Supranational Banking Scam to Disarm Britain

Published on UK Column (http://www.ukcolumn.org)
Mon, 01/11/2010

As our troops fight and die overseas, the Tory Government is playing out instructions from the Supranational Banks to force Britain to integrate its military capability with Europe

Brian Gerrish, Lt Cdr RN Rtd

The lie is that we, as a Nation, are bankrupt and therefore we must suffer massive public sector spending cuts to our military and public services in order to help balance the books. The lie is simple, but it is still a lie. Britain is not bankrupt. The International Banks are bankrupt and have hung their £6 trillion of debt around the neck of the British Nation.

When a company or sole trader becomes insolvent, receivers are called in to manage the companies affairs, to try and salvage the company as a going concern, and in the worst case, to pay off those who are owed money by the insolvent company. Having placed a company in Receivership, the existing company Directors are hardly the best people to leave controlling the company. A priority will be to remove the company Directors from their posts, or to monitor them in their execution of the receivers instructions.

Yet none of this has happened with the International Banks. Having passed through insolvency and into bankruptcy, the Banks have not only been allowed to continue to trade, their debts have been covered from the public purse. This would appear to be madness, but is in fact, much more serious. The failure of the banks is being used as the excuse to strip the UK of effective Armed Forces and a credible defence of the Nation State.

We do not need defence cuts, we should simply throw away the worst banks, write off the debts - vast as they are - and leave the bankers to suffer their well deserved bankruptcy. The Government should then print and issue its own money (charging a modest and necessary interest) to fund the Nation’s defence. The same should be done for funding of all other necessary public services and infrastructure. Aside from removing excessive bank interest, better known as usary, from the backs of the population, the government will then be able to more easily and effectively manage inflation, by direct control over the issue of currency, and the growth of the money supply.

Conservative Smokescreen Of Defence Budget Shortfalls

Piggybacking on the chaos deliberately created by the NuLabour marxists Blair, Brown and Co, Cameron has quickly set the Armed Forces against each other. The Army, under huge pressure from conflict and deaths in the field, is played against the Navy and the Air Force, and all are forced to scrabble for a better share of an ever decreasing funding pot. Under the smokescreen of politically driven inter-service angst, rivalry and ignorance, the respective Chiefs of Staff have been duped into scrabbling for military assets, rather than standing back and first assessing the nature and scale of the threats against which Britain must defend itself, if we are to be safe in an increasingly turbulent world. The first threat they should recognise is subversion within the UK, funded, propagated and controlled by the privately controlled banks nested in the City of London - the majority of which are under supranational, and EU, not national control.  What allegiance do these people have to Britain - if any? What is their background and have they been security been vetted? These questions are never considered by Chiefs of Staff, and certainly never answered. Instead they are pulled ever closer to the hypnotic effect of the disappearing ‘funding pot’, and ever further from the reality of banks creating money from nothing in the first place.

Decline of Independent British Military capability - Rise of the EU Battle Group

But why should NuLabour and Cameron’s NuTories drive such a destructive agenda. The clue comes from the ever increasing growth of the European State, which openly seeks to make itself a world power, and which therefore needs fully integrated European armed forces under centralised European control. Professional and powerful, the British armed forces must be reduced to a position of near impotence, so that they can only function by deriving ever closer integration and ‘partnership’ with European forces.

The EU has been steadily and stealthily moving towards the creation of 13 EU Battle Groups. These will be multi national, where national command and control is first divided and then buried in a nebulous network of partnered armed forces.

It was not until 1992 and the Maastricht Treat that common foreign and defence policy were made part of EU law. The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty massively expanded the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy CFSP. The plot thickened in 1999 when the EU Political and Security Committee was established consisting of the EU ambassadors of members states and the Military Committee consisting of members states Chiefs of Defence Staff. When was the British public fully informed of this erosion of sovereign military power?

In 1999 under the Helsinki Headline Goal, the EU established an EU rapid reaction force of circa 60,000 men with self sustaining capability, including intelligence, air, naval and combat support, sustainable for a year up to 6,000 km from the borders of the EU.

By 2003 the idea of EU Battle Groups was first suggested at the Franco-British Summit in Le Touquet and was adopted in 2004. Thirteen Battle Groups are being created with 1500 troops each. Allowing for rotation this equates for a force of some 156,000 combat soldiers. The Battle Groups have been given the authority to operate in any part of the world. Pity the British public have not been told of the details and the cost of these forces.

World Socialism In The Shadows

Cameron is already hastening this, and other EU defence integration plans by calling for British tanks and armour to be withdrawn from Germany. He intimates that there is no threat for them to face in mainland Europe. He is a fool or a liar, or probably both. The Soviet Socialist system of Russia remains alive and well, and heavily armed. It just remains hidden under the cloak of Glasnost. The World Socialist movement still seeks World Domination under a single One World Socialist Government - just ask any member of the Fabian Society. If we remember the roots of the European Union are socialist, the jigsaw begins to come together. Why can’t our highly paid Chiefs of Staff see this?

In Plymouth it has taken a small group of senior ex-servicemen to stand up and fight the treasonous Tory proposals to shut Devonport Naval Base - 330 hectares of the most capable naval facilities in Europe. They have also exposed the Cameron lie that the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers are too big to enter Plymouth Naval Base. The carriers can enter Plymouth just as other large older carriers were able to. The real argument is not should we retain Plymouth or Portsmouth as our only naval base outside of Scotland - we need both if we are to maintain the necessary size, capability and credibility of our armed forces.  We also need to retain credible naval facilities in Scotland.

For Cameron to propose scrapping the Royal Navy / Royal Marines Amphibious capability is another wanton act of treason against the safety of the nation. Not only are HMS Ocean and Bulwark highly capable amphibious ships, they are effectively ‘new’. To scrap this capability, removes not just the hardware but the know-how and operational experience.  Military equipment, including ships, can be replaced, but trained, experienced manpower is grown over more than one generation.

Despite over 12,000 people signing a Plymouth petition against Cameron’s disasterous naval cuts, local Tory MP Oliver Colville is largely silent. It is rumoured he has been warned by Tory central office to keep quiet - the last thing Cameron needs is the local MP reacting to local concerns and actually supporting his constituents.

Wave Bye Bye To The British Independent Nuclear Deterrent

Over 5 years ago the staff of the UK Column warned that it was EU policy to emasculate British conventional armed forces and to strip Britain of its independent nuclear deterrent. More recently we asked serious questions concerning the collision between the British nuclear deterrent submarine Vanguard and its French counterpart Le Triomphant on the 3 or 4th February 2009. Just how was it possible for these two ballistic missile submarines to collide in a vast Atlantic Ocean, particularly when Vanguard is equipped with the very best submarine detection equipment? It has to be to do its job.

To collide, these submarines must have initially been operating in adjacent patrol areas, or other close proximity - a highly unusual situation for secretive nuclear deterrent submarine operations, where vessels aim to hide away from other units.  Noting that NuLabour has already given away the British nuclear industry to the French, another clue emerges as to the fate of an independent British nuclear deterrent.

Barely reported in the press, Gordon Brown held talks in London in early 2010 with French President Sarkozy, concerning the ‘sharing’ of nuclear deterrent submarine patrols. As is usual, the talks were covered by the smokescreen of “Britain has so far opposed the idea on the grounds that pooling of sovereignty would be politically unacceptable.”

The Guardian reported on 9 October 2010 that:

A report dismissed on both sides of the channel as speculation and therefore probably true, that the UK and France are negotiating an agreement which would see British nuclear warheads serviced by French scientists.” True to form the EU aligned Guardian shows its true colours as a government propaganda machine by adding that the report “does not go far enough......French defence analysts rightly say for this to happen Britain would have to break its special relationship with America in this field......It makes eminent sense for two European military powers, both of whom have nuclear deterrents which are independent in name only, to operate with each other on warheads and joint submarine patrols.

Smooth as silk, the Guardian slides out the intended future EU policy on the back of speculation. In reality the collision of Vanguard and Le Triomphant is almost certainly the result of joint nuclear deterrent operations gone wrong. Both submarines were close. Close enough to collide. The stunning silence concerning the collision, the true extent of the damage and the lack of any visible board of investigation or Court Martial, underlines political manoeuvring in the dark. Far from future policy, the traitors within the LibLabCon are already giving away Britains nuclear capability, whilst frantically dismantling independent conventional capability. We will all suffer unless we wake up fast.

UK Column, County House, 12/13 Sussex Street, Plymouth PL1 2HR - 01752 312743 - editor@ukcolumn.org

The UK Column is not affiliated with any political party.

---

Source URL: http://www.ukcolumn.org/articles/supranational-banking-scam-disarm-britain

Links:
[1] http://www.ukcolumn.org/category/channels/front-page
[2] http://www.ukcolumn.org/category/channels/economy
[3] http://www.ukcolumn.org/category/channels/politics

CHESHIRE POLICE ARREST WOMAN FOR SENDING HER SON A BIRTHDAY CARD

THE PERSECUTION OF MAUREEN SPALEK This women is having a dreadful time. Please support her in any way you can think of thats legal.



YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iJ0F9YIn0k&feature=player_embedded

The Lima Declaration – Foundation Of Globalisation

Posted By The Editor On March 29, 2010 @ 1:48 pm In Article, Mike Robinson

On the 22nd of February, the Register, a UK technology website, published an article ^[1] entitled “The Myth Of Britain’s Manufacturing Decline.” What, I wondered, could a publication that focusses on IT and finds “amusing” positions ^[2] to place Playmobil plastic characters know about British Manufacturing? As I read the article, I realised the answer is, nothing.

The author makes one fundamental mistake. Its not his fault – its the same mistake just about every modern economic commentator makes when discussing economy – to assume that economic value and monetary value are the same thing.

The author of the Register article begins with a graph (below). [3]

The author of The Register article wrote:

That’s from something called the Index of Production and it’s a chart of the value of manufacturing output in the UK since just after WWII. It’s an index and 100 is defined as the level of output in 2005. As you can see we produce some two and a half times what we did in the 40s, when absolutely everyone, to hear the stories told, was gainfully employed making whippet flanges. So at first glance it would seem to be untrue that we actually produce less than we used to …

The first and most obvious thing is to point out that the Index isn’t measuring how much we make: it’s measuring the value of what we make …

This is, of course, the only thing we should be interested in: increasing the value of what is produced means that there’s more value to be shared among all of us doing the producing.

Well, no, actually. What it means is that there’s more cash to go into the pockets of shareholders and board members.

He goes on:

Alongside this, it is also gobsmackingly obvious that fewer people are employed in manufacturing than in the past. But we’ve got rising production and fewer workers: this is what is known technically in economic circles as a ‘good thing’.

Again, no, it isn’t. First of all, how many fewer people are employed today than in the past? What skills have we lost as a result of that reduction in the productive workforce? The author doesn’t discuss these questions.

The sad truth is that British manufacturing has been decimated, particularly in the last 30 years or so. Britain used to have a steel industry. We used to produce our own energy. We used to use these capabilities to produce ships, cars, military hardware, aircraft, bridges and a host of other products we could be proud of. Its all gone, and for someone to throw up a graph and an article to suggest that its all ok because our collapsed manufacturing industry is actually resulting on more £££ is disengenuous at best.

You may be asking why this has happened? The normal answer is, globalisation. But globalisation is not an accident. One of its cornerstones is the Lima Declaration.

The Lima Declaration

The full title of this treaty is “Lima Declaration And Plan Of Action On Industrial Development And Co-Operation. The treaty was signed in 1975 at a convention of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, in Lima, Peru. The treaty is an international agreement to wind down national manufacturing in developed nations, and transfer that manufacturing capability to developing nations.

This treaty sets the policy which has, over 30 years, encouraged corporations to build themselves into globalist multinationals. It only benefits these corporations and their international bankers.

A key clause states …

recognising the urgent need to bring about the establishment of a new international economic order based on equity, sovereign equality, interdependence and co-operation, as has been expressed in the Declaration and Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, in order to transform the present structure of economic relations.

Interdependence is the end of Independence

The term interdependence is newspeak coined by the Club Of Rome. According to The Club of Rome, we face a set of interlocking global problems, such as over population, food shortages, non-renewable resource depletion, environmental degradation, etc. With the use of absurd, exponentially based computer models, the complete unravelling of society and perhaps the biosphere was predicted. The only solution capable of adverting global catastrophe, according to the Club of Rome, is the development of an organic society.

Although it is frequently denied, it should be obvious that the idea of interdependence and independence are mutually exclusive. Any nation that has to rely on another for something it needs, must, at least, acknowledge limits to its own independence.

Interdependence is Totalitarian

One of my favourite people of the 20th Century is Bertrand Russell. Those who know me will recognise just how much sarcasm is dripping from that sentence.

My favourite Russell book is his 1952 “The Impact Of Science On Society.” This book should be required reading for anyone wishing to understand the agenda we are all witnessing today.

Russell had quite a lot to say about the organic society in that book:

The most obvious and inescapable effect of scientific technique is that it makes society more organic, in the sense of increasing the interdependence of its various parts …

Totalitarianism has a theory as well as a practice. As a practice, it means that a certain group, having by one means or another seized the apparatus of power, especially armaments and police, proceed to exploit their advantageous position to the utmost, by regulating everything in the way that gives them the maximum of control over others. But as a theory it is something different: it is the doctrine that the State, or the nation, or the community is capable of a good different from that of individual and not consisting of anything that individuals think or feel. This doctrine was especially advocated by Hegal, who glorified the State, and thought that a community should be as organic as possible. In an organic community, he thought, excellence would reside in the whole. An individual is an organism, and we do not think that his separate parts have separate goods: if he has a pain in his great toe it is he that suffers, not specially the great toe. So, in an organic society, good and evil will belong to the whole rather than the parts. This is the theoretical form of totalitarianism …

In concrete fact, when it is pretended that the State has a good different from that of the citizens, what is really meant is that the good of the government or of the ruling class is more important than that of other people. Such a view can have no basis except in arbitrary power …

More important than these metaphysical speculations is the question whether a scientific dictatorship, such as we have been considering, can be stable, or is more likely to be stable than a democracy …

I do not believe that dictatorship Is a lasting form of scientific society – unless (but this proviso is important) it can become world-wide.

Its interesting to observe the pleasant sounding words used to sell totalitarianism to us – “organic”, “holistic”, “differentiated”, “harmonious”, “interdependent”, “balanced”  and “sustainable”.

What about manufacturing?

So if the Lima Declaration is about the establishment of global totalitarianism, what does it say about manufacturing?

Resolution 27 – developed countries such as the UK should expand imports from developing countries

Resolution 28 – Requires that developing countries increase their Industrial growth by more than the 8% recommended in earlier United Nations meetings and increase their exports by 350% by year 2000.

Resolution 35 – developed countries such as the UK should transfer technical, financial, and capital goods to developing countries to accomplish resolution 28 above.

So the question is, what effect is this having?

Earlier I asked, how many fewer people are employed in manufacturing today than in the past? Well, in 1995, 16% of UK jobs were in manufacturing. In 2007, that had dropped to 10%. That’s before the present recession. Just to be clear, these previously skilled people are either retired, unemployed, or doing pointless non-productive service jobs, adding nothing to our real economy.

Contrary to the article in the Register, therefore, manufacturing is in continual decline and has been since 1975 at least. The same can be said for farming, fishing, energy production and a host of other areas of basic economic infrastructure. This nation is no longer independent. It is fully interdependent; an insignificant cog in the great totalitarian wheel.

Any suggestion that everything is good and rosy because from a monetary perspective the illusion of growth exists is not only delusional, it’s missing the key point – unless we reverse acts of Treason such as the Lima Declaration, as a nation, we’re finished.

---

Article printed from The UK Column: http://www.ukcolumn.org

URL to article: http://www.ukcolumn.org/2010/03/29/the-lima-declaration-foundation-of-globalisation/

URLs in this post:

[1] published an article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/

[2] finds “amusing” positions: http://www.theregister.co.uk/Wrap/playmobil/

[3] Image: http://www.ukcolumn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/index_of_production.jpg

Liar?

Posted By The Editor On April 12, 2010 @ 1:16 pm In Article, Hollie Greig, Mike Robinson

Owen Paterson was, until the election was called, Anne and Hollie Greig’s constituency MP. He is currently their prospective Conservative candidate. Is he a liar?

On the 28th March another constituent sent him a letter:

I have recently become aware of the shocking facts of the abuse of Hollie Greig. I understand from Anne Greig (the victim’s mother), that she has been in touch with you to seek your help to get justice for her daughter, however it would appear that no tangible actions to date have been forthcoming.

From the facts, it appears to be quite clear that a systemic establishment cover-up, has and continues to take place over this dreadful case of abuse against a vulnerable person. Without doubt we live in a corrupted society where the general morality of the political class is lacking – the MPs expenses scandal being an example.

I cannot find mention in Hansard or anywhere else, of actions that you have taken to ensure that justice is sought in this case. As my MP, I ask that as a matter of urgency raise this matter in the House of Commons, calling for an immediate independent inquiry into all the facts surrounding this case.

This letter I consider to be in the public domain and your response to me likewise. All correspondence will be available at http://www.holliedemandsjustice.org/. I have enclosed a copy of the UK Column and refer you to page 3 for an overview of the facts.

Yours sincerely,

Name supplied.

On the 30th March, Mr Paterson wrote back:

Dear Mr …

Thank you for your letter dated 28th March. I had several meetings with Mrs Greig in 2007 and 2008. I have written on her behalf to Government Ministers and a number of public agencies. Whenever we spoke she was always nervous of her new Shropshire address becoming public.

Therefore, owing to the extremely sensitive nature of this case, it would have been totally inappropriate to raise this matter on the floor of the House. I did, however, continue to work behind the scenes. The last letter I wrote to Mrs Greig asked her to come back to me if there was anything further I could do to help. I have not heard from her since. I am more than happy to continue to act for Mrs Greig should she ask me to do so.

Yours sincerely,
Owen Paterson

Personally speaking, I am so appalled by Hollie’s case, that were I an MP, and had one of my constituents come to me with a story like Hollie’s, I would be moving Heaven and Earth to help her, whether or not I had heard back from her.

So here is the truth:

• Anne has never met Mr Paterson in person, ever.
• Anne has not seen any copies of any correspondence from Mr Paterson to any Government Ministers or public agencies. Maybe Mr Paterson would like to forward us these letters and the replies he received?
• There was never an issue of confidentiality regarding Anne and Hollie’s Shropshire address. Only the address of the rest centre Anne and Hollie stayed at was to be kept confidential.
• Mr Paterson has never been in touch with Anne to update her about his continuing efforts “behind the scenes.”
• Anne has never received a letter from Mr Paterson inviting her to ask for further assistance, which is why Mr Patterson has not heard from her since.

So we invite our readers to write to Mr Paterson, and ask him if he is lying. If you live in Shropshire, please pass this story around Mr Paterson’s constituency – make sure everyone in his constituency gets the opportunity to ask him as well.

Article printed from The UK Column: http://www.ukcolumn.org

URL to article: http://www.ukcolumn.org/2010/04/12/liar/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.ukcolumn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/letter_to_owen_patterson.jpg

[2] Image: http://www.ukcolumn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/letter_from_owen_patterson.jpg

Robert Green Rearrested!

Posted By The Editor On April 15, 2010 @ 12:34 pm In Article, Hollie Greig, Mike Robinson | 43 Comments

Robert Green, who has been working so hard to exposed the case of Hollie Greig ^[1], has been rearrested and taken to Stonehaven Sherrif’s Court. This has been confirmed by Seargent Adam Bulger of Warrington Police, who refused to address my concerns over Robert’s safety, despite my pointing out that he has gone back to the very courts that he has made allegations about.

We seem to have a situation that people simply get arrested and no-one is told – just like the Gestapo.

In case you would like to phone Warrington police to ask about Robert’s welfare, the number you need to call is 0845 458 0000.

And in case you would like to also give Grampian police a call, their number is 0845 600 5700.

Can you also get on to your MP, who, I’m sure, would be willing to help under present circumstances, no?

You might also like to phone the campaign headquarters for the main parties. The Conservatives can be contacted on 020 7222 9000, Labour on 08705 900 200, and the LibDems on 020 7222 7999.

When you call either of these numbers, please remember to remain calm and polite. Huge public concern needs to be expressed to Warrington, who assisted in Robert’s arrest, and on Grampian. Could you please make sure you highlight your concerns for his safety because he has been working to expose paedophiles.

We will update this page as events progress.

Update: Robert was released on bail once again yesterday and stayed with friends in Scotland last night. He will travel home today.

Stuart Usher, of Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers ^[2] appeared on Paul Drockton’s radio show ^[3] last night, much to the distaste of the Scottish establishment, which attempted to have Drockton shut down. Don’t they ever learn?

Again, Robert would like to thank all who have telephoned on his behalf in the last 24 hours. The Scottish establishment is crumbling over this issue, and they are becoming more and more desperate. Please keep the pressure up in every way you can think of, and don’t allow any prospective Parliamentary candidate away with giving excuses for not taking a stand on this issue.

Join the campaign! ^[4]

---

Article printed from The UK Column: http://www.ukcolumn.org

URL to article: http://www.ukcolumn.org/2010/04/15/robert-green-rearrested/

URLs in this post:

[1] Hollie Greig: http://www.ukcolumn.org/category/hollie

[2] Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers: http://sacl.info/

[3] Paul Drockton’s radio show: http://www.moneyteachers.org/Radio.htm

[4] Join the campaign! : http://www.holliedemandsjustice.org/

Child Snatching By The State Conference – 10th April

Posted By The Editor On March 25, 2010 @ 5:56 pm In Article, Brian Gerrish 

Update: Robert Green, Anne & Hollie Greig will attend. Robert plans to speak. Further details to come.

Saturday 10 April 2010 Start: 11 a.m. Finish: 5 p.m.

Venue: Stafford Rangers Social Club, Marston Road, Stafford, ST16 3BX (Location ^[1])


In recent years, there has been a steady increase in media reports concerning Mothers and Fathers, Grandparents and Families reporting the taking of children from their parents and homes by Social Services. Most significantly, many children are taken using false evidence, psychiatric reports and false accusations by Social Services, in collusion with Local Authorities, Police, Judiciary and other agencies. The ‘snatching’ of the child or children is further facilitated by the secretive system of the Courts, where the parents are gagged from telling the truth about what is happening to them and their child. Perjury in Court to assist the ‘snatch’ is commonplace.

In many cases, evidence collected at the time, or emerging later, shows that the children snatched by the state are often subject to neglect or abuse within the care protection system. Some children are also drugged. Parents of either sex, who try and fight to keep their children, are frequently subjected to psychological pressure and intimidation to undermine their efforts, drive a wedge between them and their partner, and in a number of cases silence them by incarceration in psychiatric institutions and / or ‘forced’ prescription of psychotropic drugs.

Over the last three years, the UKColumn community newspaper has received many reports on child-snatching and child abuse, together with irrefutable supporting evidence of wrongdoing by people and authorities who should be protecting children and families. Some of these cases can only be described as horrific, and of major concern to every moral person in UK. The latest has been that of the paedophile rape of Down’s Syndrome girl Hollie Greig. This informal conference has been arranged by the UKColumn as part of the growing Lawful Rebellion movement – people across UK taking peaceful action to say “enough is enough.” In this case we are working to bring victims of ‘Child Snatching by the State’ together to learn more about the nature and sheer scale of the problem – government sponsored ‘Child Snatching’. We will also be setting out ways in which families, organisations and individuals can work together to stop this vile crime, and to bring those involved to justice, no matter what their personal and professional status, affiliations and wealth. Contributions from members of the public and especially those who have suffered the loss of their children are encouraged, within the time available to us.

Speakers

Welcome and Introduction: Brian Gerrish

Canadian Indian Holocaust: Kevin Annett

Forced Adoption: Ian Joseph (to be confirmed)

Kendall House Abuse: Teresa Cooper

Gulag of the Family Courts: Jack Frost

A Parent’s Tale: Jane Webb

Afternoon Session: Open Mike and Q&A Mums & Dads

Way Ahead: All (Faciliator Brian Gerrish)

Costs: The cost of the venue is £300 which we ask is covered by a small entry charge / donation. We realise many people are on very limited budgets and ask that people give what they can.

NB: Precise timings and order of speakers to be announced nearer the 10th April.

---

Article printed from The UK Column: http://www.ukcolumn.org
URL to article: http://www.ukcolumn.org/2010/03/25/child-snatching-conference-10th-april/
URLs in this post:

[1] Location: http://www.remotegoat.co.uk/venue_view.php?uid=23461

Maurice Kirk – Fixated Threat?

Posted By The Editor On October 5, 2009 @ 3:40 pm In Article, Mike Robinson 

The trouble with establishing a dictatorship through stealth is that people both within and without the system begin to protest. Not everyone is afraid. Some speak their minds. Some fight. And when people fight, inevitably the truth starts to leak. Initially such leaks can be put down to “conspiracy theory,” or “eccentricity,” but eventually, as the dictatorship gets closer to fruition, the numbers of people seeing the truth are too great. It is at that point, that the establishment acts to silence the dissenters.

Maurice Kirk is one man who has caused that establishment no end of trouble.

Maurice Kirk is a capable veterinary surgeon. He has been fighting establishment corruption for decades. He has taken a civil case against South Wales Police for harassment because they have been covertly monitoring his movements for a long time. That case is due to come to court in January 2010. It is clear now that South Wales Police, in collusion with the Judiciary, intend that Maurice Kirk will not be attending that court case.

In June this year, Maurice Kirk was arrested on the charges of possession of a firearm, and offering the gun for sale. The gun concerned was a decommissioned WW1 machine gun, which he obtained attached to a replica First World War Airco DH2 aircraft. The gun had no trigger. It had holes drilled in it. You can see quite clearly in the photograph, that the barrel is blocked. In fact, it was made up of salvaged parts from several other WW1 guns, with the sole purpose of looking good on the DH2.

[1] Maurice Kirk, machine gun in hand

The aircraft, gun included, was, at one time, owned by the RAF. It has had many owners since, including Maurice. It has appeared at air shows with gun attached. Maurice sold the aircraft one year before his arrest.

By coincidence, the arrest and subsequent search of the family home occurred just after he was required to exchange documents with the solicitors defending South Wales Police in his case against them for harassment.

Following his arrest, Maurice was held without bail at Cardiff Prison. He went on hunger strike.

Maurice Kirk has an adventurous streak. He’s an aviation enthusiast. As a busy farm animal vet, he found that flying himself from farm to farm was the only way he could fit all his calls into the day. One day an American sponsor offered to finance his taking part in the London to Sydney Air Race, which he completed in 2001 in a 1946 Piper Cub. He then attempted an around the world trip, which came to a sticky end when he landed close to George Dubya’s ranch in Texas, and attempted to hand deliver a letter.

It was as a result of that escapade that Maurice discovered how bad things have become in this world. Despite the Federal Aviation Authority agreeing that he had committed no crime, he was arrested, subjected to psychiatric assessment, and deported for life from the United States. His aircraft did not go with him.

Some time later, Maurice found himself at an aviation gathering next door to Prince Charles’ Gloucestershire home. He thought he might deliver a letter to Charles, if he was in. He wasn’t, but that’s how Maurice came to the attention of Tony Blair’s Fixated Threat Assessment Centre.

One of the problems that the establishment has, is that we’re not far enough along the road to dictatorship that they can start actually killing people in any numbers. Occasionally, for example David Kelly, they take the risk.

For Maurice Kirk, and activists like him, they don’t want to draw attention to him by killing him, and they don’t dare go to a full trial. A trial results in facts ending up in the official record. Worse, trials, at least for a while longer, have juries. The truth will out, as they say, and they are scared of that.

So the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre is there to make sure that in circumstances such as these, instead of prosecuting a charge in the courts, the charge is used as an excuse for a corrupt judge to order psychological and psychiatric assessments. All it takes is for some so-called psychiatrist to say that he feels an assessment should take place, and before you know it, you’re “Sectioned.”

And that’s exactly what happened to Maurice Kirk.

Prior to his arrest, the FTAC approached Maurice’s GP, asking for a psychological assessment. The FTAC expert involved was a Doctor David James, who Maurice characterises as “bright, informed and helpful.” Dr. James came to the written conclusion that Maurice was perfectly sane; absolutely no threat whatsoever.

Despite that, after nineteen days of hunger strike, someone from the FTAC, had Maurice taken to court on the 7th August, and an order was made under Section 35 of the Mental Health Act, for him to be incarcerated in a nearby loony bin for “assessment.”

He is still there.

Since entering Caswell Clinic, he has been subjected to 35 hours of one to one interrogation with the following doctors and psychologists:

• Dr Tegwyn Williams
• Dr Gaynor Jones
• Professor Roger Wood
• Dr Ruth Bagenshaw
• Dr Joseph Sylvester

Dr Roger Wood is a psychologist at Swansea University. According to his profile on the university’s website, he researches the “impact of acquired brain injury, particularly orbito-frontal injury, on behaviour, cognition and social functioning. Clinical effectiveness of brain injury rehabilitation techniques in respect of social outcome. Long term sequelae of traumatic brain injury. Forensic neuropsychological assessment to identify neurobehavioural disability associated with ‘frontal’ dysfunction.”

So it is plain to see what they are attempting.

35 hours of one to one interrogation have found no evidence of mental illness. Yet at his latest court appearance, Maurice was returned to Caswell for a further 28 days, for further “assessment.”

But while this ordeal is clearly traumatic for Maurice, he is not alone. We are aware of others who are experiencing similar treatment at the hands of this out of control Government.

The establishment of the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre is a direct attack on those of us who would dare to speak out against the police state we are living in. What’s next? Mental health courts? Maurice certainly thinks so and we agree.

Canada has had mental health courts for a couple of years now. The idea behind them is that people considered to be mentally ill, and charged with “minor” offenses, are given a choice – attend the mental health court, or go through the normal courts and risk a prison sentence. Anyone choosing the mental health court route is closely “monitored” for compliance with any treatment regime, including drugs. Mental health courts in Canada have been hailed as a great success. It is presented as a voluntary scheme, a “moral” contract between the offender and the court, where the offender and opt out at any time and face a normal criminal proceeding. If the treatment programme is completed, the original charge is dropped or expunged.

Maybe I’m just being cynical, but that sounds very much like the choice given to Winston Smith at the end of 1984.

Keep up to date with Maurice at his website: http://kirkflyingvet.com/ ^[2]

---

Article printed from The UK Column: http://www.ukcolumn.org

URL to article: http://www.ukcolumn.org/2009/10/05/maurice-kirk-fixated-threat/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.ukcolumn.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/maruice_kirk_machine_gun.jpg

[2] http://kirkflyingvet.com/: http://kirkflyingvet.com/

Flyer

Prince Of Darkness

Posted By johnmorton On October 4, 2008 @ 6:37 pm In John Morton 

^[1]

Mandy

Perhaps the most odious man in British politics (apart from all the other ones), is making yet another of his famous, ahem, “comebacks ^[2]” to Parliament. Well, accuse me of cynicism if you like, but something tells me this might just have something to do with his clash ^[3] with EU leaders over the failure of the Lisbon Treaty referendum in Ireland earlier this year.

It really says it all that a shady, burnt out, rent boy loving EU Kommisar would be welcomed back into the Cabinet of an increasingly degenerate and rapidly collapsing NuLabour mobocracy. Whatever else we might well be tempted to say about all this, quite clearly Mr Mandelson and his friends have real staying power ^[4].

Isn’t it comforting to know that no matter how much you screw up and tarnish the image of Great Britain with world-class sleaze, there will always be a place for you at Gordon Brown’s table.

No need to panic, folks. There’s a shiny new kid ^[5] on the block, promising “change, change, change” we can all believe in. I don’t know about you, but I just can’t wait for his government of, by and for champagne guzzling hedge fund spivs ^[6] and dodgy foreign donors. In the middle of the greatest financial crisis ^[7] in history, I am sure that they will all have the best interests of the British people, and public finances, close to their hearts. Yeah, right …

What a filthy disgrace this country has become under this cross (dressing?) party gang of malignant toe-rags!

---

Article printed from The UK Column: http://www.ukcolumn.org

URL to article: http://www.ukcolumn.org/2008/10/04/prince-of-darkness/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.ukcolumn.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mandy.jpg

[2] comebacks: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7650013.stm

[3] clash: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2306078/Conflict-between-Peter-Mandelson-and-Nicolas-Sarkozy-rumbles-on.html

[4] staying power: http://propagandamatrix.com/alleged_pedophiles.html

[5] new kid: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/02/dl0201.xml

[6] hedge fund spivs: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/camerons+money+men/2471062

[7] financial crisis: http://larouchepac.com/news/2008/09/30/echoes-fall-house-bardi-wall-streets-new-dark-age.html-0

Of Patriots, Kings and Scoundrels – Part 1

Posted By johnmorton On February 21, 2010 @ 3:14 pm In Article, John Morton 

Part I: Of Patriots

A people may choose, or hereditary succession may raise, a bad prince to the throne; but a good king alone can derive his right to govern from God.  The reason is plain: good government alone can be in the divine intention.  God has made us to desire happiness; he has made our happiness dependent on society; and the happiness of society dependent on good or bad government.  His intention, therefore, was, that government should be good… A divine right in kings is…a divine right to govern well, and conformably to the constitution at the head of which they are placed.  A divine right to govern ill, is an absurdity to assert it, is blasphemy… The office of kings is, then, of right divine, and their persons are to be reputed sacred.  As men, they have no such right, no such sacredness belonging to them: as kings, they have both, unless they forfeit them.

- Henry St John, Lord Bolingbroke, “The Idea of a Patriot King”

Introduction

In the years between the “Glorious revolution” and the death of Queen Anne in 1714, England was a chaotic nation, wracked by political, religious and economic turmoil. The overthrow of the Stuart dynasty, while apparently relieving the nation of one particulary overt form of autocratic ruling tyranny, had also witnessed the birth of a far greater and more pernicious yolk around the necks of the people – the foundation of the Bank of England. Within a few short years, the nation was engaged in a long, debilitating war with France, against which, in 1711, Jonathan Swift savagely polemicised in his “The Conduct of the Allies”, taking the Duke of Marlborough and his Venetian “War Party” faction to task by name for their geopolitical schemes and profiteering from the sordid enterprise.

Unless They Forfeit Them…

Leaping forward to 2009, in the wake of the passage of the Treaty of Lisbon, and the rapid descent of much of Europe into a state of political ungovernability, our present predicament presses us most urgently to explore this particular chapter of our national history, and cast a new set of eyes over the people, events and political forces that laid the foundations of those fundamental constitutional structures to which we must now turn for our succour. For as this article series intends to prove, the essential nature of the political and economic calamities we face today can only be fully comprehended by tracing them back to their source, in the throes of the titanic struggle for the soul of the new nation of Great Britain that occurred during those short and turbulent years of the reign of Queen Anne and her loyal ministers. In doing so, I shall proceed as did Dr Swift himself, when, in his account of the last four years of the Queen, he wrote “Neither shall I mingle panegyrik or satire, with a history intended to inform posterity, aswell as to instruct those of the present age, who may be ignorant or misled ; since facts, truly related, are the best applauses, or most lasting reproaches.”

As the leading quote suggests, the motivation underlying this report serves a very specific purpose, towards the ends of which the gentleman in question strides boldly forth from the fog of these great historical intrigues, to offer some very valuable insight. But, while much has been written about Henry St John, as the adage “to the victor goes the spoils” cautions, we must be careful to examine such commentaries with an extremely critical eye, for there is a great deal that remains hidden from the casual observer. However, what is beyond debate is that his was a life spent immersed in political, literary and diplomatic battles which entangled the leading members of the wider European intelligensia, over issues of paramount importance to world history, and to the future liberty and wellbeing of the people of his own country.

It should therefore come as no great surprise that as I persued my investigation into the life and times of Lord Bolingbroke, I quickly found myself confronted with a lack of reliable contemporary biographical source material with which to work. I therefore resolved to refer only to primary source documents, personal letters and other political treatises, that are now availabe in the public domain. After some extensive digging, I finally settled on “Memoirs of the life and ministerial conduct of the late Lord Bolingbroke”, published in 1753, by his editor David Mallet, which gives a relatively balanced – although for reasons that will become apparent later in this series, not entirely above reproach  - exposition of our noble Lord and his family history.

Our Noble Lord

According to Mr Mallet, the St John family date back to the times of William the Conqueror, where it is recorded in the Roll of Battle-Abbey that William de St John was Quarter-Master general of the army of William, Duke of Normandy. His younger brother was one of the twelve knights who, in the reign of William Rufus, undertook an expedition against the Welsh, by which he acquired the Castle of Falmont in Glamorganshire. In due course he became possessed of lands granted to the family in England, around Stanton in Oxfordshire. Many centuries later, in the reign of James I, Oliver de St John was enobled as the first Earl of Bolenbroke, a title which remained in one branch of the family or another from that point onwards. During the English civil war, the St John family had protagonists on both sides fighting for and against King Charles, with the patriarch of one branch of Royalists, John St John, losing three sons to the conflict. One of his surviving sons, was Walter St John, the grandfather of Henry St John, Lord of Battersea. It was here that his Son, Henry St John, later to be Lord Bolingbroke was born, on the 1st October 1678.

In his early years, young Henry exhibited much of the joi de vivre common to his class and station, accompanied with a healthy dose of rebellious licentiousness. As befitting an education at Eton, where he crossed paths with his future nemesis Robert Walpole, but also forged alliances with such as his friend and collaborator William Wyndham, Henry St John demonstrated a great genius for oratory and swiftly rose to prominence in literary and political circles.

A Nation is Born

Taking up the family seat of Wootton Bassett, Henry St John first entered politics in 1701, at the remarkably young age of twenty. Quickly, he became attached to Lord Robert Harley, and was tasked with the passage of the Act of Settlement through the Parliament, in which he was successful the same year. The Act itself had been necessitated by a crisis of the succession, resulting from the failure of the House of Orange to sire an heir, and the tragic deaths of all of the children of Queen Anne, the last of whom, Prince William, had died in 1700 aged eleven. Not least due to the chain of events that lead to the Act of Union in 1707, the Act of Settlement remains, as it was described by Henry Hallam “the great seal of our constitutional laws”.

With the change of ministry, from the Whig to Tory factions in 1710, Harley and Bolingbroke came to power and began in earnest their offensive on behalf of bringing an end to the war of the Spanish succession, and hostilities with France, which was finally concluded with the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. During the course of these events, in a 1711 letter to the Earl of Orrery concerning the establishment of the “Brother’s Club” (which will include both Harley and Swift), Bolingbroke writes:  ”I must, before I sent this letter, give your lordship an account of a club which I am forming, and which, as light as the design may seem to be, I believe will prove to be of real service.  We shall begin to meet in a small number; and that will be composed of some who have wit and learning to recommend them; of others who, from their own situations or from their relations, have power and influence; and of others who, from accidental reasons, may be properly taken in.  The first regulation proposed, and that which must be most inviolably kept, is decency.  None of the extravagance of the Kit Cat [the Hell Fire crowd], none of the drunkeness of the Beefsteak, is to be endured.  The improvement of friendship and the encouragement of letters are to be the two great ends of our society”. It was the establishment of this literary society, and its sibling, the “Scriblerus Club”, dedicated to the uplifting of the intellectual climate within the country, which was the source of much of the political intelligence that informed such timeless classics as “Gullivers Travels” and “The Memoires of Martinus Scriblerus”.

The Great Unravelling

However, despite these momentous achievements, it was not until 1715, and the accession of George I, of the House of Hanover, that the disastrous consequences of the 1700 succession crisis were to strike Bolingbroke and his collaborators with the full force of tragedy. For George I was no friend of the Tory faction, having openly gone over to the cause of Walpole, Godolphin and Marlborough, and their intended continuation of the wars with France, years before his accession to the English throne. Within days of the coronation, Bolingbroke was dismissed from office and returned to his estates in Bucklebury, where he set to writing a response to the charge of Jacobitinism that had been laid against him. Later, in March of 1715, on hearing of the intentions of the new Walpole administration to attack the instigators of the Peace of Utrecht, he fled to France, where he remained in exile for ten years, before returning to England in 1725.

It was during the early years of his exile, in a letter to William Wyndam, that Lord Bolingbroke was to write: “The Bank, the East India Company, and in general the moneyed interest, had certainly nothing to apprehend like what they feared, or affected to fear, from the Tories – an entire subversion of their property. Multitudes of our own party would have been wounded by such a blow. The intention of those who were the warmest seemed to me to go no farther than restraining their influence on the Legislature, and on matters of State; and finding at a proper season means to make them contribute to the support and ease of a government under which they enjoyed advantages so much greater than the rest of their fellow-subjects. The mischievous consequence which had been foreseen and foretold too, at the establishment of those corporations, appeared visibly. The country gentlemen were vexed, put to great expenses and even baffled by them in their elections; and among the members of every parliament numbers were immediately or indirectly under their influence. The Bank had been extravagant enough to pull off the mask; and, when the Queen seemed to intend a change in her ministry, they had deputed some of their members to represent against it. But that which touched sensibly even those who were but little affected by other considerations, was the prodigious inequality between the condition of the moneyed men and of the rest of the nation. The proprietor of the land, and the merchant who brought riches home by the returns of foreign trade, had during two wars borne the whole immense load of the national expenses; whilst the lender of money, who added nothing to the common stock, throve by the public calamity, and contributed not a mite to the public charge.”

And so, with this striking image of the problem we still face today in Great Britain, the conversion of a sovereign nation into nothing more than a base for the operations of international financial parasites, we shall return to our series and tell the tale of the battle royale within the court of Queen Anne, and its aftermath, in Part II.

---

Article printed from The UK Column: http://www.ukcolumn.org

URL to article: http://www.ukcolumn.org/2010/02/21/of-patriots-kings-and-scoundrels-part-1/