Earthlinggb's Blog


Posted in Finance, Uncategorized by earthlinggb on October 31, 2013




Could Icke have sold out to the dark side? Could the very “reptilians” who possess the personalities he speak of possess him? Is that so hard to believe? Well let’s see….

Icke's possession

David Icke: Sold to the highest Buddha!



Let’s start this little journey into David Icke’s “Twilight Zone” by first taking a close look at the BBC and how they do things. You will see why… promise! ūüôā

Have you ever heard of “BBC Enterprises”? It started life as such but is now known as “BBC Worldwide”.

BBC Enterprises

BBC Enterprises was set up as a “mechandising arm” of the BBC. Essentially, it would take BBC content and product (for product think Tellitubbies for example, licensed to any and all sorts of manufacturers to produce Teletubbies merchandise) and sell it. Nothing wrong with that on the face of it right? But just give it a little more thought as to what is going on here. Let’s say there are 20 million homes in the UK all paying a TV licence (which goes to the BBC because the BBC “DOES NOT ADVERTISE”). 20 million homes x ¬£145 = ¬£2.9Billion. We (if you pay a licence) are funding the BBC Corporation per year to the sum of approximately ¬£2.9Billion. The BBC then provides (poor and propagandised) content to us while the quality of shows and drama etc has just dropped dramatically over the years and more and more repeats (funded decades ago in some cases) are provided. If it was not for our funding of it, the BBC would not exist but, more to the point, BBC Enterprises (BBC Worldwide) would not exist. The latter sells content and product worldwide, and to us ourselves, which has been funded by us. It is like its own virtuous circle: It promotes content to us by way of the BBC broadcasting shows, characters etc (which we fund) and then BBC Worldwide sells us those same shows and characters and generates over ¬£1billion in revenues and a healthy profit which is paid back to the BBC Broadcasting company. No, the BBC does not advertise!! It advertises every single day its own content and product (again funded by us) and has its merchandising arm sell us the content we have funded.

As an example:

BBC Enterprises2

There are 34 pages of 500 titles each page which the BBC sells to us and which they never would have been able to create without our money funding them. Essentially, we are buying our own creations. Strangely, this is exactly how the entire world works when you step back (as Icke would say but he won’t like it being done in this instance) and view it again. It is so clear. As an aside, let me give you another couple of examples of how we buy our own funded creations. Recognising all of this may shock you if you haven’t thought of it before.

1. Energy

We build national grids and offshore rigs (oil, gas, wind farms etc) and we work extracting the resources to provide ourselves with our energy requirements. We are paid, of course, to do so but we are also taxed. Meanwhile, the entire energy grid and the natural resources are owned by people who have never picked up a spade in their lives. It is suggested by these same people that it is all in public ownership and that we benefit from the income generated which is, in part, given to the treasury. But what does the treasury do with that money? It pays toward the national debt (interest on money borrowed by the nation where, globally, the only way of paying the interest is by borrowing more money from the same source which increases the debt further but is indebting the future generations). The real owners of all the resources and energy is, in the case of the UK, the Crown. I have blogged about this many times now. The Crown then licenses corporations to extract the resources (and we work for the corporations – we ARE the corporations) and the corporations (legal person entities) make a profit. This profit then being distributed among shareholders – the major shareholders being? You guessed it – the Crown and those individuals within it who have never done a real day’s work in their lives. These people then sell our resources to us which we have extracted for them and keep increasing prices on us while our salaries do not ever keep in line with the increases. We effectively build and generate our own energy and then pay for it. It is incredible what we will do and never question. We just seem unable to figure out the most simplest of cons.

2. Mortgages and housing

We build homes for ourselves. Yes we do. Builders, craftsmen, electricians, plumbers and all the other skills which go into building a home. We then take a mortgage from a bank (such a loan being unnecessary because it is we who create the money for the banks in the first place but that’s been covered numerous times now) by way of signing a promissory obligation which creates the money for the bank who then lend us our own money/value which we have to pay back (again with interest which, globally, is non existent. To pay it back we then have to “win” the race or the game of finding money from someone else). But, nevertheless, it is us, generally speaking, who build our homes. Let’s forget that the land we build upon is, once again, owned by land owners – a major landowner being the Crown – so we never truly own our homes, we simply rent them. If we owned our property we would have every right to do as we wished with it without planning approval. So we buy (and pay interest on) the very homes we build but we go a step further than that. The banks (and it is us once more that keep these legal persons called banks operating while they use our own money to indebt us with) then take the value of our properties (the promissory note we have signed to bring the money into existence for them) and sell them on. Who do they sell the values of our properties to? To you and I. How? They sell them to pension funds and the general market. Who do these pension funds etc invest for? For us! So we are buying our own properties once more. The banks then crash the property market making our properties worth far less and the derivatives sold on in the market worthless so our pensions are worthless. But what have they done in the meantime? Well, it is they who create the market conditions and it is they who then, with that insider knowledge, invest in shorting the property and derivative markets so that, as it falls, they have bet ON it falling and the money goes directly to them. How stupid is the human race?

And yet, David Icke proclaims “Human Race get off your knees” while he, as I am about to demonstrate to you, uses the exact same methods to create wealth for himself and his trusted little team.

Back to the BBC…..

Have a look at this:

BBC Worldwide

So, as I said, a revenue of over ¬£1billion and profit of ¬£156M returned to the BBC. ALL of it generated from coercion of you having to pay for a licence which funds the corporation and allows its shareholders to generate massive income for themselves and the various BBC employees who you look to as “celebrities” and people worthy of your praise and hero worship.

A “public service mission” which then pays profits to shareholders. It commercialises but it doesn’t “advertise”! haha What an incredible doublespeak that is.

BBC Worldwide 2

“BBC Advertising sells advertising…….”

“Be commercially efficient” – Indeed.

And oh look: “… highest standard of ethics…” etc. It’s amazing what you can state on paper or promote to your audience while keeping a straight face. It’s called “Sales” in essence and, personally, I’ve been in this arena for decades. I like to think, however, I DID have ethics in my approach – at least as far as I could afford to have them. But I know that, at the top, ethics DO NOT exist. They are merely words. I expected (naively) that “The People’s Voice” and David Icke would be different. I can assure you there is zero difference and you only have to have that “open mind” David speaks of and look at how he is doing what he is doing to recognise how you are getting screwed in precisely the same manner. Promoting yourself as ethical is such a crowd pleaser isn’t it? Getting the crowd to “buy in” to the promotion of a person or concept is especially easy when you are promoting what you know the market wants (and that’s ALL you are to David Icke – a market to tap into). Look how Tony Blair was promoted in 1997 and the landslide victory he had. People will buy anything if it’s promoted just right. In a war you are taught to know your adversary. In sales, you are taught to know your target market. You know how to press their buttons and you’ve got them just where you want them.

BBC Worldwide 3

Ok, on to David Icke in earnest.

What we have here is “David Icke Books Ltd”. (now one could theorise about the figures you see here but there’s no real point in doing that. You’d have to have access to his accounts to understand fully what is going on there so I’d rather not theorise on it).

David Icke books Ltd

This how David Icke makes his money. By selling his books (and his talks etc).

Then along comes another, entirely separate legal entity called “The People’s Voice”. BOTH companies, however, run by David Icke. He is a Director in both. Gareth, his son, is also a Director of “David Icke books Ltd” while Sean Tabatabai is a Director of “The People’s Voice”.

David likes to sell books doesn’t he?

Have you ever heard of “Transfer Pricing”? Well, once upon a time, I worked for a well known multinational telecommunications company who were at the top of their game, during which, I was involved in Business Management globally. Transfer pricing is all about the creation of profit by one division or subsidiary of the multinational company selling its product to another division or subsidiary of the same company. Transfer pricing can then be manipulated in whichever way is preferred by the divisions and the overall corporation to ensure that, on transfer from one division in one country (say the UK) to another division in another country (say the USA), the most “appropriate” pricing can ensure minimal tax being paid by the organisation as a whole.

Have a look at this:

Transfer pricing

Now, don’t go off on a tangent here and say I’m suggesting David Icke is money laundering or terrorist financing. No, no ,no. What I am saying is that “Transfer pricing” is a perfectly LEGAL and accepted way of doing business and YET, it is through such practice that such things can be, and are, achieved. Now, I’m not even suggesting transfer pricing by David Icke because transfer pricing is used between subsidiaries of the same company. “David Icke Books Ltd” and TPV are not subsidiaries of the same company. So what AM I getting at then?

“Hey, I have an awesome idea!”

“What’s that?”

“Well, I write books and I publish them. I was thinking how I could create an ever larger captive market for them and even have my own broadcasting station to promote my work. A broadcasting station which has global reach, will appeal to an even broader audience because it will broadcast everything from news and current affairs to music and art etc.”

“Yes but where will you source all the content and at what cost?”

“From the people themselves who will not only be desperate to have their voices and their art and music broadcast but who will provide their content for free.”

“Great idea but what about the investment that is needed to create this broadcasting network and keep it on air? It’s a shitload of money that’s needed for that Dave! Are you going to invest that ¬£25K cash you have in “David Icke Books Ltd” and/or liquidise the assets of over ¬£200K you have to fund it?”

“No no no. It will ALSO be funded by the people. I’ll do a donation drive through Indiegogo. I’m not going to spend my own money! This is not “David Icke’s Voice”, I’ll promote it as “The people’s Voice” – THEY can fund it! Although I won’t mention the obviously needed further funding coming from somewhere otherwise people will start asking questions. I mean most of the idiots out there haven’t a scooby regarding the real cost of funding a project like this and they won’t care. They’ll believe every word I say. I give them truth remember and I point fingers at corruption so how could they possibly consider me to be sucking them dry?”

“Oh man, you’re a genius! They pay for it, they provide the content free and they end up buying the content that you produce. Your very own multi-media empire spitting out your propaganda. But where does “David Icke books Ltd” come into the equation?”

“Oh come on man! It’s simple. Get with the programme! “The People’s Voice” is going to have me introducing movies, giving talks, promoting myself and the station as a whole right? So then I will also be promoting my books won’t I? Just exactly the same proven format adopted by BBC Enterprises or BBC Worldwide. Of course, I’m not getting paid by TPV – it’s for the “love of humanity” you understand. It just so happens that I have all of these books – a whole back catalogue of them too – which would then be promoted and sold through TPV as a “public service”. After all, TPV is all about truth so, to have an expense attributed to TPV for buying my “truth books” is entirely rational isn’t it? And justifiable.”

“Hey but that doesn’t make sense David! How can you profit from yourself buying from yourself?”

“Man, what is it you don’t understand about what I have just said. I’M not investing in TPV. It’s not MY money. So when TPV decides to buy “David Icke books Ltd” product for stock and then sell it to the public (who have funded TPV), it’s THEIR money, not mine, which is buying the books. TPV is an entirely separate legal entity from “David Icke Books Ltd” and so they buy, perhaps 1000 at a time? That generates profit for “David icke Books Ltd” and a rather substantial income for me. Whatever TPV then sell of those book numbers are bought by the very audience which has already bought them FOR TPV through their funding of TPV!”

“Oh Jesus Christ David, you truly are the messiah! Only he could come up with a scheme like that! It’s brilliant!”

This is how it works. VERY simple and VERY legal. Moral? That’s for you to decide….

TPV book sales


Stated out in the open, right under your nose! Furthermore, the legal person and company named “David Icke Books Ltd” does not, unlike all other potential advertisers and sponsors, have to pay a solitary cent for its advertising on TPV. IT IS ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT! David, I seriously do tip my hat to you!

DI books

So let’s analyse just exactly how this works:

David Icke sets up a company/broadcasting network which will advertise and promote everything David Icke related. This company, called TPV, does not receive a cent’s worth of his own money but he generates that money through donations from the public. He creates for himself FREE MONEY (JUST EXACTLY like the banks). He doesn’t even pay a cent of interest on it. There is absolutely no risk for him whatsoever. Not a penny. This new company, “TPV” will then buy assets with that money (for example, a cost to the business can be anything from buying the equipment to buying PROPERTY (YES PROPERTY). The property purchases can “justifiably” be stated as required to house certain members of the team who have travelled from different parts of the UK and world to relocate. Those members then, perhaps, pay rent of one form or another, to TPV the company which then pays off mortgages TPV may have taken out. This is all totally and utterly legal.

TPV then pays salaries to the core team of TPV while David Icke works “for free”. All of the investments TPV makes, with YOUR money, then become valuable assets to TPV and, at any point in the future – near or far future – those assets can and will be sold. Property is a very valuable asset and while you will have funded TPV’s purchase of such, when it comes to selling the asset and liquidising it into cash, who gets it? Even if that is 20 or 30 years in the future.

Meanwhile, there is an entirely separate company to TPV called “David Icke Books Ltd”. The latter is solely interested in selling David Icke’s books (would you believe?). TPV then turn to “David Icke books Ltd” and say “Hello David, we would be interested in stocking your books and selling them worldwide.” David turns to TPV (perhaps he speaks to one of it’s Directors and does a deal – he could, for instance, speak with….David Icke) and says “Sure. Sounds good. What about taking 1000 books per month as a stock and selling them on? At a retail price of about ¬£25 each that would be an income to David Icke books Ltd of ¬£25,000 per month or ¬£300,000 a year. I might even give you a discount David but really, in this case, it’s unnecessary. TPV is a not for profit concern so if you buy at ¬£25 and sell at ¬£25 then there’s no profit right? No problem!” And David Icke, on behalf of TPV says “Sure, sounds good to me but what happens if we don’t sell that number per month?”. “No problem…” says David Icke of “David Icke Books Ltd”, “ can just burn the excess for all I care. Take it as a loss and I still get paid.” “Ah indeed you do David. I wish I was as smart as you!” says David Icke of TPV. “You are as smart as me David, you are me! We’re all one consciousness remember? Remember who you are David!”. Then David Icke, Director of TPV, says “But David, I don’t like wasting all that money and losing it. You wouldn’t like to lose money would you?” and David Icke of “David Icke Books Ltd” states the obvious: “But David, what are you talking about? You haven’t lost a cent because all that money you are buying the books with isn’t yours! It’s money donated by the public. You’re losing THEIR money and all that money is coming across to me at “David Icke Books Ltd”. Trust me David, I WILL share it with you!”.

Icke and Icke




The central equitable principle applicable to directors is to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest.

The purpose of the no conflict rule is to ensure directors carry out their tasks like it was their own interest at stake. Beyond corporate opportunities, the law requires directors accept no benefits from third parties under section 176, and also has specific regulation of transactions by a company with another party in which directors have an interest. Under section 177, when directors are on both sides of a proposed contract, for example where a person owns a business selling iron chairs to the company in which he is a director,[110]¬†it is a default requirement that they disclose the interest to the board, so that disinterested directors may approve the deal. The company’s articles could heighten the requirement, say, to shareholder approval.¬†If such a¬†self dealing¬†transaction has already taken place, directors still have a duty to disclose their interest and failure to do so is a criminal offence, subject to a ¬£5000 fine.¬†While such regulation through disclosure hovers with a relatively light touch, self dealing rules become more onerous as transactions become more significant. Shareholder approval is requisite for specific transactions with directors, or connected persons,¬†when the sum of money either exceeds 10% of the company and is over ¬£5000, or is over ¬£100,000 in a company of any size. Further detailed provisions govern loaning money.¬†¬†On the question of director remuneration where the conflict of interest appears most serious, however, regulation is again relatively light. Directors pay themselves by default,¬†but in large listed companies have pay set by a remuneration committee of directors.¬†Under section 439, shareholders may cast a vote on remuneration but this “say on pay“, as yet, is not binding.

Finally, under section 172 directors must “promote the success of the company”. This somewhat nebulous provision created significant debate during its passage through Parliament, since it goes on to prescribe that decisions should be taken in the interests of members, with regard to long term consequences, the need to act fairly between members, and a range of other “stakeholders“, such as employees,¬†suppliers, the environment, the general community,¬†and creditors.¬†Many groups objected to this “enlightened¬†shareholder value” model, which in form elevated the interests of members, who are invariably shareholders, above other stakeholders. However, the duty is particularly difficult to sue upon since it is only a duty for a director to do what she or “he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company”.¬†Proof of subjective bad faith toward any group being difficult, directors have the discretion to balance all competing interests, even if to the short term detriment of shareholders in a particular instance. There is also a duty under section 173 to exercise independent judgment and the duty of care in section 174 applies to the decision making process of a director having regard to the factors listed in section 172, so it remains theoretically possible to challenge a decision if made without any rational basis.¬†Only registered shareholders, not other stakeholders without being members of the general meeting, have standing to claim any breach of the provision. But section 172’s criteria are useful as an aspirational standard because in the annual¬†Director’s Report¬†companies must explain how they have complied with their duties to stakeholders.¬†Also, the idea of whether a company’s success will be promoted is central when a court determines whether a derivative claim should proceed in the course of corporate litigation.

In short, if you can’t be arsed reading the above, there is recognition in law regarding the reality of doing precisely what a “reptilian possessed” David Icke is capable of doing and that the ethics are far more than suspect (because it is obvious what is happening) but, given the TPV and “David Icke Books Ltd” set up and the fact there are only two shareholders of each, all very happy with how things turn out, then the reptilian possessed Icke would get away scot free. ūüôā

And all Ickeans will say is “Well he’s got to make a living!” Sure he does and he is doing so very well from your money you stupid, naive, gullible prat!

Now, TPV may WELL be a “Not for profit” enterprise or it may not. I have no evidence of either. IS it registered as a charity? Or as a “Not for profit”? There is absolutely no evidence of that but it matters not one iota! “David Icke books Ltd” is a FOR PROFIT enterprise which can entirely legally sell its books to a “Not for profit” enterprise. The two separate legal entities can conduct business with one another. The “Not for profit” taking on an expense and the “For profit” making…. well…. a very healthy profit!

There is so much more to this and the capabilities of TPV to create a vehicle for, and take all the cost for, setting up Gareth Icke with his own little music business but I could go on forever demonstrating how all this can be done and what can be done.


In the UK, many nonprofit companies are incorporated as a¬†company limited by guarantee. This means that the company does not have shares or shareholders, but it has the benefits of¬†corporate¬†status. This includes¬†limited liability¬†for its members and being able to enter into contracts and purchase property in its own name. The goals (“objects”) of the company are defined in the¬†Memorandum of Association¬†when the company is formed. The profits of the company (also referred to as the trading surplus) must be invested in achieving these goals and not distributed to the company’s members.

I don’t have any time for this guy and his promoter, Jones, either but this speaks volumes nonetheless.

Meanwhile, check this out. EXACTLY the same wording except for one obvious element:

Here is the ad on Facebook for anyone who’s a musician and wishes to “come long” to the TPV studio to be part of a launch film for “The Banned” music programme hosted by Gareth Icke.

Banned FB

Now, here is the exact same wording for the ad which appears on a specific website for musicians/student musicians:

Banned ACM

Spot the difference? ūüôā

THEY REALLY DO HOPE YOU WILL COME OF COURSE. Let’s ignore that, once more, they are advertising for a certain type of person, a certain look, a certain attitude (that THEY like of course) – what happened to “The People’s Voice”? They are very choosy of what sorts of people and look and attitude they attract for it to be solely for “the people”. People come in all shapes, sizes, ages, attitudes, types but they want CERTAIN SPECIFIC TYPES to promote a certain specific type of network/channel/”hip” (in their view). It’s kinda like turning up at the nightclub but the bouncer turning you away because they want to attract a certain crowd. But let’s forget all that.

Noticed it yet?

Well, in the Facebook “shout out” they have “Sadly, there’s no fee for turning up, but we’ll provide some food, some drinks!” – But that’s for the general dumb populace who are just avid fans of anything and everything Icke does. That’s why they’re on his Facebook page after all.

The ACM one (not an Icke page then but Icke wants to attract the muso’s and cool student types):¬†“Sadly, there’s no fee for turning up, but we’ll provide some food, some drinks and we can cover basic travel expenses.”

Hahahaha. So they finally considered travel expenses as being important to cover – just not for volunteers giving their energy and time constantly but for those who the station are desperate to attract.

Good on ya Deanna. You certainly have your priorities sorted!

“We pay for what might be a bit more difficult to attract however serious fans are already captured so fuck them!” LOL


One last thing: “It’s raunchy, decadent…… people who look like they know how to party”

Let’s consider what decadent means.

  1. 1.
    characterized by or reflecting a state of moral or cultural decline.
    “a decaying, decadent Britain”
    synonyms: dissolute, dissipated, degenerate, corrupt, depraved, louche, rakish,shameless, sinful, unprincipled, immoral, licentious, wanton,abandoned, unrestrained, profligate, intemperate; More

a person who is luxuriously self-indulgent.
“for half a million dollars, he offers rich decadents the chance to lead a deadly safari”

Now, doesn’t that remind you of exactly what you would consider the “elite” (that is, in Icke’s language, “the reptilians”) are into and want from the world? Moral and cultural decline – for example, pedophilia. What a strange irony in so many ways Icke is displaying.


The People’s Voice & OFCOM.

Posted in Law, Media, The Corrupt SOB's by earthlinggb on October 24, 2013

There you are.

It’s YOUR voice right? David keeps telling you that. It’s YOU funding it too right? David keeps telling you that too. It’s for the public’s interest isn’t it? That’s the whole idea of it isn’t it? To be in the public’s interest to expose these nasty people across the board isn’t it?

So, go for it. According to OFCOM, information as to whether “The People’s Voice” has applied or is being considered for a licence cannot be divulged (and this is the thing that gives you the power to put him on the spot) “is not, so long as that business continues to be carried on, to be disclosed without the consent of the person for the time being carrying on that business. ” (They quote the Communications Act 2003 and that Act expressly states that if you do not have consent from the business owner – that OBVIOUSLY not being you then! lol – then they will not reveal the information. So then ASK for David’s consent! He is transparent isn’t he? He wouldn’t be hiding anything would he? Why on EARTH would he do that? ūüôā

But here is the sensational irony which shall be totally lost on all the Icke congregation:

British regulatory legislation is protecting David Icke from the need for transparency in his business dealings which are meant to be for the British (and world) public and funded by the British (and world) public!

While David Icke and TPV is about absolutely destroying the very establishment which has decided to provide him with that protection from transparency!

WHOOSH! Right over Icke followers heads!

To: Me
Subject: The Peoples Voice 1-245308060
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:25:23 +0000

Dear Mr

Please find attached a response to your request for information.

Kind regards


Ofcom 1

Dear Julia,

Thank you for your confirmation that you have not issued a licence to “The People’s Voice” as of today. Having originally contacted Ofcom about the need for such a CONTENT licence for internet based broadcasting, I was advised as below:

To: Me
Subject: RE: Content licensing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:29:12 +0000


Services which are broadcast from the UK via the internet are licensable.   This is set out in the notes of guidance for applicants and reflects the requirement of the Audio Visual Media Services Directive.

Therefore, my follow up questions are as follows:

1. I must assume, therefore, that if such an organisation has not been issued with a licence by the time of commencing broadcasting, that they shall be in breach of the statutory requirements in such an instance? This is a general question relating to any and all broadcasters and potential broadcasters of internet content. If this assumption is incorrect, can you advise me of the specific situations in which a broadcaster need not apply for and be granted a licence by OFCOM (or ATVOD)?

2. Specifically, is it necessary that “The People’s Voice” DOES have a licence (content licence) to broadcast? According to the reply above, this is the case. Is the reply correct?

3. Further, I would wish to add this: “The People’s Voice” is, as can be clearly evidenced by the continuing requests for donations by the public and the continuing promotion of the station as being “The People’s” station, suggesting it is purely being set up and broadcast FOR the “public interest”. It is the public funding it (unless I am mistaken – which is very probable in my opinion although that is not what is being “sold” TO the public). If, then, it promotes its entire raison d’√™tre as being “in the public interest” then it is not, at all, in the public interest that they do not know and have no way of knowing whether the public’ interest is being served by the station/company (a Private Limited Company suggesting it is non profit) complying with the statutory requirements. If the public is not allowed such information then it is a clear indication that the company is acting in a private and non transparent manner and that OFCOM and present legislation is enabling such.

How, then, can it be stated that it not require a “public interest test” to provide this information for a broadcast network funded by the public? Please answer this question for me very logically.

4. Having read section 393(1) of the Communications Act, it does occur to me that for, as you say, the information to be “classified” (for that is what this is – classified and not available to the public), the “business” must have been granted a provision to operate under that act for the protection of section 393(1) to come into force. Am I correct?

393 General restrictions on disclosure of information

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, information with respect to a particular business which has been obtained in exercise of a power conferred by‚ÄĒ

(a)this Act,

(b)the enactments relating to the management of the radio spectrum (so far as not contained in this Act),

(c)the 1990 Act, or

(d)the 1996 Act,

is not, so long as that business continues to be carried on, to be disclosed without the consent of the person for the time being carrying on that business.

So, a legislative body related to government must have given approval for “The People’s Voice” (or ANY such broadcaster) to operate under the terms of the Communications Act 2003. Again, Am I correct?

5. To be given such approval and be protected from the need to divulge such information relating to whether or not the business has a licence to operate under OFCOM, obviously then suggests that the British government are entirely approving of the expected content from such a broadcaster. Am I correct?
Please note, the above questions (4 and 5) are logical and can be answered in a general form. There is absolutely no justification for not replying to these questions in a general form then.
6. Inasmuch as you, personally, will have the knowledge of whether the station is abiding by the statutory requirements then, in your capacity as an OFCOM employee (and one, therefore, who must abide by statutory legislation as you are doing now by not divulging what is written within the Acts) please state/confirm that you, in your capacity, would, and will, flag the noncompliance of any and all broadcasters who require a licence from you (or ATVOD). This may be treated as a freedom of information act request questioning a Freedom of Information Act officer. My guess is that, as such, such an officer would have to be transparent and factual in their reply (unless the FOI Act also gives some form of “pass” for that also?).
Thank you and regards,

So here’s how the conversation went between David Icke and those who granted him the benefit of conducting his business under the Communications Act 2003:

“Hello Mr Icke, what can we do for you?”

“Well I’d like to set up a business in broadcasting over the internet please”

“Indeed Mr Icke. What exactly is it you intend to broadcast?”

“Oh just a lot of the REAL news that the BBC etc don’t broadcast and show everyone the truth of the corruption and paedophilia etc etc which goes on among our legislators, the Police, Government, Parliament, the Queen and generally do whatever is possible to expose the scum for what they are.”

“Hmmm. Do you realise that it is all of those institutions and the people within them and who you speak of who create the laws and legislation of this country Mr Icke? It’s highly unlikely then that you shall be granted such a business under the Communications Act 2003 which will, effectively, protect you from having to give information out to those who fund you and those who you say the tv network is for and on behalf of. Generally speaking in the real world Mr Icke, one’s enemies being in such a powerful position, do not tend to provide the legal vehicle for one to attack them. Are there any extenuating circumstances as to why you think it would be different in your case?”


“Oh I see! How would you like to pay?”

“American Express?”

“That’ll do nicely sir, thank you!”

GET REAL ICKEANS! Actually use your newly found “enlightenment” to THINK assholes!

Icke comms act 2003

David, if I had an audience like yours I’d be grinning like a cheshire cat too!


While this guy who wanks off strangers in public toilets (and you find out Tony Blair or any other politician does the same and what do you do?) gets a prime slot on BBC television to make the call for “Revolution” while neither he nor Icke have ANY form of solution (they do not have the intellect to propose a solution!!).

What is it you do not understand about the very thing Icke and co talk about? “Ordo Ab Chao”. This is PRECISELY what you are seeing these same people creating – CHAOS. Because, without a solution, a “revolution” WILL simply create that chaos! JOB DONE!

To all of you who consider yourself “awakened” WAKE THE FUCK UP! And no, I shall not apologise for the language. You deserve the sheer condescension thrown at you!

“Do you have a solution Earthling? If not shut up!” – Well in fact I do. I have solutions but I would need people to listen and support them as much as these guys have their audience otherwise I am pissing in the wind. There are two main elements: The monetary system and the legal system. There is also the religious aspect but that can wait. With numbers supporting what I would have planned (and it is very easy and takes nothing but sheer numbers to support WORDS. Yes WORDS. That is ALL it takes.) not “I” but WE could literally destroy this system BUT (and this is the big thing) BUT we would destroy it with a solution NOT just “We want a revolution”. Give him his due (and I hate to) Paxman was right to say “Yes but what do you replace it with?”

Why are these people getting to raise their profiles on the BBC etc? While they have no solution? It is because they are the perfect, well known (loved) celebrities that the vast majority of plonkers out there will listen to in abject ignorance! It is PERFECT for the establishment. If you do not understand this then you do not deserve the description of “Awakened”.



Don’t get me wrong. I recognise what I believe to be sincere (although I have been proven wrong with Icke and that is a certainty) and correct points being made by Brand. He delivers the points well also BUT, without a solution, the people who we are working against utilise every side to create the hegelian “synergy” that they need to create the change that THEY wish to impose. They do it subtly and they do it well. You KNOW that. And until such times as a solution is put forward and listened to and supported, all you are doing by “rah rah”ing Russell Brand and co is creating the chaos that these people want. That is why he is on the BBC. IF he had a solution (a real one) the BBC would not got near him with a ten foot pole.

Brand mentions support of a solution if one comes forward, then, while I have blogged about them incessantly over the last year or so (having concentrated on the problems beforehand), it is now time to support solutions. The destruction of the present monetary system and replacement with MPE (or equivalent) is one aspect. The other is the recognition of the legal person and how it is implemented to all our detriment then, not so much replacing it but recognising the con in it and adjustment of such to create a TRUE “everyone is equal before the law” system. Both of these elements go hand in hand – they MUST do because they feed off one another.

How to achieve it? Simple (it really is): I can write to 10 Downing street and copy to all media outlets (tv and press) and provide absolute fact and evidence coupled with total logic which YOU would support) and, with your support (but it would have to be hundreds of thousands of people – that’s it, it needs NUMBERS. Numbers which Icke and co have but do not utilise for the purpose of lobbying) we could shake the UK government and parliament to its very core based upon pure intellect. NOT chaotic, on the streets revolution (it never achieved anything).

But then who am I right? Well, who are you?

And that is the underlying problem: You look to celebrity to sort it or be your “spiritual” leader. This NEVER works. What DOES work is understanding the solution (and even if there are certain areas of it you do not understand or even disagree with – we are NEVER all going to agree on every detail, that’s what makes us individuals – you still recognise the fundamentals being 100% accurate and beneficial to you and us all) and then taking the view that the best interests of the 99% are served in such a case. You do not achieve “nirvana” for all in one single step but the first step will be catastrophic for the 1% and create the basis for progressing toward that “nirvana”.

One small step…….


The question remains: How do we gather hundreds of thousands? THAT is the issue.