Please add a comment below if you are refusing to pay…
(You can Veiw the old list Here)
John Harris ( Address supplied to recipient )
19th November, 2007.
The Rt Honourable,
The Baroness Scotland of Asthal, QC.,
The Law Officers’ Department,
9, Buckingham Gate,
By Recorded Delivery & By E-Mail addressed to:
Dear Baroness Scotland,
Re: TV Licenses & Treason.
This is an open letter that will be widely distributed.
For far too long your office has failed in its clear duty to uphold the Queen & Constitution of the United Kingdom: In particular, your office has repeatedly denied permission for Treason Prosecutions to proceed whenever decent people have reported Treason to the Police &/or to Magistrates.
Stated briefly, your immediate predecessors have made use of the Common Law provision of Nolle Prosequitor, in order to deny to loyal people the Justice & Right that the Constitution demands, and in consequence of the flagrant breaches to Law that have been protected by your office, the practice of Treason is now rampant & uncontrolled, to the prejudice of the Queen’s Peace and to the prejudice of the Queen’s People.
Please be advised that the Common Law does NOT permit Members of Parliament to indulge themselves in Treason at the behest of New Labour or any other political party (whether inside or outside of the Chambers of Parliament) and I have decided that this issue must be faced head on, in order to restore the Respect & Decency that the people of the UK are entitled to expect from THEIR Representatives and from the Government of THEIR Country.
It seems to me that all of the tough talking about terrorist activity in the UK that is allegedly being sponsored by so-called aliens does not serve to hide the fact that terrorists are occupying seats in Mr Brown’s Cabinet Room, where active disloyalty to both Crown & Country is being planned on a daily basis and being pursued by the planned use of Flagrant Lies; Destructive Propaganda & Wilful Cover-Up.
I am now in the process of telling many thousands of people that they must help to put an end to the process of Lies; Propaganda & Deception, by refusing to pay for the BBC to broadcast the mindless disloyalty & unhealthy rubbish that is being generated in the minds of the traitors to my country who now dare to call themselves Ministers of the Crown.
In publishing my ‘Call to Arms’, I am offering myself to you and to my country as a Voluntary Sacrifice in the Cause of Freedom & Decency, and I challenge you to prosecute me for Sedition, if you dare!
This letter has been copied to the Chief Justice for England & Wales & to the Director of Public Prosecutions, in order to avoid all and any doubt as to my stated intentions.
May I say that I would welcome a response from you, which will be widely published of course– and that I stand entirely ready to defend myself with the Truth and with the provisions against Treason that were laid down when the functions of your office were being controlled by honourable; trustworthy and loyal people with a clear sense of both duty and decency.
The Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers,
Judicial Office of the Lord Chief Justice,
11.07, Thomas More Building,
Royal Courts of Justice,
LONDON. WC2A 2LL.
Sir Ken MacDonald, QC.,
The Director of Public Prosecutions,
50, Ludgate Hill,
LONDON. EC4M 7EX.
E-Mail – firstname.lastname@example.org
To some of us it might seem quite obvious that many public (private!) institutions have certainly pushed the self-destruct button, and in more ways than one! To some, well, they just walk around wondering what the hell is going on, especially regarding certain revelations that have been thrown into the lime light of the media circus of late. I suppose what you have to ask your self, is this planned or is it just happening? And to many their answer would be one of ‘who cares’ I have enough to worry about in the daily struggle to survive, or of course ‘where is the money coming from to furnish the next lavish extravagance’ and to be honest, to many, that is all that matters. Parasitic money powered automatons, void of all feelings and all they encompass, on a suicide mission of more, more and more.
Is it a sign of the times we live in that such happenings would be occurring?
Certainly to those who are following the prophecies of doom that exist it could be said yes, or is there something quite different proceeding that revolves around an ancient idea that is not spoke of under fear of ridicule. Of accusation marred by misguided belief, as association is formed under assumption deliberately destroying acceptance of an old way – simple acceptance being denied suffering from the application of labels? Oh and we do like to apply labels don’t we, to the point we apply them to ourselves without the need for others applying them to us. It is though we are proud of these labels, or could it be said we are frightened to not be labelled something or another? Dare we not stand alone through fear of ridicule and does that not extend to our opinions as well, maintaining they are always the socially accepted opinion? For there is many that crush individuality for the need of group membership, based on a reliance to be different and the same, at the same time? Is this all simply based on a need to belong to something, anything as long as we feel we belong?
So now let me explain what the hell I am on about!
For some time now it has been quite obvious to many that institutions such as the church, for example, are going through some form of self-destruction. This, regarding one particular church, has been happening for many years and with the power the Internet possesses; this has only helped this along ten fold. But unfortunately for some this has a knock on effect and a quite dramatic one by all accounts. If any foundation becomes unstable, then all that is built upon that foundation suffer the same fate. This is common sense as foundations are designed specifically to build upon, shame that sense wasn’t common. So eventually if a foundation corrodes, then it starts to crumble and thus what is built upon it crumbles – and what is even more fascinating, under inspection this predominately happens from the inside out! Generally a flaw in the construction process causes this and in this instance the flaw is called lies, but not just lies, but the covering up of those lies by more – to the point the foundation is completely eroded away.
I suggest that three major institutions i.e. the church, parliament and the monarchy are at this moment in complete self-destruct mode. Check the media circus daily and you will see this unravel in front of your very eyes. The reason this is occurring it seems, is because they all have the same foundation, and are built from exactly the same process, which I will suggest is LIES! Ask yourself this, just for one second, how many times have they been caught out and most of the time nothing is done about it, NOTHING…. Why, you might now ask yourself? Simply because to hide lies you need more lies and the bigger and more brazen they become. To a point where they become so obvious no more covering up (lying) can be done and the house built upon the sand crumbles! Then they revert back to their protection, which is ‘status’ which exists only because of more lies! And only works because we have accepted the lie that says ‘all human beings are not born equal’!! So ask yourself who is to blame really, as granted they have plagiarised this, but at the same time we have allowed it to happen! So do we relish in the scraps that are thrown from the table, with the gullible belief we will one day be the ones throwing the scraps? And is that why we put up with this situation, do we chose too, do we feel by chance this will just sort it’s self out or do we believe this is all by design and in being so, has an ending that has been designed? Even though, whilst we ponder this conundrum, we still scrabble and fight over the scraps that have been thrown to us in apathetic automation.
Is this just here in the UK this is happening? I suggest to you this is happening across the world as apathy leaves a disjointed human race. One race I might add, one family so diverse in construction it beggars belief that it could be one family in reality. But it is!! As we all exist in parity do we not – or is it, we are not all equal? Realise the gravity of the question before answering, as this will illuminate for us to see, the lies we have been living! Be warned though, questions like this can snap you out of the automaton state and dump you head first into reality without the protection of the lies and the labels they deliver! And know my friends, at first this can be a very lonely place to exist.
But in essence it could also be suggested that all that exists, in the way it exists, has an advantage to it, as it highlights how not to do things. Is it not true that religion and its child politics have been at the helm of human progression for little over two thousand years? And is it not also true that this has led to the state humanity, on whole, is in now? Does this not prove without any form of doubt that these institutions do not work and something different is needed nowadays!! Do we now argue and debate this point for another hundred years as everything we know and rely upon crumbles around our feet – and is that for good reason? Do we need to reach a designed precipice before we finally change our ways? Or is that precipice to be presented to us by chance or choice and if we were given that choice, would we relinquish all we desire after to make it?
So is humanity metaphorically imploding …..?
I would say yes without doubt, as we withdraw within our own minds to protect ourselves from the painful truth of what we have become. To bury ourselves in more electronic gadgetry so to prevent eye contact, in case those who look upon us see us for what we have become. Apathetic parasites powered by credits and vouchers called money to fuel our lust for expectations of things that only ever turn out to be disappointing, when we are honest with ourselves. Never can we admit we have been wrong, as we continually try to re-invent the wheel through debate only ever discussing all that has been discussed before in the hope something will change. In short pathetic!! How many years of the same shit do we honestly need to go through before someone finally say’s ‘do you know what, this isn’t working you know’? How many blood fuelled years, how many horrors do we need to be presented with showing quite plainly what we are capable of, before we finally say enough is enough? Do we actually care is more to the point? Well do we? Because surely if we did truly care, then we would listen to one man saying, simply ‘why don’t we try an old way’? Why don’t we try something we have known of for millennia’s? Why not try, because one thing is certain it cannot be any worse? But I suppose that depends on what you consider would be worse!
I suggest to you that the self-destruct button has already been pushed and there is no going back. We can only go forward now!! And unless you can come up with a better idea, then why not try an idea, a concept that is buried deep in your heart. A concept that say’s it only takes one of us to do this, one! And if you are not quite sure what I am on about, maybe in the next coming months you will get a hint.
Someone once told me that an idea could live forever. The funny thing is, this idea has!! x
"Who are we, as a nation" & who is responsible for what we have become and what we are rapidly becoming? I fear the answer lies in the mirror for every resident of the UK. Why have we allowed this to happen?
Wake up Britain the time is upon us to unite…
We have slept our way into systems of surveillance, conformity and control beyond anything Huxley and Orwell had imagination for. Seemingly with their works of brilliant vision having been adopted as training manuals and blue prints by the UK government with increasing pace. The UK people, suffering from a fear induced loss of their faculties and reasoning, have allowed our Treasonous government to implement major encroachments on our civil liberties. We have allowed them to override true British law with corrupt EU Legislation, we have allowed them to convince the majority of the populace to believe we do not have a written Constitution, we have allowed them to sell our country out to a foreign power.
The Peoples United Collective is about the people of the UK taking a responsibility to put right the wrongs the government are implementing upon us. It is about people that are sick and tired of being treated like they don't exist, being failed by their government and left to fend for their rights and a democratic way of life, and failed by a redundant police force who's sole interest is to promote and enforce a police state instead of carrying out there duty to serve and protect us.
Speeding, dropping litter or even forgetting to wear a seatbelt could land you on the 'Big Brother' database for life
Drivers stopped for speeding – or even for failing to wear a seatbelt – could soon be placed on the 'Big Brother' DNA database for life.
The most trivial offences, such as dropping litter, would also lead to samples being taken under sweeping new powers which police are demanding.
The samples would stay on the database, alongside those of murderers and rapists, even if the people involved were later cleared of any wrongdoing.
Campaigners condemned the plan as a step too far which could affect someone's job prospects for many years.
Under current rules, a person can have his or her DNA and fingerprints taken only if stopped for a 'recordable' offence – a crime serious enough to carry a jail term.
Minor offences such as allowing a dog to foul the footpath are excluded.
But police – backed by the Crown Prosecution Service – want to take DNA samples, fingerprints and even imprints of footwear for all offences.
They argue that, just because a person initially commits a low-level misdemeanour such as dog fouling, it does not mean they will not progress to the gravest crimes.
A chance to take their DNA – making any future crime far easier to solve – would be missed without new powers. Police also want to take samples – usually a mouth swab – at the scene of the "crime".
They say having to take offenders to the police station, as happens now, is too "bureaucratic".
The Home Office suggested the new powers to police in a consultation document earlier this year. Ministers are now under pressure to confirm the change.
There are already four million samples on the database – including those of a million suspects who turned out to be innocent.
Helen Wallace of GeneWatch UK said last night: 'There is significant potential for the loss of public trust in extending the taking and use of biometrics. They pose a serious threat to individual privacy and are unlikely to be an effective way to tackle crime.
"Any attempt to take DNA samples outside a police station is clearly unworkable."
Sonia Andrews of the Magistrates' Association said: 'We would find it difficult to justify extending the ability to take biometric data to cover nonrecordable offences.'
The Information Commissioner's Office warned of the danger of people being turned down for jobs if checks reveal details of minor offences committed many years ago.
Under the current system records of such offences are deleted after time. But if they are tagged to a DNA sample on the database they could remain 'active'.
But the idea is backed by police across the country, according to consultation responses published yesterday.
Inspector Thomas Huntley, of the Ministry of Defence Police, said failing to take samples 'could be seen as giving the impression that an individual who commits a nonrecordable offence could not be a repeat offender.
"While the increase of suspects on the database will lead to an increased cost, this should be considered as preferable to letting a serious offender walk from custody."
Pete Hutin, of Sussex Police, said the "taking of DNA samples in custody is unnecessarily bureaucratic".
David Evans, of the CPS, argued that the move would allow a 'more comprehensive database'.
The Home Office said: 'The DNA database has revolutionised the way the police can protect the public through identifying offenders and securing more convictions.
"The database provides police with, on average, over 3,500 matches each month and in 2005-6 alone led to matches against 422 homicides, 645 rapes, 1,974 other violent crimes and over 9,000 domestic burglaries.
"The consultation is about maximising police efficiency and ensuring that appropriate and effective safeguards are in place. No decisions have yet been made and any detailed proposals will be subject to a further public consultation next year."
The police demand was revealed as the Human Genetics Commission, the Government's independent DNA watchdog, launched an inquiry into the database. Panels across the country will gather evidence on public opinion.
Thousands of residents in Bristol face a £30 charge for parking permits under controversial plans being considered by the council.But even then residents who buy the permits in certain areas of the city will NOT be guaranteed a parking space.
Southville, Kingsdown, Cliftonwood, and Old Market were among areas shown to councillors as examples of where permit parking could be imposed.
Members of Bristol City Council's physical environment scrutiny committee were told the scheme could be up and running "over the next couple of years" with pilot schemes having already been drawn up.
Families with three cars face a £270 bill for permits – £30 for the first pass, £60 for the second, and £180 for the third.
Councillors asked Colin Knight, the officer presenting the scheme, whether the permits could be introduced city-wide.
He said: "There could be pressure from a lot of the city for this, but we have to start somewhere."
In certain areas, bays may be set aside for pay-and-display parking for people visiting the area, he said.
But Mr Knight said paying for a permit would not guarantee residents a parkingspace outside their homes.
He said: "One of the misconceptions of a residents' parking scheme is that you are guaranteed a space in the scheme, or outside your own home. That is wrong, it is first come, first served."
Limiting the number of passes available in the scheme or per household was another option discussed by members of the committee.
Southville councillor Sean Beynon (Lab) said one major issue in areas such as his was commuters who park there and walk or get into the city centre by other means.
He said: "I got a text from my girlfriend this morning telling me where our car was parked because it was so far from our house – we need to do what we can to stop that happening.
"In these Victorian terraced streets there are real problems."
Councillor Barbara Lewis (Brislington East, Con) asked whether the permits would be zoned or would cover the whole of Bristol.
She said: "Right on the edge of Bristol residents want parking permits because they are sick of commuters parking there and catching the bus into the city."
She said the suggested permit cost of £30 "looked low".
Committee chairman, councillor Gary Hopkins (Knowle, Lib Dem), said: "Looking at Southville there are less potential spaces available than there are residents' cars – and commuters come and park there.
"You don't have a right to park outside your house, but if people have got to park miles away, they won't like that."
He said people would need reassurances the money they spent on permits was not being squandered.
"People will need to see where the money goes from the permits and that it will make a major difference."
Other matters discussed were whether such a scheme would be 24-hour, and whether certain vehicles should be charged more.
The committee's views will be put into a report given to the council's cabinet on November 15.
Speaking after the meeting, Mr Hopkins said money raised would probably be spent on enforcing the scheme with parking attendants.
He said: "If you are going to have a residents' parking zone one of the key things is to have wardens there to protect it."
Residents in Knowle regularly complain to him of commuters parking near the Wells Road and catching buses into the city centre.
But he said the scheme would have to cover a number of areas.
He said: "If you put a squeeze on parking in one area to give residents preference, those commuters would move to park in another area."
He expressed concerns that Bristol's public transport system may not be able to cope with the intended extra uptake after such a zone is introduced.
Commuter Harry Mottram, who drives in from Axbridge in Somerset, parks in Southville and cycles the rest of the way, said he would simply park further out if permits were introduced.
He said: "Normally I park in Upton Road, Southville, outside Imperial Tobacco where there are no houses.
"I then cycle the two or three miles to Old Market. It saves parking charges and, above all, a long wait in a traffic jam.
"If parking restrictions were introduced I would simply park further away and cycle a little bit longer each day."
For those of you who are interested in the company behind the swine flu vaccine have a look at Glaxo Smith Kline’s directors list (please scroll down to view). It makes fascinating reading and you can cross reference a few of the directors regarding some interesting events and positions they hold. If you can add anymore information to this please contact us at email@example.com
Even though Liam Donaldson is not on the directors list we feel you need to have some information regarding this man.
Sir Liam Donaldson – Chief Medical Officer (CMO) Department of Health
This man approved Mercury & Squalene to be in the injection to be given to pregnant women & children, he is also the chair of the WHO (World Health Organization) Patient Safety Secretariat. Please click on the image for more information.
Now on to the directors.
James Murdoch – Son of Rupert Murdoch
CEO of News International Ltd who is ideally placed to control propaganda regarding the swine Flu & the vaccine. James Murdoch was appointed to the board of directors of Glaxo SmithKline PLC 20th May 2009.
Sir Roy Anderson (Scientist) – sits on the governments SAGE committee and is a director of Glaxo SmithKline the purveyors of the swine flu vaccine to H.M Government with a nice little pay packet of £116k a year, at least a quarter of what he receives from his shares ….hold on surely this amounts to a ‘conflict of interests’.
SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) recommends that everyone should have the yet untested, unsafe and toxic Swine Flu Vaccine.
Please click on the image for more information.
Sir Roy Anderson (Scientist) – sits on the governments SAGE committee (a 20-strong task force creating an action plan for the virus) and is a director of Glaxo SmithKline the purveyors of the swine flu vaccine to H.M Government with a nice little pay packet of £116k a year, at least a quarter of what he receives from his shares ….hold on surely this amounts to a ‘conflict of interests’.
SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) recommends that everyone should have the yet untested, unsafe and toxic Swine Flu Vaccine. GSK is the company selling swine flu vaccines and anti-virals to the NHS. GSK legalized drug pushing giants has had to defend itself from allegations of profiteering from swine flu after posting profits of £2.1billion in the last three months. As in Sir Roy’s case a nice little earner from share profits plus £400,000 from his position as rector at the imperial college London.
Sir Roy was appointed to Sage to 'provide cross-government scientific advice regarding the supposed outbreak of swine flu'. He was one of the first UK experts to call the supposed outbreak a ‘pandemic’. In 2001 Sir Roy’s advice to Tony Blair led to the culling of more than 6million animals, killing many animals that were not infected on a ‘precautionary principle’ and also bankrupting a good deal of farmers in the process. Although I am very against any animal being kept, bred and murdered for human consumption, I am just using this to highlight what this man has done…
Supposedly Sir Roy stepped down from the government’s flu advisory group on appointment to GSK, but in May this year he was asked to rejoin as a temporary member (hmm). Sir Roy is also the ministry of defense’s chief scientist (hmm again).
Squalene; http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=851 Please read.
"Your immune system will attempt to destroy the molecule wherever it finds it, including in places where it occurs naturally, and where it is vital to the health of your nervous system".
Before you make any choice, please at least make it an informed choice!
To let go of the programming, what your teacher told you, what your mum’s best advice was? They are all past memories of you and them. They are not you – you are so much more than that – you are creative, spontaneous you are everything and anything ‘you’ want to be if you allow yourself to not be bound by past memories or events. The words that are written in books are dead (even these words) they are of the ‘past’ as the words you spoke before are. There is only the now. You cannot change what you said 10 seconds ago, let alone 10 years ago – so why try, for what purpose does it serve, but to keep you in past events and memories that prevent you living in the now.
We all judge based on past information but that is all dead, the next time you talk to someone , don’t judge them by the clothes that they wear, or their accent, colour or mannerisms – stop that noise in your head. Just relax and sense, feel the energy around them – does it feel good? Words only come alive when spoken, because then they have intent. (Energy behind them) I could call you a nasty (perceived) name, but if my intent was to be joking and friendly, is the word still nasty? So next time you speak to your better half, try using loving intent behind your words, do you notice the difference ?
Words on a page are stagnant like water, when anything is stagnant it becomes dis-eased, untrue. But flowing water is fresh, forever changing and true to nature. . I have always liked Bruce Lees quote but I didn’t know why until now:
So why fight yourself (Based on given information), we all perceive there is an us and them, but who are you really fighting – them or yourself? And are not the perceived just a mirror of all in some way, the only difference being that we have created a them, so we do not have to look at ourselves. Everyone is so eager to fight someone, but that’s because we are all scared of the unknown and really want to be controlled, do you want the responsibility? Many people want to get out of paying a fine for speeding, litter, dog mess etc, but in the case of speeding why are you going so fast? We all need to slow down, what are you running from? Why do you need to go so fast. In the end are we all running from death as we are scared? It’s not the dead that worries me, it is the living. For me we never die so why fear it.
Because the above is dead information my perspective will change over time, I will make mistakes and will remember from them. We need to let people and our children make mistakes and not control their lives – we need to stop judgement and let go of the past. Stagnant water can still spawn life but it is very limited in its abilities, where as flowing water serves all life. Being caught in the past is like the stagnant water, our ability to help others is limited by restriction, whereas to live in the now is like the flowing water, not bound by any restriction or limitations. Is it not through amnesty that we shall allow the flowing water that is life to flow again? As the bridges that we perceive were once built over the water have been burnt, is it not the case that the burning was just a limitation to mask the fact the bridge still exists and always has done and always will do? A mask to maintain that we always remain stagnant, as the water that lies still beneath it. Surely it is time to allow that water to flow again, for the bridges to be on view again. For us to walk the bridges and repair now what once was destroyed through perceived limitations and restrictions, created by ourselves in a them and us syndrome, through a desire to always be right based upon dead information.
I know that is what I should do. I know this is what I will strive to do. But in the end it is still up to you, I can only ever speak for myself, but I can speak with others that hold the same values as I do.
This is an excerpt of a transcript from Hansard for the 1st November 2010 column 1538 – House of Lords. If you are unaware of Hansard, it is a record of what is being talked about in the Houses of Parliament.
At this stage, I will refrain from commenting on this transcript and will open up the comment feature, as I would love to hear anyones opinions about the subject(s) being talked about. This was brought to my attention this morning by a friend and to be honest Hansard is not something I look at now, but this I must admit has certainly got my interest.
Lord James of Blackheath: At this point, I am going to have to make a very big apology to my noble friend Lord Sassoon, because I am about to raise a subject that I should not raise and which is going to be one which I think is now time to put on a higher awareness, and to explain to the House as a whole, as I do not think your Lordships have any knowledge of it. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is not with us at the moment, because this deeply concerns him also.
For the past 20 weeks I have been engaged in a very strange dialogue with the two noble Lords, in the course of which I have been trying to bring to their attention the willing availability of a strange organisation which wishes to make a great deal of money available to assist the recovery of the economy in this country. For want of a better name, I shall call it foundation X. That is not its real name, but it will do for the moment. Foundation X was introduced to me 20 weeks ago last week by an eminent City firm, which is FSA controlled. Its chairman came to me and said, "We have this extraordinary request to assist in a major financial reconstruction. It is megabucks, but we need your help to assist us in understanding whether this business is legitimate". I had the biggest put-down of my life from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde when I told him this story. He said, "Why you? You're not important enough to have the answer to a question like that". He is quite right, I am not important enough, but the answer to the next question was, "You haven't got the experience for it". Yes I do. I have had one of the biggest experiences in the laundering of terrorist money and funny money that anyone has had in the City. I have handled billions of pounds of terrorist money.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Where did it go to?
Lord James of Blackheath: Not into my pocket. My biggest terrorist client was the IRA and I am pleased to say that I managed to write off more than £1 billion of its money. I have also had extensive connections with north African terrorists, but that was of a far nastier nature, and I do not want to talk about that because it is still a security issue. I hasten to add that it is no good getting the police in, because I shall immediately call the Bank of England as my defence witness, given that it put me in to deal with these problems.
The point is that when I was in the course of doing this strange activity, I had an interesting set of phone numbers and references that I could go to for help when I needed it. So people in the City have known that if they want to check out anything that looks at all odd, they can come to me and I can press a few phone numbers to obtain a reference. The City firm came to me and asked whether I could get a reference and a clearance on foundation X. For 20 weeks, I have been endeavouring to do that. I have come to the absolute conclusion that foundation X is completely genuine and sincere and that it directly wishes to make the United Kingdom one of the principal points that it will use to disseminate its extraordinarily great wealth into the world at this present moment, as part of an attempt to seek the recovery of the global economy.
I made the phone call to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde on a Sunday afternoon—I think he was sitting on his lawn, poor man—and he did the quickest ball pass that I have ever witnessed. If England can do anything like it at Twickenham on Saturday, we will have a chance against the All Blacks. The next think I knew, I had my noble friend Lord Sassoon on the phone. From the outset, he took the proper defensive attitude of total scepticism, and said, "This cannot possibly be right". During the following weeks, my noble friend said, "Go and talk to the Bank of England". So I phoned the governor and asked whether he could check this out for me. After about three days, he came back and said, "You can get lost. I'm not touching this with a bargepole; it is far too difficult. Take it back to the Treasury". So I did. Within another day, my noble friend Lord Sassoon had come back and said, "This is rubbish. It can't possibly be right". I said, "I am going to work more on it". Then I brought one of the senior executives from foundation X to meet my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. I have to say that, as first dates go, it was not a great success. Neither of them ended up by inviting the other out for a coffee or drink at the end of the evening, and they did not exchange telephone numbers in order to follow up the meeting.
I found myself between a rock and a hard place that were totally paranoid about each other, because the foundation X people have an amazing obsession with their own security. They expect to be contacted only by someone equal to head of state status or someone with an international security rating equal to the top six people in the world. This is a strange situation. My noble friends Lord Sassoon and Lord Strathclyde both came up with what should have been an absolute killer argument as to why this could not be true and that we should forget it. My noble friend Lord Sassoon's argument was that these people claimed to have evidence that last year they had lodged £5 billion with British banks. They gave transfer dates and the details of these transfers. As my noble friend Lord Sassoon, said, if that were true it would stick out like a sore thumb. You could not have £5 billion popping out of a bank account without it disrupting the balance sheet completely. But I remember that at about the same time as those transfers were being made the noble Lord, Lord Myners , was indulging in his game of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic of the British banking community. If he had three banks at that time, which had had, say, a deficiency of £1.5 million each, then you would pretty well have absorbed the entire £5 billion, and you would not have had the sore thumb stick out at that time; you would have taken £1.5 billion into each of three banks and you would have absorbed the lot. That would be a logical explanation—I do not know.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde came up with a very different argument. He said that this cannot be right because these people said at the meeting with him that they were still effectively on the gold standard from back in the 1920s and that their entire currency holdings throughout the world, which were very large, were backed by bullion. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde came back and said to me that he had an analyst working on it and that this had to be stuff and nonsense. He said that they had come up with a figure for the amount of bullion that would be needed to cover their currency reserves, as claimed, which would be more than the entire value of bullion that had ever been mined in the history of the world. I am sorry but my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is wrong; his analysts are wrong. He had tapped into the sources that are available and there is only one definitive source for the amount of bullion that has ever been taken from the earth's crust. That was a National Geographic magazine article 12 years ago. Whatever figure it was that was quoted was then quoted again on six other sites on the internet—on Google. Everyone is quoting one original source; there is no other confirming authority. But if you tap into the Vatican accounts—of the Vatican bank–— come up with a claim of total bullion—
Lord De Mauley: The noble Lord is into his fifteenth minute. I wonder whether he can draw his remarks to a conclusion.
Lord James of Blackheath: The total value of the Vatican bank reserves would claim to be more than the entire value of gold ever mined in the history of the world. My point on all of this is that we have not proven any of this. Foundation X is saying at this moment that it is prepared to put up the entire £5 billion for the funding of the three Is recreation; the British Government can have the entire independent management and control of it—foundation X does not want anything to do with it; there will be no interest charged; and, by the way, if the British Government would like it as well, if it will help, the foundation will be prepared to put up money for funding hospitals, schools, the building of Crossrail immediately with £17 billion transfer by Christmas, if requested, and all these other things. These things can be done, if wished, but a senior member of the Government has to accept the invitation to a phone call to the chairman of foundation X—and then we can get into business. This is too big an issue. I am just an ageing, obsessive old Peer and I am easily dispensable, but getting to the truth is not. We need to know what really is happening here. We must find out the truth of this situation.
If you would like to read the full transcript then please see. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/lhan57.pdf
If you scroll through the PDF to the time stamp 10.42pm and column number 1538 you find the section that contains this information. I was advised about this by someone at the House of Lords information office this morning, who helped me find the section that I needed. Thank you whoever you were. x
A few years ago I entered on to this path of ‘lawful rebellion’ not really knowing where it was taking me, nor what I would realise from this endeavour. I went into full on conflict mode – albeit not physically, but most certainly verbally – and I was determined to make my point known. What I found was I have been overcome by this need for conflict, with the sole objective being to prove to anyone that disagreed with me that I was right and they were wrong – through an arrogance that was un-surpassed being totally overcome by the power overcoat. I am not for one minute saying that I am fully over this hurdle, far from it. But at least I now realise that it is present in me, which is I suppose, what I am meant to do. In trying to stop this happening I generally fail more than I succeed, falling flat on my face many times. Nonetheless I pick myself up, dust myself off and apologise for my arrogance, big headedness and my total lack of respect – because without doubt that is what searching for conflict results in, well in me anyway – and I can only speak for myself. This was another problem I have suffered as well, the constant need to speak for others when truth be known I can only ever speak for myself. I do not feel what you feel, I cannot see through your eyes and I certainly can never have your thoughts – so how can I speak for you?
Always entering into conflict or at least being willing to enter into this element maintains in me that this element is always present, which has resulted in one inevitability – it has become even harder to release myself from its grip. But I now realise through studying subjects such as history that it is very apparent that this element has to be maintained for the world as we know it to function effectively. History maintains without doubt that nothing has ever been sorted out without some form of conflict, so dictates by default that nothing ‘will’ ever get sorted out without conflict being involved. This to me seems that we are always presented with a negative approach called the ‘what if’ syndrome which is now called the ‘precautionary principle’ which has always been the engine of the legal/law systems over centuries. It is quite obvious that if you wish to maintain control through negative elements, then you need the negative elements to be maintained. This creates another default that manifests within those who wish to go against the control, being they – by default – try to use the same, because they are relying on a version of history that tells them this – a fact that has been very much relied upon. Although I can only speak for myself I have now determined that all history we are taught is not a true account of events, it is in fact an account written to deliver a very specific version, without doubt to maintain the negative element, which in turn maintains conflict.
I know with everything I have done I have always throughout my life looked at any ‘what if’ in a very negative way. Now I am trying to reverse this approach by doing the opposite. Again I fail miserably, but there are times that I do succeed. It is very hard to break a mould, especially when you have lived inside that mould all of your life. I now try to find all the positives that I can, instead of just relying on what is being presented to me in a very negative way. Recent events have been very trying for me and I failed it would seem, in some ways I was being very selfish, but this selfishness was not for my own needs, it was in fact about the needs of others. I find it incredibly hard to stand by and watch people I care about poison themselves. And even though it is their choice to do so, I know it is my choice to not have to watch them do it. I do not want to judge them in any way and deliberately will remove myself from any situation that I feel will lead to a form of judgement coming about. Through none judgement and amnesty I accept them for who they are without conflict, but this does not mean I have to endure or view them doing harm to themselves or others if they chose to – but the fact that they have, will never change the friendship I offer un-conditionally – I offer amnesty. I realised a short time ago that I have always been able to do this in some way and am finding recently that this is increasing. I have met some of the most fascinating people you could meet since I have been involved in this and some have told me facts about themselves that they are very ashamed of – not that I am ashamed of them for doing, that they are ashamed of doing. No matter what these facts are I offer them no judgement, no opinion, no conflict nor forgiveness – just amnesty and this is what I offer to all without exception.
I know that many of you fear for the security of your families and you fear that by not doing the jobs that you do – no matter how immoral they are – your families will suffer from the lack of money they would be without if you stopped. I feel for you and my heart is with you, for at one time I was in that situation and I know how it feels – and in some ways on down days I still do. We all must do what we feel is right and we must all do what we feel is right for our families and in time these elements that confine us will be elevated, but until this happens you must do what you need to do – and just the fact you realise that what you are made to do for this money to survive is immoral is good enough. Many of you are needed to be in these positions, as ‘you’ are the ones who will be relied upon to change how these mechanisms work. You are the experts not us, and through their creation is the method to un-create them – you know this, we don’t. No matter where you come from on this island, or no matter from what walk of life, you know – if you are honest with yourself – there is something very wrong with the way we have to live our lives and this needs to be changed – as we are all in this together are we not?
I can tell you that a change is coming and it is for the good of us all, as I will not accept that it will be for the bad, I cannot and I will not. We are all part of this change. I would like you to remember as I do that it is not our actions that are at fault, it is the intentions behind those actions that are at fault and soon the change in these intentions will be proven to help everyone to accept the change that is inevitable. We cannot just jump to a perfect existence as much as we would like to, first we must come to a ‘stop’ point and then we can undo all we have done. If we do not do this too many would be left behind and as my ex-military friends tell me the ‘golden rule’ comes into play that they lived by in many theatres of conflict – ‘no one gets left behind and that means NO ONE’!! We are all of one family, the sooner we realise this fact the better. Surely now is the time to relinquish class divides and any other ‘meaningless disciplines’ and prejudices we harbour against one another and offer each other amnesty – surely we can simply forget all the in-discretions, cant we. What good does it do to harbour such things, bar perpetuate all the problems that exist! I am sure I do not have to tell you such things, I am sure you realise this for yourselves.
All I would like to say is this. No matter what you have done, or whatever immoral job you do and from whatever walk of life you are from I offer you ‘amnesty’ with absolute discretion. I offer you this un-conditionally. And if you feel you can supply us information that will help to change things, then again this will be treated with absolute discretion. For things to change, honesty must prevail and must be at the fore front of all we do. I have recently had the pleasure of meeting an ex RAF Commissioned Officer, a Barrister and Chief Inspector of police outside of official procedures and protocols. To say the least I was so pleasantly surprised to hear what they had to say, and to listen to the answers that they gave to the questions I politely asked of them. All were exceptionally forth coming and were happy to talk openly and frankly about the position we all now find ourselves in. The ex RAF Officer was a gentleman – in the true sense of the word as they all were – through and through and we spoke for nearly 14 hours. The Barrister was old school and reacted very well to politeness and listened to what was being said to him without the impromptu butting in that normally occurs – from both sides. It was a pleasure to speak with him. The Chief Inspector was a very endearing family man with a beautiful family and it was a absolute pleasure to speak with them all. He was very open and did not disagree with anything I had to say and in fact added to it. We talked about tyranny, what has happened to the police and he even agreed that they were now nothing more than a ‘private political army’ – amongst other things. He even laughed when I commented on the funny costumes they all wear – he had a lovely sense of humour. We talked about many things in the short time we had to speak to each other, before he had to go back to work and we both agreed that it would be nice to speak at greater length sometime.
These are not one off’s!! These people exist in all walks of life and in every profession. They are very disillusioned about the way things have gone within their own professions and battle the hierarchy within these professions to try and make changes – being prevented at every turn they take. Many are trying even though they know that they will not be in that profession for long if they pursue the course of action they know in their hearts is right. All it takes is politeness, respect and kindness with no element of ‘conflict’ at all, and they start to feel safe. And the second they feel safe, they will talk and the truth is they want to talk!
If you would like to talk, then I would like to listen!
I suppose the first question we should ask ourselves is a very simple, but vital one. The question simply is ‘do we need new order of the world’? Again I suppose many would answer yes and equally many would answer no. And to be fair they are all entitled to their opinions, well if they have title that is! …. 😉 Many would suggest of course that those without title have no say in the running of society and again many would suggest title is not needed and nor is society in the structure we now find it! Or is it the truth, or at least under the subjective truth it is presented by, it fails by living up to its true definition. A definition never spoken of, except by those who fully understand the implications of such a meaning and what those implications could lead to by being known in entirety. Do the believers of ‘you must first destroy before you can create’ really want to try that shoe on, as they may find it very uncomfortable to walk in? But in essence what they suggest must be performed and acted out and whichever way the coin falls, it is obvious it will be as there is no other choice!
How far off tangent can you be drawn when talking of such subjects?
Many suggest that the very mention of NWO is a very damning eventuality for humanity on whole and I would tend to agree with them in one context, but NWO is only one side of the story. The other side has a very much-welcomed outcome. This story, as many, has two very different conclusions as the title of this article suggests, but seem to rely on the similar happenings. And I feel now that this is the time to explain how I see this. But before I continue please accept that this is nothing more than an idea re-laid in article form and certainly is nothing more.
When looking at the title it could be quite easily assumed that both are in fact one and the same. I suppose in some way you are correct in that assumption. But for now consider this, which will help a little to separate the definitions. NWO suggests that the ‘world’ will have a new order, whereas NOW suggests that there will be a new order of the world. I can hear you asking yourself what difference can there be as they both suggest the same thing and on first appearance you’re not wrong. What is different between these two definitions is the outcome and that to be honest is all that matters. Some might say, as a for instance that it is not our actions that are at fault it is the intent behind those actions. Sometimes a mum or dad might say ‘this is going to hurt me more than it does you’ and to the lesser extreme they mean exactly the same. Both can be seen as detrimental to the receiving party, but also they could very much benefit the receiving party depending on the context of the intentions implied.
So what is NWO by definition?
Too many across the world NWO is the removal and subjugation of human beings rights to a one world wide political regime, a one world government. This would result in one currency, army, police, education, law, and religion, basically one set of rules for all from one central point. In effect a one-world democracy in its true sense still based on non – representation via myth of representation, the obvious nepotism (that is overlooked and ignored by many) and of course the socially dominant doing even less to have everything, which is stolen (from what is deemed as the lower classes) via the myth that is status. So basically nothing really changes, bar everything is shuffled under one umbrella for convenience.
In reality each individual country becomes a sector of a unified federation under the one world government completely loosing its identity, law and religious structure. Its identity would be consumed by federation conformity, its foundation of law would be re-established under federation policies and any religion/s would be unbrellaed under a form of inter faith – a kind of religious merger. In entirety any one failing to comply with the federation rules or guide lines, as they would be first known, would suffer the punishment the federation deem appropriate. In essence a political lock down of the world, where wealthy corporations will force-feed the world their merchandise by political means, by controlling world politics. Nothing-new there then!
By now I am sure you get my point. I could go on to elaborate on some of the more heinous suggestions regarding what could be done, with the slant ‘what will be done’ as it is sold on the net – by individuals or ‘fear mongers’ who’s names I am sure I need not to mention. And I mean that sincerely and not as a joke, as many of you out there truly believe the final stages of an Orwellian state are upon us including a martial law situation. Which, I might mention, is all that is needed and could have quite easily started as the police are already classed legally as an ‘armed force’ and have been for some time. So an element of what you are being told seems to be true and I feel the rest, well lets put it this way, is being sold on that truth whether it be true or not. Want a hint of what to look for? Go look for the ‘commercial pitch’ where the legal delivery is made by the pitcher! As a pit or a pitcher in this context, really only serve one purpose, do they not and that purpose is ‘entrapment’. So go see who has been entrapped and you will have your answer. And what have they been trapped by? Well really that should be obvious, but if it isn’t, then quite simply look for commercialism on mass scale and you truly will have your answer.
So what is NOW by definition?
Well NOW is as it describes NOW! In essence it relies on the same process as above, but for very different reasons. Its counter part is to continue slavery through legal means, whereas NOW is about the opposite (to coin a phase by William Wallace) Freedom – a truly scary thought for some. Again as its counter part NOW works on three simple principles, but there is a subtle difference.
1. Spread the ideology
2. Create the receptors for the ideology
3. Destroy all that has gone before, but only ‘what’ is not needed
So as you can see the modus is very simple and describes the method that all ruling systems have used to control the believers in the power of such systems. What should stand out at the forefront of using this process is religion! That uses story form/allegory to spread its ideas, which is their pitch! The subtle difference between the two is simply in item three. The NOW modus reads ‘Destroy all that has gone before permanently’ and this is the simple key that unlocks humanities need to revisit the past and live NOW. By preventing future generations from doing what we have done, projecting humanity in a place it has never been before, a place free from the limitations created by past events. Not to use projections and past events to base future happenings on, but to be projected into the happenings of NOW to create extreme reversal to ‘now, right this minute’. For I am talking to you from the ‘past’ right this minute, but you are reading this ‘now’ a very powerful element is the ‘past’. Imagine everything in the past was forgotten even just for one second and you create what some might call Heaven! And if experienced for even just one second, would we not need to experience it again? An ideology could be created that would not allow the past to dictate the outcome of future events and would allow the use of the past to eradicate the past, by using it against itself. Use the past to highlight one very important idea that has been forgotten which eradicates all others as it suggests their eradication. And please remember I am telling you this idea from the past to you right ‘now’. So an ideology starts its journey creating the receptors for the ideology destroying ‘all’ that has gone before.
It is quite evident that ideas live forever through history, as religion must have been an idea once upon a time! Spread predominately by word and mouth. You could repeat my words from the past on the most powerful medium known to man, the WEB and of course by mouth. A web it is said only serves the needs of the spider that spun it, but what is forgotten is it also serves the needs of another spider! Have you ever considered this – why not consider it now for a moment? And when you have considered that consider this, how many ideas have spread via the spoken word?
NOW is about a new order of the world that one day will eventually allow us to live in the solitude of right this minute by allowing us to leave the past where it is, in the past – to finally remove its infliction on humanity and allow humanity to become humane again. A kingdom of benevolence some might say a ‘new order of the world’ created by a simple idea that has been around forever. x
NaturalNews) Seven leading health groups in the UK have announced a "definitive statement" that reverses decades of ignorant opposition to sunlight exposure. This statement admits what NaturalNews has been teaching for years: That sunlight exposure is good for you and that people should seek to expose themselves to the sun,without sunscreen in order to produce more vitamin D.
This definitive statement was issued by the following non-profits:
Cancer Research UK, National Osteoporosis Society, Multiple Sclerosis Society, British Association of Dermatologists, Diabetes UK, National Heart Forum and the Primary Care Dermatology Society.
The fact that these seven non-profits are now admitting that sunshine is good for you represents a monumental change in the longstanding position of most conventional health non-profits who have long insisted that sunlight is bad for you.
Watch out or sunlight might kill you
That's the position of the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, conventional dermatologists and virtually the entire western medical system — that sunlight is dangerous to your health and the only "safe" way to go outside is after you're slathered up with sunscreen lotions. It is, of course, a philosophy of ignorance and darkness, but it has been the very foundation of the conventional medicine system for so long that most health experts never bothered to question it.
Western medicine, you see, depends on the continuation of widespread vitamin D deficiency. It is that deficiency that promotes cancer, schizophrenia, bone disorders, kidney problems, diabetes, obesity and many other diseases upon which the industrial medical complex depends. For decades, the American medical system has depended on vitamin D deficiency as a cornerstone of its repeat business (and profits). That's why this announcement from these UK non-profits is so dangerous to the medical system in the United States. If people begin to allow a little sunshine into their lives, vitamin D deficiency will plummet — and cancer rates along with it. That's because vitamin D prevents 77% of all cancers.
Boosting vitamin D intake through both sunshine and nutritional supplements is arguably the single most important thing that needs to be done right now to improve health, reduce health care costs and prevent degenerative disease. But because of these remarkable properties of vitamin D, it represents a grave threat to the continuation of the sick-care medical system. That's why U.S. non-profits will undoubtedly continue to resist making any kind of announcements that support vitamin D.
You won't hear Komen for the Cure promote vitamin D; you won't witness the American Cancer Society recommend it; and you won't even hear President Obama recommending it as a health solution for the nation. Instead, in the United States we get these ridiculous warnings about vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine which actually went out of its way recently to declare that people shouldn't take too much vitamin D because it might harm them.
Even the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) won't allow vitamin D supplement manufacturers to tell the truth about vitamin D and how it can help prevent disease. Such claims are illegal in the United States of America, where pharmaceuticals are considered "healthy" but nutrients are considered contraband.
Eventually, however, even the US government will be forced to come to the same conclusion that the UK government has already reached: That the people need vitamin D to maintain their health, and ongoing vitamin D deficiency population will bankrupt your nation from sick-care costs.
Even though this announcement from UK non-profits is a huge step in the right direction, it's still rife with huge information gaps. For example, these groups are advocating 10 minutes a day of sunshine but still warn that anything over 10 minutes is dangerous for your health. That's a lie, of course — especially if you have darker skin color. Those of African descent who live in the UK actually need more like three hours of sunlight a day to generate sufficient levels of vitamin D.
So even though this new statement may help reduce vitamin D deficiency in whites, it will do virtually nothing to solve this nutrient deficiency for blacks. And that makes the policy downright racist because it discriminates against people based on their skin color.
It seems that even though these UK non-profits are beginning to nudge their message in the right direction, they haven't yet found the depth of honesty required to admit the full truth about vitamin D deficiency, breast cancer and women of African descent. Perhaps in another decade, they'll somehow discover the scientific integrity to admit the full story on sunshine and vitamin D.
Until then, they insist that you limit your time in the sun to 10 minutes a day. Because, after all, we wouldn't want vitamin D deficiency to be eradicated too quickly now, would we?
US non-profits, by comparison, still insist that daily sunshine exposure should be limited to zero minutes a day, if you can believe that.
08 September 2010
Dr Freddy Patel – suspended
A HOME Office pathologist who was criticised for his autopsy on a G20 protest victim has been suspended for three months.
Dr Freddy Patel, 63, who said that Ian Tomlinson died of a heart attack during the demonstration, was found to have been "irresponsible" in three earlier autopsies – one of which was on a five-year-old Holloway girl who had been abused by her stepmother.
The pathologist, who is based at St Pancras Mortuary in Camley Street, King's Cross, and deals with deaths in Islington and Camden, was told he had been guilty of "very serious" failings at a General Medical Council (GMC) hearing on Friday.
Richard Davies, chairman of the GMC disciplinary panel, told Dr Patel his "shortcomings arose from a failure to take account of, or otherwise adhere to, relevant professional guidance."
However, Dr Patel was only banned for 12 weeks – because there "could well be a genuine public interest" in him working again. Patel will only be allowed to work on non-suspicious deaths. He is also barred from acting as an expert witness for the defense in suspicious death cases.
Dr Patel was found to have been "irresponsible" in three autopsies.
The first related to Annastacia, who died days after being found convulsing in Sutterton Street, Holloway, in September 2002.
Dr Patel was said to have made a "cursory" examination – missing "significant marks of violence".
The youngster had to be exhumed after X-rays revealed broken bones. A second pathologist found finger-nail gouges and a bite mark.
Annastacia's stepmother, Christine Green, was jailed for four years after being convicted of child cruelty in 2003, while her father was jailed for two years for neglect.
Dr Patel was cleared of misconduct with regard to his examination, but was found guilty of deficient professional performance. He was, however, found guilty of misconduct in respect to two other post-mortems.
One was into the death of a three-week-old baby who had allegedly died from cot death in August 2003.
While Dr Patel raised the alarm when he found fractured ribs, he failed to conduct a full skeletal survey before the autopsy.
The panel found Dr Patel had "deliberately ignored the guidelines" for his own convenience.
In the third case, Dr Patel changed his opinion on an autopsy of an elderly woman, who was found dead at the foot of her stairs "to satisfy the family".
The Crown Prosecution Service, which has a lawyer reviewing the Tomlinson case, has said it will now look at the GMC's findings.
Dr Patel found that Mr Tomlinson died of natural causes linked to coronary artery disease.
But two other pathologists ruled Mr Tomlinson died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma, in combination with cirrhosis of the liver. The pathologists' failure to agree led to no charges being brought
CPS examines pathologist Freddy Patel's suspension
CPS lawyer in Ian Tomlinson case 'considering General Medical Council's findings' that pathologist was guilty of misconduct
The Home Office pathologist criticised for suggesting the newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson> died of a heart attack during the G20 protests in 2009 has been suspended from practice for three months.
The disciplinary ruling imposed by the General Medical Council on Dr Freddy Patel came after he was found guilty of misconduct or "deficient professional performance" in three earlier autopsy cases.
The Crown Prosecution Service subsequently announced that its lawyer reviewing evidence in the Tomlinson case would now "consider the GMC's findings".
The 63-year-old had already been suspended from the Home Office register of forensic pathologists after questions were asked about the examination carried out on the body of Ian Tomlinson, who died in April last year.
Tomlinson died after being struck and shoved to the ground by riot police during protests in the City of London in April 2009. Patel was the first pathologist to examine his body.
Patel said Tomlinson died of a heart attack, implying that his death was due to natural causes. A second examination contradicted that finding, suggesting instead that the newspaper vendor had died from internal bleeding.
In July Keir Starmer QC, the director of public prosecutions, announced that no charges would be brought against any police officers. The latest CPS move stops short of suggesting it will reopen the whole file into Tomlinson's death.
The Green Party London Assembly member Jenny Jones has written to Starmer calling on the CPS to restore public trust and demonstrate that "the police are not above the law" by "reconsidering this disastrous decision" not to prosecute.
"The fact that there is disagreement among the medical witnesses is an insufficient reason not to pursue a conviction, given the information now known about Mr Patel," she said in her letter. "Let the evidence and the accounts of the various witnesses be heard in an open court, and a decision reached by a jury on where the truth lies."
In its highly critical judgment today, the GMC panel said Patel's response to criticism had "not been marked by frank and rounded insight".
Patel, it added, "offered no expression of regret in relation to those instances where [the panel] found shortcomings of misconduct and/or deficient professional performance.
"Indeed, the panel considers that you did not show the range and depth of insight that could reasonably be expected of an experienced forensic pathologist. In particular you have not addressed the very serious aspect of your misconduct as it relates to the finding that certain of your acts and omissions in Mrs D's case [where Patel altered his findings to satisfy relatives] were misleading."
The GMC also imposed restrictions on his future work, including effectively banning him from carrying out postmortem examinations in suspicious death cases and subjecting a sample of his casework to medical peer review.
Patel had been censured by a GMC disciplinary panel in 2002 for breaching patient confidentiality.
Lawyers for the pathologist said: "It would be inappropriate for Dr Patel to comment at this stage given the possibility that he may be asked to give evidence by the coroner at the inquest into Ian Tomlinson's death. Dr Patel needs time to consider the GMC's decision with his advisers."
Responding to the GMC ruling, Tomlinson's widow, Julia, said: "[The] decision confirms that the GMC do not think Patel is fit to practise and has been an obstacle to the truth in a number of cases. It is heartbreaking to us that he was involved in Ian's case and the real question for our family is why with his track record he was appointed in the first place. We look ahead to the inquest now and hope that we will finally get some answers."
During the GMC hearing, into three earlier postmortem examinations carried out by Patel, the panel criticised his failure to identify visible injuries on a child's body. It said he had performed "only a cursory external examination of the body" and adopted an "incurious approach".
In the case of Miss C, an eight-week-old baby thought to have suffered a cot death, Dr Patel was blamed for failing to carry out a full skeletal X-ray to establish whether there had been any injuries. Not to have done so was professionally irresponsible, the GMC said.
G20 pathologist’s mistake ‘caused three years of hell’
A woman told today of her family's “three years of hell” after a mistake by the pathologist who performed the disputed post-mortem on G20 <http://standard/related-133359-group-of-twenty.do> newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson <http://standard/related-77754-ian-tomlinson.do> .
Stella Karaviotis, 45, had to fight a legal battle after Dr Freddy Patel <http://standard/related-79541-freddy-patel.do> gave the wrong cause of death for her 66-year-old mother Eleni, of Archway, who suffered an embolism in 2004.
She spoke out after Dr Patel was suspended from the medical register for three months. His punishment this month followed a General Medical Council <http://standard/related-44038-general-medical-council.do> disciplinary panel which ruled that Dr Patel, 63, was guilty of misconduct in two earlier post-mortem examinations. The panel also ruled that he had been professionally deficient in a third one.
Dr Patel has been suspended from the Home Office register of forensic pathologists after questions were asked about the post-mortem on 47-year-old Mr Tomlinson, who died in April last year. Dr Patel concluded that Mr Tomlinson, who was pushed to the ground by a policeman, died of natural causes but two other pathologists blamed internal bleeding.
The failure of the three pathologists to agree on the cause of Mr Tomlinson's death led to the Director of Public Prosecutions deciding not to charge the policeman.
Miss Karaviotis claims her mother suffered an embolism after a plaster cast was put on her ankle at the Royal Free Hospital <http://standard/related-41591-royal-free-hospital.do> . Despite complaining that she was in pain, Mrs Karaviotis was discharged and four days later suffered a heart attack and died at the Whittington Hospital <http://standard/related-46250-whittington-hospital.do> , Islington <http://standard/related-1220-islington.do> .
Miss Karaviotis says she was told by doctors at the Whittington that her mother died from a blood clot, probably caused by the cast. An interim death certificate gave the cause of death as a pulmonary embolism.
However, Dr Patel concluded that she died of a brain haemorrhage, giving the cause of death as natural causes. After a three-year legal battle, a coroner reversed his findings.
Miss Karaviotis said: “Freddy Patel caused us so much pain. We knew from the beginning that he was wrong. The doctors told us exactly what had happened to my mother but he changed it all.”
G20 pathologist is suspended amid claims of broken post-mortem rules
Expert who said murder victim had died naturally faces new inquiry over protester’s death
THE pathologist who ruled one of Camden Ripper serial killer Anthony Hardy’s victims died of natural causes has been suspended by the pathologists’ monitoring board following a second controversy, the New Journal can reveal.
Dr Freddy Patel, who had been on a government register of accredited pathologists, was suspended on June 2 amid concern he was not following Home Office regulations
He was suspended by the Pathology Delivery Board after it emerged he did not meet requirements to have a contract with a police force and was not a member of a group practice – a team of three or more forensic pathologists who check each others’ work.
The discovery came after he carried out a forensic post-mortem in to the death of Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor who died at the G20 riots in April.
His suspension means he cannot carry out any forensic post-mortems for the Home Office – effectively, all cases involving suspicious deaths – while his conduct is investigated.
The breaches were uncovered during a routine review of the practice of pathologists on the Home Office list by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), the operational arm of the pathology board that monitor the register for the Home Office.
Dr Patel, who registered with the General Medical Council under the name Mohmed Saeed Sulema Patel in 1988, is still free to conduct post-mortems, although his work is restricted to examining non-suspicious deaths.
He has carried out hundreds of post-mortems and given evidence to scores of inquests at St Pancras Coroner’s Court in King’s Cross over the past 10 years.
Dr Patel is understood to have told investigators he was part of the South East Group Practice, the practice that carry out forensic post-mortems for the Metropolitan Police.
The group, called the Forensic Pathology Service, includes Dr Nat Carey, the pathologist who went on to carry out the second post-mortem into Ian Tomlinson and came to the conclusion that he died from internal bleeding.
Investigators want to know why Dr Patel conducted the post mortem on Mr Tomlinson when it appeared he does not currently hold a police contract, another requirement of the Home Office rules.
Dr Patel hit the headlines with his findings into the death of Sally White, a 39-year-old woman found dead in the Camden Town council flat home of Hardy in January 2002. Dr Patel gave evidence to an inquest suggesting she had died of natural causes but Hardy was later convicted of her murder at the Old Bailey.
While her death was initially treated as suspicious by police – Ms White’s naked body was found locked away in a spare room with a bite mark to the thigh and a head wound – detectives said they abandoned their inquiries after it was ruled she had died of a heart attack.
Detective Inspector Alan Bostock said afterwards: “The cause of [Sally White’s] death was given as coronary heart disease which we refer to as natural causes. I get paid to investigate unexplained deaths, suspicious deaths, not deaths by natural causes. All those decisions are important decisions that are not made by me.”
Hardy, now serving a life sentence, went on to murder two more women around Christmas 2002, cutting up his victims and dumping them in bin bags in Camden’s most horrific criminal case.
Dr Patel’s contract with the Metropolitan police was not renewed when it expired in 2004.
A police spokeswoman said: “The contract went to the Forensic Pathology Service in December 2006 and he wasn’t part of that group. It was a whole change of system.”
Dean Jones, the senior pathologist manager for the NPIA who is leading the investigation into Dr Patel’s work, said it was essential that forensic pathologists worked as part of a group practice to “ensure a high quality of performance”.
He said: “Dr Patel hasn’t been contracted to any police force for several years.
“He must know that he should be a member of a group practice. There are conditions that you need to comply with and if you don’t, there are risks that you’re not having your work checked – and it doesn’t mean your work isn’t good – but that’s what the checks and balances are there for.”
Dr Patel was assigned to the Tomlinson post-mortem by the City of London coroner Paul Matthews.
Yesterday (Wednesday), responding to questions about why he appointed Dr Patel, Mr Matthews said: “I am waiting for Dr Patel to comment on the facts asserted in the question [Dr Patel’s suspension] before responding, but intend to respond once he has commented.”
A spokesman for the NPIA said: “Dr Freddy Patel was suspended and removed from the Forensic Pathology list on June 2 2009 as he was no longer working as part of a ‘group practice’, an obligation placed on all registered pathologists.
“As part of our investigation we’re investigating a number of issues in relation to Dr Patel, including what forensic post-mortems he conducted outside of the Metropolitan police and how many were performed whilst he wasn’t part of a group practice.”
Dr Patel qualified as a surgeon in 1974 from the University of Zambia. He did not respond to phone calls from the New Journal. Reporters called at St Pancras Mortuary but requests for an interview were not granted.
Contacted by the Guardian newspaper after Mr Tomlinson’s post-mortem, Dr Patel said he had not been reprimanded over his work in the Sally White case.
He said: “As far as I know my findings still stand and I wasn’t criticised.”
The NPIA has already spoken to Dr Patel.
A decision about Dr Patel’s conduct will be made by the discipline committee of the Pathology Delivery Board, whose options range from no action at all, to giving advice or taking Dr Patel to a disciplinary tribunal with a potential sanction to remove him from the register.
Mob: +44 07941214833
Tel :+44 (0)20 8932 3973)
Recently some friends inspired me with something they said that was so simple, it just made absolute sense. So because of this I have decided to create a religious book to nullify all others.
It has no name and has no need of a name, and ultimately it has one very simple all encompassing message… x
By Doug Yurchey – Article from The Dot Connector
They say marijuana is dangerous. pot is not harmful to the human body or mind. marijuana does not pose a threat to the general public. Marijuana is very much a danger to the oil companies, alcohol, tobacco industries and a large number of chemical corporations. Big businesses, with plenty of dollars and influence, have suppressed the truth from the people. The truth is, if marijuana was utilized for its vast array of commercial products, it would create an industrial atomic bomb! The super rich have conspired to spread misinformation about the plant that, if used properly, would ruin their companies.
Where did the word ‘marijuana’ come from? In the mid 1930s, the M-word was created to tarnish the good image and phenomenal history of the hemp plant – as you will read. The facts cited here, with references, are generally verifiable in the Encyclopedia Britannica which was printed on hemp paper for 150 years:
✔ Refusing to grow hemp in America during the 17th and 18th centuries was against the law! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769 (G. M. Herdon. Hemp in Colonial Virginia).
✔ George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers grew hemp. (Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America.)
✔ Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America, and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Napoleon wanted to cut off Moscow’s export to England. (Jack Herer. Emperor Wears No Clothes.)
✔ 80% of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc.,were made from hemp until the 1820s, with the introduction of the cotton gin.
✔ The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross’s flag, the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp. (U.S. Government Archives.)
✔ The first crop grown in many states was hemp. 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky producing 40,000 tons.Hemp was the largest cash crop until the 20th century. (State Archives.)
✔ Oldest known records of hemp farming go back 5000 years in China, although hemp industrialization probably goes back to ancient Egypt.
✔ Rembrandt’s, Van Gogh’s, Gainsborough’s, as well as most early canvas paintings, were principally painted on hemp linen.
✔ In 1916, the U.S. Government predicted that by the 1940s all paper would come from hemp and that no more trees need to be cut down. Government studies report that 1 acre of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees. Plans were in the works to implement such programs. (U.S. Department of Agriculture Archives.)
✔ Quality paints and varnishes were made from hemp seed oil until 1937. 58,000 tons of hemp seeds were used in America for paint products in 1935. (Sherman Williams Paint Co. testimony before the U.S.Congress against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.)
✔ Henry Ford’s first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the car itself was constructed from hemp! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, ‘grown from the soil,’ had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel. (Popular Mechanics, 1941.)
✔ In 1938, hemp was called ‘Billion Dollar Crop.’ It was the first time a cash crop had a business potential to exceed a billion dollars. (Popular Mechanics, Feb. 1938.)
✔ Mechanical Engineering Magazine (Feb. 1938) published an article entitled ‘The Most Profitable and Desirable Crop that Can be Grown.’ It stated that if hemp was cultivated using 20th century technology, it would be the single largest agricultural crop in the U.S. and the rest of the world.
The following information comes directly from the United States Department of Agriculture’s 1942 14-minute film encouraging and instructing ‘patriotic American farmers’ to grow 350,000 acres of hemp each year for the war effort:
“…[When] Grecian temples were new, hemp was already old in the service of mankind. For thousands of years, even then, this plant had been grown for cordage and cloth in China and elsewhere in the East. For centuries prior to about 1850, all the ships that sailed the western seas were rigged with hempen rope and sails. For the sailor, no less than the hangman, hemp was indispensable… Now with Philippine and East Indian sources of hemp in the hands of the Japanese… American hemp must meet the needs of our Army and Navy as well as of our industries… The Navy’s rapidly dwindling reserves.When that is gone, American hemp will go on duty again; hemp for mooring ships; hemp for tow lines; hemp for tackle and gear; hemp for countless naval uses both on ship and shore. Just as in the days when Old Ironsides sailed the seas victorious
with her hempen shrouds and hempen sails. Hemp for victory!”
Certified proof from the Library of Congress, found by the research of Jack Herer, refutes claims of other government agencies that the 1942 USDA film ‘Hemp for Victory’ did not exist.
Hemp cultivation and production do not harm the environment. The USDA Bulletin #404 concluded that hemp produces four times as much pulp with at least four to seven times less pollution.
From Popular Mechanics, February 1938:
“It has a short growing season… It can be grown in any state… The long roots penetrate and break the soil to leave it in perfect condition for the next year’s crop. The dense shock of leaves, 8 to 12 feet above the ground, chokes out weeds. …Hemp, this new crop can add immeasurably to American agriculture and industry.” In the 1930s, innovations in farm machinery would have caused an industrial revolution when applied to hemp. This single resource could have created millions of new jobs generating thousands of quality products. Hemp, if not made illegal,would have brought America out of the Great Depression.
William Randolph Hearst (Citizen Kane) and the Hearst Paper Manufacturing Division of Kimberly Clark owned vast acreage of timberlands. The Hearst Company supplied most paper products. Patty Hearst’s grandfather, a destroyer of nature for his own personal profit, stood to lose billions because of hemp.
In 1937, DuPont patented the processes to make plastics from oil and coal. DuPont’s Annual Report urged stockholders to invest in its new petrochemical division. Synthetics such as plastics, cellophane, celluloid, methanol, nylon, rayon, Dacron, etc., could now be made from oil.Natural hemp industrialization would have ruined over 80% of DuPont’s business.
Andrew Mellon became Hoover’s Secretary of the Treasury and DuPont’s primary investor. He appointed his future nephew-in-law,Harry J.Anslinger, to head the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
Secret meetings were held by these financial tycoons. Hemp was declared dangerous and a threat to their billion dollar enterprises. For their dynasties to remain intact, hemp had to go. These men took an obscure Mexican slang word: ‘marijuana’ and pushed it into the consciousness of America.
A media blitz of ‘yellow journalism’ raged in the late 1920s and 1930s. Hearst’s newspapers ran stories emphasizing the horrors of marijuana. The menace of marijuana made headlines. Readers learned that it was responsible for everything from car accidents to loose morality.
Films like Reefer Madness (1936), Marijuana: Assassin of Youth (1935) and Marijuana: The Devil’s Weed (1936) were propaganda designed by these industrialists to create an enemy. Their purpose was to gain public support so that anti-marijuana laws could be passed.
Examine the following quotes from The Burning Question, aka Reefer Madness:
Reefer Madness did not end with the usual ‘the end.’ The film concluded with these words plastered on the screen: ‘Tell your children.’
In the 1930s, people were very naive, even to the point of ignorance. The masses were like sheep waiting to be led by the few in power. They did not challenge authority. If the news was in print or on the radio, they believed it had to be true. They told their children, and their children grew up to be the parents of the babyboomers.
On April 14, 1937, the prohibitive Marijuana Tax Law, or the bill that outlawed hemp, was directly brought to the House Ways and Means Committee. This committee is the only one that can introduce a bill to the House floor without it being debated by other committees. The Chairman of the U.S. Senate, Ways and Means Committee, at the time,Robert Doughton, was a DuPont supporter. He insured that the bill would pass Congress.
Dr. James Woodward, a physician and attorney, testified too late on behalf of the American Medical Association. He told the committee that the reason the AMA had not denounced the Marijuana Tax Law sooner was that the Association had just discovered that marijuana was hemp.
Few people, at the time, realized that the deadly menace they had been reading about on Hearst’s front pages was in fact passive hemp. The AMA understood cannabis to be a medicine found in numerous healing products sold over the last hundred years.
In September of 1937, hemp became illegal. The most useful crop known became a drug and our planet has been suffering ever since.
Congress banned hemp because it was said to be the most violence-causing drug known. Harry Anslinger, head of the Drug Commission for 31 years, promoted the idea that marijuana made users act extremely violent. In the 1950s, under the Communist threat ofMcCarthyism, Anslinger then said the exact opposite: marijuana will pacify you so much that soldiers would not want to fight.
Today, our planet is in desperate trouble. Earth is suffocating as large tracts of rain forests disappear. Pollution, poisons and chemicals are killing people. These great problems could be reversed if we industrialized hemp. Natural biomass could provide all of the planet’s energy needs that are currently supplied by fossil fuels.We have consumed 80% of our oil and gas reserves.We need a renewable resource. Hemp could be the solution to soaring gas prices.
Hemp has a higher quality fiber than wood fiber. Far fewer caustic chemicals are required to make paper from hemp than from trees. Hemp paper does not turn yellow and is very durable. The plant grows quickly to maturity in a season where trees take a lifetime.
All plastic products should be made from hemp seed oil. Hempen plastics are biodegradable! Over time, they would break down and not harm the environment. Oil-based plastics, the ones we are very familiar with, help ruin nature. They do not break down and will do great harm in the future. The process to produce the vast array of natural (hempen) plastics will not ruin the rivers as DuPont and other petrochemical companies have done. Ecology does not fit in with the plans of the oil industry and the political machine.Hemp products are safe and natural.
Medicines should be made from hemp. We should go back to the days when the AMA supported cannabis cures.‘Medical Marijuana’ is given out legally to only a handful of people while the rest of us are forced into a system that relies on chemicals. Pot is only healthy for the human body.
World hunger could end. A large variety of food products can be generated from hemp. The seeds contain one of the highest sources of protein in nature. Also: They have two essential fatty acids that clean your body of cholesterol. These essential fatty acids are not found anywhere else in nature! Consuming pot seeds is the best thing you could do for your body. Eat uncooked hemp seeds.
Clothes should be made from hemp. Hemp clothing is extremely strong and durable over time.You could hand clothing, made from pot, down to your grandchildren. Today, there are American companies that make hemp clothing; usually 50% hemp. Hemp fabrics should be everywhere. Instead, they are almost underground. Superior hemp products are not allowed to advertise on fascist television.
Kentucky, once the top hemp producing state, made it illegal to wear hemp clothing! Can you imagine being thrown into jail for wearing quality jeans?
The world is crazy. But that does not mean you have to join the insanity. Get together. Spread the news. Tell people, and that includes your children, the truth. Use hemp products. Eliminate the word ’marijuana.’Realize the history that created it.Make it politically incorrect to say or print the M-word. Fight against the propaganda (designed to favor the agenda of the super rich) and the bullshit.Hemp must be utilized in the future.We need a clean energy source to save our planet. Industrialize hemp!
The liquor, tobacco and oil companies fund more than a million dollars a day to Partnership for a Drug-Free America and other similar agencies.We have all seen their commercials. Now, their motto is: ‘It’s more dangerous than we thought.’ Lies from the powerful corporations, that began with Hearst, are still alive and well today.
The brainwashing continues. Now, the commercials say: If you buy a joint, you contribute to murders and gang wars. The latest anti-pot commercials say: If you buy a joint… you are promoting terrorism! The new enemy (terrorism) has paved the road to brainwash you any way they see fit.
There is only one enemy: the friendly people you pay your taxes to, the war-makers and nature destroyers.With your funding, they are killing the world right in front of your eyes.
Half a million deaths each year are caused by tobacco. Half a million deaths each year are caused by alcohol. No one has ever, ever died from smoking pot!!
In the entire history of the human race, not one death can be attributed to cannabis. Our society has outlawed grass but condones the use of the killers: tobacco and alcohol.
Hemp should be declassified and placed in drug stores to relieve stress. Hardening and constriction of the arteries are bad, but hemp usage actually enlarges the arteries, which is a healthy condition. We have been so conditioned to think that smoking is harmful. That is not the case for passive pot.
Ingesting THC, hemp’s active agent, has a positive effect: relieving asthma and glaucoma. A joint tends to alleviate the nausea caused by chemotherapy. You are able to eat on hemp. This is a healthy state of being.
[one personal note. During the pregnancy of my wife, she was having some difficulty gaining weight.We were in the hospital. A nurse called us to one side and said: “Off the record, if you smoke pot… you’d get something called the munchies and you’ll gain weight.” I swear that is a true story.]
The stereotype for a pothead is similar to a drunk, bubble-brain.Yet, the truth is one’s creative abilities can be enhanced under its influence. The perception of time slightly slows and one can become more sensitive.You can more appreciate all arts, be closer to nature and generally feel more under the influence of cannabis. It is, in fact, the exact opposite state of mind and body as the drunken state. You can be more aware with pot.
The pot plant is an alien plant. There is physical evidence that cannabis is not like any other plant on this planet. One could conclude that it was brought here for the benefit of humanity. Hemp is the only plant where the males appear one way and the females appear very different, physically!
No one ever speaks of males and females in regard to the plant kingdom because plants do not show their sexes. Except for cannabis. To determine what sex a certain, normal, earthly plant is, you have to look internally, at its DNA. A male blade of grass (physically) looks exactly like a female blade of grass. The hemp plant has an intense sexuality. Growers know to kill the males before they fertilize the females. Yes, folks, the most potent pot comes from ‘horny females.’
The reason this amazing, very sophisticated, ET plant from the future is illegal has nothing to do with how it physically affects us.
Pot is illegal because billionaires want to remain billionaires!
“And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land.” – Ezekiel 34:29.
p.s. I think the word ‘drugs’ should not be used as an umbrella-word that covers all chemical agents. Drugs have come to be known as something bad. Are you aware there are legal drugstores?! Yep, in every city. Unbelievable. Each so-called drug should be considered individually. Cannabis is a medicine and not a drug. We should dare to speak the truth no matter what the law is.
Although it has 80,000 trainees in 36 cities, 18,000 graduate members and enormous power, Common Purpose is largely unknown to the general public.
It recruits and trains "leaders" to be loyal to the directives of Common Purpose and the EU, instead of to their own departments, which they then undermine or subvert, the NHS being an example.
Common Purpose is identifying leaders in all levels of our government to assume power when our nation is replaced by the European Union, in what they call “the post democratic society.” They are learning to rule without regard to democracy, and will bring the EU police state home to every one of us.
Common Purpose is also the glue that enables fraud to be committed across these government departments to reward pro European local politicians. Corrupt deals are enabled that put property or cash into their pockets by embezzling public assets.
It has members in the NHS, BBC, the police, the legal profession, the church, many of Britain’s 7,000 quangos, local councils, the Civil Service, government ministries, Parliament, and it controls many RDA's (Regional Development Agencies).
Cressida Dick is the Common Purpose senior police officer who authorised the "Shoot to kill" policy without reference to Parliament, the law or the British Constitution. Jean de Menezes was one of the innocents who died as a result. Her shoot to kill policy still stands today.
Common Purpose trained Janet Paraskeva, the Law Society's Chief Executive Officer. Surprising numbers of lawyers are CP members. It is no coincidence that justice is more expensive, more flawed and more corrupt. And no surprise the courts refused to uphold the law, when a challenge was made to the signing of the six EU treaties, which illegally abolish Britain's sovereignty.
Common Purpose is backed by John Prescott's "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister" (ODPM), and its notional Chief Executive is Julia Middleton. The Head of the Civil Service Commission is a member
It is close to controlling Plymouth City Council, where is has subverted the democratic process. Local people cannot get CP's corrupt activities published, because the editors of local papers are in CP, and refuse to let journalists publish the articles.
CP started in 1985; in the 1990’s, with its members' cross departmental influence, it was involved with what then became the disasterous New Millennium Dome Company and the squandering of £800 million; it appears £300m of this was diverted into the web of quangos set up by CP. There is a fraud case over this, stalled in the courts thanks to CP's influence in the legal profession.
Over £100 million of our money has been spend on CP courses alone, and its been hidden from the public, and members names are a guarded secret. It charges substantial figures for its courses. Matrix for example costs £3,950 plus VAT, and courses for the high flying ‘leader’ can be as much as £9,950 plus VAT. This money is ours, paid by government departments financing senior staff to become agents for CP, instead of loyal to their own jobs.
Common Purpose (Ltd by guarantee, No. 2832875) is registered as charity No. 1023384. It describes itself as being involved in Adult education. Given it preys on the rich and powerful, charges expensive fees, and its aims are clearly power and control, its charity status stinks and should be revoked.
Potential Common Purpose subjects are selected for training. Are they susceptible to being converted; are they in the right job, with the right colleagues and friends? Do they have power, influence and the control of money? If the candidate has some, or all of these key attributes, then the local Common Purpose Advisory Board decides if they can do the course.
Common Purpose – training our future EU rulers – continued
Trained leaders are encouraged to act as a network, enable other members' plans, and have meetings under the so called Chatham House rules. This effectively means their statements are not attributable to them, nor can attendees reveal information heard at a Common Purpose meeting.
Council Officers are having secret meetings with, for example, property developer Common Purpose friends. No agendas and no minutes. Common Purpose Graduates from the public quango sectors such as the Regional Development Agencies attend, and have the power to award large sums of public money to projects.
It is the worst national example of cronyism, closed contract bids, fraud and corruption. And unseen to the general public.
Common Purpose undermines traditionally effective and efficient government departments with an overwhelming influx of new language, political correctness and management initiatives. The talk is of empowering communities, vision, worklessness, mainstreaming (sucking EU money into a project to sustain it), community empowerment, working partnership, regeneration and celebrating diversity etc etc. Documents appear about change, and reorganisation.
As CP “leaders” become more senior they employ countless managers and bureaucrats. In time confusion rules, and things don’t seem to work properly. Management decisions are made that seem stupidly destructive. The organisation’s performance becomes sluggish. Undermining the NHS is Common Purpose’s biggest success so far, with bureaucrats outnumbering hospital staff three to one.
David Cameron, who is pro Europe, uses the language of Common Purpose; he has appointed Ken Clarke, the most committed of the pro Europeans, in charge of his “Democracy Taskforce” – rather like putting the cat in charge of the safety of mice.
Common Purpose specifically targets children from the age of 13, and more recently younger, for special leadership and citizenship training. Yes, it is active in schools, and again the average parent has no idea.
People have contacted us to speak of their experiences with Common Purpose. A common theme is its all sweetness and light, until you fail to follow the direction set by the CP leadership.
Then interesting things happen. Ladies in particular have been bullied at work, some have lost their jobs, some have become paranoid and depressed at the pressure from people ganging up on them.
A typical story is a husband describing the decline in his wife from the time she becomes a Common Purpose graduate. Loss of sparkle, enthusiasm, anxious and ‘changed’, and she initiated a divorce.
Other Common Purpose people lie when they are challenged as to their involvement.
Common Purpose candidates are given a two day residential course in which they are ‘trained’ in a closed residential environment, such as a small hotel. They are encouraged to reveal personal information about themselves, such as their likes, dislikes, ambitions and dreams. Discussions are then controlled by the course leaders. Some participants have likened this to Delphi technique or the application of group psychology such as Cognitive Dissonance or brainwashing.
Treason, subversion and deceit at work with a Common Purpose destroying the UK.
EU funding is used as the fuel to power the set up of EU government in countries and as the fuel for fraud and corruption. Once a country and businesses 'suck on' EU funds they are effectively bought. By this means the EU can control businesses, regions and Countries.
Take a few UK examples. £2m plus of EU structural funds is sunk into developing a film studio in Cornwall. After 2 years there is found to be no proper studio, no accounts and no funds. Has there been an investigation? Yes but with no visible result. The only local organisation with responsibility and supposedly accountability for the EU funds is the GOSW. And when challenged they hide behind the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, itself the centre for all things EU.
The EU plan has been very simple and very clever. First set up via the traitors within UK national government the Regional Development Agencies. These were designed to be smooth as silk and sweet as honey – to do all things good e.g. regeneration, helping communities, helping business, innovation, entrepreneurship etc etc. Next load the honey trap with large amounts of money so that people, organisations are attracted to the honey pot. As more people are attracted, increase the powers of the RDAs to include planning powers and input. Make it compulsory for City Councils, County Councils and District Councils to consult them, and then their power increases further. And with planning powers they can get their organisational snouts into virtually every walk of life.
Meanwhile 'bring the government to the people' by setting up the Regional Government Offices – (remembering Regional = EU). The Government Offices now get increasing powers to interfere in everything, and especially local and strategic planning, because almost nothing gets done, or built without going through the planning process. Make consultation with the Government Offices compulsory.
Now the clever bit. In the background the traitors now work to introduce the Regional Assemblies. At first un-elected and informal, so as to allay fears and ease doubts as to their true purpose. Then the ‘behind the scenes traitors’ start to work to make them elected using large amounts of UK public money and EU funds.
The process will use anybody it can to sweeten the pill. The church for instance. What friendly vicar would help set up a devious political con. You can trust us they say. So interesting that the many Bishops, including the then Bishop of Exeter, worked so hard to help set up and implement the SW Regional Assembly for example.
Since all of these bodies, that is the Government Offices of the Regions, the Regional Assemblies and the Regional Development Agencies are accountable to the ODPM, it is quickly evident that the real plan has been to set up a parallel EU government structure in UK. Set up by deceit and deception. By making sure that these bodies have the ability to use massive amounts of funding and staff, they can now start to run amok over our traditional democratic structure of local government.
The EU grants and funding keeps pouring in. Take the £320m of Objective One in Cornwall. Nobody really knows where that money was spent, except that it was frittered away in remarkably small sums £500,00 and £150,000 here, £60,000 there etc etc. By this means, and particularly with minimal proper accounting and probity checks, the money reaches back pockets, favoured consultants and the dishonest. The breeding ground for fraud and corruption has been created, and not surprisingly fraud and corruption begin to run rife. With it comes the added nastiness of threats, intimidation and bullying of those who hold up their hand and say look this is illegal.
If you suspect Common Purpose is active in your organization, or see a pattern of incredibly bad decisions, money being wasted, notice bullying, fraud, or threats, note the names of those involved (we've tracked down over a thousand) and please contact us.
I am told by many “I now see and understand what you are saying”. Which results in the same question – “what can I now do to help”? This I am told and asked in nearly every other email I receive. The truth is I cannot help you and nor should you ask me for such help. I can only relate to my own experiences and you all must do the same. What I soon realised is that there is no need for leaders, messiahs or gurus – for recruitment, affiliation or organisation – in fact there is no need for any of the structures I relied upon to maintain I always look for others to tell me what I already know. I suppose this is the ultimate coercion, because for most of the time I cannot remember that I do know, but the truth is – for me anyway – I can remember if I forget first. I see now that this could all end with simple amnesty being offered to all, but alas there must always be a price to pay and someone to answer too – and because I have always been told this, I believed it – so I could never use the simplest of solutions and only continue pursuing the most complicated false answers.
Many who work in the realm of politics now, as they did in history, are completely delusional and total believe that this is the only way life can be and any other way would result in chaos and mayhem. Transfixed by the illusion of such things as status, wealth, standing and position they will do all and everything that is needed to maintain these elements, even though they know in their hearts that what they are doing and aiding to exist is beyond any form of morality. They are blinded by the fact they truly believe they have a master and they are subservient to that master and no matter what is done in the masters name, it is ok, as long as it is seen to be maintaining the status quo as it exists – as they really truly believe this is all that can exist, sorry to say that again, but if you don’t feel I am correct on this, then why don’t you ask them for yourself? This ideology was created and installed by the Roman Catholic Church, for without it, they could not exist and nor could they continue to exist. This is why it is imperative to convince everyone in the importance of politics and of course the church, because without the coercive techniques of either, neither could exist.
The system works incredibly simply by means of simple coercion. They first created an overall master (god), and then they created representatives of that master (the church). They coerced everyone into believing that the created master exists and it has a set of laws you must adhere to wrote in a special book (bible) – dictated to you via the representatives, even though the laws, as they are, are completely artificial and fictional and nothing more than the words of men repeated by actors wearing costumes. They built temples in the name of the created master – theatres to act out the play, then coerced everyone into believing they must worship this fictional created master at these theatres – these theatres would also serve as ‘courts’ to punish those who have ‘sinned’, a created word to describe a form of a moral violation, created by an institution which is in essence and is evidenced as being the ultimate antithesis of moral, a total contradiction in terms as they are the biggest violators of their own created word. They then distributed and enforced the artificial law using the terminology ‘fear god or ELSE’, with the biggest lie being, ‘you must do as I say, or ELSE’. To make this work efficiently another artificial fictional entity had to be created to use as a threat and of course something to lay the blame on to cover up their own mischievous endeavours and this was certainly an earnest and conscientious activity to create this. What I find interesting is that this institution which is definitely an organization founded and united for a specific purpose, which they say is to bring the love of ‘god’ to all, professes that this love comes with conditions – since when did love in its true essence come with conditions and if this is an undisputable fact, which it is, then the creation of this alternate entity was simply for coercion and would become the ‘or else’.
The ‘or else’ suggestion is the catalyst that makes it all work using basic fear and intimidation techniques that result in a never ending fear in the believer of the ‘what if’ syndrome, in other words a precautionary principle, or simply ‘the laws of oppression’ – a disease of the mind that causes disease which results in stress, anxiety and fear being suffered to maintain obedience and control. This is done by simply creating a caution in the mind of the believer and then creating a precaution to counter this, requiring certain rules, conditions and sacrifices to be adhered to by adding the lie ‘this is the only way the precaution will work’, when the truth is that the caution is no more real than the precaution – as I said the object of the game is just to gain conformity, control and obedience through fear by using basic intimidation techniques…. oh and also they made up words such as ‘blasphemy’ to prevent anyone ever questioning and if they did question they were labelled this to cause a division between the believer and the non-believer, to simply stop the coerced communicating with the non-coerced, which to those of you that don’t know is called ‘excommunication’, which creates a perfect self-defence mechanism to protect the coercive doctrine (lies) from questions…. oh and do you not find it funny that from a child you are told that the two subjects that you should never talk about are ‘religion and politics’! And the excuse for this that it will only cause arguments, when the real truth as I see it, is they do not want you realise through ‘communication’ that they are one and the same, a fact that all recognised history disputes, but It is obvious they are. They use exactly the same techniques for exactly the same reasons – to convince through coercion that you have always had and will always have a ‘lord and master’ (temporal and ecclesiastical) that you are in servitude to, including the representatives of that lord and master, who are ‘entitled’ to a better life than you off of your backbone and of course certain privileges and discretions that you are not ‘entitled’ too…. oh is not evidence of this coming out right now!!
Once the basic theatrics were set up using the prescribed procedures for conducting religious ceremonies, in other words the ‘rituals of coercion’, they then applied the ultimate stealth coercion in the form of symbolism and of course the power of myth; a traditional story accepted as fact on nothing more than hearsay or manipulated history normally involving non-explanatory occurrences. The symbolism works on two levels but again the outcome is the same – coercion. On the first level the symbols continue the coercion even though no words are being said, as certain symbols are only associated with the created master (god) or his supposed son, or the son’s mother locked up in myths. Examples of this are the immaculate conception, the resurrection and of course the myth of jesus christ himself. All these occurrences defy any form of explanation except for, according to the dogma, that they are a marvellous events manifesting from a supernatural act of a divine agent called god, in other words – lies. The symbol of the man nailed on a cross of wood has a very simple message if you set aside the dogma (coercive laws of man) and if you remain within the dogma there is a sort of get out jail free card that comes with it as well. The first message is quite simply evidenced by the method of torture on display – ‘do as you are told or this, or something like this will happen to you’, a very simple threat on show in every temple showing how active the coercion is without the need for words. For obvious reasons that type of torture could not be seen to still carry on, so the torture would have to adapt to fit its circumstances and became ‘legal torture’ via ‘torts of conversion’ an adaption the church would have to go through as well to maintain it is the biggest corporation in the world and would always maintain control of the believers and the none believers. The second coercion again is very obvious when you listen to the reasoning being offered by those trapped in the coercion, when they offer explanation for the need of this symbol. I have been told by many members of the church that the symbol symbolises that ‘jesus died for our sins’ and this is why he must be worshipped. I find this most interesting for they are implying that someone has already paid a price, so in effect they can do as they please as the price for these actions has already been paid and as long as they worship and repent everything will be ok – oh and of course that he will return to save us all, well those of us who have accepted the coercion that is…. oh and also according to the Roman Catholic Church any sin can be forgiven if you have enough money to ‘pay’ for that forgiveness, isn’t it funny that everything always comes down to a commodity called ‘money’ in the end and that the richest corporation in the world is always pleading poverty, I ask you!
Because the church knew that they could not capture the minds of everyone with their lies and coercive techniques, they designed another institution to maintain control of anyone who has strayed and to make them obedient to a different type of ‘lord and master’ through legal mechanisms called policies (contracts). The plan of action adopted by the Roman Catholic Church was the action of coercion, which was developed policy coming from a book of policy and politics was born to create these very temporal lords and masters. They created an entity called govern-mental (government) on exactly the same principles of coercion using exactly the same terminology and techniques and of course the threat of violence or legal castration to ensure that everyone complies without question. They even set up temples called ‘the law courts’, the strange thing is, if you re-arrange the words ‘the law’ you get ‘wealth’ and what is even stranger is the fact that this is exactly what any court is interested in – it does not matter who pays as long as someone does as most of the work they do is regarding something called ‘victim less crime’ or to put it another way ‘precautionary principle’.
This allowed the church to use the original ideology of a created lord and master (god) and the policy of such to create a very temporal solution to solve an ever increasing problem. Where the majority of people were denying the controlling coercion of the original policy, the new system would maintain all were controlled and obedient, because with this element there was no choice. But to do this they needed to use those who were coerced by the original system, feeding off their minds being needed to play in the theatre called ‘politics’, by offering them external pleasures and gains, graded and depending upon what status they have reached – they were to be called ‘ministers’ lead by a ‘prime minister’ simply being controlled by ‘lords’ – lord archbishops working in a palace that looks remarkably like a church or cathedral…. and the funny thing is that these two ‘houses’ are set out just like a church as every court is. Another tool they created was ‘the police’…. want to laugh say that word differently from the way you would normally say it – pol-i-ce, isn’t it strange that it sounds just like policy (the policy) and what do the police do, enforce policy who are very happy to use violence against you if you are not obedient to some form of precautionary principle.
The police use exactly the same methods as the church and it’s govern-mental for exactly the same purpose – coercion. During my life I have been questioned many times by the police and have always noticed how good they are at putting words in my mouth, and writing things down in such a way that I convicted myself, because truth be known they have to get you to convict yourself and through intimidation you are coerced into doing so. If you don’t feel I am right with this, then I suggest, if you can find an honest copper and they do exist I can assure you, ask them about how they are trained in coercive techniques – if they are honest they will admit this. In reality they are not even bothered if you did or didn’t do something, they are only interested in statistics and having someone to make up those statistics and to make sure someone is sent to a temple to pay some sort of sacrifice, because someone has to lose and someone must surrender for their gain to be made.
I will be expanding on all of this in my book in far greater depth for I suddenly realised that I was not dealing with a conspiracy I was dealing with facts that cannot be disputed and the evidence of this is actually written in recognised history, if you care to read it properly and not just see want you want to see. To lock this down with the word ‘conspiracy’ is just a protection method when they do not want anyone to know the real truth, same as they have done with many events in history. The comical sham most of you recently took part in is just that a sham, evidenced by their constant need to ‘recruit’ to maintain the ‘core belief system’ stays alive, for without recruitment it would just die out and they know this fact. You have just been conned by salesmen, convincing you that you need what they have to sell, the true art of salesmanship, to simple maintain things will always stay as they are and for no other reason.
Religion and its counterpart politics cannot survive without your belief in them and they will only survive because of the lies they have coerced you into believing. I point the finger at the Roman Catholic Church that has manifested into many different types of religion engineered to do exactly the same, for no matter what you want from any church; in the end there will always be a price to pay without exception.
On another note you may find this interesting.
On the day that Gordon Brown applied to the queen for the dissolution of parliament to make way for the election of a new general, he said something that is on camera as he stood outside 10 downing street. Gordon said “we need to renew the contract between the people and those they are sworn to serve”. Some of you may have seen this and not realised what Gordon was talking about, but surely if everything we have been told via history is to be believed about the formulation of a 'parliament' then this statement is incorrect. The point is that this statement is very correct and relates to a ‘legal contract’ called the ‘holly alliance’ signed and sealed 797 years ago that did in fact make sure that ‘legally’ everyone on this island was sworn to serve the Roman Catholic Church then and now, and to serve the representatives of such as well. Sad to say but because of the coercion Gordon has received and believed hook line and sinker, he will just say what he is told to say when he is told to say it via a spin doctor.
Now let’s just say for one minute that this could show that the spin doctor is actually on our side and knew exactly what he or she was doing when creating this script for Gordon to repeat and they knew that certain people would know exactly what was being said and what it related to. I was told a long time ago that those who are needed to effect the change needed are already in place and will do what they need to do when the time is right. Infiltration is not just a method that can be used by just one side, this is a fact we need to remember.
I see things slightly differently now…. the average man or woman on the streets including us will not cause the change that is needed to happen, nor will any masses of such. Our job is not to create the change, but to help make the change acceptable to those who will not accept it, because they have been blinded by coercion, blinded to such an extent that they would actually fear the outcome if things were to change! To change from the vice grip the Roman Catholic Church has, using its coercive mechanisms called policies in a farce called democracy that keeps much of the women, children and men on this planet in permanent legal slavery.
Maybe I am wrong who knows, I guess we will just have to wait and See!! I would like to thank the kind man who sent me clip of Gordon Brown saying those words- thank you!
If I was asked the question ‘do we need the police on the streets’? Then I would answer yes we do. If I was asked ‘are the police actually doing their jobs properly’? I would answer yes they are. Now this might confuse a few of you, but please bare with me. Firstly, things have got more than a little out of hand and we certainly need peace keepers on the streets, it’s just a shame we don’t have any – but that will come about soon enough. Secondly the police are doing their jobs properly, because they are doing exactly what they were constructed and designed to do – it’s just most of us do not know the history of the police, their conception, their role and purpose so are making completely un-informed opinions – so maybe it’s time to be informed.
There is a misconception amongst many of us that I have witnessed many times, including this past weekend. Where many of us assert that the police – amongst many different elements of the world and it’s components – were in some way at sometime set up for the greater benefit of us all. And the people playing the roles within these elements have somehow become misguided in their duties. This I am afraid is far from the case. The conception of such things as governments, the police, the courts and many other elements used daily to deceptively oppress any peoples of any lands were of design. They were designed specifically in their roles and purposes. There is no lapse of duty when the duty was to do as they do now and was all along. So if this is the case, how can a lapse occur? It may be wishful thinking on our part if we perceive that this is not the case. We may harbor some misconception that a certain element of our own kind would not set out to do this deliberately! That they would not do this to the members of the very family they in turn belong too. But alas it is true that this is the case. It is certainly honorable for us to do so, but not all act with the same amount of honorability as we may do ourselves – even though at first it may seem that way. This serves to prove nothing more than that the use of dead words is a very powerful attribute when trying to keep true misconceptions at bay. Especially when we refuse to except that there could be a very different ‘story’ to be told that is not the recognized story being told!
As far as I can tell there is a very definite them and us syndrome at play which involves 10% of the populace against 90%. Not created by ‘us’, created by ‘them’. Most of you reading this will be in the 90% bracket as I am. Our job is to serve the needs of the 10% without question or argument and to maintain that they can live the life styles they ‘think’ they are entitled too off of our backbones. We ‘must’ at all times keep the machine turning before anything and the machine must take priority. We must do all the jobs that are lower than them to do and we must ‘obey’. This is called ‘legal slavery’ and comes by the name of ‘democracy’. As in all forms of slavery it ends in ‘violence’ of some sorts or at least ‘torture’ if we DO NOT do as we are told when we are told. This is done by a ‘private political army’ called the ‘police’ who are used to enforce this violence upon us and a ‘legal system’ to torture us by incarceration, loss of property or money. This is done for what are predominately ‘victimless crimes’. This only happens to the 90% through a legal system designed specifically to do this. The other 10% have their own unique ‘legal system’ that counteracts the other if at any time they fall foul of it by mistake. The 10% are members of a ‘club’ and to be a member, you have to be in some way on the ‘pay role of the church’ of which there are two very distinct types. The private political army (police) know that the ‘club’ use a certain language to identify themselves. In such cases they MUST revert back to their role – which is to simply protect this element not persecute them. Which to be honest history shows they were designed to do in the first place. They MUST only ever persecute those of the 90%. The 10% are the ‘socially dominant’ (aristocracy being the top element) with a sliding scale down of privileges depending on your ‘status’ within the machine. The 90% are made up from the working classes and middle classes who keep the machine running at each level again depending on their ‘status’, which is determined by their ‘position’ in life.
Now I could be talking complete tripe and if that is your opinion then you are ‘entitled’ to it. But what if all I am saying is true? The following words I have taken from my book which was to be called ‘180 degrees’. This was to be a fact based book trying to show, that all we are told is in fact 180 degrees from the actual truth. But I decided that it is not for me to tell you what is true or not, that it is simply for you to decide if you want too. So I have decided to publish what I have written on the net, as I have now started a new book and I am 13 chapters in. this book is a fiction called ‘The Prophesy of Sion’. I am now taking what I have discovered over the last few years and I am writing it into a story. It is for you to decide what may be true and what may be false and no one else. The fact has always remained that I certainly have no right to tell what may be what.
Just to answer a question I am asked all the time; I have no idea when the book will be completed. I have no way of funding it now and I am in talks with someone regarding buying a 10% share in the book to give me the necessary funds to be able to finish. Unfortunately this has fell through, so now I will be returning back to work. To be honest I am very prepared to do this, but not in the way I used too. I will carry on writing the book, although my time will be limited. So subsequently it will take much longer to complete, but so be it, now this is the case.
The Police…. are they a Private Political Army? You decide!
A little history of the police and how they came about I feel is needed now, so let’s start with the Bow Street Runners who were founded in 1749/50 by author Henry Fielding – a little issue over the date it seems, not to worry. The Bow Street Runners were very similar to a group called the ‘thief-takers’. All though the thief-takers were unofficial of course…wink wink. The thief-taker would solve petty crime for a fee. A private individual would hire them to capture anyone accused of a crime. At this time, with a rising crime rate and newspapers to bring it to the attention of the public – a bit of de jar vu here, oh well not to worry. Thief-takers came about to partially fill the void or in some cases widen it. Bringing those accused of a crime to court, or in their words at the time ‘justice’. They were a bit like bounty hunters who were paid by bail bondsmen to catch suspected criminals who had skipped a court appearance. Those, who had supposedly forfeited (punishment for breach of contract) their bail, whereas thief-takers were generally hired by crime victims. Both thief-takers and bounty hunters also collected bounties offered by the government acting as go betweens negotiating the return of stolen goods for a fee. Most of them were corrupt themselves – no shock there – extorting protection money from the criminals they were supposed to apprehend.
Perhaps the most notorious thief-taker was a man called Jonathan Wild who operated in London around the 1720’s. He led a gang of thieves and would arrange for the return of property actually stolen by his own gang. To maintain the belief he was working completely legitimately, he would even hand over some of the members of his gang. They would inevitably end up being hung on the ‘Tyburn Tree’ (24 could be hung at once shaped like a triangle at the top) situated where Marble Arch is now. Jonathan was hung there himself at Tyburn when this was discovered in 1725. The government funded rewards were corrupting influences that lead directly to the Mac Daniel scandal, which occurred in 1754. It came to light that a gang led by Stephen Mac Daniel had been prosecuting innocent men to their deaths in order to collect reward money. Supposedly, it was an unintended consequence of the government’s rewards for the capture of criminals. Before those rewards were instituted, thief-takers depended primarily on privately-funded rewards from victims seeking return of stolen property or other restitution. However, this scandal started the move towards the formation of salaried public police force that did not depend on rewards.
Although, as I said before the Bow Street Runners were similar to the thief-takers, this represented a formalization and regularization of existing policing methods. What made them different from the thief-takers was their formal attachment to the Bow Street magistrates’ office. The fact that they were paid by the magistrate with funds from central government. They worked out of Fielding's office and the court at No. 4 Bow Street, and did not patrol but served writs and arrested offenders on the authority of the magistrates. Sometimes even travelling nationwide to apprehend criminals. Although the force was only funded intermittently in the years that followed, it did serve as the guiding principle for the way policing was to develop over the next eighty years. Bow Street was a manifestation of the move towards increasing professionalization and ‘state control of street life’ beginning in London – hold on a minute state control of street life? Maybe it would have been more pertinent to address the issues of why street life was alive with so much crime! Obviously resulting from the way people were made to live and the conditions they suffered daily. Especially whist others of supposed better ‘status’ lived the life of riley! – sorry going off on one, but it does seem so ludicrous unless of course it was being done for another reason. Were certain members of the ‘establishment’ buying their way into positions, that would allow for them to continue their corrupt ways from high office? – please allow me to elaborate.
Charles Hitchen was a thief-taker (unofficial policeman) in 18th century London who for a time set up a business as a joiner. He married Elizabeth Wells in 1703. The couple lived on the north side of St Paul’s Churchyard in the city of London. Elizabeth’s dad died in 1711 and Elizabeth inherited property from him which she sold. Charles used the money from his wife’s inheritance to ‘buy’ the position of Under City Marshal for £700 in 1712 – hold on a minute ‘buy his position’? There were two city marshals who had a staff of 6 men, their job was to police the city regarding prostitutes, vagrants and unlicensed tradesmen. The city marshal received all paid fines as well as a £100 salary from the lord mayor of London. This seems to have only encouraged the marshals to increase fines, rather than decrease crime – sounds very familiar in the world of PCN’s (Penalty Charge Notices) we now live in. Charles Hitchen was not the first to abuse and use his position to perform legal theft, known today as a ‘precautionary principles’ which inverts the very principles of justice and negligence which is so obvious now. I wonder if people still ‘buy’ their way into positions of high office, with a little back hander here a little one there, nudge nudge wink wink – or a funny handshake here or there? Charles Hitchen begun to extort bribes from brothels and pickpockets to prevent them being arrested. In particular leaning on thieves making them fence their stolen goods through him. At one time 10 Downing street was a café where criminals took their stolen goods to fence them – nothing much changes eh!
With the growth of paper money transfers, the early draught notices and "notes of hand" (agreements to pay the bearer) pickpockets were causing larger and larger economic losses to traders and merchants. Charles Hitchen, like Jonathan Wild later, acted as a "finder" of stolen merchandise and negotiated a fee for the return of the stolen items. Charles Hitchen regarded this matter as commonplace enough, that he began to boast of controlling dozens of thieves and actually tried to extort protection money out of tradesmen to prevent their being robbed. The complaints were so loud and frequent enough that the board of aldermen investigated him in 1712 and relieved him of his duties in 1713. Whilst keeping him in his title and salary, because he had to keep what he had PAID for. Charles Hitchen enlisted Jonathan Wild to help him keep control of his thieves while he himself was out of action. In April of 1714 Charles Hitchen was reinstated. This story carries on leading to Charles Hitchens being arrested, tried and convicted of sodomy in 1727. It can be found on the internet if you would like to read the rest it in full.
Needless to say the system of crime prevention and law enforcement  (‘precautionary principles’) had hardly changed since medieval times. JP’s or Justices of the Peace were appointed by the Crown and had been since 1361. These were assisted by thief-takers, constables and watchmen. The constables only worked part time and were very unreliable as the pay was so bad. Watchmen were called Charley’s after King Charles II who introduced them. The problem with Charley’s was that they were useless. The lord mayor of London, Matthew Wood said they spent very little time patrolling. Instead they would be in their boxes playing cards, going to pubs with prostitutes or sleeping. He also added that some of them took bribes from criminals – oh I could add such a comment here regarding this but I shall hold my tongue for now. All I will say is that history always seems to repeat itself and nothing much changes by ‘degree’.
Henry Fielding, as I have said formed the Bow Street Runners in 1750. Henry being a famous author (author of Tom Jones) became chief magistrate at Bow Street Court in 1748. London was growing fast and so was the crime rate and something was needed to be done. He wrote a report about the rise in crime and published it in 1751. The inquiry into the causes of the late increase of robbers broke down the problems:
1. Too many people coming to London expecting an easy life
2. Corruption in the government
3. People were choosing crime rather than hard work
4. The constables were mostly useless – only 6 out of 80 were worth keeping on
Do you not find it interesting that second in the list is corruption in the government – shock horror whatever next – surely the government cannot be corrupt, there the government? I feel this was actually wrong, as the second should have been the first, the first should have been the forth – you get the idea as being a list of relevance. In 1754 Henry’s half brother John took over the reins as to speak, he remained the chief magistrate until 1780.
Timeline of John Fielding and the changes he tried to make and made. In 1755 it was suggested Londoners should pay a subscription to fund a special horse patrol, this was rejected. In 1763 in was suggested London should be divided into six areas with their own patrols and police stations, this again was rejected. £600 was given by the government to hire an eight man patrol to patrol the highways, this supposedly ended highway robbery, but was not continued. In 1772/3 a general preventative plan was drawn up. £400 was used to co-ordinate information from gaols and JP’s, which was published in a newspaper called the Hue and Cry. In 1792 London was divided into seven districts. In 1798 the river Thames police were set up. In 1805 fifty four armed men were employed to patrol the highways, they became known as ‘Robin Redbreasts’ because of the red coats they used to wear. In 1829 London had 450 constables and 4,000 watchmen (Charleys) for a population of 1.5 million. It was decided that something bigger was needed, so enter centre stage the ‘Peelers’.
The socially dominant (aristocracy) decided they needed protection from us the inferiors as we were known. Because street life in London had become so bad, there was need for an organized recognized police presence on the streets. The state (government) needed ‘state control of the streets’ as they were not prepared to give up their way of life and the luxury of this binging funded by crime in the first place. Instead of putting money into the communities to give the poorest of the communities a better standard of living, it was far easier for them to devise and conjure up a method of being able to control street life. Even though the conditions many lived in stayed the same for the reasons given, the socially dominant would be fully protected and so would their possessions. This was also engineered as I can see it to keep the stream of revenue flowing from the implementation of fines and forfeitures upon the poor. Also of course the ‘protection money’ being forced upon the tradesmen, merchants, brothels and prostitutes. As it is most evident this was a very lucrative business to be in. And of course there will always be palms that have to be greased in the seedy halls of governance, to allow this process to function properly. Oh you might say I am just being cynical and yes in some ways I am, especially when you realise that this process has been going on for a very long time as I do. To be honest it’s hard not to be. I would like to raise a few points now that I have highlighted through the recent text.
Do you not find a resemblance here of what happens and has happened many times regarding people within positions of power being found out for mischief’s they have committed. Then only to be put back in another position of power, or indeed the same position. Seemingly never prosecuted for the fraud they have committed being allowed to carry on that fraud. Many incidents of this ilk lurk in history and many have come to light recently. This is not just in central or local government, but through all the walks of governance, including the police on many occasions. Is the process of buying positions of power still relevant – oh indeed so. Many peers who now reside within the house of lords are there as popular peers. Peers who have bought their way into a position of power with bought titles. A hand shake here and there to secure an increase in status to secure that their merchant Endeavour’s continue on behalf of themselves and their most evident ‘share holders’. Crossing the hands with silver that needed to be endowed with such to acquire the means to carry on such practices to the detriment of us. This also includes you the reader no one escapes the cage!
Most you will find come from and are still involved in a corporate structure bringing that structure with them to only increase the depth of how the structure is corporatized. There are no mistakes within who becomes a lord and who doesn’t. There is certainly no account for the amount of corruption they may have committed in the past or continue to do so! In fact this is something that is relied upon, so they are fully aware that these corrupt practices are something that is needed and should be number one on any CV of any applicant. The amount of money they can use to grease the palms that need greasing is also a very relevant factor. This certainly dictates what position they will hold, more being more and the likes of. Subsequently when these people are found out by whatever mechanism at play, they are just reappointed. This done because it is far easier to re-appoint someone who is already aligned to the corruption than look for someone to bring to the fold who is not. There is always the re-installing of those who were corrupt and found out previously to rely upon. When enough time has elapsed so the indiscretion is no longer in the mind’s eye of the populace as recent appointment within the lords evidences. Mr. Mandleson being a prime example of this. Look at any election and you will see those who have the most money to produce the best campaign will without doubt gain the power they set out to acquire. This happens because it is orchestrated to be this way. The decision was made long before the party even started!
The acquiring, being the factor of position and power being dictated by the relevant use of money to acquire that position in the first place. If this is manipulated and orchestrated to service the needs of those who require as a must the acquisition of power, then all that dictates this is the provisions used by the salesmen and the amount of money being thrown at the sales pitch. These people are control freaks, why would anything be left to chance? An election is chance is it not? All throughout history those who have required an elevation of stature have dictated the end by the means. They simply rely upon how much money they have to play with. You must speculate to accumulate when selling your soul to the corporate devil! As many are prepared to pave their way to these positions by crossing the palms with silver, then this fact was realised by the ‘share holders’. The fact that by using the corporate sector money making machines and their insane lust for power, that would give the vehicle needed to arrive at the desired destination. Money corrupts everything and everyone it ever comes into contact with. It is without doubt the route and engine of all corruption – sorry going off the plot for a while I will be back on track soon.
The most powerful devise ever conjured up and used in my opinion is the ‘precautionary principle’. This is the principle that inverts the very existence of justice and negligence – as I have said before. The catch phrase that has been used so blatantly throughout history is ‘it’s being done for your own protection’!! This the mantra, the slogan the catch phrase of the sales pitch. This simple catch phrase has been used to dupe everyone into a belief system that it is being done for this reason. Even though to a few it is the complete opposite. These few have always been silenced throughout history for stating this fact. The silencing of the few has always been done for very simple reasons. Basically to suppress what is being said and to show what will happen to you if you too voiced some form of rejection. This allowed for a process of containment and acceptance through fear of reprisal. All though this may upset a few of you, an early example of this was the ‘man on the cross’.
To voice such would be seen as an act of sedition, treason or at the very least non-compliance. This would have to be stamped upon if the populace were to be contained within what was being conjured up. It seems to me that any system of crime prevention and law enforcement was only ever developed, as I have said before, to allow for the continuance of profiteering from the crime in the first place. A system of protection devised to protect none other than the rule makers themselves from those the laws apply too. Who are supposedly committing the crimes in the first place! To be honest reality suggests in more ways than one that the true criminals are those who make the laws. What sense would there be in preventing the crime if you profit from that crime handsomely? Surely all that would be needed was for the instance that justice and crime prevention was seen to be done. But does not reality suggest that it is not actually being done. So in effect the populace would be happy because they were duped into believing this was the real solution to the problem, without the real problem being addressed or even coming into realisation by most. Those who did realise the real issue and how to correct this problem were not prepared to do such because their life styles and their elevation of status resided on the problem never being solved. The implementation of even more laws, legislation and rules would just perpetuate the problem not solve it. Even though they seemed to be addressing the issues by such use of these mechanisms, there never seems to be quite enough done. This to be honest is the desired outcome. Even if you do not for one minute except anything I have suggested, just look at the problems within your own communities. No matter what ‘rule’ is applied, things only ever seem to get worse. If this is the case which it is, then have you ever wondered why this is?
Back to the subject at hand the police; introduction of the metropolitan Police 1829.
Even though we could not imagine life without a police force which raises many questions, what we see in history is the fact that many people were objecting to the forming of such an entity. Some people held dear to the fact that if the people wanted a police force they should do it themselves and not allow the government to do it for them. Allowing for the election of police constables to be done by the people. Electing members of their communities who they trusted and knew of. This allowed for the idea that all ‘policing services’ (as they should have been known as and were for time) would only be made up of people the community on a whole trusted to do such a job. It is said “we must never forget they are public servants and in being such their job is to uphold and not enforce law” – but sadly this is a misconception. It was also feared that the police force would be used to arrest opponents of the government. Wow that is the understatement of the year, what year, any, as far as I see it. Stop protests and destroy free speech – I was saying! It was thought by many that the idea of a police force belonged to a foreign country. Never to be applied to the shores of this land. It is now painfully obvious that the government were not prepared to do anything to create a better standard of living for the working class. Moreover ‘their’ living standards and maintenance of stature resided on such never being corrected. The socially dominant demanded more organized regulated police force was needed, so to provide this enter one of their own Sir Robert Peel.
In 1822 Robert Peel became the Tory home secretary. He introduced a number of reforms to British criminal law. He was known mostly for the metropolitan police act, but also reduced the number of crimes punishable by death amongst others. In 1812 Robert Peel established the Royal Irish Constabulary which in the words of those who seek control had proved to be a great success. It became obvious to Robert Peel that something similar was needed in London. He founded the Peelers who were called as such after their founder. This was the start of the metropolitan police force. They were created via the metropolitan police act of 1829 which set up an organized police force for London, with 17 divisions, each with 4 inspectors and 144 constables. It was to be controlled from Scotland Yard and answerable to the home secretary and not the people. Controlled and only answerable to the government shock horror!! These men became the model to be used to create all the provincial forces. Firstly in the London boroughs and then into the counties and towns after Robert Peel put through the County Police Act in 1839.
The public did not react very well to the Peelers. In fact they hated them complaining that many were of poor quality, made up from men who were nothing more than drunks and bullies – a bit like the masters they served. Now, now John that’s a bit harsh. Harsh it maybe but nonetheless true. Also are we still talking about the 1800’s because it seems more like present day. Also please let me add that I am in no way tarring every constable with the same brush, I am just trying to give an over view of why and how the police were constructed. But nonetheless this does seem to be an attribute that is relied upon in the recruitment of new ‘officers’, not my words ‘their’ words.
Of the first 2800 new policemen, only 600 kept their jobs. In fact the first ever official policeman given the badge number 1, was sacked after only 4 hours for being blind drunk. According to accounts recorded in 1833 a PC by the name of Robert Culley was stabbed to death after the police broke up a political meeting. The case against him resulted in the jury finding the man not guilty and subsequently acquitted him of all charges against him. A newspaper awarded the jury medals for doing so! Also according to the same accounts, at the same time the Justice of the Peace’s were also very angry and dismayed that they had no control over the police. Which clearly was showing that the police could be lead to do what the judiciary felt could be deemed not according to the rule of law. The legislature and the judiciary and all aspects of such must at all times stay independent of each other. This has to happen to avoid the occasion to arise where there would be the issue of a conflict of interests. Which in effect allows for no justice of any form to prevail. Eventually however the impact upon crime, particularly organized crime led to an acceptance if not an approval of the Peelers. Whether that was true or not cannot be substantiated, as the only reliable source the people could measure from was unfortunately the same as today which was the media. At that time only newspapers. They were even known then to publish statistics from the government that were just verbatim and not fact, that could not be substantiated by anyone just being accepted as being fact. I am still not sure we are just talking about the early 1800’s.
Even though then, as you see today the newspapers were playing devils advocates on occasions. Supposedly being un-bias. But in reality this again is nothing more than a smoke screen to gain the populaces trust. As now the media are told never to cross the line. If they do, or the people responsible for such articles do, they are almost certainly relieved of their positions. Replaced for someone who will toe the line. Who will conform to an established standard or political programme.
What is quite obvious to me is the fact that the police were to be used as a political police force. They were to be used to force the policies of the government upon us. As I have mentioned before the need for the force in the first place was created by the government to control street life and bring it under full state control. As I have shown you the people in the positions of power did not want for the street life of London or anywhere else to get any better. They relied upon it too much to substantiate their lifestyles and give reason for their existence in the position of power they held and the need for the position in the first place. This seems very sad but is absolutely true. They truly believe that they are themselves of greater dignity than the people who were forced to live upon the streets. The police were developed to protect them and their possessions from this reality. It is quite obvious that they were never developed to protect the people as a whole. Simply looking at the word police do you not see the word policy spelt slightly differently, but certainly meaning exactly the same? The need for the force arose as well because the government were not prepared to increase anyone’s standard of living. Surely all of us are entitled to the same standard of living across the board. Regarding the issues of crime they professed to be such a problem, by doing this surely it would have alleviated much of it – if not all – if life for the working classes was better.
Crime is bread through poverty! This quite obviously is seen throughout history and still exists on a world wide scale. Governments of all countries to this day still invest vast sums in crime prevention instead of solving this issue by raising the standard of living. I know I seem to be going over this point quite a lot, but this is very important to realize, considering how the police were to evolve and what they would evolve into. Vast amounts of tax payers money is still spent every day protecting those in power and those who were. What I would like to ask you is protecting them from what? Some of you will use the unsubstantiated terrorism argument. Again please provide the evidence that has not come from someone who is in fact under this form of protection? I am sure you realise the truth now as nothing ever changes only evolves to suit its new environment. These people needed to protect themselves from us and in return create money making machines (corporations) to stealth tax us in the process under forms of control that we cannot resist. And if we do resist, they call who; the ‘police’ – resulting in a perfect system.
By alluding the populace regarding their true functions the police gained a form of consent from us to do the jobs they were perceived to be doing. Even though within this there lies a dark secret to their real purpose. Which most of us are completely oblivious of. A constable has a common law legal duty to serve and protect. In pretence this is to be applied to everyone, but in reality it only applies to those who are a member of the socially dominant element. Members of a very specific club of people, headed up and controlled by the advocates for the share holders. I was fooled at first as many of us were that there actual duty was to serve everyone as a whole, and there was no element of segregation to the common law legal system. But in reality the common law legal system is in fact a separate legal system that applies to the club and the club alone. In their own words “the likes of the inferior have no business with it or using it, for it was never intended for them to use”. Ask them for your selves, ask them – is there a tier system of law with two uniquely different types, set up for two uniquely different elements? You may not get an answer, but you will without doubt get the 10 second death silence whilst they rack their brains for an answer that will either confuse you or pacify you.
As the police evolved so did their structure, as the pyramid type hierarchal corporate basis evolved within their ranks. Creating these ranks as is such within any ‘corporate’ structure. Creating two distinctly different elements; one being a common law legal protection system for the club and the other a fully fledged corporate structure that was to be applied to the populace. The populace are controlled and persecuted by one structure, whilst the members of the club would enjoy and benefit from the common law element as their ultimate protection if all else failed. The corporate element has always existed within the police as the police were set up on a corporate basis. They are controlled and managed via policy created by the ‘the company’, which has been in existence since the time of the first statute of Westminster. Even before hand in the law of mort main which can be seen as far back as Richard I in 1189. As far as I can now see the police have always been a corporate element with a corporate structure that was very much needed to be hidden from everyone for their acceptance to occur properly. I feel many suspected that this was the case and were subsequently silenced, set up or ridiculed in the media for generally something that was untrue. If the information has to be published verbatim from the issuers who happen to be the ones who need to do the silencing in the first place, the obvious occurs, as is most relevant today. As I have said the police were there to protect the wishes and designs of the socially dominant and continue to do the same now through a construct called class division – entitlement. Because the process worked so well the government decided to move to calling the police ‘officers’, which as I can see is the arrogance of the government in full display as less and less people questioned because of what was happening to those who questioned.
Interesting enough I remember when I used to work for a man called Pete who ran a small building company. Pete had a knack of getting work from the upper demographic as he called it. This resulted in us building some very expensive extensions and other projects. At onetime Pete had a job running converting a house into flats long before my time as a carpenter with him. We sat one day having lunch and talking about this and that as we used to do, when the subject matter got on to the police and our experiences with them. Pete said he had a mate who worked within the police force and helped him out once regarding a flat conversion he was doing. He said even though the job was secured every night there was a spate of incidents where people were breaking in and stealing stuff and generally making a nuisance of themselves. Pete said he called his mate in the police to ask him to get an alarm system installed at the premises that would alert the police if there was a break in. This alarm system was linked directly to the police.
Now I knew these alarm systems existed as I used to work on alarm systems some years ago – haven’t always been just a carpenter – but the only ones I knew about were called the Red Care system. The alarm system was connected to a monitoring system through British Telecom that monitored the line every 5 seconds in case it was cut. In the event of the alarm being activated it would send a signal to a central monitoring station who would then in turn alert the police in that area of the activation. The police would respond to the alarm and send a patrol as soon as they had the man power to do so. This was the only system I was aware of and because of the cost involved you only seemed to find this system on shops, banks, and houses who could afford the service in the first place. The alarm system that Pete was relating to me about was slightly different. This alarm system went directly through to the police in that area and bypassed the central monitoring station, a very direct service. Subsequently Pete’s mate within the force organized one of these alarm systems to be installed at the flat conversion site because of the problems there.
In the early hours of one morning Pete received a call from the police to say that they had responded to an alarm call and they were at the premises and could he attend as the key holder. Pete arrived sometime after the call and was greeted by a constable who had attended. I must say at this point that the building that Pete was converting was a three bedroom end terrace style house. The constable went on to say everything seems to be ok, as the alarm must have scared off who ever had attempted to break in. But would Pete open up just so he and them could check that nothing was missing or that no damage had been done. Pete did as he was requested and everything seemed to be fine. As Pete and the constable walked down the drive after investigating the building the constable turned to Pete and asked a question. The constable inquired of Pete on how he had got the alarm system in the first place. Pete answered by saying he had contacted the police to ask for one because of the problems he was suffering. Pete not wanting to get his friend in trouble said exactly what his friend had told him to say in the event of Pete being asked how the alarm system came about. Pete said the constable was quite puzzled by his answer and replied “this seems very strange, because these alarms systems are not for the likes of you or this type of building”. Pete being Pete inquired who were they for and for what type of building, being very intrigued by the constables answer – if not a little stunned. The constable declined to answer.
Even though Pete knew the class divide existed evidenced by what his friend had told him to say regarding the alarm system, Pete was stunned to realise to what extent the divide took. Pete said he was tempted to question further, but knew his questions would fall on deaf ears. What was most evident to Pete and to me as he related this story was the fact that the police quite clearly discriminate between people and the property they own. The constables comment regarding the ‘likes of you and this type of building’ quite clearly insinuated that Pete was not entitled to have the alarm system with this type of protection offered. I did not know then how important this story would become. It truly evidences the fact that there is a class divide at play that the police are quite aware of and are following relating to your status. Depending upon this status or to say how you are deemed within that status reflects to what level of service you will receive, or not receive, as the case maybe.
They say they are here to serve you, well according to their latest ad campaign they are and yes in a lot of respects that is true if they were truly honest about what is actually contained within that service. Please remember service can also be defined as; work done by one person or group that benefits another – person being oh so apt here! To serve you with a PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) is not to benefit you. It only benefits the originators of the PCN, who are the real aspect being served. The misconception of service seems to be something very much relied upon to create the illusion they serve the people as a whole. When the very apparent truth is they only serve one very specific element. The harsh truth is they have only ever served them. This is the exact reason they were created in the first place! Although you may feel I am being very cynical about the police, what is a stark reality if only to me, is that the truth regarding the police as an issue speaks volumes. The truth concerning their conception, implementation and of course their corporate structure. You all must realize by now that the police are funded by you ‘the taxpayer’. Or should I say ‘the inferior’! So the reality is that you are paying for them to protect the aristocracy and service you with penalties for victim less crimes that they reap the benefit of…. Priceless!
So in reality it begs the question of any constable – who is your duty too? Under the common law legal system they have a duty to serve and protect, but is that duty only to serve and protect those that common law legal system actually applies to? To uphold the common law legal system surely means in effect to uphold a law that those who are protected by such are served and protected by these measures? Again also to serve the needs of the political establishment and this is relative to again the word status. Those being the ones who have political persuasions and move in such circles receive the services and protection of a political police force. This being not just politicians! Any one considered to have a element of stature generated from the status they perceive they have risen to. Their political biases are needed to create the foundation for the status in the first place. The police were always a fully fledged political police force. Since their conception they have arrested many people for political reasons, although at first it did not seem that way. They were to change from constables to police officers for very specific reasons. As the political strangle hold being applied needed protecting and in turn would need a complete corporate police force to do as such. Even though under the common law legal system they would have to still swear an oath to the sovereign to maintain they would always be true to the political elite, the socially dominant, the advocates and any other lower ranking member of the club. This was to create the illusion that they were there for the people as a whole. But the reality is as history suggests, they were nothing more than a private corporate political force to be used for the deeds of those in political power at the whim of the socially dominant.
The word ‘officer’ was adopted to mainly strike fear into the populace. This was to be accompanied by stark uniforms and then bright reflective clothing to reflect they had a form of assumed power under oath. But what was the oath for….more on this soon. Other methods of this can be seen throughout history with knights of the realm dressing in such attire to show their elevation of status. Which were in effect an ancient form of the police we now know. Doing the bidding and the deeds of those who professed they had power over the rest of the people. With the people in turn having a fear of anyone who was dressed as such, because of an assumed power they possessed being maintained by nothing more than a deception. The dress code was said to be there to create a stark contrast between who was an officer and who was not – something you will probably feel should have happened for numerous reasons – the most obvious being identification. The uniforms I feel were for a much needed reason that is not so obvious to some being used entirely for intimidation, as the knights dress was. In both cases you are seeing nothing more than costumes worn by actors who are acting out a role daily. But intimidation was needed to enable the actors to gain a form of respect. Albeit through fear from the people, which was in fact an acceptance forced via intimidation. Just because the actor puts on a costume does not mean they adhere to the rules of fair play. What if fair play does not exist in the rules in the first place?
I have spoken to many constables who have either left the service or who have retired. They often speak quite openly at their disgust of what the service has become. Unfortunately unaware they were fooled everyday regarding the job they were actually doing. Most you talk to are blissfully unaware of this fact and if they have realized this fact they will not speak out until such time as their ‘pension is assured’. Again not my words ‘theirs’! I was deceived also by this talking many times of how the police under common law have a duty to serve and protect everyone who dwells on this island. Unaware of the fact they are not here to do that at all. I would ask policemen and women if they knew the difference between a policeman or woman and a police officer? To which the answer is there is not a difference which they would answer with. I would reiterate that there was a difference. But after looking at the history of the police whilst writing the book it became quite obvious that I was wrong and the answer they were giving was in fact the truth. I accept I was wrong about this fact and in doing so have unearthed what I feel is the real truth regarding this issue.
A police officer; someone who is appointed or elected to an office and who holds a position of trust, no truer words have ever been spoken. In relation to this they certainly can be trusted to do the bidding and complete the wishes of their political masters. The office of police officer (constable) is someone appointed to serve the political elite and swears an oath, an attestation to do as such. It reads like this;
" I . . . . . of . . . . . do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness ,integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."
So let’s take a quick look at this oath. They swear that" I . . . . . of . . . . . do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable”….* The Queen; the crown; the office; a corporation sole, a corporation consisting of ‘royal prerogatives’ powers (a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group), in which supreme power in the UK is legally vested. The ‘person’ filling it at any given time is referred to as the sovereign (a king or queen). * Oxford Dictionary of Law 6th Edition Page 142. So in respect of this part of the oath it quite clearly states who they are swearing the oath too. A corporation. But not any corporation. The one that actually has supreme power in the UK legally vested in it. This is also made up of common law functions under a common law legal system and in practice it is the ‘minister’, and not the sovereign, who today caries out these common law powers and is said to be the Crown when doing so. The police quite obviously swear an oath to a corporation that is controlled by ministers and not the sovereign themselves. So in effect the oath is to always carry out the corporations wishes even if without doubt they are not the wishes of the sovereign her/himself. What is being done is in the name of….always seems to be in the name of something. “….upholding fundamental human rights….”I find this most interesting….or is it just me, oh well we shall see.
Have you ever looked at the human rights document? Here’s an excerpt from the Human Rights Act 1998 have a little read;
Article 2Right to life
1 Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
You will notice I am sure that parts 2 (a)(b)(c) are very interesting. Do you see it does not use the words man, woman or child it uses ‘person’….more on this in a bit. What I find interesting is you have no right to life if you are deemed to be attacking someone violently and the police can according to this have the right to take life in defence of another (a) – seems fair enough. So does this mean it also applies to police officers if they are attacking someone violently that they also forgo their right to life if the attack is deemed as unlawful? But what is deemed as unlawful? Or does this imply that they are immune from this? Certain events in recent history seem to point to the fact they are, especially on tube trains, peaceful protests and incidents regarding such. Does (b) relate to shooting someone who escapes, or at least tries to escape lawful arrest? What if the arrest is unlawful? Again who determines such, is it not the very people they work for, who make the laws indiscriminately to suit their political needs? I find (c) the most interesting “….quelling a riot or insurrection.” An insurrection; organized opposition to authority, showing as long as what you protest, post about or complain about is not ‘politically based’ and against the ‘political status quo in authority’ you have the right to life. If you do the opposite and actually protest about the political machine and its rules of conformity you instantly forgo your right to life – and people say to me this document is a good thing! Maybe those who profess such should actually read the bloody thing again and this time not just read the parts they want to ignoring anything that they feel is not important. Because to be honest, what you think is not important is in fact all you should be reading – but please remember folks it is only being done for your own protection!
The oath to me is obvious in its conception and what it really stands for. The use of such has always been to the people as a wholes detriment and not to its benefit. Moreover we see this fact happening before our eyes whenever we are confronted by the boys and girls in blue…. or should I say black with aluminous yellow jackets and vests including night sticks, pepper spray and tazers to name but a few of the devises the police now seem to carry as part of their daily costume. Their attitude and manners are now at a all time low, with police not being given their jobs through the ability to use such virtues as politeness, but evidenced by the fact on how rude, forceful and obnoxious they can be to the public. Especially if you ask the wrong questions! For which many of my friends have been arrested for with the police claiming they are ‘obstructing an officer in his duty’. I hope you can all see who that duty really is too! The police officers on the streets now are nothing more than they always were a corporate employee. In effect a revenue collector or agent of revenue collection. I am not saying for one minute that all the police are like this and I have evidence to the contrary. What I am saying is there are far more bad guys than good, especially the new ones as they are being trained specifically to act and react in a manner that is not acceptable by any means.
If you are still under the illusion that a police force is something we needed all a long and still need today? Then I am afraid you are no more ready to accept the truth of any of the matters I may discuss, or form opinion on. This is not a bad thing it just shows you how deluded we can become accepting any reality we find ourselves amerced in. We never seem to question the obvious, the simple elements that would in fact solve all the issues as a race we now are trying to resolve. The precautionary principle has been played to death and no doubt it will be some more. The police in their entirety were designed to combat this issue so the ones who profess to believe they are better than the rest of us can sleep easy at night with a developed force of protectors guarding over them and their possessions. But as in most cases this still isn’t enough as the ‘lion’ they need so much often turns against the handler and a new development would need to occur if this was to actually happen – is this on the cards? Oh very much so, but may be this is something you have to realize for yourselves and in time I am sure you will.
I did not write this to anger you. Nor did I write this to insight hatred towards the police in any way. I actually wrote this to do the complete opposite. x