EU President Announces New Taxes at Bilderberg Meeting

[long-gone-kiwi]

Well it's funny you should mention NAMA because, included in the NAMA legislation is a gaging clause which prevents politicians from criticising NAMA (speaking openly), not just in the Dail but in any public forum. So where is this "quest for truth" which underpins politics now?

Can you prove that Parliamentary Privilege exists in order to facilite honesty and truth or is this just your opinion.

Can you prove it that it is not used to protect liers?

To easy Pill your really not trying..told you not to get caught up in the example as well..it was only a made up example

The Declaration of Rights 13 February 1689 [Bill of Rights 1688]

The full text of the Declaration can be found at the UK Government website Fact Sheet ‘The Glorious Revolution’

As a result of the conflict between Parliament and James II the Parliament issued the Declaration of Rights in 1689. Article 9 of the Declaration was a response to the case of William Williams and other similar cases.

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of the kingdom ...

By prosecutions in the Court of King’s Bench for matters and causes cognisable only in parliament; and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses ...

And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal and Commons ... do in the first place (as their ancestors in like cases have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:
...

[COLOR="Red"] 9. That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.[/COLOR]

[COLOR="Red"]It sets down one of the primary privileges of Parliament which is still relevant in the modern context for the following reason stated by Gibbs ACJ in Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 at 35:

* ‘a Member of Parliament should be able to speak in Parliament with impunity and without any fear of the consequences.’[/COLOR]

This freedom is also of significance to public servants and others who have dealings with Parliament, for example, the freedom also applies to witnesses before parliamentary committees. This means that evidence you give before a parliamentary committee and submissions made to such committees attract absolute privilege and the use which can be made of such material in subsequent legal proceedings is extremely limited.
Parliamentary Privilege - Powers and Immunities

A range of other privileges and powers also developed over time to help ensure that the balance between the three arms of government was maintained.

The term parliamentary privileges refers to certain aspects of the law relating to Parliament:

* the privileges, or immunities, of the Houses of Parliament; and
* the powers of the Houses of Parliament to protect the integrity of their processes.

[COLOR="Red"]Privileges are actually immunities from the ordinary law:

‘The privileges of Parliament are immunities conferred in order to ensure that the duties of members as representatives of their constituents may be carried out without fear of intimidation or punishment, and without improper impediment [/COLOR]... a privilege of Parliament is more properly called an immunity from the operation of certain laws, which are otherwise unduly restrictive on the proper performance of the duties of Parliament.’

[Senate Committee of Privileges, ‘Committee of Privileges 1966 - 1996, History, Practice and Procedure,’ 62nd Report June 1996 page 1.]

* The only major immunity is that set out in Article 9 of the Declaration of Rights, that is, the immunity of parliamentary proceedings from impeachment and question in the courts.

Parliamentary privilege

[long-gone-kiwi]

Might also suggest you read the last reply to Tyler

[long-gone-kiwi]

Well it's funny you should mention NAMA because, included in the NAMA legislation is a gaging clause which prevents politicians from criticising NAMA (speaking openly), not just in the Dail but in any public forum. So where is this "quest for truth" which underpins politics now?

Can you prove that Parliamentary Privilege exists in order to facilite honesty and truth or is this just your opinion.

Can you prove it that it is not used to protect liers?

It might interest you to know that you're claim about the gagging clause is unconstitutional in Ireland..this is article 15.13 of the constitution

13. The members of each House of the Oireachtas shall, except in case of treason as defined in this Constitution,felony or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest in going to and returning from, and while within the precincts of, either House, and shall not, in respect of any utterance in either House, be amenable to any court or any authority other than the House itself.

[long-gone-kiwi]

As I talked about previously concerning the control of the media for so many years surrounding the Bilderberg meetings is nothing new,here we have an example of getting with times and finally exposing a "conspiracy" now,that they for so long ignored..why ? because Bilderberg has been exposed and from now it shall become meaningless,just as I also mentioned about the term Illuminati.

Quick observation the piece of the article you posted,Alasdair Spark implies that people that believe in "this sort of thing" are anti semitic,he does come straight out and say it,but he doesn't have to,to just imply that for hundreds of years people have believed that a " the world is governed by a cabal of jews" which is not only false but inflammatory too.

Think of it this way,if FF have enough influence to dictate to RTE over criticizing them,a group as powerful as Bilderberg can most definitely hold influence over the BBC.The BBC have their own skeletons,one of my favourite being this one :

See can you explain this ?because believe me,the BBC can't.

YouTube- BBC REPORTED BUILDING 7 COLLAPSE 20 MINUTES EARLY

Good evening Roland.

Was looking at your post again and had a few thoughts. I wonder if the argument about using the media to attempt to prove the media is controlled and therefore the proof is unreliable is some what circular .I do of course accept that the main stream media is not the 'free press' enshrined in many constitutions, but would argue that we are going to struggle on an internet site to get past that circularity. Taken to its most extreme we could conclude that the internet itself is controlled by Big Brother, as you pointed out to me in your point about the links in Wiki being traced to the Pentagon. I would suggest that while we both keep this problem in mind, we can use the links and only point out glaring inconsistencies or problems with sources.

With that in mind have a quick look and this fellas rantings, against the backdrop of the Iraq War Inquiry that has just begun. Only a few days into it and already the reasons for starting the war are on very shaky grounds. What do you think is going to happen when Blair himself is asked to explain what are already easily contested claims. Will he be the sacreficial lamb?. might he be forced to admit it was acting on the orders of the Bider's. Why is this level of inquiry being publicly aired?

Guest post: ‘The trouble with conspiracy theories’ by Edward Feser - Counterknowledge.com

[Roland The Gunslinger]

Good evening Roland.

Was looking at your post again and had a few thoughts. I wonder if the argument about using the media to attempt to prove the media is controlled and therefore the proof is unreliable is some what circular .I do of course accept that the main stream media is not the 'free press' enshrined in many constitutions, but would argue that we are going to struggle on an internet site to get past that circularity. Taken to its most extreme we could conclude that the internet itself is controlled by Big Brother, as you pointed out to me in your point about the links in Wiki being traced to the Pentagon. I would suggest that while we both keep this problem in mind, we can use the links and only point out glaring inconsistencies or problems with sources.

With that in mind have a quick look and this fellas rantings, against the backdrop of the Iraq War Inquiry that has just begun. Only a few days into it and already the reasons for starting the war are on very shaky grounds. What do you think is going to happen when Blair himself is asked to explain what are already easily contested claims. Will he be the sacreficial lamb?. might he be forced to admit it was acting on the orders of the Bider's. Why is this level of inquiry being publicly aired?

Guest post: ‘The trouble with conspiracy theories’ by Edward Feser - Counterknowledge.com

Of course the internet is as circularity as the MSM,sometimes even more so because at least in many cases we are all aware of the owners of the globals media organizations,as apposed to anybody with some knowledge of website design can set up a site saying whatever.It is the responsibility of the individual to research and cross reference,so to try and illuminate the misinformation.Don't get me wrong there are many charlatans that claim they promote the truth will even offer reliable information but with their own agenda.
Anybody can pull up sources and say "heres evidence" because it is in agreement with their argument at the time,but any of the links that I have supplied is information that has been crossed reference with stuff I have researched in the past,I can tell you it has taken me some time to sort out the BS from the truth because there is a lot of it.

As for Blair and the Iraq War inquiry,Blair will do as he has always done,smile and lie through his teeth,the guy is an ex barrister,it is something that he has trained for.The evidence for going to war in Iraq was shaky from the beginning,we don't need an inquiry to tell us that.Blair will say the information came from the intelligence gathering they were given at the time,the buck will be passed.This inquiry will be a white wash,lack of cooperation,mismanagement and bad information will all be blamed.

[long-gone-kiwi]

Of course the internet is as circularity as the MSM,sometimes even more so because at least in many cases we are all aware of the owners of the globals media organizations,as apposed to anybody with some knowledge of website design can set up a site saying whatever.It is the responsibility of the individual to research and cross reference,so to try and illuminate the misinformation.Don't get me wrong there are many charlatans that claim they promote the truth will even offer reliable information but with their own agenda.
Anybody can pull up sources and say "heres evidence" because it is in agreement with their argument at the time,but any of the links that I have supplied is information that has been crossed reference with stuff I have researched in the past,I can tell you it has taken me some time to sort out the BS from the truth because there is a lot of it.

As for Blair and the Iraq War inquiry,Blair will do as he has always done,smile and lie through his teeth,the guy is an ex barrister,it is something that he has trained for.The evidence for going to war in Iraq was shaky from the beginning,we don't need an inquiry to tell us that.Blair will say the information came from the intelligence gathering they were given at the time,the buck will be passed.This inquiry will be a white wash,lack of cooperation,mismanagement and bad information will all be blamed.

Please don't think I was having a shot at your sources, I realise you have spent a lot more time and energy on this subject than me. I would say though that pre-empting the outcome of the inquiry is unhelpful. It is a perfect example of the checks and balances built in to liberal democracies described in the link. I don't agree that Blair will be able to grin and lie in the face of evidence presented without outing himself as being controlled by others. Now I am pre-empting the findings of the inquiry, so you can see the problems that creates.

In the article the writer presents a good argument about the impossibility of conspiracies of this scale in liberal democracies. His point about power grabs between the three arms of govt is very well made. His example of the Supreme court in the USA in Roe v Wade, our own constitution and legislature being run roughshod over by the Supreme Court in Ryan v Attorney General here in Ireland is an even better one.

I will watch the inquiry with your comments in mind but I stand by Feser's argument that this kind of conspiracy in a liberal democracy is almost impossible. Throw into the mix that it would be required in many different countries, all at the same time only makes it more so.

[Tyler Durden]

Not at all Tyler/Pill What I'm saying is that it is pointless to wander all over the place.

Just because you are incapable of discussing several connected concepts, doesn't mean others shouldn't be free do so. As you are so fond of saying... "keep up".

As you can see from the thread you want to ask questions about all sorts of things.You are welcome to ask me questions about the same topic.

Yes, all sorts of connected things.

I think you might be a little bit scared because you know that you don't actually have a leg to stand on.

Think again, then when you have done that, think again several more times.

You and your clone scream and cry "prove it, received wisdom, links, links we must have links" for the simplest of things.

I have no clone, and I have never asked for links. What I am asking you to do is prove the things you assert as being fact. In other words, put up or shut up.

Look at the idiots you made out of yourselves last night.First of all you displayed a complete lack of knowledge of the ONLY reason the Bilder's are secretive, a total lack of mental agility by being unable to connect the two SIMPLE ideas of parliamentary priviledge and the Bldr's secrecy. What you/Pill did last night was to google what parl. priv. was and scream "whats that got to do with anything?

No, what I did is use what I already know about Parliamentary Privilege. Unlike you, I don't need to google for knowledge.

An intelligent person would have asked themselves WHY it is there, the reason for having it so they might be able to connect the dots and MOVE ON. But no you charged in.

An intelligent person wouldn't make such flawed analogies or specious comparisons, but you just couldn't resist it, could you?

Another reason I think you/Pill have just watched a load of youtube vids and thought "they're right it's all there" and not bothered to think for yourselves and actually question the veracity of the story is because post after post, page after page NOT ONE SINGLE LINK..nothing.

As a student, you are aware of the meaning of the word "theories", are you not? A story is not a theory. Perhaps the difference between the two is a little too subtle for you. Then again, perhaps you are just trolling.

Just vacuous opinion and rhetoric.

So you say, but then again, what have you to show for your time here other than drug-addled meanderings?

The Pill in one post even had the cheek to ask for "100% watertight proof able to withstand rigorous scrutiny". Your cannot even concede a simple point because you've got nothing and your argument will collapse like a Irish scrum if you do.

If you post your opinions as fact, and not simply your opinions, expect to be asked to provide proof.

If you read the thread, which I've asked you to do many times, you will see that when Roland and Rhonda posted sensible arguments I read them and replyed.

Yes, I've seen them post sensible arguments. However, I'm still looking for your sensible responses.

[Tyler Durden]

Might also suggest you read the last reply to Tyler

What good would that do? You are confusing two different things. Parliamentary privilege is a legal protection for parliamentarians whose speeches in the house are freely available on TV and in parliamentary records. What on earth has that to do with Bilderburg, whose proceedings are secret? Can you not see the basic logical disconnect in your arguments?

[long-gone-kiwi]

Just because you are incapable of discussing several connected concepts, doesn't mean others shouldn't be free do so. As you are so fond of saying... "keep up".


Yes, all sorts of connected things.


Think again, then when you have done that, think again several more times.


I have no clone, and I have never asked for links. What I am asking you to do is prove the things you assert as being fact. In other words, put up or shut up.


No, what I did is use what I already know about Parliamentary Privilege. Unlike you, I don't need to google for knowledge.


An intelligent person wouldn't make such flawed analogies or specious comparisons, but you just couldn't resist it, could you?


As a student, you are aware of the meaning of the word "theories", are you not? A story is not a theory. Perhaps the difference between the two is a little too subtle for you. Then again, perhaps you are just trolling.


So you say, but then again, what have you to show for your time here other than drug-addled meanderings?


If you post your opinions as fact, and not simply your opinions, expect to be asked to provide proof.


Yes, I've seen them post sensible arguments. However, I'm still looking for your sensible responses.

Read on Tyler, same mistake again. If you had bothered to read the rest of the thread you would see that yourself and the Pill were shown to be clueless. Still not brave enough to present an argument I see..go up to your room and play the adults are talking

[long-gone-kiwi]

What good would that do? You are confusing two different things. Parliamentary privilege is a legal protection for parliamentarians whose speeches in the house are freely available on TV and in parliamentary records. What on earth has that to do with Bilderburg, whose proceedings are secret? Can you not see the basic logical disconnect in your arguments?

Still reading posts and replying without reading thread, this is to easy..man, you like to make fun of me smoking weed , but even stoned off my head I can make you look like a blowhard. The man quoted in the BBC link was at one of their meetings, fool...its not my argument, its theirs...you are clearly punching above your weight..If you can't see the connection you should try knitting as a pass-time..will give you a chance and drop my guard..what are the reasons the Bildr's give for their secrecy?...do they not claim that it is the same reason that MP's have immunity?..is that not what the BBC link says? .did you ever bother to find out?.maybe this reply will make you do it, and at least if you can come up with a quote to make me look silly I will have achieved something..if you want to be taken seriously you have to know both sides of the argument..know your enemy..get it? ..you sound like a moron who simply watches youtube vids of connected clips designed to suck in gullible people like yourself.. What do you have to say about the arguments presented in the link I put in the reply to Roland?..can you argue that liberal democracy doesn't have in built checks and balances that make your delusions impossible?..as I said to your clone..try harder