Share Bank of England Given Full Power Over Economy
Jun 17th, 2010 | By Keelan Balderson | Category: Economy, Featured Articles |
Print
It started in the late 1600s when the British Empire needed more finance for the war machine. Over 300 years later in 1997 Gordon Brown allowed the megalithic institution to set their own interest rates; and now in 2010 amidst the worst economic depression in modern history the new coalition Government has given complete control back to the bank, as the Financial Services Authority, a watchdog that monitors the banking industry, will now be scaled back and made a “formal subsidiary of the Bank of England”.[BBC]
As reported by the BBC:
This Financial Policy Committee’s primary duty would be to maintain financial stability, or avoid the kind of crisis we experienced in 2007 and 2008 when bank after bank went to the brink of collapse and we came close to the meltdown of the financial system.
The irony and tragedy of this is that the Bank of England and its central banking model is fundamentally responsible (along with the high street bank fractional reserve system of lending more money than is available), for the current crash and all other modern recessions.
Since its inception in 1694 the Government has chosen to go to the Bank for its funding – meaning they literally take out a loan with interest! As common sense tells us it’s impossible to balance the books when our very notes are printed out of debt; current forecasts put the total national debt at £1.1 trillion by 2011.
This means the Government, therefore the people owe the Bank of England £1.1 trillion. How does the Government plan to pay this back? With tax and by cutting public services. This is the root cause of the recession and has always been the root causes of recession.
The current global recession did have a catalyst that sent it over the edge (we’re always teetering) and that was this “financial derivative” market. Which in essence is buying and selling debt; giving financial value to an amount of money that doesn’t yet exist. For example mortgage lenders would create a pool of all of their customer’s mortgages and then sell this list to investors as a “financial derivative”, based on the future value of when all these mortgages are paid off with interest. So an investor would be investing (or gambling) on the hope that all of the mortgages would be paid back.
Now as history has taught us, there were mass defaults on mortgages, so the investors in the financial derivatives market got nothing, the banks got less than they expected and the interlinked global economy came crashing down as everybody defaulted.
If there wasn’t so much debt floating around pretending to be an asset, there wouldn’t be this problem. You see if your friend owes you £10 with 10% (£1) interest, you don’t then count your piggy bank and pretend you still have that £10, you wait until you’ve actually got it. On a global scale nobody waited. And they even sold worthless pieces of paper simply because they were owed this money. Imagine if you then sold a piece of paper to your other friend for 25p because you promised to given them another 25p more when your original friend pays you back the £10 with the 10% interest, which would be £11 altogether. If your friend fails to pay you, then your other friend who made the gamble gets nothing.
Imagine if multi-national mortgage lenders and investment banks did this with millions. Well they did and look where it got us.
This all links back to the Bank of England and other western central banks like the US Federal Reserve because fiat currency is printed out of thin air and then loaned again out of thin air.
When the government borrows money at interest or new notes are printed, there is already debt levied on the people, who must pay taxes to pay it back for the government. In essence we work for the government and the very rich. For example, the Bank of England prints £100 in new notes.
When these notes are filtered in to the regular banks; under the fractional reserve banking system they are allowed to loan out for example 10 times what they were given. So if they were give this £100 in new notes, they can loan up to £1,000 to you with interest. Where does this money come from? Nowhere! You rarely withdraw a loan, it simply remains in the electronic web of financial systems.
So now the government, which uses your taxes, owes the central bank £100, and you then owe your local bank £1,000 with interest. Where does the £1,000 with interest come from? Presumably you work for it.
However if your company lays you off and gets its workforce from cheaper immigrant labor, or completely moves overseas, you then default on the loan. The bank then takes some form of collateral from you, perhaps your car. Out of work, you’re not paying tax. The Government can’t pay back its £100, thus the following year they raise taxes for those that are still working and cut education funding.
Unless society has a solid production base that utilizes the native population to produce things that can then be sold, people will gradually become more indebted to the banks, and more reliant on socialist government handouts. But when the government is really reliant on the central bank, we’re really slaves to the banking system itself. Britain no longer has any solid industry or assets, they were all sold off or shipped overseas.
£1.1 trillion is the reality of the current situation, with no way of ever getting out of it. Absolutely heads must role for the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, overlending and the financial derivatives scam, but at the core we still have a system that is failing by design. That’s why handing over the power to regulate the banks, to the biggest most corrupt bank of them all is a huge joke.
A bigger joke is when they pretend or insinuate that the Bank of England is owned by the Government or even more humorous, the people. If we owned the Bank of England we could just give ourselves a bonus and forget about the recession.
For some reason people think (because we’re told) that the Bank was nationalised in 1946, meaning the government and the people took it over, but this isn’t entirely true…it’s entirely wrong…it’s entirely laughable.
What prosperous nation in their right mind would create a financial system that would force it to lend itself money and have to repay that money with interest? What nation would charge itself interest at all? What nation would put itself out of business by making itself bankrupt?
It’s the equivalent of getting a nice crisp £10 note, setting it on fire, then forcing yourself to work for £11 to replace that £10. If you can’t, you then make do with bread and water until you can.
At the end of WWII, Britain was bankrupt, so the current private owners of the Bank of England agreed that instead of paying cash for the shares in the Bank they would each receive a 3% stake in a new front company called HM Treasury and then operate the Bank as if it was really a nationalised Bank.
As the Bank of England admit themselves:
The entire capital of the Bank is, in fact, held by the Treasury solicitor on behalf of HM Treasury.
With the 1946 Bank of England Act, all of these shares were transferred into the possession of the Treasury solicitor, still there today. It remains a corporation ready to pounce whenever it likes. If it wasn’t, why would they even bother with the self-hating and elaborate system currently in place? In fact it might not just be waiting in the shadows, but still operating as a private company out of public view.
In 1977 the Bank set up an obscure subsidiary entitled BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES LIMITED, or (BOEN), which is actually listed as a private company, owned by the Bank of England. Records show that it only has 2 of its 100 £1 shares issued (to who? Nobody knows). Its function isn’t clear, but this is what is listed:
“To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….”
This bizarre company was granted an exemption by the Secretary of Trade, from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 , because, “it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders.”
Everything about the Bank is shrouded in secrecy and protected by government acts, yet they ensure us that we own it…keep dreaming. If you or any sane goverment owned the Bank of England, would you bail out the banking system with tax payer’s money (adding to the national debt), because they failed to balance their books? Why would we put ourselves in more debt to bail out the banks that put us in recession?
Of course even if some Rothschild isn’t raking in billions in secret, this corrupt system still allows for complete control of the nations people. Cycling them in to recession every 10 years or so keeps them chasing a carrot on a stick that distracts them from important issues and prevents them from becoming a threat to the current establishment.
…The real solution to all of this isn’t clear, but it isn’t to give the hidden beast more power. We might want to look at dissolving it and giving the issuance of interest free currency to our elected government (not that we have much faith in them, but it’s a start) – thus the national debt would be null and void, and future business cycles won’t carry the crippling debt that has swamped us for hundreds of years. If we then peg the the currency to a gold standard or some other commodity, or even a basket of commodities, that have real intrinsic value (Gold is used in industry and doesn’t have a finite print out of nothing availability), we bring real value back to money and correlate it to a resurgence of industry.
US congressman Ron Paul, who ran for President during Obama’s campaign, is the main advocate of ending central banking and returning to a gold standard, or a basket of commodities in America. He recently told CNBC:
I start with the idea that regulations won’t solve our problems. In Washington the only choice is whose going to be the big regulator. So it’s not much of a choice for me. I certainly don’t want to give the Federal Reserve more power, so I don’t like it when Geithner says, “Give the Fed more power”. So I’d much rather have somebody else do it even though I think that’s not going to solve the problem.
Replace Washington with “City of London”, Federal Reserve with “Bank of England” and Geithner with “George Osbourne”, and you sum up our own situation in the UK.
Ron Paul wants to audit the Federal Reserve, I think the UK needs to blow the top on the Bank of England and really see what’s inside, not give it more power to regulate a failing system that loans imaginary money at several times more than the original sum.
*Remember you can stay updated with WideShut.co.uk on our RSS Feed, Twitter & Youtube - subscribe now!
And so, this is how democracy dies….with thunderous applause.
we need a revolution, we have tried the peaceful route to no avail its time to start getting serious. Lynch the bankers and put the MP’s in the stocks and have us bombard them with rotten fruit.
Education, Education, Education.
That’s what Tony Blair said when he took over. What he meant was:
Distraction, Distraction, Distraction.
The Fractional Reserver System should be explained to everybody. The BBC keeps it in the shadows and always falls on the side of the Banker even when they are saying something totally misleading
A Bank will say that they have operating costs, therefore it is reasonable to ask for 5% on a loan when they pay 2% of interest on a savings account.
The margin being 5% minus 2%, equals 3%. Therefore we all believe that the Bank only makes 3% to cover it’s costs (like Bonuses, Building Maintenance, Costs, Rent, etc).
So if we deposit £100 and the we receive 2% – we receive 2 pounds.
The Bank Lends our money to someone else, they get 5% which is 5 pounds – right? They make £3 – correct?
WRONG: Because of Fractional Reserve Banking the are able to lend out £900 (throughout the Banking Network). They only have to keep 10% of the Deposit.
Therefore £100 Deposits = £1,000 Loan
Lets calculate the interst they earn once more: 5% of £1000 is £50
We still only get : 2% of £100 is £2
They make £48. Almost half our original deposit and they still complain about running costs. The best part is that the extra £900 they created (counterfeited), so they made 5% on £900 of money that never existed until we depoisited our money and someone applied for a loan. That’s £45 of interest on NOTHING.
Not a Bad Margin at all. The BBC never picks up on this point – either through ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. They mostly side with the Banks.
The solution is for the government to stop borrowing money from the Bank of England and set up a parallel bank owned by the British government. Instead of issuing treasury notes the government prints its own money and puts it in circulation (it has been done before) and pays back the national debt from income.
The reasons why this has not been done are fairly insidious, it must mean that the actual government is owned or controlled by the Bank of England or its owners.
Any insurrection against the central banks leads to political suicide though and most politicians don’t want that. Politicians in the US have died for trying to wrestle back control from the central banks.
Update . FEB 7 th 2011
Nov.23 – - -Nov.26 th. 2010.
The following sent to – - – - 312- – Lords – - – - – - House of Lords.
The following sent to – - – - 649 – - M.P.’s – - – - – House of Commons.
SWISS BANK PARTNERS IN CRIMES.
Pictet & Cie Bank.
Ivan Pictet.
Charles Pictet.
Nicolas Pictet.
Jacques de Saussure.
Jean – Francois Demole.
Renaud de Planta.
Philippe Bertherat..
Pictet & Cie.- claim they are the “Rolls Royce”of Swiss banks.
Swiss Banks or more correctly Swizz banks.
Swizz. —- “ a great disappointment.” or a “ fraud.”
Fraud. —“ an intentional deception or dishonesty.”— “a crime.”
Crime. —“ an act committed or omitted in violation of a law.”
Serious Crimes .
Conspiring to pervert the Course of Justice.
Perverting the Course of Justice.
Contempt of Court.
Pictet & Cie Bank –Partners –(1996—2010)—guilty.
Peters &Peters – Partners.— (1999—2010)— guilty.
The bank and it’s officials/lawyers deliberately withheld crucial documents requested under a High Court order. The bank and it’s officials/lawyers deliberately withheld evidence from the Police, and one of it’s account managers Susan Broadhead gave a false witness statement to the Police.
Another one of it’s managers Nicholas Campiche ( Now Head of Pictet – Alternative Investments.) concocted a letter pretending to be a client and closed his account. The senior partner (Ivan Pictet.) sought to have numerous documents destroyed,along with those copies held in their London office’s of Pictet Asset Management. Initially stating that they were forgeries then their lawyers Peters & Peters – Monty Raphael –and the barrister Charles Flint.Q.C. later had to admit in Court that the documents were genuine.
British Parliament. Hansard .29th March 2007.
Barry Sheerman .M.P.—quote.
———“ Constituents of mine have lost £2 million through fraud. The fraudster used Pictet & Cie – - a French Bank – - and Pictet Asset Management to back the fraud being perpetrated.””
(1) It is a criminal offence for a bank to knowingly act for an undischarged criminal bankrupt in so far as it seeks to assist that criminal bankrupt in the fraudulent movement of monies. ( Money Laundering.)
(2) It is a criminal offence for a bank to lie to the police and the bankrupts trustee in bankruptcy in so far as any knowledge of, or dealings with the bank was refuted .
(3) A bank can be guilty of Contempt of Court if it fails to comply fully with the Courts order for discovery .
(4) The banks contempt is further compounded if it fails to address its error after it is specifically drawn to the to its solicitors attention. ( Monty Raphael).
(5) It is a criminal offence under the Financial Services Act to seek to destroy evidence that might be relevant to an investigation .
(6) It is a criminal offence not to relinquish control of funds to the Trustee immediately the fact of the bankruptcy is drawn to the banks attention.
(7) It is a criminal offence to lie or otherwise obfuscate the lawful and proper enquiries of the F.S.A.
In the F.S.A. cover up , they concluded that there had been “ Rogue” elements in Pictet & Cie’s , London operations . They had been moved from their London Office so who was there left to prosecute. “ Unbelievable.”
On Dec 9th,2008. the complaint was sent to 150 Members of the House Of Lords and 230 Members of Parliament.
*** We thank –David Cameron. M.P. ( Canary Wharf Speech.) Dec. 15th. 2008.
Now— PRIME MINISTER.
(1) Bankers who behave irresponsibly should face professional consequences.
(2) If anyone is found to have behaved criminally they must be prosecuted.
(3) The F.S.A and the Serious Fraud Office should be following up every lead,
investigating every suspect transaction .
(4) We need to make it 100% clear –those who break the law should face
prosecution.
(5) That we make sure we root out any wrongdoing that may have happened, whoever
is involved, however high or well connected they may be.
Ivan Pictet.
Managing partner in Pictet & Cie Bank . — retiring -?. 2010.
President of the Geneva Financial Centre. —stepping down -2010. ?
World Bank.committee member.—- ?
United Nations. Investment Committee member,
Vice President – Global Humanitarian Forum. — redundant.2010.?
Member of the Henokiens.
Blackstone Group — Board Member.
Past- President – Geneva Private Bankers association.
Past –President – Geneva Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Monty Raphael. ( Peters & Peters.)
Quote.” —- Doyen of U.K. Fraud lawyers.
Head of Fraud and Regulatory Dept. —- stepping down, –2009.? Director of the Fraud Advisory panel.
Member of the Law Society of England & Wales.
International Bar Association Member.
Written Parliamentary Questions received by the table office ..
(1) To ask the secretary of state what steps he is taking to ensure that Swiss Banks such as Pictet & Cie do not evade criminal prosecution under EU law even when the illegal act is committed by a London based subsidiary.
(2)To ask the secretary of state what steps he is taking to protect the rights of UK citizens who seek redress following criminal activities by Swiss banks with subsidiary offices located in London.
On Dec 9th,2008. the complaint was sent to 150 Members of the House Of Lords and 230 Members of Parliament.
On Aug 19th.2009.another complainants file regarding the “cover up” was forwarded to the same 380 members.
We started our campaign in June 2008 — via the “net” to highlight our fight to get “justice”. In our second year campaign we hoped to reveal further damning evidence . Due to there being an on going Police investigation into our complaint we are at this moment unable to place dozens of documents on to the “net”. Again we thank other “ E- Mailers” for their information in relation to our campaign.
Quote. ( America’s Top Lawyer .)
You can be the richest man in the world with the best lawyers that money can buy but you cannot win against a man who has got nothing left to lose and is telling the truth.
Truth Hurts.
Ivan Pictet. Announces stepping down from Pictet & Cie. 5th Feb 2010.
Stepping Down—President of Geneva Financial centre.—2010.
Monty Raphael. Steps down as head . May. 2009.
*** We note that there has been a sharp increase in Peters & Peters partners leaving to go to other practices. Moving does not alleviate them of any responsibility from any illegalities that may have occurred at Peters & Peters during their partnership tenure. From 1999 onwards.
*** Were currently waiting to see if the Police and other Law Enforcement Bodies attempt to cover this case up like their F.S.A. counterparts. If they do –“ then watch this space.”
We were informed that due to pressure from our M.P. that the Ministry of Justice have asked Lord Myners to investigate our claims that the F.S.A. covered up the illegal activities of Pictet Asset Management. London. We might as well have asked Ivan Pictet to investigate or someone from FRIENDS RE-UNITED.
The consensus of opinion is the Pictet & Cie should be prosecuted , and that their U.K. banking licence should be taken away.
Their Solicitors at Peters & Peters .London “ struck off and prosecuted..”
*** Started campaign — June 6th.2008.
2 .5 years —- approx 2 .5 million e-mails – - – but still no writs, injunctions or threats of litigation – – - WHY – - – because it is all true.
*** . The bigger they are — the harder they fall.!!!
In America —- they would have all been in prison for the last seven years.
Nov.23rd –Nov.26th. 2010 .
The above sent to —— 312 – - Lords – - – House of Lords.
The above sent to — –649 – - M.P.’s – - – House of Commons._
Full Story.
Go to search box on “Google” and insert ( Peters & Peters/ Pictet & Cie.)
or go to ” Google ” and insert any of the following combinations.
Insert– ( Jacques de Saussure/ Monty Raphael.)
Insert– ( Ivan Pictet / Monty Raphael.)
Insert– ( Pictet & Cie /Monty Raphael.)
Insert– ( Charles Flint. Q.C./ Monty Raphael.)
Insert– ( Nicholas Campiche / Susan Broadhead.)
Insert– ( F.S.A. / Monty Raphael.)
Insert –( F.S.A. / Pictet & Cie.)
Insert –( Hansard /Ivan Pictet.)
*** Were currently waiting to see if the West Yorkshire Police :-
(1) Chief Constable. — Sir Norman Bettison.
(2) Forces Solicitor . — Mike Percival .
(3) Head Of Economic Crime Unit. — Det . Chief Inspector Steven Taylor.
continue to attempt to cover this case up like their F.S.A. counterparts. If they do –“ then watch this space.”
We were informed that due to pressure from our M.P. that the Ministry of Justice have asked Lord Myners to investigate our claims that the F.S.A. covered up the illegal activities of Pictet Asset Management. London.
It has been noted that the book launch for PICTET was held at Lord Myners Belgravia home.We might as well have asked Ivan Pictet to investigate our complaint.-or someone from FRIENDS RE-UNITED.
Lady Myners on Prix PICTET advisory board.
The consensus of opinion is the Pictet & Cie should be prosecuted , and that their U.K. banking licence should be taken away.
Their Solicitors at Peters & Peters .London “ struck off and prosecuted..”
In America —- they would have all been in prison for the last seven years.
People will become more indebted to the banks, But when the government is really reliant on the central bank, we’re really slaves to the banking system .it is true……….
West Yorkshire Police.
We note that Det Chief Inspector Steven Taylor has been removed as Head of the Economic Crime Unit and demoted to Det. Inspector. ( one down two to go.)
A file of some 339 pages including scores of documentation has been forwarded to the following —
640 — Members of Parliament.
460 — Members of the House of Lords.
Ministry of Justice.
F.S.A. – Financial Services Authority.
Serious Fraud Office,
Peters & Peters .London. — Solicitors.
Pictet & Cie Bank — London & Geneva.
West Yorkshire Police Authority.
I.P.C.C.— Independent Police Complaints Commission.
C.C.R.C. — Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Swiss Ambassador London.