click here to watch - about half an hour and highly recommended
The UK has recently passed a Water Bill requiring water companies to fluoridate.
Read this information from National Pure Water Campaign (very much worth visiting this site and finding out how you can deduct the cost of buying your own clean water from your water bill if your water is fluoridated):
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
(Albert Einstein)
——————————————————————————–
The UK water Industry:
They poison Children, don’t they?
Ask yourself:
Why would the UK water industry request from the government “absolute indemnity on civil liability and indemnity on strict criminal liability as far as public policy allows” - before they would extend fluoridation schemes in Britain? www.water.org.uk/home/news/press-releases/fluoridati-130700-1
And they got it from the government in 2005 - www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050920.htm
The only logical conclusion that we at NPWA could come to was that the UK water industry was fully aware that it is already involved in a dubious, risky practice with possible ancillary criminal activities. Otherwise, why would an industry ask to be indemnified by the government for criminal and civil liabilities unless they knew they were in violation of the law?
This request can only be viewed as an admission of guilt, and further, as willingness to continue violating the law as long as they have some government protection. Consequently, one can only interpret the message from the UK water industry to the government and the general public as:
It is perfectly willing to participate in dubious and/or criminal activities on behalf of the government as long as it has some assurance that its legal costs will be covered if it gets caught out.
Immunity from prosecution is not in the cards for criminal actions or they would have asked for that concession.
In 1999, the Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty’s Government:
“In view of the absence of any relevant scientific studies cited in the US Review of Fluoride, 1991, referred to in the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 8 February (WA 1-2), whether they can quote any other scientific sources in support of their belief that dental fluorosis is only a cosmetic side-effect of fluoride and not an indication of early toxicity.” [HL1964]
Baroness Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government: “We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. . . ” - (Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158.).
It is estimated that between 48% - 54% of children living in fluoridated areas develop dental fluorosis, the visible sign of fluoride poisoning - www.npwa.org.uk/seminar.html
That’s right folks, the UK water industry doesn’t have the slightest problem with mass-poisoning children on behalf of the government. The only problem it has with poisoning children is if it happens to find itself in a court of law, facing civil and/or criminal charges.
This is also what NPWA suspects prompted the UK water industry to basically ask the government to pass a law that obliged them to fluoridate the drinking water upon the request of local health authorities. As honest, upright, corporate citizens, the UK water industry could not, in good conscience, break the law.
www.water.org.uk/home/news/press-releases/fluoridati-130700-1
This attitude is somewhat hypocritical and sociopathic (to say the least). You ask the government to change the law so that you can attempt to hide behind the law. However, you are still worried that you might wind up in the dock, facing criminal and/or civil charges. So you need indemnities, because no insurer in the world will indemnify you for the mass-poisoning of children - that’s a non-starter for any insurance underwriter’s risk analyst.
NPWA saw this as a transparent attempt to use the Nazis’ failed Nuremberg defence. If one of the water company managing directors finds himself looking at a few years in prison, he simply parrots, “We were only following orders.” However, the UK water industry gleefully “welcomed” the change in the law which made it unlawful for them not to poison children.
The only reason the UK water industry asked for “strict criminal indemnity” is because NPWA and other organisations have widely publicised the fact that fluoridation is a criminal act according to the ss 23 and 24 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, which forbids the administration of any poisonous or noxious substance.
In 1999 the government freely admitted that dental fluorosis is the manifestation of fluoride poisoning. And in a sociopathic quest for profit and government favour, the UK water industry is more than willing engage in the criminal activity of posioning the public at large.
So much for corporate ethics.
NPWA to UK Water Industry - You can always sue us if we are not telling the truth
See Imdemnities - www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050920.htm
click here to watch - about half an hour and highly recommended
The UK has recently passed a Water Bill requiring water companies to fluoridate.
Read this information from National Pure Water Campaign (very much worth visiting this site and finding out how you can deduct the cost of buying your own clean water from your water bill if your water is fluoridated):
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
(Albert Einstein)
——————————————————————————–
The UK water Industry:
They poison Children, don’t they?
Ask yourself:
Why would the UK water industry request from the government “absolute indemnity on civil liability and indemnity on strict criminal liability as far as public policy allows” - before they would extend fluoridation schemes in Britain? www.water.org.uk/home/news/press-releases/fluoridati-130700-1
And they got it from the government in 2005 - www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050920.htm
The only logical conclusion that we at NPWA could come to was that the UK water industry was fully aware that it is already involved in a dubious, risky practice with possible ancillary criminal activities. Otherwise, why would an industry ask to be indemnified by the government for criminal and civil liabilities unless they knew they were in violation of the law?
This request can only be viewed as an admission of guilt, and further, as willingness to continue violating the law as long as they have some government protection. Consequently, one can only interpret the message from the UK water industry to the government and the general public as:
It is perfectly willing to participate in dubious and/or criminal activities on behalf of the government as long as it has some assurance that its legal costs will be covered if it gets caught out.
Immunity from prosecution is not in the cards for criminal actions or they would have asked for that concession.
In 1999, the Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty’s Government:
“In view of the absence of any relevant scientific studies cited in the US Review of Fluoride, 1991, referred to in the Written Answer by Baroness Hayman on 8 February (WA 1-2), whether they can quote any other scientific sources in support of their belief that dental fluorosis is only a cosmetic side-effect of fluoride and not an indication of early toxicity.” [HL1964]
Baroness Hayman responded, in a Written Answer, for the Government: “We accept that dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. . . ” - (Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158.).
It is estimated that between 48% - 54% of children living in fluoridated areas develop dental fluorosis, the visible sign of fluoride poisoning - www.npwa.org.uk/seminar.html
That’s right folks, the UK water industry doesn’t have the slightest problem with mass-poisoning children on behalf of the government. The only problem it has with poisoning children is if it happens to find itself in a court of law, facing civil and/or criminal charges.
This is also what NPWA suspects prompted the UK water industry to basically ask the government to pass a law that obliged them to fluoridate the drinking water upon the request of local health authorities. As honest, upright, corporate citizens, the UK water industry could not, in good conscience, break the law.
www.water.org.uk/home/news/press-releases/fluoridati-130700-1
This attitude is somewhat hypocritical and sociopathic (to say the least). You ask the government to change the law so that you can attempt to hide behind the law. However, you are still worried that you might wind up in the dock, facing criminal and/or civil charges. So you need indemnities, because no insurer in the world will indemnify you for the mass-poisoning of children - that’s a non-starter for any insurance underwriter’s risk analyst.
NPWA saw this as a transparent attempt to use the Nazis’ failed Nuremberg defence. If one of the water company managing directors finds himself looking at a few years in prison, he simply parrots, “We were only following orders.” However, the UK water industry gleefully “welcomed” the change in the law which made it unlawful for them not to poison children.
The only reason the UK water industry asked for “strict criminal indemnity” is because NPWA and other organisations have widely publicised the fact that fluoridation is a criminal act according to the ss 23 and 24 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, which forbids the administration of any poisonous or noxious substance.
In 1999 the government freely admitted that dental fluorosis is the manifestation of fluoride poisoning. And in a sociopathic quest for profit and government favour, the UK water industry is more than willing engage in the criminal activity of posioning the public at large.
So much for corporate ethics.
NPWA to UK Water Industry - You can always sue us if we are not telling the truth
See Imdemnities - www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050920.htm