State Conspiracy

Conspiracy - and conspiracy theories - take many forms, of which perhaps the best known is that 9/11 was in fact a US government led operation, but where this post is concerned that is neither here nor there. The state conspires against its people in a number of ways, included in which can be: lying, acting for the personal gain of those that work for it, or the use of state organisations to protect those that matter to it - and all this happens under the noses of the people.

Taking the last example first, look at this video posted on the Free Robert Green website in which the cases of Hollie Greig and Ian Puddick are discussed by Brian Gerrish, Ian Puddick and Lou Collins, their radio host. It may be rather lengthy, being 59 minutes, but it does bear watching and is well worth your time. As you will see, those fighting the injustices of the State have had the full resources of the State used against them. In the case of Hollie Grieg serious accusations have been made against prominent people, of abuse including rape and worse, of a Down's Syndrome child. With regard to Ian Puddick, as you will hear, a private security organisation became involved in his persecution, namely Kroll. And who is Chairman of that organisation? None other than one Bill Bratton, who it may be recalled was originally touted as the new 'police chief' for the Met and is now an advisor to the Home Office on 'policing'. Note that Bratton's hands would not appear to be that 'clean'. In respect of Kroll, Channel4 are producing a programme "How power corrupts City of London police and Kroll". The film questions why officers from the Counter Terrorism Directorate made misleading statements in court under oath and the questionable relationship between City of London Police and elite global security giant Kroll.

Let us turn to another form of conspiracy, one practiced by the State and in various forms and returning to my first paragraph, what follows is an example of where the State lies to the people. It is necessary to go back in time to Tony Blair's attempt, through John Prescott, to set up 'regional governments', where the first attempt in the North East was firmly rejected in a referendum. Having been rebuffed - and in typical political mode - the government of the day had another go with the attempt to create Multi Area Agreements (MAAs), on which I posted in January 2009. Probably due to the fact that I had only just begun blogging about three weeks prior to the publication of that post, it only attracted one comment and that was spam! What you find in that post is the government of the day attempting to impose an EU  'wish' without any mention of the 'EU factor' - so once again we were lied to by the State.

To return to the accusation of the State using State 'organisations' to preserve those that matter to it; two  examples and admittedly the first is but a WfW 'theory'. Today, courtesy of the BBC, we are advised that Rachel Reeves, Labour shadow chief secretary to the treasury gave a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank (text here), one in which accusations were made and various figures 'bandied about'. For sure the BBC mentioned, almost as a footnote, that the present government accused the previous administration of leaving the nation in an economic mess - but where is the 'detail' of that last statement? Why was there no mention of the fact that it is rather ironic that an administration which left this nation 'economically broken' is now criticising a new administration for it's economic policies and alleging it is creating yet more debt? If we are talking about 'double standards', which is what in fact is happening with Rachel Reeves' accusations, why no mention that the present government is implementing a policy which, in opposition, they criticised as being a "reckless" invasion of privacy? Are we not witnessing two supposedly opposed parties in agreement on policy? Are we not then looking at a situation whereby opposing parties are 'going through the motions' of appearing to be at odds, yet are committed to the same ends - purely for public consumption - thereby, as part of the State, ensuring the the preservation of those that matter to the State, the State being the self-preservation  of the Lib/Lab/Con?

On the same subject, preservation of those that matter to the State, let us consider a second example. What is the punishment for those convicted of paedophile tendencies? Years in jail if you are one of the public - not, it seems, if you are someone who 'matters' - and I am indebted to Subrosa for this information. Presumably the court involved used this ruling to justify their decision - why, in which case, not this ruling? And justice is applied evenly, without favour?

Reverting to the question of regionalisation of the UK I am drawn to another post by Subrosa on the question of Alex Salmond's intention to impose one police force and one fire service on the Scottish people - a subject also covered by Raedwald. This, I would suggest, is no more than a ploy by Salmond to further his aims for Scottish Independence and the subsequent membership of Scotland to the EU. This aim of one police and one fire service also ties in neatly with Blair's aim of regional government - and he too aimed for both. I refer to the matter of the regionalisation of fire services, one which the Coalition appear to be dismantling - which begs the question why? It is a policy for which taxpayers are still paying the cost under PFI agreements - but the question remains, why is the Coalition appearing to go against this policy? Reverting to MAAs above, perhaps in years to come it will be in-built into the continuation of this policy to create MAAs, one which I do not recall the Coalition actually repudiating - lets face it, they have devised Local Area Partnerships to replace Regional Development Agencies which in effect allow the continuance of MAAs, which logically will include the creation of one police and one fire service? As with the idea that by local authorities sharing 'back office' staff savings can be made for the public purse, so the creation of one police force and one fire service to make 'savings'? This policy is duplicious in that by presenting to the public the idea of cost-savings, they are able to implement the wishes of their masters in Brussels.

There are two methods by which any nation can be 'taken over'. First, by outright invasion and the imposition of military rule, or second, by stealth - or as Monnet and Schumann maintained slowly and surely by political means.............

What the foregoing shows is that any sense of democracy is 'stone dead' where our nation is concerned and that we do, indeed, live under a democratised dictatorship'.

Afterthought: Apologies if I have 'rambled' a tad - hopefully, you get my 'drift'.