THE SQUANDERBUG ALIAS HITLER’S PAL
‘Wanted for sabotage – the Squanderbug alias Hitler’s Pal’.See object record
‘Wanted for sabotage – the Squanderbug alias Hitler’s Pal’.See object record
There are some very strict rules surrounding the Queen and her family
The Queen is covered by what is known as sovereign immunity in the UK.
It means that the sovereign cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil or criminal proceedings. The Royal Family’s official website states: “Although civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the sovereign as a person under UK law, the Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.”
While the Queen cannot be arrested, other members of the Royal Family can be, unless they are with her. The law also states that no arrests can be made in the monarch’s presence, or within the surroundings of a royal palace.
A royal palace is one that is used as a residence, such as Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace, regardless of whether the monarch is actually living there at the time.https://8ce2d640fb1c5f63574698ceeefda17d.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html?n=0
The question of immunity was raised when Prince Philip ‘s Range Rover was involved in a crash with another vehicle near Sandringham. There were no arrests in the case.
In 2002, the Princess Royal, Princess Anne, was fined £500 and made to pay compensation after pleading guilty to a charge of one of her dogs attacking children. She was the first member of the royal family to plead guilty to a criminal offence.
She was also fined £400 for speeding in her Bentley after admitting driving at 93mph in a 70mph zone in Gloucestershire the year before. In a separate later incident her daughter, Zara Tindall, was banned from driving for six months after being caught speeding at 91mph.
More recently, Prince Andrew has said he would help with American investigations into the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking inquiry. The prince stepped back from royal duties following a disastrous interview with BBC Newsnight about his friendship with Epstein..https://8ce2d640fb1c5f63574698ceeefda17d.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html?n=0
Met Office issues crushing update about the second heatwave forecast for AugustMet Office weather for August as long range forecast gives some hope for summer holidaysMet Office issues new warning for thunderstorms and torrential rain for large part of Wales
Federal prosecutors in New York, along with the FBI, have said they are hoping to speak to Andrew. Buckingham Palace said it would not be commenting and that the matter is being dealt with by Andrew’s legal team. He has not been arrested.
It is reported that there will be no attempt to force Andrew to testify, leaving open the possibility that he will never answer prosecutors’ questions.
In the earliest times, the Sovereign was a key figure in the enforcement of law and the establishment of a system of justice.
© 2021 Media Wales Ltd
ERIN VANDERHOOFMARCH 18, 2021 1:15 PM
Because the perks of being a royal are so public—throngs of well-wishers, an extensive family jewelry collection, and if you’re lucky, a home and title gifted by Queen Elizabeth herself—it came as a surprise to many that Meghan Markle and Prince Harry were willing to give it all up when they announced their royal exit in January 2020.
Even when Harry told Oprah Winfrey that his brother Prince William and father Prince Charles are “trapped” within the monarchy, Hazell was not surprised. “Royals have no freedom of speech, and the others accept that,” he said. “Harry was quite right when he described the other members of the royal family as trapped. They’re trapped in a system which allows them very, very little freedom.”
It makes sense that the monarch, who works closely with prime ministers of various parties, might be restrained in her speech. But in his book, Hazell points out that in constructing the idea of a public-facing royal family that interacts with citizens and world leaders, those restrictions are more sweeping than you might imagine and touch many more members of the family. As much as Harry and Meghan opened up about a familial divide, some of their complaints in the Oprah interview were direct consequences of the system they were inside.
Vanity Fair spoke to Hazell about the purpose of the working members of the royal family, the royal family’s “gilded cage,” and why this affair isn’t the existential crisis that some commentators have worried it might be.
Vanity Fair: Meghan and Harry’s plight has played out in public, but in your book you documented similar disputes and issues in other European royal families. Why does the system impose so many costs on members of the family that likely won’t ever become the monarch?https://4ed380cb1323dcfcd6608fccf6b90c03.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html?n=0
Robert Hazell: The problem in essence is this: Monarchies all depend on hereditary succession. Prince Harry is a good exemplar. When he was born, he was much closer in the line of succession as Prince Charles’s second son. We all know the phrase “the heir and the spare.” He was the spare, and he was needed in case anything happened to the heir. But, as the heir grew older, got married, had children of his own, Harry’s place moved down in the line of succession and he was no longer needed. So he became redundant, and that’s a familiar problem for minor royals in all the other countries. It’s a genuine problem because they, when they were younger, had to train potentially to become the monarch, and so they are ill qualified to do anything else in what you or I might call normal life.
In the British sense, being “made redundant” means what Americans would call layoffs, and that’s an apt way of thinking about the different paths that William and Harry are on. In that case, why is it that the “team” of working royals is much bigger than necessary to fulfill the basic constitutional purpose of the monarchy?https://4ed380cb1323dcfcd6608fccf6b90c03.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html?n=0
There are strong arguments for keeping the team as small as you can, for obvious reasons. The smaller the size of the team, the less the risk that one of them will go rogue or get into trouble. But the British royal family’s team is large because of the size of the country and because of the very strong tradition of royal engagements. They need a large team to service the demand. Talk to any lord lieutenant—they’re the queen’s representatives in each county, who organize the bids for royal visits. I know our local lord lieutenant very well, and he says that the demand for royal visits far exceeds what the palace can supply. I have no doubt that it’s similar in other counties. That’s the dilemma that they face. That’s why, although Prince Charles has said that he would like to slim down the size of the royal family, by which he means have a smaller team, in practice he’ll find that quite difficult when he becomes king.
Take Norway, which has a population of 5 million. Their royal team is four people. The king and queen, and the crown prince and crown princess, and a team of four people can service a population of 5 million. The population of the U.K. is 66 million, so it’s 13 times larger than that of Norway, and one of the main functions of the royal family is to get out there and be seen. You need a much bigger team, and the British royal family team, when I wrote that, was 15 people. It’s now shrunk by three. It lost Prince Andrew at the end of 2019, and it lost Harry and Meghan at the beginning of last year, so it’s now down to 12.
It’s as though the monarch has the constitutional role while the rest of the family is a small business providing charity experiences! Do you think we would have the same issue if Harry had married, say, a British aristocrat who knew that is what would be expected of her?
Well, that was Meghan’s dilemma. You know, she was a successful actress who had her own career, had her own voice, and as she said in the Winfrey interview, she went into this marriage possibly rather naïve, thinking that she could retain an independent voice. The freedoms that you and I take for granted, the royals don’t have. They don’t have freedom of speech, they have next to no privacy, for the reasons you’ll be very familiar with, they have no free choice of career. There are other lesser restrictions, and the British royal family and the Scandinavian royals have no freedom of religion. They have to be Protestants.
Those born into the family grow up in a gilded cage. They don’t know a different life, but as they grow up, they come to understand the reasons why it is a cage. The queen is a highly intelligent, and as everyone who meets her in private says, a very witty woman. But in public, in her scripted speeches, she had never said anything interesting or amusing, because in effect she has no freedom of speech. They’ve long had difficulties with the press, and the British press are exceptional in that once they’ve decided to go for somebody, their claws are really sharp. Prince Charles has felt that most of his life. I speak with no inside knowledge, but I suspect that Prince Charles, who has suffered from bad press for most of his adult life, feels you just have to live with it. It goes with the job.
I’ve read some commentators say that this could represent an existential threat to the monarchy. Do you think that is the case?
No, nowhere near—the royal family are so popular, and that’s very different from a real threat to the monarchy as an institution. If by “a threat to the monarchy” people mean that the U.K. might want to give up the monarchy, which is democratically perfectly possible and conceivable, because monarchy is not a given, and it does rest on the continuing consent of the people. But the British monarchy, like the other monarchies of Europe, is extraordinarily popular. There’s been endless polling about this for decades and decades, and it’s one of the stablest polling results you can find.
When people say it’s the worst crisis since the abdication crisis of 1936—it’s not. That led to the monarch abdicating. I think it’s a crisis rather similar to the difficulties with Princess Diana in the 1990s. The popularity of the monarchy, as an institution, did not dip very much even in the 1990s. Most families have someone who’s got divorced, or someone who’s not speaking to their brother or their mother or whatever, and it’s perfectly familiar as a part of family life, and I think most people can distinguish between a family difficulty and a threat to the institution.
Do you think the issues with Meghan and Harry might cause the other official members of the royal family to think twice about their loss of freedoms?
Those who are official members of the royal family, they’ve been members of the team now for a long time. Some of them are my age, and I’m in my early 70s, and some of them are even older. They’ve accepted years, decades of public service—they’re not going to change.
Do you think it might change the calculus for someone in the future? Or have potential spouses always been wary of this sort of outcome?
Prince Charles had a number of girlfriends before Princess Diana, and I don’t know for certain, but I think he would have liked to have married at least one of them who knew very well what that would have involved and said no. The loss of freedom is immense. Let’s just fast-forward 20 years and think of Prince George being in his 20s and marriageable. Any woman whom he might want to marry would, one would hope, be sufficiently well informed that they would think very hard about it.
— The New, Sad Irony of the Rift Between Prince William and Prince Harry
— Meghan and Harry’s Devastating Revelations About Racism Within the Royal Family
— Why Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s Security Protection Was Such a Big Deal
— Prince Charles Is in a “State of Despair”
— Buckingham Palace Issues Brief Response to Harry and Meghan’s Interview
— Why Archie’s Title Is About More Than What’s in a Name
— Prince Harry tells Oprah, “I Was Trapped”
— What the Queen’s Statement Reveals About the Royal Family’s Next Steps
— From the Archive: Palace and Prejudice
— Need the latest royals news? Sign up for the Royal Watch newsletter for all the chatter from Buckingham Palace and beyond.
In Britain these past 50 years while that shit has sat on “the Throne” eating her meals with golden cutlery whilst the poor starve.
It’s a situation of all for them and nothing for us !! She plays with her horses and dogs while we wait 45 minutes everywhere to speak to an official (about our poverty and difficulties) that “they” ‘engineered’ for us.
It is enough!! They pretend not to notice (our suffering)… our family served in their military (facing dangerous situations)……they could of helped…but don’t!! We are still treated like shit!
Down with this Windsor regime!
How did Charles Lindbergh sleep when he flew from New York to Paris, nonstop, aboard his plane for more than 33 hours? He did not sleep due to the very high-tech system he developed to keep himself awake. He had not slept the night before and knew that staying awake on the 33-hour flight was going to be one of his major challenges. So, he got a heavy nut—the metal kind that goes on a bolt—and tied it to one finger with a string about a foot long. While at cruise altitude, he held the nut loosely in his fingers, palm down. When he dozed off, he’d drop the nut, which made the string tug on his finger and keep him awake. If it sounds crazy to have bet his life on a string yanking his finger, consider that he was flying a fabric-covered plane with no front window to see where he was going, with a single engine—and remember, that engine was built with 1920s technology—and navigating mostly by a bobbing wet compass. His wake-up device was one of the most reliable things on board.
ER Editor: We’re running two stories back to back – one from The Daily Sceptic (formerly Lockdown Sceptics) dealing with the test and trace app that Sweden REFUSED to use, and The New American reporting on Sweden’s zero death rate, that the media failed to predict. Kudos to Anders Tegnell.
This is from a tweet linked to below:
We must note that these articles contain no information on Sweden’s vaccination program/rate, and any problems generated from that.
A reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, has sent the following post, comparing Britain’s enthusiastic embrace of a contact-tracing app with Sweden’s more considered approach.
In the early months of the pandemic, many Swedish epidemiologists, virologists and other medical specialists implored their Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and Health Minister Lena Hallengren to build a contact-tracing app. Tech companies fell over themselves to claim they had the necessary expertise to do just that. Development actually got underway, but once state epidemiologist Dr Anders Tegnell and his team had evaluated the viability of such an app and come to the view it would cause excessive fear and large-scale disruption, Löfven was talked out of it and all work ceased.
In an interview on Swedish Television in May of last year, Tegnell said he didn’t think the idea of an app had been “properly thought through’” (he could have said the same of a great deal else of UK pandemic decision-making and implementation). He foresaw large numbers of ‘pings’ being generated and vast resources being expended on staffing and testing. Many people would be worried for no good reason and hospitals and care homes would come under more pressure as staff would have to self-isolate. He also questioned whether a distance as great as two metres for a period as short as 15 minutes were appropriate parameters.
Tellingly, when asked: “Wouldn’t it be worthwhile at least in controlling the spread of infections?”, he replied: “Few of the contacts (of a person with a positive test result) would be infected. For every person ill with Covid, I would reckon about 30 healthy people would be urged to self-isolate unnecessarily.”
Is there any evidence that the UK Government’s much-vaunted contact-tracing NHS COVID-19 App, run by NHS Test and Trace, has nevertheless been successful? According to politicians of all parties and medics of many disciplines, the answer is a resounding no.
Referring to the current £37 billion projected cost of Dido Harding’s test and trace operation, Lord Macpherson, who was Permanent Secretary at the Treasury from 2005 to 2016 and worked on 33 Budgets and 20 Spending Reviews, went so far as to say: “This wins the prize for the most wasteful and inept public spending programme of all time.”
To paraphrase Tegnell’s famous commentary on Sweden rejecting a large-scale lockdown of society:
The good reason is that unlike in France, where massive protests and rioting inspired by new anti-coronavirus lockdown measures have made headlines, the Nordic country is peaceful. The bad one is that even though the reason it’s peaceful is because its anti-lockdown strategy has worked, the COVID-panic-porn-obsessed media don’t find this newsworthy. After all, if the masses find out that all the civilization-rending lockdowns and onerous virus restrictions are an exercise in scientific obscurantism, a lot of power-mad politicians could face career destruction.
Photo: atakan/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Here’s the news the opinion cartel finds un-newsworthy: As of Wednesday, Sweden’s seven-day rolling average for China virus deaths was zero (tweet below).about:blank
To be precise, Sweden has on occasion curbed restaurant opening hours (I guess the virus only attacks during certain periods of the day) and has at times enforced crowd limits at venues such as shopping malls, but these have been exceptions to the country’s rule of relying on voluntary measures to combat SARS-CoV-2.
This lies in contrast to its European neighbors, which, as the definition of insanity goes, are doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. In France, for example, “government officials have decreed that unvaccinated individuals will no longer be allowed to enter cafes, restaurants, theaters, public transportation and more,” reports the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). This is despite data indicating that many new China virus cases are among the vaccinated and that the most highly vaccinated nations have the worst COVID infection rates — and warnings that the vaccines may actually be dangerous.
“France’s approach is unique, but it’s just one of many countries around the world imposing new restrictions as fears grow over a new variant of COVID-19,” FEE later writes. “Australia’s recent restrictions have placed half the country under strict lockdown — even though a record 82,000 tests had identified just 111 new coronavirus cases — while restaurants in Portugal are struggling to survive amid newly imposed restrictions.”
In contrast, “Sweden is welcoming tourists,” FEE also informs (unlike Canada, which had its border with the United States closed to “unessential travel” for more than a year). “Businesses and schools are open with almost no restrictions. And as far as masks are concerned, not only is there no mandate in place, Swedish health officials are not even recommending them.”
(What’s more, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, warned last year that mask wearing was actually dangerous because it lends a false sense of security.)
Of course, we don’t hear much about the above from mainstream media. But this doesn’t mean Sweden isn’t getting some press. Just consider today’s Reuters headline, “COVID-19 on the rise in Swedish cities as Delta outbreaks dominate.”
Thus framing matters without pointing out that having a high infection rate combined with low hospitalization and mortality rates has a great upside — it builds herd immunity — is propagandistic reporting. It is, however, good for ratcheting up fear that will ensure bad policy’s perpetuation.
Oh, it doesn’t get much press, either.
In fact, “Covid is the first epidemic in history in which the healthy population was locked down, and it is not even that lethal for most people,” notes writer Thomas Lifson, commenting on the matter. “How that happened is a key question for discussion, and of course is almost never even raised in the media. But Sweden’s success in using the common sense, time-tested practice of focusing on the vulnerable and leaving the rest alone is now vindicated, while those countries that failed to build herd immunity as fast continue to suffer, and even redouble their bad bet of locking down.”
But even if one reckons Sweden’s success differently, and even if its China virus numbers change in time, it doesn’t matter. Why?
Because we have no rational choice but to follow its lead. That is to say, we hear much about “following the science.” Well, here’s the science and the facts:
• Data have long shown conclusively that widespread lockdowns not only don’t mitigate China virus spread, but that they actually create a situation in which there’s more death than the pandemic alone would cause (not to mention the economic destruction and psychological distress).
• Studies show that masks, when prescribed for the general population, are at best marginally effective at reducing viral contagion; moreover, they also appear themselves to pose significant health risks.
• The six-foot social-distance prescription is fairly arbitrary and is based on the work of a 19th-century German. Ironically, though, today’s Germany prescribes a social distance of 4.92 feet while the World Health Organization’s figure is 39 inches. Of course, you’re less likely to contract a disease if you remain six feet from others than if you’re closer; you’re even safer if you stay 60 away. You’re safer still if you live isolated in the Yukon.
The point is that we must go on with life. Ours isn’t a Last Man on Earth/Omega Man situation, where a virus exterminates most of humanity and zombies roam the countryside. As renowned COVID physician Dr. Peter McCullough has pointed out, the China virus has always been treatable, and a correct and official SARS-CoV-2 treatment protocol could have saved 85 percent of those who died from the virus. (You can partially thank Anthony Fauci for its lack.)
I have elderly/vulnerable people in my life whom I love with all my heart, and I want to keep them safe. But I know two things: Draconian government measures won’t accomplish this.
And if we continue with the lockdown folly, we won’t have much of a nation left.
This wouldn’t be good for anyone — except maybe the megalomaniacs who may aspire to rule over the ashes of what was once a successful civilization.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
April 16, 2021
February 4, 2021
https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/07/25/invention-uses-microbes-to-convert-plastic-waste-into-edible-protein-but-would-you-eat-it/ By B.N. Frank It’s great that scientists are working on new ways to recycle plastic waste. But food for you to eat as well as… Invention Uses Microbes to Convert Plastic Waste into Edible… Go to Source Author: Activist PostInvention Uses Microbes to Convert Plastic Waste into Edible Protein. But Would You Eat It?
Comment by tonytran2015: Is this a waste of tax money? https://www.bbc.com/news/57941113 …In an earlier statement, VAERS said its database may include “incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental and unverified information” and “cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness”. …Covid-19: Recent claims about cremations and vaccines fact-checked – BBC News
Originally posted on NoFakeNews.net: Dr. John Reizer I was visiting with someone in a hospital today and can report to all; the psyop is alive and well inside the walls of medicine. It’s mind-boggling how confused a good many of those folks are in that medical setting. It’s like attending a mask-wearing convention when…Unfortunately, the psyop is alive and well!