In 2006/7 Thames Water was bought by a group consortium under the Australian Infrastructure bank, Macquarie.

It was to be sold for £5.8 Billion.

They got a loan for £2.8 Billion to pay for this. Whilst they are owners of Thames water they pay that debt off by getting new loans of £2Billion from one of their own companies.

So now they have literally bought a company and paid for it by making the company they have purchased borrow from one of their own companies with a low interest rate and no repayment due till 2037!

Whilst they are owners of this company, they pay themselves £1.6 Billion in dividends, pay NO corporation tax and sell their shares between 2012-2017 raising between £2.5 and £.3.2 Billion. They are aslo paying themselves a higher rate of return yearly, twice as much as other utility companies.

Then in March 2017, they get fined £20 Million for polluting the Thames with untreated sewerage.

So, they sell their remaining shares for £1.35 Billion that same month and leave Thames Water with the debt they incurred for buying it in the first place, plus a £260 million pension deficit and over £10 Billion of debt, and what has the water regulator done in this instance? Absolutely nothing!

So, a company can purchase a pre owned public company that has been robbed from the people, make that company take on the debt occured for buying it, make profits of billions of pounds while they run it, sell their share for more £3Billion, even though they never actually paid anything for it and leave it with £10 Billion worth of debt and that is fine, but if you are homeless and sleep rough they fine you £1000, are we all just idiots or what?

They have literally robbed the country via this company, of billions and left us with a pile of shit !https://www.theguardian.com/…/thames-water-hit-with-record-…

If that is not bad enough, whilst they owned Thames water, they gave a contract to Arqiva to cover millions of homes with smart water meters. Arqiva has 7 shareholders, one of which is Macquarie. So despite the past corruption of Macquarie, the Govt has given Arqiva the contract to build the 5G networks infrastructure in 13 areas in the UK.

https://www.arqiva.com/news/press-releases/arqiva-secures-rights-to-deploy-small-cell-telecoms-infrastructure-across-kingston-upon-thames/

Presentation by Professor Emeritus Martin L. Pall. This video is footage from the High School GIH on 10th of March 2016 in Stockholm, Sweden.  Link to Martin Palls presentation from the video in PDF-format: http://www.vagbrytaren.org/Hur_tradlo…   According to some authorities and governments, it is not possible for microwaves from mobile phones, WiFi, ‘smart’ meters, etc. to cause harm to human health or nature. They claim that research in the field is inconsistent and that there is no proof that such radiation can cause health issues.  According to the eminent physicist, geneticist and cell biologist, Prof. Emeritus Martin L. Pall, they are wrong on all counts.  Martin Pall, prof. Emeritus at Washington State University, has an impressive body of work. His first article on EMFs and their role in VGCC ion channels activation in cells earned a place in the “Global Medical Discovery” list of the most important articles in medicine in 2013.  Organizers: the Swedish Organization Vågbrytaren (the Breakwater, litt the Wavebreaker) in cooperation with Strålskyddsstiftelsen (Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation).  More information about the organizers here: http://www.vagbrytaren.org  http://www.vagbrytarenstockholm.se/ http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/ http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/e…

Douglas Gabriel from www.aim4truth.org joins Leader Technologies CEO and Founder Michael McKibben the real inventor of the technology that made all social media from Twitter, Facebook, Paypal, Google—all of them scalable. See https://aim4truth.org/2017/11/21/face… In this audio McKibben and Gabriel look at the boy kings of Silicon Valley and unmask their corruption and evil intentions.

Lloyd’s of London excludes liability coverage for RF/EMF claims + woensdag, 25 maart 2015 – Dossier: Juridische informatie

Bron 1: smartmeterharm.org/2015/03/18/lloyds-of-london-excludes-liability-coverage-for-rfemf-claims/ . 18 maart 2015 Credit to Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia, for bringing this information to the public.

Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims, “Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” (Exclusion 32) This information is from CFC Underwriting Limited, which is a Lloyd’s of London underwriter (page 12-13 of policy document, page 13-14 of pdf), and was posted by Citizens for Safe Technology: This is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation.

In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s: “‘The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168 The policy document is here: emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/InsuranceAEWordingCanadav17Feb2015.pdf or www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/scribd/Insurance%20AE%20Wording%20Canada%20v1%207%20Feb%202015.pdf From the Lloyd’s of London policy: “Exclusions (starting on Page 6 of policy, Page 7 of pdf): We will not a) make any payment on your behalf for any claim, or

b) incur any costs and expenses, or c) reimburse you for any loss, damage, legal expenses, fees or costs sustained by you, or d) pay any medical expenses: … 32. Electromagnetic fields (General Insurance Exclusions –Page 7 of policy): directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” This would include the microwave radiation and electromagnetic radiation emitted from Smart Meters (AMR, AMI, PLC), from Home Area Network devices and appliances (including AC and thermostats), from Wi-Fi transmitters, from wireless devices in schools, offices, and homes, and from wireless sensors and wireless-connected fire alarms.

“This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada. “Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors’ insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors’ insurance applies when people are performing their duties “in good faith”. It is hard to argue they are acting “in good faith” after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer. “Consider yourself notified once again that you could be held legally responsible for the decisions you have made.” Yours truly, Sharon Noble Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia Victoria, British Columbia, Canada The full letter with policy document is here: www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168 . Scholen verantwoordelijk voor schade door RF straling Bron 2: thebridgenewsservice.com/2015/02/26/school-boards-left-on-the-hook-for-wi-fi-injuries/ . 26 febr. 2015

CANADA, CORPORATIONS, GOVERNMENT, HEALTH School Boards Left On The Hook For Wi-Fi Injuries. By Janis Hoffman School officials could be personally liable for exposing children and staff to microwave radiation in our schools. School districts, school boards and school medical health officers have been notified that Lloyd’s of London has now excluded any liability coverage for injuries, “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” This would include the microwave radiation emitting from the commercial wi-fi transmitters and wireless devices in our schools. In response to a request for clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Lloyd’s of London, one of the world’s largest insurance companies often leads the way in protection by taking on risks that no one else will. At the end of this article there is a copy of a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) dropped a bombshell on the wireless industry. They designated exposure to wi-fi radiation to be a possible human carcinogen. As well in the 1990s illnesses resulting from asbestos exposure, covered by Lloyd’s at the time, almost destroyed the insurance company. Due to these issues, it appears Lloyd’s is acting fast to avoid another such financial fiasco by not covering illnesses that result from exposure to wireless radiation. With the Lloyd’s of London announcement, parents and teachers are left with this question: exactly who is liable if their child is harmed by wi-fi in their school? Concomitantly, are the individuals who approved the installation of wireless internet networks in our schools to be held personally liable for negligence? School officials and administrators appear to be in a bind as they have refused to acknowledge the 1000s of peer-reviewed, non-industry funded studies by scientists and medical experts that show that wi-fi radiation is harmful, especially to children. Moreover, their dogged allegiance to Health Canada’s now invalidated safety guidelines have left parents with nowhere else to turn other than the courts. It appears that school boards’ intransigent position on the issue may have left board members themselves vulnerable to being personally sued.

School boards may be covered by directors’ insurance which applies to people who are performing their duties “in good faith.” The question is: are they still protected when it could be shown that they were being “willfully blind?” Definitions: “In good faith:” in contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. “Wilful blindness:” (sometimes called ignorance of law, wilful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting him or herself in a position where he or she will be unaware of facts that would render him or her liable.

https://thebridgenewsservice.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/image001.jpg Zie ook: www.andrewgeller.me/blog/2015/03/25/lloyds-wont-discuss-emf-clause/ . 25 maart 2015

Lloyd’s Won’t Discuss Their New EMF Exclusion Clause Last week, a couple of blogs noted that a recent commercial liability insurance renewal policy issued through a Lloyd’s of London underwriter contained a liability exclusion clause about electromagnetic fields. The clause excludes any compensation for claims: “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” It is important that “radio waves” are explicitly included as they, specifically the microwave zone, are what enable wireless communications devices like cell phones, wi-fi, cordless phones etc. After the policy holder made an inquiry seeking clarification about the exclusion language, CFC Underwriting LTD in London, the UK agent for Lloyd’s, sent the following: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Sharon Noble, Director of the Coalition to Stop Smart Meter Harm in British Columbia (Canada) brought the clause and CFC’s response to public attention.

My interpretation of this revealing statement is that CFC Underwriting, and perhaps all of “the market” is that the time has come to hedge against a future surge in “illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Why else would they refuse coverage “across the market as standard.”? “Unfortunately, Lloyd’s doesn’t have a spokesperson who can talk about this so we’re going to have to decline.” Lloyd’s of London describes itself as “the world’s specialist insurance market,” and they’ve insured and paid on a variety of unusual risks and catastrophic claims. Unlike many other insurance brands, Lloyd’s is not a company; it’s “a market where our members join together as syndicates to insure risks.” What they insure falls into seven broad categories: casualty, property, marine, energy, motor, aviation and reinsurance. Reinsurance is the key here, as, among other things, it serves “to protect an insurer against very large claims.” Think tobacco, asbestos and climate change. And microwave radiation apparently, even though regulatory and health agencies around the world refuse to accept RF exposure as causing illness. www.andrewgeller.me/blog/2015/03/25/lloyds-wont-discuss-their-emf-exclusion-clause/lloyds-emf-exclusion/ I was seriously intrigued at all of this and emailed an inquiry to the Lloyd’s press center stating that I wanted some more details about the exclusion. I told them that as I primarily produce radio, I’d want to capture the conversation on tape, but would also be happy to talk with someone off tape, but on the record. Two hours later, I received a response from a woman at Prosek Partners, “a communications consultancy that delivers an unexpected level of passion, creativity and marketing savvy,” which apparently handles such issues for Lloyd’s. She wanted to know more about what exactly I was seeking and asked if I would “mind expanding on your request a bit?” so she could best determine how to help me. I obliged, sending back “Basically I’m interested in the 5 Ws, but why especially. I’d also like to how widely the exclusion is being replicated in Lloyd’s policies. Is there any sense internally at Lloyd’s about this being a first step that is likely to be copied industry wide? Was there any conversation pre/post release of the exclusion language with any wireless industry businesses?” This afternoon (she apologized for the 24 hour ‘delay’) she wrote back to tell me “Unfortunately, Lloyd’s doesn’t have a spokesperson who can talk about this so we’re going to have to decline.” Now I’m used to rejection as a reporter, but I couldn’t quite believe this and told her so in my reply, mentioning that their refusal to talk about the policy change would possibly “draw attention away from more important aspects of the story.”

The takeaway here is that the Lloyd’s, the world’s largest insurance market place has “across the market” not only refused to provide coverage for any claims arising from exposure to cell phones, wi-fi or any other source of electromagnetic frequency radiation, but also refused to answer a media inquiry about why, claiming that there is no one “who can.” Hmmm…

 

Swarming drones are just the start. Other Star Wars-like weapons that are raising concerns across the Pacific include laser-guided bombs, “jammers” that disrupt satellite communications, particle-beam armaments, and electromagnetic and microwave instruments of destruction. Richard Fisher, an analyst at the International Assessment and Strategy Centre, spotted Chinese fiber-optic lasers — a technology vital for laser combat satellites — at an exhibition this year in Abu Dhabi. Other experts say China would like to establish base stations on the moon with both military and civilian objectives.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Features/Cover-story/China-gains-in-race-to-develop-AI-enabled-weapons

 

V2K – voice to skull device – is a weapon use for transmitting voices with low or high frequencies. 

Voices can be for commands or harassments attacks that may look like the TI’s own voice. V2K can also use to induce or manipulate dreams or to deprived TI sleeps.

The dangers of 5G and what we are not being told!

Governments throughout the world are pushing for the rollout of 5G (Fifth Generation) technology as If it is just an upgrade from 3G and 4G.

THIS IS FALSE.

  • Mobile and Wireless Experts such as Nick Hunn and William Webb state that this technology does NOT guarantee better connectivity,faster speeds or reliability and that the huge amounts of tax payers money being used to fund this would have been better spent upgrading the 4G network AND been far cheaper.
  •  4G is between 1GHZ and 4GHZ whilst 5G Technology is  4GHZ to 100s.
  • .Bandwidths of  26-90 GHZ are to be utilised.
  • This is the equivalent of 90 billion electro magnetic waves hitting the body per second.Bandwidths of  26-90 GHZ are to be utilised.
  • Tens of Billions MORE electromagnetic waves  than what we have been used to.
  • The difference will also be in wave lengths, millimetre wave lengths that are shorter and pulsed and can penetrate the skin easier.
  • There are already over 10,000 studies showing the radiation that we are exposed to using EM radio frequency levels from 3+4G.
  • 220 doctors and scientists in 39 countries have petitioned to stop this technology being used and many citizens world wide are against this being used in this way.
  • There are NO research studies on the long term effects of this onslaught of millimetre wave radiation but govt agencies are going to go ahead regardless.
  • This type of radiation is called non thermal  or non ionising  and govt agencies have tried to deny that there is any danger despite the studies of medical and Independent researchers.
  • The technology is also government sureveillance technology.
  • Millimetre waves in the ultra high bands can affect our  cells and cause higher levels of cancers,strokes, heart problems, all the life threatening diseases that we already suffer from me.
  • According to the Infrastructure Commission in the UK, small cell towers will need to be placed between 100 and 300 meters apart EVERYWHERE.

    The so called ” Internet of Things” means even household appliances will use this technology and smart cars will also contain heavy radars systems that will spew out EMR from all angles, magnify this by millions of cars!

    • Government Agencies and University funded research is being paid for by the  telecommunications Industry who stand to profit.
    • Government can no longer be trusted to put our health before profits.

  • If this technology is supposedly safe, why do the american military use millimetre wave technology  weapons that disperse crowds causing burns to the skin?

    We demand Independent,long term, medical and safety research BEFORE this technology is rolled out in our streets and homes. Those who force this technology on us without proper safety assessments will be served Notices of Liability and will be personally liable for any harm that this technology causes.

  • Further Info at www.inpower.com
  • Annie Logical Uncensored www.vigiliae.org