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.

 

The end of British Law - Corp takeover?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   
So the investigation by the British Police's Serious Fraud Office, which has just made a breakthrough and already cost the tax payer over 2 million - into corruption, bribes and scandals relating to BAE and Saudis has now been dropped at the instigation of Tony Blair (who as of yesterday became the first serving British Prime Minister to be interviewed by Police in a criminal investigation - relating to other matters) and his former flat mate Lord Goldsmith.

The reasons given: 'the winder public interest outweighed the need to maintain the rule of law'

Excuse me?

So the rule of law no longer applies in the UK if the PM says so?

I assume this strategy will be brought to bear on the other investigation facing him re- cash for honours that may yet see charges being laid against senior gov figures.

if 'the need to maintain the rule of law' can be be pushed aside in cases of corporate interest then does this indicate a corporate takeover of UK?

Does this herald the end of Britain's legal system?

oops I thought I was putting this in general conspiracy, mods can u move please?

[edit on 15-12-2006 by kickoutthejams]




posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Hi Kick, Corp takeover, this little episode shows just how arrogant and corrupt our goverment is. There is nothing new in this its been going on for centuries, one law for them and one for us. Do you think politicians are there to represent the people, no they represent those who pay them to further corporate greed and power.


SR

posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Agreed i wasn't surprised when i read this that it happened and Lord Goldsmith is a filthy snake he changed the law and made sure the PM had every loophole in the law to enable him to go to war in Iraq.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
How on earth did Blair get to lead the Labour party. he is so far removed from being a man of the working people that it is a ridiculous sick joke, he is more right-wing than Thatcher ever was. It is true that in Britian there is NOT a true democracy, the Tories and Labour are both the same. The laws Balir has introduced since coming to power are very, very fascist, removeing basic freedoms, and if you aren't familiar with the laws he has passed they are worth studying and will certauinly surprise you, they are ALOT more right-wing and frightening than you could even expect in a worse-case scenario.
When Blair came to power he was very popular but he is now the most hated english politicain ever. He is totally corrupt. Britain is run by the elite leaders of freemasonry, all those closest to Blair in government are freemasons, the leaders of the courts, police and military are mostly freemasons, and the freemasons have their own agenda and it is not the welfare of the british people.
Many of those closest to Blair are solicitors, as is his wife, and it is totally hypocritical that he would lead LABOUR party, it just shows that those in power (the nwo) can get away with anything and it won't even be questioned too closely by the masses.

video.google.com...



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I think you're overcomplicating the issue. Blair is simply an example of someone who once they gained power let it go to their head. Now we've reached the stage where it's so obviously "all about me, me, ME!" at the expense of him doing the job he was elected for.

He's a man that seems very easily starstruck, almost as if he can't believe his luck at being able to hang out with the big boys. It would be laughable were it not so damaging for the country.

As leader of a socialist party he's virtually singlehandedly destroyed more democracy and civil liberties than any previous right wing government. And if you look at the reasons behind the removal of many of these civil freedoms, you'll find they were removed to protect Blair and his Government from protesting citizens.

It's about self-obsession, not Freemasonry.

And it really should come as suprise that this latest investigation was overturned by the Government for such a lame reason. What surprises me more is that nobody has pulled Blairp on his original given reason, that the investigation was stopped for reasons of "national security". Just 24 hours later we find out it was actually because the Saudis threatened to pull the plug on a business deal, which would have cost the UK thousands of jobs. Very nasty, yes, but NOT an issue of national security. So again, Blair confidently lies in public, then carries on as if nothing wrong was said....and he is not held to account...because now we are so used to it....




[edit on 16-12-2006 by spqr1]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by spqr1
I think you're overcomplicating the issue. Blair is simply an example of someone who once they gained power let it go to their head. Now we've reached the stage where it's so obviously "all about me, me, ME!" at the expense of him doing the job he was elected for.

He's a man that seems very easily starstruck, almost as if he can't believe his luck at being able to hang out with the big boys. It would be laughable were it not so damaging for the country.

As leader of a socialist party he's virtually singlehandedly destroyed more democracy and civil liberties than any previous right wing government. And if you look at the reasons behind the removal of many of these civil freedoms, you'll find they were removed to protect Blair and his Government from protesting citizens.

It's about self-obsession, not Freemasonry.

And it really should come as suprise that this latest investigation was overturned by the Government for such a lame reason. What surprises me more is that nobody has pulled Blairp on his original given reason, that the investigation was stopped for reasons of "national security". Just 24 hours later we find out it was actually because the Saudis threatened to pull the plug on a business deal, which would have cost the UK thousands of jobs. Very nasty, yes, but NOT an issue of national security. So again, Blair confidently lies in public, then carries on as if nothing wrong was said....and he is not held to account...because now we are so used to it....




[edit on 16-12-2006 by spqr1]


I think you are certainly VERY naive if you believe that. Blair knew his agenda from the start. His unquestioning support of Bush has absolutely nothing to do with being "star-struck", Bush and Blair have the same agenda, and it is NOT coincidence that they are both very high up in freemasonry, AND are both distant cousins of the queen. Blair didn't suddenly change, he had is agenda and was clever about how he brought about such changes in British law to strongly increase the grip of the authorities. Blair can lie as liberally as he wants and he has such a grip of power that nothing will be done about it, at least until the next election.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join