The Coronavirus Pandemic Truth, Justice, Transparency Flipbook PDF

WHAT AND WHO

---

126 Views
44 Downloads
FLIP PDF 1.72MB

DOWNLOAD FLIP

REPORT DMCA

1

COMPILED BY CAVEN VINES CAMPAIGNER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

2

INTRODUCTION Firstly to understand and to make sense of the reasoning behind the theories outlined in this publication we must delve deep into the history books and establish how many of the organisations came to be and how they devolved their power to control so much of the world’s economy and secretly control it This investigation into the Coronavirus as uncovered Rothschild Lord Pirbright as key to the 140-year Pilgrims Society Monopoly over the World Culture Commerce & War Lord Pirbright (Rothschild) and his banker cousins at N.M. Rothchild & Co. were godfathers of the 2nd Boer War concentration camps (1899-1902) to drive the French, Dutch and Germans out of South Africa. New evidence: Leading London Jews were running the first modern war concentration camps where over 60,000 whites and blacks died, including more than 14000 mostly white children who were subjected to Burroughs Wellcome & Co (Now Wellcome Trust-Coronavirus funder and GlaxoSmithKline) vaccine experiments. These Privy Council and Parliamentary records have been discovered after much difficulty and missing documents. Henry (Rothschild) de Worms 1st Barron Pirbright (1840-1903), also called Lord Pirbright. Pirbright grew up in Ceylon on “The Rothschild Plantation” where they grew Coffee and Tea sold through their Rothschild-financed British East India Company. At the age of 45 Barron Pirbright became the British minister of trade and colonies (1885-1892). During those years just prior to the founding of the Pilgrims Society in 1902, Pirbright promoted Cecil Rhodes, NM Rothschild, Alfred Milner and John Buchanan in the Boer Wars. He also oversaw the British Patent office when Nikola Tesla’s began filling his wireless telegraphy patents. Regarding Tesla, Pirbright secretly allowed the British Admiralty and Post Office to steel from Tesla using Guglielmo Marconi as their fake inventor and make monopolistic deals with Marconi Wireless.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

3

Pirbright also coached Henry S. Wellcome and Sir Henry M Stanley in their rapacious acquisition of valuable African poisons and cures used in extensive vaccine experimentation on human beings – Including Black and Boer (German, Dutch and French prisoners they had put into concentration camps and performed fatal Wellcome Trust drug experiments. Lord Pirbright gave Cecil Rhodes an almost free hand in the empire while continuing to control the resources of their colonies, even after home rule was implemented (Like Rio Tinto – global mining company [Including uranium] that is also a Rothschild creation for the British Crown that the Monarch controls to this day) Viscount Alfred Milner Co – Founder of the Pilgrims society, Was Rio- Tinto chairman from 1923-1925 and an earlier director for many years. One of the conclusions from this investigation is that The Pirbright Institute is very evidently part of the Pilgrims Society’s 200 – year Rhodes-Ian plan to create an un-elected one-world government where America is made subservient to the Pilgrims Society and its United Nations, As we are now discovering, Rhodes had a mentor for his 200 year plan.

As a direct result of investigations to track down the ownership of responsibility for the current coronavirus outbreak, a new ringleader in the creation of the Pilgrims Society (1902) has just emerged from hiding in the history books. The Tracing of patent ownership lineage od “U.S. Pat. No 10.130.701 Coronavirus” Led to The Pirbright Institute, Surrey Up near Woking Guildford. United States Patent Bickerton et al

Patent No US.10.130.701. B2 Date of Patent Nov. 20 .2018

Coronavirus Applicant THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTION Pirbright Woking (GB) The man who appears to be the Pilgrims Society nexus point is not Cecil Rhodes but rather Rhodes Rothschild family mentor Henry (Rothschild) de Worms, 1st Barron Pirbright sometimes referenced simply as Lord Pirbright or (Barron Pirbright). Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

4

PIRBRIGHT On the surface Pirbright is a posh little English Village in the Greater West London County of Surrey, less than 6 miles southwest of Woking and 7 miles Northwest of Guildford. The Pirbright Institute is a research institution in Surrey England dedicated to the study of infectious diseases of farm animals. It is located on 200 acres of land controlled by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) just south of the Village of Pirbright. The Pirbright Institute has close affiliations with vaccine pharmaceuticals including British Merial (originally a joint venture between drug companies U.S Merck and French Sanofi-Aventis). German Boehringer-Ingwlheim, British Wellcome Trust, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Are the tow largest investors in pharma research on the planet and heavily fund the Pirbright Institute? (The Pirbright Institution & Cobbett Hill Earthstation, both use Ministry of Defence (MOD) property once owned by Henry (Rothschild)De Worms 1st Barron Pirbright Between 1886-1892 Sponsored Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milne, N.M .Rothschild Banking The Boer Wars, The British South Africa Company, De Beers Mining, Burroughs Wellcome Rape of African Medicinals, Henry Stanley’s claim over Congo Diamond and Gold, Theft of Nikola Tesla’s Inventions Creation of Marconi Wireless as a State Monopoly, Round table, Milner’s Kindergarten, Pilgrim’s Society.) Note August 5th, 2007 Foot- and- Mouth Strain Identified (BBC News) Institute for animal health Pirbright Laboratory, Merial animal Health Institute for animal health, Surry UK, Site of the Foot and Mouth Outbreak. Oversight of Contractors working on the site, poor record-keeping conflicts of interest within the Government entities and Merial’s commercial interests. Merial and its key shareholder, the French company SANOFI were together acquired by German Boehringer Ingelheim on January 3rd, 2017. Merial was founded in the UK on March 7th, 1997 through the merger of the animal health business of Merck and Rhone Merieuxm (also named SanofiAventis) and is one of the top 10 players in the UK pharmaceuticals industry. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

5

They operate in more than 150 countries, employ more than 5000 people, boasted 2007 sales or £1.1 billion. On February 9th, 2017 Boehringer- Ingelheim bought Merial- Sonofi and continues to operate Merial’s vaccine manufacturing facilities at Pirbright Institute. Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health was formerly Merial Animal Health Ltd UK Co No 01961886 Site of the August 3rd, 2007 FOOT AND MOUTH OUTBREAK That was blamed on conflicts of business interests (corruption) poor records, sloppy controls, poor management oversight and unsanitary facilities. VACCINE SHELL GAMES: Merial Animal Health (50% owned by US. Merck) was sold to French Sanofi on July 30th 2009 Then three months later on October 12th 2009 built a $70 Million plant named Merial Animal Health Co ( Nanchang, China): then sold to German Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH on February 9th 2017), but still produces poultry vaccines from their 12 acre plant at Merial Animal Health Co Ltd (China)-just a 4 hour drive from Wuhan, China. VACCINE SHELL GAMES Note Pilgrims society at the BBC and Reuters are floating a malicious “false flag” propaganda currently from unattributed assertions that the Pirbright Coronavirus patent is a different weakened coronavirus, not the one involved in the current outbreak. Such an assertion would violate U.S. Patent Office “inequitable conduct” rules lying to the office. In other words, you are forbidden from giving a patent application misleading name. Indeed, there are currently 75 patents with coronavirus in the title. The coronavirus patent is one of 11 awarded to The Pirbright Institute. These titles described the uniqueness’s of each claim (a requirement) For the Pirbright Institute U.U Patent No 10.130.701 to be allowed the name simply “CORONAVIRUS” means what it says Also remember, British SERCO managers the patent approval process at the U.S patent Office, the possibility of fraud is heightened, especially considering that SERCO’s sister company QinetiQ-both controlled by the Monarch’s Golden Share giving 100% veto power over operations- essentially approved the patent to themselves. This is evident fraud. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

6

This Merial plant was founded on October 12th, 2007 just two months after the 2007 foot and mouth outbreak in the UK. Given current Chinese prohibition of foreign ownership control, the Chinese Government would control Merial (China) with the The Pirbright Institute-UK Ministry of Defence and/or QinetiQ as possible stockholders. The big pharma shell game is quite evident. Henry (Rothschild) de Worms, 1st Barron Pirbright evidently had a vision to combine vaccines, wireless, propaganda, mind control and banking and use these technologies to control the masses and make money for his Pilgrims Society Conspirators.

WHAT DO VACCINES & THE WIRELESS EARTHSTATION TELPORT AT PIRBRIGHT HAVE IN COMMON On the same property as the Pirbright Institute is Cobbett Hill Earth Station a satellite teleport that boasts “more than 25 antennas with active operations on 13 satellites” using C and KU-band antennas that are powerful enough for directed weaponry. (Army Training Centre (ATC) Pirbright is located just 8 miles north of Cobbett Hill Earthstation and the Pirbright Institute ATC trains Army Recruits, Including Electronic and Biological warfare.) Experts in electronic warfare who have studied the Pirbright property footprint believe it is almost certain that both The Pirbright Institute and adjacent Cobbett Hill Earthstation teleport share Hardened underground facilities that are able to withstand direct attacks. This conclusion was further affirmed by CETel GMBH CEO Guido Neumann who boasted on June 1st, 2019: “ Cobbett Hill is located only 25 miles from central London in the UK and occupies a seven-acre secure compound on a 200 acres of land Currently houses more than 25 antennas with active operations on 13 satellites plus spare capacity enabling quick turnround times on even short notice customer requirements. Due to the locations historical use by the Ministry of Defence it has blanket planning permission for unlimited antenna installations within 200 acres and operate within an RF exclusion zone preventing any local interference”

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

7

Trigger words projecting secret Underground, Government, and conspiring- corporate activity: “quick turnround times”, blanket planning permission, unlimited antenna installations, the 200 acres, “RF exclusion zone preventing local interference seven acres on 200 acres and historical use by The Ministry of Defence. WHY WOULD AN ANIMAL HEALTH LABORATORY NEED THIS PROTECTION?? Serco & QinetiQ are both controlled by the Monarch’s Golden Share

“Special Share” (aka “Golden Share”) Giving it complete control of QinetiQ The in 2004 QinetiQ sold Cobbett Hill according to Official Parliamentary debate records. In a now familiar globalist shell games like we just examined with the pharmaceutical companies operating at Pirbright Institute Property the Cobbett Hill Earthstation satellite facility was first privatized by QinetiQ in 2004. It is thought this sale of a key British MOD facility at Cobbett Hill Earthstation was window dressing to hide their biological and electronic warfare activities occurring on its secure Pirbright property. Notably Cobbett Hill part of the quarantined hot zone in the 2007 foot and mouth outbreak as the effluent from Merial flowed south over Cobbett Hill. Back in 1991 Sir John R Chisholm had been asked by the Ministry of Defence to combine the Governments many research organizations into one which became the QinetiQ in November 2002 Timing-wise this was concurrent with the creation of SERCO Services Inc. As a Monarch controlled data, intelligence, propaganda and information monolith. March 2003 Chisholm was appointed a director Of QinetiQ an entity he created two years earlier. Today approximately 164 subsidiaries now carry “QinetiQ in their names or former names including Perspcta, IntrnsiQ, Gyldan (formally Qinetiz Partnership Finance Ltd) F Miller and Commerce Decisions. In 2004 QinetiQ ostensibly sold the satellite teleport on the 174-acre MOD Pirbright Property to Cobbett Hill Earthstation Limited. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

5

They operate in more than 150 countries, employ more than 5000 people, boasted 2007 sales or £1.1 billion. On February 9th, 2017 Boehringer- Ingelheim bought Merial- Sonofi and continues to operate Merial’s vaccine manufacturing facilities at Pirbright Institute. Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health was formerly Merial Animal Health Ltd UK Co No 01961886 Site of the August 3rd, 2007 FOOT AND MOUTH OUTBREAK That was blamed on conflicts of business interests (corruption) poor records, sloppy controls, poor management oversight and unsanitary facilities. VACCINE SHELL GAMES: Merial Animal Health (50% owned by US. Merck) was sold to French Sanofi on July 30th 2009 Then three months later on October 12th 2009 built a $70 Million plant named Merial Animal Health Co ( Nanchang, China): then sold to German Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH on February 9th 2017), but still produces poultry vaccines from their 12 acre plant at Merial Animal Health Co Ltd (China)-just a 4 hour drive from Wuhan, China. VACCINE SHELL GAMES Note Pilgrims society at the BBC and Reuters are floating a malicious “false flag” propaganda currently from unattributed assertions that the Pirbright Coronavirus patent is a different weakened coronavirus, not the one involved in the current outbreak. Such an assertion would violate U.S. Patent Office “inequitable conduct” rules lying to the office. In other words, you are forbidden from giving a patent application misleading name. Indeed, there are currently 75 patents with coronavirus in the title. The coronavirus patent is one of 11 awarded to The Pirbright Institute. These titles described the uniqueness’s of each claim (a requirement) For the Pirbright Institute U.U Patent No 10.130.701 to be allowed the name simply “CORONAVIRUS” means what it says Also remember, British SERCO managers the patent approval process at the U.S patent Office, the possibility of fraud is heightened, especially considering that SERCO’s sister company QinetiQ-both controlled by the Monarch’s Golden Share giving 100% veto power over operations- essentially approved the patent to themselves. This is evident fraud. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

6

This Merial plant was founded on October 12th, 2007 just two months after the 2007 foot and mouth outbreak in the UK. Given current Chinese prohibition of foreign ownership control, the Chinese Government would control Merial (China) with the The Pirbright Institute-UK Ministry of Defence and/or QinetiQ as possible stockholders. The big pharma shell game is quite evident. Henry (Rothschild) de Worms, 1st Barron Pirbright evidently had a vision to combine vaccines, wireless, propaganda, mind control and banking and use these technologies to control the masses and make money for his Pilgrims Society Conspirators.

WHAT DO VACCINES & THE WIRELESS EARTHSTATION TELPORT AT PIRBRIGHT HAVE IN COMMON On the same property as the Pirbright Institute is Cobbett Hill Earth Station a satellite teleport that boasts “more than 25 antennas with active operations on 13 satellites” using C and KU-band antennas that are powerful enough for directed weaponry. (Army Training Centre (ATC) Pirbright is located just 8 miles north of Cobbett Hill Earthstation and the Pirbright Institute ATC trains Army Recruits, Including Electronic and Biological warfare.) Experts in electronic warfare who have studied the Pirbright property footprint believe it is almost certain that both The Pirbright Institute and adjacent Cobbett Hill Earthstation teleport share Hardened underground facilities that are able to withstand direct attacks. This conclusion was further affirmed by CETel GMBH CEO Guido Neumann who boasted on June 1st, 2019: “ Cobbett Hill is located only 25 miles from central London in the UK and occupies a seven-acre secure compound on a 200 acres of land Currently houses more than 25 antennas with active operations on 13 satellites plus spare capacity enabling quick turnround times on even short notice customer requirements. Due to the locations historical use by the Ministry of Defence it has blanket planning permission for unlimited antenna installations within 200 acres and operate within an RF exclusion zone preventing any local interference”

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

7

Trigger words projecting secret Underground, Government, and conspiring- corporate activity: “quick turnround times”, blanket planning permission, unlimited antenna installations, the 200 acres, “RF exclusion zone preventing local interference seven acres on 200 acres and historical use by The Ministry of Defence. WHY WOULD AN ANIMAL HEALTH LABORATORY NEED THIS PROTECTION?? Serco & QinetiQ are both controlled by the Monarch’s Golden Share

“Special Share” (aka “Golden Share”) Giving it complete control of QinetiQ The in 2004 QinetiQ sold Cobbett Hill according to Official Parliamentary debate records. In a now familiar globalist shell games like we just examined with the pharmaceutical companies operating at Pirbright Institute Property the Cobbett Hill Earthstation satellite facility was first privatized by QinetiQ in 2004. It is thought this sale of a key British MOD facility at Cobbett Hill Earthstation was window dressing to hide their biological and electronic warfare activities occurring on its secure Pirbright property. Notably Cobbett Hill part of the quarantined hot zone in the 2007 foot and mouth outbreak as the effluent from Merial flowed south over Cobbett Hill. Back in 1991 Sir John R Chisholm had been asked by the Ministry of Defence to combine the Governments many research organizations into one which became the QinetiQ in November 2002 Timing-wise this was concurrent with the creation of SERCO Services Inc. As a Monarch controlled data, intelligence, propaganda and information monolith. March 2003 Chisholm was appointed a director Of QinetiQ an entity he created two years earlier. Today approximately 164 subsidiaries now carry “QinetiQ in their names or former names including Perspcta, IntrnsiQ, Gyldan (formally Qinetiz Partnership Finance Ltd) F Miller and Commerce Decisions. In 2004 QinetiQ ostensibly sold the satellite teleport on the 174-acre MOD Pirbright Property to Cobbett Hill Earthstation Limited. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

8

Records are unclear how The Pirbright Institute Property was bundled into the sale or leasing to QinetiQ. It is thought it was the entire satellite and biomedical animal testing facility was all part of the same MOD activity to obfuscate and hide their illegal activities on the entire 200 acres. The entire DERA (Defence Evaluation and Research Agency) to QinetiQ transaction is shrouded in British Government secrecy, but one thing is certain: The Monarch’s Golden Share has powerful pre-emptive rights and clawback options over all property in the United Kingdom. The Monarch’s Golden Share is a super veto power over all activities of the company. This Special Share gave the Monarch 100% control of selected corporations after “divestiture” or Privatization which was window dressing to make these companies look private. But to keep them controlled by the Monarchy and Privy Council. Special Shareholder The Special Share may only be issued to held by and transferred to the Crown (or as it directs) The directors must register nay transfer of the Special Share within 7 days. 1 Special right redeemable share of £1. Crown means one or more of Her Majesty’s Secretaries of State, another Minister of the Crown, the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Treasury Solicitor, ant body corporate wholly owned by any of the foregoing or any other person acting on behalf of the Crown representative shall be constructed accordingly. QinetiQ Group PLC Co No 4586941 (June 3rd, 2003) Resolutions General Meeting Re the Monarch’s Special Share. Companies House (UK) Christopher j Pocotte, Founder and CEO Askem Group Ltd Founder of the 2019 Consolidation of CETEL GMBH (Ostensible Manager of Cobbett Hill Earthstation and Axesat into Axess Networks. Picotte is a Fellow Director of various Companies Secretly Directed by the PRIVY COUNCIL and PILGRIMS SOCIETY Holding Monarch “Special Shares” otherwise Known as Golden Shares giving the Monarch 100% control of those companies and their activities More specifically he is a fellow director of North Sea Infrastructure Partners Ltd with Sir Roy Gardner Chairman of SERCO Group PLC.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

9

June 24th, 2019 Cobbett Hill Ostensibly sold itself to CETeL GMBH (Central European Telecom Services) Four months later September 19th, 2019 Askiom Group Ltd combined CETel GMBH with Axesat to and founded AXESS Networks Aksiom’s American Chairman and founder Christopher James Picotte sits on the boards of numerous companies with direct ties to British Crown Including Centrica Plc Valued at £5.1 Billion (2019) Sir Roy Alan Gardener Chairman of SERCO Group Plc Founder and Chairman of North Sea Infrastructure Partners Ltd CENTRICA Plc, Director among others. Picotte has direct linking relationships with Sir Roy Gardener, Chairman of SERCO Groupe Plc through a now typical Shell game of Shell companies with no activity. For example, Picotte is a director of AKSIOM Group Holdings Ltd that formed AXESS Networks in order to acquire CETel GMBH that had just a few months earlier had acquired Cobbett Hill Earthstation Ltd. Named Centrica Nominees No 2 Ltd shoes sole owner is GB Gas Holdings Ltd A founder director of GB Gas in 1996 is Sir Roy Alan Gardener the current chairman of SERCO Group Plc. Sir Roy’s other directorships make it quite that his task in the Privy Council is to consolidate ALL electronic warfare capability in the British Government under SERCO and QinetiQ. Sir Roy A Gardner was Centrica Plc chairman with Picotte. Gardner is also the current chairman of SERCO Group Plc SERCO’s CEO is Rupert Soames. Soames name appears in paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s little black book SERCO is also controlled by the Monarch’s Golden Share. [CITE] SERCO has been awarded almost $10 billion from the US Patent Office, FEMA, OMB, Navy SPAWAR, OPM, State Department DoD Army, Navy, FAA, FEC, etc, in short America’s ship has already been boarded by British pirates in defence, space and technology projects by PILGRIM’s Society- Complicit Senior Executive Services (SES).

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

10

It is also discovered that QinetiQ has almost equal number of US contracts. QinetiQ has received over $8.5 billion US federal contracts SERCO has received over $9.5 billion US federal contracts. THE LINK Lord Pirbright owned the land which he left to the Ministry of Defence on his death this 200 acre site now houses MOD facilities associated with the British Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) including the Pirbright Institutes essentially controlled by the Wellcome Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Two key funders of the Pirbright Institute along with US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Cobbett Hill Earthstation, that are both adjacent to the Army Training Centre the Pirbright land acquired by the Army around 1875. The unmistakable commonality here in Britain’s new corporatist-fascist imperial plan for the New British Empire was to have unanimity of vision and direction across banking (dominated by Rothschild), Pharma (dominated by Wellcome), Government (controlled ultimately by the Pilgrims Society), Wireless Technology (controlled by the Marconi Wireless Monopoly), Propaganda (Controlled by the Empire Press Union), and Information (Controlled by MI6, MI5, GC& CS renamed GCHQ) They use these levers of power and control to achieve this goal, and they are still at it today After forming their secret Pilgrims Society and took control of Global newspapers, Intelligence, wireless and cable, to achieve their goals.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

11

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

They use the then Crown Agents to press this plan globally. They promoted the Round Table and Milner’s Kindergarten. They promoted Zionism. They promoted Bolshevism, Socialism and communism. They formed Reuters and Associated Press. They directed Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, The Times, Washington Post and the NEWYORK Times. They funded American Libraries and Textbooks. They promoted the League of Nations They promoted the US Federal Reserve. They promoted Fascism. They promoted The Inquiry They crashed the US stock market in 1929 to consolidate their ability to control American Banks. They formed organizations like the Tri-Lateral Commission, The Atlantic Council, NATO, Bilderberg, Aspen Institute, Bohemian Grove to promote their reassimilation of American into their new world order Empire. They promoted NATO. They prompted the World Bank and IMF. They stole the social networking inventions from Columbus-Innovator Leader Technologies via the IBM Eclipse Foundation to unify and accelerate their activities world.

The Crown Agents successfully formed the Senior Executive Service (SES) the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), USAID, The Aerospace Corporation to take over the Executive Branch with a permanent Pilgrims Society Bureaucracy. We return to the question of why the Pirbright Institute- the patent holder of CORONAVIRUS- is situated on the same Ministry of Defence property as the Cobbett Hill Earthstation with massive array of powerful, weapons-grade antennas and dishes. And that is only what can be seen from satellite images As with most secret government Labs doing often questionable and illegal research these facilities are probably massive underground.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

12

The fact that former C.I.A director George Tenet was a QinetiQ director along with former Deputy Chief of the joint staff Edmund P Giambastiani Jr who is believed to still be a director, continued use of Cobbett Hill for Intelligence activity is sure such facilities are difficult to build and are not easily replaced. One thing is certain QinetiQ’s current address in nearby Farnborough near the Airport is not a good location for such satellites given the interference from airport flight communications in radio communications, once you get a “clean” spot free of extraneous electronic noise you tend to keep it. The Pirbright Institutes records show that it is heavily financed by Wellcome Trust, Bill Gates, The European Commission, the World Health Organization and US DARPA. In addition to Wellcome the pharmaceutical AstraZenica provides vaccine research funding also.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

13

HOW DO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY AND VACCINES GO TOGETHER?? Researchers all know that stress increases disease. Imagine a Coronavirus specially constructed to lie dormant in a person’s body until it is triggered by the right radio frequency. Imagine 5G technology that, on command from Cobbett Hill Earthstation, can trigger nono tech devices in all bodies of the citizens in an entire city. Is this farfetched Not at all. (But more research is required)

Direct Energy Weapons These are being openly disclosed by military. While their propagandists are quick to say the tech is none-lethal, but the assertions are not believed given their history of lying, Their own descriptions indicate the ability to stun dazzle, blind, deafen, scream at “or even kill” at people while they think they are hearing the voice of God. 5G technology disperses these capabilities to deliver signals to all people is a target area or group at the same time. The Pirbright Institute appears to be using the Cobbett Hill satellite teleport facilities to communicate with their Pilgrim Society minions worldwide. Perhaps Nellie Ohr’s shortwave set was communicating with QinetiQ ay Cobbett Hill and the Pirbright Institute. ARE THE C.I.A, MI6 & DARPA BUILDING BIO-WEAPONS LIKE CORONAVIRUS VIA QINETIQ, SERCO, AND THE PIRBRIGHT INSTITUTE. One thing is certain: American and British Pilgrims Society, newspapers, Intelligence, tech and banks must confess that they are using Crown-Controlled QinetiQ and Serco to get over $18 Billion in U.S defence contracts to build bio-weapons at The Pirbright Institutes, Wellcome Trust, AstraZenca, Crown Agents and Senior Executive Service (SES) to Kill. In conclusion as I write this article the author of the Biological Weapons AntiTerrorism Act of 1989 (BWATA) international law professor Francis A Boyle, Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

14

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Heavily Finances both Pirbright and the University of North Carolina. CONCLUSION The evidence is overwhelming that the Pilgrims Society (which is often called the Deep State, Senior Executive Service, Crown Agents, Shadow Government) is manipulating the public to achieve its New World Objectives.

The evidence is also overwhelming that the Pilgrims Society strategy, perhaps conceived long ago by Henry (Rothschild) De Worms, 1st Barron Pirbright, has been stealing and weaponizing patents since about the 1880’s. The patents being stolen focus on vaccines, wireless technology, communications, computers, propaganda, mind control and education delivery systems.

DEFUND, DISGORGE, REBUILD GUIDED BY THE GOLDEN RULE Now that the activities of the Pilgrims Society are becoming known, we citizens of the world must demand that their source of money be cut, force them to disgorge their ill-gotten gain to their victims, and (re)create Governments that actually follow the Golden Rule-“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Leader Technologies Inc sent their first Amended Miller Act Notice to President Trump, it is a contract demand today. It is a CONTRACT DEMAND FOR THE U.S Treasury to pay them for the federal Government’s 18- year theft of their Social Networking inventions. These Inventions were stolen by Major General James E Freeze (U.S Army ret) and Leeder’s patent attorney James R Chandler 111 on behalf of Net Assessment and that Pilgrims Society that steals and weaponizes Inventions for continuous war making and enrichment of its fascist insider military- industrial corporations. Patriots are encouraged to help get this First Amended Miller Act Notice to President Trump and past the Praetorian Guard See American Intelligence Media republish of the Leader Miller Act Notice.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

15

AGENDA 21 The Plan to Depopulate the World By 2030 The UN maintains that there is no truth to the claim that the United Nations is trying to depopulate the planet.?? But the United Nations does have an Agenda 21, established at the 1992 Summit, which calls for Worldwide sustainable development, starting at the Local Level. It’s a voluntary action plan and not legally binding. But it has been disclosed on TV. Agenda 21 also calls for achieving a more sustainable population. This is not a call for a Plague or other fictional de-population techniques. But rather Urging Governments to expand access to education. Birth control and family planning and sexual and reproductive health-care services. The U.N also urges Implementing sustainable patterns of consumption and production as being critical to meeting the demand for resources from the growing population. The United Nations for some people conjure up images of a benevolent organization intended for the preservation of human life wherever conflict occurs, and encouraging international co-operation and peace, Far from this peaceful image, however, is their little- publicized plan to depopulate the World by 2030. Therefor it is no wild conspiracy theory, BUT FACT. AND THEY CALL THIS U.N PLOT: AGENDA 21

Local Government Implementation of Agenda 21 The Local Government implementation of Agenda 21 was prepared by ICLEI for the Earth Council’s Rio+5 Forum (April 13th -19th 1997- Rio di Janeiro, Brazil) for the 5th Session of U.N Commission on Sustainable Development and for the U.N General Assembly’s Earth Summit+5 Special Session. Rotherham Council discussed this on 10/12/2004 (see agenda attached) United Nations Plot to Depopulate 95% of the World by 2030 Agenda 21 was United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

19

THE GUILTY MUST PAY FOR WHAT HAPPENS TO US ALL.

QUESTIONS TO ASK 1. Why Does a Animal Health Laboratory need to be in such a high security underground MOD site. ?

2. Why or how can a Laboratory or organisation need or get a patent on a natural virus I would have thought you would only get a patent on something you have invented so this must mean that Coronavirus is man-made and not Natural ?

3. It is established that the companies mentioned in this report have connections with the Laboratory in China and they are involved in Animal Health and they actually own the patent for this Coronavirus is this just coincidence.

4. Why is no one in the main media investigating this and reporting on it or is it a fact that they are controlled by these organisations

5. Why has the reporting of the virus stopped after about 3 weeks ?

6. The BBC has been acting like the Governments Propaganda media constantly repeating the same old news

7. The opposition party’s have all been unbelievably quiet throughout.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

20

8. This pandemic is the worst disaster to hit the World in living memory so why has the World media been so quiet why has the world been so quiet that is not natural.

9. Why is no one in Authority or the Main News agency’s openly seeking the truth of this virus ware did it come from Why does it primarily only kill old people Surly in normal situations the World Press agencies would be going ballistic to get to the truth BUT NO SILENCE ?? 10.Lastly Now we know the existence and History of the Pilgrims Society, Privy Council, and Common Purpose is this the real reason why Politicians, Police, and Civil Servants all being protected for blatantly covering up the Rape and Sexual Exploitation of our Children Please read this document ask your-self the questions then look for the answers most of my research in producing this document has been obtained from articles published on the internet and from my own research and experience. Please note None is verified as being true or false you the reader are to self-decide the truth.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

21

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ACTION GROUP Venue: Rotherham Town Hall, Moorgate Street, Rotherham Date: Friday, 10 December 2004 Time: 10.30 a.m.

A G E N D A 1. Apologies

2. Minutes of the previous meeting held on 1st November, 2004 and matters arising. (Pages 1 - 3)

3. Sustainability Development - A Way Forward (Pages 4 - 18) presentation by Dawn Roberts, Chief Executive’s Office

4. Members Sustainable Development Forward Plan (Pages 19 - 20) Councillor Wyatt

5. Carbon Trust Project Update (Page 21) - Dave Rhodes

6. Update report for information - Local Agenda 21 Project (Pages 22 24) - David Wilde to report

7. Update Report for Information - Environmental Management Systems (Page 25) - David Rhodes to report

8. Future Agenda Items

9. Any Other Business

10. Date of next meeting - (a) 11th February, 2005, at 10.30 a.m. in the Town Hall - (b) Need to set dates for the remainder of the Municipal Y Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

22

REFERENCES CETel acquires Cobbett Hill Earth Station Limited

Cobbett Hill Earth Station CETel has acquired UK-based Cobbett Hill Earth Station Limited in an asset purchase transaction for an undisclosed amount. This acquisition is a further milestone in CETel’s growth and diversification strategy alongside its continuing customer base expansion. The acquisition further strengthens CETel’s position as a leading global end-to-end communications solutions provider. Alongside CETel’s strong presence in the mining, energy and oil & gas markets, this acquisition will now significantly increase CETel’s presence and activities in the marine and broadcast markets. Cobbett Hill offers an extensive range of satellite communication services to both marine and terrestrial clients in the corporate, media, oil & gas, NGO, military and government sectors. Core service provisions include, but are not limited to Internet, voice, data, broadcast, DTH, enterprise, TV & radio, iDirect, SCPC, network design, network management, co-location, data centre, occasional use and bandwidth. Cobbett Hill is located only 25 miles from central London in the UK, and occupies a sevenacre secure compound on 200 acres of land. Currently, it houses more than 25 antennas with active operations on 13 satellites plus spare capacity enabling quick turnaround times on even short-notice customer requirements. Due to the locations historical use by the British Ministry of Defence it has blanket planning permission for unlimited antenna installations within the 200 acres and operate within an RF exclusion zone preventing any local interference. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

23

Guido Neumann, CEO of CETel states, “We are extremely happy to complete this transaction that ideally fits into our growth strategy. CETel has grown significantly over the past years. Their data services, especially in the maritime sector present a perfect opportunity to grow this vertical with us. In addition, and with the existing services and experiences at Cobbett Hill, we are now entering the broadcast market, where together we see excellent opportunities to develop this business further. CETel’s existing and prospective customer and partner base will ultimately benefit from this acquisition technically and commercially.” Paul O’Brien, Managing Director of Cobbett Hill, says, “In CETel we have found the perfect fit in a buyer for our teleport and satellite-based operations. Their long-term expertise in the market will assure that the implementation will run smooth and the two companies with both its professional and experienced teams will merge and grow into an even greater company.” Cobbett Hill presents the sixth merger and acquisition activity led by CETel over the last years.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

24

The Pilgrims Society Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Pilgrims Society (Deep state milieu)

Pilgrims of GB dinner, 9 January 1951. Flags and logo in background

Formation Leader Type Interest of

16 July 1902 President of the Pilgrims Society secret society Joël van der Reijden, Charles Savoie

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

25

• Elizabeth Regina • HRH Prince Philip • HRH Prince Charles • Nelson W. Aldrich • Winthrop W. Aldrich • John Nicholas Brown II • Lord Carrington • John W. Davis • Charles G. Dawes • Admiral William J. Crowe • Chauncey Depew • Allen W. Dulles • John Foster Dulles • Mark Fox Membership • General Alexander Haig • W. Averell Harriman • Joseph P. Kennedy • Henry R. Luce • Sandra Day O'Connor • Henry Kissinger • Elliot Richardson • General of the Army George C. Marshall • Andrew W. Mellon • John D. Rockefeller • David Rockefeller • Elihu Root • Jacob Schiff • John Hay Whitney A very low profile group that has been in operation for over a century and has Elizabeth Regina as its patron. Members include ministers, diplomats, CEOs and others. Who knows what this "dining society" discusses over dinner?...

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

26

Pilgrims Society logo. "Hic et Ubique" - "here and everywhere"; apparently a reference to the idea that the United States and Great Britain should stand together side by side everywhere. The eagle represents the United States; the lion Great Britain The Pilgrims Society is a British-American society established 1902. The patron of the society is Queen Elizabeth II. In so far as the general public are aware of its existence at all, that awareness is, in all probability confined to its established custom of holding dinners to welcome into office each successive U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom and each new British Ambassador to the United States. There is a lot more however to the Pilgrims Society than simply hosting the odd old-boys dinner party. "The Pilgrims Society" has only a minor entry at Wikipedia - 400 words as of August 2016.[1] This may be a testament to the influence of established power centers and a certain reluctance to upsetting their wish for privacy.

Contents • • • • • •

1 Introduction 2 Pilgrims Society USA 3 Exposure 4 The most comprehensive study to date 5 Related Documents 6 References

Introduction At the turn of 20th century a number of influential persons were interested in bringing the establishments of the United States and Great Britain closer together. The St. George's Society in New York, the American Society in London, and the growing network of AngloAmerican League branches in England (founded by a good number of later Pilgrims Society members), were seen as inadequate, so the idea arose to form a new, elitist society with branches in both London and New York. This became the Pilgrims Society, which organized regular meetings in such prestigious hotels as the Victoria, the Waldorf Astoria, the Carlton Ritz, and the Savoy. The idea of setting up what ultimately became the Pilgrims Society was first discussed by a number of Americans working in London. One of them was Lindsay Russell, a wellconnected lawyer from New York, who regularly visited London in these days to set up his law firm Alexander and Colby. It was Russell who got together with General Joseph Wheeler (on a visit in London), General Lord Roberts, and Sir Harry Brittain. Together they organized the original meeting of the Pilgrims of Great Britain at the Carlton Hotel on July 11, 1902. The meeting was a success and two weeks later Lord Roberts was elected president of the Pilgrims; Lord Grenfell and Admiral Hedworth Lambton became vice presidents. Two other vice presidents were Americans: Senator Chauncey M. Depew (Yale Skull & Bones 1856; Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

27

lawyer to Cornelius Vanderbilt; member of J.P. Morgan's elite Corsair Club, together with William Rockefeller) and General Joseph Wheeler. Sir Harry Brittain became secretary and the Archdeacon of London, William MacDonald Sinclair, was elected chairman of the executive committee [2]

Pilgrims Society USA Full article: Pilgrims Society/USA The first meeting of the Pilgrims of the United States was at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York on 13 January 1903. The Pilgrims of Great Britain and the Pilgrims of the United States have reciprocal membership.

Exposure In 1940, John T Whiteford wrote: "There are several curious things about these Pilgrims functions. In the first place there is present at these dinners an array of notables such as it would be difficult to bring together under one roof for any other purpose and by any other society... Among the guests were John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan, Thomas W. Lamont and other members of the House of Morgan... We are entitled to know what the Pilgrim Society is, what it stands for, and who these powerful Pilgrims are that can call out the great to hear a British Ambassador expound to Americans the virtues of a united democratic front." [3]

Professor Carroll Quigley's seminal 1966 Tragedy and Hope provided a lot more context and exposed the Anglo-American Establishment to an unprecedented extent, but stopped short of naming the Pilgrim Society. Nevertheless, the following brief passage has been cited as a good precis of The Pilgrims and their objectives: "[The aim of the international bankers was] nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences." [4]

In 1971, Gary Allen wrote in Nixon, The Man Behind The Mask that "[Elmer] Bobst is listed as a member of the highly secret Pilgrim Society, which is even closer to the inner circle of the conspiracy than the CFR."[5]

The most comprehensive study to date Most of the internet references to The Pilgrim Society are recent (ie post 2000) and owe much to a seminal study by Joel Van der Reijden originally posted on his ISGP web site. In particular the brief Wikipedia (November 2010) article relegates The Pilgrims to the category of "Dining Clubs" and is restricted to anodyne mention of the ambassadors' dinners custom plus a similarly anodyne claim about its objectives by an American Diplomat. [6] The ISGP study can be found in the following locations: • •

ISGP - The Pilgrims Society - A study of the Anglo-American Establishment. ISGP - Pilgrims membership list and sources.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

28

Both are highly recommended for anyone seeking to understand Quigley's "Anglo-American Establishment".

Related Documents Title

Type

Publication Author(s) date

Document:Pilgrims 28 Society Address speech November 2002 2002

File:Pilgrims.pdf

essay

December 2004

Richard Boucher

Charles Savoie

Description Full of platitudes and the obligatory quotations from politicians past to bolster and confirm the essential righteousness of the Pilgrims present. Probably a fairly typical address to The London Pilgrims by a US Embassy Official, but hard to read without squirming at the delusional sanctimonious arrogance it exudes. "The Pilgrims Society is a cluster of intermarried old-line rich, royals and robber barons who created the world’s financial structure."

References 1. • Wikipedia entry for "The Pilgrims Society", August 2016 • • ISBN 1-86197-290-3 'The Pilgrims of Great Britain - A Centennial History' - Anne Pimlott Baker, 2002, p. 13 • • "Sir Uncle Sam: Knight of the British Empire". 1940 pamphlet by John T Whiteford • • ISBN 0-945001-10-X Tragedy and Hope, Carroll Quigley • • Nixon, The Man Behind The Mask, p.223 6. • The Pilgrims Society - Wikipedia page Category: •

Groups

Navigation menu • •

Log in Request account

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

29 • •

Page Discussion

• • •

Read View source View history

Search • • • • • • • • • • • •

Main page Recent changes About Wikispooks Our Policy Our Projects Community portal Random article Site Backup Mailing list Donate FAQ

Tools • • • • • • • • •

What links here Related changes RTRC Special pages Printable version Permanent link Page information Cite this page Browse properties

Misc • •

This page was last edited on 7 December 2019, at 13:22. Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike unless otherwise noted.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

30

Pilgrims Society From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (October 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The Pilgrims Society, founded on 16 July 1902[1] by Sir Harry Brittain, is a British-American society established, in the words of American diplomat Joseph Choate, 'to promote good-will, good-fellowship, and everlasting peace between the United States and Great Britain'. It is not to be confused with the Pilgrim Society of Plymouth, Massachusetts.

Contents • • • • • • •

1 Membership 2 Activities 3 History 4 Noteworthy members 5 References 6 Further reading 7 External links

Membership Over the years it has boasted an elite membership of politicians, diplomats, businessmen, and writers who have included Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher, Caspar Weinberger, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Henry Luce, Lord Carrington, Alexander Haig, Paul Volcker, Thomas Kean, George Shultz, and Walter Cronkite among many others. Members of the immediate Royal Family, United States secretaries of state and United States ambassadors to the Court of St. James's are customarily admitted ex officio to membership in the Society.

Activities The Society is notable for holding dinners to welcome into office each successive U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom. The patron of the society is Queen Elizabeth II.

History The first informal meeting of the Pilgrims of Great Britain included General Joseph Wheeler, Colonel (later General Sir) Bryan Mahon, the Hon Charles Rolls and Harry Brittain.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

31

The first meeting of the Pilgrims of the United States was at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York on 13 January 1903. The Pilgrims of Great Britain and the Pilgrims of the United States have reciprocal membership. Executive Committee members, as of 2017, are: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Marshal of the Royal Air Force the Lord Stirrup KG GCB AFC (President) Mrs Diane Simpson (Chairman) Sir Stephen Wright KCMG (Honorary Secretary) Mr Richard Reid (Honorary Treasurer) Mr Abdul Bhanji Sir Peter Bottomley MP Mr Peter Cadbury Professor Stephen Challacombe Mr Piers Coleman Vice Admiral Sir Anthony Dymock KBE CB Mr Paul Dimond CMG Mr Tristan Elbrick Mrs Kweilen Hatleskog Mrs Valerie Humphrey Mr Lewis Lukens, Deputy Chief of Mission, American Embassy, London Sir David Newbigging OBE Sir Bryan Nicholson GBE Mr Mark Seligman Air Marshal Sir David Walker KCVO OBE Ms Xenia Wickett

Mrs Amy Thompson is the executive secretary, successor to Mrs Tessa Wells

Noteworthy members • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

HM Queen Elizabeth II HRH Prince Philip HRH Prince Charles Senator Nelson W. Aldrich Ambassador Winthrop W. Aldrich Philanthropist John Nicholas Brown II NATO Secretary General Lord Carrington Ambassador John W. Davis Vice President Charles G. Dawes Admiral William J. Crowe Senator Chauncey Depew CIA Director Allen W. Dulles Secretary of State John Foster Dulles General Alexander Haig Ambassador to the United States Edward Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax Ambassador W. Averell Harriman

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

32 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy Ambassador Henry R. Luce Congressman Ogden Reid Ambassador Whitelaw Reid Publisher Ogden Mills Reid Publisher Whitelaw Reid (journalist) Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Secretary of State Henry Kissinger Attorney General Elliot Richardson General of the Army George C. Marshall Secretary of the Treasury Andrew W. Mellon Oil Refiner John D. Rockefeller Banker David Rockefeller Secretary of State Elihu Root Banker Jacob Schiff Ambassador John Hay Whitney

References 1. 1. "The Pilgrims Society and Public Diplomacy, 1895–1945". Edinburgh University Press Books. Retrieved 27 February 2019.

Further reading • •

Baker, Anne Pimlott (2002). The Pilgrims of Great Britain: A Centennial History. London: Profile Books. ISBN 1-86197-290-3. Baker, Anne Pimlott (2003). The Pilgrims of the United States: A Centennial History. London: Profile Books. ISBN 1-86197-726-3.

External links •

"The Pilgrims". Retrieved 19 April 2013.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

33

Common Purpose is a political charity using Behavioural Modification Common Purpose (CP) is a Charity, based in Great Britain, which creates ‘Future Leaders’ of society. CP selects individuals and ‘trains’ them to learn how society works, who 'pulls the levers of power' and how CP ‘graduates’ can use this knowledge to lead 'Outside Authority’. Children, teenagers and adults have their prejudices removed. Graduates are ‘empowered’ to become ‘Leaders’ and work in ‘partnership’ with other CP graduates. CP claims to have trained some 30,000 adult graduates in UK and changed the lives of some 80,000 people, including schoolchildren and young people. But evidence shows that Common Purpose is rather more than a Charity ‘empowering' people and communities’. In fact, CP is an elitest pro-EU political organisation helping to replace democracy in UK, and worldwide, with CP chosen ‘elite’ leaders. In truth, their hidden networks and political objectives are undermining and destroying our democratic society and are threatening ‘free will’ in adults, teenagers and children. Their work is funded by public money and big business, including international banks. It is important for researchers on this site to realise that the majority of Common Purpose 'graduates' are victims, who have little if any understanding of the wider role of Common Purpose within UK society, nor of its connections to higher government and the European Union. Drawn into CP training by a flattering invitation, or selected by their company or organisation, this recruitment is normally carried out by a previously trained CP person - now recruiting for the cause. Candidates are screened and selected (or rejected) by CP Advisory Board members in their area. Both candidates and 'trained graduates' will have no real understanding of Common Purpose's wider role to help achieve a political and social paradigm shift in the UK. The real objective, would appear to be to replace our traditional UK democracy with the new regime of the EU superstate. By blurring the boundaries between people, professions, public and private sectors, responsibility and accountability, CP encourages graduates to believe that as new selected leaders, CP graduates can work together, outside of the established political and social structures, to achieve this paradigm shift or CHANGE. The so called "Leading Outside Authority". In doing so, the allegiance of the individual becomes 're-framed' on CP colleagues and their NETWORK. Using behavioural and experiential learning techniques, the views of graduates can be remoulded to conform to the new Common Purpose. Most will not be aware this has happened, but we are given immediate clues in descriptions by graduates that Common Purpose training is 'life changing', 'disturbing, or 'unsettling'. Trained and operating under the Chatham House rules of secrecy (details of discussion, those present and location are not disclosed), CP graduates come to operate in 'their world' of Common Purpose. Please go to Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

34

Document Library .......Category.........Mind Control Background on this site for historical information regarding manipulation of people's free will and behaviour. The term 'GRADUATE' is used deliberately so as to prevent disclosure of involvement with Common Purpose. As 'MEMBERS' of CP, which is more appropriate, individuals in the public sector would have to declare their interests. So strong is the Common Purpose bond, that some individuals will lie to hide information and documents considered 'dangerous' to the CP cause. People challenging CP colleagues have been victimised and forced out of their positions. Common Purpose is linked to a host of other suspect trusts, foundations, think-tanks, quangos and so called charities. DEMOS is a key example. These organisations funnel political and social CHANGE policy through CP, to re-frame graduates. Examples range from promotion of Diversity in every company and organisation, to Curfews for young people. Common Purpose promotes the 'empowerment of individuals', except where individuals challenge the activities of CP, and public spending on CP. These people are branded vexatious, extremist, right wing or mentally unsound. Mrs Julia Middleton, the Chief Executive of Common Purpose, praises the work of German bankers. Deutsche Bank is, of course, a major power behind Common Purpose. Mrs Middleton, earning circa £80,000 p.a. from her charity, is also very happy to promote the term 'USEFUL IDIOTS' in her book 'Beyond Authority'. Are we the General Public the USEFUL IDIOTS, or are the Elitest Common Purpose Graduates? You must decide. I recommend that you begin your research by clicking on the DOCUMENT LIBRARY button above and then selecting " Advice on Using the Archives". When you have read the brief introduction select the "CP Penetration UK" category. Here you can see diagrams of the CP Network and a Map of Geographical Penetration of UK. The DOCUMENT LIBRARY, also contains documents, letters and emails as evidence of Common Purpose at work. The library will be regularly updated. Please also click on GRADUATES on the top bar. You will be able to search for Common Purpose graduates in cities across the UK. Did you realise these people, possibly your colleagues and friends, were now 're-framed' "elite leaders". But overwhelmingly, you the taxpayer, have paid for their CP training. Interested? Annoyed? Happy searching. The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.--C. S. Lewis (Screwtape Letters). And we should remember that...Evil flourishes where good men do nothing.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

35

Common Purpose UK From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Common Purpose" redirects here. For the concept in criminal law, see common purpose. Common Purpose UK

Founded Founder Type Focus Location

1989 Julia Middleton charity and company limited by guarantee[1] Education • London, England

Area served International Adirupa Sengupta CEO Employees 125 Common Purpose is a British-founded charity that runs leadership development programmes around the world.[2][3] Common Purpose UK is a subsidiary of Common Purpose.[4][5] Founded in 1989 by Julia Middleton,[6][7][8] its aim are to develop leaders who cross boundaries so they can solve complex problems in work and in society. Adirupa Sengupta was appointed as Group CEO in 2019.[9] As of 2015 Common Purpose ran local programmes for leaders in cities across the world, and its global programmes bring together leaders from over 100 countries across six continents.[10][11] As of 2019, 85,000 leaders worldwide have taken part in Common Purpose programmes. [12]

Contents •

1 Activities o 1.1 Courses o 1.2 Participants o 1.3 Education and young people o 1.4 Senior executives o 1.5 Leadership campaigns

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

36 o

• • • • •

1.6 Projects 2 Press coverage 3 Leveson Inquiry controversy 4 References 5 Further reading 6 External links

Activities Courses Common Purpose has run a range of leadership development courses which it claims offer participants the inspiration, knowledge and connections to help them become more active and engaged in society.[13] These courses ran in 11 countries worldwide as of 2010, and seek to build organizational capacity by increasing the number of individuals who are actively involved in shaping the future of the area in which they work and who subscribe to Common Purposes's values.[7][13] The courses were conducted under the Chatham House Rule[14] to encourage free discussion amongst participants.[15] This has caused some people to voice suspicions that the organisation has a hidden agenda.[16]

Participants Common Purpose works with a wide range of organisations and individuals across business, public, voluntary and political sectors.[17] As of 2019, 85,000 leaders have taken part in Common Purpose programmes. [18]

Education and young people Your Turn was a leadership programme for Year 9 students that was conducted in 2010 in five regions throughout the UK, and challenged young people to think in new ways about their area and their world.[19] CHANGEit was a 2010 collaboration between Common Purpose and Deutsche Bank. It has been designed to recognise the achievements and ambitions of young people between the ages of 11 and 18 who want to speak out and create positive change.[19][dead link]

Senior executives What Next? was a 2010 course run by leadership development organisation Common Purpose and the Said Business School to help redundant executives identify opportunities to continue to use the experience they have accumulated during their careers.[20]

Leadership campaigns In July 2009 Common Purpose was commissioned by the Government Equalities Office to conduct an online survey of individuals in leadership positions, and produce a report entitled Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

37

"Diversity of Representation in Public Appointments".[21] Subsequently, Common Purpose and the Government Equalities Office set up The About Time Public Leaders Courses, designed to support the government’s aim to increase the diversity of public-body board members and the pool of talented individuals ready to take up public appointments. The schemes were formally launched in January 2010.[citation needed] In January 2010, Common Purpose Chief Executive, Julia Middleton, published interviews with 12 leaders from the private, public and voluntary sectors, including Sir David Bell and Dame Suzi Leather about the qualities needed for good leadership in challenging times.[22]

Projects In July 2008 Common Purpose introduced a project in Bangalore, India, which took 50 people from different sectors, e.g. IT and banking, and encouraged them to share local and international knowledge in order to solve problems associated with trading in a recession. It has also run projects in Germany, to highlight the importance of having good facilities for the disabled.[7]

Press coverage In May 2008 the Yorkshire Post revealed that Common Purpose had been granted free office space at the Department for Children, Schools and Families in Sheffield in 1997.[23] A DCSF spokeswoman said the free office accommodation had been given in line with the policy of the then Education Secretary David Blunkett, a Sheffield MP, who had wanted to build better links with the local community. But Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, criticised the relationship between Government and Common Purpose as well as the fact it did not put the content of its training in the public domain.[23] In January 2009 Third Sector magazine reported that Common Purpose was to face no further action from the Information Commissioner's Office. The announcement came following the ICO’s ruling in October 2008 that the charity was unlikely to have complied with the provisions in the Data Protection Act on processing personal data when it compiled a list containing the personal details of people who had made what it (CP) contended were "vexatious" requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 relating to its dealings with public authorities.[24]

Leveson Inquiry controversy A number of UK national newspapers ran stories implying that Common Purpose had exerted improper influence over the Leveson Inquiry, in the days preceding publication of its report. These stories centred on the role of Inquiry member Sir David Bell, who was both a trustee of Common Purpose, and had set up the Media Standards Trust (a lobbying group which presented evidence to the Inquiry) together with Julia Middleton. Moreover, the Media Standards Trust set up and provided funding for the lobbying group Hacked Off, which also presented evidence to the Inquiry. Bell resigned from the Media Standards Trust when he was appointed a member of the Inquiry. On 25 November, The Daily Telegraph too published a comment piece on CPUK, noting that the Rotherham Director of Children's Services, Joyce Thacker, heavily criticised in the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, was a member of CPUK, and noting that Common Purpose had been described as "[a] secretive Fabian organisation [… that] has been described as a Left-wing version of the Freemasons."[25] Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

38

Writing in The Guardian, Roy Greenslade described the Mail coverage of Common Purpose in general, and the central focus on Sir David Bell in particular, as "a classic example of conspiracist innuendo" and went on that "through a series of leaps of logic and phoney 'revelations' of Bell's publicly acknowledged positions, the articles persistently insinuate that he has been up to no good."[26] This opinion was shared in an article in the New Statesman by Peter Wilby.[27] Also in The Guardian, Michael White acknowledged that, "antiestablishment bodies should be as much fair game for accountability as those of the old establishment", but said: "I couldn't help thinking as I read it that the analysis itself is a bit of a conspiracy. Delete 'Common Purpose' throughout and insert 'Jew', 'Etonian' or 'Freemason' and you'd rightly feel uneasy."[28]

References 1. • Common Purpose, Company Information. Company registered number: 3556983; Charity registered number: 1023384 • • "Bursaries to help bosses". Derby Telegraph. 25 November 2008. Archived from the original on 14 January 2013. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • "Unlocking leadership potential in the NHS". Health Service Journal. 20 May 2008. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • "Common Purpose Charitable Trust Overview". Charity Commission. Retrieved 6 August 2015. • • "Common Purpose subsidiary information". Charity Commission. Retrieved 6 August 2015. • • "25 Years of Success and Mistakes". Huffingdon Post. 2 June 2015. Retrieved 6 August 2015. • • "In salute to leaders (Interview with Julia Middleton)". The Economic Times. 7 May 2008. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • Claire Oldfield (November 2008). "Understanding strategy". Director Magazine. Archived from the original on 21 September 2010. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • "The CEO Interview: Adirupa Sengupta, Group Chief Executive, Common Purpose". Business & Finance. 16 October 2019. Retrieved 19 February 2020. • • "Julia Middleton Speaker Profile". TEDxEastEnd. Retrieved 6 August 2015.[permanent dead link]

• • "Common Purpose Partner page". FutureLearn. Retrieved 6 August 2015. • • "The CEO Interview: Adirupa Sengupta, Group Chief Executive, Common Purpose". Business & Finance. 16 October 2019. Retrieved 19 February 2020. • • "Common Purpose - Business Club Video". London: Daily Telegraph. 21 January 2010. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • Alexander, Ruth (8 March 2009). "A secret society?". news.bbc.co.uk. BBC News. Retrieved 13 September 2016. • • "Common Purpose UK - Common Purpose Methods". Commonpurpose.co.uk. 29 March 2010. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • "Common Purpose - The Truth, Not The Conspiracy". Pits n Pots. 17 February 2010. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • Andrea Wren (30 March 2007). "Move outside your comfort zone". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 27 April 2010. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

39

• • "The CEO Interview: Adirupa Sengupta, Group Chief Executive, Common Purpose". Business & Finance. 16 October 2019. Retrieved 19 February 2020. • • "TeacherNet, Charities". Teachernet.gov.uk. 8 January 2010. Archived from the original on 19 February 2010. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • "Common Purpose offers help to redundant executives". Info4security.com. 18 March 2010. Archived from the original on 13 July 2011. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • "Diversity of representation in public appointments" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 October 2009. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • "Good leadership in challenging times: what's the secret? | Public | Public". Guardianpublic.co.uk. 9 March 2010. Archived from the original on 2 March 2012. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • Waugh, Rob. "Elite trainer gets 11-year state freebie". Yorkshire Post. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • "Common Purpose to face no further action from Information Commissioner". Third Sector. 8 December 2009. Retrieved 27 April 2010. • • "Rotherham, Hislop, Common Purpose". The Daily Telegraph. 25 November 2012. Retrieved 26 November 2012. • • Greenslade, Roy (16 November 2012). "Laughable Daily Mail 'investigation' smears Leveson inquiry assessor". The Guardian. • • Wilby, Peter (22 November 2012). "Kite marks for paying tax, the end of the energy industry and Paul Dacre's ten-foot lizards". New Statesman. 28. • White, Michael (16 November 2012). "Daily Mail 'dossier' isn't all dross". The Guardian.

Further reading • • • • •

Move outside your comfort zone - Guardian.co.uk "I'm very good with a hatchet" - Guardian.co.uk The Wealth of Experience The Guardian, 16 April 2008 (Article by Julia Middleton) Be yourself – but know who you are meant to be The Financial Times, 17 March 2008 (Comments by Julia Middleton) Networking | Generation Y recognise the benefits Personnel Today 'Work Clinic' (Research by Common Purpose and comments by Julia Middleton)

External links • • •

Official website Charity Commission. The Common Purpose Charitable Trust, registered charity no. 1023384. Charity Commission. Common Purpose International, registered charity no. 1056573.

Categories: • • •

Charities based in London Personal development Organizations established in 1989

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

40 • •

1989 establishments in the United Kingdom Private companies limited by guarantee of England

Navigation menu • • • • •

Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in

• •

Article Talk

• • •

Read Edit View history

Search • • • • • • •

Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Wikipedia store

Interaction • • • • •

Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact page

Tools • • • • • • • •

What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Page information Wikidata item Cite this page

Print/export Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

41 • •

Download as PDF Printable version

Languages Add links • •

This page was last edited on 19 February 2020, at 16:36 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

42

Privy Council of the United Kingdom From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Queen's Privy Council" redirects here. For the Canadian equivalent, see Queen's Privy Council for Canada. Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council

Royal Arms of the Privy Council Abbreviation Privy Council, PC • Privy Council of England • Privy Council of Scotland Predecessor • Privy Council of Ireland Formation Legal status Membership Monarch

1 May 1708 Advisory body Members of the Privy Council Elizabeth II (Queen-in-Council)

Lord President Clerk Staff Website

Jacob Rees-Mogg Richard Tilbrook Privy Council Office privycouncil.gov.uk

This article is part of a series on the

Politics of the United Kingdom

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

43

Constitution[show] The Crown[show] Executive[show] Legislature[show] Judiciary[show] Bank of England[show] Elections[show] Devolution[show] Administration[show] Crown dependencies[show] Overseas Territories[show] Foreign relations[show]

United Kingdom portal •

Other countries

•

v • t • e

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

26

Pilgrims Society logo. "Hic et Ubique" - "here and everywhere"; apparently a reference to the idea that the United States and Great Britain should stand together side by side everywhere. The eagle represents the United States; the lion Great Britain The Pilgrims Society is a British-American society established 1902. The patron of the society is Queen Elizabeth II. In so far as the general public are aware of its existence at all, that awareness is, in all probability confined to its established custom of holding dinners to welcome into office each successive U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom and each new British Ambassador to the United States. There is a lot more however to the Pilgrims Society than simply hosting the odd old-boys dinner party. "The Pilgrims Society" has only a minor entry at Wikipedia - 400 words as of August 2016.[1] This may be a testament to the influence of established power centers and a certain reluctance to upsetting their wish for privacy.

Contents • • • • • •

1 Introduction 2 Pilgrims Society USA 3 Exposure 4 The most comprehensive study to date 5 Related Documents 6 References

Introduction At the turn of 20th century a number of influential persons were interested in bringing the establishments of the United States and Great Britain closer together. The St. George's Society in New York, the American Society in London, and the growing network of AngloAmerican League branches in England (founded by a good number of later Pilgrims Society members), were seen as inadequate, so the idea arose to form a new, elitist society with branches in both London and New York. This became the Pilgrims Society, which organized regular meetings in such prestigious hotels as the Victoria, the Waldorf Astoria, the Carlton Ritz, and the Savoy. The idea of setting up what ultimately became the Pilgrims Society was first discussed by a number of Americans working in London. One of them was Lindsay Russell, a wellconnected lawyer from New York, who regularly visited London in these days to set up his law firm Alexander and Colby. It was Russell who got together with General Joseph Wheeler (on a visit in London), General Lord Roberts, and Sir Harry Brittain. Together they organized the original meeting of the Pilgrims of Great Britain at the Carlton Hotel on July 11, 1902. The meeting was a success and two weeks later Lord Roberts was elected president of the Pilgrims; Lord Grenfell and Admiral Hedworth Lambton became vice presidents. Two other vice presidents were Americans: Senator Chauncey M. Depew (Yale Skull & Bones 1856; Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

45 • •

14 References 15 External links

History Further information: Privy Council of England, Privy Council of Scotland, English law, and Scots law The Privy Council of the United Kingdom was preceded by the Privy Council of Scotland and the Privy Council of England. The key events in the formation of the modern Privy Council are given below: In Anglo-Saxon England, Witenagemot was an early equivalent to the Privy Council of England. During the reigns of the Norman monarchs, the English Crown was advised by a royal court or curia regis, which consisted of magnates, ecclesiastics and high officials. The body originally concerned itself with advising the sovereign on legislation, administration and justice.[1] Later, different bodies assuming distinct functions evolved from the court. The courts of law took over the business of dispensing justice, while Parliament became the supreme legislature of the kingdom.[2] Nevertheless, the Council retained the power to hear legal disputes, either in the first instance or on appeal.[3] Furthermore, laws made by the sovereign on the advice of the Council, rather than on the advice of Parliament, were accepted as valid.[4] Powerful sovereigns often used the body to circumvent the Courts and Parliament.[4] For example, a committee of the Council—which later became the Court of the Star Chamber—was during the 15th century permitted to inflict any punishment except death, without being bound by normal court procedure.[5] During Henry VIII's reign, the sovereign, on the advice of the Council, was allowed to enact laws by mere proclamation. The legislative pre-eminence of Parliament was not restored until after Henry VIII's death.[6] Though the royal Council retained legislative and judicial responsibilities, it became a primarily administrative body.[7] The Council consisted of forty members in 1553,[8] but the sovereign relied on a smaller committee, which later evolved into the modern Cabinet. By the end of the English Civil War, the monarchy, House of Lords, and Privy Council had been abolished. The remaining parliamentary chamber, the House of Commons, instituted a Council of State to execute laws and to direct administrative policy. The forty-one members of the Council were elected by the House of Commons; the body was headed by Oliver Cromwell, de facto military dictator of the nation. In 1653, however, Cromwell became Lord Protector, and the Council was reduced to between thirteen and twenty-one members, all elected by the Commons. In 1657, the Commons granted Cromwell even greater powers, some of which were reminiscent of those enjoyed by monarchs. The Council became known as the Protector's Privy Council; its members were appointed by the Lord Protector, subject to Parliament's approval.[9] In 1659, shortly before the restoration of the monarchy, the Protector's Council was abolished.[9] Charles II restored the Royal Privy Council, but he, like previous Stuart monarchs, chose to rely on a small group of advisers.[10] Under George I even more power transferred to this committee. It now began to meet in the absence of the sovereign, communicating its decisions to him after the fact.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

46

Thus, the British Privy Council, as a whole, ceased to be a body of important confidential advisers to the sovereign; the role passed to a committee of the Council, now known as the Cabinet.[11]

Origin of the term According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of the word privy in Privy Council is an obsolete meaning "of or pertaining exclusively to a particular person or persons, one's own";[12] hence the Council is personal to the sovereign. It is closely related to the word private, and derives from the French word privé.

Composition

Privy Council of a King by Thomas Rowlandson. 1815 The sovereign, when acting on the Council's advice, is known as the King-in-Council or Queen-in-Council.[13] The members of the Council are collectively known as The Lords of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council[14] (sometimes The Lords and others of ...).[15] The chief officer of the body is the Lord President of the Council, who is the fourth highest Great Officer of State,[16] a Cabinet member and normally, either the Leader of the House of Lords or of the House of Commons.[17] Another important official is the Clerk, whose signature is appended to all orders made in the Council.[18] Both Privy Counsellor and Privy Councillor may be correctly used to refer to a member of the Council. The former, however, is preferred by the Privy Council Office,[19] emphasising English usage of the term Counsellor as "one who gives counsel", as opposed to "one who is a member of a council". A Privy Counsellor is traditionally said to be "sworn of" the Council after being received by the sovereign.[20] The sovereign may appoint anyone a Privy Counsellor,[21] but in practice appointments are made only on the advice of Her Majesty's Government. The majority of appointees are senior politicians, including Ministers of the Crown, the few most senior figures of the Loyal Opposition, the Parliamentary leader of the third-largest party, a couple of the most senior figures in the devolved British governments and senior politicians from Commonwealth countries. Besides these, the Council includes a very few members of the Royal Family (usually the consort and heir apparent only), a few dozen judges from British and Commonwealth countries, a few clergy and a small number of senior civil servants. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

47

There is no statutory limit to its membership:[22] at January 2012, there were about 600 members;[23] they had risen in number to over 650 by June 2015.[24] However, the members have no automatic right to attend all Privy Council meetings, and only some are summoned regularly to meetings (in practice at the Prime Minister's discretion). The Church of England's three senior bishops – the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York[22] and the Bishop of London[25] – become Privy Counsellors upon appointment. Senior members of the Royal Family may also be appointed, but this is confined to the current consort and heir apparent and consort.[22] Prince Philip is at present the most senior member by length of service,[23] and he is the only current Privy Counsellor not appointed by the reigning monarch, having been sworn of the Council by her father. The Private Secretary to the Sovereign is always appointed a Privy Counsellor,[26] as are the Lord Chamberlain, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Lord Speaker. Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,[27] judges of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales,[28] senior judges of the Inner House of the Court of Session (Scotland's highest law court)[29] and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland[30] also join the Privy Council ex officio. The balance of Privy Counsellors is largely made up of politicians. The Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers and the Leader of HM Opposition are traditionally sworn of the Privy Council upon appointment.[22] Leaders of major parties in the House of Commons, First Ministers of the devolved assemblies,[31] some senior Ministers outside Cabinet, and on occasion other respected senior parliamentarians are appointed Privy Counsellors. Because Privy Counsellors are bound by oath to keep matters discussed at Council meetings secret, the appointment of the Leaders of Opposition Parties as Privy Counsellors allows the Government to share confidential information with them "on Privy Council terms".[22] This usually only happens in special circumstances, such as in matters of national security. For example, Tony Blair met Iain Duncan Smith (then Leader of HM Opposition) and Charles Kennedy (then Leader of the Liberal Democrats) "on Privy Council terms" to discuss the evidence for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.[32] Although the Privy Council is primarily a British institution, officials from some other Commonwealth realms are also appointed.[22] By 2000, the most notable instance was New Zealand, whose Prime Minister, senior politicians, Chief Justice and Court of Appeal Justices were traditionally appointed Privy Counsellors.[33] However, appointments of New Zealand members have since been discontinued. The Prime Minister, the Speaker, the GovernorGeneral and the Chief Justice of New Zealand are still accorded the style Right Honourable, but without membership of the Council.[34] Until the late 20th century, the Prime Ministers and Chief Justices of Canada and Australia were also appointed Privy Counsellors.[35][36] Canada also has its own Privy Council, the Queen's Privy Council for Canada (see below). Prime Ministers of some other Commonwealth countries that retain the Queen as their sovereign continue to be sworn of the Council.[22]

Privy Council oath and initiation rite Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

48

Viviana Radcliffe examined by the Earl of Salisbury and the Privy Council in the Star Chamber. Illustration by George Cruikshank from William Harrison Ainsworth's novel Guy Fawkes. It was formerly regarded by the Privy Council as criminal, and possibly treasonous, to disclose the oath administered to Privy Counsellors as they take office.[37] However, the oath was officially made public by the Blair Government in a written parliamentary answer in 1998, as follows.[38] It had also been read out in full in the House of Lords during debate by Lord Rankeillour on 21 December 1932.[39] You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God.[38] A form of this oath dates back to at least 1570.[40] Privy counsellors can choose to affirm their allegiance in similar terms, should they prefer not to take a religious oath.[41] At the induction ceremony, the order of precedence places Anglicans (being those of the established church) before others.[42] Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

49

The initiation ceremony for newly appointed privy counsellors is held in private, and typically requires kneeling on a stool before the sovereign and then kissing hands.[43][44] According to The Royal Encyclopaedia: "The new privy counsellor or minister will extend his or her right hand, palm upwards, and, taking the Queen's hand lightly, will kiss it with no more than a touch of the lips."[44] The ceremony has caused difficulties for privy counsellors who advocate republicanism; Tony Benn said in his diaries that he kissed his own thumb, rather than the Queen's hand, while Jeremy Corbyn reportedly did not kneel.[44] Not all members of the privy council go through the initiation ceremony; appointments are frequently made by an Order in Council, although it is "rare for a party leader to use such a course."[45]

Term of office Membership is conferred for life. Formerly, the death of a monarch ("demise of the Crown") brought an immediate dissolution of the Council, as all Crown appointments automatically lapsed.[46] By the 18th century, it was enacted that the Council would not be dissolved until up to six months after the demise of the Crown.[47] By convention, however, the sovereign would reappoint all members of the Council after its dissolution.[48][49] In practice, therefore, membership continued without a break.[22] In 1901, the law was changed to ensure that Crown Appointments became wholly unaffected by any succession of monarch.[50] The sovereign, however, may remove an individual from the Privy Council. Former MP Elliot Morley was expelled on 8 June 2011, following his conviction on charges of false accounting in connection with the British parliamentary expenses scandal.[51][52] Before this, the last individual to be expelled from the Council against his will was Sir Edgar Speyer, Bt., who was removed on 13 December 1921[53][54] for collaborating with the enemy German Empire, during the First World War.[55] Individuals can choose to resign, sometimes to avoid expulsion. Three members voluntarily left the Privy Council in the 20th century: John Profumo,[55] who resigned on 26 June 1963;[56][57] John Stonehouse,[55] who resigned on 17 August 1976[56][58] and Jonathan Aitken, who resigned on 25 June 1997[59] following allegations of perjury.[55][60] So far, three Privy Counsellors have resigned in the 21st century, coincidentally all in the same year. On 4 February 2013, Chris Huhne announced that he would voluntarily leave the Privy Council after pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice.[61] Lord Prescott stood down on 6 July 2013, in protest against delays in the introduction of press regulation, expecting others to follow.[62] Denis MacShane resigned on 9 October 2013, before a High Court hearing at which he pleaded guilty of false accounting and was subsequently imprisoned.[63]

Meetings

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

50

Queen Victoria convened her first Privy Council on the day of her accession in 1837. Meetings of the Privy Council are normally held once each month wherever the sovereign may be in residence at the time.[64] The quorum, according to the Privy Council Office, is three,[65] though some statutes provide for other quorums (for example, section 35 of the Opticians Act 1989[66] provides for a lower quorum of two). The sovereign attends the meeting, though his or her place may be taken by two or more Counsellors of State.[67][68] Under the Regency Acts 1937 to 1953,[69] Counsellors of State may be chosen from among the sovereign's spouse and the four individuals next in the line of succession who are over 21 years of age (18 for the heir to the throne).[68] Customarily the sovereign remains standing at meetings of the Privy Council, so that no other members may sit down,[19] thereby keeping meetings short. The Lord President reads out a list of Orders to be made, and the sovereign merely says "Approved".[70] Few Privy Counsellors are required to attend regularly. The settled practice is that day-to-day meetings of the Council are attended by four Privy Counsellors, usually the relevant Minister to the matters pertaining.[67] The Cabinet Minister holding the office of Lord President of the Council, currently Jacob Rees-Mogg MP,[71] invariably presides.[72] Under Britain's modern conventions of parliamentary government and constitutional monarchy, every order made in Council is drafted by a Government Department and has already been approved by the Minister responsible – thus actions taken by the Queen-in-Council are formalities required for validation of each measure.[67] Full meetings of the Privy Council are held only when the reigning sovereign announces his or her own engagement (which last happened on 23 November 1839,[73] in the reign of Queen Victoria); or when there is a demise of the Crown, either by the death or abdication of the monarch.[32] A full meeting of the Privy Council was also held on 6 February 1811, when George, Prince of Wales was sworn in as Prince Regent by Act of Parliament.[74] The current statutes regulating the establishment of a regency in the case of minority or incapacity of the sovereign also require any regents to swear their oaths before the Privy Council.[75] In the case of a demise of the Crown, the Privy Council – together with the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London as well as representatives of Commonwealth realms – makes a proclamation declaring the accession of the new sovereign and receives an oath from the new monarch relating to the security of the Church of Scotland, as required by law. It is also customary for the new sovereign to make an allocution to the Privy Council on that occasion, and this Sovereign's Speech is formally published in The London Gazette. Any such Special Assembly of the Privy Council, Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

51

convened to proclaim the accession of a new sovereign and witness the monarch's statutory oath, is known as an Accession Council. The last such meetings were held on 6 and 8 February 1952: as Elizabeth II was abroad when the last demise of the Crown took place, the Accession Council met twice, once to proclaim the sovereign (meeting of 6 February 1952), and then again after the new queen had returned to Britain, to receive from her the oath required by statute (meeting of 8 February 1952).[76]

Functions The sovereign exercises executive authority by making Orders in Council upon the advice of the Privy Council. Orders-in-Council, which are drafted by the government rather than by the sovereign, are secondary legislation and are used to make government regulations and to make government appointments. Furthermore, Orders-in-Council are used to grant Royal Assent for Measures of the National Assembly for Wales,[77][78] and laws passed by the legislatures of British Crown dependencies.[79] Distinct from Orders-in-Council are Orders of Council: the former are issued by the sovereign upon the advice of the Privy Council, whereas the latter are made by members of the Privy Council without requiring the sovereign's approval. They are issued under the specific authority of Acts of Parliament, and most commonly are used for the regulation of public institutions.[79] The sovereign also grants Royal Charters on the advice of the Privy Council. Charters bestow special status to incorporated bodies; they are used to grant "chartered" status to certain professional, educational or charitable bodies, and sometimes also city and borough status to towns.[80] The Privy Council therefore deals with a wide range of matters, which also includes university and livery company statutes,[81] churchyards,[82] coinage and the dates of bank holidays.[64] The Privy Council formerly had sole power to grant academic degree-awarding powers and the title of university,[83] but following the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 these powers have been given to the Office for Students for educational institutions in England.[84]

Committees

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Privy Council comprises a number of committees:[85]

Accession Council Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

52

The Accession Council is made up of Privy Counsellors, Great Officers of State, members of the House of Lords, the Lord Mayor of the City of London, the Aldermen of the City of London, High Commissioners of Commonwealth realms, and senior civil servants. It is a ceremonial body which assembles in St James's Palace upon the death of a monarch, to make formal proclamation of the accession of the successor to the throne.

Baronetage Committee The Baronetage Committee was established by a 1910 Order in Council, during Edward VII's reign, to scrutinise all succession claims (and thus reject doubtful ones) to be placed on the Roll of Baronets.[85]

Cabinet of the United Kingdom The Cabinet of the United Kingdom is the collective decision-making body of Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom, composed of the Prime Minister and 21 cabinet ministers, the most senior of the government ministers.

Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey The Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey recommends approval of Channel Islands legislation.[85]

Committee for the Purposes of the Crown Office Act 1877 The Committee for the purposes of the Crown Office Act 1877 consists of the Lord Chancellor and Lord Privy Seal as well as a Secretary of State. The Committee, which last met in 1988, is concerned with the design and usage of wafer seals.[85]

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,[86] consists of senior judges who are Privy Counsellors.[87] The decision of the Committee is presented in the form of "advice" to the monarch, but in practice it is always followed by the sovereign (as Crown-in-Council), who formally approves the recommendation of the Judicial Committee.[88] Within the United Kingdom, the Judicial Committee hears appeals from ecclesiastical courts, the Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports, prize courts and the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, appeals against schemes of the Church Commissioners and appeals under certain Acts of Parliament (e.g., the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975).[89] The Crown-in-Council was formerly the Supreme Appeal Court for the entire British Empire,[90] but a number of Commonwealth countries have now abolished the right to such appeals.[91] The Judicial Committee continues to hear appeals from several Commonwealth countries, from British Overseas Territories, Sovereign Base Areas and Crown dependencies.[89] The Judicial Committee had direct jurisdiction in cases relating to the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, but this was transferred to the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2009.[87]

Lords Commissioners Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

53

The Lords Commissioners are Privy Counsellors appointed by the Monarch of the United Kingdom to exercise, on his behalf, certain functions relating to Parliament which would otherwise require the monarch's attendance at the Palace of Westminster. These include the opening and prorogation of Parliament, the confirmation of a newly elected Speaker of the House of Commons and the granting of Royal Assent. In current practice, the Lords Commissioners usually include the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the leaders of the three major parties in the House of Lords, the convener of the House of Lords Crossbenchers, and the Lord Speaker.

Scottish Universities Committee The Scottish Universities Committee considers proposed amendments to the statutes of Scotland's four ancient universities.[85]

Universities Committee The Universities Committee, which last met in 1995, considers petitions against statutes made by Oxford and Cambridge Universities and their colleges.[85]

Other Committees In addition to the Standing Committees, ad hoc Committees are notionally set up to consider and report on Petitions for Royal charters of Incorporation and to approve changes to the byelaws of bodies created by Royal Charter.[85] Committees of Privy Counsellors are occasionally established to examine specific issues. Such Committees are independent of the Privy Council Office and therefore do not report directly to the Lord President of the Council.[85] Examples of such Committees include:[85] • • •

the Butler Committee – operation of the intelligence services in the runup to military intervention in Iraq the Chilcot Committee – for the Chilcot Inquiry on the use of intercept materials the Gibson Committee of enquiry set up in 2010 – to consider whether the UK security services were complicit in torture of detainees.

Notable orders The Civil Service is formally governed by Privy Council Orders, as an exercise of the Royal prerogative. One such order implemented HM Government's ban of GCHQ staff from joining a Trade Union.[92][93] Another, the Civil Service (Amendment) Order in Council 1997, permitted the Prime Minister to grant up to three political advisers management authority over some Civil Servants.[94][95] In the 1960s, the Privy Council made an order to evict the 2,000 inhabitants of the 65-island Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean, in preparation for the establishment of a joint United States–United Kingdom military base on the largest outlying island, Diego Garcia, some 60 miles (97 km) distant. In 2000 the Court of Appeal ruled the 1971 Immigration Ordinance preventing resettlement unlawful. In 2004, the Privy Council, under Jack Straw's tenure, overturned the ruling. In 2006 the High Court of Justice found the Privy Council's Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

54

decision to be unlawful. Sir Sydney Kentridge described the treatment of the Chagossians as "outrageous, unlawful and a breach of accepted moral standards": Justice Kentridge stated that there was no known precedent "for the lawful use of prerogative powers to remove or exclude an entire population of British subjects from their homes and place of birth",[94][96][97] and the Court of Appeal were persuaded by this argument, but the Law Lords (at that time the UK's highest law court) found its decision to be flawed and overturned the ruling by a 3–2 decision thereby upholding the terms of the Ordinance.[98]

Rights and privileges of members The Privy Council as a whole is termed "The Most Honourable" whilst its members individually, the Privy Counsellors, are entitled to be styled "The Right Honourable".[99] Each Privy Counsellor has the right of personal access to the sovereign. Peers were considered to enjoy this right individually; members of the House of Commons possess the right collectively. In each case, personal access may only be used to tender advice on public affairs.[100] Only Privy Counsellors can signify royal consent to the examination of a Bill affecting the rights of the Crown.[101] Members of the Privy Council are privileged to be given advance notice of any prime ministerial decision to commit HM Armed Forces in enemy action.[102] Privy Counsellors have the right to sit on the steps of the Sovereign's Throne in the Chamber of the House of Lords during debates, a privilege which was shared with heirs apparent of those hereditary peers who were to become members of the House of Lords before Labour's partial Reform of the Lords in 1999, diocesan bishops of the Church of England yet to be Lords Spiritual, retired bishops who formerly sat in the House of Lords, the Dean of Westminster, Peers of Ireland, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.[103] While Privy Counsellors have the right to sit on the steps of the Sovereign's Throne they do so only as observers and are not allowed to participate in any of the workings of the House of Lords. Nowadays this privilege is rarely exercised. A notable recent instance of the exercising of this privilege was used by the Prime Minister, Theresa May, and David Lidington, who watched the opening of the debate of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2017 in the House of Lords.[104] Privy Counsellors are accorded a formal rank of precedence, if not already having a higher one.[105] At the beginning of each new Parliament, and at the discretion of the Speaker, those members of the House of Commons who are Privy Counsellors usually take the oath of allegiance before all other members except the Speaker and the Father of the House (who is the member of the House who has the longest continuous service).[106] Should a Privy Counsellor rise to speak in the House of Commons at the same time as another Honourable Member, the Speaker usually gives priority to the "Right Honourable" Member.[107] This parliamentary custom, however, was discouraged under New Labour after 1998, despite the Government not being supposed to exert influence over the Speaker.[108] All those sworn of the Privy Council are accorded the style "The Right Honourable", but some nobles automatically have higher styles: non-royal dukes are styled "The Most Noble" Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

55

and marquesses, "The Most Honourable". Modern custom as recommended by Debrett's is to use the post-nominal letters "PC" in a social style of address for peers who are Privy Counsellors.[109] For commoners, "The Right Honourable" is sufficient identification of their status as a Privy Counsellor and they do not use the post-nominal letters "PC".[33][109][110] The Ministry of Justice revises current practice of this convention from time to time.[111]

Other councils The Privy Council is one of the four principal councils of the sovereign. The other three are the courts of law, the Commune Concilium (Common Council, or Parliament) and the Magnum Concilium (Great Council, or the assembly of all the Peers of the Realm). All are still in existence, or at least have never been formally abolished, but the Magnum Concilium has not been summoned since 1640 and was considered defunct even then.[100][112] Several other Privy Councils have advised the sovereign. England and Scotland once had separate Privy Councils (the Privy Council of England and Privy Council of Scotland). The Acts of Union 1707 united the two countries into the Kingdom of Great Britain and in 1708 the Parliament of Great Britain abolished the Privy Council of Scotland.[113][114] Thereafter there was one Privy Council of Great Britain sitting in London.[115] Ireland, on the other hand, continued to have a separate Privy Council even after the Act of Union 1800. The Privy Council of Ireland was abolished in 1922, when the southern part of Ireland separated from the United Kingdom; it was succeeded by the Privy Council of Northern Ireland, which became dormant after the suspension of the Parliament of Northern Ireland in 1972. No further appointments have been made since then, and only three appointees were still living as of November 2017.[116] Canada has had its own Privy Council—the Queen's Privy Council for Canada—since 1867.[117] While the Canadian Privy Council is specifically "for Canada", the Privy Council discussed above is not "for the United Kingdom"; to clarify the ambiguity where necessary, the latter was traditionally referred to as the Imperial Privy Council. Equivalent organs of state in other Commonwealth realms, such as Australia and New Zealand, are called Executive Councils.[118][119]

See also • • • • • • • • • • •

List of Royal members of the Privy Council List of current Privy Counsellors List of longest-serving current Privy Counsellors List of senior members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom List of Privy Council Orders Committee of the Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations Clerk to the Privy Council Court uniform and dress in the United Kingdom Historic list of Privy Counsellors Baronetage Burke's Peerage & Baronetage

Notes Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

56

1. • Dicey, pp. 6–7. • • Dicey, p. 24. • • Dicey, pp. 12–14. • • Gay, p. 2. • • Maitland, pp. 262–3. • • Maitland, p. 253. • • Goodnow, p. 123 • • Maitland, p. 256. • • Plant, D (2007). "The Council of State". British Civil Wars, Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1638–60. Archived from the original on 26 September 2008. Retrieved 11 September 2008. • • Warshaw, p. 7. • • Gay and Rees, pp. 2–3. • • Edited by Edmund Weiner & John Simpson. (1991). The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-861258-3. • • "Legislative Competence Orders" (PDF). Constitutional Quick Guides No. 3. Welsh Assembly. 2007. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 October 2008. Retrieved 12 September 2008. • • e.g. "Statutory Instrument 1988 No. 1162". Office of Public Sector Information. Archived from the original on 8 August 2008. Retrieved 11 September 2008. • • e.g. "Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 1379". Office of Public Sector Information. Archived from the original on 9 August 2008. Retrieved 11 September 2008. • • H. Cox, p. 388. • • "Departmental Plan 2004/05" (PDF). Privy Council Office. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 October 2008. Retrieved 11 September 2008. • • Brazier, p. 199, note 109. • • "Privy Council Office FAQs". Privy Council Office. Archived from the original on 5 April 2012. Retrieved 13 January 2012. • • "No. 56070". The London Gazette (Supplement). 30 December 2000. p. 1. • • Blackstone, I. 174. • • Gay, p. 3. • • "Privy Council Members". Privy Council Office. Archived from the original on 21 December 2011. Retrieved 13 January 2012. • • "More Cameron allies appointed to Queen's Privy Council". Daily Mail. 2 July 2015. Archived from the original on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 29 April 2019. • • "Bishop of London". Diocese of London. Archived from the original on 9 May 2008. Retrieved 15 August 2008. • • "Mailbox January 2007". Royal Insight. Royal Household. Archived from the original on 27 January 2009. Retrieved 11 September 2008. • • Peel, Michael; Croft, Jabe (20 September 2009). "Privy Council hampers Supreme Court". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 19 February 2011. Retrieved 5 October 2009. • • "English Judges and the Bar: Court of Appeal and High Court". Forms of address. Ministry of Justice. 2008. Archived from the original on 6 March 2007. Retrieved 15 August 2008. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

57

• • "Scottish Judges and the Bar". Forms of address. Ministry of Justice. 2008. Archived from the original on 6 March 2007. Retrieved 15 August 2008. • • "Northern Ireland Judges and the Bar". Forms of address. Ministry of Justice. 2008. Archived from the original on 6 March 2007. Retrieved 15 August 2008. • • "Morgan made Privy Counsellor". BBC. 24 July 2000. Archived from the original on 30 August 2007. Retrieved 12 September 2008. • • "So what is the Privy Council?". BBC. 18 February 2003. Archived from the original on 26 July 2008. Retrieved 12 September 2008. • • "The title 'The Honourable' and the Privy Council". New Zealand Honours. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Archived from the original on 3 July 2008. Retrieved 3 August 2008. • • "DPMC—New Zealand Honours: The Right Honourable". New Zealand Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 2010. Archived from the original on 13 May 2011. Retrieved 28 April 2011. • • "Order Paper and Notice Paper, 20 October 2000". Senate of Canada. 2000. Archived from the original on 25 September 2007. Retrieved 12 September 2008. • • "Commonwealth Judges". Forms of address. Ministry of Justice. 2008. Archived from the original on 29 August 2008. Retrieved 12 September 2008. • • Hattersley, Roy (14 December 2000). "Let's abolish this absurdity". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Archived from the original on 2 October 2013. Retrieved 24 April 2010. Quoting those words from the Privy Council's oath is certainly an offence and possibly treason. • • "HC Hansard Vol 317 Col 182". Hansard. London: Parliament of the United Kingdom. 28 July 1998. Archived from the original on 15 October 2010. Retrieved 31 August 2010. • • "HL Deb Vol 86 cc520-35". Hansard. London: Parliament of the United Kingdom. 21 December 1932. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. Retrieved 17 December 2015. • • Joseph Robson Tanner, Tudor Constitutional Documents: A.D. 1485–1603, with an Historical Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 1930), p. 225. • • "Privy Counsellors – Glossary page". UK Parliament. Archived from the original on 16 August 2019. Retrieved 29 April 2019. • • Chris Cook (18 September 2015). "How civil servants kept the Privy Council's secrets". BBC. Archived from the original on 19 September 2015. Retrieved 18 September 2015. • • Privy Council: Guide to its origins, powers and members Archived 2 April 2018 at the Wayback Machine, BBC News (8 October 2015). • • Privy council: Jeremy Corbyn did not kneel for the Queen Archived 23 August 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Guardian (11 November 2015). • • Wintour, Patrick (8 October 2015). "Jeremy Corbyn rejects formal privy council induction by Queen". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 11 October 2016. Retrieved 12 October 2016. • • Blackstone, I. 176. • • The most recent enactment deferring dissolution was the Succession to the Crown Act 1707 (6 Ann. c. 41). Complete text Archived 10 June 2010 at the Wayback Machine as originally enacted. Text of the Succession to the Crown Act 1707 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk. . Section VIII provided, "... the Privy Council of Her Majesty, her heirs or successors for the Kingdom of Great Britain, shall not be determined or dissolved by the death or demise of Her Majesty, her heirs or successors; but such Privy Council shall continue and act as such by the space of six months next after such demise, unless sooner determined by the next successor to whom the Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

58

imperial Crown of this realm is limited and appointed to go, remain, and descend; ..." Despite becoming obsolete in 1901, this section remained on the statute book until it was repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1973 (c. 39), section 1(1) and Schedule 1 part I. • • H. Cox, p. 389. • • See, for example, the proclamation following the accession of Queen Victoria on the death of William IV: "By the Queen: A Proclamation: Requiring all Persons, being in Office of Authority or Government at the Decease of the late King, to proceed in the Execution of their respective Offices". The London Gazette. London: Francis Watts (19514): 1625–1626. 27 June 1837. Archived from the original on 3 September 2011. Retrieved 7 June 2010. • • The Demise of the Crown Act 1901 (1 Edw. 7 c. 5), "An Act to amend the Law relating to the Holding of Offices in case of the Demise of the Crown" Archived 8 December 2009 at the Wayback Machine (original text), Text of the Demise of the Crown Act 1901 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk. . Section 1(1) provides, "The holding of any office under the Crown, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions, shall not be affected, nor shall any fresh appointment thereto be rendered necessary, by the demise of the Crown." The act came into force within six months of the death of Victoria and section 1(2) ensured that no offices were vacated on the subsequent accession of Edward VII. See also commentary in Appendix 2 of the report that preceded the 1973 Act: Law Commission, Scottish Law Commission (1972). Statute Law Revision: Fourth Report. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. pp. 30–55. ISBN 0-10151080-2. Retrieved 7 June 2010. (LC 49, SLC 26, Cmnd 5108). • • "Morley's Privy Council expulsion". The Independent. 9 June 2011. • • "No. 59820". The London Gazette. 14 June 2011. p. 11257. • • Rayment, Leigh (1 April 2008). "Privy Counsellors 1836–1914". Archived from the original on 26 September 2008. Retrieved 17 September 2008. Sir Edgar Speyer (struck off 13 Dec 1921) • • "No. 32547". The London Gazette. 12 December 1921. p. 10123. • • "Queen Accepts Aitken's Resignation". BBC. 1997. Archived from the original on 24 November 2004. Retrieved 12 February 2008. The Queen has accepted Jonathan Aitken's resignation from the Privy Council. [...] Two former disgraced Ministers, John Profumo and John Stonehouse, have also resigned from the Council, but no one has been thrown off since 1921 when Sir Edgar Speyer was struck off for collaborating with the Germans in the First World War. • • Rayment, Leigh (2 April 2008). "Privy Counsellors 1915–1968". Archived from the original on 26 September 2008. Retrieved 17 September 2008. John Dennis Profumo (resigned 26 Jun 1963) [...] John Thomson Stonehouse (resigned 17 Aug 1976) • • "No. 43041". The London Gazette. 28 June 1963. p. 5533. • • "No. 46994". The London Gazette. 19 August 1976. p. 11347. • • Rayment, Leigh (10 September 2008). "Privy Counsellors 1969–present". Archived from the original on 7 June 2008. Retrieved 17 September 2008. Jonathan William Patrick Aitken (resigned 25 June 1997) • • "No. 54817". The London Gazette. 26 July 1997. p. 4381. • • "Huhne admits speeding points lie". 4 February 2013. Archived from the original on 27 April 2019. Retrieved 29 April 2019 – via bbc.co.uk. • • "Prescott resigns from Privy Council". 6 July 2013. Archived from the original on 9 April 2019. Retrieved 29 April 2019 – via bbc.co.uk. • • "London Gazette No 60653". Archived from the original on 20 October 2013. Retrieved 20 October 2013. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

59

• • "Queen and Privy Council". Monarchy Today. Royal Household. Archived from the original on 24 June 2008. Retrieved 3 August 2008. • • "Privy Council website". Archived from the original on 21 December 2011. Retrieved 13 January 2012. • • "Section 35, Opticians Act 1989". Government of the United Kingdom. Archived from the original on 7 May 2012. Retrieved 13 January 2012. • • Gay and Rees, p. 4. • • "Counsellors of State". Monarchy Today. Royal Household. Archived from the original on 19 September 2008. Retrieved 3 August 2008. • • "No. 48172". The London Gazette. 29 April 1980. p. 6361. • • Brazier, p. 199. • • "Lord President of the Council". Government of the United Kingdom. Archived from the original on 24 July 2019. Retrieved 25 July 2019. • • "Roles and Responsibilities of the Lord President". Privy Council Office. Archived from the original on 5 April 2012. Retrieved 13 January 2012. • • The Times, 25 November 1839, p. 5. • • "Gazette of 7 February 1811". The London Gazette. Archived from the original on 7 May 2012. Retrieved 13 January 2012. • • Regency Act 1937, Sect. 2.2 and 4.1. • • The Times, 7 February 1952, p. 6; The Times, 8 February 1952, p. 6. • • Participation, Expert. "Government of Wales Act 2006". Government of the United Kingdom. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 29 April 2019. • • Order in Council Archived 19 February 2009 at the Wayback Machine dated 9 July 2008, approving The NHS Redress (Wales) Measure 2008, the first Measure to be passed by the Assembly on 6 May 2008. Office of Public Sector Information. • • House of Commons Information Office (May 2008). "Statutory Instruments" (PDF). Factsheet. ISSN 0144-4689. No.L7 Ed 3.9. Retrieved 3 August 2008. • • "Royal Charter". Privy Council Office. Archived from the original on 5 April 2012. Retrieved 13 January 2012. • • Gay and Rees, p. 5. • • H. Cox, p. 393. • • "Degree awarding powers and university title". QAA. Archived from the original on 10 August 2014. Retrieved 16 October 2017. • • Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (2017 c. 29 ss. 42–60). Text of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 as originally enacted or made within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 9 April 2019. • • Privy Council Committees, released as part of a response from Privy Council Office (United Kingdom) to a request made using WhatDoTheyKnow, accessed 16 January 2015. • • N. Cox, Abolition or Retention of the Privy Council, Sect. 2. • • Gay and Rees, p. 6. • • Maitland, p. 463. • • "Role of the JCPC". Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Archived from the original on 14 January 2014. Retrieved 13 January 2012. • • Iwi, p. 128. • • N. Cox, Abolition or Retention of the Privy Council, Sect. 11. • • "Do we need the Privy Council?". BBC News. 13 May 2009. Archived from the original on 3 September 2017. Retrieved 2 April 2010. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

60

• • ThirdWay—Google Boeken. March 1984. Archived from the original on 7 May 2012. Retrieved 13 August 2012. • • BBC Radio 4—What's the Point of ... The Privy Council Archived 16 May 2009 at the Wayback Machine, 12 May 2009 • • "Civil Service Order in Council 1995 (as amended between 1995 and 2005)" (PDF). Civil Service Commissioners. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 July 2008. Retrieved 7 June 2010. • • "Secretary of State for the Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs v Bancoult, R (on the application of) 2007 EWCA Civ 498 (23 May 2007)". Archived from the original on 7 May 2015. Retrieved 12 May 2009. • • BBC—Court victory for Chagos families Archived 14 March 2007 at the Wayback Machine, 11 May 2006 • • "Judgments—R (On The Application of Bancoult) V Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 6 October 2014. • • "Privy Council members". Privy Council Office. Archived from the original on 6 December 2014. Retrieved 15 June 2015. • • N. Cox, Peerage Privileges, pp. 25–6. • • Hayter, Sect. 7.177. • • "Jones informed of Syria drone strike". BBC. Archived from the original on 12 September 2015. Retrieved 17 September 2015. • • Hayter, Sect. 1.37. • • "Respect Brexit decision, peers urged". BBC. 20 February 2017. Archived from the original on 20 February 2017. Retrieved 20 February 2017. • • Blackstone, I. 318. • • Walker, A; Wood, E (14 February 2000). "The Parliamentary Oath" (PDF). Research Paper 00/17. House of Commons Library. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 August 2000. Retrieved 8 September 2008. • • "Privy Council". BBC. 19 May 1998. Archived from the original on 6 July 2004. Retrieved 29 August 2008. • • "Modernisation of the House of CommonsFourth Report: Precedence for Privy Counsellors". Modernisation of the House of Commons Select Committee. 4 March 1998. Archived from the original on 5 March 2009. Retrieved 8 September 2008. • • "Privy Counsellors and Crown Appointments". Debrett's. Archived from the original on 28 May 2016. Retrieved 15 June 2015. • • "Letters after the name". Debrett's. Archived from the original on 10 October 2017. Retrieved 13 September 2017. In a social style of address for a peer who is a privy counsellor it is advisable that the letters PC should follow the name. For all other members of the Privy Council the prefix ‘Rt Hon’ before the name is sufficient identification. • • "Peers". Forms of address. Ministry of Justice. 2008. Archived from the original on 27 August 2008. Retrieved 11 September 2008. • • Blackstone, I. Chapter 5. • • "Privy Council Records". National Records of Scotland. Archived from the original on 9 January 2017. Retrieved 8 January 2017. • • O'Gorman, Frank (2016). The Long Eighteenth Century: British Political and Social History 1688–1832. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 65. ISBN 9781472507747. Archived from the original on 16 August 2019. Retrieved 8 September 2017. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

61

• • Black, Jeremy (1993). The politics of Britain, 1688–1800. Manchester University Press. p. 13. ISBN 0719037611. Archived from the original on 16 August 2019. Retrieved 8 September 2017. • • Rayment, Leigh (27 May 2014). "Privy Counsellors—Ireland". Archived from the original on 26 September 2008. Retrieved 13 February 2015. • • "The Queen's Privy Council for Canada". Privy Council Office. 13 February 2008. Archived from the original on 5 March 2009. Retrieved 3 August 2008. • • "Federal Executive Council Handbook" (PDF). Australian Government, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. June 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 July 2007. Retrieved 9 September 2008. 119. • "Executive Council". New Zealand Government, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Archived from the original on 3 July 2008. Retrieved 9 September 2008.

References • • •

•

• • •

•

• •

• • • •

Blackstone, W (1838). Commentaries on the Laws of England. New York: W.E. Dean. Brazier, R (1997). Ministers of the Crown. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19825988-3. Cox, H (1854). The British Commonwealth, Or, A Commentary on the Institutions and Principles of British Government. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans. p. 389. privy council reappointed demise. Cox, N (2002). "The Abolition or Retention of the Privy Council as the Final Court of Appeal for New Zealand: Conflict Between National Identity and Legal Pragmatism". New Zealand Universities Law Review. 20. doi:10.2139/ssrn.420373. Cox, N (2008). "Peerage Privileges since the House of Lords Act 1999". Selected Works of Noel Cox. Berkeley Electronic Press. Retrieved 29 August 2008. Dicey, A (1887). The Privy Council: the Arnold prize essay, 1860. London. Gay, O; Rees, A (2005). "The Privy Council" (PDF). House of Commons Library Standard Note. SN/PC/2708. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 June 2010. Retrieved 13 May 2010. Goodnow, F (1897). Comparative Administrative Law: an Analysis of the Administrative Systems, National and Local, of the United States, England, France and Germany. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. ISBN 978-1-58477-622-2. Hayter, P (2007). Companion to the Standing Orders and guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords (21st ed.). Archived from the original on 19 November 2008. Iwi, E (1937). "A Plea for an Imperial Privy Council and Judicial Committee". Transactions of the Grotius Society. Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 23. 23: 127–146. JSTOR 742946. Maitland, F (1911). The constitutional history of England: a course of lectures. Cambridge. Michael Pulman (1971) The Elizabethan Privy Council in the Fifteen Seventies (Berkeley: University of California Press) Warshaw, S (1996). Powersharing: White House—Cabinet relations in the modern presidency. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-7914-2869-9. David Rogers (2015) By Royal Appointment : Tales from the Privy Council—the unknown arm of Government, London : Biteback Publishing.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

62

Footnotes 1. Officially: Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council,

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

63

Qinetiq From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Analex" redirects here. For the ancient Chinese text, see Analects. Coordinates:

51°16′43″N 0°47′33″W QinetiQ Group plc

Type Traded as ISIN

Public limited company LSE: QQ. GB00B0WMWD03

Industry

Aerospace Defence Research and development

Founded

2001

Headquarters

Farnborough, Hampshire , United Kingdom

Number of locations

UK, North America and Australia

Key people

Mark Elliott (chairman) Steve Wadey (CEO)

Products

Defence, security, aviation and energy and environment

Revenue

£911.1 million (2019)[1]

Operating income

£123.9 million (2019)[1]

Net income

£113.9 million (2019)[1]

Number of employees Website

5,994 (2019)[1] qinetiq.com

Qinetiq (/kɪˈnɛtɪk/ as in kinetic; styled as QinetiQ) is a British multinational defence technology company headquartered in Farnborough, Hampshire. It is the world's 52nd-largest defence contractor measured by 2011 defence revenues, and the sixth-largest based in the UK.[2]

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

64

As a private entity, Qinetiq was created in April 2001; prior to this, it had been part of Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), a now-defunct British government organisation. While a large portion of DERA's assets, sites, and employees were transferred to Qinetiq, other elements were incorporated into Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), which remains in government ownership. Former DERA locations, including Farnborough, Hampshire, MoD Boscombe Down, Wiltshire, and Malvern, Worcestershire, have thus become key sites for Qinetiq. In February 2006, Qinetiq was floated on the London Stock Exchange. The privatisation process was subject to an inquiry by the UK's National Audit Office, which was critical of the generous incentive scheme available to the company's management. Qinetiq has completed numerous acquisitions of defense and technology-related companies, primarily those that are based in the United States, and is a trusted supplier to the US government. It has also spun off some its technologies into new companies, such as Omni-ID Ltd. It is currently a constituent of the FTSE 250 Index.

Contents • •

•

•

• • • •

1 Name 2 History o 2.1 Creation and early years o 2.2 Stock exchange listing o 2.3 NAO inquiry o 2.4 Expansion o 2.5 Cyber security 3 Operations o 3.1 Organisation o 3.2 Workforce 4 Services and products o 4.1 Defence o 4.2 Airships and balloons o 4.3 UAS o 4.4 Security o 4.5 Aviation 5 Notable staff 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

Name "Qinetiq" is an invented name.[3] "Qi" is supposed to reflect the company's energy, "net" its networking ability, and "iq" its intellectual resources.[3] The name was adopted in early 2001 as a marker of Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) privatisation; the rebranding reportedly came at a cost of £400,000.[4][5] Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

65

History Creation and early years In early 2001, when defence minister Lewis Moonie announced the creation of Qinetiq via the privatisation of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). At the time, Moonie stated that the entity would remain a British business, being based in the UK, and that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) would retain a 'special share' in the company while safeguards would be in place to prevent conflicts of interest. By April 2002, while Qinetiq had taken steps to operate on a commercial basis and saw third parties as its key growth area, 80% of its annual sales was reportedly being derived from the UK MoD. It was observed that Qinetiq's close relationship with the MoD gave it a competitive edge over most private-sector rivals.[6] Initially, Qinetiq was entirely owned by the British government; it was planned for a stock market flotation of the firm to be conducted sometime during 2002.[7] However, this flotation was postponed; according to aerospace industry periodical Flight International, a lack of investor confidence was the principal reason for the delay.[8] In late 2002, the Carlyle Group, an American private equity firm, publicly declared its intention to purchase a large stake in Qinetiq.[9][10] In February 2003, the Carlyle Group completed the acquisition of a 33.8% share for £42 million. Prior to Qinetiq's flotation years later, ownership of the firm was divided between the MoD (56%), Carlyle Group (31%) and staff (13%). The Carlyle Group was expected to remain invested in Qinetiq for between three and five years, after which a stock exchange float would take place.[11] In September 2004, Qinetiq acquired the US defence companies Westar Corporation[12] and Foster-Miller, maker of the Talon robot.[13] Also in 2004, it acquired HVR Consulting Services a leading UK-based engineering consultancy.[14] In early August 2005, the company announced it would acquire Apogen Technologies, Inc., pending regulatory approval; according to Qinetiq's website, the purchase came at a cost of $288.0m (£162.7m).[15] In September 2005, the company acquired a 90% share of Verhaert Design and Development NV (VDD), a Belgian space systems integrator.[16] In October that year, it acquired Broadreach Networks Limited, a supplier of Wi-Fi internet equipment to the European rail industry,[17] and in February 2006, it bought Graphics Research Corporation Ltd, developer of the Paramarine software suite of ship and submarine design tools.[18]

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

66

Qinetiq Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet (ZJ647) arrives at RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire, England, for the Royal International Air Tattoo (2014)

Stock exchange listing On 12 January 2006, an announcement was made in Parliament by Dr John Reid, Secretary of State for Defence, regarding the pending floatation of Qinetiq. Reid stated that the Carlyle Group 'will continue to retain a significant stake in the company', and that the government would continue to hold a 'Golden Share' to protect the UK's security and defence interests.[19] On 10 February 2006, Qinetiq was floated on the London Stock Exchange. The valuation of the company, and of how much taxpayers would benefit from QinetiQ's privatisation, was a subject of considerable debate and controversy.[20][21][22][23] The company had been valued at between £1.1bn and £1.3bn, with the MoD holding estimated to be worth £616m – £728m, the Carlyle Group's holding £341m – £403m, and staff/management's holding worth £143m – £169m. Controversy was generated by the very large returns generated for both the Carlyle Group and senior managers at the company; reportedly Sir John Chisholm is speculated to have benefitted by over £20 million alone.[24] Lord Moonie, who handled the initial sale, stated in 2006 that the government's 31 per cent stake should not have been sold when equity markets were languishing in 2002. Moonie said that he had argued for the sale to be delayed, but was over-ruled by the Treasury, which had convinced the Ministry of Defence to go ahead.[25] Controversy also arose around the fact that retail investors were excluded from the initial public offering (IPO) due to Qinetiq's complexity and that institutional investors would require less complicated marketing and financing. This led to contrasts with the 'Sid' campaign for British Gas plc in 1986, where retail investors were encouraged to buy shares, with discounts and a large advertising campaign. The issue was partially resolved by allowing some brokerage firms to place orders in the IPO as part of a combined order, allowing the firm to purchase as though an institutional investor but on behalf of clients. While this did not result in a public campaign or retail investor discounts, it did allow many investors to purchase shares. Upon its floating on 10 February 2006, Qinetiq had an IPO of 200p per share, resulting in a market value of £1.3bn. On 13 February 2006, shares closed at 219.5p, valuing it at over £1.4bn.[26] Speculation that a consortium including Qinetiq was about to win a £10bn MoD training contract helped push their share price back above 190p in early November 2006. It was announced on 17 January 2007 that the Qinetiq-led Metrix consortium was the preferred bidder for package one of the MoD's Defence Training Rationalisation programme, worth approx £16bn.[27]

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

29 • •

Page Discussion

• • •

Read View source View history

Search • • • • • • • • • • • •

Main page Recent changes About Wikispooks Our Policy Our Projects Community portal Random article Site Backup Mailing list Donate FAQ

Tools • • • • • • • • •

What links here Related changes RTRC Special pages Printable version Permanent link Page information Cite this page Browse properties

Misc • •

This page was last edited on 7 December 2019, at 13:22. Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike unless otherwise noted.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

68

Qinetiq AgustaWestland AW109E Power arrives for the 2014 Royal International Air Tattoo, England In March 2007, Qinetiq spun off a new company, Omni-ID Ltd; this entity specialises in the commercial opportunities for passive UHF radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags.[37] Prior to the spin off, a research team at Qinetiq had been active since the 1990s to develop new and more effective RFID technologies.[38] On 9 February 2007, the Carlyle Group sold its remaining 10.3% stake in the group at 205p per share, resulting in a £290 million return on its original investment.[39] During September 2008, the MoD sold its remaining 18.9% holding in Qinetiq at 206p per share, raising £254 million. The British government retained its 'special share', giving it control over any potential takeover.[40] In February 2020, Qinetiq acquired military training specialist Newman & Spurr Consultancy Ltd for £14 million.[41][42]

Cyber security During mid 2013, reports emerged that Chinese hackers had allegedly compromised sensitive military research being performed by Qinetiq.[43] It was claimed that, between 2007 and 2010, Qinetiq's North American business was the subject of a cyber-attack. At the time of the incidents, the company said it disclosed all of its breaches to the responsible government agencies and these were resolved to their satisfaction.[44] The Pentagon has stated that it still entrusts Qinetiq with sensitive defence technology.[45] The issue of cyber security affected other organisations; a Pentagon report stated that various US government agencies had been victims of cyber attacks.[46] Qinetiq provides auditing and consultancy services on cyber security to third party businesses.[47] In 2011, the company announced the launch of a strategic collaboration with information security firm Nexor to pool their cyber security portfolios.[48] During 2016, Qinetiq released a whitepaper on the topic, which identified employee behaviour as a major contributing factor in the majority of security breaches.[49] Qinetiq has partnered with mobile phone network provider Vodafone to support end-to-end internet security services.[50]

Operations Qinetiq provides technology-based products and services to numerous government and commercial customers. More than 2,000 of Qinetiq subsidiary Foster-Miller's Talon robots have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, most used to remotely locate and disable roadside bombs. Qinetiq's SPO stand-off threat detection system has been sold to the US Transportation Security Administration for railway stations and airports.[51] Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

69

During August 2008, Qinetiq's Zephyr, a solar powered unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), performed a non-stop flight spanning 14 day; this was a world record for the longest duration unmanned flight.[52] Over the following years, Qinetic performed further record-breaking flights of the UAV.[53] During summer 2018, an improved model of the Zephyr conducted an even-longer flight, lasting nearly 26 days. The Zephyr UAV has been offered as a commercial product, the programme having been acquired by multinational aerospace company Airbus Group.[54] Qinetiq have been involved in the further development of the Zephyr, such as the provision of LIDAR payload for the type.[55][56] Qinetiq has a 25-year Long Term partnering Agreement (LTPA) with the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to provide test and evaluation services and manage military ranges. It is a major stakeholder in the UK Defence Technology Centre, which places military research contracts on behalf of the MoD.[57][58] Qinetiq has a 15-year Maritime Strategic Facilities Agreement (MSCA) with the MoD to provide strategic maritime facilities and capabilities, including hydromechanic facilities at Haslar, biomedical facilities on the UK's South Coast, and submarine structures, survivability and shock testing facilities at Rosyth.[59]

Organisation The Qinetiq Group comprises Qinetiq EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Australasia) and Qinetiq North America. Qinetiq North America, which was set up after the takeover of Foster-Miller, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Qinetiq, but remains independent and separated from the Qinetiq group by a proxy agreement with the US to comply with US laws that prevent sensitive technology coming under the control of a foreign venture that takes over a US company.[60] The major UK sites are at Farnborough, Hampshire (the historical Royal Aircraft Establishment) and Malvern, Worcestershire (the historical RSRE/RRE/TRE).[61]

Workforce Qinetiq is one of the top ten largest UK employers of science and engineering graduates,[62] recruiting around 150 per year.[63] Between 2002 and 2006, it has appeared in the Times Top 100 Graduate Employers list. During 2005, Qinetiq was accused by union officials of its employees exhibiting higher than average levels of stress-related depression, a finding that was strongly denied by the company.[64]

Services and products The company's services and products include:[65]

Defence • • • • •

LAST Armour Talon Robot ALARM radar (Alerter of Approaching Rocket Munitions) Family of Advanced Cost Estimating Tools (FACET)[66] Operating and Support Cost Model (OSCAM)[67][68]

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

70

Airships and balloons •

QinetiQ 1

UAS • •

Qinetiq Mercator Formerly Zephyr (sold to Airbus in 2013)[69]

Security • • •

Cyveillance Optasense – Distributed acoustic sensing X-Net

Aviation • •

Acoustic testing Wind tunnel testing

Notable staff Former Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet was an independent nonexecutive director between October 2006 and January 2008.[70] David Sharp was a mechanical engineer who worked for the company until 2005 when he resigned.[71][72] The next year he died in Tibet on Mount Everest at over 8000 m altitude; his death triggered an international media storm because the other climbers didn't rescue him.[71][72]

See also • • •

Railgun Scramjet Aerogenerator

References 1. • "Annual Report 2019" (PDF). Qinetiq. Retrieved 3 March 2020. • • "Defense News Top 100 for 2011". Defense News. Archived from the original on 6 December 2012. Retrieved 18 July 2012. • • "Qinetiq: from cold war to hard cash". BBC News. 23 November 2007. • • Uhlig, Robert (6 April 2001). "MoD agency rebranded as QinetiQ". The Telegraph. • • Fricker, John (9 April 2001). "DERA to go by new, 'carefully chosen' name: QinetiQ". Aerospace Daily. • • Arnold, James (30 April 2002). "Qinetiq's new battle". BBC News. • • "DERA becomes QinetiQ". Flight International. 10 April 2001. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

71

• • Campbell, Alexander (12 March 2002). "Qinetiq sell-off on hold as investor confidence fades". Flight International. • • Campbell, Alexander (10 September 2002). "Carlyle moves in on MoD research organisation". Flight International. • • "Carlyle makes hay in $263m Qinetiq share sale". Flight International. 10 December 2002. • • Doward, Jamie. "For sale to the highest bidder: Britain's secret weapons labs". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • Karp, Jonathan (14 September 2004). "QinetiQ Acquires Westar Aerospace In $130 Million Deal". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • "QinetiQ caps $163M buy of Foster-Miller". Boston Business Journal. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • "Newsquest – Home". dailyecho.co.uk. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • Britain's QinetiQ to buy Apogen Archived 22 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine • • QinetiQ agrees to buy Belgian space company Archived 24 May 2009 at the Wayback Machine • • "Electronic Engineering Times Europe : Industry News, Learning center, electronic design center – Electronics Eetimes". eetimes.eu. Retrieved 3 April 2015.[permanent dead link] • • QinetiQ buys software company Archived 21 March 2006 at the Wayback Machine • • "QinetiQ Shareholder Team". Hansard. 12 January 2006. • • Harrison, Michael (13 January 2006). "Qinetiq's £1bn flotation 'will sell taxpayer short'". The Independent. Retrieved 24 October 2017. • • "News". Interactive Investor. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • Kane, Frank. "Frank Kane: Qinetiq arrogance has sunk this flotation to new depths". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • "Business – Reid defends Qinetiq's sale price". BBC News. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • "A swift killing in the defence sector". The Observer. 29 January 2006. • • "FT.com / Search". Financial Times. Retrieved 3 April 2015.[permanent dead link] • • "Qinetiq IPO raises £290m". Financial Times. 10 February 2006. • • South Wales home for defence training hub[permanent dead link] • • "The privatisation of QinetiQ". National Audit Office. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • "Business – Qinetiq deal 'cost UK taxpayers'". BBC News. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • "Qinetiq deal 'cost UK taxpayers'". BBC News. 23 November 2007. • • "QinetiQ Buys Analex Corp., Extends US Footprint". Defense Industry Daily. 22 January 2007. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • Dinger, Ed (9 December 2003). "Analex Corporation". International Directory of Company Histories. 74. St. James Press. ISBN 978-1-55862-549-5. • • "QinetiQ says to buy ITS Corp for up to $90 million". Reuters. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • "Westar sells filtration unit to Donaldson for $39 million". St. Louis Business Journal. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • "Apogen buys 3H Technology". washingtontechnology.com. Retrieved 23 November 2019. • • "QinetiQ buys spooks' secure-messaging provider". The Register. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • "Omni-ID Launches Breakthrough Solution for Asset Tracking and Supply Chain Management." Archived 5 November 2009 at the Wayback Machine • • "Our Company Story". Omni-ID. Retrieved 23 November 2019. • • "Industrials". The Times. Retrieved 3 April 2015. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

72

• • Hotten, Russell (10 September 2008). "Taxpayers net £254m from final QinetiQ sale". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • "QinetiQ acquires training, simulation group Newman & Spurr for £14m, 4 Feb 2020 07:06 | Shares Magazine". www.sharesmagazine.co.uk. Retrieved 18 March 2020. • • Media, Insider. "QinetiQ snaps up military training specialist". Insider Media Ltd. Retrieved 18 March 2020. • • Riley, Michael; Elgin, Ben (1 May 2013). "China Cyberspies Outwit U.S. Stealing Military Secrets". Business Week. Bloomberg News. Retrieved 2 May 2013. • • Elgin, Benjamin (7 May 2013). "Pentagon Retracts Statement on Probe of QinetiQ Hacking". Bloomberg. Retrieved 23 March 2014. • • "Company Hit By Chinese Hackers Still a Trusted Fed Supplier". Project on Government Oversight. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • Marcus, Jonathan (7 May 2013). "US accuses China government and military of cyberspying". BBC News. Retrieved 23 March 2014. • • "Qinetiq Ltd". crest-approved.org. Retrieved 23 November 2019. • • "Qinetiq and Nexor announce strategic partnership". Nexor. July 2011. • • "Lack of process and security culture are chief factors leaving firms open to cyber attack". Qineteq. 17 August 2016. • • "IoT security isn't just a case of once and done". Vodafone. • • The Times http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article3181926.ece . Retrieved 3 April 2015. Missing or empty |title= (help) • • Gray, Richard (23 August 2008). "Solar powered spy plane breaks flight record". The Daily Telegraph. • • Hoyle, Craig (27 July 2010). "Qinetiq's solar-powered Zephyr completes 14-day flight". Flight International. • • "Airbus Zephyr Solar High Altitude Pseudo-Satellite flies for longer than any other aircraft during its successful maiden flight". Airbus. 8 August 2018. • • Stevenson, Beth (21 April 2015). "UK discloses Zephyr-suited payload investment". Flight International. • • Allison, George (16 November 2018). "QinetiQ wins contract to develop LIDAR for Zephyr". ukdefencejournal.org.uk. • • "Qinetiq, MoD sign £998m support services pricing deal". Interactive Investor. 1 February 2013. • • Stevenson, Beth (2 December 2016). "Qinetiq awarded £1 billion for UK military test and evaluation services". Flight International. • • "QinetiQ wins £150m MoD maritime contract". The Telegraph. 3 February 2008. • • "Foster-Miller Announces New $51.5 Million TALON Contract". Security Infowatch. 8 August 2007. • • "QinetiQ confirms job losses in Malvern and Farnborough". BBC News. 18 February 2011. • • "QinetiQ". The Times. London. 21 December 2006. Retrieved 22 May 2010. • • "People". Qinetiq. 26 April 2008. Archived 26 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine • • "High stress claim at defence base". BBC News. 23 November 2005. • • "Services and products". Qinetiq. Retrieved 23 April 2017. • • A Cost Analysis of Reusable and Disposable Deep Target Attack Weapon Delivery Systems Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

73

• • "ダイエットから学ぶこと". oscamtools.com. Archived from the original on 7 April 2015. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • Applications of OSCAM • • "Astrium : News & features". 5 October 2013. Archived from the original on 5 October 2013. Retrieved 26 April 2018. • • "The Independent – 404". The Independent. Archived from the original on 27 November 2007. Retrieved 3 April 2015. • • "On Everest, you are never on your own'. Words of the climber left to die at summit". The Independent. 24 May 2006. Retrieved 23 April 2017. 72. • "Left to die at the top of the world" (PDF). Sunday Times Magazine. Retrieved 23 April 2017.

External links • •

Official site Share price chart

• • • •

v t e

Qinetiq • • •

v t e

Aerospace industry in the United Kingdom • • •

FTSE 100 ← Categories: • • • • • • • • • •

v t e

FTSE 250 companies of the United Kingdom

British companies established in 2001 Defence companies of the United Kingdom Science and technology in the United Kingdom Technology companies of the United Kingdom Aerospace companies of England Qinetiq Companies based in Farnborough Privatised executive agencies of the United Kingdom government Privatization controversies Privatisation in the United Kingdom

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

74 • • • • • • • •

Private equity portfolio companies Malvern, Worcestershire Carlyle Group companies Technology companies established in 2001 2001 establishments in England British brands Manufacturing companies of the United Kingdom Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange

Navigation menu • • • • •

Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in

• •

Article Talk

• • •

Read Edit View history

Search • • • • • • •

Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Wikipedia store

Interaction • • • • •

Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact page

Tools • • • • •

What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

75 • • •

Page information Wikidata item Cite this page

In other projects •

Wikimedia Commons

Print/export • •

Download as PDF Printable version

Languages • • • • • • • •

‫العربية‬ Deutsch Français Italiano Norsk bokmål Русский Suomi Українська

Edit links • •

This page was last edited on 29 April 2020, at 09:34 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

76

Serco: company profile 2018 by CorporateWatch2 / Companies, Migration, News, Prisons, Public Services, Slider / 28 Jun 2018

Serco is an outsourcing company that specialises in public sector work. It runs services in five areas: defence, “justice and immigration”, health, transport, and “citizen services”. It works for 20 governments worldwide, but 40% of all its business remains in the UK, with another 19% in Australia as of 2017. • •

•

One of its biggest contracts is running 11 Australian immigration detention centres. In the UK, it runs Yarl’s Wood detention centre. Serco has been hit by numerous scandals, most famously in 2013 when it was exposed along with G4S overcharging the government by millions on its electronic tagging contract. Serco was the first of the big-name outsourcers to hit financial trouble recently, with a run of profits warnings starting in 2013. Damage was done by numerous loss-making contracts taken on as the company raced to expand. As a result the company had to ask shareholders for £530m to keep the company going in 2015. Serco is struggling to get back on track, but hopes that its outsourcing model will prove profitable again long term: prisons and wars still seem a winning bet. They’d better be: shareholders haven’t received a dividend in three years.

Do you have any information you’d like to share about Serco? Contact us securely through our contact page.

Business basics Serco has an annual revenue of around £3 billion. It employs over 50,000 people. Serco specialises in running services outsourced by governments and other public institutions. These are its five business areas, listed by share of revenue in 2017: Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

77 • • • • •

Defence (£973m, 29%). Support services to military, e.g., running bases, “maritime services”. Citizen Services (£871m, 26%). Call centres and case management, back-office admin and IT, employment and “skills” services. Justice and Immigration (£559m, 17%). Prisons and detention centres, prisoner transport. Transport (£559m, 17%). Rail and ferries, road traffic management, air traffic control. Health (£348m, 11%). Non-clinical services, admin.

Serco operates in four regions: the UK and Europe, USA, Middle East, and “Asia Pacific” (mainly Australia and New Zealand). Europe is by far the largest, with around 45% of total revenue (£1.34bn) in 2017. And the large majority of that is in the UK – 40% of the total. Revenues from the other regions are: Americas £688m, “Asia Pacific” £579m, Middle East £352m. Middle East is the only region where sales grew last year. Serco is just keeping afloat financially. It made a small loss in 2016, and broke even in 2017. So far its creditors and investors are keeping it alive as it hopes to return to profit. Losses are largely due to the hangover of a number of big unsuccessful acquisitions and contracts Serco took on in the early 2010s, when an ambitious management sought rapid expansion. But Serco is also finding it hard to build up profitable work again in tougher conditions for outsourcing. In 2014-16, Serco exited its failing private sector businesses. But it is still tied into a number of loss-making government contracts. The 2017 Annual Report names as the “principal” “loss-making operations”: “COMPASS UK asylum seeker support services, the Caledonian Sleeper, Future Provision of Marine Services (FPMS), Lincolnshire County Council, and the Prisoner Escort & Custody Services (PECS) contracts”. Running prisons and detention centres is one area where profits are still strong. Serco runs all Australia’s onshore detention centres, as well as Yarl’s Wood detention centre in the UK. It is keen to bid for new contracts in this field. Despite losing money on the COMPASS asylum housing scheme, Serco is believed to be in the bidding for the next round of these contracts. Along with G4S, it expects that the Government can be persuaded to make these deals much better paying. The Americas division “accounts for approximately 23% of Serco’s overall revenue, and provides professional, technology and management services focused on Defence, Transport, and Citizen Services.” In the US, Serco is perhaps best known for its 12 year contract (started in 2013) to manage an “Obamacare” subsidised health insurance scheme. Its work in the Asia Pacific region is basically limited to Australia, which makes up 19% of overall revenue. The money here is largely in prisons and immigration control (discussed below). In the Middle East, which represents 12% of overall revenue, Serco has various defence, transport, health and “citizen services” contracts: e.g., Australian military bases, “facilities management” in Dubai Airport and in Abu Dhabi, and “defence training support” in Qatar. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

78

Outlook and strategies After recent bad experiences with corporate outsourcing, Serco is sticking to its “core” model of chasing government contracts. There are challenges in this. Margins are tighter as governments are under financial and political pressure to make contracts less lucrative. And as Serco’s 2017 Annual Report notes, “governments have become much more skilled at contracting and focused on risktransfer; as a consequence margins and risk-adjusted returns earned by many suppliers to government are much lower today than they were ten years ago”. On the “plus side”, Serco argues that state outsourcing will pick up and has good long term prospects. First, governments fluctuate for and against outsourcing, but when one state is turning against, another is putting on a fire sale. Second, “core” Serco business areas are not going away. “we can be very confident that the world will still need prisons, will still need to manage immigration, and provide healthcare and transport, and that these services will be highly people-intensive for decades to come.” The company estimates the potential for government outsourcing in its target markets at £300 billion – only a third of that is currently outsourced. Also, the market is fragmented with many competitors – Serco only has about 3% of the current contracts. In particular, prisons and immigration control look like a long term growth business — and are highly profitable. While other jobs are being hit by automation, Serco reckons: “a prison custody officer can sleep soundly in the knowledge that his or her skills will be required for years to come.”

Key Issues Detention and prisons profiteering: “Serco Justice and Immigration” Serco runs six adult prisons in the UK, with a total capacity of 5400. They are HMPs Ashfield, Doncaster, Dovegate, Lowdham Grange and Thameside in England, and Kilmarnock in Scotland. Serco has long been a player in the UK immigration detention business. However it currently only has one detention centre: Yarl’s Wood. It continues to bid for new ones. It bid unsuccessfully for the major deportation “escorting” contract won by Mitie at the end of 2017. In Australia, Serco won the 2009 contract to run all detention centres on the Australian mainland and an offshore processing centre on Christmas Island. The contract was renewed for another five years in 2014, valued then at $1 billion. However, its value has been dropping as Serco is paid “per immigrant”, and refugee arrival numbers are down due to interceptions at sea. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

79

In 2016, Serco tried to enter the US market with extensive lobbying at federal and local level to open a family detention centre near the Mexican border. The proposal was eventually rejected by officials in Texas.

Asylum Housing However, one “Justice and Immigration” deal has not performed so well: the COMPASS asylum housing contracts. Serco has been losing substantial sums on these deals – though it still appears to be bidding for the new round of asylum housing tenders currently underway. In 2012, the Home Office reorganised its system of housing asylum seekers (outside detention). Previously, there was a mixture of housing arrangements run by local authorities as well as private companies. Now all housing is provided by large private companies under regional contracts called “COMPASS” – “Commercial and Operational Managers Procuring Asylum Support Services”. The Home Office said it hoped to save £150 million over seven years through this arrangement. The six contracts were awarded to just three companies: G4S, Serco, and Clearsprings Group. Serco has the contracts for “Scotland and Northern Ireland” and “North West England”. But, as the Home Affairs Committee points out: “although the system of three Providers looks straightforward on the surface, below it lies a complex network of contractors, subcontractors and hundreds of private landlords.” In Scotland and Northern Ireland, Serco hires a sub-contractor called Orchard and Shipman to deal with the small private landlords it rents from. The Compass contracts are due to end in August 2019. They were initially scheduled for five years, plus an optional two year extension, which the Home Office took. Although full details are not clear, the new arrangement looks set to be very similar, based on seven large regional contracts. They are due to be awarded in Autumn 2018. The corporations complain that they have made heavy losses on the COMPASS contracts. G4S and Serco, in particular, seemed to have seriously messed up preparing for the deal. Both had problems early on with sub-contractors and failed to source all the properties they had expected; both complained they hadn’t anticipated the problems of negotiating with councils over properties. Then the mess got deeper as the “refugee crisis” arrived and the Home Office got even further behind in processing claims, meaning the numbers of people to be housed swelled. Despite all this, G4S and Serco are interested in continuing in this business – if the Home Office will increase its fees. The signs are that the Home Office will agree to pump more money into the system, so that its contractors can turn a profit. In March 2018, G4S’ CEO Ashley Almanza explained to analysts how he expected the Government would offer better terms: “Clearly the customer is very keen to have us in the process. … There are only two other suppliers in the market who’ve got the expertise to manage a very, very, very complex contract. If the contract was offered on the same terms, clearly we would not participate. I’m going to guess that the other supplier [Serco, we assume] would also not participate. We’ve Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

80

both seen enough to know that that’s not a viable model. I think there’s every sign that the customer understands that, knows that. The discussions are constructive and positive.” Conditions in asylum housing are notorious. South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group (SYMAAG) have collected numerous horror stories from people housed in Yorkshire and other areas. In Sheffield, a toddler with cancer is dumped by G4S in rat-infested accommodation. In Manchester, Serco don’t treat bedbug outbreaks but simply wrap infested mattresses in plastic covers. These are not exceptional cases: water leakage, fire hazards, mould, rats, cockroaches and bedbugs appear standard.

In more detail History Serco started out in 1929 as a company called RCA Services Ltd, the British “electronic services” subsidiary of Radio Corporation of America (RCA). Post-war, its business included two early examples of UK government outsourcing: large contracts with the Ministry of Defence to manage the ballistic missile early warning system, and a secret radar base in Suffolk. When state outsourcing really took off in the 1980s, the company was there. It won a prototype 1984 contract to run an RAF supply depot, in which the old air force staff were simply transferred over and brought their experience. In 1987 the company became Serco (Services Company), through a management buyout. Serco grew rapidly. Led by a group of four founding directors known as the “gang of four”, it was very much part of the Thatcherite programme of dismantling the state. According to Sam Knight in the Guardian: “Rentokil did cleaning; G4S did security; Capita did IT; Serco did anything and everything – and its panache in the bidding process meant that it often beat out competition from specialist firms.” The Blairite second wave of outsourcing opened even more areas up to “public private partnerships”. From 1990 to 2010, Serco focused almost entirely on government business. The boss from 2002 was Chris Hyman, an accountant, South African, and devout Christian who proclaimed that he would make Serco “the world’s greatest service company”. But after the 2008 crash, austerity hit government budgets, matched by “slowdowns in military spending”. To keep growing, Serco expanded its private sector business. But the

move to corporate work went badly, involving “a number of very heavily lossmaking contracts”. And then came a run of bad news stories, including the 2013 Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

81

electronic tagging scandal which saw Serco banned from government tenders for six months. Hyman resigned just before a Serious Fraud Office investigation began, and a new team took over in 2014, led by CEO Rupert Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill. But the results of bad deals were still hitting, and in 2013-2015 Serco issued four profits warnings. The new strategy was to consolidate, selling off “non core” businesses (e.g., the loss-making “Business Processing Outsourcing” call centre in India) and focusing back on government work again. But Serco is not yet out of the woods.

Picture: CEO Nicholas Soames with Vice Admiral Tony Radakin CB, Second Sea Lord

Bosses Soames is top flight English elite: grandson of Winston Churchill, brother of Conservative MP Nicholas Soames, former president of the Oxford Union. His previous jobs were with tech firm GEC (parts of which have been since incorporated into BAE Systems and Telent) and financial software company Misys (now part of Finastra). Chairman Sir Roy Gardner, on the other hand, was a carpenter’s son who became one of Britain’s leading businessmen. He was CEO of Centrica (former British Gas), after also working with GEC-Centrica, and has also been non-executive chairman of Compass Group. But he’s probably best known as chairman of Manchester United between 2002-5, then Plymouth Argyle from 2009-10, a period which ended with the club entering administration and nearly being liquidated. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

82

The board includes a number of other corporate high-flyers, and also a former top civil servant, Rachel Lomax, who has been on the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee and been Permanent Secretary at three government departments. Soames was paid nearly £4 million in 2017: £850,000 base salary, £288,000 in pension contributions and other benefits, a £956,505 performance related bonus, and £1,710,294 in long term incentives. Angus Cockburn made £1,758,172 and Ed Casey £2,089,101.

Finances Losses: In Serco’s 2017 Annual Report, the company says it aims at 6-7% annual revenue growth and a trading profit margin of 5-6%. But currently revenues are stagnating and the operating profit rate is “much too low” at 2-3%. Operating profit was a mere £50 million in 2017 – and after interest and tax the company booked a final profit of only £100,000. In 2016 it made a £18 million loss. Regionally, the UK and Europe has the lowest profit margins. This is where Serco still has a number of loss-making contracts on its books.

Shareholders Serco’s shareholders at the time of writing this profile were a variety of investment funds, all holding relatively low proportions of the companies’ shares: • • • • • • • • • •

MSD partners 10%; FIL Ltd 6.67%; Marathon Asset Management 5.31%; Majedie Asset Management 5.09%; UBS Asset Management 5.04%; Avzalor Asset Management 5%; Orbis Group 4.96%; Morgan Stanley Investment Management 2.99% The Vanguard Group 2.82% RWC Asset Management 2.69%

Even given its financial troubles Serco’s shareholders have remained relatively stable over the past five years. Shareholders may have confidence in the new strategy –or they may be waiting for their shares to increase in value before they sell. Either way they are unlikely to look on their recent investment in the company with much fondness. Serco was forced to ask shareholders for £530m in 2015, and has not paid a dividend for the last three years. The 2015 ‘rights issue’ – essentially the company selling new shares much cheaper than their stock market value at the time to raise new cash –came as part of a ‘refinancing’ deal Serco made with the banks and investment funds it was borrowing money from. This has ensured Serco has stayed afloat after all its recent problems. But shareholders expect the company to do more than just survive: they want as much of its cash as they can get.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

83

Serco Scandal Sheet Serco’s appalling reputation precedes it. These are just a few highlights. See also the Facebook page Serco Watch for regular stories, particularly from Australia. (Ongoing) “Nightmare on Christmas Island”. Serco’s running of Australia’s “offshore processing centre” for migrants since 2009 is a continual horror story, with numerous accounts of brutality, beatings, suicide and self-harm, overcrowding, child neglect, and more. See, for example: 2011 CorpWatch report; 2013 account from the Australian Human Rights Commission. (Ongoing) Serco and G4S each won two of the UK government’s COMPASS asylum housing contracts in 2012. Appalling slum conditions in their accommodation has been well documented. Despite losing money on the existing contracts, both companies are now bidding for renewals. (Ongoing) Serco is regularly accused of underpaying its staff. The most high profile current case is the campaign by cleaners at Bart’s hospital in London. (2017) Mount Eden scandal: Serco lost this New Zealand prison contract after reports of extreme violence and neglect, such as ignoring a severely injured man lying in a pool of his own blood. At least one former prisoner is now suing Serco New Zealand over his treatment. (2017) Paradise Papers: the leaked offshore documents revealed the law firm Appleby listing Serco as a “high risk client” due to its “history of problems, failures, fatal errors and overcharging”. (2016) US detention lobbying: Serco tried to enter the US market with extensive lobbying at federal and local level on a proposal to build a new detention centre to lock up families with children near the Mexican border. The proposal was eventually rejected by local officials. Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

84

(2014) Hospital overcharging: internal documents leaked to Corporate Watch suggested Britain’s biggest pathology provider, established by Serco in partnership with Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospitals in London, overcharged the hospitals millions of pounds for tests and services. (2007 – ongoing) Yarls Wood. Multiple accounts of sexual assault by guards are just the most reported aspects of life in the detention centre under Serco. The contract was renewed in 2014, shortly after the death of Christine Case on 30 March 2014. (2013) Prisoner transport: the Ministry of Justice put Serco’s £285 million London and East Anglia court transport contract under “administrative supervision”, and called in City of London police to investigate potential fraud, after Serco staff were alleged to be cheating on paperwork. (2013) Tagging overbilling scandal: along with G4S, Serco was investigated by the Serious Fraud Office for over-billing on its electronic tagging contracts – including charging for tagging dead people. It was given a six month ban on bidding for new Government contracts. But it got away without any criminal convictions after agreeing to repay £68 million. (2012) NHS false data: Serco admitted 252 instances of filing false data to the NHS related to performance of its Cornwall out-of-hours GP services contract. (2012) Bradford schools taken back in-house: Bradford council in Yorkshire outsourced its education management to Serco for ten years. The contract was ended after “there were real problems under the Serco regime”. NB: unless other sources are stated, information comes from the company’s annual reports and accounts. Latest information can be found here on its website.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

85

Related Content Home Office told to publish confidential reports on migrant detention sites ‘Self-audit’ system for detention centres revealed Detainee healthcare ‘unsafe’ and ‘alarming’ Court hears detainee death only costs £10,000 fine • Search the sit

• •

Receive News by Email Click here to Subscribe

•

Company Investigations

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

86

Is there a company you think we should be looking into? Get in touch with your requests. •

Publications

o

Worlds End £4.50

o

The UK Border Regime £9.00

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

87

o

Prison Island £3.00

o

Investigating Companies: A Do-It-Yourself Handbook £5.00

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

88

o

Capitalism, What is it and how can we destroy it? £5.00

o •

A-Z of Green Capitalism £4.00

Talk to us Do you have information about a company you’d like to share with us? Use our secure contact form here.

•

Areas of Research o o o o o o o o o o

Aid & Development Alternatives Arms Trade Banking & Finance Biotech Companies Construction Consumer Goods Corporate Structures Environment

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

89 o o o o o o o o o o o o o •

Food & Agriculture Housing Iraq Media & PR Migration Other Palestine Pharmaceuticals Prisons Public Services Repression Social Control Technology

Tags Aid & Development Alternatives

Arms Trade Asylum Housing Banking &

Finance Biotech Brook House Capitalism Carlson Wagonlit Charter Flights Climate Change

Construction Consumer Goods coronacapitalism Corporate Structures Deportation Detention Dungavel Environment Food & Agriculture G4S GEO Grainger Home Care hostile environment Housing Iraq Lewisham Media & PR Deptford

Migration Mitie expansion Privatisation

NHS

Other Palestine Pharmaceuticals prison prison

Public Services Repression Research Serco

Social Control Technology

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

90

Serco: the company that is running Britain From prisons to rail franchises and even London's Boris bikes, Serco is a giant global corporation that has hoovered up outsourced government contracts. Now the NHS is firmly in its sights. But it stands accused of mismanagement, lying and even charging for non-existent work

John Harris @johnharris1969 Mon 29 Jul 2013 19.03 BST First published on Mon 29 Jul 2013 19.03 BST •

• • • • •

Shares 4132

Comments 862

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

91

HMP Thameside … operated by Serco. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian In May this year, a huge company listed on the London Stock Exchange found itself in the midst of controversy about a prison it runs for the government – Thameside, a newly built jail next to Belmarsh, in south-east London. A report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate found that 60% of its inmates were locked up all day, and there were only "vague plans to restore the prison to normality". The prison campaign group the Howard League for Penal Reform talked about conditions that were "truly alarming". Two months later, the same company was the subject of a high- profile report published by the House Of Commons public accounts committee, prompted by the work of Guardian journalist Felicity Lawrence. This time, attention was focused on how it was managing outof-hours GP services in Cornwall, and massive failings that had first surfaced two years before. Again, the verdict was damning: data had been falsified, national standards had not been met, there was a culture of "lying and cheating", and the service offered to the public was simply "not good enough". Three weeks ago, there came grimmer news. Thanks to its contracts for tagging offenders, the company was now the focus of panic at the Ministry of Justice, where it had been discovered that it was one of two contractors that had somehow overcharged the government for its services, possibly by as much as £50m; there were suggestions that one in six of the tags that the state had paid for did not actually exist. How this happened is still unclear, but justice secretary Chris Grayling has said the allegations represent something "wholly indefensible and unacceptable". The firm that links these three stories together is Serco. Its range of activities, here and abroad, is truly mind-boggling, taking in no end of things that were once done by the state, but are now outsourced to private companies. Amazingly, its contracts with government are subject to what's known as "commercial confidentiality" and as a private firm it's not open to Freedom of Information requests, so looking into the details of what it does is fraught with difficulty.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

92

Get Society Weekly: our newsletter for public service professionals Read more But the basic facts are plain enough. As well as five British prisons and the tags attached to over 8,000 English and Welsh offenders, Serco sees to two immigration removal centres, at Colnbrook near Heathrow, and Yarl's Wood in Bedfordshire. You'll also see its logo on the Docklands Light Railway and Woolwich ferry, and is a partner in both Liverpool's Merseyrail network, and the Northern Rail franchise, which sees to trains that run in a huge area between the North Midlands and English-Scottish border. Serco runs school inspections in parts of England, speed cameras all over the UK, and the National Nuclear Laboratory, based at the Sellafield site in Cumbria. It also holds the contracts for the management of the UK's ballistic missile early warning system on the Yorkshire moors, the running of the Manchester Aquatics Centre, and London's "Boris bikes". As evidenced by the story of how it handled out-of-hours care in Cornwall, it is also an increasingly big player in a health service that is being privatised at speed, in the face of surprisingly little public opposition: among its array of NHS contracts is a new role seeing to "community health services" in Suffolk, which involves 1,030 employees. The company is also set to bid for an even bigger healthcare contract in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough: the NHS's single-biggest privatisation – or, if you prefer, "outsourcing" – to date, which could be worth over £1bn. But even this is only a fraction of the story. Among their scores of roles across the planet, Serco is responsible for air traffic control in the United Arab Emirates, parking-meter services in Chicago, driving tests in Ontario, and an immigration detention centre on Christmas Island, run on behalf of those well-known friends of overseas visitors the Australian government.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

93

In the US, the company has just been awarded a controversial $1.25bn contract by that country's Department of Health. All told, its operations suggest some real-life version of the fantastical mega-corporations that have long been invented by fiction writers; a more benign version of the Tyrell Corporation from Blade Runner, say, or one of those creations from James Bond movies whose name always seems to end with the word "industries". The strangest thing, though, is the gap between Serco's size and how little the public knows about it. Not for nothing does so much coverage of its work include the sentence "the biggest company you've never heard of". I first heard Serco's name about eight years ago, when I was just starting to understand the amazing growth of what are now called "public service companies". Once I started looking, their logos were everywhere, suggesting a shadow state that has since grown ever-bigger. Their names seemed anonymously stylised, in keeping with the sense that they seemed both omnipresent, and barely known: Interserve, Sodexo, Capita, the Compass Group.

A Serco clinic in Truro, Cornwall. Photograph: Jim Wileman Serco is among the biggest of them all. At the last count, its annual pre-tax profits were up 27%, at £302m. In 2012 alone, its British workforce grew by 10,000, to 53,000 people (tellingly, as many as 90% of them are said to be former civil servant employees). In terms of employees, that makes it more than twice as large as the BBC, and around 20% bigger than Philip Green's Arcadia group. A very significant player, in other words, and one that has come a long way since its foundation 1929, when it was a branch of the American RCA corporation called RCA Services Ltd, involved in the then booming UK cinema industry. It was renamed Serco in 1987, after a management buy-out, and floated on the stock exchange the following year. In the 25 subsequent years, during which the UK has grown ever-fouder of outsourcing and privatisation, Serco has grown at an amazing rate. The current chief executive of the global Serco Group is 49-year-old Chris Hyman, born in Durban, South Africa. His annual remuneration is around £700,000, plus bonuses; in 2011, the value of his total package rose 18%, to £1.86m (the company's finance director had to slum it at £948,295). In 2010, Hyman was given a CBE for services to business and charity; he is also an enthusiastic fan of motor racing and an evangelical Christian. Four years ago, he was asked about his company's very low profile, and he said this: "We had a dilemma – what do we do with the Serco name. We are proud of it. We thought we needed billboards at airports and places like that, to be seen with Tiger Woods on. But we worked out very quickly that is not what we are meant to do. We are meant to be known by the 5,000 not the five billion. The Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

32 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy Ambassador Henry R. Luce Congressman Ogden Reid Ambassador Whitelaw Reid Publisher Ogden Mills Reid Publisher Whitelaw Reid (journalist) Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Secretary of State Henry Kissinger Attorney General Elliot Richardson General of the Army George C. Marshall Secretary of the Treasury Andrew W. Mellon Oil Refiner John D. Rockefeller Banker David Rockefeller Secretary of State Elihu Root Banker Jacob Schiff Ambassador John Hay Whitney

References 1. 1. "The Pilgrims Society and Public Diplomacy, 1895–1945". Edinburgh University Press Books. Retrieved 27 February 2019.

Further reading • •

Baker, Anne Pimlott (2002). The Pilgrims of Great Britain: A Centennial History. London: Profile Books. ISBN 1-86197-290-3. Baker, Anne Pimlott (2003). The Pilgrims of the United States: A Centennial History. London: Profile Books. ISBN 1-86197-726-3.

External links •

"The Pilgrims". Retrieved 19 April 2013.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

95

the news was made public, 8% was wiped off Serco's share price. The Cabinet Office has announced a review "into government-held G4S and Serco contracts to ensure that contracts are well-managed and in good order", which will report in the autumn. Work for the British government accounts for 40% of Serco's revenues; to quote from the Daily Telegraph. "Without Serco, Britain would struggle to go to war". That gives you some idea of how deeply its work penetrates the state, and how unthinkable any kind of corporate crisis would be. Margaret Hodge, the former Labour minister who now chairs the public accounts committee, clearly thinks that all these stories point to huge issues. She talks about "the inability of government to contract-out in a way that protects the taxpayer's interest." The Cornwall outof-hours story, she tells me, was reducible to "an absurd situation where you had a company seemingly lying about what it was doing, but there was nothing in the contract that could allow you to terminate it – indeed, they still appeared to be eligible for their bonus payments. It's quite extraordinary." There are even bigger issues at stake, though. "There's also the inability of the public sector to monitor effectively," she says. "The Cornwall story came to light because of a Guardian journalist and a whole load of whistleblowers. Which is nuts: a crazy way for the public sector holding to account the private sector when it's delivering public services." Even her committee, she says, cannot break through a great wall of commercial confidentiality, and look at what the companies delivering pubic services are up to – not just in terms of their bids for public services and contracts with government, but such vital matters as their costs, and the profits they make from particular jobs. Does she feel any guilt about the fact that companies such as Serco made their decisive breakthrough into public services when Labour was in power? There's a murmur of agreement. "I think we were as bad at managing this diversity of providers," she says. "But one of the things that gets me with this government is that they should have learned from our mistakes. What is becoming really clear to me … is that the Sercos, the A4s, the G4Ss, the Capitas – they're good at winning contracts, but too often, they're bad at running services." And what of the incredible range of what Serco actually does, from school inspections to Boris bikes? "Interestingly, we are looking at this. The National Audit Office is doing work around the development of quasi-monopoly private providers, which is the world we're moving into. We don't really understand the size of their empires. We've got to start getting hold of this. It's a new phenomenon." Once I'd spoken to Hodge, I got hold of one of Serco's "media relations team", and arranged to send him a few questions. On the subject of the out-of-hours GP fiasco in Cornwall, he quoted a response from the doctor in charge of their set-up. "It's really important that the local people in Cornwall do not lose confidence in this essential urgent care service," he said. "It is a valued part of the local NHS and we are proud of our professional team who provide it." A wider statement said the company had taken "swift and decisive action to put the situation right and apologised to the people of Cornwall", and made "a goodwill gesture to repay the bonus made [sic] to us in 2012, which we were under no obligation to do." All told, I was assured, their service "delivers a high standard against the national quality requirements". On the allegations about what has happened since Serco took over community healthcare in Suffolk, and the claim that any new starters aside from clinical staff are on inferior terms and Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

96

conditions, the same spokesperson said that such employees are "offered contracts in line with Serco standard terms and conditions which are market comparable". He denied that anyone had been cut out of treatment at home, said that the company had "recently realigned our clinical teams across Suffolk according to the needs of the areas in which they deliver care" and claimed that new IT systems are being implemented "slowly and carefully". The controversy surrounding Thameside prison, they said, had been followed by "a series of initiatives" including a "gangs strategy", and measures to help prisoners with mental-health issues. Some people were now allowed to be outside their cells "during the core part of the day", and in August, Serco anticipated that this would be extended. As for the ongoing story about overcharging for their tagging contract with the Ministry of Justice, Serco said this: "We are working with our customer, the Ministry of Justice [on] this matter so there is very little we can add at this stage." I was also directed to a statement from Chris Hyman, which said the company "will not tolerate poor practice and behaviour and wherever it is found we will put it right", and reminded that justice secretary Chris Grayling has said he so far has "no information to confirm dishonesty had taken place" on the part of either Serco or G4S. There was one last question, concerning the amazing spread of what Serco sees to, from parking meters, through nuclear early warning systems, to an expanding share of the NHS. Is there any limit to the fields they work in? "We operate in a range of markets and geographies," went its answer, "which means we are well placed to bring a wide range of experiences and knowledge to help customers with the challenges that they face." That'll be a no, then.

News is under threat … … just when we need it the most. Our journalism is read by millions of people around the world who are seeking accurate, trustworthy information, and clear, authoritative reporting. It is available to everyone, across the world, bringing communities together to face down this pandemic. But at this crucial time, news organisations are facing a cruel financial double blow: with fewer people able to leave their homes, and fewer news vendors in operation, we’re seeing a reduction in newspaper sales across the UK. Advertising revenue continues to fall steeply, while businesses feel the pinch. We believe we can overcome these challenges together, but we need you more than ever. We believe every one of us deserves equal access to vital public service journalism. So, unlike many others, we made a different choice: to keep Guardian journalism open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This would not be possible without financial contributions from those who can afford to pay, who now support our work from 180 countries around the world. We have upheld our editorial independence in the face of the disintegration of traditional media – with social platforms giving rise to misinformation, the seemingly unstoppable rise of big tech and independent voices being squashed by commercial ownership. The Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth

97

Guardian’s independence means we can set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Our journalism is free from commercial and political bias – never influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This makes us different. It means we can challenge the powerful without fear and give a voice to those less heard. Reader financial support has meant we can keep investigating, disentangling and interrogating. It has protected our independence, which has never been so critical. We are so grateful. We need your support so we can keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. And that is here for the long term. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable. Support the Guardian from as little as £1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Compiled by Caven Vines from research on publications published on the internet and none is verified as being true or false you the reader are the judge and the seekers of the truth