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