Bank Of England Question

[Jamus]

Prior to it being nationalised in 1946 who owned it?

Edited February 25, 2007 by Jamus

[Guest mattsta1964]

Prior to it being nationalised in 1946 who owned it?

Question 1

Is is really nationaised....or just made out to be? That's what I'd like to know.

Question 2

If it is publically owned, why is it making such a grand job of fekkn our currency?

[Dr Doom]

An interesting question. I suspect the identify of the owners was kept confidential.

As is standard practice, for any successful banking enterprise.

Of course, conspiracy theorists will tell you that before and after this

nationalisation the Bank of England was a Rothschild controlled central

bank. What isn't up for debate is that the Bank of England is

controlled by "The Crown", which is probably also a Rothschild controlled

entity, if you believe the theories.

[patprimer74]

Prior to it being nationalised in 1946 who owned it?

Ask them! Perhaps their shareholders? It's a bit like asking 'Who owns Barclays Bank?'.

If it wasn't set up as a joint stock company, then it may have been some sort of trust like that set up to own Welsh Water.

Somewhere in the depths of my memory, I seem to recall that, if you look at The BoE's balance sheet today, there is still an amount of around £1-2 million showing as the original share capital. If true, then obviously someone owned the shares.

What are you trying to prove, as a matter of interest?

p

[Harry Sacks]

An interesting question. I suspect the identify of the owners was kept confidential.

As is standard practice, for any successful banking enterprise.

Of course, conspiracy theorists will tell you that before and after this

nationalisation the Bank of England was a Rothschild controlled central

bank. What isn't up for debate is that the Bank of England is

controlled by "The Crown", which is probably also a Rothschild controlled

entity, if you believe the theories.

One of the original BofE stock holders bought his share with a Talley Stick which had been legal tender in this country for 700 years prior. It's actually in the BofE museum. Stranger than fiction?

[patprimer74]

One of the original BofE stock holders bought his share with a Talley Stick which had been legal tender in this country for 700 years prior. It's actually in the BofE museum. Stranger than fiction?

Perhaps it was what the tallystick represented that was of value? Just like a a piece of paper made out of old rags being worth hundreds of millions when it's a cheque drawn by the right organisation. Strange? Not really.

p

[Jamus]

What are you trying to prove, as a matter of interest?

p

Nothing, I am generally interested, having heard some of the theories others have mentioned in thread.

[Harry Sacks]

Perhaps it was what the tallystick represented that was of value? Just like a a piece of paper made out of old rags being worth hundreds of millions when it's a cheque drawn by the right organisation. Strange? Not really.

p

They represented nothing other than they were good for the payment of taxes. This created their demand and therefore 'value'. ou don't need gold backing to make something valuable.

THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)

King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.

The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.

Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.

He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.

The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?

Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended).

What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it. That seems to be what happened when the first shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with notched pieces of wood and retired the system. You heard correctly, they bought shares. The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through investors buying shares. Even the Banks resent nationalisation is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's.

These investors, who's names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694.

It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot.

This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to created the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable.

Here's how they did it.

With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute.

The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars. Costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them.

So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centres in the world today.

The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.

Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.

You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.

These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.

The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.

If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.

With its formation the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction.

One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses.

By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on.

As hard as it might be to believe, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is often only transferred. And who benefits the most when money is scarce? You may have guessed. It's those controlling what everyone else wants, the money changer's.

When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.

Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable.

One thing however has been stable and that is the growing fortune of:

[marko]

if it is nationalised then why is the web address .co.uk and not .gov.uk?

[Dr Doom]

if it is nationalised then why is the web address .co.uk and not .gov.uk?

It's all a big joke really.

It's nationalised but also independent from government control;

a direct contradiction.

The money changers think we're all stupid;

therefore it's okay to hide all these glaring inconsistencies in plain view.

:angry:

[Guest mattsta1964]

if it is nationalised then why is the web address .co.uk and not .gov.uk?

That's a very good question!

Rather like the Fed Reserve banks being listed next to Federal Express in the White Pages instead of in the section for other Federal government bodies

I'm pretty sure the BoE is being operated for private profit. Not that that's based on any concrete evidence.....cos there isn't any.......

[patprimer74]

Nothing, I am generally interested, having heard some of the theories others have mentioned in thread.

You'll get some wild and wonderful suggestions from the nutty conspiratory theorists on here, so take everything with a big pinch of salt.

Don't use the word 'evidence?' in front of them - you'll get a reaction like you'd get by holding a Cross up to a vampire! Real nutters.

p

[Guest mattsta1964]

You'll get some wild and wonderful suggestions from the nutty conspiratory theorists on here, so take everything with a big pinch of salt.

Don't use the word 'evidence?' in front of them - you'll get a reaction like you'd get by holding a Cross up to a vampire! Real nutters.

p

So you believe the BoE is genuinely being run in the public interest do you?

[Ash4781]

So you believe the BoE is genuinely being run in the public interest do you?

Doesn't the City of London have it's own Government ?

[Sinking Feeling]

Doesn't the City of London have it's own Government ?

Shhhh, don't tell them about the lizard people!

[Guest mattsta1964]

Shhhh, don't tell them about the lizard people!

It's a bit tragic that as soon as you question these things, some numpty makes a comment like this insinuating that others have nothing better to do than watch David Icke videos in a darkened room surround by masonic symbology and spread rumours on internet forums about the queen being a reptile.

Fekkwit

[Guest grumpy-old-man]

They represented nothing other than they were good for the payment of taxes. This created their demand and therefore 'value'. ou don't need gold backing to make something valuable.

THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)

King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.

***shortened**

you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.

Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable.

One thing however has been stable and that is the growing fortune of:

well you learn something new every day, as they say, I had never heard of tally sticks before, even though I have read a few documents on who owns the BOE type stuff....

very interesting, cheers

[Jamus]

well you learn something new every day, as they say, I had never heard of tally sticks before, even though I have read a few documents on who owns the BOE type stuff....

very interesting, cheers

The split tally is a technique which became common in medieval Europe which was constantly short of money (coins) and predominantly illiterate in order to record bilateral exchange and debts. A stick (squared Hazelwood sticks were most common) was marked with a system of notches and then split lengthwise. This way both of the two halves record the same notches and each party to the transaction received one half of the marked stick as proof. Later this technique was refined in various ways and became virtually tamper proof. One of the refinements was to make the two halves of the stick of different lengths. The longer part was called stock and was given to the party which had advanced money or (other items) to the receiver. Hence the word stockholder. The debtor, on the other hand, "got the short end of the stick". Thus, this modern expression for being the loser in any transaction.

[Guest mattsta1964]

well you learn something new every day, as they say, I had never heard of tally sticks before, even though I have read a few documents on who owns the BOE type stuff....

very interesting, cheers

There's a section on tally sticks in the Moneymasters video

Book an afternoon to watch it. It's 3 1/2 hours long!

[Guest grumpy-old-man]

ps, the David Kelly progs on now.

[Ah-so]

There's a section on tally sticks in the Moneymasters video

Book an afternoon to watch it. It's 3 1/2 hours long!

Hey, don't spoil it for everyone!

Here is a potted guide from Wiki for anyone who is concerned about this but would rather chew their own toes off than listen to an eccentric yank bang on about banking conspiracies for 3 1/2 hours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_money_masters

Back to the BoE, I would tell you who owns it, but you are clearly not a Mason, so I can't.

Edited February 25, 2007 by Ah-so

[Sinking Feeling]

It's a bit tragic that as soon as you question these things, some numpty makes a comment like this insinuating that others have nothing better to do than watch David Icke videos in a darkened room surround by masonic symbology and spread rumours on internet forums about the queen being a reptile.

Fekkwit

I was only kidding! I forgot to add some faces on to show that I wasn't serious.

[Guest Charlie The Tramp]

I'm pretty sure the BoE is being operated for private profit.

It is, end of their trading year 2006 a gross profit of £99 Million. They paid £19 million Corporation Tax and £80 million net profit for the year attributable to shareholder.

Bank of England Annual Report 2006

[Guest mattsta1964]

It is, end of their trading year 2006 a gross profit of £99 Million. They paid £19 million Corporation Tax and £80 million net profit for the year attributable to shareholder.

Bank of England Annual Report 2006

That settles that then

And a very good night to you all folks!