PEBBLE
THEATRE |
5 |
The last revision to the fluid text on this page, prior to print publication, was on December 17, 2023 at 7:30 PM UTC
2 - THE ISLES WHERE FANTASY REIGNS
The Disney Company promotes its 'Magic Kingdom Park' in Florida as a fantasy experience for visitors who chose to pay an entrance fee. But, for the majority of babies born within the archipelago of the British Isles, magic reigns as a manifestation of monarchical madness, and that is not by choice.
After all, the location of individual geographical birth is a matter of circumstance controlled by a birth mother's location. It is not by selectivity of individual babies.
But this is about the fantasy of 'magic', which is a word defined as "the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces," and there is nothing at all that is mysterious or supernatural about the British monarchy or its Crown corporation sole. Secretive yes, but that secrecy can be investigated and then exposed to ridicule and then condemnation of its ability to corrupt political power used to extract wealth from its inhabitants.
After all, the location of individual geographical birth is a matter of circumstance controlled by a birth mother's location. It is not by selectivity of individual babies.
But this is about the fantasy of 'magic', which is a word defined as "the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces," and there is nothing at all that is mysterious or supernatural about the British monarchy or its Crown corporation sole. Secretive yes, but that secrecy can be investigated and then exposed to ridicule and then condemnation of its ability to corrupt political power used to extract wealth from its inhabitants.
The Blame Game
The British Empire was built upon slavery, and the question of blame for British Crown slavery has recently been heard from the granddaughter of Nelson Mandela. She wants financial reparations in payment for the creation of that British financial empire:
The granddaughter of Nelson Mandela is demanding reparations be paid to Africa by the British government for its years of colonizing the continent. Political activist Ndileka Mandela said in an interview with the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg that she supports the idea of reparations from the royal family because "that’s where healing begins."
https://www.foxnews.com/world/nelson-mandelas-granddaughter-demands-reparations-royal-family-suffering-under-colonization
One excuse that popped-up in response was that South Africa did not exist when the British Crown was busy gathering-up slaves for deportation, so why should Charles Windsor have to pay-up just because he is now King Charles III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
That's a great question!
Because when the British Broadcasting Company Limited was created, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland did not exist, 'that' BBC was created by a different sovereign power that claimed that it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
The majority of the Irish people did not like that idea and so they told the reigning British Crown monarch to "take a hike" and get out of Ireland. Well, they almost did except for a tiny bite in the northeast of the island. Hence the new regime.
But if that argument about existing and not existing is to be a valid argument, it must be applied in a universal manner, but it is not, and the creation of the British Broadcasting Company Limited is a case in point: now you see it, now you don't.
That's a great question!
Because when the British Broadcasting Company Limited was created, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland did not exist, 'that' BBC was created by a different sovereign power that claimed that it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
The majority of the Irish people did not like that idea and so they told the reigning British Crown monarch to "take a hike" and get out of Ireland. Well, they almost did except for a tiny bite in the northeast of the island. Hence the new regime.
But if that argument about existing and not existing is to be a valid argument, it must be applied in a universal manner, but it is not, and the creation of the British Broadcasting Company Limited is a case in point: now you see it, now you don't.
The Past Glory of Empire or the Record of Brutal Thugs?
We do not use the word 'history' when referring to past events, because that word it seems to be more akin to the concealment of crimes against humanity, rather than an unbiased account of the past. We prefer suffix variations attached to the prefix 'yester'.
There are some who believe in a structure of human society which is ruled from the top down by a few people. On the island of Great Britain, power has always been held by a few, and they merely follow a viewpoint that has existed throughout the time and put into practice, ever since human beings have lived on Planet Earth.
Sometimes it is administered visibly by the difference of skin color, sometimes by the sound of speech, and sometimes by the profession of a religious creed, and the people at the top wear crowns in order to let the ignorant masses know who is in control of their lives. In the so-called United Kingdom, the Crown is the law. It may seem comical that Charles Windsor is going around in 2023 with robes and a crown on his head, but in fact this farce is merely symbolic. The crown that he wears on his head is merely a representation of the Crown institution that still controls life in the British Isles and beyond. Charles Windsor is not the Crown, he is the spokesman for the Crown institution.
There are some who believe in a structure of human society which is ruled from the top down by a few people. On the island of Great Britain, power has always been held by a few, and they merely follow a viewpoint that has existed throughout the time and put into practice, ever since human beings have lived on Planet Earth.
Sometimes it is administered visibly by the difference of skin color, sometimes by the sound of speech, and sometimes by the profession of a religious creed, and the people at the top wear crowns in order to let the ignorant masses know who is in control of their lives. In the so-called United Kingdom, the Crown is the law. It may seem comical that Charles Windsor is going around in 2023 with robes and a crown on his head, but in fact this farce is merely symbolic. The crown that he wears on his head is merely a representation of the Crown institution that still controls life in the British Isles and beyond. Charles Windsor is not the Crown, he is the spokesman for the Crown institution.
Does the British Crown have a "right" to control mass media?
Control of mass media became necessary ever since the invention of the printing press. Before that, the control of knowledge was managed by educating the few and keeping the majority in the darkness of ignorance, but that was only bliss for the Crown as an institution.
The deceit and deception factor regarding the ownership of mass media opened the doors wide to a game of hide and seek. It applied to the slaves that once were claimed as the property of the Crown, and control over a broadcasting cartel that once was.
Like the slaves who vanished from the viewpoint of Charles Windsor, the broadcasting cartel that was once forced together by the British Crown and called the British Broadcasting Company Limited, also vanished from view. It was created under duress by the British Crown in 1922, and not all of its member company directors were 'British subjects'. At least one of its chief executives who managed one of the founding member companies was a U.S. citizen.
The company that he represented was also of American origin.
So here is the power of the British Crown ordering the enslavement of commercial companies in 1922, and it is the same process that the British Crown used to order the commercial enslavement of individual human beings for financial gain. After all, slavery of African people was not a social enterprise, it was a commercial enterprise for the financial enrichment of a few.
Therefore, it is an interesting question to ask of Charlie Windsor before he takes his next hand washing exercise of the entire matter:
Is the current BBC a valid operation, or is it an aberration wreaking of slavery from days gone by?
The deceit and deception factor regarding the ownership of mass media opened the doors wide to a game of hide and seek. It applied to the slaves that once were claimed as the property of the Crown, and control over a broadcasting cartel that once was.
Like the slaves who vanished from the viewpoint of Charles Windsor, the broadcasting cartel that was once forced together by the British Crown and called the British Broadcasting Company Limited, also vanished from view. It was created under duress by the British Crown in 1922, and not all of its member company directors were 'British subjects'. At least one of its chief executives who managed one of the founding member companies was a U.S. citizen.
The company that he represented was also of American origin.
So here is the power of the British Crown ordering the enslavement of commercial companies in 1922, and it is the same process that the British Crown used to order the commercial enslavement of individual human beings for financial gain. After all, slavery of African people was not a social enterprise, it was a commercial enterprise for the financial enrichment of a few.
Therefore, it is an interesting question to ask of Charlie Windsor before he takes his next hand washing exercise of the entire matter:
Is the current BBC a valid operation, or is it an aberration wreaking of slavery from days gone by?
Citizen or Subject?
The British Crown called listeners and viewers their "subjects". They were not classified as citizens. After all, the King is the Law, and that means today that Charles Windsor is the Law. He has 'sovereign immunity' from prosecution. The only way to get rid of Charles Windsor is by staging yet another coup d'état, and the British Establishment are good at doing that.
There has never, ever been a sovereign written constitution written by The People for The People and in the name of The People of the British Isles, except perhaps for that document in what is now called the Republic of Ireland which is situated on an island in the archipelago called the British Isles!
Funny thing about the creation of that sovereign nation State called the Republic of Ireland, because its creation straddles the same period of time involving the creation, demise and creation of two different entities which both have the initials 'BBC'. What is even funnier, in a very, very sick sort of way, is that the current 'BBC' claims to be the 'other' and original 'BBC' so that it could claim in 2022, to be one hundred years old.
But of course 'The BBC' lied, and until now it has got away with its lie unchallenged.
There has only been the ancestry of Charles Windsor's cronies who have bumped off other cronies to assume their own, and his own "line of accession". To cover-up one of the major 'blips' in that line, after King Charles I was executed and both England and Scotland were for a time merged into a unified republic sans monarchy, the Establishment created a new monarchy under King Charles II and called the unmentionable past, the 'Interregnum'.
Now that is another sick joke because the 'Interregnum' was merely a gag played upon The People of the British Isles, and then enforced by a so-called 'Act of Oblivion'. It was a past that must never be mentioned in royal society, and consequently, the creation of the British Broadcasting Corporation being an adjunct to that falsely claimed 'royal prerogative' to create something out of nothing, is also shrouded in the same murky and confused text within its paperwork wrapping.
The story of 'royal succession' is also the story of a fabricated British broadcasting succession, because both of those stories are fake. They do not make logical sense because they are both fables concocted to confuse and confound the masses of inhabitants dwelling in the British Isles.
There has never, ever been a sovereign written constitution written by The People for The People and in the name of The People of the British Isles, except perhaps for that document in what is now called the Republic of Ireland which is situated on an island in the archipelago called the British Isles!
Funny thing about the creation of that sovereign nation State called the Republic of Ireland, because its creation straddles the same period of time involving the creation, demise and creation of two different entities which both have the initials 'BBC'. What is even funnier, in a very, very sick sort of way, is that the current 'BBC' claims to be the 'other' and original 'BBC' so that it could claim in 2022, to be one hundred years old.
But of course 'The BBC' lied, and until now it has got away with its lie unchallenged.
There has only been the ancestry of Charles Windsor's cronies who have bumped off other cronies to assume their own, and his own "line of accession". To cover-up one of the major 'blips' in that line, after King Charles I was executed and both England and Scotland were for a time merged into a unified republic sans monarchy, the Establishment created a new monarchy under King Charles II and called the unmentionable past, the 'Interregnum'.
Now that is another sick joke because the 'Interregnum' was merely a gag played upon The People of the British Isles, and then enforced by a so-called 'Act of Oblivion'. It was a past that must never be mentioned in royal society, and consequently, the creation of the British Broadcasting Corporation being an adjunct to that falsely claimed 'royal prerogative' to create something out of nothing, is also shrouded in the same murky and confused text within its paperwork wrapping.
The story of 'royal succession' is also the story of a fabricated British broadcasting succession, because both of those stories are fake. They do not make logical sense because they are both fables concocted to confuse and confound the masses of inhabitants dwelling in the British Isles.
The Question we want Charles Windsor to answer
This book asks a basic question of Charles Windsor, and everyone else who wants to sidestep the fundamental question of whether The People who reside in the British Isles are subjects or slaves?
Which is it?
We think that Ndileka Mandela raises a very valid point of order for Charles Windsor to address as he watches the ripples in the fabric of time that have been created by his rock, and the other rocks tossed in by the British Crown. Ndileka is not the only person demanding an answer from Charles Windsor.
He chose to put on that symbolic hat, and that garb, and have symbolic 'anointing oil' smeared over him behind a screen. No one forced him to do any of that, so now Charles Windsor you are King Charles III. You are now Head Cook and Bottle Washer for cronies called the British Establishment. You are their king. You are not the king of the British subjugated People.
It seems that a lot of British people are also due reparations from Charles Windsor, because he is sitting upon a source of extreme wealth that was created by slavery which comes in many skin colors and from human beings in many geographical locations. There is a point of law which tries to make sure that criminals do not profit from their crime.
What we want to know is whether Charles Windsor believes that slavery is a crime? Ndileka Mandela says that it is. We think that she is correct. The problem is that Charles Windsor is The Law because he is the Sovereign Head of State, and his cronies believe that "the King can do no wrong".
So in their eyes, and in his eyes, slavery is perfectly okay. It's all a matter of who owns the slaves. But, to then state that to be a legitimate slave owner you must have British Crown approval, is to ignore the nuanced interpretation of law by lawyers. That translates as sometimes it is wrong, and sometimes its okay. It depends upon the circumstances.
But what it really comes down to without a written constitution in the name of The People, and written to represent the interests of The People, is this: The only thing that matters is 'Might Make Right'.
In the UK, if Charles Windsor says it is okay, then it is okay, because he has the means to enforce The Law, and without a matching armed force to back you up, you, as an individual do not. That is why successful lawyers are so expensive and beyond the reach of the average person.
Which is it?
We think that Ndileka Mandela raises a very valid point of order for Charles Windsor to address as he watches the ripples in the fabric of time that have been created by his rock, and the other rocks tossed in by the British Crown. Ndileka is not the only person demanding an answer from Charles Windsor.
He chose to put on that symbolic hat, and that garb, and have symbolic 'anointing oil' smeared over him behind a screen. No one forced him to do any of that, so now Charles Windsor you are King Charles III. You are now Head Cook and Bottle Washer for cronies called the British Establishment. You are their king. You are not the king of the British subjugated People.
It seems that a lot of British people are also due reparations from Charles Windsor, because he is sitting upon a source of extreme wealth that was created by slavery which comes in many skin colors and from human beings in many geographical locations. There is a point of law which tries to make sure that criminals do not profit from their crime.
What we want to know is whether Charles Windsor believes that slavery is a crime? Ndileka Mandela says that it is. We think that she is correct. The problem is that Charles Windsor is The Law because he is the Sovereign Head of State, and his cronies believe that "the King can do no wrong".
So in their eyes, and in his eyes, slavery is perfectly okay. It's all a matter of who owns the slaves. But, to then state that to be a legitimate slave owner you must have British Crown approval, is to ignore the nuanced interpretation of law by lawyers. That translates as sometimes it is wrong, and sometimes its okay. It depends upon the circumstances.
But what it really comes down to without a written constitution in the name of The People, and written to represent the interests of The People, is this: The only thing that matters is 'Might Make Right'.
In the UK, if Charles Windsor says it is okay, then it is okay, because he has the means to enforce The Law, and without a matching armed force to back you up, you, as an individual do not. That is why successful lawyers are so expensive and beyond the reach of the average person.
However, that exposé requires investigation, and a means of disseminating information. But since the official record of human events in the United Kingdom is also the foundation of British Law, it means that the two become one and the same. Prior decisions made in UK courts of law provide conformity in the rendering of new legal opinions, and in the United Kingdom, its system of law is dominated by a King "who can do no wrong", because the King is The Law. Nuancing really means the ability of lawyers to create a means of employment for themselves, while waffling around to disguise the fact the UK does not have a written constitution as its ultimate source of supreme law.
There is also a problem with the dissemination of information via mass media in the United Kingdom, because its mass media, and especially its electronic mass media, is under the control of the British Crown. That control was originally imposed as a means of censorship to protect a king and his kingdom from anyone who sought alliances with other individuals who shared similar opinions.
When it comes to knowing how this system began, research collides with that same system of censorship that was originally put in place to prevent easy access to shared information. It is still a problem when it comes to uncovering the true story of 'Radio Caroline', because in addition to the official blanket of censorship, there is also the commercial campaign of misdirection and obfuscation that was created to conceal its true beginnings. That leads to this question:
Our investigation led us here: http://foundthreads.com/03.html
"Well, Whadya Know?"
The last major textual revision of this page was on December 14, 2023 at 8:30 PM UTC
Various changes have been made to all pages which includes moving some text to the Preface and Introduction.
Various changes have been made to all pages which includes moving some text to the Preface and Introduction.
|
|
During the latter part of the 1950s, Capitol Records bought time on the English language 'Radio Luxembourg' nighttime service which was originally called 'Luxembourg 2'. Its host was Canadian Ray Orchard who began with a fanfare and then a riff from the 'Main Title'. [Click the image to the left.] While it was playing, Ray would tell his listeners the names of the artists that he would be introducing from excerpts to their records. But it was his opening words that are relevant here, because Ray would ask listeners "Well, whadya know?", and while his answer was 'It's the Capitol Show!', our question remains to be answered by you.
|
Alan Bailey, who was a London recording engineer for 'Radio Luxembourg' programs, noted in his own book that his account is "seen through my eyes between 1958 and 1975." As an avid listener, one of our Trio began listening to '208' somewhere around 1956 when it truly was the 'Station of the Stars' because in carried a lot of US radio network programming, and not just record shows. Therefore the account of that period rendered by Alan Bailey, rests upon his own investigation into the years prior to his employment. Unfortunately, there are very few books that authentically document details of '208' programing in the 1950s, which means that it is necessary to find old program guides in order to discover what they were actually broadcasting. It is all about the timing of acquired knowledge relating to the past.
On June 25, 1973, US Senator Howard Baker posed a question to a witness about US President Richard Nixon. It was during the Watergate Hearings, and it is a question which has application to this investigation. Baker asked: "What did the President know and when did he know it?"
It is now time to ask our readers:
"What do you know about the advent of 'Radio Caroline' in 1964, and when did you first claim to know it?"
During the latter part of the 1950s, Capitol Records bought time on the English language 'Radio Luxembourg' nighttime service which was originally called 'Luxembourg 2'. Its host was Canadian Ray Orchard who began with a fanfare and then a riff from the 'Main Title'. While it was playing, Ray would tell his listeners the names of the artists that he would be introducing from excerpts to their records. But it was his opening words that are relevant here, because Ray would ask listeners "Well, whadya know?", and while his answer was 'It's the Capitol Show!', our question remains a question to be answered by you.
Alan Bailey, who was the London recording engineer for 'Radio Luxembourg' programs, noted in his own book that his account is "seen through my eyes between 1958 and 1975." As an avid listener, one of our Trio began listening to '208' somewhere around 1956 when it truly was the 'Station of the Stars' because in carried a lot of US radio network programming, and not just record shows. Therefore the account of that period rendered by Alan Bailey, rests upon his own investigation into the years prior to his employment. Unfortunately, there are very few books that authentically document details of '208' programing in the 1950s, which means that it is necessary to find old program guides in order to discover what they were actually broadcasting. It is all about the timing of acquired knowledge relating to the past.
On June 25, 1973, US Senator Howard Baker posed a question to a witness about US President Richard Nixon. It was during the Watergate Hearings, and it is a question which has application to this investigation. Baker asked: "What did the President know and when did he know it?"
It is now time to ask our readers:
"What do you know about the advent of 'Radio Caroline' in 1964, and when did you first claim to know it?"
On June 25, 1973, US Senator Howard Baker posed a question to a witness about US President Richard Nixon. It was during the Watergate Hearings, and it is a question which has application to this investigation. Baker asked: "What did the President know and when did he know it?"
It is now time to ask our readers:
"What do you know about the advent of 'Radio Caroline' in 1964, and when did you first claim to know it?"
During the latter part of the 1950s, Capitol Records bought time on the English language 'Radio Luxembourg' nighttime service which was originally called 'Luxembourg 2'. Its host was Canadian Ray Orchard who began with a fanfare and then a riff from the 'Main Title'. While it was playing, Ray would tell his listeners the names of the artists that he would be introducing from excerpts to their records. But it was his opening words that are relevant here, because Ray would ask listeners "Well, whadya know?", and while his answer was 'It's the Capitol Show!', our question remains a question to be answered by you.
Alan Bailey, who was the London recording engineer for 'Radio Luxembourg' programs, noted in his own book that his account is "seen through my eyes between 1958 and 1975." As an avid listener, one of our Trio began listening to '208' somewhere around 1956 when it truly was the 'Station of the Stars' because in carried a lot of US radio network programming, and not just record shows. Therefore the account of that period rendered by Alan Bailey, rests upon his own investigation into the years prior to his employment. Unfortunately, there are very few books that authentically document details of '208' programing in the 1950s, which means that it is necessary to find old program guides in order to discover what they were actually broadcasting. It is all about the timing of acquired knowledge relating to the past.
On June 25, 1973, US Senator Howard Baker posed a question to a witness about US President Richard Nixon. It was during the Watergate Hearings, and it is a question which has application to this investigation. Baker asked: "What did the President know and when did he know it?"
It is now time to ask our readers:
"What do you know about the advent of 'Radio Caroline' in 1964, and when did you first claim to know it?"
Many people now confuse the timing of when they think that they first came to know about 'Radio Caroline'. Was it from information written after 1990, or was it from the limited amount of information available prior to that date?
Readers who were too young to remember anything about events in 1964 tend to assume that information added after 1990, is a true representation of information available prior to that date. But such is not the case.
Of the generation who were alive and cognisant of events that took place in 1964, many assume that the information published after 1990, is merely an additional extrapolation of previously available documentation. Therefore, for the benefit of everyone, it is necessary to separate information known before 1990, from information published after 1990, and to then ask two questions: Why did such a deluge of information suddenly became available, and is that additional information true?
The answer to both of those questions is the same.
It was misinformation intended to deceive listeners, viewers and readers, and it was let loose under the imprimatur of the British Broadcasting Corporation for the sole beneficiary of Crown censorship.
Readers who were too young to remember anything about events in 1964 tend to assume that information added after 1990, is a true representation of information available prior to that date. But such is not the case.
Of the generation who were alive and cognisant of events that took place in 1964, many assume that the information published after 1990, is merely an additional extrapolation of previously available documentation. Therefore, for the benefit of everyone, it is necessary to separate information known before 1990, from information published after 1990, and to then ask two questions: Why did such a deluge of information suddenly became available, and is that additional information true?
The answer to both of those questions is the same.
It was misinformation intended to deceive listeners, viewers and readers, and it was let loose under the imprimatur of the British Broadcasting Corporation for the sole beneficiary of Crown censorship.
The politics of geography
The methodology used for this deception was by confusing geographical terminology with political labeling, and thereby disseminating Crown propaganda. The origin of this system of misinformation began in the now defunct Kingdom of England. It was born in the year 1660 when its censorship agency that became known as the General Post Office (GPO), was also created. The idea behind the creation of the Crown Post Office was to serve as a censorship filter for all point-to-point written communications. Licensing of both the printing press and newspapers took care of unwanted commentaries harmful to Crown propaganda. Unlicensed operatives were designated as 'pirates' stealing from the Crown its prerogative of freedom of speech and expression.
The former Kingdom of England was located upon the lower half of the island known as Great Britain, but the name of the island was not synonymous with that of the kingdom. They were not interchangeable terms of reference because the upper half of the same island was occupied by the Kingdom of Scotland. Although a king from Scotland had travelled south to also become the King of England by another title, the two kingdoms were not united as one entity and both had separate Parliaments governing each kingdom.
But confusing geographical terms with political names can best be illustrated by the 1922 Crown licensing of the British Broadcasting Company Limited. That commercial cartel was composed of many British and American commercial companies doing business under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was a nation state which occupied the geographical archipelago known as the British Isles, and it included both the islands of Great Britain and Ireland.
In 1927, the Crown dominated nation state which had licensed the British Broadcasting Company Limited in 1922, had ceased to exist, and so did the British Broadcasting Company Limited. In that year a new nation State called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into existence after the London-based Crown had lost political control over most of the island of Ireland. In 1927 it only retained control of counties to the north-east of the island.
Because of its loss of political and legal jurisdiction, the London-based Crown, which was itself known in law as a corporation sole, and not as the personal property of the reigning monarch who had become the human manifestation or representative of the Crown, then licensed a brand new entity called the British Broadcasting Corporation. In other words, the entity of 1922 did not morph into the entity of 1927. Both entities were licensed by two different nation states, even though the latter kingdom had now replaced the former kingdom in much of the same geographical area - except in the majority of the British isle called Ireland.
The former Kingdom of England was located upon the lower half of the island known as Great Britain, but the name of the island was not synonymous with that of the kingdom. They were not interchangeable terms of reference because the upper half of the same island was occupied by the Kingdom of Scotland. Although a king from Scotland had travelled south to also become the King of England by another title, the two kingdoms were not united as one entity and both had separate Parliaments governing each kingdom.
But confusing geographical terms with political names can best be illustrated by the 1922 Crown licensing of the British Broadcasting Company Limited. That commercial cartel was composed of many British and American commercial companies doing business under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was a nation state which occupied the geographical archipelago known as the British Isles, and it included both the islands of Great Britain and Ireland.
In 1927, the Crown dominated nation state which had licensed the British Broadcasting Company Limited in 1922, had ceased to exist, and so did the British Broadcasting Company Limited. In that year a new nation State called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came into existence after the London-based Crown had lost political control over most of the island of Ireland. In 1927 it only retained control of counties to the north-east of the island.
Because of its loss of political and legal jurisdiction, the London-based Crown, which was itself known in law as a corporation sole, and not as the personal property of the reigning monarch who had become the human manifestation or representative of the Crown, then licensed a brand new entity called the British Broadcasting Corporation. In other words, the entity of 1922 did not morph into the entity of 1927. Both entities were licensed by two different nation states, even though the latter kingdom had now replaced the former kingdom in much of the same geographical area - except in the majority of the British isle called Ireland.
Intertwined and Intermixed Misinformation
It is not only the intertwining and intermixing of the words politics and geography that lend to confusion, but when the words 'law and order' are added to that mix, then a deliberate obfuscation takes place because it conceals the fact that the accepted version of previous events, never happened. To enact legislation is one thing, but to enforce it is something that demands total jurisdiction of the geographical area in which laws can be enforced.
The interchanging of the terminology 'domestic legislation' with 'international law', is a misnomer. Because there is no world government there is no world police force. There are treaties between sovereign states, but there is no such thing as 'international law'. Usage of that political term implies something that does not exist.
Worse still, there is no universally agreed upon summation of past events. In each geopolitical zone on this Planet there are numerous clashing versions of previous activities that are supposed to have taken place during the same period of time within the same geographical zone. Clearly these contradictory versions which all claim to represent a true account, cannot all be true. To believe that only the victors who emerge from a bloody wars are the truth tellers is absurd, and yet, the basis of the British Crown claim is 'Might make right'.
There was a time, not so long ago, where trial by battle was the standard by which court decisions were made. Then the talking-head proxies took over to represent plaintiffs and defendants. Both sides then began the process of attempting to destroy each other with words, instead of with swords and then guns. But professional expertise of legal representation almost guarantees the acceptance or failure of the party facing the judge and jury. It is always a verdict based upon 'beyond reasonable doubt', and not beyond any doubt. Consequently many innocent people have been sent to prison or worse, to their death by order of a court.
The interchanging of the terminology 'domestic legislation' with 'international law', is a misnomer. Because there is no world government there is no world police force. There are treaties between sovereign states, but there is no such thing as 'international law'. Usage of that political term implies something that does not exist.
Worse still, there is no universally agreed upon summation of past events. In each geopolitical zone on this Planet there are numerous clashing versions of previous activities that are supposed to have taken place during the same period of time within the same geographical zone. Clearly these contradictory versions which all claim to represent a true account, cannot all be true. To believe that only the victors who emerge from a bloody wars are the truth tellers is absurd, and yet, the basis of the British Crown claim is 'Might make right'.
There was a time, not so long ago, where trial by battle was the standard by which court decisions were made. Then the talking-head proxies took over to represent plaintiffs and defendants. Both sides then began the process of attempting to destroy each other with words, instead of with swords and then guns. But professional expertise of legal representation almost guarantees the acceptance or failure of the party facing the judge and jury. It is always a verdict based upon 'beyond reasonable doubt', and not beyond any doubt. Consequently many innocent people have been sent to prison or worse, to their death by order of a court.
Ripping down the curtains
While it may be argued that some advances in technology have made bad situations even worse, there is one area in which technology has proved to be the undoing of swindlers, rapists, thugs and murderers, and that is the democratization of DNA research and availability. Coupled to that advance in the field of detection, has come digitalization and the general availability of documents once hidden to all but a few on library shelves.
This latter reference is to research that is already showing that the claims made about the past, are merely corrupt references in support of a yesterday that never happened. It has taken a long time for us to reach the point where we can now reveal that the story promoted between 1964 and today about 'Radio Caroline', is a fake.
Now it is time to reveal that the true story and the people who have concealed that truth have done so for their own benefit, because they have also propped up the fake underpinnings of the Establishment..
This latter reference is to research that is already showing that the claims made about the past, are merely corrupt references in support of a yesterday that never happened. It has taken a long time for us to reach the point where we can now reveal that the story promoted between 1964 and today about 'Radio Caroline', is a fake.
Now it is time to reveal that the true story and the people who have concealed that truth have done so for their own benefit, because they have also propped up the fake underpinnings of the Establishment..
Page 5
Editing in progress preparatory for a print edition.
This text remains fluid and subject to change.
Editing in progress preparatory for a print edition.
This text remains fluid and subject to change.