OFCOM FOLLOW UP
This is a follow up to the following blogs:
Now, excuse me, but I despise being treated like an idiot. Particularly by people who are obviously mentally impaired and/or are evading issues put to them which may just be giving them a small headache. It’s kinda like a dog with a bone – some may call it tenacity (something you need a lot of in Business Development and Sales). I don’t like dropping the bone. If I had done that anytime previously within the legal issues I had, I would be “dead” by now. I don’t propose dropping it here either BUT, as you will clearly see, these people hide behind shit and feel safe and comfortable doing so because it is known as “the law”. This is about as far as I can take it myself (unless there were many others who wished to contact Kathleen and complain about the way she is handling these communications that is).
Excuse my french but : FUCK the law! It is a corrupt construct of legal persons/fiction which is screwing you, me and everyone on this planet and it is run by people who enjoy doing so and remain in their positions of enormous wealth (all corruptly attained while committing serious crimes on humanity) who then dictate to their little minions in so called positions of political power (who are then well taken care of for their services to the Crown, to the UN, to the Vatican, to the US establishment and to all other establishments which support this insane and inhuman network of law and money).
So, here is the up to date communications with one “Kathleen Stewart” – a mouthpiece (i.e she opens it and spouts whatever the system tells her to – in fact, a repeater in Icke’s language. A repeater which protects Icke – how FCUKING ironic is that?) for OFCOM and the Secretary of State and government which legislated OFCOM in the first place.
Please read from bottom up. If you wish to read the prior communications, you may find them on the blogposts above and, prior to them, there are others.
Subject: RE: The People’s Voice
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:43:00 +0000
Dear Mr ……
In response to your email of 17 January 2014, I refer to the response to your Freedom of Information request, dated 21 November 2013, which gives details regarding the regulation of appeals for funds by television channels. Additionally I refer to my letter of 14 January 2014, which details the definition of general control of a channel.
As previously stated, the Licensee is obliged to comply with all the relevant licence conditions and will be responsible for putting in adequate compliance arrangements, including retaining recordings of programmes, and for ensuring that the service as broadcast complies with all the relevant Ofcom codes and requirements. If you have concerns about a specific programme shown, you can complain via the following link; http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/tv-and-radio/
:: Kathleen Stewart
Manager, Television Broadcast Licensing
Content, Standards, Licensing & Enforcement
Content, Consumer, and External Affairs Group
020 7783 4293
2a Southwark Bridge Road
London SE1 9HA
020 7981 3000
From: M [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 17 January 2014 19:44
To: Kathleen Stewart
Subject: RE: The People’s Voice
Nothing to do with The People’s Voice? Has no control over it or its content? It is not political in nature yet his entire spiel here (just yesterday by the way) is all about HIS audience not being able to bring the British monarchy, government and all its corruption to heel if more don’t “pays your money”?
It’s a picture of an awfully upset man (who, by the way, received donations for TPV via his David Icke Books Ltd vehicle) regarding a venture that really only he fronts and continuously demands the public’s money for wouldn’t you say?
Ah! But I guess it’s not the “public’s money” but “private individuals’ money” right? After all, all our money is not public money unless it is siphoned through the government right? And we’re not “the public”, we’re private individuals right? So then, if that is so, and I am not “the public” (therefore I am not an individual who comprises “the public”) then why am I paying tax? Another thing, why do our politicians refer to “members of the public”? And our police and judiciary do the same. Who IS this “public” that, when an assumed member of it (i.e. me) suggests that because The People’s Voice is promoted as a voice of the people, it must be in the public interest to know exactly where their money is going and exactly how it is spent. But no, because TPV is a PRIVATE Limited Company, you and OFCOM allow it to promote itself misleadingly to the pub…. sorry to PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS… and then protect it from those private individuals’ scrutiny because, according to you (when it suits) we are not “The Public”.
It’s a little like Bilderberg and the government and parliamentary attendees of that “Private meeting”. They are invited to attend purely due to their public function and capabilities BUT, to attend without being held to account, they simply state they attend in a PRIVATE capacity. That’s them off the hook entirely.
Are you telling me you seriously do not understand this total fraud on YOU as well as me and everyone else? Just answer yes or no. That’ll do fine.
Subject: The People’s Voice
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:28:14 +0000
Please refer to the attached.