the worm that turned
09-09-2009, 04:42 PM
Before I start, this is a serious thread and my intention for it is discussion followed by a sensible plan that leads to lawful action. Lets see where it leads ;)
BACKGROUND
On 20 July 2009 the National Audit Office, via the Comptroller and Auditor General, released their report on the HM Treasury Resource Accounts 2008/09 (see link (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/hm_treasury_resource_accounts.aspx)). In this report they stated the following:
"Parliament authorised a Request for Resources 1: “Raising the rate of sustainable growth and achieving rising prosperity and a better quality of life, with economic and employment opportunities for all” of £20,992,316,000. Against this limit, HM Treasury incurred net resource expenditure of £44,808,175,000, as shown in the Summary of Parliamentary Supply for 2008-09, and have thus exceeded the authorised limit. This excess arose due to the need to provide for some £25 billion for the net losses to be incurred on the Asset Protection Scheme which was not included in HM Treasury’s Parliamentary Estimates.
The net resource expenditure was £23,815,859,000 in excess of the amount authorised for Request for Resources 1. In my opinion, except for this excess, in all other material respects, the expenditure and income have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions conform to the authorities which govern them."
These findings were reported in various newspapers (Daily Mail) but interestingly it was done just prior to Parliamentary recess and whilst the country was gripped by swine flu mass hysteria (i.e. it was kept under the radar).
From the quote it is interesting to note that in the final paragraph they admit that the "excess" spending has not been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament, and the "financial transactions" (bail-out) DO NOT conform to the authorities which govern them.
As the spending allowance is governed by Acts of Parliament each year (i.e. legally passed Acts under Statute Law) and this spending was not passed by any such act, does this therefore make the bail out illegal?
STEPS I HAVE TAKEN
I have written to the National Audit Office to find out what implications this has on the Government, their right to spend, the impact on persons in the UK and whether or not it remains legal to request taxation from UK persons when the previous accounts remain officially unaudited (sent today).
I have also written to my MP with the following (via Write To Them website (http://www.writetothem.com)):
"Dear MP,
Following the announcement that the National Audit Office (NAO) refused to sign-off on ALL of the appropriation of funds by the Government for year ending 31st March 2009; I am extremely concerned.
According to reports this is the first time this has occurred in over 300 years. Does this not start alarm bells ringing with you?
I have requested the NAO to look further into this matter for me and the rest of us living on the lands of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, particularly with regards to the legal ramifications upon the current Government for not receiving Parliamentary approval for this increased spending.
If it is indeed illegal for the Government to do such an act I would hope criminal proceedings would be taken. From what I can ascertain, the Government, under the unelected leadership of Gordon: Brown (closely supported by the unelected Peter: Mandelson) requested and received a further 23.8 billion pounds sterling to be made available to banks (unspecified at the time) to 'bail out' these sorry organisations and all of this without any legal (statute) approval via Parliament. How on God's earth is this possible? Why didn't your party request this to stop or were all men and women acting as Members of Parliament in agreement?
I can only assume that the banks were extremely close to 'going under' and therefore this Government plunged the UK persons into further debt. This is ironic, when we consider that the area in which the Government overspent was under the description of:
"Raising the rate of sustainable growth and achieving rising prosperity and a better quality of life, with economic and employment opportunities for all"
I can only assume that Gordon Brown et. al. assumed that "and" meant or, and that "all" meant the benefactors of the banks.
An extremely disillusioned member of your constituency and a man contemplating the removal of his right to be governed.
Sincerely and without ill will or malice and with all human rights reserved"
NEXT STEPS
We discuss thoroughly put together a plan and determine whether it is firstly illegal what has occurred and secondly (if it is illegal) how a prosecution can be put together. If we work together on this then individuals cannot be targeted by those that want blatant acts AGAINST members of the UK's interest (in my opinion) to continue.
Let's go! :D
BACKGROUND
On 20 July 2009 the National Audit Office, via the Comptroller and Auditor General, released their report on the HM Treasury Resource Accounts 2008/09 (see link (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/hm_treasury_resource_accounts.aspx)). In this report they stated the following:
"Parliament authorised a Request for Resources 1: “Raising the rate of sustainable growth and achieving rising prosperity and a better quality of life, with economic and employment opportunities for all” of £20,992,316,000. Against this limit, HM Treasury incurred net resource expenditure of £44,808,175,000, as shown in the Summary of Parliamentary Supply for 2008-09, and have thus exceeded the authorised limit. This excess arose due to the need to provide for some £25 billion for the net losses to be incurred on the Asset Protection Scheme which was not included in HM Treasury’s Parliamentary Estimates.
The net resource expenditure was £23,815,859,000 in excess of the amount authorised for Request for Resources 1. In my opinion, except for this excess, in all other material respects, the expenditure and income have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions conform to the authorities which govern them."
These findings were reported in various newspapers (Daily Mail) but interestingly it was done just prior to Parliamentary recess and whilst the country was gripped by swine flu mass hysteria (i.e. it was kept under the radar).
From the quote it is interesting to note that in the final paragraph they admit that the "excess" spending has not been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament, and the "financial transactions" (bail-out) DO NOT conform to the authorities which govern them.
As the spending allowance is governed by Acts of Parliament each year (i.e. legally passed Acts under Statute Law) and this spending was not passed by any such act, does this therefore make the bail out illegal?
STEPS I HAVE TAKEN
I have written to the National Audit Office to find out what implications this has on the Government, their right to spend, the impact on persons in the UK and whether or not it remains legal to request taxation from UK persons when the previous accounts remain officially unaudited (sent today).
I have also written to my MP with the following (via Write To Them website (http://www.writetothem.com)):
"Dear MP,
Following the announcement that the National Audit Office (NAO) refused to sign-off on ALL of the appropriation of funds by the Government for year ending 31st March 2009; I am extremely concerned.
According to reports this is the first time this has occurred in over 300 years. Does this not start alarm bells ringing with you?
I have requested the NAO to look further into this matter for me and the rest of us living on the lands of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, particularly with regards to the legal ramifications upon the current Government for not receiving Parliamentary approval for this increased spending.
If it is indeed illegal for the Government to do such an act I would hope criminal proceedings would be taken. From what I can ascertain, the Government, under the unelected leadership of Gordon: Brown (closely supported by the unelected Peter: Mandelson) requested and received a further 23.8 billion pounds sterling to be made available to banks (unspecified at the time) to 'bail out' these sorry organisations and all of this without any legal (statute) approval via Parliament. How on God's earth is this possible? Why didn't your party request this to stop or were all men and women acting as Members of Parliament in agreement?
I can only assume that the banks were extremely close to 'going under' and therefore this Government plunged the UK persons into further debt. This is ironic, when we consider that the area in which the Government overspent was under the description of:
"Raising the rate of sustainable growth and achieving rising prosperity and a better quality of life, with economic and employment opportunities for all"
I can only assume that Gordon Brown et. al. assumed that "and" meant or, and that "all" meant the benefactors of the banks.
An extremely disillusioned member of your constituency and a man contemplating the removal of his right to be governed.
Sincerely and without ill will or malice and with all human rights reserved"
NEXT STEPS
We discuss thoroughly put together a plan and determine whether it is firstly illegal what has occurred and secondly (if it is illegal) how a prosecution can be put together. If we work together on this then individuals cannot be targeted by those that want blatant acts AGAINST members of the UK's interest (in my opinion) to continue.
Let's go! :D