The People’s Voice & OFCOM.
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? 🙂
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!
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:25:23 +0000
Please find attached a response to your request for information.
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’être 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
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?
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?”
“That’ll do nicely sir, thank you!”
GET REAL ICKEANS! Actually use your newly found “enlightenment” to THINK assholes!
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.