Yet more Vobes and associated space cadets.

First, start here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jdw6oFCWSs&ab_channel=RichardVobes
An interesting view into the twisted byways of the mind of Mr Vobes and his acolytes (or co-conspirators?).
When reading this, keep in mind the phrase "thick as mince".

In this video,near the start (09:00 mins) his fellow escapee, John Hamer, tells us, quite flatly, that dinosaurs didn't exist. The idea of dinosaurs was created to simply hook children into the idea of getting them to badger their parents into buying dinosaur related items, such as pyjamas etc). I wondered if he may be right so I checked up on a couple of those involved with the first evidence of dinoaurs. These were Robert Plot, who produced and published the first known example of an illustration of a dinosaur bone. (Initially, he thought it was the bone of a giant. Silly boy!). There was also a bloke named William Buckland who produced the first work describing and naming the dinosaur species.
So, I thought I should look up their Social Media pages, blogs etc and was bitterly disappointed when I failed to find anything in that area. Well, that's baffling! How can any successful marketing campaign be expected to produce results if not backed up by social media, influencers etc? It can't, of course. And considering that Mr. Plot was alive from 1640 to 1696, while and Mr Buckland was alive from 1784 to 1856, I had expected to find a couple of hundred years of archived blogs, ad campaigns etc but...nothing! Nada! Zilch!
Mr. Buckland may be interesting. In his other job, besides dreaming up and running ad campaigns for the nascent Amazon flog it industry, he was a theologian. Well, that is just grand! A lot of Mr Vobes' co-conspirator clowns come under the heading of "God Botherers" so he should fit right in there. In fact, from the small fraction of the latest Vobes' output, I think today's lunatic, John Hamer, is about to launch into a deep scientific and philosophical leacture on how, whatever the topic, it was God wot did it! (Makes a change from the bloody Scum saying it!). So, I shall return to suffer what I expect to be an assault on my sense....

Oh! Here we go. Seconds after Mr Vobes hinting at his dearly beloved weather changing via chem trails etc, his guest says "What people fail to comprehend is that solar and wind power contributes less than 2% to our national energy generation". As I write this, data from the National Grid shows the generation of electricity, at this moment, to be comprised of coal 1.1%, gas 24.8%, solar 13.5%, wind 21%. (Plus others such as nuclear etc). Well, which of those numbers is closest to 2%? Coal at 1.1%. Soalr outstrips the 2% figure by a factor of 6.75 times and wind outstrips the 2% figure by a factor of almost 10 times. He goes on to say that electricity is mainly generated by fossil fuels. 25% (including gas powered generation) is today's figure. How does that amount to "mainly generated"?
So, is that obvious discrepancy another hole in the waterline for the idiot's argument?
Let's see.
Oo err missus! Now he is stating that oil is NOT a fossil fuel but it is something the earth continues creating, although he does have the front to admit the process is a mystery to him.
Christ on a bike! Now we get to the impossibilty of the moon landings. My forehead is getting sore from from repeated slaps almost every time either of this pair of charlatans open their gobs.
Aaaagh! Now gravity doesn't exist! If you drop an object and it falls to the ground, gravity has nothing to do with it. It is solely due to "relative density", ie: if the object is denser than air, it will fall to the ground and, if less dense than air it will float upwards. Off to la la land, no doubt!

Now, while enthralling themselves with their superior knowledge, and as part of a flat earth piece of twaddle, Mr Hamer tells us the Antarctic Treaty was signed by "every nation on earth". Was it bugger! Unless, in 1959, "earth" consisted of only 12 nations. Mr Hamer also informs us that we can see objects hundreds of miles away, when the scientific/mathematical models say they should not be visible beyond a couple of miles. What shite! I must admit, I have seen mountain ranges from tens of miles away when they are beyond the horizon. I have to confess though that the times when I have seen this have all been in the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula. And there is a name for this phenomenon; they are known as "Mirages". I suppose that may disappoint the loony tunes Harmer who probably thinks a mirage is an image of a man, crawling on hands and knees with his 2 foot long tongue hanging out and headed toward a soft drinks stand situated beneath a nice palm tree.

Speaking out: Part 2

 So, as promised, Part 2.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the internet is infested with various bottom feeders so here's a few that I would happliy place in that category:

1. Mahyar Tousi: I must admit I have never watched  any of his videos but I would judge him to be somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. Born in Tehran, mummy didn't like it there so they came to the UK. From the thumbnails I have seen on YouTube, he is anti pretty much everything, particularly Palestinians and pro everything else nasty. I believe he has worked for (maybe still does) Talk TV. And currently seems to be shagging Tommy Robinson. (Or at least, is very close to him).

2. Talk TV: pretty much the same ilk as Tousi but rather than a collection of Iranians, this lot seems to be a congregation of Tories who feel the Tory Party is nowhere near right wing enough. A sort of collection of verbal anarchists.

3. The "History De-bunked" plonker:  Claims to be a historian and as straight as an arrow when it comes to opinions. Except for my opinion. I find him to be constantly anti-immigrant, particularly toward people with brown skins. And he has the most ingratiating manner about his little chats.

 4. GBN not news (well, they claim not to be a news channel!) Any organisation that claims to have Anne Widdicombe on their list of players has to be considered beyond the pale. Now, to be fair to them, they had a video on today in which the Jewish trouble maker vs the Met Police (subject of Part 1) was raised and they sought the opinion of a commentator who spent some time defending the Met Police copper. And that's enough of being fair to them!..

5. The whole internet collection of so-called "Auditors". What an arrogant, ignorant buch of time wasters they all are. 

6. One eyed Vobes. What a wally with his carefully modulated Middle Class accent and complete and utter tosh from his various contributors. Among his favourite hobby horses are 'Flat earth shite', 'Chem trails', 'Sovereign Citizens' and their vomit inducing crap. He's a clever old cove though, he rarely, if ever, comes up with anything original or that can be laid at his door. He gets an odd assortment of nincompoops to join him and lets then make as many stupid contributions as they can.

7. This extremely nasty bastard (in a league of his own) seen venting his spleen on a TV interfiew recently, declaring loudly and repeatedly that all Palestinians in Gaza deserve a "hard and agonising death". Check out the moron for yourself here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NAhjWphqt4&ab_channel=MiddleEastEye. Don't come to me with claims for Kelvin induced PTSD. In the hierarchy of low life, this bloke is in a league of his own.

8. All so-called newspapers. For a while, I read and trusted the Guardian. No more. (Owen Jones is always worth a watch though). A good example of the high standard of British journalism comes today with the Scum (some call it the Sun). From what I see on the front page of YouTube, today's gem is a huge headline proclaiming that "thousands of British holiday flights are being attacked by dangerous Russians". I must say I can not see what the article itself says as I have not read the Scum for years and don't propose to start now. I amgine it may be along the lines of streams of Ryanair flights en route from UK to Tenerife or Ibiza are being targetted by Russian death rays aimed at them from Vladivostok. (Yes, I know that is an absurd idea but we are talking about a newspaper that knows no bounds when it comes to quoting the absurd as "fact").

I could go on listing these toe rags but that would encompass thousands of YouTube contributors so I shall leave it there (for now).

Time to speak out

It's probably fair to say "a bit late for speaking out, aren't you". Fair enough but better late than never.

So, what got me motivated today? The short term is "Scum". Mainly the sort of pond life that waste bandwidth on the internet spouting their toxic shite on any subject you could care to name.

Today's example concerns the crap going on over a Met Police sergeant filmed, criticised and roundly slated for doing his job. For those not up to speed here, a Jewish activist popped out from under his rock into the middle of a pro-Palestine demonstration in London. The sergeant advised him, in utterly polite terms, that his appearance in the middle of this demonstration, wearing his skull cap, that it was perhaps unwise, there was a danger some in the pro-Palestine crowd could perhaps cause him some trouble and it would be advisable for him to perhaps leave the scene. The sergeant appeared to me to be looking after the welfare of this idiot and, arguably keeping this whining toad from possible harm. He was trying to prevent what could be a possible breach of the peace and it could be dangerous for the miscreant's health. Remember that; he was trying to avoid a breach of the peace but later video shows him refusing to leave and an officer telling him that, should he continue to refuse, he could be arrested. Well, that's pretty much how policing works for you and me so why not for this dick? Of course, the scavengers and bottom feeders in the Tory party are siezing on this to criticise the Met Police, obviously without bothering to properly check the facts. Situation normal! All we need now is for the Israeli agent, Keir Starmer, to join in.

Without diverting too much, isn't it time for all of us to take a hard look at what is going on in this world in terms of sanctioned slaughter/genocide?

 

Let's check on the death toll in Gaza; currently being quoted at 34,000. Or 1% of a holocaust. As far as I can see, very few, if any, were killed by Palestinians. I should double check the reports from journalists on the ground in Gaza. Oh bugger! I can't do that as the Israelis are keeping journalists firmly out of Gaza. Aah! That's the freedom we expect our politicians to be supporting and, presumably, our armed forces to be prepared to defend. Meanwhile the same can not be said in this country. Freedom of the Press and freedom of speech no longer exist here in "Good Old Blighty". Still, bugger the Freedom of this, that or the other, as long as we can continue to criticise the Genocide Party currently ruling occupied Palestine. What's that, I hear; I can't say that? But I can. After all we have Freedom of speech, don't we? I can therefore call them what I want (with the notable exception of the term for a clique of well known fascists that begins with N and ends in I).

 

And, while I am about it, who is sick of hearing the co-called Prime Minister of this country repeating the well worn cliche about Israel being allowed to defend itself and therefore no reason to support a call for a cease fire? Answer me this, you plonker; when does "defending yourself" become vindictiveness? The attack by Hamas (the legitimately elected government of Gaza) on the Israeli kibbutz took place on October 7th. More than 6 months ago. But the current Israeli philosophy seems to be"Kill them all and let God sort it out" (or if you can't get God to join us, just label all the casualties as Hamas leaders, supporters or soldier, regardless of their age). Of course, it is well known that 1 and 2 year old Palestinians are skilled marksmen! (aren't they??)

 

I am sure this topic will go on for volumes so I shall stop here and upload Part 2 later. 

Richard Vobes

 

An introduction to Mr. Vobes. My view anyway)

Mr Vobes is one of the aggravating YouTube warriors, hell bent on sowing discord, fairy tales and downright silly crap on an almost daily basis. He seems to be a keen adherent to the "Sovereign Citizen" philosophy and seems to enjoy using his videos to promote their whacky ideas. I see he is also a follower of the"Chemtrail" bullshit that has been bouncing around the internet for quite some time now.

 Let's begin, as the saying goes, at the beginning of this vile piece of crap video with the grand title of "We must outlaw state extortion!" That sounds like a lofty and worthwhile ideal so I will run through the 10 minutes of it and see what it has to say:
Right at the beginning, Mr. Vobes launches into an attack on Enforecement Agents. Let me, first of all, start with a question: "If an entity, such as a bank, a purchaser of your goods or services owes you money and are not paying you, how would you resolve that? Sit and moan about it until the end of time? Or, perhaps, go through a legal process and get a court to issue an order for your debtor to pay you what is owed to you?"  So, you presumably go down the latter route and, when all else has failed to get you what you are due, an enforcement agent will appear at the premises of the person/entity that is illegally witholding the money that is due to you (your money) and demands, on your behalf, they pay the money. If they refuse, the enforcement agents have to have some form of leverage to either encourage them to pay or to raise the funds otherwise (take goods etc to raise the funds at auction, for example). You will no doubt thank the enforcement agents for doing for you what you have been unable to do yourself. So, we have (or at least, I have) established the need for enforcement agents.
At the start of this diatribe, you say "enforcement agents are making money hand over fist". That statement is either a genuine error/lack of knowledge or a downright lie. Personally, I think it is a lie but let's be kind here and assume it a mistakenly held belief. Well, let's get it straight. They are paid not much above minimum wage and they do not receive eye watering commissions on all they recover. There is generally a bonus system in place but this only applies when cumulative recoveries have reached significant figures and there's perhaps a system of hoops to be jumped through in order to qualify. Any bonuses earned do not relate to the amounts collected on behalf of the injured party.
You then rant on about enforcement agents going after the vulnerable etc saying "Oh, you parked somewhere ..etc". Understand one thing: They do NOT go after anyone, other than those who have, usually, had ample time and opportunity to either settle what they owe or even to appeal the decision. Even then, it is not the decision of the enforcement agent that sees them deciding which door to knock on. They visit those addesses and people as directed by the courts.
Oh hello! Yet another allegation that the agents "seem to be making money left, right and centre". For the avoidance of doubt: They are NOT! See above.
"Where's the crime, where's the victim?" you cry. Well, if you think there may be a crime, there is an organisation dedicated to dealing with that. They are called "The Police". As for "where's the victim?"; refer to my imaginary scenario in my opening paragraph and you are owed lots of money, legitimately. You will soon be crying "But I am the victim here".
You now go on with more tripe, quoting a lady who called you with her ideas on the unvierse and how to fix all its problems. "There's no due process, there's no copy of the warrant" and "if you don't pay, the police turn up and end up aiding and abbetting". Utter tripe! The police only turn up when the agents fear there may be a breach of the peace. I am sure you have seen enough of the other idiot videos, falseley claiming the police are at, for example, an eviction to help the bailiffs. They are not. They are there to ensure the bailiffs are allowed to go about their work in a peaceful and legal manner; acting within the law.
How about warrants? They don't come into these cases. There are writs, of various types and there are orders. So you must be referring to warrants that the Police may obtain.

Continuing with your nutty friend Lizzie. "There is no due process of law...the claim has to be issued in a court of law following the civil procedure rules...they have to have an issued claim with a court seal on it...and it has to be served with a certificate of service and it has to followed with the particulars of the claim and the reason they are making the claim". You jump right on to the looney tunes band wagon and say "...Oh well, their reason is they need a bit of money, you look like a most likely candidate", followed by they are bangining on your door and they intimidate you until you pay. That is a total lie! I might come on to that again later.
She then goes on to say "They used to go through something called the Northampton Bulk Centre. You assume this is a traffic court. It isn't. The court is now known as the County Court Bulk Centre (CCBC). Note that term: "County Court". And off you go stating "It is not a court of law". If only you had searched, as I did, you would see on page 1: "The work at the CCBC is issued in the name of Northampton County Court and comes under the jurisdiction of the judges of that court.
You go off on a ramble about the CCBC not hearing any claims. I assume that might be because the debtor has not challenged the debt. In the event the debtor does challenge the debt, it would no doubt be transferred to the relevant court for a hearing (as you pointed out in the only piece of accurate reporting seen thus far).
Lizzie on the phone says "you must have a right to a fair hearing". And everybody does have that right. Just re-read my previous sentence.
In your vacuuous rant about the traffic enforcement court, you talk about saying to an enforcement agent (presumably) "If you can't produce the warrant". What warrant?
The source of your stupid remarks, "Lizzie on the phone" finishes off your piece with a sem-literate piece which is too silly to merit comment.

More on Mr Waterman

Starting at (or near) the beginning.

The beginning: Having watched, with increasing dismay, a few of your YouTube videos, I thought I ought to go to the actual beginning and watched your first three efforts. I had thought there is obviously something that has triggered all this off. When I got to the end of the third one, I found myself almost sympathising with you,  thinking to myself "This bloke may have some serious points to make here. Then a new video popped up, dated March 30th and I watched that. This one actually got me angry with frustration. It was obvious you had taken no notice of my previous comments and seemed hell bent on ploughing your own deluded furrow.

The first signs of this occur when you have a rant about about your company, Exbourne Manor Freehold Limited. I don't remember which videos this appears in (there was more than one occasion). The thrust of your argument here is that you are accusing Jordans Ltd and Swift Incorporations of being fraudulent companies. Neither of these companies is fraudulent or fake. Swift Incoporations Ltd which you claim not to exist was incorporated 22 August 1985. As for Jordans Limited, this company was initially incorporated as 'Hamiplag' in November 1965. In December 1966, Hamiplag registered a name change to Tyndall Registrars Limited, followed by another name change in June 1968 to 'Jordan & Sons Limited'. On 17th June 1996, the name was changed again to 'Jordans Ltd'. I sent you an email which you have been ignoring for a couple of days now so, here is my response to the March 30th video and to my frustration.

When I began watching this video, I took your advice and looked at the various links you offered. One of these, on Rumble offered to teach us how to trace the evidence. First, harsh though it may sound, you haven't a clue how to go about this so you should not be offering this "advice" to anyone. You don't waste a second telling us how this company or that is either a fraudulent company or just plain doesn't exist. And you are wrong in virtually every case.
One of your other links begins with an allegation of Lloyds Bank having supplied you with false/forged statements. Your sole evidence for this being that you don't like the way these "amounts appear in the date columns" (your words). The document I saw (your document) shows an amount in the column headed 'value date'. And what is wrong with that? This indicates that the transaction ocurred on that date. Let's say, for example, that you received a cheque and paid it into your account. The date you pushed the cheque across the counter is one date. The next thing to happen to the cheque will be it either clears (shown to be valid and of worth) or it will be returned as the account it was drawn on has no funds. If it is cleared, the date it is credited to your account in terms of a real asset will be the value date. That, then, would be a good place to indicate the value of that payment.

But, let's get to that chronological beginning
This video starts off with spurious allegations here, there and everywhere. Beginning with Childline, you mention London Law Agency. Not the first time but let's re-hash it. In a related video, you declared this company to be an illegal company.The company is properly registered and still active on Companies House. (for simplicity, refer to Bates Wells & Braithwaite as BWB). BWB began as Bates Wells LLP, incoporated 23 January 2007. The name was changed to BWB London LLP on 25 January 2007 and the change was registered at Companies House 2 Feb 2007. The latest statement with Companies House shows this name is still the current one and the company is still operating.
Your Childline incorporation document shows  Bates Wells & Braithwaite "is there on the incorporation...as well as Oyez". I have seen your frothing about "Oyez" on other videos and it is probably about time someone had a go at putting you out of your misery. Did it not strike you that the term "Oyez" is not a company but rather a device or logo of the Solicitors Law Stationery Society. Somebody had to print that form and it was probably the aforementioned Society. I just did something you could have done, I searched the web and came up with an article in a publication named legalii insider, stating how "The Oyez Straker legal forms-to-stationery supplies and digital dictation systems group has been bought by venture capitalists Hermes Private Equity for £80 million. It has acquired the business from the rival private-equity outfit Bridgepoint Capital.". Oyez was obviously a trademark of the company providing the forms. So, strike all silly remarks, links etc to Oyez.
Now we are up to Bates Wells and a link to the Madeleine McCann fund. Rubbish! And I have rubbished it elsewhere.
A quick, unrelated leap back to Childline and a lot of slanderous statements, stating that there has been fraudlent documentation and that Companies House must be complicit in this "fraud". This is followed by one of your trips into la la land, when you say the Childline registered address was Royal Mail building and off you go, telling us about the Royal Mail/Horizon scandal and your "opinion" that the Fujitsu/Horizon scandal was not a real issue but rather a diversionary tactic. As you like.
Now for Children in Need (presumably via the Esther Rantzen link?). You state that this was founded by someone named Sunder Mansukhani and the company name was Chocdock Ltd., incoporated 18 January 1990. On 06 April, the name was changed to Children in Need Limited. Now you link Sunder Mansukhani to Max Clifford, Epstein, Maxwell and Christ knows who else and you state that "if we look on the Max Clifford document (where?) there's links all the way through to child abuse concerns". No there isn't.
After some potentially serious allegations, going via way of trying to implicate Social Services you get to "The former NHS Chief Executive from my company". The name you are pointing out is Peter Wanless so let's look at him. Well, Wikipedia describes him as CEO of the NSPCC. That is NOT the same as the NHS! Nowhere in the Wikipedia entry does it mention Exbourne Manor so perhaps a look at that is in order. Nothing there either (other than yourself).
Childrens Promise Trading Ltd is next in the firing line with the usual chorus of "it's obvious fraud". Of course it is! Except to me? So, now Childrens Promise Trading "goes though" to Asthma Enterprises Limited. This has Swift Incorporations in the incorporation document. So what? How many companies do you think the company helped start up, register etc? Again, you refer to your company and mention forged bank documents (again!). Earlier, you had said the bank documents were provided by the bank, so why bring Swift into it (again)? 

Next quote:" None of the people on the incorporation documents have ever been registered with Companies House... and there's fraud, very clear fraud all the way though this". The company was first incorporated as Realoke Ltd. Instant Companies Ltd was listed as a director. Now for the epic shock: Instant Companies, Jordan & Sons, Swift Incoporations are all members of the group now trading as Vistra Ltd.! Then, you go off on the "these companies shouldn't exist" etc. That's getting a bit tedious.
Oh dear! Cancer Care for Children changed the name to Clic Sargent Cancer Care for Children. Scandalous! How dare they change their name! And, worse than that, all these companies listed that have used the London Law Agency Limited. "Because they have used a company that hasn't been registered correctly". I have dealt with this one elsewhere so I shall copy & paste my previous findings:
"And off we go, lickety split to look at London Law Agency Ltd. At this point, you wet your knickers and proudly tell us that the company shown on the incorporation does not exist.
Hmmm. Companies House shows that to be a firm of solicitors, based in Wimbledon. No mention of Temple there. Originally incorporated in 1967 with the name Ganvilon Motors Limited, just as pronounced by you with an air of triumph. Aah! in 1969 the company name was changed to The London Law Agency Limited. Yes it was ! Don't argue. Read the entry dated 27 October 1967, especially the part that begins "Special Resolutions were duly passed, 1. That the name of the company be changed to The London Law Agency Ltd."
My original is here: https://grumpykelvin.blogspot.com/
Now for Phone Paid Services. You bring up the incorporation document, point to the page and say "You can see on there the same person, Temple." Stop! Go back to reading class! The name is Hope and his address is at Temple Chambers. You then say "This guy has never been registered". Who? Temple? Carry on with the reading practice and you will see Mr Hope (NOT Temple) is signing on behalf of London Law Secretarial. Oh God! Off we go again. Temple appears as part of an address, not someone's name.
Moving swiftly along, you bring up the Samaritans and make a big song & dance about how they should really be known as Samaritans (The) as that is the name on the incorporation document. Shame you didn't read the filing on 6th February 2006 which changed the company name from Samaritans (The) to Samaritans. You say this is a deliberate falsification of the register. No, it is NOT!
 

And now for Esther Rantzen and Silverline. Off we go, pointing out Waterlow links all the way through the fraud (no it doesn't; you have not yet shown a fraud exists) and Waterlow links to De La Rue. You say the Memorandum and Articles of association shows the link to Waterlows. Not on the copy I am looking at, it doesn't. (Doc filed 30 November 2019).
You also say Childline was taken over by the "National Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Children". What! Protection of cruely? No. The 'P' stands for 'Prevention' (this is the 2nd time in this video you have made the same mistake).
Now for Farrer & Co. They appear to be a legal firm (the address should be a clue, isn't Lincolns Inn Fields a well known hang out of barristers etc?). Google Inns of Court and there it is! Oh and Christopher Belecher is listed as a solicitor.
From here you delve really deeply into la la land, pointing out Robert Clinton and Tony Blair just at random as there is no obvious link on Companies House to either of these.
Ghislaine Maxwell did indeed have a company, Terramar (UK) and the name of faara does indeed crop up on the inocporation document for this company.As the agency confirming that the requirements of the request to incorporate have been complied with. You know; as a solicitor might do.

Now for the great apostrophe hunt. You get your knickers in a twist over Voluntary Sector Mental Health Providers Forum and how the original name, at incorporation, had an apostrophe after the word 'Providers'' So it did. Now if you had bothered to read the filing for 11th April 2006, you would have seen the change of name to the current name; ie without the apostrophe. This apparent failure to read all the info seems a common failing of yours. This wouldn't be bad if it wasn't for the following nonsense about changing the name to facilitate fraud, child traficking etc. Why do you not write to this company and accuse them directly of such offences?
The Royal Society for Public Health? Well, no need to follow your lack of logic. The RSPH provides us with the info that the name was changed from "the (Royal Sanitary Institute to the current name in 1955. End of that mystery. It doesn't help or advance anyone's interests that you call it out as "an absolute fraud offence".

Now you point to a name, saying "now we've got this person" and showing the name of Ben Sumerskill and how he is linked with a real estate company. And nothing else.
Now for Colliers International, incorporated in December 2001, "That is just after the World Trade Centre". As were a lot of events. Matching a year of incorporation with the WTC event does NOT mean any any significant event. I went to Anfield to see Liverpool play in the Champions League game on 11th September 2001. That must surely make me a prime suspect?
And, off we go again linking Teneo Financial Advsiory. Another company I have covered previously and I shan't bother with here.
However, we then get to another piece of stupidity that I have previously covered; your preposterous links to Swift Incorporations to the bank money moving system Known as S.W.I.F.T. A copy from my original document: "I think I ought to point out that S.W.I.F.T, in relation to banking, stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, established in Belgium in 1973, but, of course you knew that didn't you. The Swift Incorporations you are pointing out is a British company whose business is company formations. Imagine that! A company whose business is the creating and registering companies should have their name appear in so many company incorporation documents! They have nothing at all to do with bank data from New York!" There! You must see why I used the term 'stupidity', not out of malice.
I got a bit dizzy when you started darting around all manner of people/entities so I thought I would give your "research documents" a whirl. First I tried was the Nicola Bulley doc. No actual  links there to anyone or anything except reprints from news articles and a most ridiculous attempt to smear her husband because he works for BAE Sytems. As do thousands of others!
Next document; you reach a new low. Claiming to provide something about a child protection case (I hope you are not stupid enough to do that, given how protective and secretive the courts are on this subject). What do I find? Nothing! Some baseless claims about children allegedly being murdered in Jersey. Groundless allegations as per your own document.
You post a document, 'BCP Council' which contains some of the daftest tosh I have encountered.
Update: I have, this morning, got my day off to a dreadful start; I clicked on the latest piece of tripe from Richard Vobes (a despicable person in my view). In his latest offering, he is featuring you and here we go. In support of your flakey argument that the whole thing revolves around HMRC (see a dictionary; the pronunciation of the letter 'H' is 'Aitch', not 'Haych') doing various things, including the shutting down of the Self-Employed Line for several months. Well, rubbish! HMRC operates a help line fo tax self-assessment users and it was this that they proposed shutting down during the summer. This was 14 days ago. Very quickly (next day in fact), they rowed back on this and reversed that decision. And that was 13 days ago. Do keep up!
And here we go, totally predictable! The SWIFT banking system..blah blah. Take note; this is NOT a company and therefore merits no entry in the Companies House register. Next is the  Swift Incorporations that you mention as being involved in the formation of your own company. I have checked and looked into this so many times in the last week it is making my head spin. Anyway, my findings are listed in this blog. And this is more or less where your troubles begin.

The bottom line:

Your whole host of "links to" etc appears to have all been based on your incorrect assertion that Swift Incorporations and Jordans never existed and therefore all reference to either of these companies must be fake/fraudulent. In fact, all your allegations of links (real or imagined) must fall away as they are all based on an idotic, incorrect and hysterical reading of the facts. You may have genuine grievances re the management of your company (of which you were a director and therefore must bear some responsibility for 14 years). I don't know and can't judge based on what you show as 'evidence'.

Gary's Universal Conspiracy Theory

 Intro: Gary Waterman is a man who, as a result of some possibly difficult circumstances, has, what they call "Gone off on one". His difficult circumstances seem to revolve around leasehold/freehold issues in the building where he has a flat. He was, at one time, a director of the company that managed the property. There appears to have been an issue between him and the rest of the board as the Companies House filing in respect of him says "Termination of Appointment" in July 2023.

Subsequent to this, he has taken to uploading videos to YouTube telling the world how he has established "links" from this to that to the other 'proving' that virtually every commercial enterprise in existence today is operating fraudulently, that Companies House is complicit in enabling this to go on and it all boils down to a global conspiracy. From his start point with his leasehold problems, he jumps so quickly to linking Lloyds Bank (who he alleges furnished forged/fraudulent bank statements to him) to the demise of Nicola Bulley and alleged irregularities in the management of the Madeleine McCann Fund.

It was one of his recent videos on the McCann topic that caught my attention so I looked into that. Below is my message to Gary Waterman, pointing out the errors, inaccuracies and plain stupid 'links' that he relies upon to 'prove' his claims. The reason I decided to do this was because, having looked at one of his other videos, I posted a comment on his page pointing out what I thought was wrong with his posts and offering my advice (for what it is worth) that he looks again at his claims and to beware of the companies and company directors who may view his allegations as libellous and to remember, big corporations have big budgets and they can employ some serious legal people to go after him (should they wish). His response was to post a comment which said that if I disagree with him, then perhaps I am one of the people conspiring against him. This got me angry but I responded with a call for him to retract the allegation or I shall take this argument more public. Two days later and I have heard nothing more from him so here we are.

Gary: Let's start with the Madeleine McCann story, your video titled "Missing Madeleine McCann links to decades long government fraud."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USv6sZkoFYc&ab_channel=Gary

According to you at 2.03 into the video, you state "Where millions of pounds of taxation money, public money was put through that account". At this point, you wander off, naming the Company Secretary from the Incorporation document. Well, let's hold on a bit and leave them until later. Before moving on to them, let's examine the statement you made re "millions of pounds of taxation money etc".
The fund's first set of accounts from 31 March 2008 show £1.8M income and a surplus of £1,052,027 to be carried forward. There is also a statement of Income, stating that "Income comprises donations received by the company along with revenue recognised in respect of merchandise supplied, exclusive of VAT". Not much room for millions of pounds of taxation money there, is there?
The following year's accounts describe how the Daily Express and other publications were making amends for a year of bogus speculation and accusations the previous year. The Express and other publications offered donations to the Fund. The auditors report for this year shows Income of £629,000 and a negative year end balance of £361,763.
The report for 2010 shows a similar pattern with Income at £233,099 and a year end deficit of £220,230. Tax was also paid (£2,598).
The annual report for 2011 contains the following lines: "Over the past financial year, as with the previous one, the costs of the search continue to be higher than the fund's annual income". And at year's end, there is a loss of £344,849.
The next 2 year's reports show that the publication of the book "Madeleine" by Kate McCann significantly improved the fund's position. There was also mention of David Cameron but only reporting his setting up of an inquiry. No mention of a couple of quid from government. And so the account trails go, only getting into a positive balance of funds following money raised as a result of the Kate McCann book. Nowhere throughout the accounts, from incorporation to date is there any suggestion of "taxation money". An apology and correction might be called for here.
So; let's look at the next couple of minutes of the video:

Off you go, on a magic carpet ride through the names and addresses of the entities involved in the McCann fund incorporation. You seem to get hung up a bit on the word "Temple".
You point out that, on the McCann incorporation paper, the agent is Bates Wells & Braithwaite. While pointing this out, you throw in one of your standard lines about links to fraud. No details yet but we shall see as the video grinds on. Further down the page, you highlight the name BWB (No 2) Limited. At this point you introduce an element of mystery: This is the point where you throw in the phrase "millions of taxation funds etc". The mystery arises from the lack of clarity: you are pointing to the First Director , while pointing out that this is on the McCann Fund incorporation page, giving rise to the question "Which of the 2 entities, McCann Fund or BW(No 2) Limited? You really ought to make that very clear. In my argument above, I have assumed you were referring to the Fund. Only you can answer that one.
Now you march on to "Let's have a look at those companies", starting with BWB (No2) Limited and point to London Law Secretarial Ltd and this is where you develop the fixation on the term "Temple". BWB(No2) Ltd was dissolved January 2018. Never mind, the incorporation document for this company, as you point out, names London Law Secretarial Ltd as the company secretary. What a coincidence! A company whose business is provision of secretarial services, featuring as a company secretary! You tell us how the Temple" address is linked to this etc Well of course it is: it is the address of the Company Secretary. If a different address had been used, they would  be in trouble with Companies House. And off we go, lickety split to look at London Law Agency Ltd. At this point, you wet your knickers and proudly tell us that the company shown on the incorporation does not exist.
Hmmm. Companies House shows that to be a firm of solicitors, based in Wimbledon. No mention of Temple there. Originally incorporated in 1967 with the name Ganvilon Motors Limited, just as pronounced by you with an air of triumph. Aah! in 1969 the company name was changed to The London Law Agency Limited. Yes it was ! Don't argue. Read the entry dated 27 October 1967, especially the part that begins "Special Resolutions were duly passed, 1. That the name of the company be changed to The London Law Agency Ltd."
Undeterred, you continue with "Jordan and Sons is also on that document". No, it isn't. That name appears on the next filing under the title of"NEWINC". Now you link Jordan & Sons with "my company, where fraudulent documents...etc". So what?
Now you get silly, saying "The evidence here is now overwhelming, the authorities need to..." Forgive me but I am not overwhelemed. There  has been not one scrap of evidence of anything produced so far. And you insist on telling the world, at the start of each of your videos, how you are an ex-policeman. Now you point again at Ganvilon Motors and declare it has an address of Cliffords Inn on this document. No it has not! That address is the address of the solicitor dealing with the incorporation of Ganvilon Motors. I know this to be true as I read it on the same document you claim to be reading.
Next you tell us Ganvilon Motors Ltd is not registered on Companies House. The Incorporation Document you claim to be reading, dated 17 October shows the company name as "Ganvilon Motors Ltd". How about that? Read the other document, the one you used to accuse Jordan & Sons of something untoward, titled NEWINC. It gives the name of the company as Ganvilon Motors Limited. You can see the "Limited" if you just move your gaze from Jordan & Sons, up the page a bit and there it is! Do you see it now, just above the line showing Statement of the Nominal Capital". Having spouted that rubbish, you state, quite definitively, "That is fraud". Tell you what, how about if I forward your rubbish to the injured party (the one you accuse of fraud) and see what they have to say about that?
Bashing on; you now pick on a couple of people involved with the Madeleine Fund, starting with Philip Tomlinson and you tell us about his involvement with Thomas Burton Developments Ltd and how this company was incorporated in 1992 and is still active. I should point out here that Philip Tomlison was born in 1931 and is probably enjoing his retirement now.
And off you go, via Thomas Burton Developments, on a foray into lala land. You mention that Burton Developments are linked with Swift Incorporations Ltd, saying "which you may remember Swift Incorporations and Jordans were both involved in starting up your company with forged bank documents." Suddenly, you are on a page of the Gazette newspaper focussing on an article about Nicola Bulley with some nebulous claims from a "Private Investigator" and his efforts to clear up some inaccuracies about the disappearance of Nicola Bulley. Well I am buggared if I can see the connection there. Make your mind up; how did you make that leap from bad mouthing a company to a nutter who can out plod all the plod in Lancashire? After reciting the past work of Mark Williams-Thomas, the private investigator who actually claims to be a "crime reporter", you say, randomly, "I suspect (unclear) have information that police officers were killed in relation to all this." All what? Anyway, it takes only a second or two for you to leap from a company he was once involved in, GumFighters and then you pounce on how this company was employed by various councils to clean their streets. According to you, that is important to note. A search on his former company GumFighters shows a previous name for the company of Hallco 369 Limited and you then comment on how "this crops up a lot where sequential number is given to a particular company for their initial registration." And off you go, yet again, with a company incorporation document for Hallco369 Ltd. Absolutely rivetting! Not! But you pick up on a person's name and show how he is involved with  a company named Fortdale Properties Limited, telling us to remember "Property & real estate factors heavily in all this fraud". No evidence anywhere of this. Perhaps I should plough on, perhaps there will be evidence later. "And the fake bank documents I have acquired links to a property limited company" and next you are naming a director of the Fortdale Properties company, named Jeremy Paul Janion and you are off. On a swift series of "links/goes through" to various companies who have all used Swift Incoporations Ltd. "And you can see someone else linked to GumFighters UK "Kathryn Janion " Don't bother telling us how this is linked anywhere. She is obviously related to the director you previously named, Paul Janion. You mention her name with "If that's a real person". I take it you have grounds for doubting the existence of this person? Well, if she is not real there will be a number of companies looking for her; she is linked to 8 companies in the period 1992 to date. One of the companies you connect her with, 3G Cleaning Ltd is shown as Signaward Limited from 10 April 2001 to 11 May 2001. Aagh, screams your inner Sherlock Holmes. Look how quickly the name was changed to Graffiti Fighters UK Ltd. Scandalous! Changing the company name after only a month. You tell us "it is all, I believe, part of this fraudulent system". What "fraudulent system"? You still haven't shown that yet. Oh God! You expand on your thoughts by saying it is all down to Companies House allowing companies to chop and change their names to avoid litigation so that crime can be committed. Being an ex-policeman, you would know the meaning of "litigation" surely? It is not connected with the criminal legal system but rather refers to settling civil disputes. Never mind. What is the purpose of Companies House if not to track and regulate the changes in company names, the appointment and resignations of directors etc?
Oh no! Back to the old chant about Swift Incorporations Ltd and Jordan and Sons and the links of those 2 entities to the beginning of your difficulties.
Along on another twist strewn set of 'linkages' now, from Temple Secretaries Ltd there is a link to Osprey Deep Cleaning. Whoa! Back to GumFighters UK now (this is the timing of your video, not mine) and we get a name: David Bovell. He now "goes through to another company Opportunity Investment Management Plc, with a Belgium address." Now, with no idea why, you point to Mark Williams-Thomas, saying he was linked to that company. Which company? Opportunity Investment etc? No, he is NOT. "AND Specialist Investigations is linked through to him". Well, of course it is! He was one of the 2 original directors who founded the company!
Sadly, you refer to a discredited rag, The Sun, for your next foray and pick up on Clarence Mitchell. And here is another of your cock-ups. You show the Companies House front page of Clarence Mitchell while your commentary says "Let's look at Madeleine McCann's Companies House records". Clarence Mitchell is NOT Madeleine McCann. Not to worry. You correctly show that he is linked to JBP Associates Ltd., listed by Companies House as engaged in PR and communications and this company was started by Swift Associates. And away we go to BWB Secretarial, routing through "Temple" and BWB Secretarial to Philip Kirkpatrick. Linked how? Is it because he was a director of BWB (No2) Ltd? Regardless of the pointless link, you plough on and link him to "The Death Penalty Project Ltd" and then point out that Keir Starmer is also linked to this company. So what? Anyway, you point to the address for the Death Penalty Project at 10 Queen Street, EC4R 1BE and say, quite glibly, this address comes back to the same address on the Madeleine McCann's Fund page. It bloody well doesn't! The incorporation document for the McCann fund shows an address of 2-6 Cannon Street EC4M 6YH.
Whoa! Stop! You continue wth Keir Starmer and sieze upon his tenure as Director of the Death Penalty Project as a link "through Companies House records to Nicola Bulley, that is linked to Madeleine McCann that is linked to this fraud". Absolute tosh! You have not shown a single link to any fraud. Having shown us how you don't have a clue about how companies work, creating imaginary links, you finish up by urging us to watch something by Sonia Poulton regarding Madelin McCann. I have seen a few of her pieces so perhaps I shall. After all, who could resist the lure of an important input that can't even spell the name of the subject correctly? (her name was not McGann.!) I will be most interested in the section marked "Unprecedented public spending". Oh dear! I just tried to watch the video and got the message "This video is not available any more". So, I searched all of her videos, looking for the tag "McCann" and came up with more than a slack handful. Tedious though it was, I skimmed through the lot. None of the dramatic revelations you were promising in your piece.
In summary; you stared off with a promise to show "links". At the end, there are no links of any note.The fact that a pair of companies doing what they do for a living (Swift & Jordan& Sons) does not make a link to anything. Still less does it show any evidence of fraud etc. It does seem obvious that you want to blame a couple of companies for your misfortune but, for that, you have to be at least partly to blame. All your talk about forged bank statements etc point to one thing: your possible culpability in any alleged wrong doing. You were, after all, a director of the company and directors have certain responsibilities. In fact, it would be fair to say that, if we were daft enough to use your phantom link logic, then you are presumably linked to all the crap in this video (same banks, company secretaries etc). And that, in turn, links you to Madeleine McCann, Nicola Bulley et al.

So, who now is complicit in the global conspiracy etc? You or me?

Mr Shapps; again! (the next Dr Who?)

 

The BBC reports today that the dear, exalted prick, (the Right Honourable Member) Grant Shapps, had to rearrange his trip to Ukraine on 6/7th March. He flew via his private jet G-ZABH,
(The one the RAF refer to as the "Royal Flight".) from Northolt to Poland
where he took a train to Kiev. The plan then was to, presumably, take another train from Kiev to Odessa
According to the BBC reports (and those from various newsprint wasters such as the Times), Shapp's plan was for a gallivant to Odessa.

And this is where the story starts to look a bit iffy.

He left UK for Poland on 6th March at 15:18 GMT (see below); from Northolt,  arriving in Poland approx 17:30 GMT.
Presumably, he would have been carrying Tesco bags, stuffed with your hard earned cash, for transfer to Zelensky's back pockets.
Well, things were not going well for Zelensky that day (6th March). He was in Odessa, meeting with the Greek Prime Minister.
According to Russian sources, Zelensky had been awarding members of the Ukraine Special Forces, in particular those who had had a hand in destroying the Russian ship in the Black Sea recently.
At 08:40 GMT, the Russians launched an Iskander missile at the base that Zelensky had been visiting. Basically, Zelensky had given the game away, alerting the Russians to where this base was located. Rumour has it that UK had officers there, controlling some of the UK weapons, planning etc. It would make sense for UK officers to be in the region; who else was Shapps going to use as props for his planned photo-op the following day? The same rumours claimed there was a lot of evacuation flights out of the area.

Let's have a bit of a time line here:
6 March, Ukrainian video on internet shows Zelensky's motorcade travelling through
Odessa to the awards ceremony.
6 March 08:40 GMT Russia launched an Iskander strike at Odessa, destroying the base.
Presumably, a loud bang had been noticed in Odessa when Shapps left Northolt 7 hours later?
Undeterred, our hero pressed on and took a train from Rzeszow air base to Kiev, arriving in Kiev the following day, 7th March.
The train service is currently slated to take 14 hours. If the train left Poland at 18:00 (his flight had arrived at 17:30) he could have arrived in Kiev at 06:00 (Polish border disputes notwithstanding).
Time for a wash and brush up, potty time etc and he decided to head home. The earliest he could have arrived at the Polish air base would have been 21:00. Hmmm. He was on a plane at Lublin in time for a  14:57 departure. How did he do that? Perhaps he had morfed into Dr Who.
If he had caught the dark o'clock connecting service from Kiev to Odessa, he would have arrived some 9 hours later. A slow but cheap service (£3-8)! But he didn't. According to the story, he decided to cancel Odessa and return whence he came. Oh dear! Another tiring 14 hour trip back to Poland, this time to Lublin. So, he set off for a visit to Odessa which was under Russian fire the previous day then waited until he had arrived in Kiev to decide it was dangerous. A jolly junket for the aviation mad Shapps.

RAF Falcon 900 G-ZABH flew to Rzeszow air base in Poland, departing Northolt 6th March 15:18 GMT, arriving in Poland approx 17:30 GMT.
Departed Poland approx 18:25 (less than 1 hour on ground), returned to Northolt, arriving approx 20:33.

The other Falcon of this pair, G-ZAHS, left Northolt 8th March at 11:40 GMT for Lublin, Poland.
Arrived Lublin at 13:59 GMT and departed for Northolt at 14:57 GMT, arriving back there at 17:10 GMT.

 Quis Est Mentiri (Who is lying)?

Well, someone is. Today's liars daily (aka The Daily Mail) is carrying a "story", quoted on the BBC web page, about how those sneaky Russians blanked GPS signals and satellite comms to/from the aircraft carrying his Great Most Exalted and Infallible Excellency Grant Shapps to and from Poland. (I see it has now spread to some real newspapers such as the Guardian, Independent etc. oh, and old Aunty BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68569676). According to the rag known as the Mail, the aircraft suffered a 30 minute black out "as it was flying over the Baltic Sea". Did it now? Furthermore, they claim "the sustained high-tech assault on the plane's hardware is believed to have been run from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad." Sounds serious; GPS "knocked out"? "Where are we Captain"? Buggered if I know, GPS is not talking to me. This needs a good dose of looking at.

Well, the aircraft, a Dassault Falcon based at RAF Northolt and forming half of the so-called Royal Flight, reg  G-ZAHS, took his Highness, Shapps to an air base in Poland, Olsztyn. It landed there at 10:53 GMT. Having completed his photo ops, it departed this airbase at 16:23 GMT, declaring it was off to Oslo. Except it wasn't going anywhere near Oslo. Flying out of the Polish air base in a north westerly direction, it climbed to 16,000ft and declared it was diverting to Northolt. Gerraway! It should be noted that Kaliningrad is due north of the Polish air base, some 50 miles or so distant. The plane flew across Poland, crossing the German border south of Stettin, skirting Berlin and landing at Northolt at 18:25.

At no time did this aircraft go anywhere near Kaliningrad, neither did it venture over the Baltic Sea. Ever! 

It may be worth mentioning here that, at the time this was "occurring" (or not), airliners from Air India, Finnair, Ryanair and Aeroflot all managed to navigate safely through the area without all bumping and banging into each other.

So, someone is telling fibs. The question is Who? Well, on the one hand we have the MoD. Well known for hiding the facts etc, justifiably in some cases. They are also currently engaged in banging the "government's" drum, coming up with all manner of fairy tales to suit the government's agenda, particularly where Russia and Israel are concerned.

And, in the other corner,  we have dodgy Grant. It would be convenient here to refer you to the Wikipedia page on Shapps. Or, look up the story on how he sold suckers a book which promised to help you make $20,000 in 20 days. The e-book cost $497 and advised the suckers to come up with some crap idea and sell it to other suckers. He was also, at one time, the chairman of an organisation named BBYO. This is a youth group which promotes Zionism. So, I suppose we can look forward to the RAF delivering much needed "aid" to Israel soon!

What more can I say? Oh! I bet you didn't know this; the airaft involved and its sister G-ZABH, may be flying for the RAF Royal Flight but the RAF don't own them though. The owners are Centreline Air Charter Ltd. So, rather than purchase 2 aircraft, they thought it would better to rent them from others. Nothing new there though. When the RAF needed air tankers that could also be used as cattle trucks, shuffling troops around, they contracted AirTanker to provide the aircraft and, approximately every 6 months they would be re-painted and fly holiday makers around for Thomas Cook or Condor. Here's one; G-VYGK except when flying for the RAF it became ZZ340: https://kelvindavies.co.uk/kelvin/details.php?image_id=35643 This one is currently flying troops from Brize Norton to Rzeszow in Poland, just 91 miles from Lvov!