Latest / UK Column Radio / No Tax For War

Transcript

No Tax For War · UK Column Radio

0:08
Hello, I'm Charles Mallett with the UK Column interview and I
0:11
have with me today Chris Coverdale.
0:13
But really, Chris, I'm welcoming you back to UK Column.
0:17
Thank you very much indeed for joining me.
0:19
Thank you very much, Charles. Welcome.
0:21
I'm very happy to be back. Good.
0:24
And there's going to be an awful lot to go through.
0:26
We last convened just over a year ago and we are recording on
0:32
the eve of budget day, which makes everybody think about the
0:34
way in which the government is spending or perhaps slightly
0:37
less diplomatically wasting our money.
0:39
And it's not controversial to perhaps put it out that that
0:44
we're not always altogether happy with the way in which the
0:46
government spends our taxes. But just in a sort of brief
0:52
sense, why is it that there is a specific issue with the
0:57
lawfulness of paying tax? Very important.
1:03
The important it goes back to our agreements with the rest of
1:07
the world never to threaten or to use force and to settle all
1:12
disputes peacefully. Now Britain has been breaching
1:16
those international agreements and laws for over 80 years and
1:24
the important issues associated with that is that warfare is
1:29
paid for by taxpayers so that every war we've been involved
1:34
in, and there's 84 since the Second World War and eight big
1:40
ones since 2001, each one of those has been funded by
1:46
taxpayers. Now in 2001 the world made it a
1:52
criminal offence. Sorry, in 1998 the world made it
1:55
a criminal offence to engage in all crimes, crimes against
2:01
humanity, genocide and conduct ancillary to genocide.
2:05
And that we adopted that and enacted an act of Parliament in
2:09
2001 in Britain saying that we will enforce the laws and
2:18
including the law of conduct ancillary to genocide.
2:23
And it's that that is the payment of tax is relevant
2:27
because every payment of £100 of tax contributes somewhere around
2:35
10 lbs to the department, Ministry of Defence, and they
2:40
use it for murder and killing and wars and genocide overseas.
2:48
And that means that taxpayers, whenever we pay tax, are
2:52
complicit in genocide overseas. So that really is the summary of
2:58
it. Excellent.
2:59
And it's a very useful summary to have Now if you're listening
3:02
in and that rings a vague bell, but you can't quite remember why
3:04
you've heard Chris talking about that before.
3:06
The interview that I refer back to when we did speak a year ago
3:10
was called the hang on. What was it called?
3:14
I've gone in, it was called tax resistance and a declaration of
3:18
sovereignty. And it's a, it's a very, very
3:21
detailed interview and it goes into much more of the background
3:24
that Chris is referring to. If you haven't listened to that,
3:27
then I, I might recommend that you come out of this interview
3:30
now and go back and listen to Chris's from that point.
3:34
Because what we want to deal with today, Chris, I think are,
3:37
are some of the other issues. Last time we spoke largely about
3:43
the legal background, but also what the individual actions
3:46
might be. And I think today we'll look at
3:48
perhaps corporate or or indeed sort of community actions to be
3:53
taken in this regard. I think one thing I'd like to
3:55
say, having referenced the budget already, is that the
3:58
defence budget at the moment is £60 billion.
4:02
For the the year we're in, it's expected to go up to about £62
4:05
billion. And just as a frame of
4:07
reference, it's, I think it's interesting to note that that
4:10
figure is lower than the annual turnover of the Tesco
4:14
supermarket. So of course it is a significant
4:17
figure, but it just goes to show how the, the power that we hold
4:22
in terms of where we put our money, Tesco of course, is able
4:27
to turn that much over because people are willingly giving
4:31
money to, to the organization. You might say the same thing
4:33
about what we're doing with the government.
4:35
And the issue, of course, is, as you say, 1 of law rather than
4:41
necessarily choice about what we think the government should be
4:45
able to spend our money on. I think that's an important
4:48
distinction to make. But I, I would be interested to
4:51
hear your thoughts though on the areas that fall outside of what
4:56
it is you're referring to. So for example, we, you know,
4:58
the NHS by and large is selling drugs and pharmaceutical
5:03
products that we know to be harmful.
5:05
What's your position on our attitude towards the way in
5:09
which government spends money in other ways?
5:12
Well, again, it goes back to law, Charles.
5:15
The important bet is that the laws we've passed actually make
5:20
it a criminal offence for our leaders to cause harm to people
5:26
because of their nationality as part of a government policy.
5:31
So the COVID lockdown activities and the several things
5:37
associated with that were in fact crimes of genocide because
5:43
they were killing innocent British people through the issue
5:50
of the medical interventions of one sort or another.
5:54
You know, the lockdowns, the madazolam poisoning of elderly
6:01
people in care homes and other things.
6:04
If you really look into what the law says, it is a criminal
6:08
offence by our leaders. And so really, we should be
6:12
charging, you know, Boris Johnson and Witty and one or two
6:19
of the others forgotten the name of the minister anyway.
6:26
Hancock. Yes, Hancock and those with
6:30
crimes of conduct ancillary to genocide.
6:34
Yeah, so very, very instant point, isn't it?
6:36
Yeah, they deliberately murdered and knowing that if these were
6:41
unsafe and causing harm to people, they called them safe
6:46
and effective and got everybody in Britain to take them.
6:50
That was quite an appalling crime.
6:54
Yeah, it absolutely is. And it and, and in fact it leads
6:56
neatly into to the next thing that I, I sort of want to
6:58
discuss because it is specifically with regard to the
7:01
military action. We've talked previously about
7:03
the law, you know, the, the ratification of the Rome Statute
7:08
and everything that's sort of come thereafter, and in
7:12
particular the actions that are taken by armed forces and the,
7:15
the definition of terrorism. Now there's an awful lot there,
7:18
but I thought a, a way of getting into that perhaps would
7:20
be to to recap and perhaps flesh out the our versus goal 2013,
7:27
because that points towards the, the, the well actually a, a
7:32
document that you'd written prior to that about matters in
7:36
Afghanistan concerning then Lance Corporal Joe Glinton.
7:40
I wonder if we might just talk a bit around that.
7:43
But, but in summary, what, what was the, what was the issue
7:45
particularly concerning terrorism and the actions of of
7:48
the armed forces with regard to R versus Gaul?
7:53
In that particular case, Mohamed Gaul was arrested and charged
7:59
with a crime for putting a video onto the Internet taken by the
8:05
Taliban of a successful attack on Britain's armed forces in
8:10
Afghanistan. And that was considered to be a
8:15
criminal offence by Muhammad Gul, by the police.
8:19
And they charged him and successfully prosecuted him
8:24
under the Terrorism Act 2006. Part of the defence case,
8:29
however, was, well, what does the definition of terrorism
8:33
mean? Because he was quite
8:37
specifically he, he understood that.
8:42
And we need to make sure that when defining terrorism, we
8:49
don't just focus on military activities overseas, but the
8:57
actions of taxpayers and others supporting acts of terrorism.
9:06
And the Terrorism Act 2000, which contains the definition of
9:11
terrorism, is quite specifically about the funding of terrorism
9:15
and not just about terrorism. And so this is where it came in
9:20
for me. Is that that case quite clearly
9:23
said that if you look at the definition of terrorism in the
9:29
international, sorry, the the Terrorism Act 2000 Article 1,
9:34
you'll find that it covers the military and quasi military
9:40
activities of the British government.
9:42
And for the Supreme Court to say that the military and quasi
9:48
military activities of the British government meet the
9:52
definition of terrorism is have not been taken notice by the
9:57
government at all. They just continue to do it.
10:00
They know they are committing terrorism.
10:03
And the important bit behind it is that every taxpayer who funds
10:07
the government, knowing that some of the money will be used
10:11
for the purposes of terrorism as it is defined in the law,
10:16
commits a criminal offence for which they could be put in
10:18
prison for up to 14 years. And Chris, just just remind us,
10:23
what is the piece of legislation that that deals with that
10:27
specific issue? That's the terrorism 2000,
10:32
sections 15 to 18, making it quite clear that the the three
10:39
things, if you ask for money, collect money or pay money to
10:43
somebody else or another institution, knowing that it
10:47
will be used or suspecting that it may be used for the purposes
10:51
of terrorism, you commit a criminal offence.
10:56
So that that's very clearly laid out in the law in the Terrorism
11:00
Act 2000, sections 15 to 18. OK, OK.
11:05
And then I think with that, we're talking about, girl, the
11:08
Taliban, you know, I mean, fascinating to see, of course,
11:11
what's happened 20 odd years on. But just to come back to the,
11:16
the role of the armed forces in this, because I think it, it's
11:19
very easy to have a focus on government and to forget that
11:23
their actions, of course, do have a very serious knock on
11:26
effect and an actual fact that these acts, unfortunately, are
11:31
carried out by people who mostly are members of the armed forces
11:35
who signed up to in effect, serve their their country.
11:39
Now the Terrorism Act, the the part of the Terrorism Act, I
11:43
think that you said was was sort of dealt with in in our versus
11:48
goal in a, in a not totally above board way meant some, some
11:52
bits were sort of missed out. But but I think, yeah, right at
11:55
the start in terms of the definition, I think it's it's
11:57
worth noting that it's makes specific reference to terrorism,
12:01
acts of terrorism or threats being for the purpose of
12:03
advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
12:07
And then to set that alongside the way in which rules of
12:11
engagement are set out in Joint Services Publication 398, which
12:15
deals with the rules of engagement, in describing rules
12:18
of engagement by saying that they encompass political
12:21
direction together with operational and legal
12:25
provisions. And I think that's something
12:26
that's not really talked about very much.
12:28
The fact that rules of engagement are not in fact
12:32
solely based on either the threat faces faced by personnel
12:37
in the armed forces or indeed by the specifics of that
12:42
operational or the legal background, but that there is
12:45
this political element now I think that that deserves much
12:50
more scrutiny really than it ever get.
12:54
I I don't know what your comment would be on that particularly.
12:57
Absolutely. I mean, I completely agree with
13:00
you. And this goes back to the system
13:03
we've had in this country for 2-3 hundred years.
13:07
We have an inherited role of commander in chief so that no
13:14
British service person can go overseas without an express
13:17
command from the commander in The Commander in Chief is
13:29
responsible in law for upholding the agreements we made in the
13:34
United Nations Charter never to threaten or to use force and to
13:38
settle all disputes peacefully. But unfortunately, Queen
13:42
Elizabeth and now Prince King Charles are failing to uphold
13:49
and enforce those laws, those agreements.
13:51
They are the world's most important agreements and our
13:54
leaders are failing to uphold them.
13:57
And I find that appalling. And of course what happens is
14:01
that the Prime Minister at that time earlier was Tony Blair, now
14:07
it's Rishi. Sorry, Keir Starmer, I'm out of
14:12
date. They are ignoring the law which
14:17
makes it a criminal offence for them to send our troops to to
14:21
war. And it's just appalling.
14:25
And so something we have to do, something as taxpayers to try to
14:30
ensure our leaders uphold and enforce the law.
14:33
Absolutely we do. And this is this is really what
14:35
we want to get to just just before we do.
14:37
I mean, I think you know already what we talked about it.
14:41
It's it is fascinating to consider how the continual
14:46
evolution of what would really be described as propaganda has
14:49
moved us so far, far away from considering what terrorism was
14:52
when it was first described. And of course that's reputed to
14:55
go back to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror from
14:58
1793, when specifically it was act of state sponsored violence
15:04
and state sponsored terror. But of course, the whole thing
15:07
has been inverted for political expedience and the the, you
15:12
know, the way the Terrorism Act is written now is almost
15:15
suggests that the state cannot itself be responsible for acts
15:20
of terrorism. But, but I think that's not
15:23
really the way that we should view it, is it?
15:26
You're quite right. And in fact, the international
15:28
law makes it clear that it's anybody and it can even include
15:33
the commander in Now, unfortunately, the justice
15:43
system in this country, the Ministry of Justice issued a
15:52
document in 2017 or 2018 which states that state actors have
15:59
state immunity. Now that is completely incorrect
16:05
and we must find a way of correcting that.
16:07
We should not allow these sort of false, deceptive documents to
16:13
go out and be taken into account of by the whole of the civil
16:17
service and everybody else. It's wrong and it needs
16:20
changing. Under the Rome Statute, this
16:25
applies. Genocide applies to everybody in
16:28
Britain, including the monarch, the Prime Minister, members of
16:32
Parliament and all civil servants, as well as the
16:36
military military officers. OK, that's a, that's a very
16:41
important clarification to make. I, I think we've referred to the
16:44
to the Rome Statute and, and what sort of come to pass since
16:48
then. I think the International
16:50
Criminal Court and and its role should just be mentioned at this
16:53
point. And I just jotted down a couple
16:54
of statistics off their website because I do.
16:57
I do think it is pretty astonishing that over the last
17:01
two and a bit decades, they have secured just 13 convictions from
17:07
37 cases. They've issued 61 arrest
17:11
warrants and there have been 4 acquittals.
17:13
But the rather staggering detail, I think, is that they
17:15
have a staff of 900 and that their budget for the year is
17:20
nearly €200 million. Now, is that value for money,
17:23
Chris? I think you've answered your own
17:28
question there. There's no way that's value for
17:30
money. And the trouble is, if you've
17:32
got 900 staff it's almost impossible to get anything done
17:36
at all. You need a small committed team
17:39
for each accused person in court.
17:44
Idea is, now look, let's get into the sort of the big
17:47
business side of it. There's always, certainly in the
17:49
mainstream, there's always an enormous outcry when the likes
17:52
of Amazon or Google or whoever it may be are not seen to be
17:57
paying their taxes. And yet we are absolutely
18:02
talking about the the possibility or at least the
18:05
influence that corporations not paying taxes would have on
18:10
government. Are we possibly guilty
18:14
themselves of being a bit inconsistent in the way that we
18:17
view the corporate influence upon governments?
18:23
Yes. I mean, that is a major problem
18:26
in this country. People don't understand how the
18:29
system works, unfortunately, and it's all a bit beyond their
18:35
normal experience and therefore they just accept what they're
18:39
told. But we have a major problem with
18:42
the the big industries. I mean, the banks and others are
18:49
owning and controlling the Bank of England, which controls the
18:52
government and controls all financial transactions in this
18:56
country. We have to do something about
18:59
that. So yes, I'm fully with you
19:02
there. It's a problem.
19:05
But so, so on that and, and, and this very significant question
19:09
of, of who influences who, particularly given the, the
19:13
cycle of money and the control that comes with it.
19:16
When one is considering how the behaviour of government is to be
19:20
affected, we can be fairly certain that that action at the
19:24
ballot box doesn't really do anything apart from change the
19:28
colour of the, the part, the incumbent party.
19:31
Where do you see the the sort of break in point into this cycle,
19:37
as it were, concerning money? I think the issue is you raised
19:42
it earlier and that is corporations.
19:45
Corporations contribute about 9293% of the taxes to the
19:51
government on which the base the crimes are based on.
19:56
If without that money coming into the government, the
20:00
government could not wage war, could not initiate the NHS
20:06
problems and everything else. So it really based on.
20:11
The amount of tax that every business pays every year and
20:16
it's huge amounts. It's 92% of the income.
20:19
So if we're talking about an income of a trillion pounds, you
20:23
can talk 920 billion of that is coming from the Tescos of the
20:28
world, the banks, the large organizations and others who
20:33
deduct PAYE from there staff and send it to the Revenue and
20:38
Customs. They deduct National Insurance
20:42
contributions and they that is used straight away as if it was
20:47
a tax. It was originally meant as an
20:50
insurance to cover people's pensions and other things when
20:54
they retire. But that's totally false.
20:57
It is a tax and it's National Insurance, PAYE, VAT and these
21:05
sorts of expenditures, taxes mount up to huge sums of money.
21:11
And of course it's the large, the large organizations who
21:16
aren't transferring these to the government.
21:19
I think we mentioned last time a good example is Wetherspoons,
21:24
which most people go, you know, it's a very popular public,
21:29
public house chain and with hotels and others and their tax
21:34
bill last year was 840 million. Now that's an extraordinary
21:39
amount of money coming from one organization.
21:42
It's about a thousandth of the total income to the government
21:48
just from that one organization. Now what we need to point out to
21:55
the directors of these companies is that it is a criminal
22:00
offence. They are committing 3 serious
22:03
criminal offences, certainly 2 anyway.
22:07
When they deduct PAYE and National Insurance from a
22:11
person's salary and hand it to the Revenue and Customs, that is
22:16
a criminal offence by the directors or managers of that
22:19
business, so we need to tackle that.
22:23
We absolutely do. Now let's just go back one,
22:25
because the, the reason for that and the reason for referring to
22:28
all these taxes and, and at least the, the point of
22:31
confluence that that links all these things together is the
22:34
Consolidated fund. Just just tell us a bit about
22:36
the Consolidated Fund and why it's so significant in all of
22:39
this. Yes.
22:40
Well, it's really the print, the way we've been collecting taxes
22:44
and using taxes since the 18th century.
22:50
In 1787, we set up a new system in this country where all
22:56
revenue, all government revenue went into one pot and all
23:01
expenditure came out of the same pot.
23:04
And that has been the case since 1787 and it's still the case
23:09
now. A lot of people don't
23:12
understand, for instance, the link between council tax and the
23:16
Consolidated Fund. I get I've had immense problems
23:21
trying to persuade public servants that council tax when,
23:28
when they raise council tax from me or from any other taxpayer,
23:33
it goes into the local government account for your
23:39
council and that account is owned and controlled by central
23:44
government. And So what happens when it goes
23:48
in, if I pay £2000 into that account, it immediately is
23:56
credited to the Consolidated Fund.
24:00
This is all revenue for the government.
24:04
And so, and then what happens to it is that it goes Parliament
24:09
then decide how much should be sent back to the council as a
24:14
grant from central government so that the council can do all
24:19
those things which it is required to do with the money.
24:24
So it it's a circular process in a way.
24:27
Now once they get it back, they also deduct PAYE and National
24:33
Insurance from council employees pay and hand that back to the
24:40
Revenue and Customs. So we are paying perhaps 120% of
24:48
the money every year straight away into the government's fund
24:54
and that's the way it operates. Now most people don't understand
24:57
that at all and they, the Council will keep saying none of
25:02
the money is used for the purposes of terrorism, which is
25:05
not correct. OK, Thanks Chris that, that is a
25:08
very important clarification. It really is.
25:12
And that of course harks back to the previous interview that we
25:15
that we did together and the specific power that the
25:19
individual holds. So I think I'm right in saying
25:21
that the amount of overall income that the the council tax
25:26
raises about 4% of of the total that goes into the the public
25:30
purse. So, so therefore, exactly like
25:32
you point out earlier, the the significance of the corporations
25:36
and therefore what can be done on that score really can't be
25:39
overstated. To those people who are either
25:44
within the the hierarchy of corporations or indeed in a
25:48
position to be able to appeal to them, where on earth does one
25:52
begin to try to change things? I wish I knew a clear answer to
26:00
that one, Charles. I have been trying for 20 years,
26:04
more than 20 years, to try to get councils and government
26:08
officials, public officials to uphold and enforce the law.
26:15
But unfortunately the justice system in this country refuses
26:20
to accept the fact that it is a criminal offence.
26:25
And although I've been to court many times, I've been in court
26:28
more than 70 times in the last 25 years.
26:31
Not once has a judge or a court official or an institution like
26:39
a council or the Revenue and Customs accepted the fact that
26:43
it is a criminal offense to hand money to a government if the
26:47
government uses the money for a criminal purpose.
26:50
And so how we really persuade them, I think we've got to go
26:54
back to basics and say, look, this is what the law says.
26:58
It is a criminal offence for any person, that includes the
27:02
company director to deduct the PAYE and National Insurance from
27:08
their employees salaries and hand it to the revenue and
27:11
customers. Now if we can take that to court
27:14
and we've got to try and find some police force and some Crown
27:19
prosecutors somewhere who are willing to take action on this
27:23
and start criminal proceedings against one or two company
27:28
directors. And until that happens, I think
27:30
we're not going to get anywhere unless we get a mass movement of
27:35
people saying, right, we want this to happen.
27:38
And you will not get any of our money and or any of our support
27:42
in your organization if you continue to commit these crimes.
27:48
OK, well, let's let's perhaps deal with a with a hypothetical,
27:51
which is let's say we do have a company director or group of
27:55
company directors who have it within their gift to do
27:59
something. What is it that they can do with
28:02
regard to taxation and trust and that sort of thing?
28:07
Right, this really gets back into the whole discussion we had
28:11
on the previous interview about declarations and deeds of trust
28:17
and and the role of the individual.
28:21
Now if you are an employee wondering about your the
28:26
deduction of PAY in National Insurance from your salary, what
28:31
you can do is write to your employer and say you have just
28:36
discovered that it is a criminal offence for any person in this
28:42
country to pass money to any other person or institution If
28:47
you suspect it will be used for the purposes of terrorism or
28:50
war. If you say that to your company
28:58
director, manager, whoever it is in the business and ask them to
29:03
investigate this, they need to make up their own minds as to
29:08
what the law means. And we've got several letters on
29:12
our website that you can send in to people to try to persuade
29:16
them in the first place to uphold and enforce the law.
29:21
Now what they can also do is instead of just deducting the
29:26
money every month and handing it to the Revenue and Customs is to
29:31
put it into corporate trust. Now we have a court, we've
29:37
developed a corporate trust deed which enables any business to
29:44
put all taxation. That's the business rates,
29:48
council tax, income tax, PAYE, National Insurance, corporation
29:53
tax, petrol taxes, alcohol taxes, all the other things.
29:59
Put it all into trust for the government or the and the
30:03
councils and the DVLA until the end of their business year so
30:11
that you know your monthly payment will every employees
30:16
monthly payment will be held in trust by the company by
30:21
trustees, sorry, not by the company, by trustees of that
30:26
trust for the primary beneficiary.
30:30
And the primary beneficiary is the government or the council or
30:35
the DVLA. They can get the money if they
30:41
meet the conditions written into the trust.
30:44
And the important thing is for us to write very tough
30:47
conditions saying that none of the money will be used for
30:51
criminal purposes of terrorism, war, war crimes, crimes against
30:56
humanity, genocide, and all of it will be used in accordance
31:02
with incomplete accordance with the UN Declaration on Principles
31:07
of International Law. Now if that was happening and
31:12
the government therefore stops the wars, stops their
31:17
contributions to mass murder and genocide, and starts to act
31:22
lawfully, then of course they can have the money.
31:25
But if they don't, then at the end of the year the money goes
31:30
back to the people it's been taken from.
31:33
So in this case it would be the employees will get their PAYE
31:39
and National Insurance back. The shareholders will get the
31:44
corporation taxes that have gone out back and the clients will
31:50
get the VAT back. Theoretically, I think the way
31:55
to do it for clients is to reduce the prices the next time
32:00
they come around to do business with the organization.
32:04
So basically all of that can be organised within the period of a
32:08
year and it may be just a few months.
32:11
And then we can ensure that the directors acting lawfully, the
32:18
employees are acting lawfully, the clients are acting lawfully,
32:23
but not handing VATPAYE and taxes to the government.
32:30
And this is helped and coordinated by the company and
32:34
the company directors and managers in the organization
32:38
with a separate set of trustees, independent trustees managing
32:43
that trust. OK.
32:46
Now so far everything absolutely making sense.
32:50
Now you've talked about your own personal history with regard to
32:53
specifically council tax and the number of times you've been to
32:56
court and indeed to prison. So, so none of this is is
33:00
undertaken without a certain amount of risk.
33:03
One of the things that's changed and at least may add complexity
33:07
into the mix, which I'd be interested to hear your take on,
33:10
is the role of Companies House in any of this.
33:14
Because for many a year, Companies House is effectively
33:17
sort of laying dormans and just let people get on with them,
33:20
really done anything. And all of a sudden with the
33:24
great push for digital identity, Companies House just this autumn
33:28
has pushed and pushed and pushed for company directors to to
33:33
verify their identity. Now that that might be regarded
33:37
as a separate issue. But what is not a separate issue
33:40
is that for those who do not comply, they are threatening
33:46
companies with being taken off the register.
33:49
You know, do do you see that that threat there with regard to
33:54
identity verification would pertain at all to action if
33:58
taken by company directors with regard to withholding money in
34:02
the form of a trust? Yeah, we're already seeing it.
34:06
And you know, just in the last month or so, less than a month
34:10
now, the difficulty is that the, the government is squeezing us
34:19
in every damn direction whatsoever.
34:22
And this whole idea of ID and the digital ID and so on is
34:27
actually much more bad, much worse for us than most people
34:32
understand. So yes, we've got to do
34:34
something. Now.
34:35
I would recommend we have to start prosecuting the first of
34:42
all the chiefs of the company's house as well as the chief of
34:48
the Revenue and Customs, as well as company directors who are
34:53
knowingly handing money over. And I think we must get some
34:59
criminal proceedings started against some of these people
35:03
rapidly because it's the only way in a sense is when one
35:08
person is convicted of a crime of conduct ancillary to
35:12
genocide, it will change the whole situation in this country
35:17
and overseas. So I do think that's our next
35:20
move is we've got to find police constables and crime prosecutors
35:27
and judges who are prepared to start criminal proceedings in
35:33
front of a jury of course. And that's the most important
35:38
issue is we must have jury trials of the criminal offence
35:43
of handing money to the government knowing it will be
35:46
used for mass murder and genocide.
35:50
Absolutely no. I think pertinent to to all of
35:53
this and indeed finding those sorts of people who are first of
35:56
all willing to take upon themselves the tasks of finding
36:00
and chasing down those sorts of people.
36:03
You now have set up a new website.
36:05
Will you just explain a bit about the website, the
36:08
background to it and what you're hoping to achieve with that?
36:11
Yes, our previous website was called probity and which the
36:18
word probity means an integrity in public life really.
36:22
Basically, steadfastness, uprightness, honesty and so on.
36:27
Now, most people don't understand the word, and So what
36:30
they do understand is No Tax for War, which is the name of the
36:36
new website which has been set up.
36:39
And we're really saying that this will help people withhold
36:45
taxes. We have copies of the
36:48
declaration and deed of Trust for individuals and copies for
36:52
corporations which can be downloaded from the website and
36:56
people can just get on with withholding taxes.
37:00
So that's the purpose of the main of this new website is to
37:06
say, look, it is a criminal offence to hand over tax if you
37:10
know it's going to be used for terrorism or war and therefore
37:14
stop handing it over, put it in trust and get it back and use it
37:19
for the sensible useful purposes, support to your local
37:23
community rather than for mass murder and genocide overseas.
37:29
OK, excellent. Now the UK column audience has
37:32
among its number people from a very wide range of disciplines,
37:36
but there are a number of people with a legal background,
37:38
significant legal know how people who do fall into that
37:43
category are, are there various things that they could be doing
37:47
either within their sort of local communities or indeed with
37:50
relation to your website and and what it is that you're talking
37:54
about? Oh yes, I mean, we need people
37:58
with some sort of legal understanding and lawyers and
38:02
others to uphold and enforce the law.
38:06
Unfortunately, we've had no lawyers in this country
38:10
upholding the laws of war in the last 100 years.
38:14
I find that unbelievable, but they need therefore the reason
38:19
for that, by the way, is that there has been no war law
38:23
education in the legal system at all, and so that neither the
38:29
judges, barristers, solicitors or anybody else can quote the
38:34
laws in the UN Charter or the I've even heard of the United
38:39
Nations Declaration of Principles of International Law.
38:43
Very few of them understand the workings of the Rome Statute of
38:46
the International Criminal Court and the law of the International
38:52
Criminal Court Act and the elements of crimes regulations
38:55
that is in place in this country.
38:58
If we can get just a few people upholding those laws and working
39:04
with us to to ensure that we get criminal proceedings started,
39:09
that would be extremely helpful. Unfortunately, we have a small
39:14
voluntary organization and we just do not have the resources
39:18
to be able to start to do this effectively.
39:20
And so we need to work with other organizations or funders
39:25
or others who can put in funding to make sure that all of these
39:30
actions start to happen as a regular paid for activity by
39:36
experts, moving the whole issue forward into criminal
39:41
proceedings and effective corporate trusts withholding
39:46
money from the government. We've got to stop the government
39:49
doing what it's doing. And the best way of doing that
39:53
is withholding the money. So yes, basically that all of
39:57
those things could be helpful all.
39:59
Right, terrific. Just to pick you up on a point
40:03
you made. I mean, ultimately here what
40:05
we're talking about is corruption in many different
40:07
forms, but corruption nonetheless.
40:10
Your remark about people in the legal profession having not done
40:15
such and such for for 100 years, are you, are you going back to a
40:19
specific point in time? And indeed, what do you what,
40:23
what is it that you ascribe to being the reason for nobody
40:28
knowing about all the things that you're talking about?
40:30
Is that a deliberate corruption of the system or or or
40:34
something? Else, yeah, no, I mean, it's a
40:37
deliberate corruption of the system.
40:40
There's two different systems working, really.
40:42
There's the general nations of the world and people of the
40:47
world trying to make sure that we don't go to war.
40:50
And there are small groups in the City of London and New York
40:56
and other places who are trying to ensure we always go to war.
41:01
And it's a conflict between the two.
41:04
And so, for instance, after the First World War, which again was
41:08
a manufactured war by a small group of committed Zionists and
41:16
others, we set up in 1928 the Treaty for the Renunciation of
41:23
War. That was a great success at the
41:27
time. People were so horrified by the
41:29
killing in the in the trenches and other things with no
41:34
advantage to any nation at all except advantage to the people
41:40
who were supplying the weapons and equipment.
41:44
They made lots of money out of it, whereas everybody else
41:48
suffered. Now that was agreed in 1928, but
41:53
it has never been upheld by Britain.
41:56
And that is my problem is that people don't know the main laws
42:02
of war. So that for instance, in 1936 we
42:06
had Winston Churchill promoting hard the need to destroy Germany
42:12
and to go to war with Germany. Now most people think of him as
42:15
a hero, but in fact he was working hard for a small group
42:21
of financiers to ensure that the Second World War took place and
42:25
didn't stop until Germany was destroyed.
42:30
Now that you know, so there's no justice in that at all.
42:34
Our justice system completely overlooked that and have
42:38
completely overlooked the 84 wars we've fought since the end
42:43
of the Second World War. We made a clear agreement in the
42:47
United Nations Charter never to threaten or use force and to
42:51
settle all disputes peacefully. And we have broken it every year
42:56
as a nation ever since. And that, that is appalling.
43:00
And yet we have these judges and barristers and solicitors and so
43:07
on who will tell us that they are upholding and enforcing the
43:11
law and they never do. I'm horrified that not a single
43:17
judge has taken a stand against mass murder in the, you know,
43:22
well, I've been conscious of it, say since 2001.
43:27
None of them have stood up and said this is wrong, Mass murder
43:32
is a criminal offence, we will not support it.
43:36
They all toe the line with the government and support it.
43:40
That's appalling, utterly appalling.
43:43
So we've got to find a way around this somehow.
43:47
There must be people in the system somewhere who are
43:50
prepared to uphold and enforce the law, and we have to find
43:52
them and start working with them to ensure we get criminal
43:56
prosecutions of members of the House of Laws, members of the
44:01
House of Commons and all the people who are actually steering
44:05
us into warfare and armed conflict.
44:08
Absolutely. And and to, to armed conflict.
44:10
We might just change tack because similarly, I think
44:14
there's a, there's an astonishing lack of knowledge,
44:17
lack of information amongst those at the business end, those
44:20
in the armed forces. You sent me a document before
44:23
this interview which referred to the Military Manual of sorry,
44:28
the, the Manual of Military Law of 1955 and how the idea of
44:36
effectively refusing to obey unlawful orders is totally
44:42
ignored really, or there's just sort of total ignorance about
44:45
it. Will you just talk a bit about
44:46
that? Because I think, well, this is
44:48
this has come up in recent times in an oblique sense perhaps, but
44:52
concerning Northern Ireland with all the the sort of legacy
44:57
legislation being overturned and the way that that's made to look
45:01
for armed forces veterans when it's been, you know, given a
45:04
very one sided treatment, But it it does sort of pertain to the
45:08
same thing. So, so please just just describe
45:10
a bit about that. Yes, it's, it's very important
45:13
to understand where it came from in the 1st place.
45:17
It came, the original issue really came out of the Nuremberg
45:21
War Crimes tribunal at the end of the Second World War, when
45:27
Germany's leaders were accused of various crimes in breach of
45:32
the Kellogg Brand Pact and other things.
45:34
And in their defence, they claimed that they were just
45:38
following orders and the judges said, well, no, that's that's
45:42
not good enough. There are situations where it is
45:47
a criminal offence to follow order and to follow orders of
45:51
your government if that government is breaching
45:55
agreements in the international arena.
45:59
So basically you have a duty to uphold and enforce the law and
46:06
to disobey your government's orders when those orders are
46:11
illegal. And that really was one of the
46:13
main issues that came out of the Second World War.
46:17
And you're about war crimes tribunal.
46:20
Now that has been brought into court in the Manual of Military
46:23
Law. And it was updated in a document
46:26
which is probably one of the most deceptive documents we've
46:30
got. I'll show a picture of it here.
46:33
It's the Joint Services Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict
46:40
produced by the UK Ministry of Defence and right at the very
46:46
beginning of it, it says quite clearly this, this manual is
46:57
concerned with the law. Sorry, two types of law.
47:03
Let me start that one again. It regulates the circumstances
47:07
in which states may use the armed force traditionally termed
47:10
yus and bellum, that's going to war, and the way in which armed
47:15
force is actually used, traditionally termed yus in
47:20
bellow. That's the Latin terms in law
47:23
and the law of war. Now this manual, it says, is
47:27
concerned with the latter today more frequently known as the law
47:32
of armed conflict or international humanitarian law.
47:37
I'll leave that for one second. Then further on, it says
47:41
regardless of the justification for or the legitimacy of any
47:46
resort of force, individual members of the armed forces must
47:51
act in accordance with the law of armed conflict.
47:54
If they fail to do so, they will be acting illegally.
47:59
So they're saying that you've got to obey orders.
48:03
If you are ordered, in fact, this document to attack a
48:09
village or whatever it is, and to shoot somebody and to fire a
48:13
cruise missile and so on, you must do so.
48:17
That is completely incorrect. We have signed up and promised
48:23
never to do any of this. And so it is the law provided by
48:30
military lawyers to every unit in the armed forces and the
48:35
Department of Defence, Ministry of Defence that says quite
48:42
clearly this is wrong. And for them to publish this and
48:47
to keep on promoting it is utter disgrace.
48:52
And we've got to try and put something, you know, put in
48:55
place. I'd like to see the promoters of
48:58
this and including the chiefs of defense staff and the people who
49:02
have put it together, prosecuted for conduct and accelerated
49:08
genocide, because that's what they are doing.
49:11
They're saying you have to follow orders and it sends all
49:15
of our military to war. That is illegal.
49:19
They know perfectly well that's why we so many service men and
49:23
women come back from overseas activities and have mental
49:27
breakdowns and can't post traumatic stress disorder and
49:31
other things because they have realized that what they've been
49:35
doing overseas is just wrong and evil.
49:40
It's a very difficult one. It's hard to be totally
49:42
objective about this for me because I have served in the
49:46
army. But I just be interested in your
49:48
view of this. I mean, we did talk about it a
49:49
little bit last time because of the 83 conflicts that you said
49:54
the UK had either instigated or taken part in since the end of
49:57
Second World War, the Falklands was really the only one that
50:00
could be regarded as in any way legitimate because of the attack
50:03
on sovereign territory by Argentina, notwithstanding the
50:07
sinking of the Belle Grano, which obviously fell well
50:10
outside of of that. But but what's your view on
50:13
having an armed force in the 1st place?
50:16
Is there a case to be made for the defence of the realm or not?
50:22
Well, only if we are threatened with attack or being attacked.
50:29
Now there was that one occasion in the Falklands.
50:33
The other one I, I should have said was the the first Gulf War
50:38
where Kuwait, sorry, Iraq had invaded Kuwait and Kuwait asked
50:46
for our help in defending it. Now that was lawful.
50:49
So there are two occasions in law.
50:53
But the the real issue comes back to how we, how we train our
51:03
people to understand how, what the law is, how it applies, and
51:14
the very, very few occasions where we may need to use armed
51:18
force. I personally think now that the
51:22
the whole concept of using armed force of a rifle, using a rifle
51:28
to kill an enemy soldier is wrong and shouldn't be allowed
51:33
under any circumstances whatsoever.
51:36
Modern developments have shown us that we can develop weapons,
51:45
if you like to call them that, but we can disable large animals
51:50
by firing a dart into them and making them unconscious for a
51:54
certain amount of time. Now we should be doing that
51:57
within the armed forces. You know, if if you get people
52:02
attacking us and coming into this country, then we can find
52:06
ways of disabling them for long enough to make sure they are not
52:13
a threat to us and but keeping them alive in a way.
52:17
So I think there are all sorts of totally different ways of
52:20
approaching the the issue that are not to do with explosives
52:26
and bullets and other forms of killing and, you know, harming
52:32
people. Yeah, indeed.
52:35
I mean, and, and yet tragic to, to consider that we now are in
52:40
an age where autonomous drones are manufactured, autonomous
52:45
suicide drones are not just being manufactured, but are, but
52:48
are actually in use in theaters that we are technically or you
52:53
know, overtly or covertly supporting.
52:55
So we are very much off course with regard to that.
52:59
Chris, let's just come back on to the actions that can be
53:04
taken. We've considered the, the idea
53:06
of, of either employees within an organization and being able
53:09
to appeal to directors or indeed the directors of the corporate
53:13
structure. Now you also referred in an
53:16
e-mail to me about what you were describing as multi stakeholder
53:20
limited liability community platform cooperatives.
53:24
Would you just talk a bit about that, please?
53:26
Yes, I think what we're trying to do in a, in a way is to move
53:32
away from the tyranny into a true democracy.
53:36
And unfortunately all the systems in this country are
53:40
supporting tyranny. Just taking the the taxation
53:45
system as an example, you have 50 million adult taxpayers in
53:52
this country putting all the money into the government and
53:57
then 2-3 people deciding how it's going to be spent.
54:03
There are absolutely nothing to do with the needs of the 50
54:08
million people who have contributed the money.
54:11
So if we change the system and move the responsibility for tax
54:19
payments down to the individual, then every individual in the
54:23
country can decide, well, this is how I want my money spent.
54:27
I refuse to have it spent on mass murder and genocide and I
54:32
want it spent on natural health or home education or whatever it
54:36
is now. In order to assist this process,
54:41
we need to have some structures that are owned and controlled by
54:47
the people and not by wealthy shareholders or the City of
54:52
London. And that's why I've been
54:55
promoting the concept of multi stakeholder limited liability
55:01
community platform cooperatives. It's a bit of a mouthful, but
55:06
it's it's important. Let me just go through the main
55:10
parts of it to explain what sort of structures we need to put in
55:15
place locally to serve the local community.
55:20
So a multi stakeholder cooperative is owned and
55:25
controlled by the members in the cooperative.
55:29
Now up till 2014, this was people working in a Co-op
55:34
together in an engineering firm or a a retail establishment like
55:43
the Co-op and other things. And it's a very simple process
55:48
where people all join together as members of that Co-op and get
55:54
better prices and they work together to make sure that it
55:58
benefits themselves. What the change came in multi
56:04
stakeholder change in 2014 when businesses were allowed to join
56:11
individuals in co-ops. Now this is actually very
56:16
important. If an individual, if a business
56:21
joins a Co-op, it only has the same power as the individual
56:25
members of the Co-op. So if you have 100 members of a
56:30
Co-op and 10 businesses, then you have 110 votes at an annual
56:36
general meeting or extraordinary general meeting, rather than a
56:42
wealthy shareholder deciding an annual general meeting, what
56:46
they're the whole organization's going to do and so on.
56:49
So it it removes the power of the money away from the
56:54
operation of the cooperative. That is very important because
56:58
it gives it back to the individual members of the
57:01
cooperative. So multi stakeholder is a very
57:04
useful thing. It also has one or two other
57:06
financial benefits in this in the current situation,
57:13
particularly VAT, for instance, big companies like Shell, BP or
57:19
Big Pharma and so on. If they have one company working
57:23
for another company within the group and there's no VAT
57:26
chargeable between for their activities.
57:30
Whereas in normal life individuals we have to pay VAT
57:35
on virtually everything we buy, even in restaurants or pubs.
57:41
So if you have a member, a business member of a Co-op and
57:46
an individual member and the individual member wants to go
57:49
out, take his friends out for a meal and then the business
57:53
member is a restaurant and you can have a good meal, but you
57:57
will not pay VAT on it. So that's a quite an advantage,
58:01
financial advantage both to the to the clients and the business.
58:08
So there are beneficial things for being multi stakeholder
58:12
financially as well as working together locally in community to
58:18
make a success of the local community.
58:21
The other issue is a multi stakeholder limited liability.
58:25
And the important bit is to make sure that all members, both
58:30
individuals and corporations of the corporation are protected by
58:34
limited liability so that if something goes wrong, the most
58:39
you can lose is your shares or in the case of the cooperative
58:45
limited by guarantee. You'll guarantee if that's 100
58:48
lbs then you could lose your £100 if the business goes bust,
58:54
but that's all you can lose. If you do not have limited
58:58
liability and you are a local association or whether and you
59:03
get sued for a very large amount of money, every member of the
59:07
association can lose everything and I want to make sure that
59:13
that doesn't happen. It happened to the members of
59:16
Lloyds in the insurance business in the 1980s and 90s and many of
59:22
them lost everything because they were not limited liability,
59:27
they were associations or clubs. OK.
59:30
Well, there's a key distinction to make.
59:32
I mean, I, I would imagine that what you've just described would
59:36
appeal to a lot of people regardless of their of their
59:39
background. There are very obvious benefits
59:41
that are you able to point to any examples that you know of
59:44
that are that have established such a thing and that and that
59:46
are sort of benefiting from it? Well, no, it's rather too early
59:50
for that. I've been trying to set them up.
59:53
We're facing big difficulties. This is really why we need one
59:58
or two organizations who currently are set up to say
1:00:04
right, we are going to convert ourselves or set up a separate
1:00:08
linked multi stakeholder community Co-op.
1:00:13
And if we can do that then we you know, we can start the ball
1:00:19
rolling. It's very recent, this new
1:00:21
legislation comparatively in this area and very few people.
1:00:26
Understand who are experts in this area, but UK cooperatives,
1:00:32
which is the sort of coordinating body for
1:00:35
cooperatives in Britain. They have it on their website
1:00:39
and they have one or two experts and I don't know, I haven't
1:00:43
spoken to them recently as to whether or not there are many of
1:00:47
these things starting up. I've certainly tried to start up
1:00:50
a couple and I would recommend that you know, groups like UK
1:00:55
column or members of UK column who want to start withholding
1:01:01
their taxis and want to start building the community and
1:01:06
contributing to the community. Could set up a multi stakeholder
1:01:09
Co-op quite quickly and would find it I'm sure really
1:01:13
beneficial. OK, Well, we'll we'll absolutely
1:01:17
see what the response to that is.
1:01:19
It certainly sounds from what you've described as they like I
1:01:22
said before, that would be terrific benefits.
1:01:25
Now Chris, I think we are we are nearing the end of our session.
1:01:29
I, I should make it clear and I apologize that I didn't already,
1:01:32
that very much of what Chris has referred to will be captured, I
1:01:37
think in your new website because just just remind us of
1:01:41
the, the website address and anything else that people should
1:01:44
be finding or looking for there. Yes.
1:01:47
Just before I do, can I pick up on one thing that you said
1:01:50
earlier that scares people. And the initial, when I started
1:01:55
to do this initially and withheld tax, I was sent to
1:01:59
prisons for three years in a row.
1:02:02
But that is now finished because of these new declaration and
1:02:08
deeds of trust. And so I have not been sent to
1:02:11
prison. And anybody who fears they could
1:02:14
be sent to prison needs to be aware of the fact that that is
1:02:18
not the case unless they have a totally corrupt local court and
1:02:24
police operation. But you know, in law you cannot
1:02:29
be sent to prison because you have paid your money into trust
1:02:34
and you have paid your taxes. So that's an important thing to
1:02:38
mention, right? The website is no tax for
1:02:42
war.com and people can download the various documents and deeds
1:02:51
from the website. There is more and more
1:02:53
information on there and it's also linked to the original
1:02:57
website probityco.com, which has masses of background information
1:03:04
and law and other things on it as well.
1:03:09
So the two websites together hope, will be providing enough
1:03:15
information for people to get on with it as soon as they can.
1:03:19
Perfect, Chris, That's great. And and all of that will be
1:03:22
captured in the notes below this interview.
1:03:24
So, so don't worry about scribing them all down.
1:03:26
Also, just to clarify on you said about going to prison three
1:03:30
years in a row, just to clarify that as far as off the top of my
1:03:32
head, I think that was for a day, 8 days and 40 something
1:03:35
days. It's not actually a year each
1:03:37
time. It wasn't a year and it was 51
1:03:40
days in total. OK, all right.
1:03:42
Still, but but a very important point to make, one of very many
1:03:47
important points that you've made during the course of this
1:03:49
interview. Chris, it's been a pleasure to
1:03:51
talk to you again. Thank you very much indeed for
1:03:52
joining me on UK column. Delighted, Charles.