… And What Do You Do? – What the royal family don’t want you to know (Norman Baker):

Why, and under what legal provision, was there a hearing in private to discuss the sealing of the wills? Why was seemingly no formal record of this hearing made public? Most of all, what does it say about our democratic and legal safeguards if a judge can subvert the law relating to the openness of wills by issuing a ‘practice direction’ to help the royal family, and then keep it secret that this has occurred?

& what do they do? Beside sexually abusing & trafficking minors, hoarding nonsensical portfolios of ill-gotten wealth, & practicing one of the foulest examples of underhanded pluto-parasitic wastrelism known to man?


Beyond the freebooting degenerate scoundrelism of these loafing leeches & their super piss-artistry, Norman Baker has taken the time to run the gamut on her spoiled travesty & the shit-brood.

If you think that they aren’t ruthlessly & cunningly intervening, vetoing & even outright controlling huge swathes of Britain’s domestic policies & political decisions, in action & theory, this is a book you might want to read.

right at home/honours & distinctions

Shrouded in secrecy, outwardly posing immensely deceptive manicured innocence & carefully piling on the PR with triple portion security, it’s all tea & scones to the unwary & ignorant.

Anyway, once the German Battenbergs & the Greek/Danish Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderberg-Glucksburg had cuckooed their way into the British monastic pus-pantomime it was all tax payer funded avarice & obscene self-enrichment….whilst the serfs died in their hovels to swell the estates.

The conclusion that can be drawn from this saga is the same as applies to other matters affecting the royals, such as wills. It is that tradition is valued and defended, except when it is inconvenient, whereupon it is jettisoned, and new rules are made up as they go along to fashion the desired outcome.

one of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary kings is that nature disproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ass for a lion” – Thomas Paine

& that really just encapsulates the entire game. Under tremendous secrecy, with specialist & thoroughly arcane wavers & exemptions, they just quietly call the shots on their own affairs as they see fit. Any legal intrusion from any merging legislation or actions, any undesirable side-effect or unwanted obligation in conjunction with the law of the land – zap! & no need to declare, back channel, beneath the table & off the record.

a fucking joke.

Have you seen the poverty in this country recently?

How many homeless?

How chronic is the housing crisis?

How much “in work poverty”?

How many millions more recently pushed into “absolute poverty”?

how many food banks are there & how many millions more are they supporting?

How much severe decimation is being wrought from remorseless austerity fundamentalism?

I will never, ever, ever understand how anybody can celebrate this perverse crime family.

joint corruption – filthy rich – unelected heads of state

The precise mechanism is one called ‘Queen’s or Prince’s Consent’ and it was sought 146 times between 1970 and 2013. It remains very much alive today and, indeed, updated guidance on how it should operate was issued by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel as recently as July 2015. It is the Counsel’s role to decide if such royal consent is needed for a Bill. If the conclusion is that it is needed, then Queen’s Consent has to be obtained before a Bill can start its journey through a democratically elected Parliament. It is therefore completely different from royal assent, which is the required rubber-tamping by the monarch after a Bill is completed all its parliamentary stages.

Assent is uncontroversial. Consent is not.

“- total Crown Immunity for the monarch.” -“ Perhaps this legal immunity has gone to the head of successive monarchs. By seeking to subvert the law to benefit themselves in this case, it looks very much like R v The Public Interest.

the jokes on us

Baker does not scrimp on the filth ascribed to Andrew, Charles & Mounbatten in the chapter Charity Begins at Home. Jimmy Savile, Peter Ball, Kincora Boys Home, Jefferey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell file under “deductible expenses – on the tax payer, naturally.

Regular attempts to nail down the private wealth of the Queen and her family have been consistently rebuffed, on the basis that these are private matters. But if that wealth has been in part created by unique tax breaks to the disadvantage of the public purse or from simple exploitation of public money, then the private position becomes a public matter.

Extraordinarily offensive & extraordinarily odious. A stain on the species. I can’t believe that anybody stands for it, but that is the scale of diminution.

Norman Baker, Biteback Publishing, 2020, 404 pages