FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Who Owns the Bank of England ?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Pre-Planned Economic 9/11 - Global Financial Conspiracy
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ukginger
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 68
Location: Leicester

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 6:16 pm    Post subject: Who Owns the Bank of England ? Reply with quote

Who Owns the Bank of England ?

I would like to research the true ownership of The Bank of England, any information that can be referenced would be appreciated.

_________________
Paranormal Investigator
Ghost Scene Investigations

Any serious Occult / Illuminati Questions ... ask


Last edited by ukginger on Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was nationalised in 1945 (I think)......so, presumably, the 'government' owns it.

But that can't really be the case because it operates 'independently' from government, or so the government says.

It is like one of those Russian dolls.

I made some effort to find out these things some time ago but made little progress.

The British money-creation system seems to be labyrynthine compared to the American system.

.....Anyway, the important issue is not who owns the bank of England but who controls it. Who defines Mervyn King's agenda and who controls that controller, etc?

Like Patrick McGoohan in 'The Prisoner' you can become as obsessed as you like with the question, "Who is Number One?"........but you will never answer it.......presumably, unless you make it to Number Two yourself.

.........So if you seriously want to discover the answer to your question join the Freemasons and start worshipping Lucifer right now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Before you sharpen the knives and order the goats, this thread has some good information on BoE etc...

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=9890&postdays=0&post order=asc&highlight=boe&start=0

_________________
"Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism"
George Monbiot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Who Owns the Bank of England ? Reply with quote

ukginger wrote:
Who Owns the Bank of England ?

I would like to research the true ownership of The Bank of England, any information that can be referenced would be appreciated.
[/b]


http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/federal_reserve.shtml
says:
Quote:
Source: ** Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence ** - - Published 1976

Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.
Quote:
Chart 2
Source: ** Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence ** - - Published 1983

The J. Henry Schroder Banking Company chart encompasses the entire history of the twentieth century, embracing as it does the program (Belgium Relief Commission) which provisioned Germany from 1915-1918 and dissuaded Germany from seeking peace in 1916; financing Hitler in 1933 so as to make a Second World War possible; backing the Presidential campaign of Herbert Hoover ; and even at the present time, having two of its major executives of its subsidiary firm, Bechtel Corporation serving as Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration.
The head of the Bank of England since 1973, Sir Gordon Richardson, Governor of the Bank of England (controlled by the House of Rothschild) was chairman of J. Henry Schroder Wagg and Company of London from 1963-72, and director of J. Henry Schroder, New York and Schroder Banking Corporation, New York, as well as Lloyd's Bank of London, and Rolls Royce. He maintains a residence on Sutton Place in New York City, and as head of "The London Connection," can be said to be the single most influential banker in the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2651
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes the Rothschilds et al
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhYL-ywmny0
Gordon Browns sleight of hand "freeing" of the Bank of England made no difference whatsoever, as has recently been demonstrated by Northern Rock. It poured fiat money into the economy, as did the Federal Reserve, to shore up potential collapse, perhaps to allow Brown to call a snap election.
Sooner or later the Bankers will withdraw the supply.

_________________
http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ukginger
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 68
Location: Leicester

PostPosted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a way I know the answer, but knowing and proving are two different entities. The Govt Borrows Money at interest from The Bank of England I presume. Yet the Bank was Nationalised . . .

My common sense tells me you cant take back one of the worlds premier private banks into public ownership without cost.

I just want to be able to prove it and then let the public know.

_________________
Paranormal Investigator
Ghost Scene Investigations

Any serious Occult / Illuminati Questions ... ask
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ukginger
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 68
Location: Leicester

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for all the great replies to my original question. I have found following the threads and links most illuminating.

This url was my favorite http://www.prosperityuk.com/prosperity/articles/boe1.html

I am going to have to sit down and do a lot more reading . . . but its off to the dentist tomorrow [gulp]

Very Happy

_________________
Paranormal Investigator
Ghost Scene Investigations

Any serious Occult / Illuminati Questions ... ask
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15068
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:16 am    Post subject: Bank of England Court of Directors Reply with quote

Sir David Lees, Chair of Court
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/people/court.htm

The Court of Directors
The Bank of England Act 1998, which came into force on 1 June 1998, changed the constitution and duties of the Court of Directors from that set out in the previous Act of 1946, weakening the Bank's governance and accountability, as well as shirking the Bank's responsibility for the conduct of monetary policy.

check out these interests - including privatised arms research company Qinetiq
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/annualreport/2011/courtofd irectors2011.pdf



BankOfEnglandCourtOfDirectors2011.pdf
 Description:
Bank of England COurt of Directors

Download
 Filename:  BankOfEnglandCourtOfDirectors2011.pdf
 Filesize:  749.18 KB
 Downloaded:  447 Time(s)


_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15068
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

At last making some real headway with this vexing question of who owns the shares of the Bank of England. This ain't nationalisation ma'am!

2 Extracts from
WAR OF THE WINDSORS
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/06/496942.html
A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy

By Lynne Picnett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior
With additional historical research by Robert Brydon
Mainstream publishing – 2003
ISBN - 1 84018 766 2

EXTRACT 1/2:
THE BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES
In early 1973 new legislation governing the ownership of shares was proposed by the Heath Government. This would force stockbroking companies to disclose the names of the individuals on whose behalf they bought shares (to prevent them gaining a controlling interest in a company by buying shares in several different names). The Queen was concerned that this would mean that details of her private investments would be made public, which would allow her personal wealth to be calculated - which the royal family had always strenuously avoided - and asked her Private Secretary, Sir Martin Charteris (who had succeeded Sir Michael Adeane in 1972), to express her anxiety to Edward Heath.
The legislation was delayed, but eventually became law - under Labour in 1976 as the Companies Act. However, a special clause was included that exempted a new shareholding company, Bank of England Nominees. This was established with the purpose of handling investments solely on behalf of heads of state and their immediate families. This allowed the Queen's investments and those of her family - along with those of other heads of state, such as the Sultan of Brunei, who were quick to take advantage of the exemption - to be effectively concealed. Extraordinarily, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer is permitted to know about the Queen's personal investments.
Andrew Morton writes:
The result of this legislation has been to cocoon further the royal finances in a web of mystery. Journalists who delve into dusty share registers find the impenetrable phrase 'Bank of England Nominees' staring back at them when they try to find a hint of royal investment in a company.
The justification for the clause was that public knowledge about where the Queen invested her money might influence the market. However, that this was just an excuse is revealed by a memo sent from the Palace to the Government saying that it is 'to be congratulated on a neat and defensible solution'. In other words, the Palace were pleased that the Government had come up with a way of justifying the secrecy.

EXTRACT 2/2
........Thanks to the legal privileges she enjoys - such being able to hide her investments behind the screen of the Bank of England Nominees - the Queen's personal wealth is literally incalculable. There is no information available to enable it to be calculated with certainty, although a recent analysis by the Independent estimated Elizabeth II's personal fortune to be around £175 million. Of course, the question can fairly be asked why her subjects need to know about her private means, which are quite separate from the government funds intended to pay for her expenses as Head of State. But the distinction is not always clear: for example, although the estates at Balmoral and Sandringham - acquired in Victoria's reign - are said to be the Queen's private property, there is evidence that Victoria and Albert acquired them at least partly with money diverted from the Civil List, in which case surely the state has a claim on them? And when these houses are occupied they are paid for by the taxpayer, on the grounds that wherever the Queen is she is always the Head of State.
What of the Royal Collection - the works of art that according to one estimate are worth around £7 billion, and which contain three times as many paintings as the National Gallery? In theory the Queen holds all these 'in trust' for the nation; in practice she alone possesses them, while they remain largely unseen by the rest of us (at anyone time, less than a half of a per cent of the collection is on public display). There is also the very vexed question of the 'grace and favour' properties, paid for the state but occupied by......


WAR OF THE WINDSORS
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Prologue
1. 'A Kingly Caste of Germans'
2. 'The People's Prince'
3. 'Christ! What's Going to Happen Next?'
4. 'A Kind of English National Socialist'
5. 'The Most Unconstitutional Act'
6. 'The End of Many Hopes'
7. 'The House of Mountbatten Now Reigns!'
8. 'That German Princeling'
9. 'In Spite of Everything, He was a Great Man'
10. 'After All I've Done for this F-ing Family'
11. 'There are Powers at Work in This Country About Which We Have No Knowledge'
Notes and References
Bibliography
Index


Other extracts from the same book
Predictably, the Select Committee recommended that these allowances be reduced or in some cases abolished altogether. However, by the time the Committee reached its conclusions in 1972 the Conservatives were now in power. Parliament rejected all of its recommendations, instead doubling the Queen's Civil List and most of the other allowances. The Civil List Act of 1972 also established that it should be reviewed every ten years, rather than only at the start of each reign - and also forbade Questions about royal finances from being asked in the House outside the review period. (Is there any other subject of national importance that the British people's elected representatives are forbidden to talk about?) The monetary crisis was resolved very much in the Queen's favour, with a 100 per cent Civil List increase (at a time when wage demands were causing great industrial unrest) and the public financing of the royal family being further removed from Parliamentary scrutiny........

..........Unfortunately, given the vagaries of human nature, no government is ever perfect, but at least a written constitution would give us a solid framework within which to strive for perfect citizenship, perhaps something like the American version, which sets out its stall uncompromisingly with its opening words: 'We, the people. . . ' In many respects it has withstood the test of time, of civil war, the upheavals of the industrial revolution and despite all the ingrained racism and other problems of tolerance, it remains a statement of attainable near-equality for all people within the United States.
However, few are suggesting that Britain should become a republic, at least not while Elizabeth II is still alive. Successive opinion polls demonstrate that the Queen and her role are treated with affection and respect by the majority of Britons - often even republicans - and the imagination balks at the alternative of a President Blair or Thatcher. But if they are to stay, the royal family is in for a rough ride - just how rough, however, is largely up to them. Certainly, there is little craven forelock tugging these days and the media no longer hold back from asking awkward questions of the royal family - if anything, quite the reverse. Yet, while the community as a whole seeks justice and equality, there is no doubt that the chilling Orwellian sound bite 'some are more equal than others' rings as true today as it always did. What equality exists when, while the rest of us struggle to make a living and pay our taxes, just one family – whether it calls itself Windsor or Mountbatten- Windsor - is allowed to decide that it refuses to pay tax? And then, when under pressure and with staggering arrogance, it simply elects to pay just a little tax on a portion of its income?
And when St James's Palace has finally agreed to draw up an agreement for more accountability, who will decide whether it goes far enough? Who will challenge it?
Where is the equality when we would be sent to prison for assisting a grandmother in agony to leave this life with dignity, while the Windsors can despatch a terminally ill relative simply in order to meet the deadline for the morning edition of the The Times, or to avoid the Coronation being disrupted by court mourning?
What equality exists when 'Lord Haw Haw' (William Joyce) was executed for broadcasting Nazi propaganda against his country, while certain members of the Windsor family not only provided propaganda for the same cause but also even intelligence and advice - and still received income from the British taxpayer for many decades afterwards? Or when national security runs second to family ties and the image of the monarchy, as happened in the Anthony Blunt affair, and when the (to put it mildly) security risk that was Earl Mountbatten of Burma was allowed to reach the pinnacle of the defence hierarchy simply because his relationship to the Queen made him untouchable? To add insult to injury, the evidence of such transgressions is forever hidden in the Royal Archives, out of our reach.
Since the Second World War many countries have adopted a Freedom of Information Act: surely the citizens of any twenty-first century democracy should have access to information on any subject that concerns them ¬ specially matters of exemption, prerogative and privilege. Although members of the current Government and others have proposed that Britain adopts its own such Act, this is opposed by the senior civil service. They doubtless fear that any Freedom of Information Act would expose the true seat of power and its habitual economy with the truth in selecting convenient precedent. Neither the Palace mafia nor the senior civil service could survive for long in its present form with a Freedom of Information Act, for it would soon identify the otherwise faceless individuals and reveal their true agendas. But if Britain is to have a real hope of being a true twenty-first century democracy, all this has to happen: openness in government and accountability for the royal family.
In 2003 the Queen's personal popularity may be riding high - but the Burrell affair raised some uncomfortable questions and royal finances are under scrutiny as never before. Serious questions are being asked about the cost of maintaining the monarchy, and why the nation should be expected to pay for certain of the privileges enjoyed by the Queen as Head of State: the royal yacht Britannia has already been decommissioned and not replaced, and the necessity for her to travel in her own personal train is now being queried. (In May 2003 it was revealed that it was John Major's failure to support the replacing of the Brittania that explains the otherwise extraordinary fact that he is the only former Prime Minister not to have been accorded the traditional honour of being made a Knight of the Garter. This decision - which appears to have been made by Prince Philip - is an act of pure pettiness, especially considering that the Queen's secret deal with Major saved her at least £20 million in inheritance tax on the death of her mother........
MATCHMAKING
The major relationship of Mountbatten's later life was with his goddaughter Anastasia ('Sacha'), Marchioness of Hamilton and later (when her husband James inherited the Dukedom) Duchess of Abercorn, who was 50 years his junior. The daughter of Edwina's long-term lover, 'Bunny' Phillips, and the granddaughter of Sir Harold and Lady Zia Wernher, her husband was aware before marrying her of what Hoey describes as her and Mountbatten's 'special bond'. Both were frank and open about the relationship (although nothing was made public before Mountbatten's death): he even declared that she was the only person apart from Edwina that he would ever consider marrying.
Mountbatten was still seeking to extend his already considerable influence over the royal family - especially Charles. Sarah Bradford writes that he was delighted to have the opportunity to shape the personality and future life of the heir, especially because he could strengthen his hold on the rest of the royal family through the Prince of Wales. Charles was not only heir to the throne, but on his 18th birthday in 1966, he had replaced Philip as the designated regent in the event of the Queen's incapacity.
At the end of 1971, The Genealogist's Magazine asked Mountbatten to write an article to mark the forthcoming silver wedding of the Queen and Prince Philip. He declined, suggesting instead the respected genealogist Clare Forbes Turner, whose article uses historical precedent to argue that the royal house should not be Windsor, but Mountbatten. Unsurprisingly, the article was actually written by the man himself, Clare Forbes Turner being the daughter of the Broadlands' archivist. As it happened, the editor saw through the trick and removed several glaring errors in the historical argument.
As Charles entered his early 20s, Mountbatten's influence over him increased. This was easy enough, for the young man had no congenial male role model, never having been close to his brusque and intimidating father who, although capable of kindness, was terribly domineering. Although Prince Philip (no doubt resentful of the way that Mounbatten had run his life) cautioned against letting him have too great an influence, in the words of Sarah Bradford, 'By the time Charles was 23, Mountbatten had become his closest confidant and the greatest single influence on his life. The Prince called him "grandpapa" to his face and "honorary grandfather" in his letters; in return Mountbatten referred to him as "honorary grandson" .' But their clo'seness only added to the already critical strain on Charles's relationship with his father and also brought Mountbatten and the Queen Mother into direct opposition.
One way in which Mountbatten sought to influence Charles was in his choice of bride - indeed the old sailor's private secretary John Barratt described him bluntly as a 'royal procurer', arranging weekends at.....

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/


Last edited by TonyGosling on Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2541
Location: One breath from Glory

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you were to commit a crime against the BofE would it have to be the owner who takes you to court?
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fish5133 wrote:
If you were to commit a crime against the BofE would it have to be the owner who takes you to court?


There's a lot of vested people involved since the credit can be issued to whom they wish and denied whom they wish.

But what could the crime even be? It's they who are committing crime.

Not good for those banksters when/if a big enough % of the 99.9% realise what they have done and are doing.

Perhaps when the so called middle classes who are used to hold up the pyramidal ponzi scheme realise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ukcolumn
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 11 Jun 2012
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Bank of England isn't owned by Rothschilds as such:

1. It is a private corporation, wholly owned by the state. 100% of its shares are held by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the government which compulsorily purchased it in 1946. It was not nationalised and is not a branch of government; instead a share swap was done, with Bank shareholders being given Government Stock (bonds) in return for their Bank shares.

2. As pointed out above, it is operationally independent from the state. The state is a (the) shareholder, that is all. Its Court of Directors are not civil servants, and neither are any of its employees. No oaths of office are taken, and there is no accountability beyond the requirement to send the Chancellor a letter if inflation is above 2% explaining why.

3. The Bank is a "wholesale bank". It provides banking services to governments including ours, other wholesale and retail banks, and other so-called high net worth individuals, including other heads of state.

4. The services it provides to the UK Government: "managing" inflation through setting bank base rates, printing bank notes (interest free money, 3% of money in circulation), acting as a broker for government bonds (selling them to indebt the nation, buying them with funny money for QE), and imminently taking over the role of banking regulator (ha ha) when the FSA disappears later this year.

5. As pointed out above, the Bank runs a wholly owned private limited company, Bank of England Nominees Limited. BOEN is a nominee company - it doesn't trade, but is used to hold assets on behalf of its customers. As a result the annual accounts show no activity and there is no info to be gleaned there. The reason to use a nominee company is to hide customer trading activity from the markets as assets are notionally owned by the nominee company, i.e. the Bank trades other people's assets in the name of BOEN, never disclosing the names of its customers. The Queen is not the only beneficiary here.

6. I asked the Bank under FOIA for a specific list of their other customers. Although they give me the general list I mentioned above, they refused to give specifics because they are more or less given a blanket exemption for all their "commercial activities" under FOIA. So I asked the Bank how I can know that they will not put the interests of any of their other customers ahead of those of the state, and their answer was "we wouldn't do that".

So that's it in a nutshell. We own the Bank, but the Bank is operationally independent with multiple customers outside of the state. It is not possible for it, therefore, to operate in our interests, as we are only one customer given no preference. It operates in the interests of itself, and the banking system (yes, including Rothschild who have often had direct representation on the Court of Directors), and so-called high net worth individuals and heads of state.

It is not our friend and never has been. We should get rid of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15068
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:50 pm    Post subject: nothing to see here Reply with quote

nothing to see here
I wonder

Investigating the Bank of England Nominees Limited
This article appeared in Prosperity, October 2011
http://prosperityuk.com/2011/10/investigating-the-bank-of-england-nomi nees-limited/
The following article by Alistair McConnachie appeared in the October 2011 issue of Prosperity.
Occasionally we encounter people who refuse to believe the fact that the Bank of England is a fully, publicly-owned national institution, and has been since it was nationalised in 1946(1)
They will point to something called the “Bank of England Nominees Limited” (BOEN) to allege that there is a “secret” company attached to the Bank, into which a flow of hidden profits is presumably being directed for the enrichment of a select few. Their sources are usually unreferenced conspiracy websites.
If our reform is to gain traction, it is important that we are neither distracted by misinformation nor labour under misapprehensions about normality.

The Bank of England is Publicly-Owned

The Bank of England is wholly owned by the British government – meaning its profits go into the public purse at the Treasury. This is a plain fact and people who do not accept this are not being serious about our reform. See the statement on the Bank’s website where it states:

As a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament. The Bank’s Annual Report and Accounts are laid before Parliament each year before they are made available publicly. The principal means of accountability for the Bank is via the House of Commons Treasury Committee.(2)

What is the “Bank of England Nominees Limited”?

The Bank of England Nominees is a wholly-owned, non-trading subsidiary of the Bank of England, with 2 ordinary shares valued at £1 each, as the latest Bank of England Annual Report(3) states.

A reply from Ben Norman, the Deputy Secretary of the Bank, to an enquirer Mr E Danielyan, dated 5 March 2010 explains:

BOEN acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers. It is a private limited company, incorporated in England and Wales in 1977, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank. The shareholders are the Bank and John Footman, who holds his share as nominee on behalf of the Bank. The directors are John Footman and Andrew Bailey.(4)

Both John Footman(5) and Andrew Bailey(6) are employees of the Bank and their biographies are on the Bank’s website.

What is the Purpose of BOEN?

As the following written answer from the Commons’ Hansard from 21 April 1977(7) states, it is intended to hold shares on behalf of “Heads of State” and certain others.

Shareholdings (Disclosure)

HC Deb 21 April 1977 vol 930 cc151-2W 151W

Mr. Blenkinsop asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has granted any exemptions under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Clinton Davis The Secretary of State has granted one exemption under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 in favour of Bank of England Nominees Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank of England. Bank of England Nominees Ltd. have given a number of undertakings about the use to be made of the exemption. They will hold securities as nominee only on behalf of Heads of State and their immediate family, Governments, official bodies controlled or closely related to Governments, and international organisations formed by Governments or official bodies. They will in turn seek certain assurances from anyone in the eligible categories who wishes them to hold the securities as that person’s nominee. These assurances are to cover (a) the fact that the person is the beneficial owner of the securities to be held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd.; (b) that the beneficial owner will not use his interest in any securities held by Bank of England Nominees Ltd. to influence the affairs of the company in which shares are held except as shareholders in general meetings of that company; (c) that the beneficial owner is aware of his overriding obligation, under Section 33 of the Companies Act 1967 as amended, to disclose his interest to the company in which shares are held if he is interested in 5 per cent. or more of that company’s share capital. 152W

Bank of England Nominees Ltd. has also undertaken to make a report annually to the Secretary of State for Trade of the identity of those for whom it holds securities, and, provided that it holds securities for two or more people, the total value of the securities held. The contents of such reports are to be confidential to the Secretary of State.

BOEN – No Longer Allowed Disclosure Exemptions

It is important to note, however, that BOEN is “no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements”, as the following written answer from the Lords’ Hansard on 26 April 2011(Cool makes clear.

This must mean that BOEN is no longer granted an exemption under Sec 796 of the Companies Act 2006 to the notification provisions required by Sec 793 – which it has been previously, according to Ben Norman above.

Bank of England

Questions

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited were last published; when they will next be published; and whether they intend to review whether the company should remain exempt from company law disclosure requirements.[HL8302]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox): The most recent accounts of Bank of England Nominees Limited are available via the Companies House website and were published on 14 June 2010. It can be seen from these accounts that the company is currently dormant. The company is due to publish its next set of accounts by 30 November this year. The company is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements and currently no other persons are exempt from these requirements.

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the accounts of Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited will be published; whether these accounts will take into account an indemnity from HM Treasury; and whether the accounts of the company are exempt from any company law disclosure requirements.[HL8303]

The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon): The Bank of England will publish accounts for the asset purchase facility (APF) for the year ended February 2011 before the Summer Parliamentary Recess. The amount due to or from HM Treasury under its indemnity to the Bank will be identified. The accounts are not exempt from any company law disclosure requirements. 12

Asked by Lord Myners

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the accounts of the Bank of England, Bank of England Nominees Limited and the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund Limited are all audited by the same firm of public accountants.[HL8310]

Lord Sassoon: KPMG are the external auditors for the Bank of England and the Bank of England Asset Purchases Facility Fund Limited. As a dormant company, Bank of England Nominees Limited is not required under the Companies Act 2006 to appoint an external auditor.



The BOEN Company Accounts for 2010 can be viewed online.(9) These Accounts state that, “There has been no income or expenditure on the part of the Company since its incorporation and accordingly no profit and loss account is submitted.” (p.2) It has Net Assets of £2. (p.4)

In Summary

As stated in Hansard, above, BOEN is a company set up with the intention of holding shares confidentially on behalf of “Heads of State” and certain others.

That is to say, presumably, HM the Queen and her “immediate family” and certain governmental bodies.

Presumably the thinking here is that if those people were to buy them through normal means, then they would be visible to staff at share dealing companies and would regularly be leaked. This could, possibly, raise various security-related matters, and it could also, possibly, raise various rumours about matters related to the economy and the health, or otherwise, of certain companies.

In any case, BOEN is presently dormant, and is no longer exempt from company law disclosure requirements.

Imagining strange goings-on at BOEN is a complete distraction from reality.

The truth, as with most things, is quite prosaic.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15068
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

(1) Bank of England Act 1946, http://www.legislation.gov.uk

(2) Bank of England, “The Bank’s Relationship with Parliament”,
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/parliament/index.htm

(3) Bank of England, Annual Report 2011, p.69,
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/annualreport/2011/2011full .pdf

(4) This letter can be viewed in full and downloaded at
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/28738/response/74019/attach/2/D. pdf

(5) Bank of England, “John Footman Executive Director, Central Services and Secretary of the Bank”,
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/people/biographies/footman.htm

(6) Bank of England, “Andrew Bailey, Executive Director, Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) – Deputy CEO designate”,
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/people/biographies/bailey.htm

(7) Hansard, 21 April 1977, Written Answers,
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1977/apr/21/shareho ldings-disclosure

(8) Hansard, 26 April 2011, Written Answers,
http://services.parliament.uk/hansard/Lords/bydate/20110426/writtenans wers/part021.html

(9) http://www.scribd.com/doc/56089866/BANK-OF-ENGLAND-NOMINEES-LIMITED-Co mpany-accounts-from-Level-Business

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15068
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bank of England Nominees
This study was presented at the meeting of the Forum for Stable Currencies on October 5th, 2000 by Robert Owen, one of the Directors of SAFE, Struggle Against Financial Exploitation.
http://forumnews.wordpress.com/about/bank-of-england-nominees/

Robert Owen ~ THE BANK OF ENGLAND
[House of Lords 5th October 2000]

On 27th July 1694 a private joint-stock association called ‘The Bank Of England’ was formed with a capital of £1.2 million, this capital was ‘loaned’ to the government in consideration of a monitory and banking monopoly over the Kingdom of William III, ergo The United Kingdom. [See Bank of England Act 1694]

The government of Clement Attlee nationalised The Bank of England in 1946, issuing Treasury Notes in the sum of £11,015,100. All the stock was owned by the British Government, although The Bank of England continued as a ‘Royal Charter Company’ with the absolute protection of confidentiality and security afforded by a Royal Charter and The Official Secrets Acts.

Obviously the nationalisation was not welcomed by its share holders or bankers of the day. Wilson’s abrupt resignation as Prime Minister in April 1976 and the new government of James Callaghan had virtually no majority, ‘UK Ltd’ was vulnerable and effectively bankrupt, with double digit annual inflation, 70% over 3 years, incessant strikes, the £ Sterling frequently suspended on international exchange markets, virtual parity with the US$, the ideal time for the share holders to strike back and re-take the Bank of England.

SO is this WHY, on the 6th April 1977 the Bank of England formed the BANK OF ENGLAND NOMINEES LIMITED, (BOEN), a wholly owned subsidiary private limited company, no: 1307478, with 2 of its 100 £1 shares issued and its Memorandum & Articles of Association’s Objectives are;-

“To act as Nominee or agent or attorney either solely or jointly with others, for any person or persons, partnership, company, corporation, government, state, organisation, sovereign, province, authority, or public body, or any group or association of them….”

MELANIE JOHNSON MP, Minister for the Treasury, informed me that “BOEN is a wholly owned subsidiary of BOE, which was granted an exemption by the Minister of State for Trade from the disclosure requirements under Section 27(9) of the Companies Act 1976 , because;

“it was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders”.

As we have seen above The Bank of England with its Royal Charter Status and Official Secrets Act, has more confidentiality and security than the MoD and is even immune from questions being asked in the House of Commons. So why form a wholly owned ‘NOMINEE’ COMPANY which in 23 years HAS NEVER TRADED and only lodges ‘Short Form’ un-audited accounts ?

I allege that The Bank of England was sometime after 1977 effectively ‘Privatised’, it’s shares being held in BOEN, thereby making a ‘closed loop’ , i.e. although BOEN is a wholly owned subsidiary of BOE, BOEN has effective control of BOE through the said shares owned by the secret share holders. I am advised that only 50% of the shares were sold, but they have ALL the voting rights ! Share holders appoint directors, look who makes up the ‘Court’ of Directors of The Bank of England, bringing one to the only conclusion that the Bank of England is owned covertly, if not by the banks, then by a higher banking entity which has the interests of the banks at heart, which justifies the rampant and systemic fraud perpetrated upon their customers with arrogance and impunity.

It is said to be the Duty of every Chief Constable to enforce the Law but there is no record of Regina v High St Bank, except, The Queen -v- Barclays Bank Plc, ex-party OWEN ~ which I brought. Police funding stops them from being effective against organised, national, international crime, perpetrated by banks.

In 1997, in the foot steps of Three Rivers District Council, who won their action against the Bank of England for failing to control BCCI, several of us who were casualties of banks made formal complaints against the BOE for not enforcing control over our respective high street banks, but contrary to the Bank’s own Statement of Principles and Banking Acts we were rejected on the grounds that the BOE does not intervene between bank and customer. Within months the BOE complaints staff and department had been transferred to Canary Wharf under the guise of the Financial Services Agency who are unable to act on complaints emanating prior to their formation.




28 Responses to Bank of England Nominees

1.

Pingback: “Printing Money” means “Printing Credit” these days « Money as Debt
2.
LOuis | January 8, 2010 at 8:16 pm | Reply

not bad
3.
Superheavyweight | February 25, 2010 at 4:54 am | Reply

But The Royal Bank of Scotland plc doesn’t own The Royal Bank of Scotland Group.

A subsidiary company doesn’t own a parent company.

If I bought YouTube, I wouldn’t own Google.
4.
Superheavyweight | February 25, 2010 at 8:30 am | Reply

So who owns this BOEN then?
5.
Villanovajunction | July 15, 2010 at 5:02 pm | Reply

@Superheavyweight:

Re: the BOEN.

I would suggest that based on the present level of research published in the Public Domain about this, I can only conclude that we will never find out without some serious government heavyweight behind legislation bringing to an end the secrecy of this entity.

Although my personal feelings on this matter are that the BoEN is a type of reverse holding company for the BoE. As absurd as this sounds considering that BoEN is a wholly owned subsidiary of BoE, the simple fact that we do not know who the shareholders are or their activities means that control of the BoE could be by those at the BoEN regardless.

If for example there are persons or other legal entities that are common shareholders of both BoE or BoEN shares/stock then it effectively means the BoE has been usurped.

Just some thoughts….
*
Sabine McNeill | July 15, 2010 at 6:04 pm | Reply

I haven’t researched further. But I suspect that the principle is always the same: “the boys” get together in different guises of ‘private financial corporations’ (PFCs).

I.e the anonymity of corporate law ‘protects’ the individuals.

In Germany, there is a ‘debt secret’ about the beneficiaries of the national debt payments. But in general, one paper published at least: the banks always win.

In theory, the Enforcement of the Bank of England Act 1694 should still hold true. In practice, it takes a lot of disillustionment among a lot of people before that could be achieved…

See http://www.edm1297.info
6.
PeterM | September 14, 2010 at 2:27 pm | Reply

According to this reply from the Bank of England: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/28738/response/74019/attach/2/D. pdf

“The shareholders are the Bank and John Footman, who holds his share as nominee on behalf of the Bank”

It also states above this:

“BOEN acts as a nominee company to hold securities on behalf of certain customers.”
7.
Paul Metcalfe | September 29, 2010 at 10:00 pm | Reply

I think we all know on here who at least two of the nominees are & guess that there is one nominee who own most of the shares. Just in case you don’t know, read the history of fractional reserve lending.
*
TSK | November 22, 2010 at 3:42 pm | Reply

It is the 2nd paragraph in PeterM’s post that gives us a clue. It is possible that the securities BOEN holds on behalf of its customers are the Bank of England securities. This is a very clever way of legally hiding the identity of the true owners of the BoE. HMRC has powers to obtain information about this but I doubt very much that they will ever use it.
8.
William Cobbet | January 25, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Reply

To all you conspiracy theorists. The BOE Noms hold s shares on behalf of certain Customers who for whatever reason don’t want their name to appear on a share register. It could be for Security reasons or to avoid publicity or all manner of things. If a private customer took a secured loan from them and lodged shares as security, these would be registerd in the name of BoE Noms for the duration. All Banks have Nominee companies and do the same thing. So normal Private Banking Business 1 Conspiracy theorists 0
*
archytype | January 16, 2012 at 4:31 pm | Reply

Yes, but you are forgetting that the BoE was Nationalised in 1946. So in light of this do you beleive that any Shareholder or Nominee should remain anonymous when they have a vested interest ina Public Entity?

So normal Private Banking Business 1 ‘Conspiracy theorists’ 1
9.
Rudiger | February 8, 2011 at 10:26 am | Reply

Possible – however I suggest that you have missed the essence of what is being discussed here. The point is that with any other private bank and any other private company the public would be able to find out who and what was involved.

Hear we are talking about the government owned central bank – why is it so difficult to establish who owns it, where the profits are going and by extension what is going on with the “bail out” of banks and where in all this does the tax payer stand. What need is there for the Bank of England to make a profit out of the tax payer. If you do not see the disparity, in the fact that it is so hard to establish a satisfactory answers surrounding the BOE then I suggest you are naive. Answers are not always liked however they should at least have logic to them and intrinsically make sense – even if we don’t agree with them.

Conspiracy theories arises when there is a lack of transparency and a desire for answers, often resulting in the conclusion that the only reason for the lack of transparency must be to prevent the average Jo from finding out.

I agree with the score line just not the teams:

Private Banking Business 1 Society 0 – Full Time
*
screwbiedooo | April 21, 2011 at 10:56 am | Reply

100% touche…
10.

Pingback: A huge deception at heart of the EU - Express
11.
Peter L'Estrange | March 2, 2011 at 6:44 am | Reply

It has been postulated that the B.O.E.N. Ltd hads been established to hide the Queen’s investments. Does anyone know more on this?
12.
Sabine Kurjo McNeill | March 4, 2011 at 3:27 pm | Reply

Sabine has kindly forwarded your enquiry regarding Bank of England Nominees Limited item I presented in the House of Lords back in October 2000.

Further background is available at:-
http://www.safe-online.org/BANK-of-ENGLAND-FSA-TREASURY.html
&
http://www.safe-online.org/Audio-Clips.html

At the time I was advised, but cannot substantiate that the R’childs were serious investors.

Also that the same formulae was used to acquire the Federal Reserve bank, which explains why every President who has tried to change the situation has been assassinated !

Interestingly the British Treasury in all of its publications refers to the Bank of England as the ‘AGENT’ of the Treasury more than implying that it is not a ‘Department of Government’ ?

Certainly not “Department of Government”. The independence keeps being emphasised anywhere you look and read.
13.
Beeb | June 8, 2011 at 11:56 pm | Reply

@ William Cobbet – Well sir, if “we” are “all” “conspiracy theorists”, we must be quite learned and researched theorists at that, and ready to set you straight.

Again, theories only exist because the truth is not being told. People criticise what they don’t understand. 9/10, it is a fear based reaction.
14.
Robin Breeds | June 23, 2011 at 7:19 pm | Reply

most american conspiracy theorists go on about bank of england but what they miss is the reason it was created to win from Catholic Protestant war in europe england lost at this battle and had to rebuild very same time as Battle of the Boyne this is so closly interlinked In 1694 a private institution, the Bank of England, was set up to supply money to the King. £1.2m was raised after losing the Battle of Beachy Head
in twelve days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy, If goverment
owned the Bank of England would they be in debt to them selfs Most
people Sold a version of history from school and media that never tells them who is in real control of their money so if king made £1.2 m in 12 days shows we are in debt as people to afew familys it is cycles of War and money
15.
Robin Breeds | June 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm | Reply

The
Bank of Amsterdam the precursor to, the first true central bank what
Wikipedia don’t tell you is why it was set up to win the long standing
War with Catholic spain by issuing notes four times in excess of the
banks asset base, The rise of Funny Money kept value through inflation
16.
Robin Breeds | June 23, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Reply

The Empire of “The City”: The Secret History of British Financial Power E., C. Knuth

The startling aspect of the dual nature of the British Government has the support of many eminent authorities on the subject, despite the fact that millions of American school textbooks and works of popular reference, and the books of thous…ands of pseudo history experts, have woven a fabric of deceit and created popular acceptance of an illusion and a fallacy by the cumulative live force of constant repetition.
The impeachment of this dual structure of government by Prof. Adams is fully supported by the authoritative “Laws of England” of the Lord of Halsbury, massive work of many huge volumes, and by the specific statements and writings of David Starr Jordan, late president of Stanford University, Gladstone, David Lloyd George, J. Ramsay MacDonald, Vincent C. Vickers, director of the Bank of England and of Vickers-Armstrong armaments works, Harold J. Laski and many others. “Better Times” by the Lloyd George in 1910 is particularly revealing. (See note)
The wide latitude of action of the agents and servants of the CROWN and their remarkable immunity from the interference of English Courts and of English law appears in the “Laws of England” of Lord Halsbury as apparent from a few selected passages as follows:
Vol. 6, page 388, art. 582— … Nor can the Crown, by proclamation or otherwise, make or unmake any law on its own authority apart from Parliament, except in colonies to which representative institutions have not been granted. (This excepts only England, Canada, Australia, Union of South Africa and New Zealand, who between them have only 13% — almost the total white population of 68,000,000 of the Empire — of the people of the British Empire, from the utterly absolute and autocratic rule of the Crown, THE Bank and THE City.) The House of Commons no longer controls the Executive; on the contrary the Executive controls the House of Commons.” (Page 495.) There is a distinction between the Government of Great Britain, which is largely confined to the internal government of the British Isles, and the British Government which controls the British Empire.
Referring to “Great Britain, Banking In” in the Encyclopedia Americana, it appears that the Bank of England is not subject to any control by any governmental agency of Great Britain, and that it is above all government, despite the fact that it is privately owned and its directors are nominated by its proprietors. In the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1891 it is termed “a great Engine of Government.” It is obvious that this privately owned foreign institution is now in grave financial difficulties with its loans and bonds and mortgages disavowed all over the world, and that it is being bolstered by huge funds being syphoned into it out of the treasury of the United States.
The 1943 edition of the Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. 13) makes this stunningly significant statement of the Bank of England, that full partner of the American Administration in the conduct of the financial affairs of all the world: “… Its weakness is the weakness inherent in a system which has developed with the smallest amount of legislative control … its capital is held privately, and its management is not in any way directly or indirectly controlled by the state. On the other hand, during its whole history, it has been more or less under the protection of the state; its development has been marked by successive loans of its capital to the state in return for the confirmation or extension of its privileges, and it still continues to exercise powers and owe responsibilities delegated by the state … The bank of England is controlled by a governor, deputy-governor and a court of 24 directors who are elected by the proprietors on the nomination of the directors …” (This is a description of a privately owned structure of government, sovereign in its own right, and over and above the laws of England. A status admittedly attained by bribing dishonest officials of the Government of the British Isles through the years to gradually extinguish the freedom and rights of the people.)
That the nature of this strange bank is actually that of a secret holding company of colossal size is indicated by a reference in “England’s Money Lords Tory M. P.”, by Simon Haxey, to (page 158) Lancastshire Steel Corporation, subsidiary of the Bank of England.
17.
Robin Breeds | June 23, 2011 at 8:00 pm | Reply

The World Order A Study in the Hegemony of Parasitism
The history and practices of the parasitic financial elite
– by Eustace Mullins, 1984
Early descriptions of the shareholders of the Bank of England identify them as “a Society of about 1300 persons”. They included the King and Queen of England, who received shares to the value of 10,000 pounds each; Marlborough, who investe…d 10,000 pounds — he also invested large sums from his “commissions” in the East India Co. in 1697, and later became Governor of the Hudson Bay Company, which paid a 75% dividend; Lord Shrewsbury, who invested 10,000 pounds; Godolphin, who invested 7000 pounds — he predicted that the Bank of England would not only finance trade, but would carry the burden of her wars, which was proven true in the next three hundred years. Virginia Cowles writes, in “The Great Marlborough”: “England emerged from the war as the dominant force, because the Bank of England’s credit system enabled her to bear the burden of war without undue strain.”

Other charter subscribers were William Bentinck, later the first Earl of Portland, he had been a page in William of Orange’s household, accompanied William to England in 1670 on his initial visit, handled the delicate negotiations of his marriage with Mary in 1677, and prepared the details of William’s invasion of England. He was given the title of Earl of Portland, and became the most trusted agent of William’s foreign policy. (In 1984, we find the 9th Duke, Cavendish-Bentinck, is chairman of Bayers UK Ltd, and Nuclear Chemie Mittchorpe GMBH, Germany; he also had a distinguished career in foreign service, joining the Foreign Office in 1922; he represented England at the successive Paris, Hague and Locarno conferences, was chairman of joint Intelligence for the Chiefs of Staff 1939-45, and Ambassador to Poland during the critical years of 1945-47, when that country was turned over to the Soviet Union, with England’s surreptitious support.)
18.
Robin Breeds | June 23, 2011 at 8:00 pm | Reply

The World Order by Eustace Mullins Chapter 1.2: Consolidating the Empire
Bank of England, World War I, RIIA and CFR, Opium Trade, First City

* The House of Orange and the Bank of England
* The Merchants of Death and World War I
* The Post-War World Order: RIIA and CFR
* The Opium Trade and Other Ventures
* First City and Rothschilds, Inc.

The House of Orange and the Bank of England

Like other enterprises with which the Rothschilds have been connected, the Bank of England has been a center of international intrigue and espionage since its founding in 1694. Although the Rothschilds did not become associated with the Bank until 1812, when Nathan Mayer Rothschild increased his fortune 6500 times by taking advantage of false rumors that somehow swept the London Stock Exchange, purporting that England had lost [to Napoleon] at Waterloo. The Bank of England originated in a revolution, when William III, Prince of Orange, drove King James II from the throne. Since the Bank of England Charter was granted by William in 1694, there has never been another revolt against the Crown. The royal family has been secure because the source of money, crucial to a revolution, has remained under control.

King Charles II had managed to retain a shaky position because of support from the Duke of Buckingham (George Villiers), and others whose first names formed the word “CABAL”, introducing a new term for intrigue. His successor, James II, tried to placate the powerful lords of England, but even his longtime supporters, scenting a change of power, began secret negotiations with the Prince of Orange. Wilhelm I, Prince of Orange, had been married several times, to Anne of Saxony, Charlotte de Bourbon, and Princess de Coligny. Today, every ruling house of Europe, as well as those out of power, is a direct descendant of King William, including Queen Juliana of the Netherlands; Margaretha, Queen of Denmark; Olaf V of Norway; Gustaf of Sweden; Constantine of Greece; Prince Rainier of Monaco; and Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, whose son married the daughter of C. Douglas Dillon.

Lord Shrewsbury (Charles Talbot) had been given places by both Charles II and James II; nevertheless, he played a leading role in the revolution. He took 12,000 pounds to Holland to support William in 1688, returned with him, and was made secretary of state. Sidney Godolphin, one of James II’s last adherents, joined with the Duke of Sunderland and the Duchess of Portsmouth in correspondence with William prior to his invasion of England, and was appointed head of the treasury by William. Henry Compton, Earl of Northampton, and Bishop of London, had been removed by James II; he signed the invitation to William to come to England; he was reinstated in his see in 1688; his son Francis became Lord Privy Seal.

John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough, had entered into negotiations with the Prince of Orange in Oct. 1687, and expressed his readiness to support him in Aug. 1688. To allay James II’s suspicions, Marlborough then signed a renewed oath of fidelity to him Nov. 10, 1688. On Nov. 24, 1688, he joined the forces of William of Orange.

Although William had married Mary, the daughter of James II, and had a legitimate claim to the throne of England, he could not take power as long as James II was on the throne. Therefore, he entered England with a force of 10,000 foot soldiers and 4000 horse, a small force with which to conquer a great kingdom. With him were Churchill, Bentinck, (the first Earl of Portland), Earl of Shrewsbury, and Lord Polwarth, whose descendant is a prominent member of the Anglo-American banking establishment. James II fled to the court of Louis XIV [in France] and was declared abdicated.

Marlborough, ancestor of Winston Churchill (whose former daughter-in-law, Pam Harriman, is the leading power in the Democratic Party) is described in “The Captain General”, by Ivor Brown:

“The Commissioner of Public Accounts found that the Duke of Marlborough had accepted gifts amounting to some 60,000 pounds from Antonio Machado and Sir Solomon de Medina, contractors for bread and wagons for the army abroad, and 2 1/2% of all money allotted for payment of troops, some 175,000 pounds (later revised to 350,000 pounds).”

Marlborough claimed it had all been spent for intelligence, but witnesses testified he could not have spent more than 5000 pounds for this purpose in all of his campaigns. Donald Chandler’s biography of Marlborough points out that “The bread contractors such as Solomon and Moses Medina, Mynheer Hecop, Solomon Abraham, Vanderkaa and Machado, were for the most part Spanish or Dutch Jews of varying reliability and venality.” Chandler says that they consistently gave short weight or added sand to their corn sacks. For a number of years, Medina, as chief army contractor, contributed an annual commission of 6000 pounds a year to Marlborough as his rakeoff on army contracts.

In addition to his English supporters, who were previously loyal to King James II, William brought with him from Amsterdam the group of avaricious financiers who were also the suppliers of his armies. One of his first official acts was the conferring of knighthood on Solomon de Medina. Machado and Pereira provisioned his armies in Spain and Holland; Medina supplied Marborough in Flanders; Joseph Cortissot supplied Lord Galway in Spain, and Abraham Prado supplied the British army during the Seven Year War.

The most important act of William’s reign was his granting of the charter of the Bank of England in 1694, although most of his biographers omit this salient fact. The concept of a central bank which would have the power of note issue, or issuing money, had already taken hold in Europe. The Bank of Amsterdam was started in 1609; its members aided William in his conquest of England. The Bank of Hamburg was chartered in 1619; the Bank of Sweden began the practice of issuing notes in 1661. These banks were chartered by financiers whose ancestors had been bankers in Venice and Genoa. As the tide of world power shifted northward in Europe, so did the financiers. The Warburgs of Hamburg had begun as the Abraham del Banco family, the largest bankers in Venice.

An interesting technique is revealed by the Charter of the Bank of England: it was slipped through as part of a tonnage bill, which was later to become a recognized parliamentary technique. The Charter provides that “rates and duties upon tonnage of ships are made security to such persons as shall voluntarily advance the sum of 1,500,000 pounds towards carrying on the war against France.”

Other European banks, such as the Banks of Genoa, Venice and Amsterdam, were primarily banks of deposit, but the Bank of England began the practice of coining its own credit into money, the beginning of the monetarist movement. The Bank of England soon created a “new class” of moneyed interests in the City, as opposed to the power of the old barons, whose fortunes derived from their landholdings. Of the five hundred original stockholders, four hundred and fifty lived in London. This was the dawn of the preeminence of the “City”, now the world’s leading financial center. For this reason, the Rothschilds identified their key American banks with the code word “City”.

Early descriptions of the shareholders of the Bank of England identify them as “a Society of about 1300 persons”. They included the King and Queen of England, who received shares to the value of 10,000 pounds each; Marlborough, who invested 10,000 pounds — he also invested large sums from his “commissions” in the East India Co. in 1697, and later became Governor of the Hudson Bay Company, which paid a 75% dividend; Lord Shrewsbury, who invested 10,000 pounds; Godolphin, who invested 7000 pounds — he predicted that the Bank of England would not only finance trade, but would carry the burden of her wars, which was proven true in the next three hundred years. Virginia Cowles writes, in “The Great Marlborough”: “England emerged from the war as the dominant force, because the Bank of England’s credit system enabled her to bear the burden of war without undue strain.”

Other charter subscribers were William Bentinck, later the first Earl of Portland, he had been a page in William of Orange’s household, accompanied William to England in 1670 on his initial visit, handled the delicate negotiations of his marriage with Mary in 1677, and prepared the details of William’s invasion of England. He was given the title of Earl of Portland, and became the most trusted agent of William’s foreign policy. (In 1984, we find the 9th Duke, Cavendish-Bentinck, is chairman of Bayers UK Ltd, and Nuclear Chemie Mittchorpe GMBH, Germany; he also had a distinguished career in foreign service, joining the Foreign Office in 1922; he represented England at the successive Paris, Hague and Locarno conferences, was chairman of joint Intelligence for the Chiefs of Staff 1939-45, and Ambassador to Poland during the critical years of 1945-47, when that country was turned over to the Soviet Union, with England’s surreptitious support.)

Other charter subscribers to the Bank of England were:

* the Duke of Devonshire (William Cavendish) who built Chatsworth; he also had signed the invitation to William to assume the throne of England; he was High Steward at Anne’s Coronation in 1702, and was said to lead a profligate private life — (the present duke sold seven drawings in July 1984 for $9.2 million [and] the 11th Duke married Deborah Freeman-Mitford daughter of Baron Redesdale; his present brother-in-law, Baron Redesdale, is vice president of Chase Manhattan Bank)
* the Duke of Leeds, Sir Thomas Osborne, who also signed the invitation to William — he was lord high treasurer and had arranged the marriage of Mary. He was later impeached for receiving a large bribe to procure the charter of the East India Co. in 1691; because of his favored position at court the proceedings were never concluded, and he left one of the largest fortunes in England
* the Earl of Pembroke, (Thomas Herbert), who became the first lord of the admiralty, and later lord privy seal
* the Earl of Carnarvon, who is also Earl of Powis and Earl of Bradford
* Lord Edward Russell, created Earl of Orford 1697; he had joined the service of William in 1683, was appointed treasurer of the Navy 1689, first lord of admiralty 1696-17, and lord justice 1697-1714 (Sir Robert Walpole, the famed British leader, was created Earl of Orford in the second creation)
* William Paterson, usually credited with being the founder of the bank of England — he was forced out within a year
* Sir Theodore Janssen, who invested 10,000 pounds
* Dr. Hugh Chamberlen
* John Asgill, an eccentric writer and pamphleteer
* Dr. Nicholas Barbon, son of Praisegod Barebones, who started the first insurance company in Great Britain
* John Holland, a reputed Englishman who also started the Bank of Scotland in 1695
* Michael Godfrey, who died at Namur, Belgium on his way to Antwerp to establish a branch of the Bank of England — he was the first deputy governor of the Bank of England, and nephew of Sir Edward Godfrey, who was murdered by Titus Oakes in 1678
* Sir John Houblon and twenty members of his family were also early stockholders; Sir John became lord of the admiralty, and Lord Mayor of London; his brother James was deputy governor of the Bank of England
* Salomon de Medina, later knighted by William III
* Sir William Scawen
* Sir Gilbert Heathcote, director of Bank of England 1699-1701, and from 1723-25; he was Sheriff and later Lord Mayor of London, founded the New East India Co. in 1693; his parsimony was ridiculed by Alexander Pope in his quatrains
* Sir Charles Montague, first Earl of Halifax, and Chancellor of the Exchequer — the present Earl is a director of Hambros Bank
* Marquess Normandy, John Sheffield, also held the title of Duke of Buckingham — he is buried in Westminster Abbey
* Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, comptroller of the royal household
* Charles Chaplin
* and the philosopher, John Locke.

In his “The Bank of England, A History”, Sir John Clapham notes that by 1721, a number of Spanish and Portuguese Jews had been buying stock in the Bank of England — Medina, two Da Costas, Fonseca, Henriquez, Mendez, Nunes, Roderiquez, Salvador Teixera de Mattes, Jacob and Theodore Jacobs, Moses and Jacob Abrabanel, Francis Pereira. Clapham notes that since 1751 there has been very little trading in Bank of England stock; it has been very closely held for more than two centuries.

The Bank of England has played a prominent role in American history — without it, the United States would not exist. The American colonists considered themselves loyal Englishmen to a man, but when they began to enjoy unequalled prosperity by printing and circulating their own Colonial scrip, the stockholders of the Bank of England went to George III and informed him that their monopoly of interest-bearing notes in the colonies was at stake. He banned the scrip, with the result that there was an immediate depression in the commercial life of the Americas. This was the cause of the Rebellion; as Benjamin Franklin pointed out, the little tax on tea, amounting to about a dollar a year per American family, could have been borne, but the colonists could not survive the banning of their own money.

The Bank of England and the Rothschilds continued to play a dominant role in the commercial life of the United States, causing panics and depressions for the Rothschilds whenever their officials were instructed to do so. When the Second Bank of the United States expired in 1836, and President Jackson refused to renew it, [thus] creating great prosperity in the United States when government funds were deposited in other banks, the Rothschilds punished the upstarts by causing the Panic of 1837. As Henry Clews writes in “Twenty-Eight Years on Wall Street”, p. 157: “The Panic of 1837 was aggravated by the Bank of England when it in one day threw out all the paper connected with the United States.”

By refusing to credit American notes and stocks, the Bank of England created financial panic among the holders of that paper. The panic enabled Rothschild’s agents, Peabody and Belmont, to reap a fortune in buying up depreciated stocks during the panic.

The Bank of England has played a prominent role in wars, revolutions, and espionage, as well as business panics. When Napoleon escaped from Elba in 1815, the London gold market jumped overnight from 4lb.6d to 5lb.7d. The leading buyer was Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who was under orders from the British Treasury to dispatch gold to the Duke of Wellington, grouping to stop Napoleon. After Waterloo, the price of gold dropped.

During the twentieth century, the most important name at the Bank of England was Lord Montagu Norman. His grandfather, George Warde Norman, had been governor of the Bank of England from 1821-1872, longer than any other man; his other grandfather, Lord Collet, was Governor of the Bank of England from 1887-89, and managing partner of Brown Shipley Co. in London for twenty-five years.

In 1894, Montague Norman was sent to New York to work in the offices of Brown Brothers; he was befriended by the W.A. Delano family, and lived with the Markoe family, partners of Brown Bros. In 1907, Norman was elected to the Court of the Bank of England. In 1912, he had a severe nervous breakdown, and was treated by [Carl] Jung in Switzerland. He became deputy governor of the Bank of England in 1916, and later served until 1944 as Governor. The Wall Street Journal wrote of him in 1927:

“Mr. M. Collet Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, is now head and shoulders above all other British bankers. No other British banker has ever been as independent and supreme in the world of British finance as Mr. Norman is today. He has just been elected Governor for the eighth year in succession. Before the war, no Governor was allowed to hold office for more than two years; but Mr. Norman has broken all precedents. He runs his Bank and his Treasury as well. He appears to have no associations except his employees. He gives no interviews. He leaves the British financial world wholly in the thick as to his plans and ideas.”

The idea that one individual ran the Bank of England to suit himself, with no influences, is too ridiculous to be considered. What about the Rothschilds? What about the other shareholders? Carroll Quigley, in “Tragedy and Hope” notes that: “M. Norman said, ‘I hold the hegemony of the currency.’ — He is called the currency dictator of Europe.”

Lionel Fraser of J. Henry Schroder Wagg notes in his autobiography, “All to the Good”, that he was in charge of Lord Norman’s personal investments. He also notes of the firm of Helbert Wagg, former jewelers from Halberstadt and now a London banking house (later J. Henry Schroder Wagg), “The firm was official brokers on Stock Exchange to the great and all powerful House of Rothschild.” Both Wagg and Schroder had been in business in London for 159 years when they merged in 1960. Another writer notes that Lord Norman frequently consulted with J.P. Morgan before making his Bank of England decisions.

Gordon Richardson, chairman of J. Henry Schroder from 1962-72, then became Governor of the Bank of England from 1972-83, when he was succeeded by Robert Leigh-Pemberton, chairman of the National Westminister Bank, also director of Equitable — he married into the Cecil-Burghley family.

The present directors of the Bank of England are:

* G.W. McMahon, deputy governor since 1964, economic analyst Treasury 1953-57, adviser British Embassy Washington 1957-60
* Sir Adrian Cadbury, chairman Cadbury Schweppes, dir. IBM UK
* Leopold de Rothschild, N.M. Rothschild and Sons, etc.
* George V. Blunden, exec. dir. Bank of England since 1947, served with IMF 1955-58
* A.D. Lochnis, dir. J. Henry Schroder Wagg
* G.A. Drain, member Trilateral Commission, treasurer European Movement, Franco-British Council, British North American Committee, lawyer for many unions and health associations
* Sir Jasper Hollom, has been on the board since 1936
* D.G. Scholey, chairman S.G. Warburg Co., Orion Insurance, Union Discount of London, Mercury Securities, which now owns S.G. Warburg Co. Irwin Holdings
* J.M. Clay, dep. chairman Hambros Bank, chairman Johnson and Firth Brown Ltd
* Hambros Life Assurance
* Sir David Steel, chairman British Petroleum, dir. Kuwait Oil Co., The Wellcome Trust, trustee The Economist (whose chairman is Evelyn de Rothschild)
* Lord Nelson of Stafford, chairman GE Ltd. chairman Royal Worcester Co., Natl. Bank of Australasia, International Nickel, British Aircraft, English Electric, Marconi Ltd. chairman World Power Conference, Worshipful Co. of Goldsmiths, Middle Eastern Assn
* Lord Weir, chairman The Weir Group, chairman Great Northern Investment Trust
* E.A.J. George, exec. dir Bank of England, dir. Gilt-Edged Division Bank of England, IMF 1972-72, Bank for International Settlements 1966-69
* Sir Hector Laing, chairman United Biscuit, Allied Lyons, Royal Insurance
* Sir Alastair Pilkington, chairman Pilkington Bros. Glass, dir. British Petroleum, British Railways Board.

The Bank of England also dominates the Bank of Scotland, whose chairman is Robert Bruce, Lord Balfour; his title Balfour of Burleigh was created in 1607; he is manager of English Electric and Viking Oil; he married the daughter of magnate E.S. Manasseh. Directors of Bank of Scotland include Lord Clydesmuir, also dir. Barclays Bank, and Rt. Hon. Lord Polwarth, director of Halliburton, which interlocks with the Rothschild First City Bank of Houston and Citibank, Imperial Chemical Industries, Canadian Pacific, and Brown and Root Wimpey Highland Fabricators, which interlocks with George Wimpey PLC, largest construction firm in the British Empire, whose 44 companies have revenues of 1.2 billion pounds per year. Lord Polwarth’s daughter married Baron Moran, High Commissioner of Canada, who previously served as Ambassador to Hungary and to Chad; Baron Moran’s daughter married Baron Mountevans, manager of Consolidated Goldfields.

Directors of George Wimpey PLC included S.S. Jardine; Viscount Hood, who is chairman Petrofina UK, and director J. Henry Schroder Wagg, and Union Miniere; and Sir Joseph Latham, chairman Ariel International, director Deutsches Kreditbank.

Wimpey Co. interlocks with Schroder Ltd, parent of J. Henry Schroder Wagg. The Earl of Airlie (David Ogilvy) is chairman of Schroder; he married Virginia Ryan, grand-daughter of Otto Kahn and Thomas Fortune Ryan; The Earl is also director of Royal Bank of Scotland; directors of Schroder include Lord Franks, director of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rhodes Trust, and Kennedy Center; he is a former Ambassador to the United States; G.W. Mallinkrodt; Sir E.G. Woodruffe of Unlever; and Daniel Janssen of the Bank of England.
The Merchants of Death and World War I

One of the great Rothschild hoaxes was the “disarmament movement” of the early 1930s. The idea was not to disarm, but to persuade the nations to junk what arms they had so they could later be sold new ones. “The merchants of death”, as they were popularly known in those days, were never more than errand boys for their true masters, “the bankers of death”, or, as they were also known, “the Brotherhood of Death”.

In 1897, Vickers, in which Rothschilds had the largest holding, bought Naval Construction and Armament Co., and Maxim Nordenfeldt Guns & Ammunition Co. The new Vickers-Maxim Co. was able to test its products in the Spanish-American War, which was set off by J. & W. Seligman Co. to obtain the white gold (sugar) of Cuba; the Boer War of 1899-1901, to seize the gold and diamond fields of the Witwatersrand, and the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, designed to weaken the Czar and make the Communist Revolution inevitable. These three wars provided the excuse for tooling up for the mass production of World Wars I & II. In 1897, an international power trust was formed, consisting of DuPont, Nobel, Koln, and Kottweiler, which divided the world into four distinct sales territories.

The chairman of Vickers, Sir Herbert Lawrence, was director of Sun Assurance Office Ltd; Sun Life Assurance, and chairman the London committee of the Ottoman Bank; directors included Sir Otto Niemeyer, director of the Bank of England, and the Anglo International Bank; S. Loewe, the German arms magnate, Loewe & Co.; Sir Vincent Caillard, President of the Ottoman Debt Council, financial expert on the Near East; and Sir Basil Zaharoff, the “mystery man of Europe”.

The highwater mark of “the merchants of death” hoax was reached in the Nye Committee Hearings of 1934, copies of which are invariably missing in government libraries. Alger Hiss was investigator and counsel for the Committee. Typical was Chairman Nye’s questioning of Mr. Carse of the Electric Boat Co. (a subsidiary of Vickers):

Chairman NYE: In 1917, Mr. Carse, you drafted a letter to help Zaharoff avoid paying income tax on your commissions to him of $766,852. There is Exhibit 24, a letter dated Sept. 21, 1917, addressed to Mr. H.C. Sheridan, Washington, D.C. Who is Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Carse ?

CARSE: He owns the Hotel Washington. At that time he was the agent of Vickers Ltd. in this country, and he was also a representative of Zaharoff. Mr Sheridan handled Mr. Zaharoff’s income tax with White and Case.

CHMN: Did you know that this was false, that this omission of a million dollars referred to was actually Sir Basil Zaharoff’s income ?

CARSE: No, I did not know anything about Zaharoff’s income.

CHMN: But you have told us that a letter by Zaharoff six weeks earlier that 82,000 francs he received was his own personal income.

CARSE: I do not know what Zaharoff did in his business. He did not tell me.

CHMN: Did Zaharoff succeed in escaping the payment of income tax to the United States ?

CARSE: I believe there was some settlement made. Sheridan handled it….. Zaharoff was never a stockholder insofar as I ever knew. The men who handle very large stock do not put the stock in their own names.

CHMN: Zaharoff wrote to you 19 May, 1925: ‘I desire no thanks for what I have done, because I am bound to attend to the interest of my firm of Vickers and the Electric Boat Co. in both of which I am a stockholder.’

CARSE: I know he told me that, but I was never able to trace anything.”

Sen. Clark then pursued questioning on how the armaments firms and oil companies promoted wars:

CLARK: So this whole occasion of arming Peru, and of the revolution in Bolivia on the basis of arming against Chile was based on erroneous rumor ?

MR. SPEZAR: That is my impression.

CLARK: You wanted to interest the large oil companies in financing an armament program for South America

CARSE: I was willing to present any proposition the government might approve with regard to any oil companies which might be interested.

The Nye Committee frequently came back to Zaharoff’s activities, referring to him as “a kind of superspy in high social and influential circles”. For many years he exercised great influence on Prime Minister Lloyd George of England. Zaharoff, who began his career as a brothel tout and underworld tough, arranged for Lloyd George to have an affair with Zaharoff’s wife.

Arthur Maundy Gregory, an associate of Lloyd George, was also a Zaharoff agent. Maundy Gregory for many years regularly peddled peerages in London clubs; knighthoods, not hereditary, were 10,000-12,000 lbs.; baronetcies went for as high as 40,000 lb., of which he paid Lloyd George a standard 5000 lb. each. Maundy Gregory was also closely associated with Sir Basil Thompson in British counter-espionage.

Zaharoff, who was born in 1851 in Constantinople, married one Emily Ann Burrows of Knightsbridge. Maundy Gregory then introduced Emily Ann to the [sexually] insatiable Lloyd George. From that time on, he was at Zaharoff’s mercy. Although Zaharoff was closely associated with Lloyd George throughout World War I until 1922, when their association effectively ended Lloyd George’s political career, the name Zaharoff appears nowhere in Lloyd George’s extensive Memoirs. Lloyd George’s political career came to an end after Zaharoff persuaded him to help the Greeks against Turkey in 1920, a disastrous adventure which brought about Lloyd George’s downfall from political power. George Donald McCormick, in “The Mask of Merlin”, the definitive work on Lloyd George, states:

“Zaharoff kept him (Lloyd George) closely informed on the Balkans. During the war, Zaharoff was sent on various secret missions by Lloyd George. The Big Three, Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau, met in Zaharoff’s home in Paris. On one occasion, Zaharoff went to Germany (in 1917) on Lloyd George’s personal instructions, disguised in the uniform of a Bulgarian Army doctor. Clemenceau later said, ‘The information which Zaharoff secured in Germany for Lloyd George was the most important piece of intelligence of the whole war.’”

Zaharoff was awarded the Order of British Empire in 1918 for this mission. McCormick also notes, “Zaharoff had interests in Briey furnaces of the Comite des Forges. Throughout the war no action was taken against Briey or nearby Thionville, a German area vital to the German army. Orders to bombard Briey were cancelled on orders of Zaharoff.” M. Barthe protested this event in a speech to the French Parliament January 24, 1919.

McCormick found that Zaharoff had made some interesting confessions to close associates. He boasted to Rosita Forbes, “I made wars so that I could sell arms to both sides.” He offered astute political advice to Sir Robert Lord Boothby, “Begin on the left in politics, and then, if necessary, work over to the right. Remember it is sometimes necessary to kick off the ladder those who have helped you to climb it.”

In addition to his Vickers and Electric Boat stock, Zaharoff had large holdings in other armaments manufacturers, Krupp and Skoda. The Skoda Works of Czechoslavakia were controlled by the powerful Schneider family of Schneider-Creusot, headed by Eugene Schneider, whose grand-daughter married the present Duke of Bedford. The Nye Committee found that Vickers interlocked with Brown Boveri of Switzerland, Fokker, Banque Ottomane, Mitsui, Schneider, and ten other armaments firms around the world. Vickers set up a torpedo manufacturing firm, Societe Francasies des Torpilles Whitehead, with the former Whitehead Co., whose owner, James B. Whitehead, then became English Ambassador to France. Frau Margareta von Bismarck was a director of Societe Francasies, as was Count Edgar Hoyos of Fiume.

At its peak in the 1930s, the Vickers network included Harvey Steel, Chas. Cammell & co. shipbuilding, John Brown & Co., Krupp and Dillinger of Germany, Terni Co. of Italy, Bethehem Steel and Electric Boat in the U.S., Schneider, Chatillon Steel, Nobel Dynamite Trust, and Chilworth Gunpowder Co. The trustee for the debentures of the armaments firms was Royal Exchange Assurance Co. of London, of which E. Roland Harriman of Brown Bros Harriman was a director.

As First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill obligingly changed the fuel of the entire English fleet from coal to oil, as a favor to the Samuel family which owned Royal Dutch Shell.

The most revealing works on the armaments dealers, the Nye Committee Hearings, and “Merchants of Death” are now fifty years old. On p. 167 of “Merchants” we find that:

“The Societe Miniere de Penarroya controls the most important lead mines of the world, accounting for one-eighth of the world’s production. Since 1833 the French bankers, the Rothschilds, have controlled these mines, but in 1909 the Rothschild Bank entered into an alliance with the Metallgeschaft of Frankfurt, the company in which both the Kaiser and Krupp were heavily interested. This company remained under German and French control for about two years of the war. At the outbreak of hostilities, 150,000 tons of lead were shipped from these mines to Germany, via Switzerland. When shipments to France were resumed, the price was raised to such an extent that it more than doubled the price which the English paid for their lead. Free trade between Germany and France in important chemicals, for powder, etc. continued; the Swiss supplied both sides with electric power. All along their frontier great powerhouses sprang into being, facing Germany from Italy, producing iron, bauxite, chemicals and power. Zeiss products were exported to Britain throughout the war.”

Dr. Ellis Powell told an audience at Queens Hall, London, March 4, 1917:

“At the beginning of the war many thousands of German reservists were allowed to return to Germany although our Fleet could have stopped them. German individuals, firms and companies went on trading merrily in British names, collecting their debts, and indirectly, no doubt, financing German militarism. At the very moment when Germans were destroying our property by Zeppelin bombs we were actually paying them money instead of taking their holdings as part compensation for damage done. In January 1915 came the vicious decision by Lord Reading (Rufus Isaacs) and the Appeal Court, according to which the Kaiser and Little William Co. was a good British company, capable of suing the King’s own subjects in the King’s own courts …. The uninterrupted activity in this country of the Frankfurt Metal Octopus is not an accident … Let me analyze one lurid case, which has stirred public indignation and anger to its depths. I mean the impudent survival of the German banks. We have now been at war nearly three years. Yet their doors are still open. They sent large quantities of bullion to Germany after the war started.”

There was a remarkable amount of goodwill and free trade continuing during World War I among the warring nations. Of course the Americans did not wish to be left out of the great outpouring of ‘goodwill’ in which forty million people were killed. It was not enough that the Americans were financing the war through their Federal Reserve System and the personal income tax, which, as Cordell Hull so aptly put it in his Memoirs, “had been passed in the nick of time” before the outbreak of the war; nor was it enough that the Americans were feeding the “Belgians”, actually the Germans, through the Belgian Relief Commission, so that the war could be prolonged until the United States became a belligerent. Concerned Americans dedicated themselves to the proposition that American boys should be killed in the trenches with the British, the French, the Germans and other nationalites.

The warmongers set up three principal organizations to force the United States into World War I — the Council on National Defense, the Navy League, and the League to Enforce Peace. The Council on National Defense was authorized by act of Congress August, 1916, although there was no nation on earth known to be contemplating any attack on the United States.

Pancho Villa had led a small group of bandits against Columbus, New Mexico, but this raid was hardly an occasion for national mobilization. It was a retaliatory strike because of the actions of New York bankers in Mexico — the Warburgs held the bonds of the National Railways of Mexico; George F. Peabody and Eugene Meyer and Cleveland H. Dodge owned the copper mines of Mexico; Seligman & Co. owned Electric Power and Light of Mexico. The Mexican Revolution was an uprising against President Porfirio Diaz, who had collaborated profitably with the Warburgs and Rockefellers for years. Percy N. Furber, president of the Oil Fields of Mexico Ltd. told C.W. Barron:
19.
Robin Breeds | June 23, 2011 at 8:02 pm | Reply

Wars are carefully staged productions and they did what they supposed to do they had a good audience so they successful, to say they had one philosophy of government against another is total nonsense, These are World Order production’s, each side is set up to perform in a certain manner outcome was always predetermined a staged production kinda like a Soap opera. You ask that question to one thousand Britons, and I kid you not, all of them will say that it is owned by the Government. They would be wrong.
The people wielding this power see the world’s financial crisis as their moment of opportunity to seize greater power. The scary part of that is that hardly a living soul even knows they exist. Now that’s real power.
20.
Sabine Kurjo McNeill | June 23, 2011 at 9:30 pm | Reply

What fascinating comments, Robin!

THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED!!!

Am currently exploring the ‘real’ power of Twitter to alert people to an attack on Berlin a la 9/11 – foreseen for this Sunday. http://twishort.com/ac4vj
21.
Angela Kenny | August 6, 2011 at 12:10 pm | Reply

wow this is the best i’ve read in a long time.
22.
james armstrong | August 27, 2011 at 7:55 pm | Reply

Backtracking to 1694…… It seems important that the original charter of the B of E was for a twelve year duration only. It was many times renewed, but not without controversy. Here is a precedent for fixing a termination date for every incorporated company, charging them annually for the inestimable privilege of operating in what Adam Smith called the ‘Golden Highway’ of trade in beautiful peaceful credit-respecting England. A Renewable Termination Date would give a sanction to be used for unethical behaviour by companies, banks etc. Money from the licence would easily pay off the national debt. c.f. Goldman S,’s profits of $12bn and salries of $16bn. James .
23.
Sabine Kurjo McNeill | August 28, 2011 at 7:41 pm | Reply

WOW, that’s really useful / constructive / fascinating / interesting, James!
Any suggestion for how to take this forward???


http://forumnews.wordpress.com/about/bank-of-england-nominees/

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15068
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

by email

On this link you’ll find another take on the BoE Nominees, from a director of Struggle Against Financial Exploitation, one of the many groups of ‘bank victims’.
http://forumnews.wordpress.com/about/bank-of-england-nominees/
http://www.safe-online.org/

On the good news front, there is a group of mortgage owners who are trying to prove in court that the banks to not suffer any damages when mortgage payments slip. For they are creating their money from hot air anyway!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/20/jamesrobertsonmone yfromthi

I put together what I consider dishonest about our money system in 12 points. The ownership / governance of the BoE is crucially responsible for Public Debts as Vested Interest Payments.
http://moneyasdebt.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/whats-so-dishonest-about-o ur-money-system/
http://publicdebts.org.uk/

Furthermore, the Bank of England Act 1694 foresaw a fine for trading: treble the value of the transaction. In my logic, this means that the BoE should pay the Treasury 3 times all National Debt bonds!
http://edm1297.info/bank-of-england-act-1694/

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2541
Location: One breath from Glory

PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who owns Bank of England

Ive just asked them-- will post any reply

enquiries@bankofengland.co.uk

Any guidance or views?

Mortgage Interest rates--

Got to change my mortgage in August from a bank Base rate tracker to either a new mortgage deal or revert to Buildng society standard variable rate --which at present gonna cost me more. With all the current upheaval in markets is it likely that will keep the Bank Base rate at 0.5%

_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15068
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MP's governor appointment bid fails
(UKPA) – 6th July 2012
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hW7nNjTnXNL2W0L pt1SbC1rOFO2Q
An attempt to give the Treasury Select Committee the power to veto the appointment of the next Bank of England governor has failed in the Commons.
Ministers warned that giving the power to the cross-party committee could create uncertainty and disruption in the financial markets.
Labour MP John McDonnell had claimed the need for reform of the financial services industry in the wake of the Libor-rigging scandal meant the choice of Sir Mervyn King's replacement should not be left solely to the Government.
But his Bank of England (Appointment of Governor) Bill fell at its first Commons hurdle as lengthy speeches by Conservative backbenchers ensured time ran out for its second reading debate.
Hayes and Harlington MP Mr McDonnell said: "Last week's revelations about the role of Barclays Bank and, more than likely, others in the Libor scandal have given a new context to this Bill. There is a new significance in the appointment of the next governor of the Bank of England.
"The governor of the Bank of England, especially the next governor as Sir Mervyn King retires over the next year, will play an essential and pivotal role in what is now becoming increasingly clear will, of necessity, be a radical reform and reconstruction of our financial system."
He added: "Leaving this appointment solely in the gift of the executive, in what is unfortunately a tense political context, runs the risk of allegations of a political appointment, a lack of independence and even cronyism."
The Treasury Select Committee, chaired by Tory Andrew Tyrie, last year recommended that it should be given the power to veto any suggested candidate for the Threadneedle Street role.
But Treasury Financial Secretary Mark Hoban ruled out the change, telling the Commons: "The governor is already accountable to the court (of the Bank of England) and to Parliament. The Treasury Committee holds pre-commencement hearings for the governor and deputy governors, and this is the right balance and of course the governor is regularly called before the select committee.
"But the market sensitive nature of the governor's role makes it unsuitable for it to be subject to the approval of the Treasury Select Committee. Such a step could risk uncertainty, delay and disruption to financial markets."

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6308

PostPosted: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

'You're fooling yourself, we're living in a dictatorship' Very Happy
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15068
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

By email from Alex James

I think when the Bank of England was “nationalized” in 1948, Rothschilds &
friends were given fiduciary bonds returning 12% and still have much control
over it.



The internet address of the original of this document is:
http://aor.cat4.net/nwo/roth.php or look under Warburgs, in Google search
engine, third page, (bottom of page and begins as ...Morton. Rothchilds and
Warburgs.

"...the wealth of the Rothschilds consists of the bankruptcy of nations."
-Frederick Morton

Rothschilds and Warburgs

The Rothschild family owns the private shares (18 %) of the
<http://www.bilderberg.org/bis.htm> Bank for International Settlements. The
shares are denominated in Serially numbered "Gold Francs", not Swiss or French
Francs. Paper is destructible and forgeable. The Gold Franc acts like an
International Passport. I met a young "hippie" Rothschild family member who
showed me a coin, and explained how it was used, even to buy Airline Tickets
(the bill would be sent to the B.I.S.)

The B.I.S was set up in 1938, as a consequence of the Young Act. Its first
Director was the aforementioned Paul Warburg
<http://omega77.tripod.com/fedres.php#warburg> , who besides being the "father"
of the Fed, was its first Chairman and served as the Chairman during WWI, when
his brother Max was the Head of the German Banking System and Director of
Military Intelligence. The Lenin Train Ride was Max's idea.

Brother Julius was head of the Swedish Bank, and it was through Sweden that Paul
Warburg, Jacob Schiff, Guggenheim etc funded the Bolsheviks, by loaning them
money, which was repaid with interest from the wealth confiscated from the Tsar
and Russia.

Paul was forced to resign from the Federal Reserve when the scandal broke that
he had engineered the financing of the Bolsheviks. Strange though, he served as
Chairman during WWI, with his brother Max running German Intelligence, while
here at home German Americans were being hung from lamposts and changing their
names from Weisskessel to WhiteKettle and from Schmidt to Smith.

The Bank for International Settlements is the head of the International
Financial Octupus, and it is the "boss" of all Central Banks, including the Fed
and the Bank of England and France.

The Rothschild family is huge, powerful and its members own practically all
corporations in America, and Europe. Food distribution, clothing, furniture,
Insurance and are influential owners, via the Family Trust, in Insurance
Companies and Banks.

Dutch Royal Shell and British Petroleum (think Netherlands, and Tony Blair,
think Iran) are Rothschild Family Enterprises.

Thriftway, United Pacific Reliance Insurance, Bank of America, Warburg Parabus,
Goldman Sachs, etc, etc. The Rothschild family exerts tremendous financial and
hence political power in France. France has a nationalized oil company, but
"nationalization", as I discovered during research is in reality Privatization.

When England and France nationalized their Banks in 1947 and 1946 respectively,
what they really did was privatize them, exchange stocks for Fiduciary Bonds,
(less risk) which pay an annual interest of 12% forever and still leave the
family in control of the Banks. It is all just a ruse.

The Morgan family was only a brief light. J P Morgan himself had clout, but he
did not have many heirs, especially as compared to the Rothschilds, the power
and influence of the Morgan founded empire is not in the hands of the Morgan
Family, as most of them never even inherited any money, much less control in the
business. The few Morgans that are around, are not doing very well, just
ordinary citizens.

Rockefellers are not a big family either, the power lies in the Rockefeller
Foundation, which the small family controls, and which provides for their needs.


Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller, when he ran for President, had to make public his
income tax return. His gross income was a little over $6,000.00 and that from a
speaking engagement. He is not poor, because all of his needs were fulfilled by
the Rockefeller Foundation, which owns executive jets, limo's, finca's in
Argentina, Bahaman Estates, mansions in Florida and the Riveria, all over the
world. The foundation pays a full time staff, to keep the larder's and
refrigerators full of their favorite foods and wines, closets full of the latest
clothes, neatly hung, and a staff to keep the house and grounds ready, just in
case one of them show up.

It isn't money, but power. With power you have everything, money to get the
power, power to keep the money. But the individual has no need for money.

The richest man in the world at the time was Mao Tse Tung, his monthly "salary"
was $300, pocket change, however he controlled China and had unlimited access to
its wealth and human effort.

It is only the myopic and enslaved lower and middle class, that believe money is
all. One has no need for money or "ownership" of private property (Rockefellers
as individuals own nothing) when one has control of vast resources which are
available on demand.

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15068
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

March 9, 2017 by Financial Eyes
Nepotism trumps Feminism at the Bank of England
http://londonconversation.com/news/charlotte-hogg/

If you want to know what makes Britain tick, take a look at the Bank of England.

Interlocking directorships and the Old Boy Network still dominate public life as its recent appointment of Charlotte Hogg reveals.

But few media commentators ever refer to this as a problem. In a recent book – Trust, Power and Public Relations in Financial Markets, Dr Clea Bourne – refers to ‘organised silence’.
Charlotte ‘I wrote the rulebook’ Hogg

Charlotte Hogg, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England (BoE), was appointed the Bank’s Chief Operating Officer in 2013 but never, despite being asked about potential conflicts of interest, disclosed that her brother is a Barclays director.

When she appeared in front of the Treasury Select Committee (TSC) to discuss her recent promotion Hogg said she was well aware of the Bank’s code of conduct — quite apt given she wrote it.

You’d think the daughter of two members of the House of Lords might have more respect for protocol.

It turns out that Hogg’s brother, Quintin, is the least interesting member of the family.
BoE deputy governor faces call to resign
BoE deputy governor faces call to resign

New deputy governor Charlotte Hogg failed to reveal her brother's top job at Barclays - prompting one MP to call for her to quit.
Sky News Sky News

Charlotte Hogg’s mum Sarah Hogg aka Viscountess Hailsham was head of John Major’s Policy Unit in the 1990s — where the controversial Private Finance Initiative (PFI) that has virtually bankrupted the NHS was pioneered.

Sarah Hogg then wrote a book about the Major Years with David Cameron’s recent EU Finance Commissioner & PR Man Jonathan Hill.
Too Close to Call: Power and Politics - John Major in No. 10: Amazon.co.uk: Sarah Hogg, Jonathan Hill: 9780316877169: Books
Too Close to Call: Power and Politics - John Major in No. 10: Amazon.co.uk: Sarah Hogg, Jonathan Hill: 9780316877169: Books

Buy Too Close to Call: Power and Politics - John Major in No. 10 by Sarah Hogg, Jonathan Hill (ISBN: 9780316877169) from Amazon's Book Store. Free UK delivery on eligible orders.
www.amazon.co.uk www.amazon.co.uk
Drain the Moat

Charlotte Hogg’s father Douglas Hogg aka Lord Hailsham was himself a Cabinet Minister as well as MP to Mrs Thatcher’s home town of Grantham.

Douglas Hogg was also one of the most prominent offenders in the 2009 parliamentary expenses scandal.

He charged the British taxpayer upwards of £2000 to clean the moat of his country estate.
Former MP who claimed £2,200 for cleaning moat sworn in to House of Lords
Former MP who claimed £2,200 for cleaning moat sworn in to House of Lords

Douglas Hogg, former Conservative MP has been sworn in to the House of Lords on Monday - known for causing public outrage in expensing the cleaning of his moat
Telegraph.co.uk Telegraph.co.uk
Grantham Uncut

Incidentally Grantham’s Hospital’s 24 hour A&E department service was severely reduced in August due to staffing problems at neighbouring hospitals.
Grantham hospital campaigners join 250,000 marchers in London
Grantham hospital campaigners join 250,000 marchers in London

Grantham hospital supporters were in London at the weekend to join 250,000 marchers protesting against NHS cuts.
www.granthamjournal.co.uk www.granthamjournal.co.uk
Ultra Nepotist Lectures Diversity

Charlotte’s mother Sarah Hogg joined the Financial Conduct Authority board in April 2016
Baroness Sarah Hogg
Baroness Sarah Hogg
FCA FCA

Here she is speaking at a Business Department Select Committee on Executive Pay and Diversity in the Boardroom.

She opens by stating that she is a member of the Takeover Panel, Lead Independent Director of HM Treasury and a non executive director of John Lewis Partnership (since 2011).

Is it right for public institutions in a so called democracy to be run by such a tiny clique?

I wonder what HSBCFraud whistleblower Nicholas Wilson has to say about these FCA, Bank of England, Treasury, and John Lewis connections?

After all John Lewis Partnership Credit Cards are run by HSBC and they’ve made a lot of money defrauding their customers.

According to her CV, Charlotte Hogg was also on the board of BBC Worldwide from 2010 to 2013.
Whistleblower wins 13-year campaign against HSBC
Whistleblower wins 13-year campaign against HSBC

Thousands of customers will be compensated for excessive credit card charges thanks to dogged efforts of 59-year-old Nicholas Wilson
the Guardian the Guardian

From 2002 to 2010 Sarah Hogg was Chairman of 3i, the Bank of England founded private equity firm that bought Barclays’ highly lucrative PFI Infrastructure business in 2013.
Barclays PFI contracts based on rigged interest rates bleeding NHS & schools dry, say activists
Barclays PFI contracts based on rigged interest rates bleeding NHS & schools dry, say activists

Political activists gatecrashed Barclays AGM in Central London on Thursday to highlight the role of private finance initiatives (PFI) in killing off Britains public services, racking up unsustainable debt, dodging tax and funneling profits offshore.
RT International RT International

But Barclays and 3i were already collaborating on University PFI projects under Sarah Hogg’s 3i Chairmanship.

Hogg was able to draw on the knowledge and contacts she had built up when pioneering PFI at John Major’s Policy Unit.

Their joint venture eventually became University Partnerships Programme (UPP) — now known to be rip off merchants who market and lobby for increased student debt under the guise of enhanced choice and high quality student experience :

It turns out that Hogg was first recruited for the Chief Operating Officer role at the Bank of England by Virginia Bottomley’s headhunting firm.

Former Health Minister Bottomley is current Health Minster Jeremy Hunt’s Aunt.

So there you are. A very brief tour of the Hogg’s interests.

Below are a few more articles about Charlotte Hogg.
Guardian Piece from 2013 on Charlotte Hogg’s Connections
Charlotte Hogg: Threadneedle Street's new face can bank on her connections
Charlotte Hogg: Threadneedle Street's new face can bank on her connections

Part of one of Britain's most blue-blooded political dynasties, she is the most powerful woman in the Bank of England's history
the Guardian the Guardian


The Bank of England's newest deputy governor is already being asked to quit
The Bank of England's newest deputy governor is already being asked to quit

Bank of England Deputy Governor Charlotte Hogg drew criticism from MPs after failing to disclose her that her brother worked at Barclays.
Business Insider Business Insider

More on the débâcle:
New deputy of the Bank of England breaks code of conduct
New deputy of the Bank of England breaks code of conduct

Charlotte Hogg, the new deputy governor of the Bank of England, broke the Banks official internal code of conduct when she failed to declare to the Threadneedle Street authorities that her brother worked for Barclays. The chair of the Banks governing court, Anthony Habgood, said on Tuesday that it was a very serious breach, extremely regrettable and added that it doesnt look good.
The Independent The Independent


Bank of England deputy's slip-up was astonishing  but its reaction was predictable | Nils Pratley
Bank of England deputy's slip-up was astonishing  but its reaction was predictable | Nils Pratley

Charlotte Hogg will survive her failure to declare a conflict of interest, but the Bank has revealed it remains a cosy club
the Guardian the Guardian
BOEs Hogg Failed to Disclose Barclays Family Links in 2013
BOEs Hogg Failed to Disclose Barclays Family Links in 2013

Bank of England Deputy Governor Charlotte Hogg has found her appointment at the center of a controversy after she failed to disclose a family link to Barclays Plc.
Bloomberg.com Bloomberg.com


Charlotte Hogg has apologised for not disclosing her brother's Barclays job
Charlotte Hogg has apologised for not disclosing her brother's Barclays job

The Bank of England's (BoE) new deputy governor, Charlotte Hogg, has apologised for failing to disclose that her brother worked for Barclays, a potential
www.cityam.com www.cityam.com


Bank deputy Charlotte Hogg admits breaching guidelines - BBC News
Bank deputy Charlotte Hogg admits breaching guidelines - BBC News

New Bank of England deputy governor admits she breached guidelines that she helped to write.
BBC News BBC News




Bank of England deputy governor 'must resign' over code of conduct breach - as it happened
Bank of England deputy governor 'must resign' over code of conduct breach - as it happened

Charlotte Hogg apologises for failing to declare that her brother Quintin works for Barclays, and MPs are not happy
the Guardian the Guardian

_________________
www.rethink911.org
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.l911t.com
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Pre-Planned Economic 9/11 - Global Financial Conspiracy All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group