why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

by **friend catcher** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:53 pm

I apologize signor Anti. you were right and I was wrong The fiendish clans have let me into their conspiracy and it's worse than even you could guess. They intend to reissue the Bay City Rollers in time for the school holidays and subject the entire population of England to tartan badges and deep fried pizza.Is there any way of stopping these red haired hell hounds? You yourself are in grave danger as they know that you know. They intend to spike your sangria with sand from the beach where you sit even now and watch your discomfort with undisguised glee. They are prepared to suffer great danger to themselves by sitting in the sun for as long as ten minutes and will even drink pure water in emergencies.These men have no mercy. Flee for you can not look into their toothless mouths and remain unchanged.

by **antiaristo** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 8:55 pm

<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b">

by **antiaristo** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:43 pm

Just by chance, in today's Guardian <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Bottom of the class The news that Prince William has been dressing up as a member of the working class shouldn't surprise us, says John Harris. From sneering comedy shows to elitist politics, class snobbery is alive and well SNIP There is, of course, a conversation to be had about whether an increasingly diverse Britain has made the old notion of working-class identity redundant, but the numbers still point up an absurd aspect of the new snobbery. If, as evidenced by politicians, comedians and our future king, mocking and demonising supposed white trash is our new national pastime, we're victimising an awful lot of people.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/britain/article/0,,1751272,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/britai...72,00.html</a> The article is not well-written, but at leasy has the merit of timeliness. For does it not resonate deep and strong with what I wrote about my own feelings earlier in this thread? Speaking of Sir Sean Conney, look at the lovely picture here <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=546062006">news.scotsman.com/scotlan...=546062006</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>His and hers Tartan Day for royal couple ANGUS HOWARTH CAMILLA, the Duchess of Rothesay, proved a year of marriage has not altered her fashion sense when she visited a Deeside church yesterday sporting the same red hat that she wore on her honeymoon.<hr></blockquote> CAMILLA, the Duchess of Rothesay. You thought she was Duchess of Cornwall? No. Not always. The truth is they call themselves different names according to whether they are in England or Scotland. And they spend an enormous amount of time in Scotland. Now here's the thing about those two pinnacles of the British class system. They could have done the same as his sister, Princess Anne. They could have re-married in the Church of Scotland, before a churchman, and done so quite legally. But they chose instead to participate in an illegal ceremony held at Windsor Town Hall before a lay official. That is illegal: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Not for the first occasion in this government's lifetime is there a dispute over a piece of legal advice. Paperwork on Royal weddings has a long history The Attorney-General's assertion that the war against Iraq was lawful continues to divide experts in international law. Similarly constitutional lawyers are at odds over the legality of the marriage in a civil ceremony of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker Bowles. It is doubtful whether the Lord Chancellor's statement will end the disquiet. It is clear and unequivocal that the 1836 Marriage Act, which introduced civil marriage to England and Wales, did not apply to the royal family.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4292089.stm">news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4292089.stm</a> So why partake of an illegal act in England, when a lawful ceremony was available in their beloved Scotland? The English Crown. That's where the power and money is. That's why the daughter of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne stole the English Crown in 1937. For the Scottish upper class. You know, that person that engineered the coup against Harold Wilson in 1976. {Added second edit This thread explains the source of that power, and what must be done to secure that power. <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=3180.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...3180.topic</a> End second edit} And that's why her grandson is trying to steal it once again. What we are seeing right now is the beginning of a massive public relations campaign, to just that end. Look out for interminable "Queen Camilla" stories everywhere in the media. Next, the Lord Chancellor. Who just happens to play the defining role in both "dodgy advice" examples cited in the BBC report quoted above. And the man that explains patiently why it is that we English do not need a parliament of our own to look after our interests. Added on edit Here's a clue, Lord Chancellor <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Met chief warns more could be shot Rosie Cowan, Vikram Dodd and Richard Norton-Taylor Monday July 25, 2005 The Guardian Britain's most senior policeman remained defiant last night over the new "shoot-to-kill" policy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers, despite the killing last week of an innocent man by armed officers.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535605,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/attack...05,00.html</a> The story does not refer to the fact that more could be shot in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland. But it DOES refer to "Britain's most senior policeman". So we are given the strong impression that he is talking about the whole of Britain. Not so. There is no shoot-to-kill in Scotland. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 4/11/06 4:22 pm

by **friend catcher** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:40 pm

Must have good understanding of sangriascipt and a degree in Riojanomics. A willingness to work long years with absolutely no hope of success. Full mental health benefits and a very poor salary make this a position requiring a very special person The Bedlam Institute of Textual Study

by **slimmouse** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:46 pm

I dont think you are understanding the whole game here. Is that through choice or what ? Of anyone who has posted on these boards, I have yet to see anyone parallell Anti in his cogency. I would readily suggest there is an undeniable bias. We have discussed this ourselves on more than one occassion. But ultimately, all that anyone who opposes him appears to do, is to attack the messenger rather than the message. So, FC. Your thoughts on Kratos being legal in England, but Illegal in Scotland ? Of course you could say the Scots have more sense. In my personal experience, youre probably right. But that of course would be to miss Anti's point wouldnt you say ? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **friend catcher** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:18 pm

operation Kratos was/is an operation of the metropolitain police i.e. the london police, it refers to london only not the uk which is a recognition that london is the most likely target for suicide bombers.I suspect every police authority in Britain has a plan but the met are the only ones to have implemented it. The shoot to kill policy was in operation big time in scotland for several weeks prior to the G8 summit and of course during it. The Irony of 12000 coppers many of them armed protecring a meeting of the richest nations in one of the most opulent hotels in the world, a meeting supposedly dedicated to relieving third world debt was not lost on many people. This irony was also not lost on many londoners when the bombs detonated on 7/7 that 3000 of their finest were in Scotland beating up harmless protestors. Living within a short distance of gleneagles and having been at auchterader where the brunt of the violence took place I can confirm that the police/funnies/army etc were morethan ready to shoot anything. .

by **antiaristo** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:18 pm

havanagilla I don't know if you are still reading this thread. You asked why the UK is still interfering in your part of the world. You blamed "english people" The reason the UK is still interfering is that the judges are not allowed to do their job in enforcing the law. They are prevented from doing so by the Windsor family. Therefore the UK Government is freed from any constraints, and that smooth barbarian Blair sends UK power around the world to shit on people in all sorts of ways. There is no democratic relief FOR THE ENGLISH because all three arms of the State are controlled by Windsor family placemen. And if we protest they can shoot us. Lawfully. Eleven times. Our only hope will come with the death of the current queen. But they have created a counterfeit to take her place. That's your answer. You are wrong to blame the English people. If you take the trouble to read the whole of this thread and the one I have cross referenced you will find all the evidence required to substantiate what I have said. I may indeed be wounded. But I have no trouble at all in continuing to out-think the Windsor family and their shoals of advisers.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:27 pm

There ya go, hava. Now it's all cleared up for you.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:05 am

<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b">

by **antiaristo** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:21 pm

This is timely. It's what happens when the Queen prevents the judges from administering the law. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The reason the UK is still interfering is that the judges are not allowed to do their job in enforcing the law. They are prevented from doing so by the Windsor family.<hr></blockquote> BCCI Story edited out. Separate thread begun <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/bcci/story/0,,1752498,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704">www.guardian.co.uk/bcci/s...ker-103704</a> Why should ANY case have the potential to damage the legal system? UNLESS the legal system is crooked, and would be exposed. Why was it in the creditors best interests? Surely it was in the interests of the Bank of England. Which is the reason for the final paragraph. What does the word "criticism" mean in the context of legal action? I've written several threads on BCCI. I think I'll start another thread and incorporate a source that demonstrates that the case against the Bank of England was iron-clad. The case was halted to protect the crooks at the Bank of England. The ol' Windsor protection racket in operation again. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=antiaristo>antiaristo</A> at: 4/13/06 5:51 pm

by **antiaristo** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Therefore the UK Government is freed from any constraints, and that smooth barbarian Blair sends UK power around the world to shit on people in all sorts of ways.<hr></blockquote> There is nothing new in this, it is not crafted for this thread. Here's what I said to the Westminster all-party group on war on January 23, 2004 (and posted in Data Dump six months ago) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>So it is not at all surprising that the United Kingdom is throwing its weight around in the world, spewing out depleted uranium to all corners, decimating blameless and defenceless peoples. This is what monarchs do when the people are weak. The question is whether or not parliament can impose the will of the people over the Freemasons, and stop all this madness.<hr></blockquote>

by **havanagilla** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:40 am

Anti, just stick to an equal standard when talking about groups who are the "other" for you (Don't know, scots, masons or what not) and think of them as basically the same as the group you belong to. Namely, they too are made up of individual human beings. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=havanagilla>havanagilla</A> at: 4/14/06 12:28 am

by **antiaristo** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:37 am

One can but try <blockquote>Quote:<hr>MPs military action vote opposed Press Association Wednesday March 22, 2006 8:23 PM The Government remains convinced that it would be wrong to introduce a formal requirement for the Prime Minister to obtain approval from MPs before committing British troops to military action, the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer has said. ......Lord Falconer has insisted that this did not mean the Government was ready to accept a law - or even a formal convention - requiring a vote in the Commons before Britain goes to war. He told a hearing of the House of Lords Constitution Committee that it would be "positively detrimental" to the ability of the armed forces to protect British interests and the lives of British citizens abroad. "The Government's position is that the current arrangement on the power to deploy UK troops abroad should remain as it is at the moment," he told the committee. Lord Falconer accepted that the Royal Prerogative, which allows the PM to declare war and make peace, deploy troops, conduct diplomacy and conclude treaties without Parliamentary approval, was "in many respects ... a historical anachronism"....... "Formal constraints, either in statute or a convention, do not work when faced with the reality of deployments," he told the committee, which is carrying out an inquiry into the use of the Royal Prerogative.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5704103,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/uklate...03,00.html</a> See that? The situation is that the UK "interferes" (declares war and attacks) WITHOUT REFERENCE TO PARLIAMENT OR THE PEOPLE. It is done under ROYAL PREROGATIVE. THE QUEEN declares war, not parliament. UNDERSTAND? If not I will explain some more. How do I, an Englishman, feel about that? I'm on record. <div style="text-align:center">C/ Eusebio Navarro, 12 35003 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Spain 23 January 2004</div> Elfyn Llwyd MP Bob Marshall Andrews QC MP Douglas Hogg QC MP Lembit Opik MP Alan Simpson MP Gentlemen, An all-party group on war and the royal prerogative, at last. Well done. But don’t you think it remarkable that a “sovereign” parliament has taken so little interest up to now in this power to declare war? As things stand both the United Nations veto and the nuclear bomb are “in the hands of the prime minister”. But given that he has sworn to obey the Queen at all times, that those powers are personal to the Sovereign, and that he was ultra-vires throughout the first three years of his mandate, it is quite obvious who is really in control. A 77-year-old lunatic with a profound distaste for humanity. So it is not at all surprising that the United Kingdom is throwing its weight around in the world, spewing out depleted uranium to all corners, decimating blameless and defenceless peoples. This is what monarchs do when the people are weak. The question is whether or not parliament can impose the will of the people over the Freemasons, and stop all this madness. All you have to do is to repeal the Treason Felony Act of 1848. Follow the Law Lords’ advice and get rid of this obscenity, which makes a mockery of each and every one of the articles contained in the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols. The “royal prerogative” is nothing more than Disraeli’s clever misnomer for the Treason Felony Act. What parliament giveth, parliament can taketh away Repeal this crappy law and parliament will recover its sovereignty, its power to declare war, its ability to hold the Executive to account, and its self-respect. And do it now, before they have the chance to create another queen. <div style="text-align:center">Yours faithfully, John Cleary BSc MA MBA</div> cc Dr Tony Wright MP, Chairman Public Accounts Select Committee. enc Cleary to Annan 26 August 2002 Cleary to Mrs Kelly 20 August 2003 Cleary to Stevens 12 January 2004 Cleary to Windsor 15 January 2004 Cleary to Falconer 18 June 2003 Falconer to Cleary 1 July 2003 So I repeat. YOU ARE WRONG TO BLAME "english people". I know it is fashionable to dump on the English. But that's all it is. A fashion. A prejudice. But some prejudices are OK. Some are not. It all depends on whom it is to be declared "victims" by the corporate media megaphone. The English and the Palestinians have a great deal in common. No government of our own. No constitution to protect us. And demonized by the powerful.

by **friend catcher** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 4:41 am

Posted <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1754909,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/commen...09,00.html</a> "Before you start trashing English Nationalists as racists and xenophobes perhaps you should do your research first? I find your comments personally offensive as an English nationalist. All I want is for my country and fellow countrymen and women to be treated equaly in this supposed union. I am fed up with anglophobic Scots running my country into the ground, safe in the knowledge that most of their dangerous and damaging policies won't affect their own country at all. I am sick to the back teeth with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MP's voting on things that only affect England with various excuses for doing so ranging from the tenuous to the downright ludicrous. Ming Campbell said he should be able to vote on English laws because some people from Fife have relatives in England. I have relatives in Texas, does the same apply? Finally, I am completely fed up with paying for superior services for anywhere outside of England while English people have to make do with inferior leftovers. Last week it was announced that Welsh women will be getting Herceptin for free in the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital (an English hospital) whilst English women will have to pay £47k per course privately at the same hospital to be treated by the same nurses in the same ward. This is the inequality that drives English nationalism. If you want to find racism, you should start with the BRITISH National Party and then start looking at the Scots who wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire because you're English." If this isn't the work of a Spanish residing board contributor I will be surprised. I'm hoping that more profound brains than mine will do a demolition job on this but then again people may just avoid it like a drunk in the street. Maybe there will be a groundswell of support for the English funda(mentalist)s and demands for the blood of Sean Connery

by **antiaristo** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:46 am

Jeff, I've sent you a pm about this clown. I'm quite happy to demolish him, but I know you dislike seeing blood all over the board. Your call.

why for god's sake is the UK still interfering anyway ?

Must be a full moon

Re: Must be a full moon

The British Class System

Translator required - fluent in insanity and gobbldygook

with the greatest respect FC.

with the greatest respect FC.

havanagilla

Re: havanagilla

Dreams End

The English Courts and English Judges

Venus is Mars

Re: Venus is Mars

The People of England

Familiar dross posted in the Guardian by whom?

Re: Familiar dross posted in the Guardian by whom?

Who is online