KBSP signed off an audit (a full audit) of Aston Lloyd & Holdings plc, as well as it's constituent subsidiaries for their 2009 return. They did this happily, despite the fact that the company was a front for a Ponzi scheme, so the question is, is it possible to sign off a Ponzi scheme's books as good, and it be plain negligence? Answer: of course not. They're as bent as they come. For my criminal audience. If you are considering using KBSP for your accounting, please consider finding some better quality shysters. Any information which anyone is inclined to provide will be gratefully accepted. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic4tvw2Ynd4

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mfvHJfi64E

Dear Viewers, Re: CIRCULAR MARXIST SUBVERSION TECHNIQUES UNVEILED IN THE UK FORENOTE: This subject is complicated. It is deliberately made that way. The only way for me, as I write today, to be able to begin to articulate myself, is to get on with it, then listen back to myself, and correct any ambiguities. THIS IS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS in other words. Skipping this iterative step too difficult for to do me at this juncture in time, as I am still learning. It is beyond me, at this point, to separate all of the points made, putting them into neat, little bundles of discreet info.. Your help in criticising, detracting and confirming, is all the more important with this in mind. THE 'AIM' OF SUBVERSIVE TECHNIQUES OF THIS TYPE: The primary aim is not to have a fixed aim. A set of set ideas, governing the desired effect must never be put above the underlying premise that confusion, chaos and marginalization, depression and subjugation of the active/onlooking players in any target experimental arena, must always be put first. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corrections/disambiguations (21.12.13) 2min: Whilst discussing the trick to convince people that there was a miscarriage of justice in a council tax dispute, which was allegedly down to Roger Hayes not having been given proof of a contract existing, amongst other things, the ensuing bankruptcy hearing/announcement was used to gather up a large number of people who were mislead into thinking that this was a council tax trial. From the stories that I heard from the BCG and the UKC, the issue was that if the judge was on his oath, he had sworn to protect the people and not a corporation. However, this was not the correct venue, as Roger had already not paid. He was already far, far down the road, and that issue was in the past tense, for whatever reason. I have to make this clear, as when I mentioned a fine or prison, I erroneously linked it to bankruptcy by accident; proving I suppose that it's a complicated subject with all of the facets, mixed together. Obviously, whilst misleading in my presentation, confusion by making things convoluted is the very tactic of Brian Gerrish and Roger Hayes, whilst an immoral low life, is very much a tool, and in that, a victim of Gerrish. So, please don't let my lack of articulation of a deliberately confusing subject confuse you. I meant to say council tax resulting in either a fine (leading to bankruptcy) or prison. That had already happened at this point. The conclusion drawn that he had not paid, so he was now being made bankrupt. At 11min10: I keep referring to witnesses. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd0-mX6y4D8

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWnb1HxsMHg