Pedophile Cover-up: Hampstead Police, Social Services, Courts brainwash whistleblower kids, send mother & legal helper into exile, protect Satanist abuser father
Here is the video:
VANCOUVER, BC – According to news inside out, in an interview from Germany with Sabine Kurjo McNeil, the “McKenzie Friend”[1] or legal helper to Ella, the mother of two Whistleblower children, Gabriel an 8 year old boy and Alisa his 9 year old sister, whose video documenting a sustained pedophile ritual sexual abuse abuse at the hands of their father and at the Christ Church Primary School they attended in Hampstead UK, NewsInsideOut.com has learned the following developments, evidence of a deep and powerful cover-up of sexual crimes toward children from deep within the UK Police and Social Services structure. NZ Justice Lowell Goddard, newly in charge of the UK Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, has been notified of this case and has not responded as of this writing.[2]
Gabriel and Alisa, the Whistleblower children have been placed in State Social Services care two hours away from London in Kent, UK and after a number of days of sustained brainwashing by representatives of Social Services have been forced to renounce their allegations of ritual sexual abuse by their father and by staff of the Christ Church Primary School they attended in Hampstead UK;
Ella, the children’s mother suffered an illegal home invasion by 10 police without a warrant. Fortunately, the mother’s barrister was present who demanded a warrant and the illegal home invasion could not proceed. Under threat of immediate arrest by UK police intent on continuing a cover-up of child sexual abuse networks of the father and of widespread sexual abuse at the school, the child’s mother fled into exile in Europe.
McKenzie Friend legal helper Sabine Kurjo McNeil was forced into exile in Germany after being threatened with malicious prosecution for posting the videos of the Whistleblower children online. It was as a result of the posting of the children’s whistleblowing videos that the attempts by all UK police, social services, school staff and courts to date to cover this matter up have failed, as an international outcry on the Internet and social media has arisen.
No criminal investigation has been launched against the children’s father, despite the clear testimony of the children and the children’s mother. The father is a reported member of a ritual child abuse and perhaps child sacrifice network.
No criminal investigation has been launched against the Christ Church Primary School in Hampstead UK despite the children’s clear testimony, and the testimony of other parents, such as the following report from a parent at the school: “everything is completely true i am from the local Hampstead area and my children used to attend christ church primary, they would often come home telling me about weird encounters such as specific kids getting taken out of class by the head mistress katy forsdyke for no apparent, and how the staff touch the kids and manipulate them, I was first approached to join the cult in an after school meeting and when declined I was subtly told that if I told anyone about it then there would be severe consequences on my behalf.
Vicar: Revd Paul Conrad,10 Cannon Place, London, NW3 1EJ. Tel: 020 7435 6784. Email paulconrad@btinternet.com, he seems like a lovely guy when you meet him, would never of guessed he holds several secret rooms in the church to carry out untold practices.
47 Hollycroft avenue nw3 is the current address of these kids father, i know him personally, he is a very successful and very wealthy man, hence why he has allot of higher member of authorities working with him to brush under the carpet
Details of school: Christchurch Hill, London NW3 1JH 020 7435 1361, there are several teachers with heavy involvement, but the headteacher is the main instigator of these horrendous acts in school. my child has also told me the school are often setting up any sort of pointless after school class and extra curriculum activity as an excuse to get their hands and do awfull things to these poor children, its only a selected amount of kids undergoing it, because he parents have to be in on it too and the parents who decline get threatened if they tell.
Anyone who tries to see or instill a measure of balance or open mindedness in the Western media on the question of Armenian “genocide” will soon discover he/she is out of luck. For the phenomenon, which I call the “Settled History Syndrome,” is not only palpable, but also widespread. It runs deep in the media across Europe and America. It is not new, but deserves special recognition under a name of its own – hence the term coined here. It is the product of year-in, year-out incessant propaganda perpetrated by the Armenian lobby on the so-called “Armenian genocide.”
The syndrome explains how a group of certain historians or scholars, supposedly open minded, gather to discuss Armenian “genocide,” but colleagues who disagree are kept away as misguided renegades.
It explains why anyone who challenges the Armenian version of history is labeled “Genocide denier,” often citing a self-appointed group called ”The International Association of Genocide Scholars“ as the infallible arbiter.
It explains how minds are frozen, debate is stifled, and freedom of opinion is trampled upon – truth being the ultimate casualty.
It explains how money and influence, fed by prejudice, create a cadre of ill-informed politicians and general public. The media, itself thrown into deep freeze, commonly plays the role of the facilitator.
Turks who want to fight unfounded accusations from the Armenian side must first deal with this mindset affecting the media.
Examples are myriad. I will first relay an anecdote, then continue with a recent example, both from America. No doubt, what goes on in America also goes on in Europe, with some mutations.
The PBS Episode
Time is early 2006. PBS, the national Public Broadcasting Service in America, is planning to air on April 17 a supposed TV documentary called “Armenian Genocide.” The film, directed by Andrew Goldberg and bankrolled by more than 30 largely Armenian foundations in America, will surely be an anti-Turkish diatribe based on distorted history. I and a small group of Turks and Turkish Americans contact the PBS headquarters in Alexandria , Virginia, to protest the screening of a one-sided story. (As it turned out, the film shamelessly started with a macabre scene of human skulls taken from a 1871 painting by a Russian artist. For a fuller account, see F. Demirmen, Turkish Daily News, April 24, 2006). We argued that, if PBS decides to go ahead with the screening, it should also show, as a balancing act, “The Armenian Revolt,” a newly released documentary directed by Marty Callaghan.
The PBS headquarters did not change its mind. And the screening of “The Armenian Revolt” was out of consideration.
I then took my case to the affiliate of PBS in Houston Texas, which was also planning to air “Armenian genocide.” Commenting on the film, the channel’s website carried the statement: “The International Association of Genocide Scholars affirms that the number of Armenian deaths at the hands of Ottoman Turks …” It was a reminder to the viewers that the “genocide” was a shut case.
Nonetheless, I thought I should still try to educate the Houston channel, that what they would be airing was a prejudiced and distorted story. To that end, I contacted the programming director and sent him some archival material. After back-and-forth correspondence, I had my fingers crossed. At the end, the channel didn’t change its plans, but the programming director made an admission, which was revealing. He remarked that until I contacted him, they had assumed that “genocide” was a “settled history.”
It was a Lilliputian victory. But it showed what the Turkish side is against: a mindset more or less frozen on its track.
Pasadena Star Episode
Fast forward 9 years. On January 15, 2015, the Pasadena Star in California published a news article titled: “Ground broken on Pasadena Armenian Genocide Memorial.” It was an announcement that the monument would be completed on April 18, ahead of the “100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide on April 24.” Pasadena happens to be next door to Los Angeles, a hotbed of Diaspora activism.
As the Star put it, the monument would take “the form of a 16-foot-tall tripod … with water drops dripping … to represent each of the 1.5 million lives cut short by the Ottoman Turks in the Armenian Genocide of 1915 to 1923.” The droplets would “fall every 21 seconds, so that 1.5 million drops will fall annually.” The tripod would represent “similarly shaped structures which Armenian leaders were hanged from during the Armenian Genocide.” Surrounding the tripod and stonework would be “12 pomegranate trees, representing each of the 12 lost provinces of Armenia.”
Pictures of Armenian clerics solemnly praying at the ground breaking ceremony and an artist’s rendition of the tripod-shaped monument were included in the news.
The description and symbolism were chilling; but infused in all was a prejudiced and distorted history. Particularly notable in the article was the absolutist tone in the language. “Genocide” was treated as a fact, with no hint as to its disputable character.
Considering their mindset, I hesitated contacting the Star to express my disagreement that Armenian “genocide” is a fact. But the invitation at the end of the article, for readers to engage in “insightful conversations,“ was too good to resist. I also thought that, instead of sending a short blog, I should lay out my arguments in a full article so as to enlighten them. I informed the Star of my intention to submit a dissenting view, and proposed that they publish it as a stand-alone contribution by a guest writer. Their initial reaction was encouraging. They asked me to send in my article.
In the article I took special care to acknowledge Armenian sufferings and losses, but also mentioned sufferings and losses on the Muslim side. I pointed to certain facts, and made corrections to some of the allegations in the article. I also tried to strike a conciliatory note, referring to the calls of Armenian religious leaders in Turkey, and pointed to the poisoning effect such a monument would have on the Armenian-Turkish relations in America. It was an appeal for “peace.” While I did not expect they would agree with my views, my expectations were high that the Star would publish my article – if for no reason than journalistic curiosity and respect for dissenting views.
The response from the Star was an eye opener:
“Yes. We don’t print op-eds by Holocaust deniers, nor articles denying the settled history of the Armenian genocide, recognized now by 23 countries and by the vast majority of scholars and historians not in the pay of the Turkish government.”
So, I was a “Genocide denier,” and Armenian “genocide” was a settled history, the arbiter presumably being the all-knowing International Association of Genocide Scholars. Case shut. Opinions and facts brought forward by others will not change anything.
The response was the embodiment of a frozen mind. Frozen in time, frozen in space. Here was another example of the “Settled History Syndrome.”
British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill (AFP Photo/Cpt Tanner, No 2 Army Film and Photographic Unit)
Sir Winston Churchill’s family begged him to “fight against” the desire to convert to Islam, according to a newly-discovered letter.
“Please don’t become converted to Islam; I have noticed in your disposition a tendency to orientalise, Pasha-like tendencies, I really have,” the letter from Churchill’s future sister-in-law, dated August 1907, says, the Independent reported.
“If you come into contact with Islam your conversion might be effected with greater ease than you might have supposed, call of the blood, don’t you know what I mean, do fight against it,” Lady Gwendoline Bertie, who was soon to marry Churchill’s brother Jack, added.
The letter was found by a historian at Cambridge University, Warren Dockter, while he was researching for his book ‘Winston Churchill and the Islamic World: Orientalism, Empire and Diplomacy in the Middle East’.
The former UK prime minister was greatly interested in Islam and oriental culture, but “never seriously considered converting,” Dockter told the paper.
Churchill in military uniform, 1895. (Image from Wikipedia/the Imperial War Museum)
“He was more or less an atheist by this time anyway. He did however have a fascination with Islamic culture, which was common among Victorians,” he added.
Churchill became acquainted with Islamic culture during his army service in Sudan, and was greatly taken with it.
The researcher noted the possible reason behind the letter, and that those close to Churchill needn’t have been worried. He may have been a great admirer of the culture, but was also critical in his views on Islamic society.
“The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men,” Churchill wrote in 1899 of his experience in Sudan.
The nation of Israel is galloping blindly toward Bar Kochba’s war on the Roman Empire. The result of that conflict was 2,000 years of exile.
By Shabtai Shavit
Menachem Begin before an image of David Ben-Gurion
From the beginning of Zionism in the late 19th century, the Jewish nation in the Land of Israel has been growing stronger in terms of demography and territory, despite the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians. We have succeeded in doing so because we have acted with wisdom and stratagem rather than engaging in a foolish attempt to convince our foes that we were in the right.
Today, for the first time since I began forming my own opinions, I am truly concerned about the future of the Zionist project. I am concerned about the critical mass of the threats against us on the one hand, and the government’s blindness and political and strategic paralysis on the other. Although the State of Israel is dependent upon the United States, the relationship between the two countries has reached an unprecedented low point. Europe, our biggest market, has grown tired of us and is heading toward imposing sanctions on us. For China, Israel is an attractive high-tech project, and we are selling them our national assets for the sake of profit. Russia is gradually turning against us and supporting and assisting our enemies.
Anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel have reached dimensions unknown since before World War II. Our public diplomacy and public relations have failed dismally, while those of the Palestinians have garnered many important accomplishments in the world. University campuses in the West, particularly in the U.S., are hothouses for the future leadership of their countries. We are losing the fight for support for Israel in the academic world. An increasing number of Jewish students are turning away from Israel. The global BDS movement (boycott, divestment, sanctions) against Israel, which works for Israel’s delegitimization, has grown, and quite a few Jews are members.
In this age of asymmetrical warfare we are not using all our force, and this has a detrimental effect on our deterrent power. The debate over the price of Milky pudding snacks and its centrality in public discourse demonstrate an erosion of the solidarity that is a necessary condition for our continued existence here. Israelis’ rush to acquire a foreign passport, based as it is on the yearning for foreign citizenship, indicates that people’s feeling of security has begun to crack.
I am concerned that for the first time, I am seeing haughtiness and arrogance, together with more than a bit of the messianic thinking that rushes to turn the conflict into a holy war. If this has been, so far, a local political conflict that two small nations have been waging over a small and defined piece of territory, major forces in the religious Zionist movement are foolishly doing everything they can to turn it into the most horrific of wars, in which the entire Muslim world will stand against us.
I also see, to the same extent, detachment and lack of understanding of international processes and their significance for us. This right wing, in its blindness and stupidity, is pushing the nation of Israel into the dishonorable position of “the nation shall dwell alone and not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers 23:9).
I am concerned because I see history repeating itself. The nation of Israel is galloping blindly in a time tunnel to the age of Bar Kochba and his war on the Roman Empire. The result of that conflict was several centuries of national existence in the Land of Israel followed by 2,000 years of exile.
I am concerned because as I understand matters, exile is truly frightening only to the state’s secular sector, whose world view is located on the political center and left. That is the sane and liberal sector that knows that for it, exile symbolizes the destruction of the Jewish people. The Haredi sector lives in Israel only for reasons of convenience. In terms of territory, Israel and Brooklyn are the same to them; they will continue living as Jews in exile, and wait patiently for the arrival of the Messiah.
The religious Zionist movement, by comparison, believes the Jews are “God’s chosen.” This movement, which sanctifies territory beyond any other value, is prepared to sacrifice everything, even at the price of failure and danger to the Third Commonwealth. If destruction should take place, they will explain it in terms of faith, saying that we failed because “We sinned against God.” Therefore, they will say, it is not the end of the world. We will go into exile, preserve our Judaism and wait patiently for the next opportunity.
I recall Menachem Begin, one of the fathers of the vision of Greater Israel. He fought all his life for the fulfillment of that dream. And then, when the gate opened for peace with Egypt, the greatest of our enemies, he gave up Sinai – Egyptian territory three times larger than Israel’s territory inside the Green Line – for the sake of peace. In other words, some values are more sacred than land. Peace, which is the life and soul of true democracy, is more important than land.
I am concerned that large segments of the nation of Israel have forgotten, or put aside, the original vision of Zionism: to establish a Jewish and democratic state for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. No borders were defined in that vision, and the current defiant policy is working against it.
What can and ought to be done? We need to create an Archimedean lever that will stop the current deterioration and reverse today’s reality at once. I propose creating that lever by using the Arab League’s proposal from 2002, which was partly created by Saudi Arabia. The government must make a decision that the proposal will be the basis of talks with the moderate Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
The government should do three things as preparation for this announcement:
1) It should define a future negotiating strategy for itself, together with its position on each of the topics included in the Arab League’s proposal.
2) It should open a secret channel of dialogue with the United States to examine the idea, and agree in advance concerning our red lines and about the input that the U.S. will be willing to invest in such a process.
3) It should open a secret American-Israeli channel of dialogue with Saudi Arabia in order to reach agreements with it in advance on the boundaries of the topics that will be raised in the talks and coordinate expectations. Once the secret processes are completed, Israel will announce publicly that it is willing to begin talks on the basis of the Arab League’s document.
I have no doubt that the United States and Saudi Arabia, each for its own reasons, will respond positively to the Israeli initiative, and the initiative will be the lever that leads to a dramatic change in the situation. With all the criticism I have for the Oslo process, it cannot be denied that for the first time in the conflict’s history, immediately after the Oslo Accords were signed, almost every Arab country started talking with us, opened its gates to us and began engaging in unprecedented cooperative ventures in economic and other fields.
Although I am not so naïve as to think that such a process will bring the longed-for peace, I am certain that this kind of process, long and fatiguing as it will be, could yield confidence-building measures at first and, later on, security agreements that both sides in the conflict will be willing to live with. The progress of the talks will, of course, be conditional upon calm in the security sphere, which both sides will be committed to maintaining. It may happen that as things progress, both sides will agree to look into mutual compromises that will promote the idea of coexisting alongside one another. If mutual trust should develop – and the chances of that happening under American and Saudi Arabian auspices are fairly high – it will be possible to begin talks for the conflict’s full resolution as well.
An initiative of this kind requires true and courageous leadership, which is hard to identify at the moment. But if the prime minister should internalize the severity of the mass of threats against us at this time, the folly of the current policy, the fact that this policy’s creators are significant elements in the religious Zionist movement and on the far right, and its devastating results – up to the destruction of the Zionist vision – then perhaps he will find the courage and determination to carry out the proposed action.
I wrote the above statements because I feel that I owe them to my parents, who devoted their lives to the fulfillment of Zionism; to my children, my grandchildren and to the nation of Israel, which I served for decades.
[Chatham House: David Cameron, Jean-Claude Juncker’in Avrupa Komisyonu’na başkan olmasına karşı yürüttüğü düşüncesiz kampanya, AB’nin nasıl işlediğini tam kavrayamadan yaptığı diğer tüm yanlış hareketlerle beraber kendi ayağına ateş etmiş ve İngiltere’yi Avrupa Birliğinden atılmanın eşiğine getirmiştir.]
Is the call for an additional contribution to the EU budget as outrageous as David Cameron has asserted, or simply the normal application of EU rules and mechanisms? In reality, it is a bit of both, but there is more to the story. – See more at:
When David Cameron emerged from last Friday’s European Council meeting, the indignation on show could not have been greater: ‘If people think I am paying that bill on 1 December, they have another think coming.’ He was responding to new figures revealed last week which call for an additional £1.7 billion contribution to the EU budget from the UK. In what is a routine recalculation, several other countries, including the Netherlands, have been asked to pay proportionately more than the UK, while Germany, France and 17 others will pay less.
Is this as outrageous as the prime minister has asserted, or simply the normal application of EU rules and mechanisms? In reality, it is a little bit of both, but there are three elements to the story.
The first is that most of the EU’s revenue derives from an income stream known as the GNI (gross national income) resource. GNI is a close relative of the more familiar term GDP (gross domestic product), differing largely because of how profits from abroad are counted. As such, it reflects relative prosperity and, thus, ability to pay – a widely accepted principle of taxation. The amount called from each member state is a fixed proportion of its GNI, though the true cost to the UK is then attenuated by the famous rebate negotiated in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher. Despite some of the headlines about a ‘tax on prosperity’, the principle that countries pay more when GNI rises has been accepted since the system was introduced over a quarter of a century ago. In some years the UK has benefited, in others it has had to pay, as have all other member states.
Second, the GNI resource was something that British negotiators pushed strongly for when it was first introduced, and that the UK has fought to retain ever since. Others have argued for a tax to be assigned to the EU, in much the same way as council tax in the UK or sales taxes in the United States are deemed to belong to the local tier of government. But the UK, along with other net contributors to the EU budget, notably Germany, has been adamant that there should be no such tax. The total amount called from the GNI resource is determined by the spending from the EU budget and, in this regard, acts as a residual resource to ensure that the EU budget always balances (as it is required to do by treaty). Spending is not entirely predictable because the rigorous controls which countries like the UK insist that the EU impose have meant that some projects only become eligible to receive funding much later than anticipated.
The third consideration is that this year’s calculations are unusual, because the statisticians who construct the GNI data recently completed a methodological review of how national accounts are compiled. These are once-in-a-decade exercises, intended to reflect new insights into how income is generated and advances in data collection. The results revealed that the UK, and a number of the others now being asked to pay more, have been underestimating their prosperity. Normally this would not be that significant, but one of the new factors taken into account is the scope of the hidden economy. In particular, new estimates have been made of the extent of the drug and prostitution markets, something that Germany was apparently already doing.
These data corrections are well-known to the UK authorities and the spicier bits of the new methodology made the news headlines over the summer. Nor is it a form of correction that the Treasury can plausibly claim not to have expected. Indeed, in the late 1980s, Italy revalued its GDP and GNI substantially after introducing new ways of estimating the size of its hidden economy. Overnight, Italy overtook the UK – known at the time as il sorpasso (the over-taking) – but also reportedly drawing the retort from Thatcher that the Italians could henceforth pay more towards the EU budget. Moreover, it is ingrained into Treasury officials that they should be alert to any statistical manipulation that would increase GNI, precisely because of this sort of effect. Therefore, the prime minister is either being disingenuous in claiming that the effects of the re-basing of GNI were unexpected, or he knew full well and decided, nevertheless, to exploit it for immediate political purposes.
Other countries and the European Commission insist that the rules are clear and that Britain will have to pay, implying little room for manoeuvre for the prime minister. Perhaps some fault will be discovered in the calculations, allowing a more palatable figure to emerge. There is also a possibility that enough pressure will be brought to bear on the net winners to persuade them to postpone or average out the introduction of the new GNI estimates, reducing the amount the new net losers will have to pay this year. However, tax-payers in other countries will wonder why their governments should agree to pay more to help the British prime minister mollify eurosceptics at home. Postponing the bills would also be tricky because the EU is legally banned from borrowing.
Leaving aside whether Cameron’s stance leaves wiggle-room to pay subsequently (though only after the Rochester and Strood by-election), the new dispute is revealing about his approach to the EU. It follows his ill-judged campaign to prevent Jean-Claude Juncker becoming president of the European Commission. Two conclusions can be drawn: first, that not enough effort is made to understand how the EU functions or to form alliances to head off potential trouble; and second, that there is too much of a tendency to shoot from the hip. This is a conjunction that can only add to the prospects of further imbroglios and a growing probability of a Brexit.
Professor Iain Begg
Associate Fellow, Europe Programme – Chatham House
POOR RICHARDS REPORT
Chapter 15
Ringing the Bell or Trumpets are Blowing
Or How to Survive to Coming Panic
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is probably the most important law of the 21st century. We must follow the guidelines that were followed by the members of Congress who voted for this to be law.
The reforms that I suggest will send the market into a temporary tailspin, but if they are followed completely only the speculators will crash.
For openers, the banks who have been hording all the QE distributions must now share them with their depositors and give a greater portion to the younger depositors because they need it the most. They will also spend their portion, which will kick start the economy.
Next, the Congress should form a standing committee of 16 members to review all the reforms to our financial system. The members should be equally divided from each party and have the highest respect among their peers. Seniority or power should not be considered. Ethics should be of the highest order.
Finally they should have a unanimous vote before it comes before the entire house. This was a stipulation when the committees met for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It took them 6 months. The Congress voted December 22, 1913: 298 yeas and 60 no’s and 76 not voting. On December 23, 1913 in the morning vote, there were 43 yeas and 25 no’s with 27 no votes. (Back then there were only 95 senators).
That afternoon President Woodrow Wilson signed the act into law.
1. The Federal Reserve shall raise All Margin rates to 100% for a period of 6 months to a year.
2. The Security Exchange Commission (SEC) shall ban all corporate share buybacks. (All this does is increasing the earnings per share and enables the officers to receive a higher price for their options).
Instead, the monies should be distributed to the shareholders so all can share the wealth – not a privileged few.
This should create new buyers that should offset the sellers.
3. “Banks” should start returning the QE funds they have been hording over the past few years to their depositors. This should be done with the younger ones with families receiving a greater portion. Then staggered depending upon one’s earning power. The higher the earning power the less money received. This should increase the velocity or turnover of money. Some corporations will fail while others will prosper due to some changes in buying patterns.
4. Ban High Frequency Trades (HFT’s) entirely. They break all the rules for fair play and only benefit the owners. The public be damned; damn them.
5. Derivative trades are set up for fees and is a form of gambling. Most derivative trades are hard to follow and most financial disappoints (a nice word) evolve some forms of derivatives. The best way out of this mess is to just let them mature.
6. Trash the Dodd- Frank ACT and make the new one simple to understand.
7. Trash the Investment Company Act of 1940. It covers mutual funds. Exchange Traded Funds (ETF’s) have quietly been replacing mutual funds. With computers and their size most of these laws are anachronisms.
8. Clean up the ads. Most ads today give the hint of casino gambling. Insert a clause for risk.
9. Go back to the fraction system for stocks. This will allow the market maker to support his market during normal times and also kill off HFT’s and stop firms offering the first “free” trades.
10. Reinstate the Short Sell Rule. This is very important because it will stop gambling and stop computer hacking in the market place.
To do a legitimate Short sale one must first get permission from the back office of the firm one is doing business with. (They have the security to deliver to a buyer when you sell short). Then one must wait for an uptick in the price of the stock before the sale can take place. The order is also marked “Short Sale”.
Today I believe short sales are made willy nilly and no uptick is involved. I also believe that after a sale is done they look for stock to deliver.
These reforms that I have listed so far will cause all hell to break loose among the heels of the business. They will be the losers while the public will gain confidence in the system and regain some of their tax dollars.
Investors will be able to make intelligent decisions based upon facts and knowledge instead of charts and soothsayers and false prophets.
Pedophile Cover-up: Hampstead Police, Social Services, Courts brainwash whistleblower kids, send mother & legal helper into exile, protect Satanist abuser father
