Spot the difference - politics is a sham
Blair was born in 1953 in Edinburgh, educated in Fettis College, read law at Oxford Univ, & has been Prime Minister of Great Britain since 1997...but did you know that Tony Blair is a cousin of the Queen of England? (And therefore a cousin of the George's Bush)
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair is the son of Leo Blair, a barrister and a Tory. Leo was the son of Charles Parsons and Gussie Bridson. Charlie and Gussie were a musical-hall 'turn' in which Charlie took the stage-name of Jimmy Lynton. Gussie, Tony's grannie, was the daughter of a well-heeled, Lancashire family who were relatives of the Earls of Strathmore, the Queen Mother's family. Tony's illegitimate father, Leo Parson's was fostered out to the family of a Glasgow shipyard-worker, James Blair, which is where the new name comes from. A curious tale, full of intrigue, and one that matches the mysteries of other 'statesmen' of recent times such as Hitler and Clinton.
Former diarist for the Daily Express, Evening News and Evening Standard, Compton Miller, writes in his book, "Who's Really Who," : "Pragmatic "Bambi" is the most top-drawer PM since Sir Alec Douglas-Home." Perhaps prime-minister, Blair's real name, Parson's may go some way to explain his sermonesque, clerical style.
Blair is a committed Christian so he always turns the other cheek, does not judge others and loves everybody. Does not tell any lies, is completely open and honest and will give away everything he has to help anyone less fortunate than himself. Whilst he has been in office he has redeemed his creed's spat with the money-changers. Heartily sorry for Christ's rampaging attack on their tables he has shovelled mountains of dosh their way whenever the opportunity has arisen. Oh, and he has nothing to do with killing anyone. I find it more than interesting that Blair's probable real name of Parsons is the same surname as the Hell-Firer, G.M. Freemason, Earl of Rosse. But why should his real grandaddy's alt-mon, Lynton be so important that it has been carried through the male line?
.ellis c taylor
blairsociety history of 'Blair'
New Conservative leader David Cameron
Cameron was brought up near Wantage in Oxfordshire, the son of stockbroker Ian Donald Cameron. He was educated at Eton and Brasenose College, Oxford. His tutor at Oxford, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, described him as "one of the ablest" students he has taught, whose political views were "moderate and sensible Conservative". He graduated in 1988 with a first class honours degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics.
David Cameron is the cousin of the Conservative political journalist and editor Ferdinand Mount and the grandson of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet. Through the Mounts, he is related to many British aristocratic families, being descended from the 7th Earl of Denbigh, the 1st Earl of Ducie, the 1st Earl of Carnarvon, the 2nd Earl of Egremont, the 6th Duke of Somerset and the 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury, as discussed here. He is also related to the British Royal Family by descent through his paternal grandmother from King William IV and his wife is thought to be related to Nell Gwynne, King Charles II's mistress. He is a member of White's club. (Member of this club is: HRH The Prince of Wales)
As a descendant of Samuel Eliot of Antigua, he is also a cousin of Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, the Duke of Devonshire, the Marquess of Salisbury, actress Rachel Ward and actor Timothy Bentinck (Earl of Portland).
Blair the Bilderberger
British Prime minister, Tony Blair,
his 1993 Bilderberg
attendance at question time
Secret lobbying by western Power Elite
If Bilderberg is just a 'talking shop', and if you are a Christian,
then why lie to the House of Commons Mr Blair?
Blair asked about Bilderberg trips at question time 16Mar98
- replies: "none"
Was Blair at the 1993 Bilderberg Conference in Athens? Evidence clearly
Chronology of Blair's rise to power following Bilderberg
Further parliamentary Bilderberg questions
Letter from a worried MP, Christopher Gill
Blair replies to parliamentary question on Bilderberg
participation - From Commons written answers March 1998:
"Mr. Christopher Gill MP: To ask the Prime Minister which members
of his Government have attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group. 
The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 March 1998]: None. "
Might the PM have forgotten the trip? This reply is a lie. Blair attended
the 1993 Bilderberg Conference. He even belatedly declared it in the register
of members' interests. His presence was reported in, to take just one source,
The London Times, 4th march 1996, page 16 in an article entitled Wall
Street, treason and Pat Buchanan by William Rees-Mogg, who attended
Five proofs that Tony Blair was at the 1993 Conference
Firstly, confirmation from eyewitness and London Times columnist, William
Rees-Mogg on 4th March 1996
..."Last time I went to a Bilderberg conference, it was held in Athens, about
three years ago. Tony Blair was there, not yet leader of the Labour Party,
Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel were there, the Queen of The Netherlands was
there. It was all pleasantly grand. ..... The Queen of The Netherlands is
as Euro-fanatic as Ted Heath, Tony Blair is a modest good European, I have
been an anti-Maastricht campaigner and Mr Black is a Canadian neo-realist
who owns 500 newspapers."
04Mar96 - London Times article: "WALL STREET, TREASON AND PAT BUCHANAN."
Secondly, confirmation from a Memorandum submitted by the Parliamentary
Commissioner for Standards:
"Complaint against Mr Kenneth Clarke 1. Mrs Lynn Riley, of Chepstow,
Monmouthshire, wrote on 28 February 1997 to a Member of the House, alleging
that Mr Kenneth Clarke MP had failed to register `the free trip and accommodation
he received from the Bilderberg Group ... unlike Tony Blair who attended
the same meeting'. She enclosed a letter from Mr Clarke dated 6 September
1995 in which he states that `my recollection is that I paid for my flight
but that I was accommodated while I was there'. The Member passed the
correspondence on to
5. Mr Clarke subsequently explained that he and Mr Blair considered that
they were attending the conference as representatives of the Government and
the Opposition respectively, and stated that `I was quite confident that
I was at the time meeting the rules applying to Ministers, and it did not
occur to me that the new rules concerning registration could apply to this
Thirdly confirmation in the London Times Diary
The London Times: diary, 24 May 1995, p16:
"With concern about sleaze in mind, Tony Blair has belatedly listed in the
updated Register of Members' Interests (published tomorrow) a visit he made
in 1993 to the Bilderberg Conference in Athens as Shadow Home Secretary.
His companion, Kenneth Clarke, suffers no such qualms, he hasn't registered
Fourthly confirmation in The Guardian, 29May97, in article headed "GALLOWAY
CLEARED IN SAUDI CASE."
By DAVID HENCKE WESTMINSTER CORRESPONDENT.
"Committee backs Downey report on MP's role in deportation case
.... "The former chancellor Kenneth Clarke was also cleared of any major
breach of Commons rules after allegations about his attendance at a conference
in Greece with Tony Blair. The committee agreed in a report published with
Sir Gordon that any breach of the rules on registration was "relatively minor".
Mr Clarke allegedly failed to register a free trip and accommodation at the
Bilderberg Conference on European and world affairs in April 1993 when he
was home secretary. Mr Clarke paid his own air fare, but his accommodation
was provided by the hosts.
GUARDIAN 29/07/97 P6
Fifthly, confirmation from The Social Crediter, Official Journal of the Social
by Alan Armstrong, with Alistair McConnachie at Turnberry.
"Tony Blair attended the meeting on 23-25 April 1993 at Vouliagmeni in Greece
when he was Shadow Home Secretary. "
Chronology of Blair's rise to power
1993 - April 22nd-25th - Athens, Blair interviewed at Bilderberg
1994 - July 21st - Blair becomes party leader by block votes
1997 - May 2nd - Blair becomes Prime Minister
Other Parliamentary Bilderberg questions
Commons - Prime Minister Tony Blair's written answers (20 May 1999) Bilderberg
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the
hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) of 7 May 1999, Official Report, columns
476-77, on the Bilderberg Group, what official (i) transport and (ii) funds
have been used to facilitate attendance at Bilderberg meetings of members
of his Government; which members have attended meetings; what reports they
have made on the meetings; and what subsequent communication they have had
with others attending on subjects discussed at the meetings. 
The Prime Minister: As far as I am aware, only one member of this
Government--the Defence Secretary--has attended a meeting of the Bilderberg
Group. He provided a detailed account of his attendance in answers to the
hon. Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 23 July 1998, Official Report, column
609, and for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 20 July 1998, Official Report, column
Commons - Written Answers (8 Apr 1998) Bilderberg Group
Mr. Nicholas Winterton MP: To ask the President of the Board of Trade
what assessment she has made of the operations and influence on world trade
of the Bilderberg Group. 
Mrs. Roche: The Department has made no such assessments.
Commons - Written Answers (7 Apr 1998) Bilderberg Group
Mr. Nicholas Winterton MP: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food what representations he has received on the influence of the Bilderberg
group on world agricultural prices. 
Mr. Rooker: No such representations have been received.
Commons - Prime Minister Tony Blair's written Answers (30 Mar 1998) Bilderberg
Mr. Christopher Gill MP: To ask the Prime Minister which members of his
Government have attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group. 
The Prime Minister [holding answer 16 March 1998]: None.
Letter From Christopher Gill MP, seriously concerned
about the Bilderbergers' influence
CHRISTOPHER GILL RD MP
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A OAA
Mr. T. Gosling,
21 November 1998
Thank you for your letter of the 9th November 1998 expressing your concern
about the Bilderberg Group.
I do not for one moment discount the possibility of there being some very
powerful forces at work and that their intention is to undermine and destroy
the nation state.
That being said I feel sure that you will agree that we have to be practical
about these things and I am at a loss to know how we as individuals can
counteract the activities of such bodies as the Bilderbergers. Given the
reluctance of elected politicians to acknowledge the nature of the very real
threat to our democracy it seems inconceivable that they will openly attack
these groups and the thought that they might actually proscribe them is just
too fanciful for words. Neither am I aware of any mechanism by which individuals
can be prevented from holding private meetings if they so choose nor of
compelling them to publish their agenda and resolutions. The fact that their
intentions may be treasonable is hardly the point if national governments
see nothing wrong in their activities.
It seems to me that the only sensible course of action as far as people like
ourselves are concerned is to concentrate all our efforts on trying to convince
one or other of the main political parties, firstly, to recognise the enormity
of the threat to our democratic rights and secondly, to come out of their
corner fighting to defend them. As a democrat I believe in using the system
to achieve my political objectives. Where this belief falls down is when
there is a conspiracy to deny choice and I don't mind saying that I dread
the lang term consequences of continuing on down that particular road.
At the end of the day the people will win but how much more desirable it
is that they should win by the ballot rather than by the bullet.
Please be assured that I am doing everything I know how, within foe Conservative
Party, to bring about a fundamental realignment before it is altogether too
Christopher Gill MP
What are Bilderberg Conferences all about?
TG 08Feb00 - Good Question! - The Bilderberg Secretariat proclaims the
conferences to be '...private in order to encourage frank and open discussion'.
Frank and open discussion is a good thing in any forum but when those doing
the discussing are some of the very most powerful financiers and media tycoons
in the world it begs the question: If what they discuss is for the good
of mankind why not publicise it! Isn't it a perverted use of the
word 'open' when no-one can hear what they're saying?
Is Bilderberg a secret conspiracy?
When such rich and powerful people meet up in secret, with military intelligence
managing their security, with hardly a whisper escaping of what goes on inside,
people are right to be suspicious. But the true power of Bilderberg
comes from the fact that participants are in a bubble, sealed off from reality
and the devastating implications on the ground of the black-science economic
solutions on the table. The world's leading financiers and foreign policy
strategists don't get together at Bilderberg to draw up their secret plans
for the future. It's subtler than that. These meetings create an artificial
'consensus' to spellbind visiting politicians and and other men of influence.
It's about reinforcing - often to the very people who are on the edge of
condemning Globalisation - the illusion that Globalisation is 'good' and
that it is inevitable.
So is Bilderberg a conspiracy? No, it's an extremely influential lobbying
group. That's not to say though that the organisers don't have a hidden agenda,
they do, namely acumulation of wealth and power into their own hands whilst
explaining to the participants that globalisation is for the good of all.
It is also a very good forum for 'interviewing' potential future political
figures such as Clinton and Blair (1993).
The ideology put forward at the Bilderberg conferences is that what's good
for banking and big business is good for the people of the world. Silently
banished are the critical voices, those that might point out that debt is
spiralling out of control, that wealth is being sucked away from ordinary
people and into the hands of the faceless corporate institutions, that millions
are dying as a direct result of the Rockefeller/Rothschild economic strategies.
When looking at one of the partially reliable participant lists it should
be remembered that quite a number of attendees are invited in an attempt
to get them on-board the globalisation project. These are carefully selected
people of influence, who have been openly critical of globalisation. Examples
are Jonathan Porritt (Bilderberg 1999) and Will Hutton (Bilderberg 1997)
but there are many others. Most of these kinds of participants are happy
to speak about the conference afterwards, and may even be suprisingly critical.
The Bilderbergers are accepted by those 'in the know' as the prophets of
Capitalism. Will Hutton, deputy Editor of The Observer newspaper in London
and left-leaning Economist, described private clubs of the elite as masterminded
by 'The High Priests of Globalisation'. The ecclesiastical allusion is not
accidental. The Bilderberg high-priests are a force against good, out to
wipe morality from the earth. For the organisers Bilderberg Conferences are
an annual ideological assault by the world's most power-hungry people. Not
content with owning unimaginable amounts of money and property they
want to use that wealth to acquire even more power for themselves. Power
is the most dangerous and addictive drugs known to man. The craving will
only be satisfied when a handful of men own and control everything
And just like the Nazi party in the 1930's the global Capitalist
Elite are rising in power by peaceful means. There are some very
uncomfortanble connections between Bilderberg and the Nazis through the
Conference's founder Prince Bernhard.
These crown princes of capital use violence at the sharp end -
the destruction of dissent - the repossession of homes men and women have
worked a lifetime for - needless deaths from starvation and geopolitical
machinations - this violence is notable by its absence from the annual meetings.
One can't help but wonder, when the Bilderberg organisers, Rothschild,
Rockefeller, Kissinger and the rest have completed their project of enclosing
all global goods and services into their own hands, enclosing too the media
to stop people freely discussing what they are up to. What then?? What happens
when the men who would be gods turn out to be the global devils?
Who is behind Bilderberg?
Bilderberg is run by a Steering Group - if you're wondering
who's responsible for so much of the capital-friendly and dissent-crushing
law-making, poverty and general misery in the world this may be the
place to look. Up-to-date lists are available from the
Bilderberg Secretariat<. This is the closest approximation
to a shadow world government. And this is another hidden agenda at Bilderberg.
There may be other groups pulling the strings behind even the Steering Group
possibly even high degree occult groups such as The Masons or Illuminati!
There must certainly be some sociopathic minds behind Bilderberg since they
go to so much trouble to promote policies that lead to exploitation, inequality
and despair. These individuals seem oddly switched off from the suffering
they are causing. Surely only pernicious people would want to control
the ideology of the world's mainstream press, and undermine natural political
discourse. Public opinion and democratic institutions are a threat when you
want to own the world.
The perverse objective of the Bilderberg Steering Group is to dress
totalitarian corporate ideology up to appear rational and push it out for
mass consumption without anyone knowing where these 'inevitable' ideas have
come from. Meanwhile, outside the Bilder-bubble, globalisation is on
the loose with free-reign to destroy our Earth and our spirit.
Freemason 'closed shop' blocked me, says barrister
Aug 20, 2003 Martin Shipton, The Western Mail
A BARRISTER claims his application to become a judge has been turned down because he is not a freemason.
Roger Everest says he was told 30 years ago that he would never get on in the legal profession after turning down an invitation to join the Dinas Llandaff lodge of the Freemasons in Cardiff. Last week the 64-year-old was informed by the director of judicial appointments at the Department for Constitutional Affairs that he was not being appointed a circuit judge. Earlier this year Mr Everest, who practises from chambers at Pontyclun near Cardiff, had a claim that his career had been blighted by his non-membership of the freemasons rejected by the European Court of Human Rights.
Yesterday he said, "The judiciary in South Wales is a closed shop which I believe excludes ethnic minorities, women and men who are not part of a masonic network. "After over 30 years as a practising barrister on the Wales and Chester circuit with hundreds of satisfied clients - not one of whom has ever made a complaint against me - I am furious never to have been offered the opportunity to sit as a judge. "Through The Western Mail I call on the Labour Government to appoint an eminent and impartial privy councillor to investigate the many miscarriages of justice in South Wales - especially the wrongful convictions that followed the murders of Lynette White and Mr and Mrs Tooze - and to publish a register naming judges who have ever been masons. Judges should be appointed on their merit as lawyers, independent of their standing among masons."
Mr Everest said he planned to meet his MP Dr Kim Howells to discuss the matter. He added, "It is my firm belief that there is a masonic connection with the miscarriages of justice that have occurred in South Wales."
In February 1998, the Home Office committed itself to establishing public registers of Freemasons in the judiciary and the police.
In a response to a report written by the Home Affairs select committee, the Home Office stated, "The Home Secretary proposes to make a formal request to the United Grand Lodge (the governing body of freemasonry in England and Wales) that they provide on a regional basis consistent with the regional structure of the Lodges, the names and identifying occupations and other necessary details of those who are or who become freemasons in the specified professions and occupations.
"If the United Grand Lodge is unwilling or unable to comply with this request, or to comply only partially (for example because it does not itself have the data in the required form) the government will initially make arrangements for registers to be opened for all the specified professions and occupations. All would be invited to register. Although at this stage a failure to return information would not of itself be a breach of conditions of employment, any nil returns would be shown as such.
"The government will consult on where the registers should be available but in any event it believes that they should be publicly available. "The government will address the need for legislation having regard to the extent of compliance with voluntary registers, once established."
John Hamill, director of communications for the United Grand Lodge said, "The Home Office did not pursue the idea of registers because of the incorporation of human rights legislation into UK law. Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights forbids discrimination against minorities.
"When a straw poll was done of judges several years ago, less than five per cent were freemasons and none of those responsible for judicial appointments were." - 100777.com
The Prime Minister
Mr Tony Blair
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
10th February 2004.
Dear Mr Prime Minister
The statements that I make herein are true to the best of my knowledge and
First I accept that those members of staff employed at 10 Downing Street are
authorised to reply on your behalf to letters which members of the public
have sent to you. I add that there are obvious consequences arising from
I am disgusted at the recent reply which I recently received from the Home
Office which was in response to my latest letter which I sent to you giving
notice dated 2nd December 2003 and one sent to you the 11th November 2003.
Those letters also detailed the murder attempt made on me by Special Squad
police officers on the night of 4/5th February 2003. That matter along with
the catalogue of crime by what is without doubt an Establishment Masonic
Mafia, has been reported to you on several occasions. It continues to be
ignored and deceit is being used by Downing Street and The Home Office as an
apparent ploy to cover up what has been carried out against me. The latter
being more substantial since I contributed to the Nolan Inquiry into
Freemasonry within the Police and Judiciary in 1996. The Home Office wrote
that they have referred the matters that I reported to you to the same
police force which I reported to you as having been involved in extensive
use of serious crime against me, where in addition, two of its Special
Squad officers had attempted to murder me by stabbing on the night of 4/5th
February last year.. The recent Home Office letter does however serve to
confirm that the UK indeed does not have any independent or impartial
tribunals or authorities, which as you will know, are required under the
European Human Rights Convention. That remains as a gross breach of my
rights as a European Citizen.
The facts arising from this breach of my rights has caused me very serious
damage and it was for that reason that I am claiming damages from you by
your failure to set in motion the necessary mechanism for the establishment
of such independent or impartial tribunals or authorities. The cost of those
very substantial damages to me remains and continues to increase. Given that
you continue to allow this situation, and it would appear from facts, that
you are also ignoring the murder attempt made on me on the night of 4th/5th
February last year when my home was unlawfully seized following a catalogue
of judicial and other crime to bring about that situation, those damages are
to be increased in an upward direction. Those two potential police murderers
remain at large. I refuse to believe that the decision to murder me was made
on the spot by those two police officers. Clearly that decision had been
made by a higher level of authority and those persons also remain at large.
Just how high in the chain of authority that decision to murder me might
well be answered by an independent public inquiry. You continue to ignore my
demand for this.
I state again to you that following my receipt of a letter sent to me by Mr
Matt Dowding who was writing on your behalf from Downing Street a letter
dated January 16, 2003, my home came under an illegal police siege. At
around that same period of time I had been publishing correspondence that I
received from your friend Mr Fraser Kemp MP, which confirmed that there are
no authorities in the UK who will act on matters of judicial crime. You will
know Mr Prime Minister that the UK judiciary have no public accountability
whatsoever and that includes the use of blatant crimes used by the criminal
factors employed within the judiciary. The judiciary have no public
accountability whatsoever as has been shown and proved by that
correspondence which I received from Mr Fraser Kemp MP. He had provided a
dossier of evidence backing up my claims of Establishment crime to the Home
Office, The Lord Chancellors Department, The Attorney General and the
Parliamentary Commissioner, all who would not take the responsibility to act
on it as Public Duty surely requires? Is it therefore justice for members
of the public to be accountable to the judiciary while this state of affairs
continues? Can any country be a democracy while this situation continues to
be tolerated? We do have terrorists employed within the UK Establishment
many clearly stemming from Freemasonry. They are shown to be well capable of
carrying out serious crimes which also include murder as was attempted
against me. Those same corrupt Establishment criminal elements are also
attempting to cover up that murder attempt along with the catalogue of crime
that has been used against me. I would find it difficult to accept that you
are not aware of these facts and that Freemasonry is not just an innocent
old boys network. I would agree that the rank and file members of
Freemasonry know little of what the agenda of the higher ranks of
Freemasonry is. That a Masonic Mafia exists in this country there is no
I had been in contact with Lord Nolan from 1996 to 1998. I had contributed
to the Home Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into Freemasonry within the
Police and Judiciary headed by Lord Nolan which I think now public
contribution to it should have been included in it a government health
warning. I firmly believe that Inquiry covered up the facts of the Masonic
influence/control of the judiciary which also exists within the justice
system generally. My concerns that judges at the Durham and Newcastle County
Courts were possibly or more probably Freemasons was ignored as being
irrelevant by them. Lords Bingham and Woolf along with the Court Service
also maintained that my concerns regarding Masonic influence in what was the
blatant judicial and other crime being used against me at the Durham and
Newcastle County Courts had no relevance. They were of course all wrong
about that matter. That fact is proved under the ruling made in, The Social
Security Commissioners Case No. CSI/136/02. The official ruling under the
latter case was provided as evidence in my appeal for the possession of my
home held on Thursday 30th January 2003 at the Teeside County Court. That
court had previously wrongly ruled on the 20th January 2003 that my
concerns at Masonic influence in my cases had no relevance. The judge at the
30th January 2003 hearing was provided with an official copy of that ruling
and expressed surprise about it. I then took ill and the judge immediately
adjourned the hearing when an ambulance was called and I was taken to
I was never informed, when it seems that what was in the circumstances, an
illegal court hearing, that took place on the following Monday of 3rd
February. It was illegal by reason that I was not informed of it and neither
had the requisite two full working days notice of such hearing had been
served on me. As far as I am concerned, that adjourned hearing of the 30th
of January 1993 which I have referred to above remains as adjourned. All
consequences that I have reported to you following that adjourned court
hearing are also in the circumstances deemed to have also been illegal.
My appeal made on the 30th January at the Teesside County Court, if justice
had really been its intent, had been successful on the grounds that by
ignoring my concerns about possible Masonic influence in my case, there had
been in fact been a breach of Article 6(1) of the European Human Rights
Convention. That is verified in ruling under the Social Security
Commissioners case as mentioned above. It seems that someone did not wish
that ruling to prove my appeal case so ignored it. At the hearing of the
30th January 2003 at Teesside County Court I also served on the court and
the opposing side the necessary protocols for my application for Judicial
Review. That too was ignored by the courts I have named to you. That was
further proof that other parties, and I believe were Masons or those doing
their bidding, had decided that injustice would be the outcome for me which
ever way that I proceeded. Immediately after that illegal court hearing of
Monday 3rd January 2003 police then watched as a bailiff tried to force
entry to my home. That was again an illegal act which along with the other
facts and names of Establishment criminals that I have detailed to you, was
the reason why I would not give up my home. Several weeks later Baroness
Scotland Parliamentary Spokesperson to the Home Office, proposed a law to
make forced entry to a persons home lawful. Forced entry to a home by a
bailiff in such circumstances still remains unlawful even if the bankruptcy
engineered for me by none other than judicial and other criminals that I
have named to you had not been used against me. The revenge carried out
against me for opposing very corrupt elements of Freemasonry has proved that
they are able to do it with the help/co-operation of what clearly is none
other than other Masonic Establishment criminals.
That some of our courts are being ruled by none other than criminals where
they make up their own illegal laws as they proceed is also proved by the
above facts. That the opposing party in my cases had been allowed very
material perjury and had been assisted with the use of serious crime used
against me by a solicitor then practising from Durham that I have previously
named to you, has all been allowed by what are none other than Establishment
criminals being paid from the public purse to do that.
I, like others that I am aware of, have found that The Office For the
Supervision of Solicitors is also covering up for criminal acts being
carried on by some solicitors. Like the Police Complaints Authority, they
simply fail to acknowledge letters sent to them when they contain facts of
Establishment crime that can be proved by evidence. Is this really the
fairer Britain of your 1997 pre-election promise?
On the first evening of that siege of my home I was made aware that police
had intended to shoot me when to opportunity arose. That fact was made clear
to me by a woman police officer negotiator named to me as Jo at the scene.
Had she not given me an urgent warning to stay away from the window of my
home, then I most certainly would have been shot dead. It is a known fact
that alleged police marksmen know only how to shoot to kill and not wound to
disable. On the third evening of the siege, Special Squad police officers
battered down the door of my home in the early hours of the morning and then
handcuffed me. Several other Special Squad police officers stood on the
lower stairs and watched as those two officers started to push my abdomen
down onto a sword while making noises clearly to help co-ordinate the
pressure they were exerting on each of my shoulders while the sword was
penetrating my abdomen. One of those other officers dragged me away from his
colleagues when I seems he did not wish to be part of murder. It would seem
from my own case that UK police murder squads are now also a reality.
According to Newspaper reports even C.S. Gas had also been intended to be
used against me.
I am aware that the generally speaking, the whole UK Establishment is
infested with members of Freemasonry. That also being very applicable to our
justice system. I have previously demanded from you a full independent
public inquiry into my case which would also prove this fact. You continue
to ignore that demand. I am of course fully aware that such inquiry would
show that UK Freemasonry does have considerable influence/control within the
justice system. I am further concerned that I have been informed that the
Queen is the Patron Head of UK Freemasonry, the Duke of Edinburgh is a Mason
and that the Prince of Wales has quite recently become a Mason. Amongst your
pre-1997 election promises was the matter of dealing with what was even
then, public concerns regarding Freemasonry. It seems that now you believe
that Freemasonry is not a secret society but a society with secrets. Both
statements are in fact true. As a former Hetton-le-Hole Councillor I became
aware of the power of Freemasonry within local government. I was already
aware of its influence/control of the judiciary and its ability to conduct
illegal court hearings. Mr Fraser Kemp MP was also informed what happened to
me when I was prevented from leaving the Hetton Town Council Chambers and
was then assaulted in full view of most of the Council after I protested at
certain Councillors, two of them Masons, in failing to declare an interest
in the matter of land that had come up for Council discussion for housing
proposals for discussion on housing proposals. I wonder was it just
coincidence when the owner of that land who agreed that he was a mason,
asked if I owned my own home. It was clear that what he was implying was
that unless I kept quiet about the matter mentioned above, then I would lose
my home. No Mr Prime Minister, this is the way Freemasonry works. I have
learned that the hard way. That incident alone showed just how much fear is
held by even persons within authority if crossing Freemasons. Mr Kemp MP
also ignored that matter when police refused to act on it.
Downing Street has also written to me that the judiciary are independent of
the government. The Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary is an unelected
member of the Cabinet and therefore is part of the government. Can you
explain under these same circumstances how the judiciary can be independent
of the government?
I have been given information which if true, suggests that you might also be
a member of Freemasonry. If you are in fact one, then I cannot consider you
to be impartial or independent to what I have reported to you over the years
since 1997. Would you wish to comment on this?
The Norwegian government implemented a law which makes the registration of
extra judicial activities compulsory from November 2002. That might also be
a reasonable start in the UK along with an independent authority who will
look into all allegations of crime used by members of the judiciary. It does
appear Mr Prime Minister that at present we have another ruling government
that is not accountable even for its use of crime as my and many other cases
can show. That government is clearly the judiciary who I would term as the
other government which has become a power accountable to no one. The affects
of this present situation are probably far more serious that most might at
first imagine. That same situation also casts grave doubt on the democracy
of the UK.
I again demand from you an independent public inquiry into my case. It is my
contention that as a mass of blatant judicial and other crime has been used
to take my home and land from me, along with around seventeen thousand
pounds worth of my personal possessions, then it would be appropriate to
carry out acts which could include lawful citizens arrests of those
responsible for my situation and those who have also suffered a similar
situation. That situation would also apply to those who fail or refuse to
carry out their paid public duty to act on the evidence of that crime. I am
aware that I remain at risk of being murdered should I attempt to carry out
such a lawful act. It seems however that I live with that same risk everyday
anyway regardless for the reasons that you are now again aware of. Mr Prime
Minister, the Hell that these criminals that I have named to you now lives
with me every single day and a conscience that justice must endure is indeed
a hard taskmaster.
Mr Maurice Kellett
Address witheld for the purposes of this publication only.
C.C. all interested parties.
Maurice Kelletts homepage
Freemasons the reason police are still racist
A FORMER top cop has blamed the influence of freemasons within the police for continuing racism in the force. The comments come as a new report found Black and Asian cops are over-disciplined.
Author: by Shirin Aguiar
Report Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004
|Black officers face a double-whammy of discrimination|
Former Flying Squad commander John O'Connor claimed today that freemasons still wield massive power within high ranks and that black people, who do not join the secretive groups, lose out in the power struggle. Scotland Yard insider O'Connor was speaking after the launch of an inquiry report led by retired union boss Sir Bill Morris, into Met police racism. O'Conner told BBC London that white people who did not join the masons were also at a disadvantage. He also criticised the Morris Inquiry, saying it's recommendations were not hard-hitting enough to bring about lasting change.
The Morris Inquiry has confirmed the worst suspicions of the Met's black and ethnic minority officers that they are treated far harsher than white colleagues by their managers purely on race grounds.
Ethnic minority officers face glass ceilings because the reluctance of managers to pull them up on minor matters means a lack of constructive criticism and support, which "will ultimately damage career progression."
|Erring on the side of caution: Sir Bill Morris|
The report also found that minority ethnic officers are more quickly subject to formal processes where white officers would not be so subject or they are deprived of management support vital to develop as a police officer.The inquiry has asked Commission for Racial Equality, led by Trevor Phillips, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission to launch further investigations into discrimination. The force has come under fire in the report from the 11-month Morris Inquiry, which surveyed its 43,000 employees. The probe by Sir Bill was launched following several investigations into allegations against officers from ethnic minorities.
Commissioned by the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), it examined whether ethnic minority officers were more likely to face disciplinary investigation, and whether their grievances were less likely to be dealt with than those of white colleagues. The inquiry heard from black and Asian staff that they were disproportionately more likely to have formal complaints made against them. The inquiry also found that the MPS has not complied with the recommendations of the Gurpal Virdi report of 2001, an embarrassment for incoming Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair who earlier told the inquiry: "The MPS has therefore complied with all the recommendations of the Gurpal Virdi report." The inquiry called on the MPA to convene a case conference on Gurpal Virdi and the role of Commissioner Sir John Stevens.
Mr Virdi was arrested and sacked from his job after the force claimed he had racist hate mail to himself and other officers. He was later cleared when an employment tribunal found he had been the victim of an official witchhunt against him. The Morris inquiry also said that race played a part in the treatment of Superintendent Ali Dizaei and called for a full independent review of his case.
Dizaei, who is now borough commander in Hounslow, was the target of a 4 million investigation by his own colleagues for almost five years before being acquitted of allegations of dishonesty last year. Giving evidence to the inquiry in June, Dizaei said: "My eating habits were of particular interest to my accusers. Ten statements were taken in the local restaurants I ate at to see whether I ate halal meat. "A four-page statement was taken from the canteen manager as to whether I eat curry on a Thursday. Colleagues tapped his phone, involved the FBI and planted someone in his gym who was "wired up to lead me into criminality."
The inquiry slammed the Met's directorate of professional standards (DPS), headed by Blair, for its 'Al Capone' style of conducting discipline inquiries. Anesta Weekes QC, part of the inquiry team, told Blink: "The culture within the DPS was that a number of people who gave evidence spoke of the attitude that you're guilty, so I'm going to find the evidence. Often they are not communicating how things aregoing."
The inquiry expressed concern that there was no common understanding of diversity within the force and that it remained "at worst a source of fear and anxiety and at best a process of ticking boxes". The report also warned that efforts to promote the message of diversity could have been "counter-productive" and the force may now be experiencing a "backlash". It warned: "This would be catastrophic. The policy is right, it is the approach and the application which we believe needs to be reviewed."
Speaking at the launch today, Sir Bill Morris said: "This is a radical and ground-breaking report setting out a reforming pathway to change both within the MPS and nationally." The 288-page document contains 37 major recommendations, including the appointment of a new civilian post at deputy commissioner level to co-ordinate and deliver all support services within the force."
Sir Bill recommended changes for the police training centre at Hendon in north London. He said: "We are concerned that the gateway to the Metropolitan Police Service, Hendon, needs to have a greater degree of supervision and scrutiny. A bad habit picked up at Hendon can go through the career of a police officer."
Deputy Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said: "We accept that more needs to be done to support officers under investigation and to provide appropriate welfare. "To this end we are developing a package of measures specifically for this purpose that will be delivered by a dedicated unit. I will now study the detail of the report and consider how its conclusions and recommendations can help us do this."
Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, commented: "There is continuing racism in the police as there is in every other institution. "Without a shadow of a doubt, some people have in the disciplinary structure focused more on their colleagues who are black or Asian. This is completely unacceptable. It is something that myself, Sir Ian Blair and others are determined must change."
Parliament 'must end its dead rituals'
Sweep away 'Masonic' practices, says Puttnam
Gaby Hinsliff, political editor - Sunday May 22, 2005 The Observer
The pomp and pageantry of traditional Westminster politics should be scrapped to stop its 'Masonic rituals' excluding the public, a hardhitting report on the future of parliament will warn this week. Lord Puttnam, the Labour peer chairing a landmark commission examining how power could be opened to the people, said that the royal State Opening of Parliament should be ditched for an American-style presidential address. His commission's report, published this week, is also expected to call for the lifting of restrictions on TV cameras at Westminster - and an end to the use of what Puttnam said were sometimes 'stupid' arcane phrases which confused outsiders, to help make the democratic process more accessible. The report, commissioned by the Hansard Society thinktank from senior politicians representing all three main parties alongside journalists and others, risks outraging traditionalists. But it will be taken seriously at Westminster - not least because Gordon Brown has taken a close interest in its deliberations. The report itself stops short of constitutional questions over the role of royals within parliament.
But Puttnam told The Observer he personally favoured a radical modernisation of the heavily ceremonial Queen's Speech - which involves the Queen reading out a list of forthcoming bills on behalf of her government, accompanied by a retinue of elaborately costumed figures and rituals dating back several centuries, at the beginning of every parliamentary session.
'I have lived five years of my life in America and the President's State of the Union address followed by the opposition is a big national event: the audiences are huge. We want someone saying, "I have been elected, this is what I intend to do", not mumbling into some parchment,' said Puttnam, a Labour peer and former film producer who was ennobled by Tony Blair. 'I would like to see a proper discussion about what form of constitutional settlement we want in the 21st century.'
The report is also expected to call for a review of arcane parliamentary language - such as referring to colleagues as 'my honourable friend' rather than by name - and procedure.
'[Westminster] constantly reminds me of a Masonic ritual - once you are inside, you want certain little handshakes because that's what differentiates us from "them". The problem is you are meant to be serving "them",' he said. He himself refused to use the phrase 'the other place' - used by peers about the Commons and vice versa - because it was 'stupid'. He said: 'We are reverential in respect of the trivial and insufficiently reverential in respect of what's important.'
The report comes as a separate survey of 1,000 people who did not vote on 5 May - conducted by the Power Inquiry, which is also examining democratic engagement - shows that the majority stayed at home not because of apathy but because of anger. While 19 per cent said they had not voted because they could not be bothered or did not care, 36 per cent cited political reasons, including that politicians' views could not be trusted or there were no real differences between the parties. Although turnout rose slightly at this election, Puttnam said that, with only one in five Britons actually having voted for the party in power, Britain was now 'very close to the point' where a government could not claim democratic legitimacy.
The commission is not expected to debate Britain's constitutional settlement, but Puttnam said he himself saw a 'strong argument for a more presidential system or a more powerful executive'. That might require more stringent checks and balances, but more powers for the Prime Minister in return, he said.
He also backed TV cameras ranging more freely inside the Commons and being allowed to cover the chamber itself more vividly, he suggested, using reaction shots and close-ups of MPs to convey the emotion of debate. Current coverage turned viewers off because it was 'extremely stilted and weird' compared with normal TV. The report is also expected to recommend that the Commons be run by a professional chief executive rather than a committee of MPs.