to make available through Hansard—the only publicly owned newspaper that has not yet been acquired by Rupert Murdoch—to those who bother to read our speeches the truth about what is happening.

 

Mr. Winnick Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§Mr. Benn I shall just finish this point.
The security services go to universities and ask teachers about the political activities of particular students who may have applied for a job in the defence industry or the Civil Service. Lecturers have told me that MI5 was sniffing around to find out whether Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith was reliable. If one has a friend who is keen to join the Civil Service, the first advice to give such a young man is, “Don’t go to political meetings, my friend, because if you do, you may not get into the Civil Service.” One reason why the security services and the Civil Service are so ignorant about political argument is that, to join the security services, one must have an unblemished record. One must not even read Campaign Group News or Tribune because that might suggest that one wanted to change the status quo.

196
§Mr. Norman Buchan (Paisley, South) Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn Let me finish going through the categories of subversives.
Another category is those who are known to be politically active on an issue that may appear to be harmless. People may be against vivisection, for example, but it is always possible, in the minds of those who sniff around, that such people might take part in other activities that could be threatening. What is misleading is to pretend that the activities of the security services in the past, or the way in which they will operate in future, has anything to do with protecting the people’s democratic rights. They are designed to protect the status quo.

 

Mr. Benn That is absolutely right. We have not yet discussed the question of vetting. The employees of the BBC are vetted. One cannot get a senior job at the BBC until one has been cleared by the security services. Do they imagine that a lot of terrorists are about to be made head of news and current affairs? The Clerks in this House are vetted. I know that from the evidence given to the Committee of Privileges. Members’ research assistants are vetted. What has that to do with terrorism or espionage?
§Mr. Tony Banks Will my right hon. Friend give way?
§Mr. Benn I do not want to detain the House. I am merely trying to put a few fruits on the harvest festival altar so that people may observe them later.
The next question is, “What is parliamentary democracy?” It has been defined in many different ways. Last summer, we celebrated the tercentenary of 1688—apparently the year of the birth of parliamentary democracy. I should have thought that William of Orange would have been regarded as one of these foreigners trying to disturb parliamentary democracy, but it turns out that he was in at its birth. I am reminded of the saying Why does treason never prosper?

Here’s the reason:

For if it prosper, none dare call it treason. The other day I went through the Second Reading of the Reform Bill. The Conservatives of the time were opposed to the Reform Bill because they thought that it would undermine parliamentary democracy. Mr. Asquith, the great Liberal leader, opposed votes for women on the ground that that proposal would upset parliamentary democracy.

Parliamentary democracy has been defined to mean the status quo at the time. What is it in practice? The Crown in Parliament is sovereign and the powers of the Crown—except for the power to dissolve Parliament or to ask someone to form a Government—are not personal to the 197 sovereign. Every Prime Minister—I do not differentiate between the present Prime Minister and her predecessors in this respect—uses the powers of the Crown to do all sorts of things that have nothing to do with Parliament and nothing to do with democracy. The Prime Minister appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury. What has that to do with Parliament or democracy? The Prime Minister appoints the judges and the chairman of the BBC. She appoints Lord Chalfont to the IBA. The Prime Minister can go to war without consulting Parliament or sign treaties without consulting Parliament. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) signed the treaty of accession to the Common Market before it was even published. All such activities are undertaken under the Crown prerogative.

Suppose that we say that we do not like the use of that prerogative. Is that an attempt to undermine parliamentary democracy by political action? I have long been a republican and I believe that the Queen should be the head of the Commonwealth. Is that subversive? Is it subversive to want to abolish the House of Lords, which has no democratic base in society? Many Liberals have argued for a single Chamber or two elected Chambers. Is that subversive? Is it subversive if I say that the Church should not be established? The other day, I looked up the coronation oath and found that the only pledge that the Queen gives is that she will uphold the rights of the bishops. That is most interesting. It was clearly not applied in the Viraj Mendis case, but that is another matter. There is no democracy in the sense that in a democracy the electorate has the final say. The truth is that the status quo covers a semi-feudal system which is not subject to normal public means of accountability under the Bill.

In a democracy, the ultimate responsibility for deciding the interests of the state lies with the electorate. That is what democracy means. If the electorate is to decide what is in the interests of national security and what is subversive, the electorate must know enough to know what goes on. This Bill tries to entrench in statute a rotten little directive of Maxwell Fyfe, who told them to get on with it and not bother him and a rotten definition by Lord Harris of Greenwich, who used virtually the same phrase as appears in clause 1. On that basis, the Home Secretary hopes to entrench in statute powers that have been exercised under the Crown prerogative for years, and dress it up as the entrenchment of the protection of parliamentary democracy against subversion.

The Home Secretary will not be affected by my arguments, but I hope that people outside will realise when they read them that the Bill is not what it is made out to be. It is not an advance. It is the entrenchment in statute of powers that no democratic Government have the right to exercise.

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1989/jan/17/the-security-service#S6CV0145P0_19890117_HOC_315

 

hitler

on behalf of

 

Salmond fishing

 

The UK government are all self employed Private contractors!

Posted in Politics, Uncategorized by earthling on March 6, 2014

I have just stumbled across something intriguing which points to the very title of this blogpost.

Have a read of the following:

HC Deb 31 January 1957 vol 563 cc1156-71156

§28. Mr. Russellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are made for insuring Members of the Government against accident when they travel by air on Government business.

§Mr. PowellInsurance in such circumstances is a matter for Members of the Government to arrange privately.

§Mr. RussellDoes not my hon. Friend think that in principle it is quite wrong that Ministers should travel on Government business and not have the benefit of insurance? Although happily the chances of accidents are slight, is not the position wrong as a matter of principle?

§Mr. PowellNowadays, of course, the cost of insurance against risks of travel in these circumstances is very low, and my hon. Friend will probably be aware that Ministers of the Crown count as non-employed persons.

Mr. H. WilsonCan the hon. Member say whether the Treasury, which ought to set an example as a good employer in 1157this connection, does provide automatic insurance for civil servants travelling by air?

§Mr. PowellThe Treasury is not the employer of Ministers of the Crown.

§Mr. J. GriffithsWill the hon. Member get his terms right? Ministers of the Crown are not non-employed, but self-employed.

§Mr. PowellI am much obliged.

Mr. WilsonIn his début in answering these Questions, will the hon. Member give a clear answer to questions and not clever answers of that kind? I asked him whether the Treasury, which is responsible for the Civil Service, sets an example in this respect and provides insurance. That is very important for the Civil Service.

§Mr. PowellIf the right hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about the Civil Service, I will do my best to answer it.

Now, if these people (Government Ministers) are self employed, yet paid by the Treasury – which, it would certainly appear they are – then they are Private individuals contracting their services. This opens up a whole can (or cans) of worms and it’s difficult to know where to start!

1. Private individuals who are paid a salary set by the treasury and iPSA, as contractors, who make decisions based upon their own personal ideologies, as to what is law in this country and what industries are supported and which are not.

2. Private individuals, contracting their services as self employed, which then explains why each and every one of them can act as a “corporation”.

In 2001, Ken Clarke was still a backbencher so was still making a very healthy salary from being an MP, Yet he was also allowed to make the following incomes from business interests:

BAT Tobacco: £100,000 per annum.

Alliance Unichem: £125,000 per annum.

Foreign & Colonial Investment trust: £23,000 per annum.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1409823.stm

Then he has his speaking engagements:

Clarke speaker

Clarke speaker 2

Now, if you can tell me how one man, with 24 hours in the day like you and I and 365 days a year like you and I, can do serious work for any one of these organisations and be worth such money, while, at the same time, be a full-time backbencher making an additional salary of about $50K a year, I’d like to know. Yes, you will say “it’s because of what he knows and influence so he deserves it” but that is the very point I’m making. He profits from a job that you and I pay him to do! While he then does not do the job WE wish him to do but that which his circles of influence want done. Is it so hard to understand how this corrupt system works?

Let’s take Damian Green as another example: Look at the month by month payments from South East Water for sums of £2083.33 precisely, each time for 14 hours work each month. Think about it. This suggests that he is doing SOMETHING for South East Water EVERY SINGLE MONTH which takes exactly 14 hours each and ever time. Now you tell me what that could possibly be! The details just goes up to 2011. Perhaps because iPSA took over the management of such info (and do not seem too good in presenting it at all since there is nothing I can see on it from Damian).

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10241

Now, you can look up Southern Water or South East Water and Damian Green and you will see the companies mentioning his name as an MP who is “very happy” with their performance. What neither one says is that Damian Green is PAID by them! While, again, Green has been getting these payments while being either a front bench or back bench MP making, these days, about £66K a year. ” Compare that with the situation of the archetypal backbencher on his/her £66k salary.” http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100224170/mps-pay-the-gap-between-leaders-and-backbenchers-could-widen-again/

What makes it all worse is that these goons don’t give a goddamned shit about any of you (or us). “They work for you” indeed! Don’t make me laugh!

Get this into your head: YOU have paid the salary of a man (in the case of Clarke for his entire career in politics but, generally, for them all) to learn and have knowledge about things such as upcoming legislation, economies worldwide and everything in between due to the position we expect him to fill and the job we expect him to do, but he is SELF EMPLOYED. He has then taken all of that knowledge of past AND future and used it (many many times against us) to fill his own private wallet! He then also speaks at engagements and also at SECRET Bilderberg meetings and Chatham House where and when POLICY is made and he and all who attend, while such policy is hidden from you and I based upon “Public Interest” (but you and I are NOT “the public” as I hope you are well aware), then make investments where and how they know of the legislation which is in the works and how it will impact an economy, industry or entire nation. Yet, once again, these people are PRIVATE, SELF EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS!

3. MP’s pensions:

This is an article from the Telegraph –

Sophie Jamieson

3:12PM GMT 12 Dec 2013

 The chair of the independent body that regulates MPs’ pay has defended the recommendation to raise MPs’ salary by 11 per cent.

Sir Ian Kennedy said that the proposals were the result of an extensive 18 month study and that Ipsa was “playing catch-up with decades of not coming to terms with the fact that MPs’ salary has not kept up with recommendation after recommendation.”

The package includes a reduction in pensions, an end to “golden goodbyes” and a cutback to expenses.

“The overall package will not cost the taxpayer a penny more” and is “appropriate for a modern democracy,” Sir Ian said.

HOW, may I ask, is it possible for a NON EMPLOYED BY TREASURY OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT and SELF EMPLOYED PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, to be provided with a PENSION? If one is self employed one particularly takes care of their own private pension arrangements. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

Now, I’m sure there are many other issues with this that I haven’t even thought of (yet) BUT, here’s the big point: When it comes to such “extra curricular activities” by these PRIVATE individuals who are contracting out their services to Her Majesty as he government and Parliament, they can contract themselves out to any and everyone because they are not EMPLOYEES of the Crown. They are SELF EMPLOYED. As such, they can take on any work for anyone they wish and they all do so they shall all support one another doing it! Further, it explains, in part, how Ken Clarke and Osborne, etc etc, can attend Bilderberg and other such subversive groups in a “PRIVATE CAPACITY” because, in essence, that is what they are even as they work for the Government. They are NOT employed by the government or treasury. They are PRIVATE CONTRACTORS!

 

As Tony Benn stated “Who and what is ‘The Crown'”? We have no clue. Well we do but it is not even understood fully and transparently by our so called Parliamentary representatives!

I’ll tell you what it is though: It is a private gang and mafia. That is precisely what it is and always has been.

Tony Benn Crown

Here we are, a “Nation” who are expected to be “patriotic” (I never would be) and yet all those who are don’t even have a bloody clue who governs them!

We don’t know who or what this “Crown” is which prosecutes us or, if a military person, they do not know who/what they fight for.

We cannot even ask the question and why? Because this very “animal” states itself, unilaterally, that it is protected under the “Official Secrets Act”.

Well OF COURSE a fucking MAFIA would protect its own identity! That is what they DO!

Please! Is it really just me or do you get pissed off with the majority of people’s idiocy and apathy and ignorance and carelessness?

And then do you get further pissed off when they COMPLAIN?!

BBC & MI5

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

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

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

BBC MI5

The Telegraph: BBC & MI5

TRY TO DEFINE THE CROWN?

While it is entirely undemocratic and answers to noone.

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

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Douglas Hurd (Witney)

rose

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I have the correspondence.

Hon. Douglas Hurd (Witney)

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

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony Benn Crown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

I am approaching my last sentence.

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

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

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

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North)

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

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

No, Sir.

Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North)

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

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

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

Mr Michael Fallon (Darlington)

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

Sir Patrick Mayhew (Tunbridge Wells)

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

TRY TO DEFINE THE CROWN?

SO WHO THE HELL IS IT THAT ARE PROSECUTING US?

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

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

WHO IS PROSECUTING US?

As for this piece of absolute trash:

Sir John Morris (Aberavon)

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

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

Mr Michael Havers (Wimbledon)

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish banishment and The “City” of London

Posted in Finance, Geo-Political Warfare, Law, Money, Political History, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on February 26, 2011

I think it’s important, for the “naysayers” who visit this blog, that I prologue it with a point re the “Crown of England”. The following is a statement made by Tony Benn in the Houses of Parliament not too many years ago (and it matters not when such was said anyhow). This is very very simple: The British people have no idea who this “Crown” is. It acts outside of any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. As such, it acts outwith the law yet decides what this thing called “Law” is!

The Crown prosecutes. Our Armed Forces fight and kill and destroy nations on its say so. Our Police and Forces take an oath to this “thing” called “the Crown”. They believe it to be “Her Majesty” the monarch without understanding at all that the monarchy is NOT a person or the Queen and her family. The Monarchy is a Constitutional Office. When it comes to the profit of the British Queen and her family from the “Crown Estate”, it is, in actual fact, deceptive criminal theft by the “reigning monarch” (like a reigning CEO of a corporation stealing the wealth of the company yet, the person in the office of CEO does not have the legal or lawful entitlement to take the wealth of the company because it is the Corporation in total as a legal person which owns the wealth and NOT the CEO). This is PRECISELY the same when we look at this “Constitutional Monarch” in office profiting no longer from a Civil List but from various sources of the country’s wealth.

Our Armed Forces, Police and judiciary are immensely ignorant but do what they are told otherwise they will not eat. They do as the “Crown” bids simply because, if they question it, then their wealth and the wealth of their family disappears. The Policeman with integrity would be sacked and the soldier fighting for his dearest “Crown” would find himself at the mercy of “friendly fire”.

So, what were those words of Tony Benn which crystallises the seriousness of this issue?

Here they are:

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

tony-benn-the-straight-man

Anyone thinking very logically and simply would simply ask one question:

WHY HAVE JEWS BEEN BANISHED FROM SOME MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND CULTURES OVER CENTURIES? BY PEOPLES WHO HAVE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSPIRE AGAINST THEM BECAUSE OF VAST DISTANCES BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES WHO HAVE BANISHED THEM. YET ALL OF THESE PEOPLES HAVE, AT DIFFERENT TIMES THROUGHOUT HISTORY, FELT IT NECESSARY TO DO JUST THAT. FOR NO REASON? ALL OF THESE CULTURES HAVE JUST HAD SOME RACIAL HATRED OF JEWS? THERE’S NO LOGIC IN IT. THE ONLY COMMON DENOMINATOR WHICH PERMEATES THROUGHOUT THESE BANISHMENTS IS THAT OF MONEY AND USURY.

Henk Ruyssenaars’ article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book “Descent into Slavery” by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term “City of London” is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.

“To the majority of people the words “Crown” and “City” in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.

This is not the truth. The “City” is in fact a privately owned Corporation – or Sovereign State – occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile ‘Greater London’ area. The population of ‘The City’ is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of ‘Greater London’ (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

“The Crown” is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or ‘The City.’ ‘The City’ is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

“The City”, which is often called “the wealthiest square mile on earth,” is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain’s great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd’s of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.

The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in “London”, Time-Life, 1976, p. 16:

“The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much.”
It certainly is and certainly does!
When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits

“the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms.”
The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.
The symbolism is clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject.

The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These ‘fronts’ go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D’Israeli wrote:

“So you see… the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”
(Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).
This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen’s book:

“The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador said: “Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister.”
Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden… launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor’s banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards.”

The British government is the bond slave of the “invisible and inaudible” force centred in the City. The City calls the tune. The “visible and audible leaders” are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.

It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire.

The colonial possessions that were white were under the sovereign – i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the Britsh Empire.

All the other parts of the British Empire – nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.

As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown’s supremacy in these areas.

The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn’t British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and those members of the aristocracy who were part of the “City” machine accumulated vast fortunes .

About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that :

….”financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts… Loans to foreign countries are organised and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation’s welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich…”
In “Empire of the City” E. C. Knuth said:

” This national amnd mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today we see through a glass darkly: for there is so much which it would not be in the public interest to divulge.”…

The battle for power and riches is an ancient one, but any attempt to make sense of the present world situation where the bulk of humanity is being herded like sheep into a corral without some knowledge of history is a difficult if not impossible task.

At present names have been replaced by groups, capitalists, republicans, democrats, terrorists, corporations, NATO, UNO, NAFTA, EMI, ECB, ASEAN. Names that are spewed out like confetti in an endless list of anonymity.

In spite of modern technology the figures in the background remain blurred. Mention the word “Jew” or “Conspiracy” and everyone with few exceptions will turn away. Why? Fear? Of what? What is the magic talisman which makes the mention of these co-religionists a no-go area? Is it because they have infiltrated every aspect of human activity? Is it they who are pulling the strings which are leading the world on its downward slope?

The Jew has been mistrusted since way back. But what is apparent now is that any attempt to offer an answer to the question is clamped down upon. What does that indicate? Above all it indicates that these shadowy figures fear more than anything else the truth.

Professor Jesse H. Holmes, writing in, “The American Hebrew,” expressed the following similar sentiments:

“It can hardly be an accident that antagonism directed against the Jews is to be found pretty much everywhere in the world where Jews and non-Jews are associated. And as the Jews are the common element of the situation it would seem probable, on the face of it, that the cause will be found in them rather than in the widely varying groups which feel this antagonism.
In Europe and Russia alone, the Jews have been banished 47 times in the last 1,000 years: Mainz, 1012; France, 1182; Upper Bavaria, 1276; England, 1290; France, 1306; France, 1322; Saxony, 1349; Hungary, 1360; Belgium, 1370; Slovakia, 1380; France, 1394; Austria, 1420; Lyons, 1420; Cologne, 1424; Mainz, 1438; Augsburg, 1438; Upper Bavaria, 1442; Netherlands, 1444; Brandenburg, 1446; Mainz, 1462; Lithuania, 1495; Portugal, 1496; Naples, 1496; Navarre, 1498; Nuremberg, 1498; Brandenburg, 1510; Prussia, 1510; Genoa, 1515; Naples, 1533; Italy, 1540; Naples, 1541; Prague, 1541; Genoa, 1550; Bavaria, 1551; Prague, 1557; Papal States, 1569; Hungary, 1582; Hamburg, 1649; Vienna, 1669; Slovakia, 1744; Mainz, 1483; Warsaw, 1483; Spain, 1492; Italy, 1492; Moravia, 1744; Bohemia, 1744; Moscow, 1891.

(The above is excerpted from The Synagogue of Satan by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock.)

Of what were these people guilty to arouse such a reaction from so many diverse people?

Well, in England, it’s very interesting:

IT ALL STARTED with The Edict of Expulsion of 1290 AD.
The Jews would have us believe that their expulsion from England by Edward I (reigned 1272-1307) was due to their money lending endeavors. The real reason was due to the Jews’ crime of blood ritual murders.

The Orthodox Christian historian of the 5th Century, Socrates Scholasticus, in his Ecclesiastical History, 7:16, recounts an incident about Jews killing a Christian child:

— “At a place near Antioch in Syria, the Jews, in derision of the Cross and those who put their trust in the Crucified One, seized a Christian boy, and having bound him to a cross they made, began to sneer at him. In a little while becoming so transported with fury, they scourged the child until he died under their hands.” —

Here are a few examples which led to the English expulsion of the Jews in 1290 AD:

1144 A.D. Norwich: A twelve year-old boy was crucified and his side pierced at the Jewish Passover. His body was found in a sack hidden in a tree. A converted Jew to Christianity named Theobald of Cambridge informed the authorities that the Jews took blood every year from a Christian child because they thought that only by so doing could they ever return to Palestine. The boy has ever since been known as St. William.

1160 A.D. Gloucester: The body of a child named Harold was found in the river with the wounds of crucifixion.

1255 A.D. Lincoln: A boy named Hugh was tortured and crucified by the Jews. The boy’s mother found the body in a well on the premises of a Jew named Jopin. 18 Jews were hanged for the crime by King Henry III.

1290 A.D. Oxford: The Patent Roll 18 Of Edward I, 21st June 1290 contains an order for the Gaol delivery of a Jew named Isaac de Pulet for the murder and blood letting of a Christian boy. Only one month after this, King Edward I issued his decree expelling the Jews from England.
(See Sources #1 Below )

[As an addendum to the above, I feel it is necessary to clarify that, before the expulsion in 1290, there was the Statute of the Jewry in 1275, entirely based upon the moneylending and usury issue:  jews1275.html

Now please understand that this is just pure factual history and the pieces fall where they fall.

It seems very obvious to me that, while the Islamic religion has not forgotten one of its fundamental cornerstones: NO USURY, the Christian world simply has. For NO USURY is a cornerstone of the christian religion too. I wonder, then, why Christians call themselves christians? They don’t follow Jesus’ teachings and haven’t done so in the west since the following took place – the readmission of jewish usury into England by Oliver Cromwell during the 1640 – 1660 period and then the establishment of the Bank of England where one can see, William of Orange and his Queen, Mary became original investors – it is on Bank of England documents]

JEWISH BANKERS FROM AMSTERDAM led by the Jewish financier and army contractor of Cromwell’s New Model Army, Fernandez Carvajal and assisted by Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew), saw an opportunity to exploit in the civil unrest led by Oliver Cromwell in 1643.

A stable Christian society of ancient traditions binding the Monarchy, Church, State, nobles and people into one solemn bond was disrupted by Calvin’s Protestant uprising. The Jews of Amsterdam exploited this civil unrest and made their move. They contacted Oliver Cromwell in a series of letters:

Cromwell To Ebenezer Pratt of the Mulheim Synagogue in Amsterdam,
16th June 1647:
— “In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living. Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.” —

To Oliver Cromwell From Ebenezer Pratt, 12th July 1647:
— “Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences.” —

Cromwell had carried out the orders of the Jewish financiers and beheaded, (yes, Cromwell and his Jewish sponsors must face Christ!), King Charles I on January 30 1649.

Beginning in 1655, Cromwell, through his alliance with the Jewish bankers of Amsterdam and specifically with Manasseh Ben Israel and his brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, initiated the resettlement of the Jews in England.
(See Sources #2 Below )

JEWS GET THEIR CENTRAL BANK OF ENGLAND
WILLIAM STADHOLDER, a Dutch army careerist, was a handsome chap with money problems. The Jews saw another opportunity and through their influence arranged for William’s elevation to Captain General of the Dutch Forces. The next step up the ladder for William was his elevation by the Jews to the aristocratic title of William, Prince of Orange.

The Jews then arranged a meeting between William and Mary, the eldest daughter of the Duke of York. The Duke was only one place removed from becoming King of England. In 1677 Princess Mary of England married William Prince of Orange.

To place William upon the throne of England it was necessary to get rid of both Charles II and the Duke of York who was slated to become James II of the Stuarts. It is important to note that none of the Stuarts would grant charter for an English national bank. That is why murder, civil war, and religious conflicts plagued their reigns by the Jewish bankers.

In 1685, King Charles II died and the Duke of York became King James II of England. In 1688 the Jews ordered William Prince of Orange to land in England at Torbay. Because of an ongoing Campaign of L’Infamie against King James II contrived by the Jews, he abdicated and fled to France. William of Orange and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England.

The new King William III soon got England involved in costly wars against Catholic France which put England deep into debt. Here was the Jewish bankers’ chance to collect. So King William, under orders from the Elders of Zion in Amsterdam, persuaded the British Treasury to borrow 1.25 million pounds sterling from the Jewish bankers who had helped him to the throne.

Since the state’s debts had risen dramatically, the government had no choice but to accept. But there were conditions attached: The names of the lenders were to be kept secret and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Central Bank of England. Parliament accepted and the Jewish bankers sunk their tentacles into Great Britain.

ENTER THE ROTHSCHILDS
MAYER AMSCHEL BAUER OPENED a money lending business on Judenstrasse (Jew Street) in Frankfurt Germany in 1750 and changed his name to Rothschild. Mayer Rothschild had five sons.

The smartest of his sons, Nathan, was sent to London to establish a bank in 1806. Much of the initial funding for the new bank was tapped from the British East India Company which Mayer Rothschild had significant control of. Mayer Rothschild placed his other four sons in Frankfort, Paris, Naples, and Vienna.

In 1814, Nathanael Rothschild saw an opportunity in the Battle of Waterloo. Early in the battle, Napoleon appeared to be winning and the first military report to London communicated that fact. But the tide turned in favor of Wellington.

A courier of Nathan Rothschild brought the news to him in London on June 20. This was 24 hours before Wellington’s courier arrived in London with the news of Wellington’s victory. Seeing this fortuitous event, Nathan Rothschild began spreading the rumor that Britain was defeated.

With everyone believing that Wellington was defeated, Nathan Rothschild began to sell all of his stock on the English Stock Market. Everyone panicked and also began selling causing stocks to plummet to practically nothing. At the last minute, Nathan Rothschild began buying up the stocks at rock-bottom prices.

This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy – now the financial centre of the world and forced England to set up a revamped Bank of England with Nathan Rothschild in control.
(See Sources #4 Below )

ALL ABOUT THE JEWISH VATICAN
(As much as that is possible given Rothschild secrecy)
A PRIVATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION exists today in England known as “The City.” It is also known as The Jewish Vatican located in the heart of Greater London.

A Committee of 12 men rule The Jewish Vatican. They are known as “The Crown.” The City and its rulers, The Crown, are not subject to the Parliament. They are a Sovereign State within a State.

The City is the financial hub of the world. It is here that the Rothschilds have their base of operations and their centrality of control:

* The Central Bank of England (controlled by the Rothschilds) is located in The City.
* All major British banks have their main offices in The City.
* 385 foreign banks are located in The City.
* 70 banks from the United States are located in The City.
* The London Stock Exchange is located in The City.
* Lloyd’s of London is located in The City.
* The Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts) is located in The City.
* Fleet Street (newspapers & publishing) is located in The City.
* The London Metal Exchange is located in The City.
* The London Commodity Exchange (trading rubber, wool, sugar, coffee) is located in The City.

Every year a Lord Mayor is elected as monarch of The City. The British Parliament does not make a move without consulting the Lord Mayor of The City. For here in the heart of London are grouped together Britain’s financial institutions dominated by the Rothschild-controlled Central Bank of England.

The Rothschilds have traditionally chosen the Lord Mayor since 1820. Who is the present day Lord Mayor of The City? Only the Rothschilds’ know for sure…
(See Sources #5 Below )

Sources #1: Ariel Toaff, Bloody Passover-Jews of Europe and Ritual Homicide, 2007 Click Here; J. C. Cox, Norfolk Churches; Victoria County History of Norfolk, 1906; Arnold Leese, Jewish Ritual Murder In England; Henry III, Close Roll 16; Joseph Haydn, Dictionary of Dates.

Sources #2: Isaac Disraeli, Life of Charles I, 1851; Hugh Ross Williamson, Charles and Cromwell; AHM Ramsey, The Nameless War; Lord Alfred Douglas, Plain English, 1921; Geoffrey H. Smith, The Settlement Of Jews In England

Sources #3: John Harold Wood, History of Central Banking in Great Britain; Gustaaf Johannes Renier, William of Orange

Sources #4: Frederick Morton, The Rothschilds; Benjamin Disraeli, Coningsby

Sources #5: E.C. Knuth, The Empire of The City; Des Griffin, Descent Into Slavery

UPDATE 4 Nov 2011: George Monbiot in the Guardian Newspaper. Although he just doesn’t go quite far enough into the history and the connectivity. Mainstream media now supporting much of the above regarding the “above the law” nature of the City of London. I rest my case your honour!

The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest

Working beyond the authority of parliament, the Corporation of London undermines all attempts to curb the excesses of finance.

    • George Monbiot

Daniel Pudles 01112011

Illustration by Daniel Pudles

It’s the dark heart of Britain, the place where democracy goes to die, immensely powerful, equally unaccountable. But I doubt that one in 10 British people has any idea of what the Corporation of the City of London is and how it works. This could be about to change. Alongside the Church of England, the Corporation is seeking to evict the protesters camped outside St Paul’s cathedral. The protesters, in turn, have demanded that it submit to national oversight and control.

What is this thing? Ostensibly it’s the equivalent of a local council, responsible for a small area of London known as the Square Mile. But, as its website boasts, “among local authorities the City of London is unique”. You bet it is. There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It’s not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who “appoint” the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple.

There are four layers of elected representatives in the Corporation: common councilmen, aldermen, sheriffs and the Lord Mayor. To qualify for any of these offices, you must be a freeman of the City of London. To become a freeman you must be approved by the aldermen. You’re most likely to qualify if you belong to one of the City livery companies: medieval guilds such as the worshipful company of costermongers, cutpurses and safecrackers. To become a sheriff, you must be elected from among the aldermen by the Livery. How do you join a livery company? Don’t even ask.

To become Lord Mayor you must first have served as an alderman and sheriff, and you “must command the support of, and have the endorsement of, the Court of Aldermen and the Livery”. You should also be stinking rich, as the Lord Mayor is expected to make a “contribution from his/her private resources towards the costs of the mayoral year.” This is, in other words, an official old boys’ network. Think of all that Tory huffing and puffing about democratic failings within the trade unions. Then think of their resounding silence about democracy within the City of London.

The current Lord Mayor, Michael Bear, came to prominence within the City as chief executive of the Spitalfields development group, which oversaw a controversial business venture in which the Corporation had a major stake, even though the project lies outside the boundaries of its authority. This illustrates another of the Corporation’s unique features. It possesses a vast pool of cash, which it can spend as it wishes, without democratic oversight. As well as expanding its enormous property portfolio, it uses this money to lobby on behalf of the banks.

The Lord Mayor’s role, the Corporation’s website tells us, is to “open doors at the highest levels” for business, in the course of which he “expounds the values of liberalisation”. Liberalisation is what bankers call deregulation: the process that caused the financial crash. The Corporation boasts that it “handle[s] issues in Parliament of specific interest to the City”, such as banking reform and financial services regulation. It also conducts “extensive partnership work with think tanks … vigorously promoting the views and needs of financial services.” But this isn’t the half of it.

As Nicholas Shaxson explains in his fascinating book Treasure Islands, the Corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker’s chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City’s rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London’s mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile. There are, as if in a novel by China Miéville, two cities, one of which must unsee the other.

Several governments have tried to democratise the City of London but all, threatened by its financial might, have failed. As Clement Attlee lamented, “over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster.” The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK’s crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it “has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate”. It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.

It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government. AIG’s wild trading might have taken place in the US, but the unit responsible was regulated in the City. Lehman Brothers couldn’t get legal approval for its off-balance sheet transactions in Wall Street, so it used a London law firm instead. No wonder priests are resigning over the plans to evict the campers. The Church of England is not just working with Mammon; it’s colluding with Babylon.

If you’ve ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. “The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds …”.

The Corporation’s privileges could not withstand such public scrutiny. This, perhaps, is one of the reasons why a written constitution in the United Kingdom remains a distant dream. Its power also helps to explain why regulation of the banks is scarcely better than it was before the crash, why there are no effective curbs on executive pay and bonuses and why successive governments fail to act against the UK’s dependent tax havens.

But now at last we begin to see it. It happens that the Lord Mayor’s Show, in which the Corporation flaunts its ancient wealth and power, takes place on 12 November. If ever there were a pageant that cries out for peaceful protest and dissent, here it is. Expect fireworks – and not just those laid on by the Lord Mayor.

Article: corporation-london-city-medieval

Now, when you think of “an Empire” and you may think America is the Empire of today, think again. Britain “lost” it’s Empire didn’t it?

Well maybe or….. Maybe not.

I go with the latter. You see, it does NOT take an army to ensure an Empire. What size if the Commonwealth? The Commonwealth is THE largest group of human beings (and resources) in the world. What is the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government of the United States? What controls them? What if it were that the City of London and Bank of England controlled them? So many (the majority) people believe this is just a “flight of fancy”. It isn’t.

Watch this next movie (very enlightening) and consider the following Telegraph article (which I have blogged about elsewhere on this blog):

The United States becoming an “Associate Member” of the Commonwealth? Now WHY would they “need” to do that? And what about Brexit? What’s that all about?

Well, this is what it may well all be about:

From U.S. Congressional Archives 1940:

Mr. Speaker, In order that the American people may have a clearer understanding of those who over a period of years have been undermining this Re-public, in order to return it to the British Empire, I have inserted in the RECORD a number of articles to prove this point. These articles are entitled “Steps Toward British Union, a World State, and International Strife.” This is part I, and in this I include a hope expressed by Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in his book entitled “Triumphant Democracy.”

In this he expresses himself in this manner:

“Let men say what they will, I say that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, to shine upon, to greet again the reunited states—the British-American Union.”

“Now the people of this country are not going to allow anybody— any Congress, any government, any President—to break the good faith which they have pledged to the mother country. In making this statement, Mr. Choate takes the position that Great Britain or England is our mother country; the same position that was taken by Cecil Rhodes over 50 years ago and by Andrew Carnegie in 1893, when he wrote a book entitled, “Triumphant Democracy.” I want you to note particularly that this was in 1913, and that 1913 was the very year we changed our Government from a republic to a semidemocracy; the year in which we destroyed constitutional government, international security, and paved the road for us to become a colony of the British Empire. It was also the same year in which we, by adopting the Federal Reserve Act, placed our Treasury under the control and domination of the Bank of England and the international banking groups that are now financing the British-Israel movement in the United States. It was also the year preceding the World War; a war in which we became involved, as everyone knows, in 1917, but what everyone does not know is that we were committed to this war in 1910, and were to all intents and purposes in the war in 1914, when J. P. Morgan & Co. began to finance the Triple Entente. This statement is borne out by Mr. J. P. Morgan’s own testimony before the Senate committee investigating the munitions industry. Mr. Choate was, therefore, right, because nothing has stopped, not even Congress, the destruction of this Republic and its gradual incorporation into the British Empire through the efforts of the many subversive and pro-English groups, led and directed, as I have said, by the British- Israel movement.”

Please note that the following movie (and other such movies) will NEVER mention jewish control of the banks or banking system, so don’t be looking for it. But bear this in mind while watching.

NOW, IF YOU WANT A LIST OF THE ORIGINAL JEWISH HOLDERS OF STOCK IN THE BANK OF ENGLAND, PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING:

https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/the-jew-bank-of-england/

I hope you notice the myriad of Spanish and non jewish sounding names in that list. This list, as I know, is not available anywhere else in blogs throughout the internet. I may be wrong.

All of the above can then lead me into tying this up to what is happening in China and Hong Kong today but that would have me simply regurgitating my blog “CAPITALIZING CHINA”.  How has the City of London then taken significant control in China?

Enter the concept of the “Legal Person” – a British legal basic jurisprudence term: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/capitalizing-china/

Am I a “Conspiracy theorist”? YES….. indefatigably YES! Why?

Because I’ve researched, done my homework and I have found that the entire globe is shaped by events which are entirely linked. So yes, there IS one umbrella conspiracy. Not to say there are not factions within it who play on Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Grand Chessboard”, BUT they all use you and I as pawns in this big game.

Let the naysayers in media and elsewhere scoff as they will but they are entirely ignorant; generally, have never fully immersed themselves into research and know that to do so and then speak of it, they would lose their well paid positions.

A couple of things to ponder over:

LEGITIMACY BILL

HL Deb 21 July 1959 vol 218 cc315-56

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

With all deference to the most reverend Primate, that is not what the court is            338            asked to declare. The court is asked to declare that the child was born in lawful wedlock between Mrs. X and Y. Otherwise, by the laws of legitimacy as understood in this country, it could not be a legitimate child. It is that which personally I find so shocking.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, seemed to think—at least so I understood—that there was no material difference between the situation which I have just described and the situation which was dealt with by the Act of 1926, under which both the parents were unmarried at the time of the birth of the child and they merely, as it were, anticipated the ceremony. But to me at any rate, there is all the difference in the world between the two cases. In one case both were free to marry each other; in the other one or both was solemnly linked at the time in wedlock to another man or another woman. How is it possible for the court to ignore that fact? If I may say so with all deference—and this is a great impertinence—some lawyers always seem to think that by adding the adjective “legal” to the word “fiction” it makes it much more respectable, just as in politics when a Government wants to do something which is manifestly unjust to some section of the community it thinks it makes it sound better by calling it “social” justice. In both cases, the addition of the adjective is intended to produce a different and more agreeable atmosphere. But to the ordinary man, such as most of us in this House are, a fiction remains a fiction, whatever adjective is attached to it; a lie remains a lie even though it is condoned by the law.

BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083
LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:        Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and                993        Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject.        The noble Lord said: Since this is a complicated and very far-reaching Bill, it may be desirable that I should begin by explaining the purpose and effect of my Amendment…………

Apart from that, however, it is obviously a term that is quite applicable for the purposes for which it has been used by Canada and may be used by other Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are, after all, single geographical entities under one system of government, under which every member of the community has equal rights and responsibilities. But citizenship in that sense is obviously entirely inapplicable to a vast range of territories such as we have to deal with in the Colonial Empire and to an immense variety of peoples who        996        range in their standard of civilisation and of civic responsibility from the head-hunters of Borneo to noble Lords opposite. There is a very wide range within this single term of “citizenship,” and obviously there are great differences in that range in the sense of civic rights and civic responsibilities. There are also immense varieties of Governments and of rights and responsibilities, varying from universal adult franchise, as we have it here, to no franchise at all. All those variations would be brought together under the term “citizenship.” In fact, to cover the Colonial Empire the term “citizenship” must be wrenched from its proper significance. It can be defended, if it is to be defended—and this is what we dislike and wish to avoid—only as a convenient legal fiction. We dislike the fiction and we see no good reason for it. For that reason alone—the history and the proper meaning of the term—we would like to see it altered in the Bill so far as the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned.

§        In the second place, we believe that the use of this term for the United Kingdom and Colonies may have very undesirable political repercussions. Although this Parliament is, of course, still supreme throughout the Colonial Empire, nevertheless, as everybody who has lived and lives in the Colonial Empire knows, there is in the Colonial Empire a universal dislike of Whitehall government. There is a universal desire to feel that they are not dominated by a distant Legislature and administration but that, in fact, they are able more or less to conduct their own affairs without remote control. That has always been the history of the Dominions since the days when an early settler in New Zealand said that he would rather be governed by Nero on the spot than by a committee of archangels in Downing Street. That feeling is just as strong in the Colonial Empire. We have been trying to recognise that in every respect. In various ways we have been preparing and even carrying out systems of decentralisation and of regional organisation which will give more authority to those who are responsible on the spot. While, of course, there are in the Colonial Empire at the present time old Colonies with ancient Legislatures—and do not let us forget that—to whom this term will appear curiously inappropriate, the Colonies are all moving the same way.                997        Therefore, while this term “citizenship” when used in the Dominions will have an increasing significance as the Dominions grew in stature and in power, in the United Kingdom and Colonies it would have a steadily decreasing and ultimately shing significance.

§        There is no such difficulty if we remain faithful to the old term of “British subject.” That term has covered every variety of subject under every variety of Government. In is appropriate to them all, and they are proud of it. We would much prefer that no suggestion were made in this. Bill or in any other way that we are seeking to tie the Colonial Empire more closely to this country, to make it more dependent upon this country or in any way to interfere with the individual development of Colonies or groups of Colonies.

§        In the third place, there is another objection which is also deeply felt upon these Benches, and that is that the establishment of the term “citizenship” in many Colonies would be a fertile ground for political agitators. Our effort now, certainly in the African Colonies and elsewhere, is to try to give priority and emphasis to economic development and to avoid the danger that that development may be outstripped and impeded by premature political agitation. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, called attention to that danger in a remarkable speech not many weeks ago. “Citizenship,” after all, ought to mean, and in its proper sense does mean, equal rights and responsibilities. Do noble Lords opposite really suppose that, if that term is used in regard to the Colonial Empire, it will not be exploited against us by every malcontent, by every political agitator? It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”

 

“It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the “crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism.”