[Diggers350] Flashback Jan13 - Windsors' extensive vetos over UK legislation

[Linda Beamish]

"God Save The Queen" - why??!!

Why - why would God want to save the Queen?

If I were God - I know what I'd say to that - and that's that, as she sat on her golden throne behind her own set of pearly gates, (telling us that's what God did), while ensuring that at least 65% of all the single parents in her own 'Kingdom' (of the UK) received absolutely £0.00 (zero) CHILD maintenance from any absent parent - and created mountains by way of debt, unnecessary poverty, child poverty, and years (and years) of suffering because of it - that she wouldn't even be allowed to enter The Kingdom in the first place.

For two thousand years, we've had it drummed into us that we have to follow the rules - or we'll be tortured, hung, burned at the stake, our heads would be chopped off and we'd be drawn and quartered - our children will be raped, (and our lands stolen from under our feet - much like a green version of the right (bright) red 'Royal' carpet).

According to a report written by Alice Philipson published in The Telegraph on January 13th 2014, The Windsors veto 'acts of Parliament' - and have far (FAR) more powers over us than that which we had all previously been led to believe.


This effectively means that the mere act of voting for any particular political party is void and veto'd in itself - because whatever any particular political party may intend by way of bettering proposals for our society - the Royal Family can easily overturn to better their own financial prospects.

In previous reports shared by independent investigative journalist Tony Gosling, ((via Diggers 350 and the UK Eco-Village Network)), it emerged that the Queen didn't have to share information as to her full investment funding in the (royal) Bank of England, but that as a whole, as the head of the royal family, HRH The Queen, was the biggest land-owner on (and of) Earth.

God gave us all this amazing opportunity to live on this beautiful planet - our home - the Earth, ((Gaia)).

But the Royal Family took it away from us all - so why would "God Save The Queen"?

In the beginning, there was 'the word', and the world became ours by it's making - and it's making of us.

But then, a few years after they crucified Jesus - the Romans went on the rampage, invading countries and states across Europe and Africa - including 'The British Isles'.

Alongside the Roman Invasion there also came the invasion of the Roman Catholic Church too - with both resultant heads of each, sitting on golden thrones, surrounded by golden richness beset and bejewelled, (all quite contrary to the words and work of Jesus - who had opposed greed in all shapes and forms - and even kicked over the bankers gold in the market place in an act of disgust too).

As a result, for the past 2000 years, we'e all been told that if we don't do the right thing we won't go to heaven - and also, we discovered that we were liable also to be publicly flogged, our children raped, we'd be burned at the stake, beheaded, tortured, drawn and quartered, our feet and hands shackled, or hung.

Ergo, we did as we were told - because we were forced to - and, over the years, the shackles were slowly removed from our hands and feet.  We were told we were 'free' people - free - and no longer their 'slaves', (but that was just another lie really too).

OK, yes, we were free to go to work - for them - we were free to earn our own wages, (if they paid us for doing our work), and we were free to pay their taxes while we did so, plus we were free to buy back 'The Land' and property from those who had taken it away from us, and we were given 'Free-Holders Rights'.

But, within those rights and documents, there still lies a clause stating that - at any time - the Royal Family can once again reclaim that land and deed of property, (even if it has been paid for outright by the current land-owner).

Until the report by Alice Philipson disclosing the fact that The Windsors had such extensive vetos over UK legislation, most people in the UK, (and I should imagine the rest of the world also), assumed that the Royal family were more or less limited in their duties today - with the principal role of emphasis as being ambassadors of and for the UK.

But this article (linked below), proves that they are working far harder behind scenes to control the rules that affect us all today than we'd been led to imagine.

Together with the fact that HRH has vast funds in the (Royal) Bank of England - this means that we are all seriously at risk.

No wonder the UK Government gagged non-profit organisations and founders of community groups from criticising their actions, deeds and intent - because it would appear that actually, the MPs are like muppets, controlled by the hands of the Windsors above their heads.

It also now makes a lot more sense too - why all the non-profit organisations and opponents protesting against Fracking are seen as enemies of the state, extremists, (and worse, even terrorists - even as peaceful protestors), assumably, if the Windsors have financial interests and/or investment in Fracking giants, then as opponents of Fracking, then indeed - we will most definitely be seen as 'enemies of the state' - wherein the Windsors themselves are the self-appointed 'state' representing their own interests above all others.

It also explains why it was that neither HRH Prince Charles or the PM David Cameron took any action in regards to the confidential letter in the back of the folder sent (by registered post), in which they were both asked to help pay 50% of the wages to hundreds of staff of UK/Middle Eastern construction giants CCI/CCC UK International, for up to eight years work in the Caribbean.

N.B.  IF the Windsors also have financial investment in giants such as CCI/CCC UK International, then they are unlikely to take any actions against themselves are they - especially as it would appear from the evidence that CCI/CCC have been employing people overseas without overseas Tax registration or payment of overseas Taxes.  (I say IF - because obviously, as they have no legal requirment to share details of their own financial interests - unlike everyone else in the UK, we cannot know for sure exactly what interests they have in what corporate companies, where - but, if I were HRH and I knew that someone, somewhere wasn't paying their overseas taxes - then, unless I stood to gain more out of allowing them to continue to do so because I had money invested in them myself, I would have been very cross, and would have demanded that they DID pay those overseas taxes - which HRH didn't..!)

(No indeed not based upon 'the above' - IF I were God - I wouldn't allow the Windsors to enter my pearly gates - nor sit on my golden throne - or even touch anything of value at all materialistically - because, based on their family's performance as a whole, they'd be liable to steal it - all from me, from us all in fact, as it happens!)



Proverbs 31:8.9: "Stand up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.  Speak up and judge fairly: defend the rights of the poor and needy."  
















On Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:23 PM, Tony Gosling <tony at cultureshop.org.uk> wrote:
 
  
Queen and Prince Charles using power of veto over new
laws, Whitehall documents reveal

The Queen and Prince Charles are
using their little-known power of veto over new laws more than was
previously thought, according to Whitehall documents.By Alice Philipson  Telegraph - 7:43AM GMT 15 Jan 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9801835/Queen-and-Prince-Charles-using-power-of-veto-over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html
At least 39 bills have been subject to Royal approval, with the
senior royals using their power to consent or block new laws in areas
such as higher education, paternity pay and child maintenance.
Internal Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that on
one occasion the Queen vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in
1999, which aimed to transfer the power to authorise military strikes
against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.
She was also asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act in 2004.
In the Whitehall document, which was released following a court order,
the Parliamentary Counsel warns that if consent is not given by the
royals "a major plank of the bill must be removed".
Legal scholar John Kirkhope, who fought to access the papers following a
freedom of information case, said the document revealed senior royals
have "real influence and real power".
"There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are
quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power,
albeit unaccountable," he said.
The document also contains a warning to civil servants that obtaining
consent can cause delays to legislation. Royal approval may even be
needed for amendments to laws, it says.
Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned
by the Duchy of Cornwall, said the findings showed the Royals "are
playing an active role in the democratic process".
He called for greater transparency in order to evaluate whether the
powers were "appropriate."
"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a
ceremonial role," he said.
"It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic
process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully
appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really
appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we
could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."
The power of veto has been used by Prince Charles on more than 12
government bills since 2005 on issues covering gambling to the
Olympics. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20140224/60dc384a/attachment.html>