[Diggers350] Independent: Royal elite granted new right of secrecy
seeds at snail.org.uk
Tue Aug 26 19:27:01 BST 2014
JP Morgan Cazenove's Ian Hannam, who was also undisputed 'king of
Mining', just a month or two ago got 'fined' [a set up to cover the
bigger scandal] half a million pounds by the FSA or the FCA ... the
Financial Services Watchdog which to happened to be 'revamped' in the
middle of the case.
Cazonove was merged with JP Morgan scumbags on 2004.
The firm refuses to comment on its relations to the Royal Family, it was
widely assumed that it is the appointed stockbroker to Her Majesty The
Serf Ian Hannam even now plays stupid that he did not know the
seriousness of the Stock Market crime he got caught for with Mercenary
King Tony Buckingham and BP'd ex-CEO Tony Hayward as accomplices over
[I am not accusing that ISIS was created by the British Royal family but
that the colonial land deals need to be looked at more closely at a time
when misinformation on this very related topic is whats blaring out on
media by Royal appointment]
Dragging in all aristrocracy dilutes the serious issue at hand.
European royalty have a very big share of corporate theft, globally.
Belgian royalty is a direct case in point.
RTZ which was merged in with CRA [another clear cut direct multiple
genocidaire in Australasia] to form Rio Tinto was undeniably Queen's own
Beyond Surfbury or Serfbury there is a very global picture here and yet
another veil is being drawn over truth.
On 25-08-2014 22:37, Tony Gosling tony at cultureshop.org.uk [Diggers350]
> Hey Simon...
> The British Royal family were in your words 'irellevant' and 'a
> distraction' ... now 'tedious' too.
> In reality far and away the most landed and powerful and the only ones
> who could really change anything.
> Suggest you read up on the subject.
> All these excuses amount to is a vote for destitution, food banks and
> the status quo.
> They don't need absolute protection from public scrutiny from you
> Simon as you volunteer it :-<
> Are you building a new world or propping up the old?
> Look at the power that's been exerted to keep these books out of print
> for example.....
> Perhaps that's 'not a story', either? A tedious irellevant distraction
> At 01:41 25/08/2014, Simon Fairlie wrote:
>> Clearly a distraction since, like the tabloid press, you focus so
>> much attention on this tedious line of aristocrats
>> Are they a 'Distraction', or 'Irellevant' Simon?
>>> Britain's feudal elite granted immunity from FOI laws.
>>> Royal Family granted new right of secrecy
>>> Coalition to write special exemptions into Freedom of Information Act
>>> ROBERT VERKAIK ,
>>> AFFAIRS EDITOR Saturday 08 January 2011
>>> The Royal Family is to be granted absolute protection from public
>>> scrutiny in a controversial legal reform designed to draw a veil of
>>> secrecy over the affairs of the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince
>>> Letters, emails and documents relating to the monarch, her heir and
>>> the second in line to the throne will no longer be disclosed even if
>>> they are in the public interest.
>>> Sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act will reverse
>>> advances which had briefly shone a light on the royal finances –
>>> including an attempt by the Queen to use a state poverty fund to heat
>>> Buckingham Palace – and which had threatened to force the disclosure
>>> of the Prince of Wales's prolific correspondence with ministers.
>>> Lobbying and correspondence from junior staff working for the Royal
>>> Household and Prince Charles will now be held back from disclosure.
>>> Buckingham Palace confirmed that it had consulted with the Coalition
>>> Government over the change in the law. The Government buried the plan
>>> for "added protection" for the Royal Family in the small print of
>>> plans called "opening up public bodies to public scrutiny".
>>> Maurice Frankel, head of the Campaign for Freedom of Information,
>>> said that since the change referred to communications written on
>>> behalf of the Queen and Prince Charles it might be possible for "park
>>> keepers working in the royal parks" to be spared public scrutiny of
>>> their letters written to local authorities.
>>> The decision to push through the changes also raises questions about
>>> the sincerity of the Liberal Democrats' commitment to government
>>> transparency. In opposition, senior Liberal Democrats frequently
>>> lined up to champion the Freedom of Information Act after it came
>>> into force in 2005.
>>> Ian Davidson, a former member of Parliament's Public Accounts
>>> Committee (PAC), told The Independent: "I'm astonished that the
>>> Government should find time to seek to cover up royal finances. When
>>> I was on the PAC what we wanted was more disclosure not less.
>>> "Every time we examined royal finances we found extravagance and
>>> indulgence as well as abuse of expenses by junior royals.
>>> "Everywhere we looked, there were savings to be made for the
>>> Government. This sends the wrong message about public disclosure and
>>> Paul Flynn, another member of the committee, described the special
>>> protection for the Royals as "indefensible". He said: "I don't think
>>> it serves the interests of the public or the Royal Family very well."
>>> Mr Frankel said he believed that Prince Charles was the driving force
>>> behind the new law.
>>> "The heir to the throne has written letters to government departments
>>> in an attempt to influence policy," he said.
>>> "He clearly does not want these to get into the public domain."
>>> Later this month, lawyers for the Cabinet Office, backed by Prince
>>> Charles, will go to court to continue to resist Freedom of
>>> Information requests of ministers to publish letters written to them
>>> by the Prince of Wales.
>>> A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said that the change to the law was
>>> necessary because the Freedom of Information Act had failed to
>>> protect the constitutional position of the monarch and the heir to
>>> the throne. He explained that the sovereign has the right and duty to
>>> be consulted, to encourage and warn the government, and by extension,
>>> the heir to the throne had the constitutional right and duty to
>>> prepare himself for the role of King.
>>> "This constitutional position relies on confidentiality, so that all
>>> such correspondence remains confidential," he said.
>>> But he said that change would also mean that correspondence not
>>> covered by the absolute exemption would be made public 10 years
>>> earlier than under the current disclosure rules.
>>> The Palace's position was backed by Professor Vernon Bogdanor,
>>> research professor at King's College London.
>>> He told The Independent: "The essence of constitutional monarchy is
>>> that the Queen and other members of the Royal Family remain
>>> politically neutral. The Queen meets the Prime Minister once a week,
>>> when both are in London, to discuss government policy.
>>> "The heir to the throne has the right, and perhaps the duty, to
>>> question ministers on policy so as to prepare himself for the throne.
>>> Such discussions are only possible if they remain confidential.
>>> Otherwise the 'neutrality' of the Queen and of the Prince of Wales
>>> could be undermined.
>>> "When the Queen meets the Prime Minister, no one else is present –
>>> not even the Queen's Private Secretary. For this reason, it is right
>>> that the Royal Family should be exempt from FOI."
>>> The Government claimed that the thrust of the changes announced
>>> yesterday would make it "easier for people to use FOI to find and use
>>> information about the public bodies they rely on and their taxes pay
>>> The Ministry of Justice intends to increase the number of
>>> organisations to which FOI requests can be made, bringing in bodies
>>> such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial
>>> Services Ombudsman, and the higher education admissions body UCAS,
>>> and also all companies wholly owned by any number of public
>>> In the public interest? The stories they didn't want us to know
>>> *In 2004 the Queen asked ministers for a poverty handout to help heat
>>> her palaces but was rebuffed because they feared it would be a public
>>> relations disaster. Royal aides were told that the £60m worth of
>>> energy-saving grants were aimed at families on low incomes and if the
>>> money was given to Buckingham Palace instead of housing associations
>>> or hospitals it could lead to "adverse publicity" for the Queen and
>>> the government.
>>> *A "financial memorandum" formalising the relationship between the
>>> sovereign and ministers set out tough terms on how the Queen can
>>> spend the £38.2m handed over by Parliament each year to pay for her
>>> staff and occupied palaces.
>>> *The Queen requested more public money to pay for the upkeep of her
>>> crumbling palaces while allowing minor royals and courtiers to live
>>> in rent-free accommodation.
>>> *As early as 2004 Sir Alan Reid, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, had
>>> unsuccessfully put the case to the Department for Culture, Media and
>>> Sport for a substantial increase in the £15m-a-year grant to maintain
>>> royal buildings.
>>> *The Palace planned to go ahead with refurbishing and renting the
>>> apartment of Diana, Princess of Wales at Kensington Palace after it
>>> had lain empty since her death in 1997.
>>> *A letter exchange revealed a tussle over who has control of £2.5m
>>> gained from the sale of Kensington Palace land. Ministers said it
>>> belonged to the state, while Buckingham Palace said it belonged to
>>> the Queen.
> +44 (0)7786 952037
> Twitter: @TonyGosling http://twitter.com/tonygosling
> uk-911-truth+subscribe at googlegroups.com
> "Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
> "The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates
> the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
> Fear not therefore: for there is nothing covered that shall not be
> revealed; and nothing hid that shall not be made known. What I tell
> you in darkness, that speak ye in the light and what ye hear in the
> ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matthew 10:26-27
> Die Pride and Envie; Flesh, take the poor's advice.
> Covetousnesse be gon: Come, Truth and Love arise.
> Patience take the Crown; throw Anger out of dores:
> Cast out Hypocrisie and Lust, which follows whores:
> Then England sit in rest; Thy sorrows will have end;
> Thy Sons will live in peace, and each will be a friend.
More information about the Diggers350