Wednesday 25 November 2015


"Such movies, in foretelling the future, are intended to give us a sense of hopelessness."







Labels: , , , , , ,


At 26 November 2015 at 08:35 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, it's all silent, isn't it? The drones go over while trained people in the US sit at their star wars like consoles blowing up people (apparently after a hard days work they go to the bar with each other and drink too much because of all the people they have killed).

To the average western citizen it's, well, that's it then, some bad people got killed but no one else got harmed, well, most of the time they didn't, which is what they have been told.

But someone's father got killed, or brother, or best friend, and mothers cry, and families weep. We don't see that, it's just smart weapons taken out a baddie. But for every person killed, scores more are feel the need to avenge and to fight the Great Western Satan. And millions of westerners feel the need to fight the ISIS Satan that are leaders created.

A cauldron of fire and burning Hell on Earth.

As John Pilger says, as millions of people in the Middle East suffer, and have always suffered, the armaments industries profits, and the ruling class make their £billions. And Wall Street and the City of London makes their £billions. This is what's it's all about, and they're all laughing and feel elated as they break open the bubbly to celebrate.

As was said in the JFK to 9/11 film, you are looking at Satan himself.

At 26 November 2015 at 13:39 , Anonymous sovereigntea said...

Every terrorist act has behind it a motive almost always financial. How does Son of Erdogan launder his oily ill gotten gains, how do the sponsors of ISIS pay for all those Toyotas and weapons ?
The cash has to be banked in the end.

Tuesday, November 24, 2015
About Me

Rowan Bosworth-Davies
Having spent my career dealing with financial crime

Anti-money laundering controls in the UK not fit for purpose.

These are the findings of the latest report by Transparency International (TI), a global NGO which monitors issues pertaining to financial and economic crime.
Their latest report entitled “...Don't Look, Won't Find: - Weaknesses in the supervision of the UK’s anti-money laundering rules...” spells out in sparse terms the inadequacies of the UK anti-money laundering regime.
The findings of the TI report make for sorry reading. I set them out here;

A system not fit for purpose:

Poor oversight - The majority of sectors covered in this research are performing very badly in terms of identifying and reporting money laundering. Major problems have been identified in the quality, as well as the quantity, of reports coming out of the legal, accountancy and estate agency sectors. One supervisor even admitted it carried out no targeted AML monitoring at all during 2013.
Lack of transparency - 20/22 supervisors fail to meet the standard of enforcement transparency demanded by the Macrory standards of effective regulation.
Ineffective sanctions - Low fines, in relation to the amounts being laundered, failing to be effective deterrents. Of the 7 HMRC regulated sectors, that includes estate agents, the total fines in 2014/15 amounted to just £768,000.
Independence questioned – Just 7/22 supervisors control for institutional conflicts of interest, whilst 15 are also lobby groups for the sectors they supervise.

The research highlights that:

A third of banks dismissed serious money laundering allegations without adequate review
In the accountancy sector, at least 14 different supervisors have some responsibility – leading to widespread inconsistency and variations.
In property, only 179 cases deemed suspicious by estate agents in 2013/14.
Just 15 suspicious cases reported through art and auction houses.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have long been warning of the unenforced regime of money laundering controls in this country, and the risks we run by allowing a vast amount of foreign black money to have unrestricted access to the UK’s institutions.

The present state of affairs identified by TI is merely a restatement of what has been the status-quo for a long time, but the UK Government adamantly refuses to take the necessary steps to enforce the laws on the prevention and forestalling of money laundering effectively, as she has done since the laws were originally introduced.

It is all part of that classical degree of hypocrisy and mendaciousness which attaches to British attempts to regulate its financial industries, and which follows a long historical pedigree.

Back in the day when the original Financial Services Act of 1986 was being discussed, the City of London experienced a collective crisis of conscience when Margaret Thatcher declared that she wanted to see a regime of financial regulation introduced to ‘police the City’.

Thatcher was agnostic as to what form of ‘policing’ this should take, but she did not want the cost of the new regulations to fall on the shoulders of the tax-payer.

She was a committed disciple of the Hayekian principles of the ‘Enabling State’, and she could not understand why the City could not regulate itself.


At 26 November 2015 at 14:35 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shootings outside schools and junior league matches. US, UK, Ireland- November.

At 26 November 2015 at 21:42 , Blogger Anon said...

Anonymous 26 November 2015
15:27 GMT
Italy seizes 800 shotguns bound for Belgium – police

Italian police seized almost 800 shotguns bound for Belgium from Turkey on a truck that arrived in the northeastern port of Trieste, Reuters reported. Customs rules had not been violated, but the Turkish truck driver did not have the licenses needed to transport the 781 Winchester SXP shotguns, the finance police, who are often in charge of port security, said on Thursday. Pump-action Winchester SXP rifles are made for hunting, but police said they had “substantially” increased their border inspections in the wake of the Paris attacks and subsequent alert in Belgium. “Given the delicate nature of the cargo, its origin and its destination, the documentation regarding the rifles was immediately examined,” according to the statement.

At 26 November 2015 at 21:43 , Blogger Anon said...

Anonymous26 November 2015
This is awesome. Paul Craig Roberts demolishes libertarianism and Stefan Molyneux. It's what I have often argued here, that the government is controlled by the ruling class, not the people, and always has been. The government has always been run by the mega rich, from the kings and the aristocracy of old Europe, back to the Romans and before that. The answer is more democracy, not less.

This is Paul's tilted to the debate, it's not mine.

Paul Craig Roberts Debates the Intelligent and Gracious Stefan Molyneux about Private vs. Government Power


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home