Alex - thank you, this is fascinating. It is not possible to get a copy of the original text of T&H as you say. Your points are extremely interesting as far they go, but do you know where one might get an analysis of the whole text? Thank you.
Actually, one of the most opaque institutions in the UK is the Bank of England. We know that it was originally a Rothschild bank but we are supposed to believe that it was nationalized after WW2, with no compensation paid to its former owners. However, the key corporate organizing documents are not only, not available, but covered by the Official Secrets Act. So far as I am aware, only one MP's have been brave enough to table a question in Parliament about this, who was essentially rebuffed, quoting a convention that is normally only used to shield the personal affairs of the Royal Family from parliamentary scrutiny. Heaven only knows what the truth is.
Originally, the BOE was established by William Patterson and I believe that the Rothschilds managed to wrest control of the bank at some point after the battle of Waterloo. I think the truth is that they control the bank even though it was formally nationalized. Control is key. Ownership not so much.
Agreed. I have negotiated many shareholder agreements in my time and have seen multiple precedents where a national government has notional legal title to an asset while the income stream and/or control rests with a private party. This is a very common structure for infrastructure assets in Asia, so there is every reason to suspect something similar was put in place with the BOE.
Alex - thank you, this is fascinating. It is not possible to get a copy of the original text of T&H as you say. Your points are extremely interesting as far they go, but do you know where one might get an analysis of the whole text? Thank you.
I think you can now get it pretty much at any bookstore; I know Amazon sells them.
So kind - I had understood that modern printings had been redacted in places but will take the plunge. Thanks again.
Actually, one of the most opaque institutions in the UK is the Bank of England. We know that it was originally a Rothschild bank but we are supposed to believe that it was nationalized after WW2, with no compensation paid to its former owners. However, the key corporate organizing documents are not only, not available, but covered by the Official Secrets Act. So far as I am aware, only one MP's have been brave enough to table a question in Parliament about this, who was essentially rebuffed, quoting a convention that is normally only used to shield the personal affairs of the Royal Family from parliamentary scrutiny. Heaven only knows what the truth is.
Originally, the BOE was established by William Patterson and I believe that the Rothschilds managed to wrest control of the bank at some point after the battle of Waterloo. I think the truth is that they control the bank even though it was formally nationalized. Control is key. Ownership not so much.
Agreed. I have negotiated many shareholder agreements in my time and have seen multiple precedents where a national government has notional legal title to an asset while the income stream and/or control rests with a private party. This is a very common structure for infrastructure assets in Asia, so there is every reason to suspect something similar was put in place with the BOE.