It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2 SCAMS - How the rich get richer from literally nothing and rip you off at the same time

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
I've been pondering whether to post these or not, but 2 people I know have told me recently about different things that they've discovered that look to me like they might just be mega scams designed to pour money into the pockets of the rich at everyone elses expense.

And it really is money for nothing.

I'm in the UK and unsurprisingly it seems that politicians and their mates are all lining themselves up to earn huge chunks of money by doing nothing at all except creating laws & campaigns that allow them to become unnecessary middle men who get paid huge sums of money when there really is no need for them to earn one single penny.

Possible Scam 1) Water Abstraction:

In the UK if you own land that has water flowing through it, or has a border that meets water (e.g. like a rivel for example) then you own part of the river.

You can then apply for a water abstraction license that costs up to c.£10,000, and once you have that you are legally allowed to syphon water off from the river, and sell it to the water companies.

So the rain falls out of the sky, at no cost to you, it flows in the river onto or past your land, at no cost to you, you syphon it off, at very little cost, and sell it to the water companies who then sell it to the public - and of course those costs are passed onto the public.

How much is this worth? Well my first contact has talked to a wealthy land owner (think like a Lord kind of wealthy land owner) who is angry that the laws might be changed, and he's making £millions per year out of it.

In fact DEFRA have been banging the drum about how since 2008 they have amended 77 licenses and this has resulted in 75 Billion litres of water being returned to the environment (here: consult.defra.gov.uk...)

Sounds impressive until you realise there are licenses in place right now that allow 80 Billion litres of water PER DAY to be extracted from rivers and sold to the water companies.

So this government department have managed in 6 years to recover 1 days worth of water per year - whoop de doo.

But how much is this worth to those who take natures water and sell it on?

DEFRA are now also proposing changes to the system of water abstraction, and this change will benefit water abstractors by up to £500 million over 25 years (here: www.farmersguardian.com...).

Note that's not how much taking free water and selling it on will be worth in total, it's how much it will benefit them by - in other words, in addition to how much they're already making.

That's an extra £20 million per year, and that's IF DEFRA have their numbers right - something that government departments are not famous for. I wouldn't be surprised if it's worth significantly MORE than that per year to the vultures.

Of course the simple question is - why don't the water companies simply take the water from the rivers themselves instead of allowing someone else to do it and make £10's of millions in the process?

I don't know how much money is being made from this in total, but some simple maths:

Currently only about half of the water that licenses allow is being taken, so that's: 40 billion litres per day x 365 days = 14,600 BILLION litres per year - that's 14.6 TRILLION litres per year of free water that's being taken and sold to the public - and they could take double that if they wanted.

Work out how much that's worth...

Possible Scam 2) This is The Big Deal

A friend of mine started a website 7 years ago, but for various reasons hasn't been able to push it, it's called Saving Together.

Low and behold a new site has recently appeared called "This is the Big Deal" (this is a link to a page on the saving together site that explains what's going on in more detail - I'm loathe to link to the other site for the following reasons):

The "This is the big deal" website was only registered on 27th January of this year, it is BRAND NEW - and yet they have recently been featured on Sky News and in various newspapers.

Even more surprisingly is that lots of government ministers and other politicians have come out saying what a great idea it is and how they are behind it - REALLY - a brand new website?

It turns out that one of the people behind "this is the big deal" is called Henry de Zoete and is from the de Zoete banking dynasty - he was in the year above Prince William at Eton, and surprise surprise until recently he was employed working for....

A UK government politician - Michael Gove!

Then in the news today on the BBC is this story: Energy Companies to be Investigated

They are going to face political questioning regarding pricing - and what is "this is the big deal" all about?

It's about getting people to sign up en masse so that they can switch energy companies en masse to get a better deal.

And I guess that "this is the big deal" will earn money from that, won't they?

And I also wonder if the de Zoete banking dynasty have sizeable investments in any UK energy firms? isn't that the kind of thing large banking types normally invest in?

I can see how the timing of this website and the timing of the announcement of government investigations into energy prices could be a coincidence, even with the political connections of the people behind the site, but seriously...

Don't you think it needs some investigations itself, just to make sure it's not another case of politicians sticking their fingers into nice juicy pies they've baked for themselves?

Makes you sick.




posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Here's a scenario.

You have a whole country full of people who don't ask questions, are happy with enslavement and are delighted to be beaten by police officers. You're surrounded by yes men who constantly inflate your ego and tell you that you're worth millions and billions, and that all these 'sucker's are here for 'your' benefit. Of course you're going to scam them and scam them, you'll do it because it's easy, because it's super easy and you don't need to worry about prosecution because the people in the legal system understand that, fundamentally, you underpin that nations moral. For them to admit your a scammer and immoral is to admit the same thing in themselves.

This is a self perpetuating system. It feeds on the weak and will soon consume itself. Cannibalism at it's finest.

I always have the image in my head that people in the future will look back at our society and feel psychically ill, we'll be like a smudge on history, a greedy, selfish smudge. They'll hopefully learn from us that greed and corruption ALWAYS have consequences.
edit on 11/10/2012 by Joneselius because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Here's another scenario - if you join an affiliate scheme for an energy company then you will get paid up to £50 for each person you refer who signs up.

So if you can get publicity and politicians behind you then you could be sending hundreds of thousands of people.

If you also own stakes in certain energy companies, and they are the beneficiaries then it's double bubble.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


Oh I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that people don't wrap their heads around scams because they're so busy looking for ways to scam other people.

The whole economy, pretty much, is bubble based. Housing, engineering, food. Artificial shortages for increased revenue. What you're shedding light on, very coherently in my opinion (I really enjoyed reading your post) is tied in with inherent corruption. Everywhere you look is corruption when money is involved (well not everywhere, but a lot of places). I guess I'm just losing hope......



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Joneselius
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


Oh I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that people don't wrap their heads around scams because they're so busy looking for ways to scam other people.

The whole economy, pretty much, is bubble based. Housing, engineering, food. Artificial shortages for increased revenue. What you're shedding light on, very coherently in my opinion (I really enjoyed reading your post) is tied in with inherent corruption. Everywhere you look is corruption when money is involved (well not everywhere, but a lot of places). I guess I'm just losing hope......


Thanks, I tried to explain it as best as possible without getting emotionally invested in it, it does make you sick, while were all struggling to even find jobs and pay our ever increasing bills, it appears that those with the money already are squeezing us all even tighter and creating money (I was going to say out of thin air, but really it's) by stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Not quite sure I see a "scam" here..

Scenario 1: Water companies do extract water themselves, but if they want water from someone else land, then they have to buy it from them. Seems only fair. Are you just upset because you don't own any land and are unable to sell water from it?

You might think it "free" and it "falls out the sky", but you wouldn't want to drink it without it being treated, unless you particularly like dysentery, cholera and other nasty water-borne diseases which were rife prior to modern water supplies. This obviously involves a cost..

That said - I am a firm believer that certain industries should be run by Government, namely Water and Power. The privatisation of these has made little sense and has only led to price increases because the companies have to return a profit for the investors. If the Government ran it at cost, we'd all have lower bills and they'd still have money for re-investment.

Scenario 2: It seems to me your mate with the original website just really sucked at marketing, whereas the other chappy clearly has links and some knowledge when it comes to running a business. There is no excuse, in the online world, at having a 7 year lead on someone and still getting beaten into the ground apart from poor marketing and business planning.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Oh yeah one other thing - notice that one of the politicians mentioned in that BBC story who is behind the inquiry into energy firms is Ed Davey, the "Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change"...

And he's also one of the bigwig politicians who is quoted on "this is the big idea" as saying what a great idea it is and how he "strongly welcomes this".

Blatant?



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   

stumason
Not quite sure I see a "scam" here..

Scenario 1: Water companies do extract water themselves, but if they want water from someone else land, then they have to buy it from them. Seems only fair. Are you just upset because you don't own any land and are unable to sell water from it?

You might think it "free" and it "falls out the sky", but you wouldn't want to drink it without it being treated, unless you particularly like dysentery, cholera and other nasty water-borne diseases which were rife prior to modern water supplies. This obviously involves a cost..

That said - I am a firm believer that certain industries should be run by Government, namely Water and Power. The privatisation of these has made little sense and has only led to price increases because the companies have to return a profit for the investors. If the Government ran it at cost, we'd all have lower bills and they'd still have money for re-investment.

Scenario 2: It seems to me your mate with the original website just really sucked at marketing, whereas the other chappy clearly has links and some knowledge when it comes to running a business. There is no excuse, in the online world, at having a 7 year lead on someone and still getting beaten into the ground apart from poor marketing and business planning.


It's the water companies who do the water treatment, all these guys do is syphon off the water and sell it on.

It would make far more sense for the water companies to do that themselves, the law would be better amended to allow them to do it since it cuts out an unnecessary middle man and reduces costs.

In scenario 2 - what I'm highlighting is the timing, the purpose, and the connections.

Ex goverment minister employee sets up site A about X, X then happens/is caused/highlighted by some politicians, then those politicians come out recommending and supporting site A.

It could be viewed by some people that they're all in bed together and are using their positions/knowledge/connections/power to make money.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


Ok, but where are they going to extract the water from? It's all very well saying they should do it themselves (by and large they do - reservoirs and such) but where from if not people's land? Are those people not entitled to charge for access and extraction, like any other resource?

On the second point, of course there is an element of collusion. Just like if you were down the pub and heard of a job or contract going and gave you mate a "heads up".

You do realise that you can get the very same "heads up" as to what the Government is doing/planning months/years in advance, just by paying attention to what is going on in Parliament?

A simple way to do this is to follow your MP on They Work For You. The simple e-mail alert system lets you know every question they ask in every debate - you can even look back through historic records for any MP. Anything they are up to or planning in Parliament is recorded. Take the OFGEM announcement today - that has been in the works for months and may suspected it was coming last year.

But my point still stands - your mate had a 7 year lead. If he can't handle competition of failed to get site off the ground in that time, it was never meant to be.

Bottom line - if you want to get ahead in business, as in life, it pays to be informed.
edit on 27/3/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   

stumason
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


Ok, but where are they going to extract the water from? It's all very well saying they should do it themselves (by and large they do - reservoirs and such) but where from if not people's land? Are those people not entitled to charge for access and extraction, like any other resource?

On the second point, of course there is an element of collusion. Just like if you were down the pub and heard of a job or contract going and gave you mate a "heads up".

You do realise that you can get the very same "heads up" as to what the Government is doing/planning months/years in advance, just by paying attention to what is going on in Parliament?

A simple way to do this is to follow your MP on They Work For You. The simple e-mail alert system lets you know every question they ask in every debate - you can even look back through historic records for any MP. Anything they are up to or planning in Parliament is recorded. Take the OFGEM announcement today - that has been in the works for months and may suspected it was coming last year.

But my point still stands - your mate had a 7 year lead. If he can't handle competition of failed to get site off the ground in that time, it was never meant to be.

Bottom line - if you want to get ahead in business, as in life, it pays to be informed.
edit on 27/3/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)


Rivers run for hundreds of miles throughout the UK, the water doesn't need to be extracted from someones land and them paid £millions for it.

The second point - it has nothing to do with my friends site or whether he has or hasn't made his website successful - it's because of him and his doing this that he pointed out to me that this new site had popped up and the question of whether there's collusion between the owners of the site and politicians in order to make money.

It's not about him, it's about these lot behind the new site.

And that the people behind the new site appear to be politicians and/or connected to politicians - in some cases the same politicians who decide to have inquiries into energy firms, and then at the same time recommend their mates site on national TV and/or via the press to millions of people.

It would be a case of vested interests working together to make money, would be an abuse of power and position in very much the same way that nepotism is an abuse.

It's all well and good saying "oh well they've been tipped the wink - that's okay, it's just who they know".

It ISN'T alright at all, and could quite easily overlap into illegality.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


And where do rivers run? They don't float in the sky, the flow through people's land....... Back to square one there, bud...

As for the second point, if you suspect a "conflict of interests", then report it instead of whining about it on a forum!

If it is illegal, they will be punished, but I suspect it isn't quite as you've painted it because they wouldn't be so blatant about it and they have to declare all their interests to avoid any inkling of dubiousness. Thing is, the link to the supposed "new website" in your OP links back to your friends website, so I couldn't even begin to dig as to who is involved in it... Might want to fix that...



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   
My water costs me 520pound a year!
My council tax 900
Council tax pays for bins,police and lots of other services,
I live in the second wettest area in the u.k
The scam is way,way bigger than you think

The biggest scam is that big money buys more big money
Little money buys debt.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   

stumason
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


And where do rivers run? They don't float in the sky, the flow through people's land....... Back to square one there, bud...

As for the second point, if you suspect a "conflict of interests", then report it instead of whining about it on a forum!

If it is illegal, they will be punished, but I suspect it isn't quite as you've painted it because they wouldn't be so blatant about it and they have to declare all their interests to avoid any inkling of dubiousness. Thing is, the link to the supposed "new website" in your OP links back to your friends website, so I couldn't even begin to dig as to who is involved in it... Might want to fix that...


Rivers don't just flow through peoples land, they flow adjacent to peoples land. Instead of allowing people with water adjacent to their property to take it and sell it, it would make far more sense for the law to be changed so that only water companies can take it.

And my point re rivers flow for hundreds of miles, which I assume you're deliberately ignoring, is that they flow across council owned land, government land, public land, and water company owned land - there is no need for the current system to exist.

And why don't I report the second point instead of "whinging about it on a forum" - this is a conspiracy forum, and to me this looks like it could be another "snouts in the trough" scenario, or in other words a political conspiracy to make money by abusing positions of power and influence.

That's why I've posted it here.

The other site is, as mentioned many times - thisisthebigdeal (.com) set up by Henry de Zoete, of the de Zoete banking dynasty, ex employee of Michael Gove UK Member of Parliament.
edit on 27-3-2014 by Power_Semi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   

symptomoftheuniverse
My water costs me 520pound a year!


And now you know why!

And you're right - big money does make big money, and it helps when you all wear the same school tie as the politicians who make the rules, because they can make rules that benefit themselves and their mates.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 





It could be viewed by some people that they're all in bed together and are using their positions/knowledge/connections/power to make money. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Now whilst I do, don't get me wrong, understand what you are saying, I nevertheless think you are dealing with a grey area.

I could frame the issue the other way around, and wonder, for example, why on earth I wouldn't take advantage of friendships in high places and the knowledge that comes with it. Believe it or not, you can do that without breaking any law nine times out of ten.

The things is, there are far too many variables to argue what is right and what is wrong, as at the end of the day this is what you are boiling it down to: a moral issue.

Cultural variables, for example. I live in Rome and I can assure you that absolutely nobody would have any qualms about asking friends in government or high-up in the administration to endorse what they are doing - it's called influence.

Sure, but they may make use of 'insider knowledge that others don't have access to' you might object. Ok, so? Was it illegal, and more to the point, can it be proven?

I'm not arguing that there may be some clear-cut cases in which the answer to both questions is yes, and even in which we can agree to wrongdoing - something morally reprehensible - but I can assure you that in the majority of cases there won't be, and there isn't much you can do about it.

I guess if you have the timing, purpose and connections on your side to do something, then do it. If you don't, by all means try anyway but be aware others may beat you to the punch.

Complaining about any advantages they may have had, fair or otherwise, as far as I am concerned is a complete waste of time.

Again, I understand what you are saying, and you don't have to agree with me, but that is clearly my take on it.

edit on 27-3-2014 by D377MC because: spelling, punctuation



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Lol, nevermind my post was way off topic.
edit on 3/27/2014 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   

D377MC
reply to post by Power_Semi
 





It could be viewed by some people that they're all in bed together and are using their positions/knowledge/connections/power to make money. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Now whilst I do, don't get me wrong, understand what you are saying, I nevertheless think you are dealing with a grey area.

I could frame the issue the other way around, and wonder, for example, why on earth I wouldn't take advantage of friendships in high places and the knowledge that comes with it. Believe it or not, you can do that without breaking any law nine times out of ten.

The things is, there are far too many variables to argue what is right and what is wrong, as at the end of the day this is what you are boiling it down to: a moral issue.

Cultural variables, for example. I live in Rome and I can assure you that absolutely nobody would have any qualms about asking friends in government or high-up in the administration to endorse what they are doing - it's called influence.

Sure, but they may make use of 'insider knowledge that others don't have access to' you might object. Ok, so? Was it illegal, and more to the point, can it be proven?

I'm not arguing that there may be some clear-cut cases in which the answer to both questions is yes, and even in which we can agree to wrongdoing - something morally reprehensible - but I can assure you that in the majority of cases they won't be, and there isn't much you can do about it.

I guess if you have the timing, purpose and connections on your side to do something, then do it. If you don't, by all means try anyway but be aware others may beat you to the punch.

Complaining about any advantages they may have had, fair or otherwise, as far as I am concerned is a complete waste of time.

Again, I understand what you are saying, and you don't have to agree with me, but that is clearly my take on it.

edit on 27-3-2014 by D377MC because: spelling, punctuation


Fair points, but again to reiterate - I couldn't give 2 hoots about my friends site, he's done nothing with it, it's just by virtue of the fact he was planning on doing the same thing that he spotted this.

He was a bit gobsmacked that a brand new site gets national tv coverage, press coverage, and backing from politicians, and then when he investigated further finds that the guy behind it used to work for a politician.

Looks odd - that's all I'm saying....

Especially when he worked for Michael Gove from Jan 2010 to Dec 2013, then this site starts from Jan 2014.
edit on 27-3-2014 by Power_Semi because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


Not odd, just plain normal.

Lets say I have an idea in the area of energy, and my sister is married to the brother of the minister whose purview my idea would fall under, why on earth wouldn't I go straight to that door and knock on it?

The alternative, saying 'no really, other people don't have that advantage so I will go the long way around' is unrealistic and really quite stupid.

I must be missing the point because, really, I don't see what is wrong or odd about it. I don't see anything wrong with the scenario you have presented.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 

Yea lots of scams pulled of by lawyers and politicians . You should pass your concerns on to this guy . www.youtube.com... He has a few followers and likes exposing corruption . I think he is a good guy on the inside ...peace



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

D377MC
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


Not odd, just plain normal.

Lets say I have an idea in the area of energy, and my sister is married to the brother of the minister whose purview my idea would fall under, why on earth wouldn't I go straight to that door and knock on it?

The alternative, saying 'no really, other people don't have that advantage so I will go the long way around' is unrealistic and really quite stupid.

I must be missing the point because, really, I don't see what is wrong or odd about it. I don't see anything wrong with the scenario you have presented.



Mate - it might be okay in Rome, but honestly, you just can't do that kind of thing over here.

Or rather they do do that kind of thing over here but when they get found out it creates a massive backlash - people are fed up of being ripped off and finding out politicians are cheating their expenses, making money by using their position, etc.

This looks just like a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" situation.

Is almost certainly against some of the rules set out for MPs and politicians.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join