Tackling the Oppression of HM Subjects

In 1694, the authors of the Bank of England Act anticipated that the power to create currency may be abused to oppress HM subjects. Hence they foresaw punishment at least for the Corporation.

What they did not foresee is the punishment of all the institutions that depend on the Bank of England.

One such institution is the London School of Economics where Her Majesty asked recently: why didn’t anybody see it coming? Well, here is an interesting answer from Thomas Palley who advocates Economics for Democratic & Open Societies.

Meanwhile we all endure this nearly 100% dependency on central bankers in general and the BoE in particular: everybody needs money that banks, under the supervision of the BoE, issue as interest-bearing credit. We need money to survive, as we don’t find our own food. We need money from jobs, but institutions and corporations are failing us, even pension funds.

Self-employment or entrepreneurship is advocated in theory but not in practice. (I write from bitter experiences.)

And thus we end up not only being oppressed by the Bank of England but by all the institutions that use Sterling to finance jobs.

And that’s when power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely: in addition to bankers, lawyers, solicitors, judges, insolvency practitioners abuse the law and get away with white collar crime not only to oppress but to exploit and be violent.

Once upon a time a wise Lord said that the UK has not had a revolution because the Lords always beeing thinking long term… Well, the City has succeeded in making them disappear, too.

What next?

We can only help each other to be vigilant and supportive. Hence we started to collect “evidence of oppression” by the banking system on www.3dm1297.info.

Of course they are only symbolic and indicative of the tip of an iceberg of unprecedented economic violence and institutional injustice. But at least they are there. May they encourage others to follow suit.

Bank of England Act 1694

A lawyer friend of mine has pointed me to Sections XXVI and XXVII of this act which have not been repealed (yet).

If I translate correctly, it means the following in nickel words:

1. the act was written with the intention that their Majesties’ subjects may not be oppressed by the Bank of England
2. the Bank of England may not monopolize or engross any goods, wares or merchandize
3. the Bank of England may not deal or permit  to deal or trade with any of the ’stock-monies’ or ‘effects’, i.e.  ‘deposits’ or ‘collateral’, to buy or sell any goods, wares or merchandize
4. should anybody do so anyhow,  or by order or directions, such dealings or tradings are prosecuted and punished by treble the value of the goods and merchandize traded, if ‘victims’ sue for action in the High Court.

I read the ’stock-moneyes’ and ‘effects’ to pertain to the ‘financial economy’, while goods, wares and merchandize belong to the ‘real economy’.

Hence I wonder whether “we, the taxpayers” could construe such a High Court Action on the back of the national debt and the money supply, since ‘effects’ are used for the national debt and ‘effects’ are used to pay bailiffs to engross people’s homes and other assets?

But maybe my German / analytical mind thinks around too many corners here…

About the Bank of England

This page can be read with footnotes at The Great Depression of 2009: Who is to Blame? about the function and critique of the Bank of England is excellent reading for anybody who might ask themselves: “why is there so much money for bailing out the financial economy but never enough for health, education, environment and small businesses?”

The Bank of England by Philip Geddes
‘Nothing would persuade the English people to abolish the Bank of England; and if some calamity swept it away, generations must elapse before at all the same trust would be placed in any other equivalent.’ That was the verdict of the Victorian political economist Walter Bagehot in Lombard Street, his famous book on banking published in 1873.

To the Governor of the Bank of England

Question to the Governor of the Bank of England:

In the spirit of TheyWorkforYou.com and spending “taxpayers’ money”, it appears that the solution to “global” and “complex” problems needs to be democratised. For the experts have failed us, as Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson are writing in Fantasy Island and The Gods that Failed.

We suggested in our response to the Committee’s inquiry into the Stern report that the cash : credit ratio of the money supply be investigated.

What prevents you from recording and analysing the cash : credit ratio of the money supply in the statistics of the Bank of England on a regular basis?

Looking forward to your response,

With ‘globally warm’ regards,

Sabine
Organiser, Forum for Stable Currencies

Publisher, Public Credit Petition [124 signatures and 2463 page views...]

Green Credit for Green Purposes, Our submission to the Committee’s Inquiry into the Stern Report

In the Spirit of the Forum for Stable Currencies, blog

Forum for Stable Currencies, current website and archive

21a Goldhurst Terrace
London NW6 3HB

T: +44 207 328 3701
M: 07968 039 141

Banks warned to curb payout as crisis bites

What does the story below tell us?

Like most people, bankers think first of themselves and their salaries, payouts, pensions and perks.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we knew that banking was carried out as a public service instead?

With thanks from David Soori:

BANK OF England governor Mervyn King used his now-famous meeting with the chief executives of the “big five” UK banks last Thursday to admonish them for increasing shareholder dividends, as they came begging for more aid to help resolve their liquidity problems, the Sunday Herald understands.
http://tinyurl.com/2aleo8