Friday, 26 September 2014


Islamic State Tightens Siege Of Syria Border Town; UK Joins Coalition

Islamic State Tightens Siege Of Syria Border Town; UK Joins Coalition by wochit
But first ... a deeper, peek, into the PROBLEM SPECIES, from world bank whistleblower; KAREN HUDES ... A deeper insight ... into the ILLUMINATI 'elite'

Former World Banker Says "Second Species" Controls Earth

"The group that's behind the network of control... One of these groups are hominids, they're not human beings. They are very smart, they are not creative, they are mathematical. They had a much stronger force in the earlier ice-age. They have elongated skulls, they may produce offspring in mating with female humans, but that offspring is not fertile. We live in a world of secret societies, and secrets, and the information that ought to be public is not public."

These are some of the shocking statements that came from Karen Hudes shortly after gaining attention for being a credible world bank whistleblower, stating that the world is in a "currency war," that the Federal Reserve continues to print money and if they keep going at the pace they are on, other countries will no longer accept this currency.

Karen held her senior position at the World Bank for twelve years before deciding to blow the whistle on the World Bank and corruption within it. She studies law at Yale Law School and economics at the University of Amsterdam. She worked in the US Export Import Bank of the US from 1980-1985 and in the Legal Department of the World Bank from 1986-2007. She established the Non-Governmental Organization Committee of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association and the Committee on Multilateralism and the Accountability of International Organizations of the American Branch of the International Law Association.

Published on Mar 29, 2014"

Then onwards, to the MOR NEWS of SET (ISIS = ASET ;) SLAUGHTER

Britain goes to war as MPs vote for action against Islamic State [Yes: 524 No 43]

BRITAIN WILL go to war again after politicians today voted overwhelmingly to join airstrikes against the so-called Islamic State terrorist group.

RAF jets could now fly bombing missions over Iraq within hours after all three major parties backed action against the brutal regime, which David Cameron called a "clear" threat to Britain.
The vote comes amid warnings that the action to defeat the Islamic terrorists could take years.
Initially British airstrikes will only take place over Iraq, despite the IS group controlling areas of Syria in its bid to establish an Islamic caliphate across the Middle East.

The vote comes after the Iraqi government requested support in dealing with the militant group.
Action could also extend to Syria, as well as Iraq after Prime Minister David Cameron said today that there is a "strong case" for it.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Did you know you're at one of if not THE LEADING SITE for EXOPOLITICS on planet earth?


As It Happened - MPs Vote For Airstrikes. by eNews Channel

invest, investor, investing, lending Go P2P *today*

Thought she was joking?  Think, again!

"Second Species" On Earth Controls Money & Religion

Making mor SENSE now?

"Wednesday, 24 September 2014

UK Parliament involved in suppression of truth about child exploitation and murder

The British government plans to strictly control the release of ‘establishment’ paedophile revelations over a period of decades in order to avoid mass civil unrest, according to a Westminster source.
It is further claimed that many cases will never be disclosed due to the severity of the offences that took place, and also the high profile status of those involved. 
Even politicians such as Simon Danczuk and Tom Watson, who have pushed for transparency, are all too aware of the dangers that mass disclosure may bring.
A ‘total disclosure event’ would see citizens of the United Kingdom take to the streets in their hundreds of thousands, if not millions, as the extent of the crimes are revealed. The offences include the rape, torture and murder of children.
When the public accept that throughout the 70′s, 80′s, and into the 90′s, elected officials and other dignitaries in shocking numbers used their position and status to have sex with vulnerable children, a ‘critical mass mentality’ will have been achieved, and the state will not have the resources or the moral high ground available to quell the disquiet.
There is no sector of the ‘establishment’ that remains distant from the culture of paedophilia in and around the power bases of London. The royal family, government, security services, the police and the judiciary have all played their part in covering up a sickness that has plagued the country for decades. 
​The abuse of children by establishment paedophiles continues to this day, albeit on a lesser scale. The unaccountability of decades ago has been diluted by the information age.
Yet, powerful players in the corridors of power still have a vested interest in not only covering up the evil deeds of the past, but also indulging those who still engage in these heinous crimes. 
An epidemic of paedophiles, or to be more accurate, of ‘Pederasts, has for decades, freely festered in and around the governing institutions, as well as inside media and entertainment in the UK. Given the establishment’s insistence on maintaining a coordinated cover-up of their crimes, will we ever truly know the full scale and scope of this problem?

Past proponents of the sordid practice (image, left, of ancient paedohile folklore), like the part publicly-funded Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), were even paid to lobby for a more relaxed paedophile culture in Britain, including active lobbying to lower the age of consent to 12 years old. Many of those who were involved or helped to facilitate PIE’s presence in Westminster – are still in government, or quango organisations today.A culture of denial has taken over the halls of Westminster, with countless MP’s and bureaucrats are said to be linked to not only toJimmy Savile, but also other child sex rings that were being operated out of Boys Homes in both London, North Wales and elsewhere. The scale of the problem is immense. 

It’s doubtful that the public will ever know the true extent of this plague which remains obscured by complicit members of the political elite, the police, the security services and most importantly – the judiciary – as well as the mainstream press – as key men and women play their roles in covering for those known to be involved in this wretched and highly organised practice that ruins so many young lives, and is used to blackmail and control so many in the seats of power and influence.

One man currently at the centre of Westminster’s rank VIP pederast controversy, is former Home Secretary, Leon Brittan(photo, left), who vehemently denies any knowledge, or involvement in the long list of incidences surrounding the Tory party, dating back to Margaret Thatcher and John Major’s governments. 

Coincidentally, Brittan was a key player in solidifying the UK’s entrance into the European Union, and a conduit for the British government’s steadfast support of Israel. Interestingly, the current Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, is also a protégé of Brittan’s, and some feel that Clegg’s hardened pro-EU views are credited to Leon Brittan having ‘discovered’ the young Clegg, where Nick later spent his post-university years as a young political upstart under Brittan’s wing.

Not surprisingly, it seems that certain references to Leon Brittan appear to have been scrubbed from Google

Recently, The Independent revealed just how deep the cover-up effort truly is, detailing inquiries by Labour MP Simon Danczuk: 

“Mr Danczuk said the late Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens had written to Lord Brittan, Home Secretary from 1983 to 1985, about paedophiles “operating and networking within and around Westminster”.
“I do think it would be helpful for Sir Leon Brittan to share his knowledge of how he dealt with these allegations that were made at the time,” said Mr Danczuk.
“I think that politics is the last refuge of child sex abuse deniers. Other institutions, the police, have dealt with this and changed their culture.”
But politics suffered from “a continual view that we should sweep it under the carpet, that we shouldn’t speak about it, that we shouldn’t name people, that there shouldn’t be a discussion about what’s gone on”.In the end, it boils down to confidence in elites’ ability to govern – free of compromising entanglements that, unlike the pumped-up ‘Islamic terror threat’, ultimately determine real state of ‘national security’.
Truth and reconciliation can only happen if the full extent of the problem is known, but unfortunately, no one is holding their breath…


Who Hears The White Rabbit!

Parliament Votes For Airstrikes In Iraq. by eNews Channel


Dear Lady Woolf
Perceived bias: the law
I write to you as one solicitor to another and as one officer of the Supreme (‘Senior’) Court to another. I am aware of the concerns expressed in the press and other media at your appointment to chair an inquiry on the variety of the long-standing child abuse allegations. I write to you as one solicitor to another to ask you to say what is your side of the story in relation to published allegations about your personal and public relations with individuals who may be required to give evidence; and to ask you to reflect upon whether or not you can be said to be biased in the light of your own contacts and the people who may be inquired into by the panel.
First, I assume you and the Home Secretary consider that you have the ‘necessary expertise’ to conduct this inquiry. Inquiries Act 2005 s 8(1)(a) requires that when a minister appoints, s/he must consider that, ‘as a whole… [an inquiry panel member has] the necessary expertise to undertake the inquiry’.
Inquiries Act 2005
The relevant parts of statute law on which your appointment turns is Inquiries Act 2005 s 9. This I believe can be explained, at common law, by reference to recent Supreme Court authority on the subject of ‘perceived bias’.
I take it as axiomatic that like any judicial or administrative process or inquiry the appointment, and operation of, the inquiry is bound by ordinary common law and other rules of fairness. I start from the assumption that, as stated by Administrative Law (2009) Wade & Forsyth (10th Ed) at page 801: all forms of inquiry have in common is ‘the independence of the person (or persons) who conducts the inquiry and writes the report’
The common law of England and Wales can reasonably said to be summarised in European Convention 1950 Art 6(1) and that this guarantees freedom of bias in any judicial or administrative process; and I assume that an inquiry like this comprises elements of both. Further Inquiries Act 2005 s 9 makes specific provision as to ‘impartiality’ (ie freedom from bias):
9 Requirement of impartiality
(1)The Minister must not appoint a person as a member of the inquiry panel if it appears to the Minister that the person has—
(a)a direct interest in the matters to which the inquiry relates, or
(b)a close association with an interested party,
unless, despite the person’s interest or association, his appointment could not reasonably be regarded as affecting the impartiality of the inquiry panel.
(2)Before a person is appointed as a member of an inquiry panel he must notify the Minister of any matters that, having regard to subsection (1), could affect his eligibility for appointment.
(3)If at any time (whether before the setting-up date or during the course of the inquiry) a member of the inquiry panel becomes aware that he has an interest or association falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1), he must notify the Minister.
(4)A member of the inquiry panel must not, during the course of the inquiry, undertake any activity that could reasonably be regarded as affecting his suitability to serve as such.
In what follows I shall assume that s 9(1)(a) approximates to ‘actual’ bias (as defined below); and that in all other respects normal common and administrative law principles apply (see eg Porter v McGill (orse McGill v Weeks) [2001] UKHL 67, where the challenge of Porter was to a local authority appointed auditor and his inquiry).
Bias at common law
It has been said by the Court of Appeal that judicial impartiality is ‘thefundamental principle of justice, both at common law and under European Convention 1950 Art 6’ (Morrison & Anor v AWG Group Ltd & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 6, [2006] 1 WLR 1163 per Mummery LJ at para [6]). If it is breached a judge is disqualified from hearing a case. If ‘bias’ – in the technical sense of the term, as considered below – is found then recusal (ie the judge must take him/herself off the case) must follow as a matter of law.
Bias arises where a judge may be said to be unsuitable to try a case because of a personal interest (however remote; and compare this with Inquiries Act 2005 s 9(4) above) in the outcome of the case; or because the judge is in some other way is, or appears to be (appearance of bias may be critical to this, as explained below), unable to form an independent view of the case before the court. Thus bias may arise in two ways:
  • ‘Actual bias’ – That the judge has, as a matter of fact, a personal interest in the outcome of the case; or
  • ‘Perceived or apparent bias’ – for example, because of an expressed point of view or because of the judge’s personal opinion of a matter in issue or a party in the proceedings.
The test for bias of either category is whether the ‘fair-minded and informed observer’ would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias (Lord Hope in Porter v McGill (orse McGill v Weeks) [2001] UKHL 67). In either case bias – in the general sense of the word – may not actually exist.
In the case of ‘actual’ bias it arises automatically on the facts of a case (eg a relationship with a party or witness in the proceedings; or where a judge owns shares in a company involved in the litigation). This may be equivalent to the impartiality required by s 9(1)(b). I shall assume that the Mayor has given sufficient thought (though in truth I wonder) to the question of ‘actual’ bias or s 9(1)(b) impartiality. I shall concentrate on perceived bias.
‘The fair-minded and informed observer’ – perceived bias
The modern test as to whether judicial bias may be present, as applied to civil proceedings, is defined by Lord Hope in Porter v Magill [2008] UKHL 62 and this test can be taken now to be the authoritative distillation of recent case law variants on a similar theme:
The question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.
Since that quote coined the terms the ‘fair-minded and informed observer’ and Lord Hope has  returned to the same ‘relative newcomer’ in the legal lexicon in Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another  ([2008] UKHL 62 where he further explained his use of the term:
[2] The observer who is fair-minded is the sort of person who always reserves judgment on every point until she has seen and fully understood both sides of the argument. She is not unduly sensitive or suspicious… Her approach must not be confused with that of the person who has brought the complaint. The “real possibility” test ensures that there is this measure of detachment. The assumptions that the complainer makes are not to be attributed to the observer unless they can be justified objectively. But she is not complacent either. She knows that fairness requires that a judge must be, and must be seen to be, unbiased. She knows that judges, like anybody else, have their weaknesses. She will not shrink from the conclusion, if it can be justified objectively, that things that they have said or done or associations that they have formed may make it difficult for them to judge the case before them impartially.
Partiality and the informed observer
So how does Lord Hope’s formula in Helow fit with Inquiries Act 2005 s 9? In the final analysis it must be recalled why inquiries are set up under the 2005 Act. Section 1(1) provides:
1 Power to establish inquiry
(1)A Minister may cause an inquiry to be held under this Act in relation to a case where it appears to him that—
(a)particular events have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern, or
(b)there is public concern that particular events may have occurred.
I would suggest to you, Lady Woolf, that this requires a particularly high duty on you and the Minister. Further you must both have careful regard for the variety of ‘informed observers’ and commentators; and that you examine very carefully your standing in terms of that high duty given the reasons for and the background to the inquiry. Perhaps you should, as quickly as possible, make public your thoughts on Inquiries Act 2005 s9.
I cannot be an ‘informed observer’ yet: I have not heard your side of the story (para [2] or Helow above). I do hope we shall all hear your side very soon. Then we the observer can consider how s 9 applies to you and whether in common law you can be regarded as biased in your proposed role. " 

Why do they read the site?

Quantum Correction 911

REAL REALITY, like this:

#OpGCHQ Hacking Rabbit (Tryin ;))

British parliament approves Islamic State air strikes in Iraq by Reuters AND THIS

Mind Control

1. Lapland Ex-CMO
8. Covert Microchip CIA/NSA Sweden

And this:

The White Rabbit! aka Freeman Money ... ;)

Op. #OTB Has Started 99% HEROES WANTED! :)

No comments :

Post a comment

Only members (obviously) can comment; no moderation; direct to page.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.