Category: Tyrannical

Active, Autobiographical, Commercial, Education, Entertainment, Financial, Spiritual, Tyrannical

How our identity gets stolen

Andrew Livingstone

“We are not a political party nor are we a religious cult; we are simply a group of living beings, flesh and blood, spiritually united in heart and soul. We stand as individuals yet built together under a common law, which is shared by all, owned by none and which is superior to any statute. We each have a personal commitment, divinely inspired, to do no harm, to cause no loss to others, to commit no fraud and to keep the peace.”

Foreword:

Reader, if you think this is an odd way to start a message, perhaps that’s because you haven’t yet realized that we are engaged in warfare, in a war of a very different kind. we quote the title of the booklet:

‘SILENT WEAPONS FOR QUIET WARS’ – ISBN – 978-1-58509-380-9

which is (or was) available online. Without summarising the entire 56 pages, we’ll restrict ourselves to just two revealing quotations (Page 9), attributed to a member of the Rothschild dynasty:

“Give me control over a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its statutes” (the original uses the word ‘laws’ for statutes)

Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743 – 1812)

Rothschild knew how to influence and control people and their money. The principle is ‘when you assume the appearance of power, people soon give it to you’.

The Keys to the Safe:

Over the past 18 months, with several trusted co-workers we have come to see how the very few of the extremely wealthy ‘elite’ (78 of them are known and named, all with a common link to the World Economic Forum [WEF] qv on Wikipedia) have, for generations, been manipulating the world’s wealth as part of a strategy to obtain total possession and total control of all of it – and all of us.

From the first registration of birth, infants are each earmarked with a National Insurance number. Their birthweight in gold is used as ‘value to be traded’ as bond-slaves inside the world of commerce. With a few

exceptions it is only as we reach the age of sixteen (16) years that we are even told about that ‘insurance’ number, and then we are expected to start paying, from our sweat equity, our National Insurance contributions – to keep ourselves secure. The many, exploited for the benefit of the few – for profit.

However, our joint efforts have now prised open the door to that vault of Crown ‘government’ secrecy: we know from where that ill-gotten wealth is being controlled and, more importantly, how to identify our right and claim to our individual portion which has been fraudulently used as a TRUST, under our ‘given’ name, (incidentally changed en route into CAPITAL LETTERS). This changed name, which we refer to as our ‘LEGAL FICTION’, is called our ‘Strawman’ by our American cousins.

Our previous document, ‘Legal Entrapment’, explained in detail how all this has been managed for centuries, yet you may be surprised to learn that our personal TRUST has a ‘bank’ account. Let’s take, for example, the name is Norma(n) Jones, then that trust would be identified asNORMA(N) JONES TRUST.

It’s true, our TRUST does have an ‘account’ a sort code and an account number – similar to an everyday bank account.

This should mean then, that our ‘account’ has an International Bank Account Number (that is what IBAN stands for) by which the wealth accumulated over the years in our name, (without either our knowledge or our consent), is being traded in commerce, on a daily basis, in markets worldwide – for more profit – for them – the capitalists.

Here is how we find out our account details and our IBAN number:

  1. Make sure that we have the correct date of registration of our birth, which may be quite a while later than the date of birth itself,.
  2. We go online to the link below:
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/dateadded.html?d1=03&m1=01&y1=1998&type=add&ay=15&am=9&aw=&ad=&rec=

enter the date of registration of our birth, then set the addition factor to read 15 years and 9 months. Scroll down and press the GREEN button – ‘Calculate new date’.

  • Let’s take an example. Our specimen youth, whose birth was REGIStered on Wednesday 13th October 2004, has the NI number WX 12 34 56 C.
  • From the ‘new’ date which appears in our search, – Monday 13th July 2020 -s/he simply ADDS the last TWO digits of the year shown (20) in front of the 6 digits which s/he already knows from the National Insurance number. (We ignore, for now, the first two LETTERS, and also the last single LETTER, as this last one is always either A,B,C or D,showing which quarter of the financial year the birth was REGIStered). So, we arrive, in our example, at – 04 becoming 20. Her/his account number = 20123456.

Via a well-connected warrior, we know that ALL of these UK-based ‘trust’ accounts are housed under just the one sort code – 08-32-10

Next, we go online to sortcodes.co.uk where we enter, in two drop-down ‘boxes’, the sort code 08-32-10 and the full account number which we identified. We see our trust account details come up, and note that the page is headed, in faint grey tone:

Sort Code & Account Number Verification

Underneath this appear the IBAN details for that sort code and ‘account’ number.

MAKE A NOTE OF THIS IBAN NUMBER.  It will look something like this:

GB (Great Britain) – followed by a random 2-digit number – e.g.   17 and this is followed by the letters CITI then the sort code and the account number.

Staying with our example, it will look like this – GB 17 CITI 083210 20123456 and this is how s/he will be able to refer to it in future, although printed without any spaces.

Print off your page and keep it safe.

However, there is a snag: HMRC recently admitted, under Freedom of Information correspondence, that, back in 2015, CITIBANK (qv – American owners) lost the contract to handle this ‘SORT CODE’, 08 32 10, which was then ‘transferred’ to a little-known bank, calling itself  – Government Banking Services [GBS] – as it appeared in your verification search.

Within that ‘bank’ the SORT CODE is controlled by the bank branch – HMRC Tax Direct. We hold documentary evidence where HMRC tell us that the SORT CODE has been ‘ringfenced for government use only’.

Did someone just forget to update that Verification Page, or are we looking at the evidence of a monstrous criminal conspiracy??

This begs the question, “What use does a SORT CODE have, other than to control and massage the accounts within it”? We have written NOTICES to HMRC asking for clarification on the ‘ringfencing’ phrase and demanding to know by what Act, statute or other legal wrinkle, the Crown agents of the day, (then under David Cameron PM’s leadership), gave themselves the authority to assume ‘beneficiary’ status of those trust accounts, when their status is, in truth, that of trustee only.

According to statute law, the executor and the beneficiary cannot also be a trustee, and a trustee cannot be executor or beneficiary. Yet the deception still occurs daily, without any disclosure to the mother and father, as the control gets switched round at the registration of a birth This fraud is also proscribed by the Trustee Act 1925. At the time of writing, we await a response to our third NOTICE to HMRC on this important point – but we’re not holding our breath.

This is a significant breakthrough, and on can prepare professionally designed ‘Promissory Notes’ – something like the old-fashioned cheque books – but more powerful. With these, each of us would have the means, using specific details, to access and to use our trust funds wisely.

Remember, this misuse of our true free-born entity began in commerce. By using this slim thread of creating (without disclosure) a tradeable slave equity of every new-born infant, Crown agents think to tax us, the proletariat, throughout most of our lives. Income tax, local council tax, etc., these are all sent out under the ALL-CAPS fictional name. We hold a separate paper on this theme of ‘Justinian Deception’.

So, you can see that access to such accounts should, at present, only be for a ‘commercial’ purpose. You can imagine that, whatever colour of ‘government’ is acting on the stage at the Palace of Westminster, the Crown agents will be doing their utmost to block our access to what is lawfully ours. Do NOT fear those puppets –they are neither sovereign nor lawful, they are nothing more than purveyors of statutory sticking plasters – using layer after layer of Acts and Regulations to cover previous poor parliamentary surgery.

Happily, we have separate documentary evidence that all these our accounts, which HMRC and HM Treasury insist have never been in existence in the UK, are in fact held and administered overseas. That evidence shows us that our ‘bonds’ typically have a ‘Lapse Date’ around January 1st in the year nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine. (01.01.9999). Which explains why, where gravestones are still used, the name of the deceased appears in CAPITAL LETTERS

Postscript:

Going back to the web page – www.sortcodes.co.uk – here is an important extra feature: whereas you entered your new ‘account’ number and found out where your hard-earned money gets stored through the National Insurance contributions set-up, you should also try this:

Leave the sort code in – 08 32 10 – but then enter or copy and paste into the account area your Council Tax ‘account’ number, you know, the one you didn’t ask for. You will see that your Council Tax payments, which you thought were going to your local council, are also shifted straight into the same Crown consolidated coffers.

We wonder whether it could be possible that the Head of Finance and the Compliance Officer of our local councils could NOT BE AWARE of this?? These are two of the top officials in our council whose job is portrayed as making sure that all the payments DO arrive and DO get into the ledgers. We may have found just one more reason why COUNCIL TAX IS NOT VALID BUSINESS. Perhaps a SDSAR – with conditional acceptance – sent in to the CEO of your local council would provide us all with important information?

This all rings very hollow when we hear from our local council leaders that Council Tax will have to be increased for the coming year’s budget. Already, in this year, several local authorities have had a ‘114 Notice’ served on them for ‘being unable to send up budget figures to Westmonster for the coming financial year. We smell rodent here.

Active, Political, Tyrannical

‘Plus ca change…’ – Tuesday 13th Feb 2024

Andrew Livingstone

We are often critical in general terms of the way in which Crown agents operate these days.

The extract below is taken from the ‘History of Parliament‘ web pages; you may feel that very little has changed in real terms since the 13th Century. Then, as now, the now modern adage – ‘Whatever colour party you may vote for, the government always gets in’ remains pretty close to the mark.

‘All long-lived institutions have their antecedents, and the antecedents of the Lords are to found in the Anglo-Saxon witan which brought the leading men of the realm periodically together with the King for ceremonial, legislative and deliberative purposes.  In its earliest history ‘Parliament’, first used as a technical term in 1236, was a gathering of the same type, an assembly of prominent men, summoned at the will of the King once or twice a year, to deal with matters of state and law.  So it remained for much of the 13th century.  Occasionally, however, these assemblies were afforced by the summons of a wider grouping.  At first these extended assemblies – the first known dates from 1212 – served as the means by which the King could communicate with men who, although below the ranks of his leading tenants, were of standing in their localities and well-informed of local grievances.  Had the Crown been able to function financially from its lands and feudal revenues alone, these representatives of the localities, the precursors of the Commons, might have remained no more than a source of information for the Crown and a conduit through which it could liaise with its subjects.  The decline in the real value of the Crown’s traditional revenues and the financial demands of war, however, transformed these local representatives from an occasional to a defining component of Parliament because the levy of taxation depended on their consent.  The theoretical principle of consent had been stated in Magna Carta, but that consent was conceived on the feudal principle that it need come from the King’s leading subjects, his tenants-in-chief, (barons) alone.  But as the 13th century progressed this principle gave way to another, namely that consent must also be sought from the lesser tenants as the representatives of their localities.  There was both a theoretical and practical reason for this: on the one hand, there was the influence of the Roman law doctrine, ‘what touches all shall be approved  by all’, cited in the writs that summoned the 1295 Parliament; and, on the other, there was the practical consideration that the efficient collection of levy on moveable property, the form that tax assumed, depended on some mechanism of local consent.  Hence, from the 1260s, no general tax was levied without the consent of the representatives of local communities specifically summoned for the purpose of giving their consent, and only Parliaments in which the Crown sought no grant of taxation met without these representatives.  The Crown’s increasing need for money meant it was a short step to the Commons becoming an indispensable part of Parliament.  After 1325 no Parliament met without their presence.

‘None the less, although this right of consent gave the Commons their place in Parliament, it did not give them any meaningful part in the formulation of royal policy.  In so far as that policy was determined in Parliament, it was determined in a dialogue between the King and the Lords, who came to Parliament not through local election, as was the case with the Commons, but by personal writ of summons from the monarch.  Further, the Commons’ right of consent was as much an obligation as it was a privilege.  Since subjects had a duty to support the Crown in the defence of the realm, the Commons had few grounds, even had they sought them, on which to deny royal requests for taxation.  What did, however, remain to them was some scope for negotiation.  To make demands on his subjects’ goods, the Crown had to demonstrate an exceptional need, a need generally arising from the costs of war; and, in making a judgment on the level of taxation warranted by this need, the Commons were drawn into a dialogue with the Crown over matters of royal policy, at least in so far as concerned expenditure.  Hence the Crown had to measure its demands to avoid exciting criticism of its government.  The consequences of its failure to do so are exemplified most clearly by the ‘Good Parliament’ of 1376, when the Commons, in seeking to legitimize the extreme step of refusing to grant direct taxation, alleged mis-governance, accusing certain courtiers of misappropriating royal revenue.

‘Aside from the granting of taxation, the other principal function of the medieval Parliament was legislative.  Even before the early Parliaments lawmaking was theoretically established as consensual between King and subjects, yet, in the reign of Edward I, legislation arose solely out of royal initiative and was drafted by royal counsellors and judges.  In the course of the medieval  period, however, the assent of Parliament, first of the Lords and then of the Commons, became an indispensable part of the legislative process.  Here, however, the question was not, as in the case of taxation, simply one of parliamentary assent, it was also one of initiative.  New law came to be initiated not only by the Crown but also by the Commons.  In the early 14th century, in what was a natural elaboration of Parliament’s role as the forum for the presentation of petitions of individuals and communities, the Commons began to present petitions in their own name, seeking remedies, not to individual wrongs, but to general administrative, economic and legal problems.  The King’s answers to these petitions became the basis of new law. Even so, it should not be concluded from this important procedural change that Crown conceded its legislative freedom.  Not only could it deny the Commons’ petitions, but, by the simple means of introducing its own bills among the common petitions, it could steer its own legislative program through the Commons.  

‘By the end of the medieval period, Parliament was, in both structure and function, the same assembly that opposed the Stuarts in the seventeenth century.  It bargained with the Crown over taxation and formulated local grievances in such a way as to invite legislative remedy, and, on occasion, most notably in 1376, it opposed the royal will. Yet this is not to say that Parliament had yet achieved, or even sought, an independent part in the polity.  The power of the Lords resided not in their place in Parliament, but in the landed wealth of the great nobility.  For the Commons, a favourable answer to their petitions remained a matter of royal grace, yet they were under an obligation to grant taxation as necessity demanded (a necessity largely interpreted by the Crown); and their right of assent to new law was a theoretical rather than a practical restraint on the King’s freedom of legislative action.  Indeed, Parliament amplified rather than curtailed royal power, at least when that power was exercised competently.  Not only were the Crown’s financial resources expanded by the system of parliamentary taxation, so too was its legislative force and reach extended by the Commons’ endorsement of the initiatives of a strong monarch, a fact strikingly demonstrated by the legislative break with Rome during the Reformation of Parliament 1529-1536.’

Corporate, Military, Political, Tyrannical

CHECK OUT YOUR LOCAL CONSTABLE

Andrew Livingstone

This article was published by UK Crown agents to clarify the LEGAL status of those men and women who, in both the land of England and the Principality of Wales, are STILL prepared to support the REGime which is selling the nation out to their WEF and WHO puppet masters.

For clarity, we, the people in the Republic of England, need to know the identity of the 78 men and women who are currently controlling these FORCES within our land. This will involve some work to keep the list up-to-date in terms of both personnel and snail-mail addresses.

It will become ever more important for each of us to know the CEO for our individual area. Please do your own research to find the location addresses – and send this data back to us at the email address at the foot of Page 3 of this document, so that we can build a database going forward.

‘Except in Greater London, each territorial police force covers one or more of the local government areas (counties) established in the 1974 local government reorganisation (although with subsequent modifications), in an area known in statute as a police area. These forces provide most of the policing services to the public of England and Wales. These forces have been known historically as “Home Office police forces” due to the central government department, the Home Office, being responsible for and providing most of the funding for these police forces.

Despite the implication of the term, all police forces are independent (corporations), with operational control resting solely with the chief officer [CEO] of each force (the Chief Constable or with regard to the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police forces, their respective Commissioners); each force was overseen by a Police authority until these were replaced by Police and Crime Commissioners in 2012.

The Police Act 1996 is the most recent piece of legislation, which outlines the areas of responsibility for the 43 territorial forces of England and Wales (found in Schedule 1 of the Act).

Constable is the entry-level rank in the police service, but all officers, whatever their rank, are “constables” in terms of legal powers and jurisdiction. Police officers in territorial police forces in England and Wales derive their jurisdiction from Section 30 of the Police Act 1996. This section outlines that such officers have jurisdiction throughout England and Wales and also in the adjacent United Kingdom waters. 

Special Constables, who are part-time, volunteer officers of these forces, used to have a more limited jurisdiction – limited solely to their own force areas and adjacent forces. Since 1 April 2007, however Special Constables of England & Wales (who do NOT have to take an oath) have (assumed) full police powers throughout those two countries.

This means that, in contrast to most countries, all UK volunteer police officers now have exactly the same powers as their full-time colleagues. There are a number of situations in which the jurisdiction of a constable extends to one of the other countries, and constables of one jurisdiction do have reciprocal powers of arrest in each other’s jurisdictions as a matter of course – see the main article for details.

  Police forces in England

  1. Avon and Somerset Police                                 
  2. Bedfordshire Police
  3. Cambridgeshire Constabulary
  4. Cheshire Constabulary[1]
  5. City of London Police (not shown)
  6. Cleveland Police
  7. Cumbria Constabulary
  8. Derbyshire Constabulary
  9. Devon and Cornwall Police
  10. Dorset Police
  11. Durham Constabulary
  12. Essex Police
  13. Gloucestershire Constabulary
  14. Greater Manchester Police
  15. Hampshire Constabulary
  16. Hertfordshire Constabulary
  17. Humberside Police
  18. Kent Police
  19. Lancashire Constabulary[1]
  20. Leicestershire Police
  21. Lincolnshire Police
  22. Merseyside Police[1]
  23. Metropolitan Police Service
  24. Norfolk Constabulary
  25. Northamptonshire Police
  26. Northumbria Police
  27. North Yorkshire Police
  28. Nottinghamshire Police
  29. South Yorkshire Police
  30. Staffordshire Police[2]
  31. Suffolk Constabulary
  32. Surrey Police
  33. Sussex Police
  34. Thames Valley Police
  35. Warwickshire Police
  36. West Mercia Police[2]
  37. West Midlands Police[2]
  38. West Yorkshire Police
  39. Wiltshire Police

As of September 2020, the police forces in England had:[3]

Wales

  Police forces in Wales

  1. Dyfed-Powys Police (Heddlu Dyfed Powys)
  2. Gwent Police (Heddlu Gwent)
  3. North Wales Police (Heddlu Gogledd Cymru)
  4. South Wales Police (Heddlu De Cymru)

As of September 2020, the police forces in Wales have:[3]

Collaborative units

  • South East Counter Terrorism Unit
  • Thames Valley & Hampshire Joint Operations Unit
  • Surrey Police & Sussex Police Tactical Firearms, Operations Command and Roads Policing Unit
  • South West Counter Terrorism Unit
  • Dorset Police and Devon & Cornwall Police Strategic Alliance Unit
  • East Counter Terrorism Intelligence Unit
  • Norfolk & Suffolk Roads Policing Unit
  • Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Hertfordshire Road Policing Unit
  • Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Hertfordshire Major Crime Unit
  • East Midlands Counter Terrorism Intelligence Unit
  • West Midlands Police Counter Terrorism Unit
  • Warwickshire Police and West Mercia Police Specialist Operations Unit
  • North West Counter Terrorism Unit
  • Cheshire Police & North Wales Police Alliance Armed Policing Unit
  • North East Counter Terrorism Unit
  • Durham and Cleveland Specialist Operations Unit
  • Welsh Extremism and Counter Terrorism Unit
  • Gwent Police & South Wales Police Joint Armed Response Unit

Please send your information to – info@livingstones.uk – thank you

As usual, we attach a pdf copy for sharing among those who are not so hot on the keyboards:

collated-list-of-police-constabularies-in-england-walesDownload
Common Law, Constitutional, Democracy, Magna Carta 1215, Tyrannical

‘Too big for their boots’??

Andrew Livingstone

‘We note the following statement on the present website of the Crown agents, acting as our present ‘government’

Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.

We believe this assertion to be treasonous: it should be countered by us, the people, who have naively been selecting the 650-odd incumbents for those green benches for generations.

Those of us who still have faith in our common law position, and the constitution which has been based upon common law, must now do something about this…

230302-bogus-parliamentary-sovereigntyDownload

With a hat-tip to Martin Geddes for tackling this crime head-on. Please consider supporting his work and co-ordinate thought and action via ‘Truth Social’ at https://truthsocial.com

Financial, Globalist, Medical, Tyrannical

MHPRA – Extracting the ‘P’

Andrew Livingstone

Why do they always leave out the ‘P’?

This group of conspirators want the public to believe that they have our best interests at heart.

The truth is that, for them, the ‘P’ is the most important of the five initials of their acronym name, but, friend, it does not even stand for Products in their agenda – it stands for PROFIT – vast profits every year.

There is no profit for these rogues in HEALTH, there is, however, vast PROFIT to be raked in from sickness.

We have inserted a link below, showing victim testimony – see just how much contempt these so-called ‘experts’ in the MHPRA have for the sick.

It was 1959 when we had a similar scenario. Does no-one remember ‘CONTERGAN’, the last untested medication which was foisted upon expectant women – the result was more than 10,000 infants, across 46 nations, all born with deformities. It was Harold Macmillan who held the poisoned chalice of ‘Prime(d) Minister at that time. No doubt, when the sordid facts became clear, there were the usual trite platitudes run out – about ‘lessons being learned’.

It appears that the latest ‘actors’ in the Westminster Theatre have learned nothing at all.

We are beginning to hear the sounds of pious disbelief as the reality of the overwhelming numbers of disabled and dead can no longer be hidden – oh dearie me, I might lose my ‘elite’ status and have to revert to being a lower-class mortal again.

Let’s keep focused on them and watch as they try to wriggle themselves out of this unholy horror show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIVZ5ssWB-o

You may wish to SHARE this video. Don’t let the evil conspirators get away with it – no stone unturned until every one of them is exposed for their lies and profiteering.

As usual, we attach a pdf for those who wish to circulate the facts:

221023-mhpra-and-the-covid-jabbingDownload
Medical, Tyrannical, Unity

THE GREAT LIE IS BEING EXPOSED

Andrew Livingstone

As everyone knows and admits now, including the ‘authorities’, the covid vaccine doesn’t stop transmission or infection.  Everyone I know and probably everyone you know. who took the jabs, went on to get covid, but not long ago the unvaccinated were demonised and accused of ‘being selfish’ and calls were made to lock up the unvaccinated and deny them their basic human freedoms, even to punish them with fines and prison sentences and job losses.

Have you heard any apologies coming from these people?  I doubt there will be any, but I’m satisfied that the truth is beginning to come out because more people are waking up and realising that they’ve been duped, lied to and manipulated to take an mRNA gene therapy experimental drug, which has killed and injured millions, according to the UK government’s’ own data.  As this realisation dawns, heads will roll.  We’re seeing some of the criminals trying to duck out and run away and hide before they can be called out and have to stand trial.  People like Fauci, who announced his retirement and top NHS executives who are retiring in large numbers.  It’s because they were paid huge sums by the vaccine companies to take part in the operation and now, they’re like rats running from a sinking ship.  Fauci has been a lynchpin in the whole thing and controls the money going to hospitals, medical schools and universities.  As proven now, he lied to Congress about funding the gain of function research that created covid.

Bill Gates, his pal, Tedros, head of the WHO and his other pal, Klaus Schwab, head of the WEF aren’t running because they think their money will protect them but that’s where they’re wrong.  They tried ‘Monkeypox’ and that didn’t take off, next it will be climate lockdowns and restrictions and of course, green taxes, then Gates has promised us ‘Pandemic 2’, but honestly, I don’t think they’ll get away with it.  It’s all beginning to unravel.  It’s true that millions are still asleep, but at the same time, the past two and a half years have wakened up millions more.

Here is some of the unravelling –

Dr. John Campbell – Virus transmission not tested in vaccine trials

Carl Heneghan admitting Pfizer didn’t know the vaccines’ effects on transmission

Dr. Aseem Malhotra – covid vaccines should be withdrawn

“We are not a political party nor are we a religious cult; we are simply a group of living beings, flesh and blood, spiritually united in heart and soul. We stand as individuals yet built together under a common, natural law, which is shared by all, owned by none and which is superior to any statute. We each have a personal commitment, divinely inspired, to do no harm, to cause no loss to others, to commit no fraud and to keep the peace.”

As usual, we attach this information in pdf format, for those who wish to share it

With grateful thanks to Gloria Prema for sharing this information

221015-the-covid-lie-exposedDownload
Financial, Tyrannical

Cash not card

Andrew Livingstone

Have you seen the notice, posted this morning on Go-ogle, that if you buy ‘petrol’ (and we assume that this must also apply to ‘diesel’) for any purpose at all, you will, if paying by Visa card, have a ‘Holding charge’ debited to your account?

Apparently, this is precautionary by the suppliers, because some folks are so desperate to stay mobile that they are vastly exceeding their card limit. No doubt the rest of the card sharks will follow suit. So, use CASH whilst you still can, folks, the net is tightening..

Globalist, Medical, Tyrannical

Safe – or screwed?

Andrew Livingstone

Let’s say we are designing a product, which will help the emergency services when dealing with a suspected case of poisoning, or a serum which will be a groundbreaking treatment for many cancerous tumours.
We’ve spent the past several years in patient research and development, and finally, there it is, ready to be publicized, mass-produced to the undoubted improvement of society worldwide.
However, before we release our brainchild, we decide to DESTROY all the tools which helped create it, burn all the blueprint papers, make a ‘Luddite’ attack on all the supporting hardware..
Well, as we unkindly used to say in childhood, “they’ll be coming for thee, them fellers in white coats, tha’ll be off in’t green van!” – because, well, no one in their right mind would be so stupid, so selfish as to do that, would they??
Yet, guess what, someone has developed a new software communication system which they’ve released to zillions of mobile phone users, and apparently it’s so good that we all can contact anyone, anywhere, night or day, discuss all matters, private, personal, public , perfidious or political – and, not only is it FREE, best of all, it’s ‘encrypted‘!
That means, no one can listen in, copy or record what goes on between us and our contacts.
However, we might just switch our phones on early one morning, in our local time, to find that what we have just discussed, like a modern day ‘Luddite’, with our co-conspirators, is being ‘backed up’ – for our safety and security, of course, by some shadowy corporation which goes under the pseudonym – what is it again? Ah yes, go-ogle.
Pass me my toilet bag, the green van’s just pulling up at our front door..