Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > New World Order / Global Government

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 20-07-2016, 03:17 PM   #1
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default Dictators of Britain and the Netherlands

When I tell the people in the Netherlands that we´re ruled by the dictator Willem-Alexander, they look at me funny. If I tell them to just read the constitution, they think it´s too much trouble.
Arguably England is the only real colonial power left in the world.

THE NETHERLANDS
Here are some of the privileges of King Willem-Alexander according to the Dutch constitution, he: 1) appoint the members of the Raad van State (Council of State), 2) appoints judges, 3) creates government departments, 4) dismisses and appoints ministers and secretaries of state, 5) dissolves Parliament, 6) can persecute ministers, secretaries of state and members of Parliament, 7) can grant pardon, 8) proposes laws, 9) can refuse Royal assent to laws, 10) appoints the heads of the provinces (Commissaris van de Koning), 11) appoints the heads of the cities (burgemeester), 12) decides over legal disputes between government departments.
This is not an absolute dictatorship, because the “tweede kamer” and “eerste kamer” can still reject laws proposed by the King. The “tweede kamer” is democratically elected and the “eerste kamer” is elected by the democratically elected “Provinciale Staten”. What makes it all so very just and democratic is that the King is impervious so cannot be held accountable for his crimes (so he´s really above the law)...
In the Netherlands a landslide voted against the EU/Ukraine association agreement, with a landslide of 61% against, 39% for. King Willem-Alexander went ahead as if nothing happened because in a real democracy the people don´t have a thing to say: http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...sa-free-travel
Just last Friday (7/14) a citizen of the Netherlands got sentenced to 30 days in jail for insulting King Willem-Alexander (art. 111 Sr). This man called our King on his Facebook page: murderer, rapist, oppressor and thief. I only had to read the verdict to know that the attorney in question didn’t even defend the “criminal” that said such horrible things about Willem-Alexander.

CONSTITUTION BRITAIN
I wanted to read the British Constitution, but there is not 1 constitution but a number of “Acts” that together can be considered the constitution (so I gave up reading these). I did read Wikipedia (and some other websites) to get an idea on the “constitution” of Great Britain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...United_Kingdom
The Bill of Rights of 1689 has never been repealed, so this is already a strong indication that we cannot expect Britain to be too democratic. Here are some of the powers of Queen Elizabeth, she can: 1) dismiss and appoint the Prime Minister, 2) dismiss and appoint other ministers, 3) summon and prorogue Parliament, 4) grant or refuse Royal Assent to bills (making them valid and law), 5) commission officers in the army, 6) command the army, 7) appoint members to the Privy Council, 8) issue and withdraw passports, 9) grant prerogative of mercy, 10) grant honours, 11) create corporations by Royal Charter, 12) appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, 13) ratify and make treaties, 14) declare war and peace, 15) recognise states, 16) accredit and receive diplomats, 17) fill vacancies in the Supreme Court.
The conclusion must be that British Queen, like the Dutch King, is nothing but a dictator. Please note that it’s Elizabeth that appointed Prime Minister Theresa May and dismissed the other ministers and secretaries over Brexit.
The Queen can make new laws by “Orders in Council” that either come in effect immediately as sort of a decree (Royal Prerogatives), but can be repealed by the Parliament, or with an act of Parliament. There is only one other institute in Britain that can propose laws, this is not the democratically elected House of Commons, but the Queen’s Privy Council that can propose Orders of Council without the Queen´s approval. Although I doubt if this is possible for all types of laws (and still the Royal assent is required).
To make things even less democratic than in the Netherlands, there’s the House of Lords (peers) most of which get appointed by the Queen. There used to be more “hereditary peers” in the House of Lords, but this has been restricted to 92 (of a grand total of 798), to give the Queen even more freedom to choose whomever she wants. Formally the House of Lords since 1911 cannot prevent Bills from coming into effect (a veto), but in reality it has done so regularly.
Only since 2011 the Queen doesn´t have the power to dissolve parliament anymore (in the Netherlands the King does have this power).

THE COLONIES / CANADA
All the countries of the Commonwealth ruled by a Governor-General are in effect colonies under the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. The following have a Governor-General (in between brackets the year they were established with Governor-General): Antigua and Barbuda (since 1981), Australia (1901), Bahamas (1973), Barbados (1966), Belize (1981), Canada (1867), Grenada (1974), Jamaica (1962), New Zealand (1917), Papua New Guinea (1975), Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983), Saint Lucia (1979), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1979), Solomon Islands (1978), Tuvalu (1978).
Canada was created by an act of the Parliament of Great Britain called the British North America Act, 1867 (the Constitution Act, 1867). This has never been repealed, so – by law – Canada is a colony of England. If you understand that words like “constitutional convention”, don´t mean that the Queen doesn´t use these powers you already know she is the ruling dictator of the British Empire; in the following is all the evidence you need to know that Canada is part of the dictatorship of Queen Elizabeth II: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/just/05.html
In Canada (and my educated guess is also for the other states with a Governor-General) it’s the Governor-General (selected by the Queen) that proposes laws (bills); laws only come into effect if they are approved by the democratically elected House of Commons of Canada (1 for each of the 4 provinces), the senate and “assented” by the Queen. The Governor-General summons qualified Senators to the Senate (like the House of Lords). Also interesting to note is that only since 1949 Canada has its own Supreme Court (before that the English Courts ruled supreme over Canada).
The following is from the Canada CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 (pay close attention to art. 54).
24. The Governor General shall from Time to Time, in the Queen’s Name, by Instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and, subject to the Provisions of this Act, every Person so summoned shall become and be a Member of the Senate and a Senator.
54. It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
55. Where a Bill passed by the Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor General for the Queen’s Assent, he shall declare, according to his Discretion, but subject to the Provisions of this Act and to Her Majesty’s Instructions, either that he assents thereto in the Queen’s Name, or that he withholds the Queen’s Assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the Signification of the Queen’s Pleasure.

I´ve checked out other constitutions to conclude that these are democracies and no colonies (or at least more democratic than the Netherlands or Britain): USA, Indonesia, Surinam, Japan and Germany. Japan is a monarchy, but because the emperor doesn’t have real (executive) power, this is still a democracy, with the emperor only for a function of ceremony.

COMMONWEALTH
There used to be a time that if a country that decided to become a republic it was automatically expelled from the Commonwealth. This has changed since India became a republic in 1947 and remained in the Commonwealth. Mozambique and Rwanda have joined the Commonwealth without a link to the British Empire.
The main decision-making forum of the Commonwealth is the Heads of Government Meeting, chaired by the Queen; I don’t know what it decides on. In a nice example of doublethink the Commonwealth lists its areas of work as: Democracy, Economics, Education, Gender, Governance, Human Rights, Law, Small States, Sport, Sustainability, and Youth.

UNLAWFUL ON THE THRONE
There is some pretty convincing evidence that the great, great (biological) grandfather of King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands wasn´t Willem III but some sperm donor (Willem III was already in his 60s and presumed infertile when he married Queen Emma): http://vivanepotista.com/post/508648...orful-house-of
The story about King Willem III unable to be the biological father of Wilhelmina is convincing. I don´t know if the similar story that Elizabeth has stolen the British throne is truthful: https://gettingreadyfor2015.wordpres...-queen-a-fake/
So according to these sources the Royals of the Netherlands and Britain have committed high treason to steal the throne from its rightful owners.

Last edited by st jimmy; 20-07-2016 at 03:18 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2016, 09:39 AM   #2
vinnievega
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 296 (162 Posts)
Default

And a lot of people here in the Netherlands still bravely state that the King (or one of the other royal sicko's) have no real power and merely function as a 'symbolic' structure still being held in place (!?). Question is who is responsible for holding this structure in place within this 'democratic' system if this is so. It's certainly not me.
Likes: (3)
vinnievega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2016, 12:55 PM   #3
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default Who hold the dictators in power?

It's King Willem-Alexander that appoints the judges (and even the other court employees). The judges rule supreme over: attorneys (Raad en Hof van Discipline), bailiffs (Kamer voor Gerechtsdeurwaarders), doctors (Regionaal en Centraal Tuchtcollege voor de Gezondheidszorg) and journalists (Raad voor de Journalistiek). In this way it´s the "law" that holds the Royals in power.
It´s of course really nice that we have the right to vote. All the major political parties are loyal to the Royals (in Britain and the Netherlands the same). You could see the elections as some kind of poll to find out which lies we want to hear.
When you look at the jobs of the Dutch Royals (and of their spouses), you must conclude that they are really bankers.

The only Dutch politician that could have made a change, Pim Fortuyn, wanted a democratically elected president. He was of course murdered before he got the chance: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=308676
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2016, 01:02 PM   #4
grandmasterp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The SkegVegas Coast
Posts: 31,797
Likes: 2,580 (1,693 Posts)
Default

The 'British Queen' is a constitutional monarch.
She can only ever read out the policies that the government of the day have written for her to read out.
She does so once a year in Parliament on 'Queen's Speech' day.
The British monarchy has influence but no political powers to enact either laws or statutes.
The Queen does not appoint judges, bishops nor anyone else holding high public office, she simply symbolically-ratifies appointments made by parliamentary committee.
The government calls the shots, not the Queen.
We get to vote for our governments.
Hope that helps.

Last edited by grandmasterp; 23-07-2016 at 01:06 PM.
Likes: (1)
grandmasterp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2016, 03:38 PM   #5
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default Political parties are subordinate to monarchy

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Here are some of the powers of Queen Elizabeth, she can: 1) dismiss and appoint the Prime Minister, 2) dismiss and appoint other ministers, 3) summon and prorogue Parliament, 4) grant or refuse Royal Assent to bills (making them valid and law), 5) commission officers in the army, 6) command the army, 7) appoint members to the Privy Council, 8) issue and withdraw passports, 9) grant prerogative of mercy, 10) grant honours, 11) create corporations by Royal Charter, 12) appoint bishops and archbishops of the Church of England, 13) ratify and make treaties, 14) declare war and peace, 15) recognise states, 16) accredit and receive diplomats, 17) fill vacancies in the Supreme Court.
The conclusion must be that British Queen, like the Dutch King, is nothing but a dictator. Please note that it’s Elizabeth that appointed Prime Minister Theresa May and dismissed the other ministers and secretaries over Brexit.
The Queen can make new laws by “Orders in Council” that either come in effect immediately as sort of a decree (Royal Prerogatives), but can be repealed by the Parliament, or with an act of Parliament. There is only one other institute in Britain that can propose laws, this is not the democratically elected House of Commons, but the Queen’s Privy Council that can propose Orders of Council without the Queen´s approval.
This is from the "independendent" Wikipedia, known for never going too far from the state propaganda. This is not a function of ceremony but dictatorship. If you want to believe the state media and education (controlled by the monarchy)….
Try to read the Japanese constitution for comparison; there you see an example of an "emperor" with only a function of ceremony.

Last edited by st jimmy; 23-07-2016 at 03:48 PM.
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2016, 12:05 PM   #6
vinnievega
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 296 (162 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasterp View Post
The 'British Queen' is a constitutional monarch.
She can only ever read out the policies that the government of the day have written for her to read out.
She does so once a year in Parliament on 'Queen's Speech' day.
The British monarchy has influence but no political powers to enact either laws or statutes.
The Queen does not appoint judges, bishops nor anyone else holding high public office, she simply symbolically-ratifies appointments made by parliamentary committee.
The government calls the shots, not the Queen.
We get to vote for our governments.
Hope that helps.
Doesn't matter, because of the bloodline they are above the law and can do as they please and the governments/institutions are structured around this principle. The 'influence' and inviolability ARE the power appointed to them. Democracy is a scam, an illusion. They've been ruling for millennia and they're still here, now tell me that they don't have power. They (and the descendants) are scattered all over Europe and the rest of the world because they have always known what they're doing.
vinnievega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-07-2016, 03:53 PM   #7
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

It is well-known that both Queen Elizabeth and King Willem-Alexander have a weekly talk with the puppet they selected for Prime Minister. The state media tells us that this is some kind of social visit because the Queen/King is interested in politrics – YEAH RIGHT!

Some letters of Prince Charles where made public in which he discussed political topics with members of cabinet. It is clear that when Charles advices ministers on politics, his mother does the same but with more power. Here’s the story on these letters (including a link “You can read them in full here” where you can search with “prince of Wales”): http://uk.businessinsider.com/prince...ll-text-2015-5
I think the most interesting of these letters are to the (then) Prime Minister Tony Blair of September 8, 2004 and February 24, 2005 (and the replies from Blair) that address the topics British agriculture, investments in the military and the global warming problem (that´s depopulation Agenda21): https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ed_Letters.pdf
When you read these in connection with letters about “health care”, and you know that as part of Agenda21 the main objective of health care is reduction of the population, you will get sick (quite literally).
Some of my information about the British monarchy was brought to me by forum member White light.

Also interesting is that Premier Mark Rutte studied at the same university (Rijksuniversiteit Leiden from 1985-1992) and even the same faculty (Geschiedenis) as King Willem-Alexander (from 1987-1993).
The amount of former students of the Rijksuniversiteit Leiden and the fraternity (Minerva) of the Dutch Royals in cabinet is really amazing. In the first cabinet Rutte (installed in 2010 by then Queen Beatrix): 6 of the 12 ministers studied in Leiden with 4 members of Minerva. In the second cabinet Rutte (installed in 2012): “only” 4 ministers studied in Leiden. Also former minister and secretary/general of NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was a member of Minerva.
It would be good if some of my fellow Dutchmen realise what it means that members of the Raad van State have been made minister. The members of the Raad van State are elected by the King (or Queen), for life.
Willem Scholten was selected for the Raad van State in 1976 and became a minister from 1978 to 1980, and from 1980 – 1997 was vice-president of the Raad van State.
Piet Hein Donner was selected for the Raad van State in 1998. In 2002 he was chosen by Beatrix as Minister van Justitie (that’s Newspeak for Justice); he was minister until December 2011, when he became vice-president of the Raad van State. His grandfather had been a minister and president of the Hoge Raad. His father was a member of the European Court of Justice and part of the Commissie van drie that covered up the bribes Prince Bernhard took from Lockheed and Northrop.
Some 100 years ago there was already Mr. P.W.A. Cort van der Linden, a member of Minerva, that was a minister from 1897 – 1901, from 1902 on member of the Raad van State and from 1913 – 1918 also a minister. His father was a member of the “tweede kamer”, his brother in law a minister and member of “eerste kamer” and “tweede kamer” and his son a member of the Raad van State.

According to the following story Elizabeth has a number of cartoonish powers (but I don’t think it’s funny). The Queen has her personal cash printing machine. She doesn’t have to pay taxes (but does so voluntarily, YEAH RIGHT). Elizabeth is immune from prosecution (like King Willem-Alexander). In 1975 Queen Elizabeth ordered the Governor-General to fire the Prime Minister of Australia: http://uk.businessinsider.com/weirde...olphins-2015-5
It was also made public in 2013 that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles in 39 occasions used their power to block bills (while we are made to believe that the last time the Royal assent was used to block a law was in 1708). In one occasion Elizabeth torpedoed the transfer of powers to authorise military intervention in Iraq from the Queen to the parliament: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/...als-veto-bills

Another interesting story about the abuse of powers is that in 1966 the Queen’s Privy Council decided to evict the 2,000 inhabitants of the 65 islands of the Chagos Archipelago, so that the USA could station a military base on Diego Garcia. In 2000 in a judicial review claim by Olivier Bancoult the Court of Appeal ruled the 1971 Immigration Ordinance preventing resettlement unlawful. In 2004 the Privy Council simply changed the procedure under which the eviction was ordered, by Order in Council to overturn the ruling. In 2006 the High Court of Justice decided the 2004 order was unlawful. On October 22, 2008 the House of Lords decided to uphold the order of 2004 (let’s call it democracy):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Se...Bancoult_(No_2)

Of course when a subject needs to be silenced the Royals have their legal or illegal ways.
The Turkish Kurd Huseyin Baybasın was “helped” by his attorney Mr. D. Moszkowicz to refuse to defend himself in the court case. After Donner became Minster van justitie on July 22, already on July 30, 2002 Baybasin was sentenced to life in prison, based on falsified tapes. On October 21, 2003 the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) confirmed the sentence to life in prison, because the government agency Nederlands Forensisch Instituut (NFI), that investigated the reliability of the tapes, is beyond doubt. On July 6, 2006 the ECHR decided that the human rights of Baybasin were violated: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"fulltext":["baybasin netherlands"],"itemid":["001-76262"]**
After Erwin Lensink threw a small object to the Gouden koets of Queen Beatrix he was declared insane and tortured in a psychiatric hospital (he was also imprisoned). Lensink has an interesting web site (mostly in Dutch) – topics include: anti-psychiatry, Bilderberg and paedophilia: http://erwinlensinkvrij.nl
The murder of Lady Diana in 1997 got a lot of attention, how could anybody believe that the chauffeur of a multimillionaire Dodi Al Fayed would cause a fatal traffic accident? This was not some cheap car, that wouldn’t keep the people in the car safe. Diana and Al Fayed where clearly happy with all of the attention in the media, so why would they run from the paparazzi? I’ve seen a lot or rumours that the “accident” was caused by first blinding the driver with a bright flash of light and blocking the breaks of the car (see the book by former British agent Richard Tomlinson). The photo’s of the car after the crash indicate that the bodyguard that survived on the front seat would have been more injured than Diana and Al Fayed in the back seat.
The following story seems too good to be true. In the documentary "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" Doctor Frederic Mailliez (that was coincidentally in the tunnel) testified that Diana was only slightly injured directly after the crash: http://princess-diana-murder.blogspot.nl/

In my court cases to defend myself against state terrorism, in June 2015 the Judge presiding, Mr. C.H.M. van Altena, was a member of the Raad van State. While in March 2013 I was faced with Judge Mr. Th.S. Roëll, a personal assistant (kamerheer) of Princess Beatrix.
I almost feel like a part the family. In 2005 they locked me up in a psychiatric hospital, because I’m oh so dangerous, where I befriended the niece of Klaas Bruinsma. Drug lord Bruinsma had an affair with Mabel Wisse Smit, before she joined the Open Society Foundation (OSF) of Rothschild agent George Soros and married Prince Friso.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-07-2016, 05:33 PM   #8
derekbuttery
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Masonic, Canada
Posts: 5,390
Likes: 1,802 (1,146 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasterp View Post
The 'British Queen' is a constitutional monarch.
She can only ever read out the policies that the government of the day have written for her to read out.
She does so once a year in Parliament on 'Queen's Speech' day.
The British monarchy has influence but no political powers to enact either laws or statutes.
The Queen does not appoint judges, bishops nor anyone else holding high public office, she simply symbolically-ratifies appointments made by parliamentary committee.
The government calls the shots, not the Queen.
We get to vote for our governments.
Hope that helps.
you actually believe this? maybe not directly, but she rules a little more than just the british isles...
__________________
PEDOPHOBE AND PROUD
derekbuttery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2016, 02:25 PM   #9
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default Removed photograph - Diana

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
The following story seems too good to be true. In the documentary "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" Doctor Frederic Mailliez (that was coincidentally in the tunnel) testified that Diana was only slightly injured directly after the crash: http://princess-diana-murder.blogspot.nl/
The photographs on this site were removed from internet.
The following photograph shows Diana alive and only slightly injured after the crash (with a photo of the crashed car).
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2016, 02:51 PM   #10
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default Canada – Duplessis´ orphans and genocide Native Americans

I have found information on crimes against humanity against children in Canada, colony of England.
These are the responsible Governor Generals from 1946 till 1974 (in between brackets the years in which they were appointed): The Viscount Alexander of Tunis (1946), Vincent Massey (1952), Georges Vanier (1959), and Roland Michener (1967-1974).
This quote is from another thread, which is also relevant in this context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Another scandal is the terrible story of the ten thousands Duplessis’ orphans, that were sentenced to mental diseases in Canada in the 1940s and 1950s. They were named after former Quebec Prime Minister Maurice Duplessis. Already in 1962 the Bedard Commission acknowledged that one-third of the 22,000 psychiatric patients did not belong.
These children were simply told one day that they were retards, didn’t get any schooling and had to perform slave labour. As if this wasn’t enough they got treated with corporal punishment, experimental anti-psychotics (like Chlorpromazine), ECT, lobotomies, and a large number was sexually molested. Medical records were falsified to hide the evidence.
The orphanages were stimulated to declare these children insane because the government paid only $1.25 a day for orphans, but $2.75 a day for psychiatric patients. In 1999, Léo-Paul Lauzon and Martin Poirier estimated that Christian groups received $70 million in subsidies (measured in 1999 dollars) by claiming children as "mentally deficient" while the government saved $37 million by having one of its orphanages redesignated from an educational institution to a psychiatric hospital. This is not even counting the lucrative deals made with CIA and pharmaceutical industry for the chance of experimenting on these children.
In 2001 the Canadian government offered 10,000 dollar plus an additional 1000 dollar for each year spent in an asylum, but only, for surviving orphans that got lobotomies (1,500 people qualified for compensation) and in 2006 they provided an additional $26 million compensation. To put this in perspective: this is less than the orphanages got in the first place, while 1000 dollar a year amounts to 2.76 dollar per day.
Not one of the psychiatrists or child care workers that participated in the torture of these children were charged in a criminal case. Of course the tax payers can rest assured, knowing that no attorney will try to get adequate compensation for these children (thanks to government-controlled attorneys.).
On the following sites more information on Duplessis’ orphans: http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol37i1/page04.htm
http://historyofrights.ca/encyclopae...essis-orphans/
This is also indicative for the reason dictators want a Prime Minister. These orphans were named after Prime Minister Duplessis, when in reality the Governor General simply ordered the Prime Minister what to do in accordance with the wishes of the Queen, and the Prime Minister can be used for a scapegoat.

The genocide on Native American children in Catholic residential schools in Canada from the end of the nineteenth century on is well-documented. It is estimated that some 50,000 children were killed, while also a lot of potential mothers were sterilised.
Here you can read that the Canadian government (of Queen Elizabeth) together with the Catholic Church has been trying to exterminate all Native Americans (for a final solution): http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/genocide.pdf
On April 12, 1910 D.C. Scott declared: “It is readily acknowledged that Indian children lose their natural resistance to illness by habitating so closely in these schools, and that they die at a much higher rate than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the final solution of our Indian Problem”.
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-09-2016, 03:48 PM   #11
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel

Here’s the documentary "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" (2007): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1YtUqz0xNY
This documentary is more about the paparazzi than about the murder of Diana (it implies that the photographers were unjustly blamed for the death). Several photographers testify that they were harassed by the French police to give up their pictures of the car wreck with Diana in it.

The most interesting parts of the documentary are the following 2 statements of Doctor Frederic Mailliez - that provided Diana with first aid in the tunnel (you can go to the time stamps if you don't care to watch the whole documentary).
11:04 – 11:20: “she [Diana] didn’t have any blood on her face, but she was unconscious and her head was down like that and she had difficulty to breathe, so she needed some assistance very quickly
15:56 – 16:06: “I thought this beautiful woman had a good chance to live because I thought it was just a head injury
This is nothing less than the testimony from a medical doctor that inspected Diana personally, and concluded that she was not that badly injured to die (from these injuries).
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2016, 03:54 PM   #12
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default Carbon Monoxide, Flash of light

So far I’ve found evidence that:
1) Doctor Frederic Mailliez’ medical opinion was that Diana would survive.
2) A photograph that shows that Diana wasn’t visibly hurt after the crash.
3) The photographers at the scene were harassed and had their pictures confiscated (so the French police were part of the cover-up of the murder).
4) Internet is censored, the pictures were removed from http://princess-diana-murder.blogspot.nl/.

ROMUALD RAT – FIRST ON THE SCENCE
Interestingly Doctor Frederic Mailliez (with his friend Mark Butt) wasn’t the first to help Diana. The photographer Romuald Rat with his driver Stephane Darmon arrived at the scene before Mailliez; Rat opened the door where he saw Diana laying on the floor of the car, took her pulse and spoke some soothing words to her. The following site also includes a short video of an interview with Rat (in French): http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/FR...age=1&b=6cce33

STRANGE PHOTOGRAPHS
Now look at the following photograph that shows “Diana” horribly injured, and then look again at the picture above that shows that Diana didn’t have visible injuries.


Here’s a photograph with blood on the outside of the car (in the blue squares). They are freeing bodyguard Trevor Rees Jones on the front passenger seat. The back door of the car opens just fine, Diana has already been removed, so why would it take 1 and a half hours to get her to the hospital. I remember that the state media told that it took so long because Diana had to be freed from the car.
After the car crash at 0:25 A.M. at 0:32 A.M. the fire men and ambulance arrive. Only on 1:25 A.M. the ambulance left to arrive at the Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital at 2:06 A.M.!


Here in a later picture there’s no blood on the outside of the car. So was the blood in the earlier picture animated (that they should have painted on the inside of the car) or had they wiped the car to destroy evidence?



DIANA AFRAID TO BE MURDERED - SEATBELT
In October, 1993 Lady Diana was already afraid she would be murdered in a car crash by Prince Charles. She sent a letter to her butler Paul Burrell in which she writes that she will be murdered by Charles, who is “planning “an accident” in my car (...) to make the path clear for him to marry Tiggy” (Tiggy Legge-Bourke, former nanny of Princes William and Harry).


It has been said that both Dodi and Diana would have survived the crash if they had worn their seatbelts (Trevor Rees-Jones reportedly survived the crash because he put it on shortly before the crash). If Diana would be afraid to be murdered in a car crash, surely she would have worn it. Diana was known to wear a seatbelt, see the photos.



HENRI PAUL WASN’T DRUNK – CARBON MONOXIDE
First the official story was that Diana and Dodi were running from the paparazzi, but the paparazzi weren’t close to the car when it crashed. There have been some witnesses that saw a number of motorcycles close to the Mercedes and a slow car, but no paparazzi (photographers would have surely stuck around if they witnessed the crash). If Lady Diana was still afraid of being murdered, she would have thought that the media attention was her best protection.
Then they invented the story that the driver Henri Paul was drunk and presented autopsy results that confirmed that he had 3 times the legal limit (comparable to 2 bottles of wine). They also found several psychiatric drugs in his blood (including Prozac), which would make the effects of the alcohol even stronger. Why would Dodi and Diana let a drunken chauffeur drive them?
There have been several testimonies that confirm that Paul didn’t look drunk. There have also been testimonies that Paul wasn’t a heavy drinker (or an alcoholic). There is no evidence that Henri Paul had bought psychiatric drugs. There was even alcohol planted in Henri Paul’s apartment after the police had already investigated there: http://www.express.co.uk/dianainques...Paul-was-drunk
High levels of carbon monoxide (20.7%) were found in Henri Paul’s blood (enough to make it impossible to walk). This is evidence they took blood from another body (possible of a death by suicide with carbon monoxide poisoning, that drank alcohol and committed suicide for being depressed as a result of using Prozac). The blood was kept for 24 hours in an unguarded refrigerator to make this possible: http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2012...ix-henri-paul/
Bar owner Josiane Le Tellier (Josy) of the Le Champmesle, knew Henri Paul well, and saw him at 9:45 P.M., and he didn’t look drunk: www.britannia.com/news/articles/driver9-23.html
Interestingly Paul was called on his mobile phone (that he had with him) at 9:45 P.M. to come to work, so it is ridiculous that it’s claimed that nobody knew where he was between 7 and 10 P.M.; surely the police could have investigated the data from the phone.
Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones has stated that Paul appeared “perfectly normal”: “In the bar, we ordered dinner and were joined by Henri Paul. He had a drink, I do not know what it was, but it was yellow-coloured. While we had dinner, Paul came and went about the hotel, he was perfectly normal. I did not sense him being on edge, he was just as he usually was in my dealings with him. After a while, Paul had another drink”. Rees-Jones didn’t know if the yellow drink contained alcohol or not.

WITNESSES - LIGHT FLASH IN TUNNEL
Not only did Richard Tomlinson declare that Diana was murdered by crashing the car by blinding the driver with a flash of light, but multiple witnesses - Francois Levistre and Brian Anderson - have seen a bright white flash just ahead of the Mercedes after it entered the tunnel.
Francois Levistre said he saw a flash of white light coming from the passenger seat of a motorcycle. The motorcycle passenger got off after the crash, looked inside the vehicle and makes a hand gesture to the bike's driver before they sped off: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...in-tunnel.html
The American tourist Brian Anderson also said that there was a flash of light before the crash: http://www.express.co.uk/dianainques...inding-flashes
I don’t know how to verify the next, but if it’s real, it is very important. It claims that days before the “accident” the Mercedes was stolen, in which time they could have tampered with the brakes or even could have installed technology to take over the car by remote control. The onboard computer chip was stolen and then could have been replaced with a new “special” one: http://princess-diana-life-n-death.b...of-stolen.html
The most informative site I found on the murder of Diana Frances Spencer is this: http://www.public-interest.co.uk/diana/diexposed.htm

And of course Diana didn’t get an autopsy to find out what caused her death, at the request of the British Royal family (the prime suspects).
Maybe it’s not really important if Diana was pregnant at the time, but the following photograph with Prince William on holiday in France 14 days earlier, shows an unmistakable bump around her waistline.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2016, 04:23 PM   #13
elenita
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 246 (137 Posts)
Default

The lady with the bloody face is NOT Diana. Those pics have been doing the rounds for years, but no one "official" claims them to be Diana.
elenita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 03:39 PM   #14
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default Premeditated Mirror, the new “Mailliez”

Now for the truly jaw dropping stuff on the murder of Lady Di (and that’s a promise).
I will first start with some interesting information, and will end with a really shocking exclusive...

I watched another documentary “WHO KILLED DIANA?” (2014): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dANWdysaoF0
I don’t rate this documentary very high except for the interview with John Macnamara (from 27:12 - 28:14), director security of Harrods, who did his own investigation for “Mohamed Al-Fayed”.
Macnamara tells that the news that the speedometer was stuck at 192 km/h (120 miles per hour), was a lie. Mercedes immediately had this “news” refuted: a speedometer goes to 0 after a crash.
John Macnamara also tells that the headline that Henri Paul had 3 times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood came out before the blood had even been analysed. See the front page of the Mirror with the headline “121 MILES PER HOUR / 3 TIMES DRINK DRIVE LIMIT”.


Also interesting in this video is that from 36:53 – 37:03 the voice over tells that the Mercedes had been stolen 3 months earlier and had the electronics ripped out and replaced (possibly with electronics for remote takeover of the car). I add that the seatbelts in the car could have been sabotaged.
I’ve tried to find more information (text or video) of John Macnamara on the murder of Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed, but haven’t found much. The best I’ve found is this transcript from CNN of Macnamara and attorney Mark Zaid (this could be censored) “In fact, within 36 hours it was proclaimed that Henri Paul was as drunk as a pig, three times over the drink-drive limit, driving at 192 kilometers, 120 miles an hour. Now, that was a statement that was categorically put out in the French and British press. We now know -- in fact, we knew within hours that the speedometer in the Mercedes reverts to zero on impact, so their allegation that it was stuck at 192 kilometers an hour was false -- it was a deliberate false statement”: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0008/30/tl.00.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Here’s the documentary "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" (2007): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1YtUqz0xNY
This documentary is more about the paparazzi than about the murder of Diana (it implies that the photographers were unjustly blamed for the death). Several photographers testify that they were harassed by the French police to give up their pictures of the car wreck with Diana in it.

The most interesting parts of the documentary are the following 2 statements of Doctor Frederic Mailliez - that provided Diana with first aid in the tunnel (you can go to the time stamps if you don't care to watch the whole documentary).
11:04 – 11:20: “she [Diana] didn’t have any blood on her face, but she was unconscious and her head was down like that and she had difficulty to breathe, so she needed some assistance very quickly
15:56 – 16:06: “I thought this beautiful woman had a good chance to live because I thought it was just a head injury
So now for the shocking stuff; the English fashion of silencing witnesses, and easy to see. In the documentary “WHO KILLED DIANA?” (2014) also a “Frederic Mailliez” appears, this time telling not that he didn’t see only a head injury and no blood, but this time saying that he saw only a little blood on Diana. If you don’t study them carefully they look the same.

I made 2 screenshots, that you can see below, on the left is Doctor Frédéric Mailliez from "Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" (2007), on the right is the “Doctor Mailliez” from the video from “WHO KILLED DIANA?” (2014).
First look at the colour of their eyes: Mailliez had dark brown eyes; the replacement actor has blue eyes.
Left of the mouth of the blue eyed actor is a noticeable crack that the real Mailliez didn’t have.
Another noticeable difference is that the eyebrows of the blue eyed replacement are lighter and have a different shape. The blue eyed actor looks younger, while this video is from a later date (7 years?). They also have a different skin colour, which isn’t only a sun tan. I’ve written down some more differences below the picture.


If you really want to find all the difference, you should watch (and hear) the “real” Mailliez in “Diana: The Witnesses In The Tunnel" and the blue eyed fake actor in “WHO KILLED DIANA?” from 6:42 – 6:52 and 9:16 – 9:27.
The video of the fake blue eyed “Mailliez” intentionally shows the other side of his face (ironically this makes the crack left of his mouth easier to see) and is taken in too much of a close-up.
The real Mailliez uses a lot of hand gestures and a lot of facial expression, including frowning with his eyebrows. The fake blue eyed actor imitates this not very well.
Also noticeable is that the real (French) Mailliez has difficulties with English, but the fake blue eyed actor doesn’t imitate this good (he reminds me of the comedy series ‘Allo ‘Allo (1982 - 1995), where English actors speak with a French accent).

Last edited by st jimmy; 13-10-2016 at 03:40 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 04:01 PM   #15
grandmasterp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The SkegVegas Coast
Posts: 31,797
Likes: 2,580 (1,693 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by derekbuttery View Post
you actually believe this? maybe not directly, but she rules a little more than just the british isles...
Seriously mate Mrs Queen has feck all power and owns nothing.
All she can do is whatever Parliament tells her to do and we vote for Parliament.
That's how it should be with a Constitutional Monarch.
All the palaces, jewels, money and shit belongs to the nation but 'held in trust' by the monarch.
Not that she'll part with any of it if we asked - but that's how it works.
Likes: (1)
grandmasterp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-10-2016, 04:50 PM   #16
white light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: B-lighty
Posts: 14,765
Likes: 3,484 (2,438 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasterp View Post
Seriously mate Mrs Queen has feck all power and owns nothing.
All she can do is whatever Parliament tells her to do and we vote for Parliament.
That's how it should be with a Constitutional Monarch.
All the palaces, jewels, money and shit belongs to the nation but 'held in trust' by the monarch.
Not that she'll part with any of it if we asked - but that's how it works.
Then 'held in trust' is worthless. Basically a lie?
white light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-10-2016, 03:15 PM   #17
grandmasterp
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The SkegVegas Coast
Posts: 31,797
Likes: 2,580 (1,693 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by white light View Post
Then 'held in trust' is worthless. Basically a lie?
Yes and No.
I own stuff and I can sell it on eBay if I want to.
Mrs Queen holds her stuff in trust for the nation and she can't ever sell that stuff.
She does own her own stuff as well and that she can sell but the big shit, land, palaces, crown jewels and suchlike. No Sale.
It all belongs to Parliament
grandmasterp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2016, 08:17 AM   #18
gremlin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: moo moo land
Posts: 26,722
Likes: 1,735 (1,048 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasterp View Post
Yes and No.
I own stuff and I can sell it on eBay if I want to.
Mrs Queen holds her stuff in trust for the nation and she can't ever sell that stuff.
She does own her own stuff as well and that she can sell but the big shit, land, palaces, crown jewels and suchlike. No Sale.
It all belongs to Parliament
How can anything she owns belong to parliament? It's her parliament. If anything the crown jewels is owned by the people.
__________________
“We trade real labor for fake money to pay fraudulent taxes on stuff we don’t own.” Doreen Hannes

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist." we live in satan world.
Likes: (1)
gremlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2016, 09:34 AM   #19
hayed joe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: No longer Quiz Nights Fastest Typer It Appears
Posts: 2,698
Likes: 801 (442 Posts)
Default

Sterling work St.Jimmy!
I've never seen the pictures of an injured Diana before. I have watched "Unlawful Killing" and even that didn't show the pictures.
I'd be delighted to see the Monarchy disbanded as much as the next person, but banging my head against the wall in this country.
__________________
BE MULTI-LINGUAL!!
Because you can never say "Shit... I'm fucked" enough in your own language
hayed joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-10-2016, 10:01 AM   #20
the tealady
Forum Advisor
 
the tealady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Down by the sea
Posts: 18,965
Likes: 4,647 (2,475 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasterp View Post
The 'British Queen' is a constitutional monarch.
She can only ever read out the policies that the government of the day have written for her to read out.
She does so once a year in Parliament on 'Queen's Speech' day.
The British monarchy has influence but no political powers to enact either laws or statutes.
The Queen does not appoint judges, bishops nor anyone else holding high public office, she simply symbolically-ratifies appointments made by parliamentary committee.
The government calls the shots, not the Queen.
We get to vote for our governments.
Hope that helps.
I cannot believe that you actually still hold that view. Do you not think she has advisors who slip notes and memoes and even orders to the relevant bureaucrats or MP's, when something comes up to affect them or their fortunes? Prince Charles is very active in the pursuit of legislation that he takes a fancy to. I'm sure she gets all the grit on the dirty activities of the MP's for when they need an Act to be introduced or voted on a certain way.

The idea that they are just figureheads is a bit naïve to be honest. I am not trying to be offensive but there is too much evidence that the Crown has a lot of influence on what goes on.

I have read an academic text about this, it was written in particular about the Australia Act 1986. A similar one was produced for Canada about the same time. There was a lot of tooing and froing from the Palace to Whitehall and Number 10 to get that nutted out before it was sent here for ratification. it essentially made Australia self-governing while preserving all the rights, privileges and ownership by the Crown of all the assets. No more access to the British High Court for aggrieved parties seeking justice. It's an absolute disgrace that only one State Premier objected and he was howled down until he gave up.

You can be sure she will do everything she can to roll back that Brexit vote to protect their interests.
__________________
Unlike a lot of other people, David walks the talk. Be careful who you trust in this alternative media and research.

Please don't feed the trolls.

When I LIKE a post, it does not always mean I agree, it can also just mean I think a valid point has been made.
Likes: (1)
the tealady is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:08 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.