Talk about brain-washing. The Brits think they are so clever but they worship inane entities that rule them just like in the middle-ages. What a bunch of brain-washed eejits.
Talk about brain-washing. The Brits think they are so clever but they worship inane entities that rule them just like in the middle-ages. What a bunch of brain-washed eejits.
Stupid British people glorify these parasites while their children suffer hunger pains.
Gibbins, who earned £80,000 ($105,000) per year as head of global estates at the charity, which promotes Britain’s image worldwide, was sacked for gross misconduct following her “distasteful and personal attack” on the future heir to the throne.
The Labour Party member and republican took the British Council to an employment tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and “belief discrimination.”
But the tribunal ruled the British Council, of which the Queen is patron, was right to fire Gibbins for her “reckless lack of judgment, inexcusable in someone in a senior position,” despite her claims that she had a “slip of judgement.”
The case relates to a picture of Prince George originally posted by the band Dub Pistols with the caption: “I know he’s only two years old, but Prince George looks like a f***ing d***head.”
The meme sparked a debate in the comments section, in which Gibbins chipped in saying: “White privilege. That cheeky grin is the (already locked-in) innate knowledge that he’s Royal, rich, advantaged and will never know any difficulties or hardships in life.
“Let’s find photos of 3yo Syrian refugee children and see if they look alike, eh?”
She posted a further comment: “I’m sound in my socialist, atheist and republican opinions.
“I don’t believe the royal family have any place in a modern democracy, least of all when they live on public money. That’s privilege and it needs to end.”
In a written ruling, the judge said: “The Tribunal agrees ‘reckless lack of judgment’ which had caused disrepute is sufficient for gross misconduct.
“We concluded that it was not the expression of republican belief that was the reason for concluding that the claimant had lacked judgment and thereby brought the respondent into disrepute.
“It was that she had associated herself with a distasteful and personal attack on a small child.”
Rebecca Walton, the British Council’s EU regional director, who oversaw the disciplinary hearing, told the tribunal: “My concern would have been the same whoever our Patron was, whether from the Royal Family or not.
“I believe there is a recklessness that comes into play when you choose to comment under a picture of a three-year-old child about that three-year-old,” she added.
Details of the investments were leaked as part of the Paradise Papers on Sunday, a trove of more than 13 million documents from the world’s leading offshore law firms released through the International Consortium for Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), of which the BBC is a part.
More than 120,000 people and companies have been identified during the leak, including Queen Elizabeth II.
A spokesperson for the Duchy of Lancaster told the BBC: “We operate a number of investments and a few of these are with overseas funds. All of our investments are fully audited and legitimate. The Queen voluntarily pays tax on any income she receives from the Duchy.”
The Queen invested in Brighthouse, a company responsible for the misery of thousands of people on low incomes.
According to the leaked documents, the Duchy of Lancaster invested $7.5 million of the Queen’s private income and financial portfolio in Dover Street VI Cayman Fund LP in 2005.
Files from offshore law firm Appleby reveal that the fund made investments in pharmaceutical and high-tech companies, including a company that developed fingerprint technology for mobile phones.
The Queen’s estate received about $360,000 from its investment.
The papers also revealed that the Dover Street fund bought a small interest in something called ‘Project Bertie,’ which involved the takeover of rent-to-buy company BrightHouse, a company slammed by consumer watchdogs for selling household items on payment plans with annual interest rates as high as 99.99 percent.
#ParadisePapers sending ripples all over the world. Queen investing in Bright House WTF?! Govts worldwide have encouraged tax evasion. The rich get richer. Makes me so angry when everyone else is paying taxes. All that money hidden away could have made world better place
Dover Street VI Cayman Fund LP also purchased a 75 percent stake in First Quench Retailing Ltd, which included the off-licence chain Threshers that went into administration in 2009.
Chris Adcock, chief finance officer for the Duchy, told the Guardian it had been unaware of the indirect holding in BrightHouse.
“Investors commit to a fund for a given period and are not party to its ongoing investment decisions,” he said.
“We are not aware of any tax advantages to the Duchy in investing in offshore funds.
“The Duchy’s investment policy is based on advice and recommendations from our investment consultants and asset allocation, rather than tax strategy.”
Royal officials told the Daily Mail that the Queen had no direct involvement, and they were “not aware of any tax advantages.”
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the information revealed by the Paradise Papers proves that “there’s one rule for the super-rich and another for the rest when it comes to paying tax.”
With permission from
Nov 1, 2017
Hardly a day can go by without another revelation about another Establishment figure being a child abuser or worse.
The latest story reveals that MI5 knew the country’s chief prosecutor had covered up a sex abuse inquiry into Cyril Smith but did nothing because it was not its job to expose paedophiles.
The files released by the intelligence agency show it was aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had lied to a newspaper over its decision not to prosecute Smith. But MI5 decided not to make the information public because its duty was to “defend the realm” rather than to expose a prominent politician accused of being a paedophile.
Another similar case has seen ex-Tory prime minister Edward Heath named by Wiltshire police who tell us — far too late of course — that Heath would have been questioned over sex abuse claims, if he was alive, when they came to light.
Of course a glimpse at the internet will demonstrate that Heath has been under suspicion for abusing young men and worse for years — accusations that have always been swept aside by the Establishment.
Yet another inquiry into abuse by Church of England Bishop Peter Ball has revealed just what a corrupt and hypocritical bunch the religious arm of the British Establishment really is.
This time the high-ranking Establishment figure who conspired to cover up sexual abuse and other wrongdoing was non-other than the ex-archbishop of Canterbury George Carey.
An independent report found that senior Church figures colluded over a 20-year period Ball, who sexually abused boys and men.
This is just one arm of a veritable octopus of Establishment cover-ups that touches clergy, government, police, intelligence services — right up to the very peak of British society, including several ex-prime ministers and even one heir to the throne.
When Ball was first accused of gross indecency against a 17-year-old boy in 1992, a string of senior Establishment figures — including Carey, other top clergy, Cabinet ministers, a High Court judge, public school headmasters and magistrates — came forward in his support, lobbying the police and Crown Prosecution Service.
Ball’s lawyers also told the police they had a letter of support from a high-ranking member of the royal family. It wasn’t hard to guess which royal they wanted to think they were talking about. When he was arrested Ball was Bishop of Gloucester, which covers Prince Charles’s Highgrove Estate. Ball described Prince Charles as a “loyal friend.”
Even after his disgrace Ball was offered, and accepted, a home in a cottage on the Prince’s Duchy of Cornwall estate. He continued to enjoy close relations with Charles, even reading the homily at Charles’ father-in-law’s funeral in 2006.
All that high-level lobbying meant Ball escaped prosecution for the offense. He received only a police caution.
The bishop continued visiting public schools until 2007. A fresh investigation was opened in 2012, which led finally to his conviction for multiple and serious sexual abuse.
One of Ball’s victims, Neil Todd, attempted suicide three times before killing himself in 2012. In the recent church report Ball was portrayed as the victim, whereas the church offered little compassion for the vulnerable and young Todd, being “most interested in protecting itself.”
This is an echo of a much earlier report from Baroness Butler-Sloss, who in an earlier review of abuse by Church of England clergy admitted she was more interested in protecting the reputation of the church than anything else.
Theresa May, both as home secretary and today as Prime Minister, has staunchly refused to include abuse accusations about the Kincora children’s home in Northern Ireland.
Why is Kincora so important? Because there is abundant evidence that MI5, MI6 and other British intelligence agencies know that many high-ranking British Establishment figures were personally involved in the abuse. These included Lord Mountbatten — great uncle and mentor of Prince Charles.
It was Mountbatten who introduced the notorious Jimmy Savile into the royal family and paedophile Savile too became a regular Buckingham Palace guest and a mentor, adviser and fixer to Prince Charles.
Savile was never prosecuted but he certainly raped, molested and abused over a thousand children, many of them helpless patients in hospitals to which Tory minister Edwina Currie had given him uncontrolled access.
May’s refusal to include the Kincora boys’ home in the general inquiry is certainly because it would expose the connection between paedophiles, MI6, MI5 and the royals.
Prince Charles often described Jimmy Savile as one of his best friends. He wanted Savile to be Prince Harry’s godfather — wiser counsel stopped that but the two men shared holidays and much else.
Royal patronage and the Establishment cover-up that came with it certainly shielded Savile. He was never prosecuted and when he died the BBC broadcasted sycophantic tributes. Only later was the ghastly truth revealed.
These Establishment cover-ups go back a long way. Many years ago respectful press barons keen to get honours would keep royal and political scandals from the public view.
By the 1960s and ’70s it was more difficult keeping these things under wraps. Some say the new wave of mass cover-ups started with a dossier compiled in the 1980s by the late Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens and which he passed to the then-home secretary Leon Brittan.
Dickens, who died in 1995, told his family that he had details in the dossier that would blow the lid off the lives of powerful and famous child abusers.
In 1981, Dickens named the former British High Commissioner to Canada, Sir Peter Hayman, as a paedophile in the House of Commons. Parliamentary privilege meant he could not be sued for slander.
In October 1978, Hayman left a package of paedophilia-related material on a London bus. The police traced the package to him and then found his diaries describing sexual acts with children. Hayman was never charged.
In 1983, Dickens claimed there was a paedophile network involving big, big names — people in positions of power, influence and responsibility and threatened to name them too in the Commons.
In 1984 Dickens met with and gave his child abuse dossier to the home secretary, Brittan. Much later it would be revealed that Brittan too was himself an abuser.
Dickens received many threats for naming important and powerful paedophiles — threatening calls were followed by burglaries at his London home.
In 2013 Labour MP Tom Watson asked the Home Office for Dickens’s dossier. They told him it had been referred to the police at the time but had not been retained.
The matter was raised again in July 2014 by then Labour MP Simon Danczuk. Former director of public prosecutions Lord Macdonald said the circumstances in which the dossier had gone missing were alarming and recommended an inquiry.
Lord Brittan confirmed that he received what he described as a substantial bundle of papers from Dickens in 1983, when he was home secretary, and that he handed them all over to the relevant officials for further investigation.
A Home Office review said that information it received between 1979 and 1999 had been passed on to the relevant authorities.
Lord Brittan suggested his information had been passed to the police, but Scotland Yard told the Guardian it has no record of any investigation into the allegations.
According to the Telegraph, Mark Sedwill, then permanent secretary to the Home Office, admitted that it had lost, destroyed or simply not been able to find at least 114 potentially relevant files.
This has led to accusations of a high-level cover-up from some unexpected quarters. Senior Tory MP and former children’s minister Tim Loughton is one who has accused the Home Office of trying to hide the facts.
Lord Tebbitt has told BBC’s Andrew Marr he believes there had been a cover-up because at the time people instinctively tried to protect the system. “I think at the time most people would have thought that the Establishment, the system, was to be protected, and if a few things had gone wrong here and there it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it.”
May, who was home secretary for seven years, must take much of the responsibility for the most recent stages of the great cover-up.
She was finally persuaded in July 2014 to hold a review into many historic child abuse allegations. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse finally tried to start work on July 9 2015.
May first appointed Baroness Butler-Sloss to chair the review despite the fact that she was the sister of Sir Michael Havers, who had as Tory attorney general suppressed the reporting of abuse claims in the 1980s. Butler-Sloss stood down as chair of the inquiry just a few days into the job.
The next chair was Fiona Woolf, who quickly resigned when it was discovered she was great friends with Lord Brittan and his wife.
It took some time to find the next chair. She was Justice Lowell Goddard, a New Zealand high court judge. When she resigned after less than 18 months she was replaced by Professor Alexis Jay. The inquiry was given new terms of reference but few believe it will ever produce any meaningful report.
In July 2015, previously lost Whitehall files were discovered. In one, dated November 1986, the then head of MI5, Sir Antony Duff, accepted a denial by an MP that he was a child-abuser, but noted that “the risk of political embarrassment to the government is rather greater than the security danger.”
The missing dossier has been linked with stalled investigations into the Elm Guest House child abuse scandal. Hayman was just one of hundreds of high-ranking visitors to this brothel near Barnes Bridge.
Prime minister Edward Heath, Liberal MP Cyril Smith, the Queen’s art historian Anthony Blunt, several other Conservative politicians, Buckingham Palace staff and a Labour MP were others on the long list of those accused of visiting.
In January 2015, an academic researcher found a file of allegations against unnatural sexual proclivities by high-ranking people. The document had gone to the prime minister Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s. It was a classified report on Hayman’s original case but it was the handwritten notes by Thatcher that were most interesting — she was insisting that Hayman was not to be named.
She had written a “line to take” note saying: “Say authorities have carried out an investigation. Nothing to suggest that security prejudiced.”
The internet is full of everything from careful evidence-based case-studies to wild conspiracy theories. So how do we find the real truth?
Sadly we don’t because millions of pounds and thousands of work hours have produced enough smoke and mirrors to make sure that rare and dangerous commodity, the truth, will remain well hidden for many years to come. And that is just how those in the highest positions of power like it.
They killed your mother ye asshole!
Why do the citizens of the UK accept this bunch of scoundrels and parasites as their so-called leaders is beyond anybody’s guesses. Stupidity? Mind control? What the hell are you doing UK? Rid yourselves of these parasites. Start with the biggest welfare queen around: the Queen and her parasitic family! Deluded eejits.
“Aristocrats may not like paying tax, but they don’t object to taking handouts from the taxpayer. The landed aristocracy has benefited to an extraordinary degree from payments under the EU’s common agricultural policy. The figures are staggering. At least one in five of the UK’s top 100 single-payment recipients in 2015/16 was aristocratic.”
by Chris Bryant
Sept 7, 2017
On 11 January this year, Charlie, the genial 3rd Baron Lyell, died aged 77 in Dundee after a short illness. He had inherited his title and the 10,000-acre Kinnordy estate, in Angus, when he was just four years old. After Eton, Christ Church and the Scots Guards, he spent nearly 47 years in the Lords, serving as a Conservative minister from 1979 to 1989. He never married and his title died with him, but under the byzantine rules drawn up when the majority of hereditary peers were excluded from the Lords in 1999, his seat was contested in a byelection in which 27 hereditary peers stood.
In the short statement required of them, most of the candidates emphasized their career and credentials, but Hugh Crossley, the 45-year-old 4th Baron Somerleyton, went straight for the ideological jugular: “I think the hereditary peerage worth preserving and its principle creates a sense of innate commitment to the welfare of the nation,” he wrote.
It is not difficult to understand why Crossley would think that way. He was born in, owns, lives in and runs Somerleyton Hall near Lowestoft, Suffolk, which was bought by his carpet-manufacturer ancestor Sir Francis Crossley in 1863. It is palatial, with elaborate Italianate features, a maze, an aviary, a pergola 300ft long, a marina, a 12-acre garden and a 5,000-acre estate. His own publicity material claims that “a trip to Somerleyton is an experience of historical opulence”. Of course he believes in the hereditary principle and his own entitlement.
For most of the 20th century, the aristocracy showed itself remarkably indifferent to the welfare of the nation, if attendance in the upper house is any indication. Debates in the Lords were cursory and poorly attended. Peers had a short week – rarely sitting on a Monday or Friday – and short days, starting at 3.45pm or 4.15pm. During the second world war, there were rarely more than two dozen peers in attendance, and in the postwar years the trend was accentuated. The tedious business of daily attendance no longer interested their lordships, but when their personal interest was at stake or their hackles were raised, they would turn up in force. This became evident in 1956 when the Commons carried a private member’s bill to abolish the death penalty and the Lords voted it down by a resounding 238 votes to 95.
Today, of course, we are accustomed to thinking of Britain’s aristocracy as a quaint historical curiosity. Under Tony Blair’s first government, most hereditary peers were removed from the Lords. Some might think this a fall from grace, but the very fact that 92 hereditaries were to remain (a larger number than had attended most debates over the previous eight decades) was a victory that proved their enduring strength. They had not just delayed but prevented democratic reform of the Lords, and they had entrenched their reactionary presence.
By the 1990s, politics had become a minority interest for the aristocracy, yet for those who chose to exercise their parliamentary rights, the Lords gave them safe passage into government. John Major appointed a string of hereditary peers to his government. The leader of the House of Lords was Viscount Cranborne, heir to the 6th Marquess of Salisbury, and among the ministers were seven earls, four viscounts and five hereditary barons. Even the administration formed by Theresa May in June 2017 included one earl, one viscount and three hereditary barons.
Behind the beauty of the British aristocracy’s stately homes and the sometimes romantic and eventful lives they led, lies a darker story: a legacy of theft, violence and unrepentant greed.
Historically, the British aristocracy’s defining feature was not a noble aspiration to serve the common weal but a desperate desire for self-advancement. They stole land under the pretence of piety in the early middle ages, they seized it by conquest, they expropriated it from the monasteries and they enclosed it for their private use under the pretence of efficiency. They grasped wealth, corruptly carved out their niche at the pinnacle of society and held on to it with a vice-like grip. They endlessly reinforced their own status and enforced deference on others through ostentatiously exorbitant expenditure on palaces, clothing and jewellery. They laid down a strict set of rules for the rest of society, but lived by a different standard.
Such was their sense of entitlement that they believed – and persuaded others to believe – that a hierarchical society with them placed firmly and unassailably at the top was the natural order of things. Even to suggest otherwise, they implied, was to shake the foundations of morality.
They were shocked and angered when others sought to deprive or degrade them. They clung tenaciously to their position. They developed ever more specious arguments to defend their privileges. They eulogised themselves and built great temples to their greatness. They jealously guarded access to their hallowed halls. And when democracy finally and rudely shunted them aside, they found new means of preserving their extravagant riches without the tedium of pretending they sought the common interest. Far from dying away, they remain very much alive.
For all the tales of noble poverty and leaking ancestral homes, the private wealth of Britain’s aristocracy remains phenomenal. According to a 2010 report for Country Life, a third of Britain’s land still belongs to the aristocracy. Notwithstanding the extinction of some titles and the sales of land early in the 20th century, the lists of major aristocratic landowners in 1872 and in 2001 remain remarkably similar. Some of the oldest families have survived in the rudest financial health. In one analysis, the aristocratic descendants of the Plantagenet kings were worth £4bn in 2001, owning 700,000 acres, and 42 of them were members of the Lords up to 1999, including the dukes of Northumberland, Bedford, Beaufort and Norfolk.
The figures for Scotland are even more striking. Nearly half the land is in the hands of 432 private individuals and companies. More than a quarter of all Scottish estates of more than 5,000 acres are held by a list of aristocratic families. In total they hold some 2.24m acres, largely in the Lowlands.
Many noble landholdings are among the most prestigious and valuable in the world. In addition to his 96,000-acre Reay Forest, the 23,500-acre Abbeystead estate in Lancashire and the 11,500-acre Eaton estate in Cheshire, the Duke of Westminster owns large chunks of Mayfair and Belgravia in London. Earl Cadogan owns parts of Cadogan Square, Sloane Street and the Kings Road, the Marquess of Northampton owns 260 acres in Clerkenwell and Canonbury, and the Baroness Howard de Walden holds most of Harley Street and Marylebone High Street. These holdings attract some of the highest rental values in the world. Little has changed since 1925, when the journalist WB Northrop published a postcard portraying the octopus of “landlordism” with its tentacles spread across London, charging the aristocracy with pauperising the peasantry, paralysing the building trade and sucking the lifeblood of the people.
One legal provision unique to England and Wales has been of particular importance to these aristocratic landlords: over the centuries they built many millions of houses, mansion blocks and flats, which they sold on a leasehold rather than freehold basis. This meant that purchasers are not buying the property outright, but merely a time-limited interest in it, so even the “owners” of multimillion-pound residences have to pay ground rent to the owner of the freehold, to whom the property reverts when their leases (which in some areas of central London are for no more than 35 years) run out. This is unearned income par excellence.
Built property aside, land ownership itself is still the source of exorbitant wealth, as agricultural land has increased in value. According to the 2016 Sunday Times Rich List, 30 peers are each worth £100m or more.
Many aspects of those peers’ lives have barely changed over the centuries. Edward William Fitzalan-Howard, the 18th Duke of Norfolk, is still the premier duke of England, as well as being the Earl Marshal, the Hereditary Marshal of England, a member of the Lords and the holder of nine other titles. His landholdings are obscure, but, as he (under-)stated in his maiden (and only) speech in the Lords: “I farm in West Sussex and own moorland in North Yorkshire”, and he still lives at Arundel Castle. Many of those who have ceded their homes to the National Trust or to a charitable trust of their own devising (with all the concomitant tax advantages) still occupy their ancestral pads, with the added benefit of modern plumbing and wiring. The Dowager Countess of Cawdor still lives in her son’s castle thanks to a tax exemption, the Marquess of Curzon still lives and shoots at Kedleston, Derbyshire, thanks to the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF), and the Duke of Marlborough still dines in the saloon at Blenheim, which charges a £24.90-a-head entry fee for visitors.
This is a great example on how the Royal parasites maintain their power, not through merit but from crass nepotism.
The princess applied for a BA in English literature at Newcastle in 2009, but was rejected as her application was deemed “not good enough.”
According to senior history lecturer Martin Farr, the university was “horrified” when it discovered the Duke and Duchess of York’s daughter had been rejected, and immediately offered her a place on an alternative course.
“We had at Newcastle University one of the Queen’s granddaughters, Princess Eugenie,” Farr said during the annual convention of anti-monarchist campaign group Republic, according to the Daily Mail.
“And a friend of mine who is Italian was the admissions officer for BA English literature and received one application for the undergraduate degree that was not good enough and so discarded it.”
When the university realized who the applicant was, it changed its tune, said Farr. He accused the institution of offering Eugenie a place or purely PR purposes.
The admissions officer had failed to recognize that “Princess Eugenie of York from Sandringham may have had more significance for the institution than another applicant,” he said.
Eugenie graduated from the university in 2012 after achieving a 2:1 on her BA degree in English Literature, History of Art and Politics.
A university spokeswoman said the institution did not comment on individual cases.
“If an applicant does not have the actual or predicted grades to meet the requirements for a particular program, it is common practice for them to be considered for alternative programs,” she said, the Times reported.
“Dr. Farr was not involved in the admissions process that took place at that time and he would have no knowledge or insight into any of the decisions.”
Farr also claimed the princess’ attendance had turned many fellow students against the Crown because of the preferential treatment she apparently enjoyed.
“So we had Eugenie parading around campus for the next three years. It’s struck me over the next three years that we had more people turning into republicans because they were barged out of bars and clubs – they realized how much further down the pecking order they were than someone like Eugenie,” he said, according to the Daily Mail.
“She was used by the university for publicity and even a tenuous link like that is worth burnishing.”
After graduating, the Princess – now 27 and eighth in line for the throne – went to New York to work for auction house Paddle8 before moving back to the UK two years ago to take up the job of associate director for contemporary art gallery Hauser & Wirth in London.
It is the second time in just a few months the princess has faced criticism. In May, she was accused of being lazy after reportedly taking 25 days off work in the first 10 weeks of her employment.