1. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    There's a popular conspiracy theory that the City of London (yes London in the UK) secretly runs the world of finance and that all tax havens are in cooperation with this sovereign state. They've provided NO EVIDENCE. They even go as far to claim it has its own police force and laws and that the popular scapegoat they use, the Freemasons, headquarters is based there.

    Now, I can't stand conspiracy theorists, they constantly try and attack our land of the free. But anyone in their right mind can dismiss this nonsense straight away until they provide proof.
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    All cities have their own police force and local laws, so that's a bit of an odd point.
  3. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    This is your opinion, but all the evidence points towards that it is a sovereign state, the Queen has to bow and ask permission to enter like she would any country. An odd thing to do if it was actually part of the UK.

    Stop putting 'debunked' at the beginning of the topic title, you've debunked nothing.
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The person who posted this thread titled it "debunked: ...."

    I will edit the tread title if the thread actually contains a debunking. But here the OP chose the title.

    And what's odd about noting that all cities have their own laws and police forces. That's true. The City of London is very unique and interesting historically, but it's just a municipality. The Queen does not have to ask permission to enter, nor does anyone else.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Bar,_London


    There are also several variants of this conspiracy theory where Queen actually owns the City of London.
  5. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    The City of London does have special status, mostly to do with paying taxes. This is one of the reasons it is able to maintain its status as a world leading financial centre, it is also the only reason that the UK refused to sign up to the recent Financial Stability Pact - Cameron recognised that the push by France had more to do with diluting the clout of the City of London than it did with saving the EU.

    The City of London is not London city. It's a tiny area, about a square mile in size. It does have it's own police force, separate to the Met, but only 3 police stations. The laws are slightly different there too, but as it has almost no residents this hardly matters. Until it comes to banking. No head of state needs to ask permission to enter, but then again there's hardly any need for a head of state to visit - it's almost entirely commercial, full of banks and financial service companies. If you want to see the stereotypical bowler-hatted pin-striped-suited Englishman, this would be the place to come.

    It does have the right to run its own affairs. In effect, it operates as a tax-haven, and is regarded as an offshore haven for foreign businesses.

    At the moment it is the site of considerable controversy, as every Friday night in a basement at a secret location, there are bare-knuckle fights arranged between members of the Illuminati, the Bilderbergs, and the Lizard-folk of the NWO.*

    *I might be wrong about that last bit.
  6. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Indeed you are wrong - it is between the Illuminati, the Bilderbergers, the Lizard-folk AND the NWO.

    Or so I heard.
  7. Lee Wilson

    Lee Wilson New Member


    Good grief, is this as good as it gets ?
  8. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    And all the verifiable evidence says that is not true. The only evidence that says it is true is some peole saying it is true.

    you refusing to believe actual evidence and prefering hearsay does not mean it hasn't been debunked.
  9. cheeple

    cheeple Member

    They are part of the Trilateral commission which also includes Washington DC and the Vatican, you wanted Proof have you heard of the Libor Scandal, most americans have not yet it's huge, London manipulates precious metals to keep their fiat ponzi scheme going, you wanted proof there are whistleblowers who have stepped forward.
  10. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Libor has little or nothing to do with precious metals, and the Trilateral commission was a bunch of people - it had 87 Americans, 20 Canadians and 13 Mexicans.

    Europe was represented by 160 people - 20 from Germany, 18 from each of France, Italy, the UK, 12 from Spain and 1-6 from pretty much every other country. The Vatican has no representation

    the Asia-Pacific group had 117 people - 75 Japanese, 11 South Koreans, 7 Aussies & Kiwis, 15 from the various ASEAN nations and 9 from China Hong Kong and Taiwan.
  11. Brol

    Brol Guest

    The Queen does indeed have to ask permission from the Lord Mayor of the City of London to enter. That Lord Mayor of London (Mr. Alderman David Wootton), is not to be confused with the Mayor of London (Mr. Boris Johnson), these are completely separate jobs.

    I don't why. Tradition I suppose.

    Dozens upon dozens of books confirm this:
    https://www.google.co.uk/#q=monarch...pw.r_qf.&fp=fcdf5dc674699092&biw=1309&bih=713
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well, quite. It's just a tradition performed during a particular ceremony. There's nothing to actually stop her going in.
  13. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Senior Member

    Maybe Mick meant "Well, not quite"?
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, I mean "quite", as in "yes, it's just a tradition"

    Might be a British usage of the word:

    Quite:




    Exclamation:



    Expressing agreement with or understanding of a remark or statement.



    Or more amusingly:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=quite





    [TD="class: tools, align: right"]7 thumbs up[/TD]



    [TD="class: text, colspan: 2"]A word true gentlemen use when they agree with something anothergentleman has spoken. It can also be used as an adjective in stead of "really".
    That man is quite the lad. Yes, quite.[/TD]

    1. Quite
  15. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Active Member

    "Our Land of the Free" That gave me a good chuckle. Thanks man. :cool:

    [​IMG]
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  16. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Senior Member

    I thought about that after I posted......been quite a while since I worked with any Brits.
  17. Spongebob

    Spongebob Active Member


    Quite...
  18. Spongebob

    Spongebob Active Member

    Quite...
  19. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Indeed.

    I understood it....but then I'm only 2 generations out of the old country....
  20. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Active Member

    How does this censorship work on your forum Mick?

    Are all "unflattering" photographs of political leaders prohibited on your forum?

    Will you censor unflattering photographs of President Barak Obama? Will you censor photographs of the Supreme Leader of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

    Does your courtesy extend to wealthy business people such as George Soros and Bill Gates, or does this honor only apply to monarchic blood with genetic superiority granted by God ?

    Does this prohibition extend only to other European monarchs such as Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Prince Albert of Monaco, or does it extend to ALL royals including the Emir of Kuwait and the King of Swaziland?

    In order to comply with your rules and the social standards here, we the users need guidance and information.

    Help us help you make this forum better. We provide you with content and traffic. You provide us with leadership and direction.
  21. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    What's the point of putting up pictures of any politician, unflattering or not, considering this is not a political forum? I agree with Mick, I wouldn't want to see this forum dominated by Alex Jones wannabes, which seems to be happening lately Mr. Peoples Republic of Texas.
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Active Member

    Read the initial post in this thread.

    Are you implying that because I live in Texas, I am an "Alex Jones wannabe" ?
    • Like Like x 1
  23. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    I'm implying that your choice to use the phrase "People's Republic of Texas" for your location is a political statement and AJ has referred to Texas as the "Republic of Texas". If it quacks like a duck... ;)
  24. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Active Member

    Allow me to assuage your concerns and relieve your prejudices.

    Alex Jones is what is popularly known as a Conservative American Patriot. They believe in a mythical time and place called Revolutionary America where people were supposedly free. The believe that smaller government and strict adherence to the ideals of the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution are an acceptable state of social organization.

    I am the opposite of Alex Jones. I believe that freedom from violence is a basic human right, and that freedom can only exist when the majority of people in a society abide the philosophy of Non-Aggression.

    Consequently, Alex Jones thinks I'm crazy. Quite the feat eh? :cool: I'm also banned from his forum.

    It is true that we do both live under the government known as "Texas" and consider the State of Texas to be corrupt, but for different reasons.

    I do understand how that makes us appear to you like "ducks". A similar belief exists in Texas regarding English and Chinese people. They all appear the same to the majority of Texans who never bother to learn otherwise.

    If you find lumping people into broad categories based upon where they live either more comforting and highly convenient, that's okay as long as you are aware of the alternative.
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No, not if they provide some useful information, or if you explain why you chose that photo (and it's not simply to be rude).

    But it seemed you were simply making a point about the "land of the free" comment, and saying "hey actually, we are talking about a state ruled by a Queen", and then posted an unflattering photo of her. I replaced it with a photo more representative of the subject.

    So if you want to post unflattering photos of anyone, then go ahead, just explain why you are doing so.
  26. BRoI

    BRoI New Member

    The onus is upon you to prove that.
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    See post #4, above.
  28. cheeple

    cheeple Member

    So your saying Revolutionary America is a myth?
    Your saying Freedom never existed?

    Are you saying that strict aderence to the ideals of the Constitution are not acceptable?
    If I read this correctly and understand what you disagree with it sounds like you would agree that
    More government is the answer
    and
    You disagree with the Constitution
  29. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Active Member

    Totally fair. This quirky dedication to politeness is, in my opinion, one of the coolest things about your forum Mick. Most "debunking" and "skeptic" forums seem to exist more for the purpose of engaging in contests of snark and condescension than for discussing interesting information.

    Although I often fail to meet my own expectations of it, I actually dig politeness. This is the reason I avoid posting curse words, and always try to use proper capitalization and punctuation.


    Correct. The proclamation that they live in the "Land of the Free" by a subject of the royal prerogative of a genetic monarch was just tooo funny.

    In the photograph I posted the Queen's eyes looked mean, as if she were thinking about chopping off someone's head. I though it humorous in the fun spirit of debunking which this forum is dedicated.

    I understand celebrity fondness. My daughter is severe Anglophile. She made me pay for her to attend Oxford and watch parts of the Diamond Jubilee. Ug.
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Thanks for being reasonable. Politeness is a bit of a gray area, and I'm sure in making calls I sometimes let my own biases slip through - but hopefully we generally remain on the polite and productive side of discourse.
  31. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Active Member

    Correct. People back then were not free, especially the blacks, women, and Indians. American Patriots worship a myth.

    Correct. That is too much government for me. The Articles of Confederation would be better. A truly free society would be even better.

    I would love to discuss politics with you, but let's not muck up this thread or Mick's forum with it.

    I'm a supporter of http://tragedyandhope.com It's free to sign up there. Look me up on the forum and ask me difficult questions.
  32. BRoI

    BRoI New Member

    Nothing like an reputable source eh!

    And that's nothing like a reputable source.

    Wikipedia cites an unpublished art student's MA thesis, and an unpublished English Heritage Report.

    Great stuff. :rolleyes:
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    How about the City of London itself?

    http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/abou...ildings-within-the-city/Pages/Temple-Bar.aspx


    It's a ceremony, they re-enact it. There is zero evidence to suggest otherwise. If you've got some, then present it.

    Here's an account of the ceremony from the 1600s, pages 17-18 here:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=sc...ny"&lr&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=temple bar&f=false

    And another interesting one.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=7s...#v=onepage&q="Temple Bar" sword major&f=false
  34. BRoI

    BRoI New Member

    My assertion:
    The British monarch needs permission from the Lord Mayor of London to enter the City of London.
    Numerous sources which confirm this:
    https://www.google.co.uk/#q=monarch...309&bih=713&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&cad=b

    Mick's assertion:
    This is purely ceremonial, the British monarch can comes and go as (s)he pleases in the City of London.
    Sources Mick's provide to prove his case:
    1. Wikipedia cites an unpublished art student's paper, which in-turn cites an unpublished English Heritage report - Nothing then.
    2. The City's website, which confirms the monarch asks permission to enter the city - Thanks for that one.
    3. A book which mentions the Protector (not a British monarch) having to perform the ceremony too - This doesn't help Mick's case.
    3. A book (snippet view) which mentions the ceremonial - So what?
  35. cheeple

    cheeple Member

    it says it's by invitation only can you send me an invite
  36. BRoI

    BRoI New Member

    - Michael English, Minister of Parliament, speech in the House of Commons, December 11, 1968
    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=1968-12-11a.455.1
  37. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member


    Well, during the celebration of her Diamond Jubilee in June this year, the Queen attended a service at St Paul's Cathedral, which is in the City. She arrived there without any special ceremony of asking permission to enter the City.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRmIZTNlIvs

    The only tribute to this tradition was her walking in the Cathedral behind the Lord Mayor bearing the Pearl Sword. Following the service at St Paul's, the Queen attended a reception at nearby Mansion House - the official residence of the Lord Mayor of London.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18327711
  38. BRoI

    BRoI New Member

    Unfortunately your youtube source only shows the Queen in the City of London, not entering it.

    St. Pauls, as you can see on the map, is towards the centre. So your video doesn't prove anything either way.

    Mansion House I know well, I walked past several times a day when I use to work in Cousins Lane. Was never invited to a reception though.:(

    425119.jpg
  39. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    • Like Like x 1
  40. BRoI

    BRoI New Member

    Great article. Good find.

    Alas, all the City needs do, is label its detractors; "conspiracy theorists," and the nodding-dogs on this forum and many like it, shall immediately fall-in line and attack the supposed tinfoil-hat sporters, who dare criticise unregulated, untaxable, political lobbying banks and financial institutions.

Share This Page