The Ballad of Gyan Riggs

[Musicology]

The Ballad of Gyan Riggs

OBJECT

To increasingly control the content of the internet and to intimidate Twitter posters and people everywhere on any controversial subject. All that is needed are the following ingredients -

1 x Famous Sportsman or Celebrity
Lots of Money
A corrupt court system that can be bought with Lots of Money

Example

A celebrity sportsman in England named Gyan Riggs spent lots of money to get a Court Injuction against exposure of his unfaithful affair with a beautiful model. The court in England (always interested in having lots of money) happily issues the Injunction to defend the celebrity sportsman against his public embarrassment and it expects Twitter and public speech to be severely cut on the subject. (Although Twitter is based in the USA and the Americans, God bless them, have a long record of freedom of speech).

In support of common sense and the American 1st Amendment a Scottish newspaper has supported freedom of speech and has defied the injuction by publishing the name of the celebrity. To the shame of that famous celebrity and of the corrupt court system. Who talk about the 'law'. LOL !!

And we all love the corrupt British legal industry, don’t we ?

(Moral of the story. Stay with the real law. The Common Law.)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/22/scottish-newspaper-identifies-injuction-footballer

[Propter W.]

Meh. Freedom of speech is overrated.

[Musicology]

Freedom of speech is often countefeited by those who dare to 'grant' it and who even want to take it away ! Freedom of speech is already your own lawful property. Courtesy of the Common Law. Accept no genetically modified counterfeits which can be granted or taken away by corporate lawyers, by corporate politicians and by corporate news agencies. It is not overrated. It is a precious fact. No politician gives you your lawful rights. They are already your property.



Meh. Freedom of speech is overrated.

[prendrelemick]

Of course the same source on twitter claimed Jemima Khan and Jeremy Clarkson also had an affair and taken out an injunction, when they'd done neither - Does freedom of speech include publishing damaging lies anonymously?

[MarkBastable]

It's nothing to do with freedom of speech, of course. It's completely to do with the freedom of the Press to indulge the gossiping instincts of their readership by feeding them personal information about the famous, even though it's absolutely none of their business, even if true.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I wonder if the BBC are regreting Ryan Giggs' Sports Personality of the Year award for his conduct on and off the pitch? Oh my, what a joke, what a sham these injunctions are.

[Musicology]

Yes it does. We hear lies every day of the week on the BBC, NBC, CNN, FOX, SKY and virtually all corporate news channels. If people want to read and believe lies let them keep tuning in. That's freedom of speech for you.

We already have laws if anyone is hurt or injured by lies from these corporate sewers. What's new ? The only thing that is new is that fat rich people can today buy court protection (an injunction) to stop their stories being heard or discussed. Whether they are true or false. Blame the corrupt court system. Which exists to make lots of MONEY. One law for the rich and one law for everyone else. As usual. Up in Scotland the name of Gyan Riggs can be freely mentioned in newspapers in connection with this issue. But not in England. It's ridiculous, of course.

I believe in the freedom of speech. It's far superior to all the sanctimonious hypocrisy and corruption of the mass media and the corporate universe. Who specialise in lies, non stop. Like bankers and politicians. Stop trying to CONTROL the human race ! The law already exists to deal with cases where a person is injured or harmed by lies. Doesn't it ?

What's new ?



Of course the same source on twitter claimed Jemima Khan and Jeremy Clarkson also had an affair and taken out an injunction, when they'd done neither - Does freedom of speech include publishing damaging lies anonymously?

Yes it does. And, in law, if a lie is published anonymously there is no witness to its truth.

The freedom of speech is common sense. Anyone injured or harmed by anonymous gossip has not grown up. It's gossip. And these days how are you going to stop gossip, true or false ? It's absurd. Why do people always want to CONTROL the freedoms of others ? We already have laws if men/women are injured or suffer loss. Gossip is gossip. Get used to it or we end up in Orwell's '1984'.

Are politicians and news agencies free to lie to us ? Yes, they are. And they do it every day of your life. But if they cause us loss or harm we can sue them. How is that for common sense ? Switch it off. Get a life !!! Pull out the plug. There !! Is that easy ???

GOVERN MENT

Rule Over Mind

Mind Control !!!

STOP ASKING FOR MORE GOVERNMENT !!!!!!



Of course the same source on twitter claimed Jemima Khan and Jeremy Clarkson also had an affair and taken out an injunction, when they'd done neither - Does freedom of speech include publishing damaging lies anonymously?

[MarkBastable]

I'd like more government, please. Lots more. Now. Thank you.

[Alexander III]

I wonder if the BBC are regreting Ryan Giggs' Sports Personality of the Year award for his conduct on and off the pitch? Oh my, what a joke, what a sham these injunctions are.

Well I don't think we should be to harsh on the BBC, I mean they made an honest mistake and there was no way they could have known what was going to happen in the future. Im sure Time Magazine regrets its 1938 Man Of The Year award.





The freedom of speech is common sense. Anyone injured or harmed by anonymous gossip has not grown up.


That's true if you work at Mcdonalds or as some small town clerk. But for a man who is looking to make an impressive career in a multinational or law firm or politics or to become any from of elite, a small piece of libel could utterly destroy his career and life.

This does not, however, include artists. Rumors of drug abuse, prostitution and debauch tend to have the opposite effect on them, making them more popular. Right down from Byron to Charlie Sheen, notoriety tends to be good for artists. (Of course I am by no means equating Byron to Charlie Sheen, I was merely demonstrating how notoriety will make a genius more popular just as notoriety will make an idiot more popular in the arts)

[Musicology]

But the law is the same for all. Whether they are artists or budding lawyers, or politicians. The freedom of speech IS the freedom of speech. It's your own property. It's not able to be granted or taken away. It's your own lawful property. In a case where a man/woman is injured or suffers loss by what has been said or written they may sue for damages. And have always been able to do so.

In a case where the gossip or allegation is a twitter message (of which there are hundreds of millions daily) and where it is anonymous, let us be realistic. The law is clear. If a witness makes false witness they are able to be sued. If the source is not given then, in law, it is only gossip.

Let's stop giving GOVERNMENT more control of our own common sense. The freedom of speech is already your own property in law. No government, no court, no lawyer, no policeman, no official can take it away. Unless you believe that GOVERN MENT gives you what is already your own property.

Let's stop inventing the wheel. Switch off GOVERN MENT !!! It's under corporate ownership. Subject to its own systems. But above government is the LAW.



Well I don't think we should be to harsh on the BBC, I mean they made an honest mistake and there was no way they could have known what was going to happen in the future. Im sure Time Magazine regrets its 1938 Man Of The Year award.





That's true if you work at Mcdonalds or as some small town clerk. But for a man who is looking to make an impressive career in a multinational or law firm or politics or to become any from of elite, a small piece of libel could utterly destroy his career and life.

This does not, however, include artists. Rumors of drug abuse, prostitution and debauch tend to have the opposite effect on them, making them more popular. Right down from Byron to Charlie Sheen, notoriety tends to be good for artists. (Of course I am by no means equating Byron to Charlie Sheen, I was merely demonstrating how notoriety will make a genius more popular just as notoriety will make an idiot more popular in the arts)

[Emil Miller]

I have absolutely no interest in the antics of the following:

pop singers
footballers
celebrities
models

It follows that I couldn't care less what they do professionally, or otherwise, because the people I've got my eye on are politicians, financiers, lawyers, media manipulators and those tireless liberal do gooders who cause more trouble for the population at large than any shenanigans by the aforementioned. So when it comes to injunctions, I would be against them if the 'great and the good' use them but am otherwise not particularly bothered.

[Musicology]

What we need, what we really need, is MORE government !! LOL

We need more moving of the corporate furniture. Party 'A' instead of Party 'B'.

LOL !!

[Alexander III]

But the law is the same for all. Whether they are artists or budding lawyers, or politicians. The freedom of speech IS the freedom of speech. It's your own property. It's not able to be granted or taken away. It's your own lawful property. In a case where a man/woman is injured or suffers loss by what has been said or written they may sue for damages. And have always been able to do so.

In a case where the gossip or allegation is a twitter message (of which there are hundreds of millions daily) and where it is anonymous, let us be realistic. The law is clear. If a witness makes false witness they are able to be sued. If the source is not given then, in law, it is only gossip.

Let's stop giving GOVERNMENT more control of our own common sense. The freedom of speech is already your own property in law. No government, no court, no lawyer, no policeman, no official can take it away. Unless you believe that GOVERN MENT gives you what is already your own property.

Let's stop inventing the wheel. Switch off GOVERN MENT !!! It's under corporate ownership. Subject to its own systems. But above government is the LAW.

When it comes to injnctions such as the footballer you mentioned in your OP, I agree, if he has cheated on his wife with another person and it is true, people should be able to talk about it all they want.

But in rgeards to libel

your solution appears to be: sue them and get some cash. Money is worthless compared to some other things in life. For instance let's say you come from a prominent familly and could happily live a grand life without ever working a day in your life. But out of ambition and intelligence you enter politics. If at the begining of your carear, you suffer from a libel, your ENTIRE career and future is ruined. You can sue, but that wont change anything as you already have plenty of money. The thing about rights is, that something stops being a right, when it takes away the rights of others.

Hence why Libel is a crime.

I know it can be hard to relate to the seriousness and damage that libel can do. But trust me, it can ruin a man's life. Just like money wont bring a dead relative back to life, it wont give you back your promising future.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I can see the whole super injunction thing collapsing soon anyway as they are just not workable and too many people are against them, including many politicians and other big hitters.


It follows that I couldn't care less what they do professionally, or otherwise, because the people I've got my eye on are politicians, financiers, lawyers, media manipulators and those tireless liberal do gooders who cause more trouble for the population at large than any shenanigans by the aforementioned. So when it comes to injunctions, I would be against them if the 'great and the good' use them but am otherwise not particularly bothered.

It's not just "celebs" and footballers who are at it though, the "great and the good" have them as well. Sir Fred Goodwin bank boss was outed a few weeks ago as one example, Andrew Marr political correspondent etc, etc, anyone can get one as long as you have a spare £200,000 or so. The whole thing's not sustainable anyway as I said, I can't see them lasting much longer.

[Emil Miller]

I can see the whole super injunction thing collapsing soon anyway as they are just not workable and too many people are against them, including many politicians and other big hitters.



It's not just "celebs" and footballers who are at it though, the "great and the good" have them as well. Sir Fred Goodwin bank boss was outed a few weeks ago as one example, Andrew Marr political correspondent etc, etc, anyone can get one as long as you have a spare £200,000 or so. The whole thing's not sustainable anyway as I said, I can't see them lasting much longer.

Exactly, people like Goodwin and Marr who are able to affect the way we live and think, should not, in my view, be protected from their indiscretions by law. Not because I am at all interested in who they are sleeping with, but because they occupy positions of trust and we have a right to know when that trust has been called into question.

[MarkBastable]

Exactly, people like Goodwin and Marr who are able to affect the way we live and think, should not, in my view, be protected from their indiscretions by law. Not because I am at all interested in who they are sleeping with, but because they occupy positions of trust and we have a right to know when that trust has been called into question.

What trust is called into question? I can't see how having an affair, or being gay, or having a thing about leather makes any difference at all to doing their job, any more than it would make a difference to a baker or a phone saleman. It's rubbish. This is just prurient interest dressed up as moral righteousness, and nosiness parading as civil liberties.

[Emil Miller]

What trust is called into question? I can't see how having an affair, or being gay, or having a thing about leather makes any difference at all to doing their job, any more than it would make a difference to a baker or a phone saleman. It's rubbish. This is just prurient interest dressed up as moral righteousness, and nosiness parading as civil liberties.

The trust that is called into question is that many, if not most, people still believe that cheating on your wife is a breach of trust, notwithstanding that prurience and righteous indignation, that Janus like characteristic of the Anglo Saxon mentality, are not entirely absent from the issue.

[LitNetIsGreat]

What trust is called into question? I can't see how having an affair, or being gay, or having a thing about leather makes any difference at all to doing their job, any more than it would make a difference to a baker or a phone saleman. It's rubbish. This is just prurient interest dressed up as moral righteousness, and nosiness parading as civil liberties.

The moral issue for me is not the affair itself, or whatever it is, but the fact that super rich individuals can buy silence. This is often at the same time courting the public light for their own ends. You can't have it both ways. What's worse is that someone can be jailed for speaking - breaking the gagging order and face a potential of two years in jail. Probably about the same as a reduced rape case under new proposals...

[Paulclem]

Freedom of the press - rabid journalism that hurts ordinary folk, as well as these who cares celebs, when they pop in a few innuendos and unreferenced quotes that can really destroy someone's credibility. I've seen it in a minor town to a nobody whose business was ruined. Shocking.

But then you wouldn't want to curtail the press because who is going to keep an eye on the chancers and corrupt who really don't give a damn about the society that gave them all their opportunities anyway- despite the oft registered claim that they are completely self made.

The best way is scrutiny - openess. It's imperfect with a press that has it's own agenda, it's own politics etc etc, but through their nefarious efforts, they do open up the dealings of others to the public. We have to put up with all the dross, but we do get gold sometimes - such as the expenses scandal.


The moral issue for me is not the affair itself, or whatever it is, but the fact that super rich individuals can buy silence. This is often at the same time courting the public light for their own ends. You can't have it both ways. What's worse is that someone can be jailed for speaking - breaking the gagging order and face a potential of two years in jail. Probably about the same as a reduced rape case under new proposals...

The moral issue comes into it when the person is guilty of double standards. Who cares about Giggs and the others. It's not my business. But then you get Major with his Back to basics and Family values whilst he's having an affair with Edwina Currie. I didn't care about that either, but it's the double standards that are really annoying. It's the same with the Royals.

[LitNetIsGreat]

The moral issue comes into it when the person is guilty of double standards. Who cares about Giggs and the others. It's not my business. But then you get Major with his Back to basics and Family values whilst he's having an affair with Edwina Currie. I didn't care about that either, but it's the double standards that are really annoying. It's the same with the Royals.

Absolutely, they can't have it both ways. For me the moral comes with buying silence and curtailing what others can say just because they have the cash. I don't like all the scandal mongering in the papers certainly, but I think paying to gag misdemeanours and threatening to sue and imprison those who speak out is worse. Far worse.

[prendrelemick]

The super injunction is a protection for the people against the press. Us against them. Of course it is being portrayed in the entirely opposite way - as if it is an oppressive tool of The Establishment against the masses - by the press.
I can't help noticing that The Sun and the News of the World were not keen to splash the phone tapping scandal stories across their front pages.

As it stands, the law ALLOWS publication in the National Interest. But not for tittilation, as confirmed in the High Court yesterday.

[TheFifthElement]

Yet again, Charlie Brooker says it best: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/16/superinjunctions-guarantee-loss-of-anonymity

[Musicology]

What we need is lots more regulations, more laws, more corruption in our court system, more lies from celebrities and politicians, and more expensive injunctions from the elites.

Although the law is clear enough. Cause no loss or harm to others.

People don't want a simple world. They want more GOVERNMENT. And they will get it.

[MarkBastable]

People don't want a simple world. They want more GOVERNMENT. And they will get it.

Well, that's good then. If that's what people want and they get it, everyone's happy.

End of thread, really.

[Musicology]

For you, perhaps ?

As for the human race we don't love GOVERN MENT. It's a necessary evil. It is totally irrelevant to this issue. Anyone who wants to take a court action against anyone is already free to take one.

There ! That's fixed it.




Well, that's good then. If that's what people want and they get it, everyone's happy.

End of thread, really.

[MarkBastable]

For you, perhaps ?

As for the human race we don't love GOVERN MENT. It's a necessary evil. It is totally irrelevant to this issue. Anyone who wants to take a court action against anyone is already free to take one.

There ! That's fixed it.


But, but, you said...


People don't want a simple world. They want more GOVERNMENT. And they will get it.

So which is it? Do they want it, or not?

[Musicology]

If you want more Govern Ment you deserve it. Just vote for them again at the next corporate opinion poll, aka election. LOL ! They will bring you lots more debt, usury and their version of 'law'. And, in time, you will come to believe that 'they' make laws. LOL !!!

If you do not want even more GOVERN MENT you are alive. Since you have a choice. Life IS choice. Right ? And those who have no choice are those who are enslaved. By GOVERN MENT.

Sounds fair to me. I don't want no corporate fraudsters telling me what freedoms I already have and what their version of the law is. Those things are already my own (private) property. And they are yours. To cause no loss or harm to anyone. That's the law. The rest is a clever counterfeit. Corporate fraudsters in suits. Revenue collecting fraudsters. Switch them off !


But, but, you said...


People don't want a simple world. They want more GOVERNMENT. And they will get it.

So which is it? Do they want it, or not?

[MarkBastable]

Of course, the reason for my opposition to your argument may not be that I'm a mindless slave gulled into accepting the spurious authority of a regime that will ultimately disenfranchise me by removing the freedoms that are my birthright. It might be that I'm actually one of the corporate fraudsters who benefits from this state of affairs, and that I therefore have an ulterior motive for falsely portraying you as a conspiracy-obsessed loon who makes David Icke look like a clear-sighted rationalist. Evidently I'm failing in the attempt, firstly because it's just not the case, but mostly because the shining truth of your position is utterly impossible to contradict. The only course left open to me is to alert the relevant authorities in the upper echelons of the clandestine World Government, who will know what to do about you.

Thank goodness you brought yourself to our attention at this relatively early stage. If all this had got out, it might have gone very badly for Us.

[prendrelemick]

Yet again, Charlie Brooker says it best: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/16/superinjunctions-guarantee-loss-of-anonymity



Yup! Charlie has it spot on.

[kiki1982]

I have never understood why it is posibly of interest to the general public that so-and-so has cheated on his wife with so-and-so. Does Giggs cheating on his wife have any impact on his football? If he was doing it all night with her and was knackered (however you write that ;)) and it was having severe repercussions on his game then it is the sole responsibility of his trainer or manager to do something about it. Not about the moral issue (if there is any), mind, just to safeguard the money invested in the team. All cheating is, is personal grief for the spouse and nasty of the cheat, but that's it. What is there to write about??

If these things like affairs are of any itnerest at all, it should not be in a thing called a 'newspaper', but in a thing called a 'gossip' magazine, like Hello or so. It is time the British press made a difference between that and genuine 'news'. It might also benefit the ignorant part of the population of that island.

And why should there be a problem with him cheating on his wife? I mean, a genuine problem? It is a fait-divers blown out of proportion by the press. I find it funny, but I am not going to read an article about it.

I say, just ban all tabloids from being 'newspaper'. Ban them from newspaper sellers, double their price and the whole privacy thing will be solved. Until then, there is no way that the press will hold back. If you ask me, not the publication of such affairs is a major privacy problem, but the continuous following around of people is. I mean, his wife has left her house 'without her wedding ring'. Ooo, how interesting.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I have never understood why it is posibly of interest to the general public that so-and-so has cheated on his wife with so-and-so. Does Giggs cheating on his wife have any impact on his football? If he was doing it all night with her and was knackered (however you write that ;)) and it was having severe repercussions on his game then it is the sole responsibility of his trainer or manager to do something about it. Not about the moral issue (if there is any), mind, just to safeguard the money invested in the team. All cheating is, is personal grief for the spouse and nasty of the cheat, but that's it. What is there to write about??

If these things like affairs are of any itnerest at all, it should not be in a thing called a 'newspaper', but in a thing called a 'gossip' magazine, like Hello or so. It is time the British press made a difference between that and genuine 'news'. It might also benefit the ignorant part of the population of that island.

And why should there be a problem with him cheating on his wife? I mean, a genuine problem? It is a fait-divers blown out of proportion by the press. I find it funny, but I am not going to read an article about it.

I say, just ban all tabloids from being 'newspaper'. Ban them from newspaper sellers, double their price and the whole privacy thing will be solved. Until then, there is no way that the press will hold back. If you ask me, not the publication of such affairs is a major privacy problem, but the continuous following around of people is. I mean, his wife has left her house 'without her wedding ring'. Ooo, how interesting.

If you had wrote that last week Kiki then you would have been facing two years in prison. This is the real issue for me, not the affairs.

I totally agree with you in regards to the gabage press and all of that, but in my opinion these super injunctions are a total abuse of power. The MP who broke this particular story, following on from the Scottish paper the day before, said that he did so because Giggs' threatening people chatting on Twitter was a step too far. Well too far.

[Paulclem]

For you, perhaps ?

As for the human race we don't love GOVERN MENT. It's a necessary evil. It is totally irrelevant to this issue. Anyone who wants to take a court action against anyone is already free to take one.

There ! That's fixed it.

I like - not love - the Governm ent. I don't love the Government because I'm not married to it, but I like it because I work for it - well, the local version anyway.

What's so wrong with the Gov ernment anyway. It's because we have a Gover nment, (can't decide which way to write it), that rich blokes with large gangs of soldiers don't rule us anymore. It's not perfect, but it's better than no Governm ent where there's a lovely free for all for power.

[kiki1982]

If you had wrote that last week Kiki then you would have been facing two years in prison. This is the real issue for me, not the affairs.

I totally agree with you in regards to the gabage press and all of that, but in my opinion these super injunctions are a total abuse of power. The MP who broke this particular story, following on from the Scottish paper the day before, said that he did so because Giggs' threatening people chatting on Twitter was a step too far. Well too far.

Oh, I know I could have been arrested. That's why I loved the fact that I could name his name and wrote it :D. That said, though, this is an American server and technically I don't think they can actually demand from the Americans that I stop doing it. So, threatening people over Twitter is not only too far, tt is frankly impossible to sustain that even in court if the law is aplied properly. That is why it is absurd at the same time as it is disgusting. An American newspaper could not, I don't think, be taken to court over an English court order. In a world of mass international media like Twitter, it is not possible to keep something a secret.

But my point was actually that these injunction orders would not be necessary if the press were a bit normal over there. I mean, if the 'newspapers' were not so judgmental and fastidious, the public image of someone would not depend on them and thus injuction orders should not be necessary.

That is my view though, and I agree that IOs are abuse of power, but at the same time, to rule out the syptom, you need to root out the cause of it.

[The Atheist]

paul wins the thread, but...


... But not for tittilation, as confirmed in the High Court yesterday.

Honorable mention for Mick bringing that up hard on the heels of one of the royal sheilas having her not bikini-clad chest shown around the darker side of the interwebs.

[Emil Miller]

I have never understood why it is posibly of interest to the general public that so-and-so has cheated on his wife with so-and-so. Does Giggs cheating on his wife have any impact on his football? If he was doing it all night with her and was knackered (however you write that ;)) and it was having severe repercussions on his game then it is the sole responsibility of his trainer or manager to do something about it. Not about the moral issue (if there is any), mind, just to safeguard the money invested in the team. All cheating is, is personal grief for the spouse and nasty of the cheat, but that's it. What is there to write about??

If these things like affairs are of any itnerest at all, it should not be in a thing called a 'newspaper', but in a thing called a 'gossip' magazine, like Hello or so. It is time the British press made a difference between that and genuine 'news'. It might also benefit the ignorant part of the population of that island.

And why should there be a problem with him cheating on his wife? I mean, a genuine problem? It is a fait-divers blown out of proportion by the press. I find it funny, but I am not going to read an article about it.

I say, just ban all tabloids from being 'newspaper'. Ban them from newspaper sellers, double their price and the whole privacy thing will be solved. Until then, there is no way that the press will hold back. If you ask me, not the publication of such affairs is a major privacy problem, but the continuous following around of people is. I mean, his wife has left her house 'without her wedding ring'. Ooo, how interesting.

Kiki, you are missing the point here. Giggs, like any other icon of the mass mentality, isn't important and his cheating on his wife can be ignored.
However, Sir Fred Goodwin was the chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland whose mismanagement/greed led to it's collapse and subsequent bailing out by the British taxpayer. So if his wife couldn't trust him, why should those who are now having to pay for his mismanagement?

[Musicology]

One law for the rich and one for the poor. What's new in Babylonia ?

What we need is more, and more, and more, and more GOVERN MENT. The corporation requires more revenue. The usury debt mountain must continue to grow exponentially. It must increase. That's the lust of the empire you are serving. We are so busy rendering unto Caesar that we have made it our religion. Our debt money, our fiat money is worth nothing. But hey, don't think about that. Just keep getting more, and more, and more credit. While buyers of the bonds call a halt to it all. Till it all collapses in a heap. And you find yourself enslaved. By those who will call in the debt.

Please help us bail out the corporate bankers. The ones who just got giant bonuses. Once again. Their deals went wrong and we don't have any details of who owes what to who, so YOU must pick up the tab. Sounds fair, doesn't it ? You know it makes sense, right ? I mean, you know you love to bail them out. A makes a deal with B and you pay for it. That's democracy for you, right ? Wow, I love that idea. But the only currency in town is you. As a registered slave.

I love the ruling oligarchs of the corporate govern ment. With its industrial military complex spreading death and destruction in your name, oops, demonocracy, around the world. At the expense of men and women everywhere. And we all love corporate judges, corporate courts, corporate police forces, corporate broadcasters, corporate news, corporate politicians, corporate defence contractors, corporate officials and corporate bankers. Who serve you - for 30 pieces of silver with a baton in their hand. Why,even our politicians are run by giant coporations. And all political parties are registered corporations themselves.

Govern Ment Loves You !!! They would never spray you or sell you fake vitamins. They would never vaccinate you or sell poisons in our foods or our water. The corporatised, globalist regime. Just keep voting for more of the same. She has a nice hairdo. That will do !

And always remember, if you make tens of millions you too can run for high office and become a corporate globalist puppet - like them.

Man has made his own scientific, cardboard, Eden. And look at the mess he has made.

[Delta40]

Government is not a person. It is a creation of evolving human society. It is all very well for you to spout off outlandish and even adolescent remarks Music but you're part of the system. You are undeniably one of these men (Man has made his own scientific, cardboard, Eden. And look at the mess he has made.) so stop behaving like you don't have any ownership in the worlds problems, just everyone else!

I find it difficult to discuss a topic when someone comes across as if they are separate from it all but are willing to accuse the rest of us as suckers. If you're not part of it Music, what value could your opinion possibly hold? Very little. While you have this 'None of this includes me' mentality, I believe it is hard to be taken seriously.

I work for the Commonwealth Government, best job in the world btw and I don't have a problem with being a cog in the wheel of something you seem to think treats you like a parent that grounds you. Perhaps for some people, it should....

[kiki1982]

Kiki, you are missing the point here. Giggs, like any other icon of the mass mentality, isn't important and his cheating on his wife can be ignored.
However, Sir Fred Goodwin was the chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland whose mismanagement/greed led to it's collapse and subsequent bailing out by the British taxpayer. So if his wife couldn't trust him, why should those who are now having to pay for his mismanagement?

No, not missing the point. You actually confirm what I believe is the wrong approach to politics and work of any kind.

Sir Fred's mismanagement has nothing to do with him cheating on his wife. In all likelihood it is just plain carelessness and greed. It is logical that you can't keep on pouring money into banks you are taking over without getting problems yourself. Still, some people believe in this nonsense like Sir Fred, obviously.

I understand, before the RBS collapsed, he did some major sanitising of Natwest. Well, good on him. That is what CEOs are for.

Has the lady he had an affair with reached a certain post in the organisation thanks to Sir Fred without actually having the faintest clue? I guess not. This has nothing to do with trust. We as taxpayers should not be trusting him, not on that basis anyway, we should see his ability, which could be questioned on one side and should be kept in check maybe by others.

So, essentially, his sex-life is irrelevant to his job. His ability does not change with cheating or not. Trust is actually of no consequence to ability at all.

On the same level is that Strass-Kahn-thing. DSK resigned, not because he found that his reputation wasn't up to scratch anymore. He resigned because he found that the IMF should be led at this stage, and that can't be done from prison. That's logical isn't it? His ability, in this way, is being limited, hence he resigns.

That is where the British press goes wrong.

[Musicology]

Delta,

You have been scammed ! Contrary to your post, Govern Ment IS a person. Yes, let me repeat this - Govern Ment IS a Person. You obviously didn't know this or you would not have made this basic error. Have you never heard of the Bretton Woods Conference ? International treatises are signed between corporate entities. In the name of entire nations. Entire nations have basically become corporations. And they are rushing towards a corporate, globalist elite. Subject to commercial law. You should know this. Virtually every government in this world is today a group of corporations involved in revenue collection and extortion. A corporation IS a person. You just don't know the law on Persons, do you ? And there's more - a corporation IS a legal person. Coca Cola is a corporation. Believe it or not. That's a legal person. The Ministry of Justice is also a Person. It's a registered, revenue collecting, profit making corporation. It has its own investors. Just check Dunn and Bradstreet website. Running according to its own commercial system. Read your law dictionary recently ? That means a person is a legal fiction. A legal person. A company/corporation IS (in law) a person. And what is a 'person' ? A person is a named, registered legal fiction. Yes, that's it ! Stop and think about this before you dive in and show more of your ignorance. The registration of a person (which is a legal fiction) surrenders the title of that entity and its life to govern ment. Registration of vehicles, houses or even human beings are examples. Coca Cola is a person. Believe it or not. Check your law dictionary. But you are a man or a woman. You are NOT a person. Govern Ments are servants of men and women - or else men and women become servants of Govern Ments. Through them being registered persons. We have the second of these. And it stinks.

You work for a Commonwealth GOVERN MENT ? Great. That means you are separate from others. Yet you criticise me ! What does that mean ? It means your head is an unelected dynasty, for a start, one which presides over men and their ancestors who, centuries ago. planted flags around the world for the East India Company or their successors before extorting peoples, doesn't it ? Sounds like show business to me. But revenue business, for sure. It has a revenue collecting beaurocracy that dates back to the feudal, slave system.

I don't like unelected dynasties. They are Babylonian. They are pompous, arrogant, unelected, totally corrupt groups of fraudsters. Who think they are important. They are a tier of control agents defrauding the human race for 30 pieces of silver in the name of the 'law'. (Since they have invented their own law system - the legal industry). With mafia lawyers, dirty deals, hieararchies, occultist procedures and globalist elites. Of course they are.

The Common Law was/is the best answer to Govern Ments. (Cause no loss or harm to anyone). But the Commonwealth (so-called) is a group of indigenous careerists who are, without exception, members of fraternities and societies )(such as the Law Society, the BAR Society, the Freemasons or some other fraternity), aren't they ? You might confirm this fact in your reply. (LOL !). Members of which believe, actually believe, they are 'serving' us. At public expense, of course. Having an exaggerated idea of their own importance. International constables of their own corporate invention. With their own privileges. How's that as an answer on the question of whether you or I are real ?

Politicians are actors in a legal, corporatised fiction. Oath swearing stooges of a Babylonian perversion.

And, in answer to your question, no, I don't belong to an unelected dynasty. Nor am I a person. And I don't vote for politicians, political parties, or corporate governments. Bank 'A' borrows from Bank 'B' and other people pick up the tab. Nope, men and women don't like feudal governments, corporate governments, colonialists or their corporate departments. Can you blame us ?



Government is not a person. It is a creation of evolving human society. It is all very well for you to spout off outlandish and even adolescent remarks Music but you're part of the system. You are undeniably one of these men (Man has made his own scientific, cardboard, Eden. And look at the mess he has made.) so stop behaving like you don't have any ownership in the worlds problems, just everyone else!

I find it difficult to discuss a topic when someone comes across as if they are separate from it all but are willing to accuse the rest of us as suckers. If you're not part of it Music, what value could your opinion possibly hold? Very little. While you have this 'None of this includes me' mentality, I believe it is hard to be taken seriously.

I work for the Commonwealth Government, best job in the world btw and I don't have a problem with being a cog in the wheel of something you seem to think treats you like a parent that grounds you. Perhaps for some people, it should....

[tonywalt]

On a slightly different tact. Why do professional athletes and politicians waaay overdo the "family guy values" image when they know full well they are hypocritical. (yes, even with the endorsements).

I never parade myself as some sort of saint, for the only reason in that I am not, and never was. Not when it comes to, well, anything.

With todays mass communications all over the airwaves and exchange of information, it's impossible not to get caught.

[Emil Miller]

No, not missing the point. You actually confirm what I believe is the wrong approach to politics and work of any kind.

Sir Fred's mismanagement has nothing to do with him cheating on his wife. In all likelihood it is just plain carelessness and greed. It is logical that you can't keep on pouring money into banks you are taking over without getting problems yourself. Still, some people believe in this nonsense like Sir Fred, obviously.

I understand, before the RBS collapsed, he did some major sanitising of Natwest. Well, good on him. That is what CEOs are for.

Has the lady he had an affair with reached a certain post in the organisation thanks to Sir Fred without actually having the faintest clue? I guess not. This has nothing to do with trust. We as taxpayers should not be trusting him, not on that basis anyway, we should see his ability, which could be questioned on one side and should be kept in check maybe by others.

So, essentially, his sex-life is irrelevant to his job. His ability does not change with cheating or not. Trust is actually of no consequence to ability at all.

On the same level is that Strass-Kahn-thing. DSK resigned, not because he found that his reputation wasn't up to scratch anymore. He resigned because he found that the IMF should be led at this stage, and that can't be done from prison. That's logical isn't it? His ability, in this way, is being limited, hence he resigns.

That is where the British press goes wrong.

You may think that his affair had nothing to do with his job, but clearly there are others who think diffedrently:

THE British banking regulator will investigate whether Sir Fred Goodwin's sex life contributed to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The Financial Services Authority are to liaise with RBS to find out if Sir Fred's alleged secret affair with a senior colleague had anything to do with the bank's failure.

Taxpayers had to pour £50billion into RBS after the banking giant were brought to their knees under Sir Fred's leadership.

The bank were part-nationalised with the loss of 20,000 jobs and the Government were left with a huge financial deficit.

As for Strauss-Kahn, it would be ingenuous to think that the IMF could possibly maintain him at the head of the organisation when he is accused of rape in circumstances that look very bad for him.

[kiki1982]

Unless he promoted people becaue he was having an affair with them, it does not speak for the regulator's sense that they are looking into it. That the taxpayer had to bail the bank out for 50 billion pounds has nothing to do with it. I am sure not all directors and CEOs of all the banks that collapsed (I am thinking here of Lehman Brothers, Fortis, Northern Rock, etc etc) were not having affairs at the time.

At any rate, it is not the CEO himself but the system that is to blame. The CEO, if he had any role in the bank under his command collapsing at all, is a strategic figure, not personally responsible for every mad loan that is issued by the bank. It is the system of boni and targets regardless that was and still is the problem. CEOs are responsible for the setting up of the system of buying up debt and actually making profit on money that doensn't exist. But, in my mind that can have very little to do with one's sex life.

To me, the fact that the regulator is looking into it is rather a diversion for public opinion than serious at all. Under the reservation that, of course, the CEO in question did not get any influence through his sex life. But that then goes into a shady area that really, again, has nothing to do with his sex life any longer, but just with fraud.

As for DSK, he is accused of rape, not even of having an affair, though at the time, he resigned purely on the basis of not being able to lead the IMF. Rape, though, is a criminal offense, having affairs is not.

[Musicology]

Government would never lie to you. If they spread conspiracy theories they are official ones.

Bank A borrows from Bank B and YOU pick up the tab.

Happy Voting !

Meanwhile, back at corporate headquarters they are preparing for the next opinion poll - aka 'Election'.

It's so exciting. We all love demonocracy.

p.s. Please Sir, before I vote, will there be increased spending on chemtrail spraying in the next budget ?

[Alexander III]

I am not gonna lie here, because I feel I aught to be frank. Music, your ramblings lately seem like those of someone who got the shaft or hit somehow due to the recent depression, and know you have a lot of envy to those who are doing fine. And thus you are thinking that it is the governments fault that you suffered while many others are fine and may even be better of now. You are most likely some low specialization worker (don't mean that as an insult just as a classification), who is angry that **** has hit the fan for you. This begs the question that most low specialized workers (just like you) around the world, such as china or india; earn in one year, what you are likely to make or have made in one month.

The question arises then that if you and the chinese worker have the same level of specialization and talent, why do you earn 12 times more than him and lead a life 12 times better than his. Why is there this inequality which is working so very much in your benefit? Because your government has insured that it works that way. Many might see this as a cruel government, but at the end of the day it's a government that makes sure that it's people are well taken care of, because if it didn't care that you were taken care of, you would earn 12 times less just like the worker in india or china whom is your equivalent in professional specialization and ability.

So instead of all this rage, take a moment to realize how lucky you are and how fortunate you are to have the type of government that you do have.

[The Atheist]

Why are so many threads at the moment devolving into politics?