Policys for sale, slap-up dinners at number 10 Downing Street, use of the Prime Ministers private apartment - and all for a mere £200,000+ which will allow your conglomerate to then help alter the governments policies.

Now let's not forget, this has gone on before - so Mr Cameron knows. Then we must ask; 'what's all this "theatre" by the unelected PM - coming on camera with his "Sports Relief" T-Shirt to show us all what a good guy he really is, - though at 200,000 grand a lap, that's not a bad sum and a great incentive to make one want to spring out of bed in the morning and get the old kerching, kerhing going! - As they never quite know how long they will be able to get away with all the corruption that's still currently taking place within the corridors of power, so tear the arse out of it before they're booted out; and once again leaving the coffers; "empty". 

Sleeze, sleeze and more sleeze is all that ouses out from that farce of a house of commons, - occupied by members of secret societies whom are as common as muck.

 

Secretly filmed footage of Peter Cruddas offering access to the prime minister and chancellor. Courtesy the Sunday Times.

Conservative Party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas has resigned after secretly filmed footage showed him apparently offering access to the prime minister for a donation of £250,000 a year.

He made the claim to Sunday Times reporters posing as potential donors.  He said £250,000 gave "premier league" access, including dinner with David Cameron and possibly the chance to influence government policy.

Speaking at a Sports Relief run in Buckinghamshire, which he was taking part in, the prime minister said: "This is not the way that we raise money in the Conservative Party, it shouldn't have happened.

"It's quite right that Peter Cruddas has resigned. I will make sure there is a proper party inquiry to make sure this can't happen again."  So what is he trying to say that others whom have dined at No10 and crashed at his private pad, did so by paying £200,000+ for the priviledge, yet Mr Cameron was unaware of this?  What if Mr Cameron wanted to bring some chick back to his pad - and walked in on such a party, who so happened to have had paid big bucks to be there.

---

The Sunday Times said the fake company was a wealth fund based in Liechtenstein.  Donations from it would have been ineligible under electoral law, but not from British company directors who were registered on the UK electoral roll, the reporters were told by a lobbyist they hired, Sarah Southern.

In the above footage, Cruddas is heard "initially" saying that it was "not possible to buy access to the prime minister".

But he then goes on to explain how to get around this little wrangle, by telling them what access different size donations would get them.

He spoke about the Leader's Group, a club where for an annual donation of £50,000 donors are invited to join Mr Cameron and other senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-Prime Minister's Questions lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches.

He then said; the more money they coughed-up would allow even more access, including to Chancellor George Osborne. - So is that how those corrupt rich criminals went about getting a "tax-cut" for the rich in last week Budget by lobbying the PM and Chancer of the Exchequer, - both Bullingdon Boys I hasten to add, as is Boris Johnson.  

"Two hundred grand to 250 is premier league… what you would get is, when we talk about your donations the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron/Osborne dinners," Cruddas blurts out whilst giving it large and confirming this kind of practice is a common occurance. 

It's only the times when undercover journalists have caught them out, that we the public get to hear about it. - So you can only imagine how widescale this sort of corruption truly is, and why there should be a criminal investigation, and if it's not illegal what these gangsters are doing, then it bloody well should be. 

How can it be possible that by simply slipping a few quid in a extra large brown envolope under the table to the like's of Mr Cruddas & Co, and then get access to the heart of "our" government?

Okay so it could be argued Cameron is technically a squatter in No10, as we know he wasn't rightly elected, and why he feels no obligation to the people.  So we the people should send him a 28 day 'Eviction Notice', and let's get someone in there we can all trust, - though who is there? 

Let's bring an end to all this corruption and sleeze - that can only take place because there is not enough transparency in our governments and why we need new laws and regulations that ban members of secret societies from also being able to serve in our governments and their related bodies.

Cruddas said the meetings were good for picking up "a lot of information", and that he would ensure suggestions were fed back to No 10." - "You will be able to ask him [Mr Cameron] practically any question you want" - "It was categorically not the case that I could offer, or that David Cameron would consider, any access as a result of a donation”

Cruddas was appointed Tory co-treasurer in June 2011. Resigning, Mr Cruddas said: "I deeply regret any impression of impropriety arising from my bluster in that conversation."  Which what he meant to say was; 'I deeply regret I was caught with my pants down, but all I see was this big massive "£" sign...'

He then had the bear face cheek to go on and say: "Clearly there is no question of donors being able to influence policy or gain undue access to politicians," - they seem to be blind of their own actions, as why on earth would someone pay £250,000 if they facking well can't do any of what was being offered in the first place!  - They've obviuosly told Cruddas what a dickas he was and that he better do a quick u-turn and say the following: "Specifically, it was categorically not the case that I could offer, or that David Cameron would consider, any access as a result of a donation. Similarly, I have never knowingly even met anyone from the Number 10 policy unit." 

Sorry, but I don't believe you Mr Cruddas, the video proves so, and like just said, why would someone give such vast sums of money, if all they got was a signed photogtraph of Cameron's?

A statement from the Tories said: "No donation was ever accepted or even formally considered by the Conservative Party.

"All donations to the Conservative Party have to comply with requirements of electoral law, and these are strictly enforced by our compliance department."

Downing Street sources said: "He was saying numerous things no-one recognised."  'No-one recognised', well we will soon see about that over the comings days and weeks as the shit goes all over the fan.

What are they really expecting us to believe, or should I say; suggest that what Mr Cruddas did, - asking someone to handover a quarter of a million pounds in return for absolutely sweet F.A., that "they" i.e. Mr Cameron knew nothing about it, and even if he didn't, that what he did was not that serious, that all it warranted was Mr Cruddas's resignation.  For if "they" had nothing to do with such an offer, then is this a case of "attempted fraud?" Calls are being made for the police to look into this matter, as I know if it was you or I, then I don't think a case of simply resigning and walking away with our tails dangling between our legs -  would somehow be accepted.  

Labour deputy chairman Tom Watson said: "It's David Cameron that hosts the dinner parties, and people would expect him to explain how - when people have given a quarter of a million pounds - how those dinner parties are held." Not that Labour are any better, - Mr Watson seems to confirm what I've said and can see that Mr Cameron obviously knows all about these cosy lil set-up's round ye olde log fire of No10, - weekends at Chequers would no doubt had been on the cards for later on.

Obsessed with trying to talk like Tony Blair, Labour's MP David Miliband said: "The idea that policy is for sale is grotesque". - "This goes to the heart of the question of the relationship between a party and the government... It crashes through the lines that should exist between party and government."

Coalition partners the Liberal Democrats were also concerned. Lib Dem MP Danny Alexander said: "It's utterly disgraceful and there is no place for this sort of unacceptable behaviour in British politics."

He also said "reform" of funding system was necessary.

He said there was a "perception that people who make large donations - be they wealthy people from the city or trade unions - have influence. They should not have that influence, nor the perception of that influence.

Last year, after an inquiry into public funding of political parties, the Committee for Standards in Public Life said political parties should get an extra £23m of taxpayers' money to reduce reliance on "big money" donations.

It also recommended a £10,000 annual cap on individual donations from 2015.

At present there are no limits on donations, but the name of anyone who gives more than £7,500 to a party is made public.

Committee chairman Sir Christopher Kelly said on Sunday that events like this were "absolutely inevitable" - "This sort of thing will happen as long as the parties depend on wealthy individuals for their existence," he told the BBC.  And this is why it's always a two/three horse race and why no other party has a chance in hell of ever being elected, and why we need a "government" funded pot where all potential runners in any party or election [subject to obvious conditions, i.e., they have formed a party and have a manifesto and policy in general], is equally funded, as should be the "air time" or all those in the running. 

Kelly said he had recommended that "the only way to remove the suspicion surrounding very large donations would be to ban very large donations".  And he's not wrong there.

"That requires all the parties to address something very hard. For the Conservatives it means giving up their advantage of having more wealthy supporters. For Labour, the relationship with the trade unions," he said.  And it's about time this unfair advantage was abolished. - Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17503116

And it is in light of these recent revelations, that I feel it's my duty but to call upon David Cameron to resign from his position as "Prime Minister", and hand over the reins to his deputy Mr Glegg [he's the one on the left of Murdoch in their cosy lil bed], for the intrim period and until we can sort out the right person who should duly be there. 

This following film was made over 60 years ago and cost the life of its director Paul Riche, a pseudonym of Jean Mamy, who was shot dead at the fortress of Montrouge on 29^th March 1949 for what the Masonic courts termed; “Collaboration with the enemy”.  It will show you how our own parliament in still run today, it's no different now, in fact it's worst as they have infiltrated almost all the worlds goverments and with millions of members spanning the globe. At the beginning of the film we see a young upright politician addressing the French parliament, he rips apart the blue pill Capitalist of the right and the red pill Communists on the left accusing them as being as deceitfully equal in there suppression of the “people”. 

His speech causes uproar among the Politicians, - and in a close-up sequence we can see two elder politicians discussing; “What “lodge” does he belong to?” - The other informs him; “He’s not one of us”.  “Ah no wonder he’s so outspoken, I think he needs to be taken into the fold”.  – The politician he has just told this to, then get’s up from his row and goes three or four rows down and addresses a much elder chap; “Your Worshipful Master”, and translates what his “brother” had just suggested.  The Worshipful Master raises the point that’s exactly what he was thinking and they decide to “initiate” him into the world of Freemasonry as from then on.

     And that’s the problem today. I’m certainly not suggesting the Jews are in on this alone, far from it, they never have been alone, divide and rule is the Illuminati way, always has been, likely always will be, unless we can bring about “real change”, and ban members of secret societies from also being able to serve in our governments and their related bodies.

     The film then recounts his initiation into the “Brotherhood”, as he is persuaded to re-launch his career, thus learns of their inner secrets - and how the Freemasons were conspiring with the Jews and the Anglo-American nations to goad France into a war against Germany.

It denounces Freemasonry and reveals how influential the Freemason’s are in political world, how corrupt parliamentarianism really is, and what it sees as the Jews part of Vichy's drive against them, and is determine to prove a Masonic plot behind the rise and escalation of WWII. 

As was the director Robert Muzard charged with the same as Paul Riche, though it appears not to death as many articles claim, though I could be wrong, - when on the 25^th November 1945 he was condemned to 3 years in prison.  The films writer Marquès-Rivière was also condemned, though in his absence, as he had gone into self-imposed exile, - the penalty was; “Death and degradation”.  

It's interesting to note the place the Fortress of Montrouge, where they mudered Paul Riche with a bullet to the head, in the book Colleges of Controversy; page 7;  It reads; “...the Jesuit “novice house” at Montrouge was turned into a Fortress where 50,000 of the Orders members set themselves to small arms drill and artillery training”. Circa 1814’s

     In the United Kingdom, back in 1929 the New Welcome Masonic Lodge No. 5139, open 'inside' the Palace of Westminster, - alongside the other Masonic lodges for members of the other political parties. At its founding, membership was limited to Labour Party Members of Parliament only, but its scope has since broadened. 

some time in the future.

The Houses of Parliament

Edward VIII

The lodge is alleged to have influenced the outcome of the 1935 Parliamentary leadership elections and was created at the suggestion of the then Prince of Wales, afterwards King Edward VIII, who was concerned by the antagonism between Freemasonry and the British left, and the fact that a number of Labour MPs were blackballed when applying to join Masonic lodges. 

Black-Ball Box

The New Welcome Lodge was intended to form a link between Freemasonry and the new governing party, and was open to Labour MPs and for employees of trade unions and the Labour party; its members included Labour’s deputy leader Arthur Greenwood, and no doubt Unison’s Trade union joint boss Tony Woodley [who oddly ripped up copies of The Sun newspaper, - yet asked; “Where’s the Sky’s News camera”, when confronted by a pack of reporters, as it seems he wanted to address them “only" or to give them what appeared to be the "exclusive".

Sky News tore the ass out of it by playing the clip of him saying it time and again and days after the event, among other trade union members. 

At the very least we should be adopting the same regulations as what the Portuguese PM has called for in January 2012, a “Public Register” of members of these such societies have to declare if they members of a “secret society” and the name of the club or lodge.  

 Let’s not forget, it’s the Duke of Kent, who is the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England [UGLE], and that on the 9^th December 2010, Alan Englefield the Grand Chancellor of the UGLE, wrote to François Stifani, accusing him as to the extent of damage the contents of the letter he wrote to President Nicolas Sarkozy, and what was subsequently made public and published in L’Express Magazine. - Englefield wrote; “...clearly offends against one of the basic principles of Freemasonry, that a Mason acting in his Masonic capacity does not make any comment on state or social policy, or what could be construed as allying himself or his Grand Lodge with a particular party of faction”.  - And like I say, the UGLE has had no alternative, than to react this way, as it can hardly publicly endorse it. 

François Stifani     

François Stifani, is causing uproar among the European Grand Lodges, for doing what many of us have long accused Freemason’s of doing, which is exactly that; ‘...allying themselves to particular political parties and factions’.  The Masonic Lodges situated in the heart of the political arena of Westminster – the Houses of Parliament, is obvious to this fact, it’s just that no one has been foolish enough to get caught writing down their allegiance on GLNF letterhead before! – So what normally arises following something like this, are cries it was ‘forgery’, they would collude and advise him to say; 'it had nothing to do with him'.  Though at the early days of this expose, Stifani said nothing of the kind, and especially prior to receiving the letter of complaint by the UGLE, as he hadn’t reported the matter to the police back then.

The Chequered Black and White Floor in Westminster Abbey

If it was a forgery, then why else did the Deputy Grand Master, Jean-Claude Tardivat, resign as DGM and from the Board of Directors, which followed in the wake of other resignations by Jacques Studer, Provincial Grand Master of the Rhone Valley, and John Dugeny, Deputy Grand Master of Honour, and that members had to resort to the civil court action, when on the 7^th December 2010, a Paris High Court demanded the GLNF’s General Assembly be convened to consider removing Stifani.  

    

Jean-Claude Tribout DGM - resigned...

Though Stifani remained defiant—the Grand Master also serves as president of the governing board, and his public position is that he can be removed as president, - but can remain as Grand Master.

     Even though this was well over a year ago, it continues to make the news in France today, and they seem to be heading for a very ‘ugle’ and very public rocking of the foundations, as the keystone of the fraternity is being put under maximum strain, as these ‘great pillars’ of society are being exposed for what and who they really are. - Is the brotherhood about to implode within itself, are the great pillars of Boaz and Joachim about to fall in France, then Portugal?

     The Grand lodges in Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg had also written official letters of complaint to the GLNF and Stifani, protesting his supportive communication to President Sarkozy as being in violation of the most basic tenets of Freemasonry.  

Inside the Grand Lodge of England

Though Stifani shrugged off those complaints, - until the UGLE weighed in with an official message of protest, saying what’s stated above,  – that Stifani seems to have then piped-up and claimed the letter was a forgery.  It was sent on GLNF stationary, and it had Stifani’s signature on it, but he contends the letter is a forgery, the stationary was stolen, and his signature was attached from an electronic file without his approval.  So somewhat belatedly and reluctantly, he filed a police report to that effect.

'The Two Sides - Black and White of Masonry...'  

[The GLNF is just one of the three principal Masonic grand lodges in France, and is the one most recognised by the majority of the world’s Freemasons, including the UGLE, USA and Canadian grand lodges.]   

     The above video gives a rather shocking insight into how some of the ‘brother's’ reacted to Stifani, and is more reminiscent to that of an ice hocking arena, than the usual tranquil settings of a Masonic lodge meeting. Freemasons are shouting "Resign!" and "Thug!" at the address of the December 2011 annual meeting of the GLNF, by Stifani, following a demonstration by opponents of Stifani’s, who gathered outside the main entrance.   Some of the foreign delegator’s who attended, came into the room through another door.  

It’s said around 1200 delegates attended the meeting in a room set up for 3000, as it does look rather sparse.  According to accounts Chris Hodapp had received, and who first wrote the original article about this Masonic tiff; - as about two-thirds of the participants shouted out; "Resign!" and "Thug!" to Stifani, and that he was hardly able to speak in a meeting which lasted two and a half hours.  The witnesses refer to a "climate of insurrection."  ‘It was like the Annual Communication of March 2010. Except that this was a ritual meeting, where order is supposed to reign, the reports were jeered. And it did not proceed to any vote.’

Some Dublin Brethren inside the Grand Lodge of Eire - That's right Ireland, that Catholic country...  

     Let’s not forget how shrewd they are, when incoming to power, the then Home Secretary Jack Straw of the UK, - said in 1998; “Membership of secret societies such as Freemasonry could raise suspicions of impartiality and objectivity”.  He promised to look into the proposal of a register for Freemason’s, who were also members of the judiciary, and particularly judges and magistrates.  However what went wrong, as why have things remained the same?  Well, and it is here where it exposes the sham, for it wasn’t until he knew he was at the end of his run, and after they had tossed the idea around and wasted almost 12 years doing not that much about it, - and not until when only having to be forced to resign from his position of power, in November 2009, did Jack Straw announce that he had decided to no longer force applicants for the judiciary to declare if they are Freemasons.  Incredibly, he said; “...there is no evidence of impropriety or malpractice.” - Yeah, if that’s what you say Jack, - as isn’t that why they’re a ‘secret society’ in the first place!

     The on the 11th January 2012, Portugal’s Prime Minister, Pedro Passos Coelho, rocked the Masonic foundations in Lisbon; when he announced guidelines for the obligations of persons holding high positions in government; ‘should disclose whether they are a member of the Freemason’s, and the name of their Masonic lodge’. 

     This proposal by Portugal’s PM, needs to be adopted by all our world leaders, we cannot be expected to continue to live in a world where members of our governments and their related bodies, are also members of the very same secret society. This request that they should have to declare their involvement with the Freemason’s is not new, and in some cases and professions; ‘voluntary declaration’ is asked, - though the problem is, who’s policing it, and why volunteer if it’s not a legal requirement?  The crux of the matter is this; if real transparency of government is to ever begin, then we the public should have the right to know; who is and who isn’t a member of a secret society whilst working for our governments. A law is required, so that a complete list and register of names are available for public scrutiny, and like that of the present electoral role system. 

 If you too would like this kind of public register available for us all to see, then it’s imperative that you too join this cause: http://www.causes.com/causes/643665-ban-members-of-secret-societies...