Earthlinggb's Blog

Queen Elizabeth crowd sources on Indiegogo

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Media, Uncategorized by earthling on January 29, 2014

Queen down and out

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth has found herself down to her last £million while a palace insider stated she had approached David Icke for advice regarding donation funding. Mr Icke, a world renowned conspiracy  theorist, is reported as having pointed her majesty toward the Indiegogo website.

Next she’ll be down the local pawnbrokers with her diamonds and tiaras and selling her shares which are protected from the population’s general knowledge.

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II, long thought to be one of the world’s richest women, is apparently down to her last million in savings, with palaces leaking and falling to pieces as MPs say she has been failed by her advisers and the Treasury.

The Queen’s courtiers have been advised to take money saving tips from the UK treasury, as her finances dip to an historic low with just £1 million left in reserve, the Telegraph reported.

A report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee found that her reserve fund had fallen from £35 million in 2001 to £1 million today. While the Royal household had made efficiency savings of just 5 percent over the past five years, government departments have made savings of up to a third.

MPs on the committee said that the Treasury must help to protect royal palaces from further damage and deterioration.

“We believe that the Treasury has a duty to be actively involved in reviewing the household’s financial planning and management – and it has failed to do so,” said Margaret Hodge, the Labour chairperson of the committee.

Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are both in a terrible state of repair with staff required to catch rain in buckets to protect art and antiquities.

Meanwhile, in Buckingham Palace the 60-year-old boilers were running up bills of £774,000 a year and the wiring has not been replaced since 1949. More than a third of the royal estate has been found to be below “target condition.”


The committee compared Buckingham Palace, which has just 500,000 visitors a year, to the Tower of London, which has more than £2 million.

“If you look at the Tower of London and its visitor numbers it makes you think that there’s potential here. Have they done their darnedest to maximize value for money?” Hodge said.

The report also found that the royal household has not even attempted to cost up its huge backlog of repairs because it believed there was no point in doing so until it has new funding in place.

The Crown Estate gets 15 percent of its income from the Sovereign Grant, which replaced the old way of funding the Royal Family through the civil list in 2012.

While the Royal Household’s net expenditure was £33.3 million last year, £31 million of this came from the Sovereign Grant. To find the difference, it had to dip into its reserve fund.

A spokesman for Buckingham Palace insisted that the Sovereign Grant had made the Queen’s funding “more transparent and scrutinized” and was resulting in a “more efficient use of public funds.”

But the committee found that much more needs to be done if the Crown Estate and the Royal Household are to properly manage the Queen’s finances.

“We got the impression that they just haven’t tried to make greater savings. Here we are, we’re all in it together, but they are failing to eke out better value for the Queen. They are dipping into their reserves in a way that just isn’t sensible,” Hodge said.

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II unveils a plaque during an official visit to The Shard building in central London, on November 21, 2013. The Queen and her husband Prince Philip toured the viewing deck of the country's highest building Thursday.  AFP PHOTO / STEFAN ROUSSEAU/POOL

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II unveils a plaque during an official visit to The Shard building in central London, on November 21, 2013. The Queen and her husband Prince Philip toured the viewing deck of the country’s highest building Thursday. AFP PHOTO / STEFAN ROUSSEAU/POOL

The report found that the Treasury was not doing its job properly. It is responsible for overseeing the Royal Household finances but is not doing enough and should draw on its extensive experience and “offer advice on key packages.”

“The Household needs to get better at planning and managing its budgets for the longer term – and the Treasury should be more actively involved in reviewing what the household is doing,” Hodge said.

Number crunching

A closer look at both the report and the figures in it reveals that the Queens finances may be healthier than the Committee found, and in areas where she has lost money it is not the fault of the Treasury but of her managers, the Guardian reports.

The report its self was compiled from a series of questions and answers with just two witness giving the answers, Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse and Mike Stevens, Deputy Treasurer to the Queen.

When asked why they did not cut back their expenditure, Sir Alan Reid replies: “We really believed that it is not wise to cut back on the level of activity of the monarchy.”

The figure of 1 million pounds does not accurately reflect the value of assets held by the Royal Household, the Guardian says. Their total reserves stand at 14.2 million pounds, 11.8 million pounds of which comes from property, plant and other equipment.The biggest chunk of royal spending goes on payroll, and although staff numbers remained unchanged over the past year cost have risen considerably.

Austin Mitchell, one of the members of the committee, asked: “It looks to me that you managed to survive and manage the finances by letting the buildings deteriorate, by freezing the staff costs and by digging into the reserves. Is that a fair summary of what has happened?”

To which Sir Alan replied, “I think that does summarize, to a degree, what happened last year.”


However, the last minute intervention of Mr Icke may have just saved the Queen’s bacon. There are rumours within the establishment that, due to Mr Icke’s advice and enlightenment of the Queen on how to make vast sums of money out of people without going to the bank for a loan, the Queen had a quiet word with her cabinet and the secretary of state for media, to give Mr Icke a pass regarding the requirement, by OFCOM, that no politically motivated person can hold a British broadcasting licence. Mr Icke seems to have quietly apologised to the Queen for calling her a reptile all these years and she quietly pronounced him a Knight of St John of Jerusalem even though he has no royal lineage. He did much the same, quietly while telling poll tax protestors he wouldn’t pay his either but then quietly did so. The Queen likes the name David since it originates from King David as she believes she does. She’s very happy with David Cameron and David Dimbleby we hear also. David Beckham also got a kind word from the Queen although she quietly mentioned to him that she thought Posh was a bit of a slag.

Below, you can see the Queen in her Indiegogo campaign requesting donations to upgrade her property’s boilers. Seemingly, her majesty is not aware that the government runs a free boiler programme for the elderly and those on certain benefits. Perhaps if she were to let her £1million run down to less than £6,000 in the bank then she would qualify and wouldn’t have to come scrounging off the subjects she and her family have lived off their entire lives.

Queen's boiler indiegogo

Royal perks



MUSIC: Well it had to be The Flying Lizards right?

David Icke: HELP! HELP! The Reigstad’s on fire!!

Posted in Media by earthling on January 18, 2014

Communists have a new name: “Mongs”, “Idiots”, “anti-Icke activists”, or simply jet people who might even watch TPV but don’t donate to it.

A quick aside Davey: How many people watch BBC but won’t pay their TV licence? You’d support that wouldn’t you? Ah but you can’t state that otherwise OFCOM and the establishment would attack you and TPV. Oh but, wait a minute, no they wouldn’t because you have absolutely nothing to do with TPV according to OFCOM! So yeah, you can say it. Ah but then, it wouldn’t be politically incorrect and could get you into trouble somehow. I bet you pay your BBC licence though eh Dave? Can’t miss Grandstand! Or can you stand to watch it considering they wouldn’t give you the prime slot on it but just gave you a table and a few coloured balls to whisper your comments about. I guess that’s the closest thing you’ve ever got to having balls Dave but, today, you’re just a bit “snookered” eh? How the hell do you continue TPV IF you don’t reach that magical figure, and continue to, without giving the game away that there are other backers? Hmmm… conundrum! Or will they undisclosed sums just keep coming in? There is no way you’re going to get anywhere near the sponsorship and advertising you were hoping for and you and the gang just haven’t go the foggiest of how to generate income from licensing do you? And you just wouldn’t listen would you? The potential is all there just waiting on you tapping into it but it’s just too difficult for you when you think you can just click your fingers and get money for nothing and the content for free.

Anyhow, back to the point: I love this post Davey. It puts me in tears of laughter…

False flag Icke


Corporations? Hmmm…. isn’t TPV a Private corporation? I do believe it is! Now, in the land of Private corporations, as you well know Davey, they tend to create “scarcity” as well as use other tactics to win business and to stop “churn” or lose customers. If income isn’t coming in to the level required, they will do just about anything to find it. The thing is Davey, they tend, generally, to have various sources of income or, at least, they develop a market based upon the 80/20 rule if they possibly can. A company with only one customer relies on that customer 100% otherwise it goes out of business. That’s why most companies try to build that varied and substantial customer base (different income generating sources in effect). Whereas you have had a “business plan” (none at all actually – just a wish and belief and I’ve seen companies do precisely the same and it’s pathetic) that was “We’ll just keep asking the public for donations”. You’ve said it all along in your videos and even when I was there in TPV for that very short spell – the public’s donations will be the key (and yet it did not and does not have to be).

If anyone had asked you at the time last year: “What happens if they don’t donate enough Davey?” you would ignore them. But if you had given an answer, I wonder if it would have been “then I’ll get on Skype and, with sheer disdain, talk to my audience and tell them they are idiots and stupid/dumb, selfish, uncaring, will scream crying when the boots come to their door and every other fear tactic I can use to get the working class scum to donate”. No, I doubt you would have said you’d do that Davey but, strangely, it is exactly what you have done. “I’ll also have my son, Gareth, call a mass of people “mongs” and any other descriptive word to try and make them feel inferior (because that is what anyone is who doest do as the great one demands of them – this is evangelism 101). Man, I tip my hat to you once again because you certainly do realise and know what your audience is composed of because it’s working for you.

What else did you have planned if it didn’t work out donations wise? Ahh! the “IFF”: The Icke False Flag. Brilliant Davey, exceptional. How could ANYONE even consider that you, yourself would instigate such (something you have studied for the decades you have) when you point the finger at every other person or organisation who have used the strategy? No-one would possibly believe it would they Davey? They believe the “evil people” are attacking you and yet your entire station has not broadcast one iota of information which is not already out there in internet land via youtube, blogs or even mainstream. But the “evil empire” will attack “David Icke” while that same evil empire hands you and TPV a “licence to shill” on a plate. Aye Davey, you’re a real threat to the powers that be and your audience are only too happy to swallow that absolute shit! 🙂

TPV hacked


You know what else the IFF does for you though? It allows you to cloak the fact that the incompetence in the entire organisation is outstanding while you all try to fix the myriad of failures and problems that you have.

While I’m sure there will be those volunteers in TPV who, while they would wish to give their all and do a good job doing whatever it is they are doing, Sean and Deanna etc will just not like them personally or think that they are hopeless or, perhaps, they may just feel they are not getting treated like “gods” by them, so they’ll want, at this point, to get rid of some people. That was always going to happen but there was no way your volunteers would have ever listened if one had told them that.

“Cognitive dissonance” is actually, ironically, what keeps you and TPV alive Davey. Your entire audience has it. Right down to them donating their money to you through BARCLAY’s BANK! It is bloody incredible what you get away with Davey. One can only stand in awe. Not at you but at the sheer incapacity of your audience. I can say whatever I wish about your audience or anyone. I’m not looking for them to donate money to me. But YOU. You’re an idiot, you really are. You just don’t recognise it due to your arrogance and narcissism.

Donate TPV Barclays


There’s a guy by the “name” of Jonb on another forum, which I apologise but the name of the forum escapes me for now, who does great GIFs. I leave you with this one because it really does sum some things up so well.



David Icke: Portrait of an emotional blackmailer

Posted in Media by earthling on January 10, 2014

Read and ye shall recognise. Ye with the eyes to see and the mind to interpret.

We don’t need no perception deception! We don’t need no thought control.

No dark sarcasm in the studio. Preacher, leave them folks alone!

“If you don’t donate to christ you will not be raptured”

“If you don’t donate to TPV, then it’s your fault when your children or grandchildren turn to you and say “What were you doing Dad/Mum? You mean you didn’t donate to Sean ADL Tabatabi? Why not?” Reply: “Well calling women slags and smelling like fish, bitches and christians counts, I didn’t think he was too enlightened myself and as for David Icke, I felt emotionally blackmailed like I did when the elite told us climate change was real and we needed to pay our taxes to save the planet.”

“You SELFISH BASTARD!” says Icke.

“You negative vibed git”

“You are ensuring your children and children’s children to a life of hell”

“This is our last chance and if you don’t send that money then you don’t want the chance and you’re part of the problem”


Before I go on with this cut and paste from a site on Emotional blackmail, I have a word for David Icke and his cronies: You haven’t got a fricking clue who you’re dealing with mate. An amateur actor like you would have the impact of a gnat or mosquito. We all have egos Icke but some of us know how to handle them. We know who and what is important and your perception of me, my friend, is about as important or influential on me as your pathetic KFM groupies, who can’t afford a fricking breakfast without checking the horse racing results, are on Barack Obama. You’re a second hand car salesman Icke. A frightened, cowardly, nothing of a man with one HUGE chip on his shoulder who’s attempting to intimidate a guy who could run fricking rings round you intellectually. If that sounds up my own ass (as I’m sure it will to your little clique) then so be it. You’re a seething little shit of a man desperately trying to be “somebody” and that’s the irony. You still feel like Charlie Smith (or is it Ethel Jones). You KNOW in your own self that that is what you are. You get out in front of your audiences and you suck their energy and that’s your high but still, deep inside, you’re an incompetent little man. Your non comply dance indeed. You’re a compliant, impotent little weed! The sad thing is that you don’t have to be but your ego is desperate for approval.

Emotional Blackmail

What is Emotional Blackmail?

Emotional blackmail is a powerful form of manipulation in which people close to us threaten (either directly or indirectly) to punish us if we don’t do what they want. At the heart of any kind of blackmail is one basic threat, which can be expressed in many different ways: If you don’t behave the way I want you to, you will suffer.

A criminal blackmailer might threaten to use knowledge about a person’s past to ruin her reputation, or ask to be paid off in cash to hide a secret. Emotional blackmail hits closer to home. Emotional blackmailers know how much we value our relationship with them. They know our vulnerabilities. Often they know our deepest secrets. And no matter how much they care about us, when they fear they won’t go their way, they use this intimate knowledge to shape the threats that give them the payoff they want: our compliance.

Knowing that we want love or approval, our blackmailers threaten to withhold it or take it away altogether, or make feel we must earn it. For example, if you pride yourself being generous and caring, the blackmailer might label you selfish or inconsiderate if you don’t accede to his wishes. If you value money and security, the blackmailer might attach conditions to providing them or threaten to take them away. And if you believe the blackmailer, you could fall into a pattern of letting him control your decisions and behavior. We get locked into a dance with blackmail, a dance with myriad steps, shapes and partners.

Emotional blackmailers hate to lose. They take the old adage “It doesn’t matter if you win or lose, its how you play the game”, and turn it on its head to read “It doesn’t matter how you play the game as long as you do not lose.” To an emotional blackmailer, keeping your trust doesn’t count, respecting your feelings doesn’t count, being fair doesn’t count. The ground rules that allow for healthy give-and-take go out the window. In the midst of what we thought was a solid relationship it’s as though someone yelled “Everyone for himself!” and the other person lumped to take advantage of us while our guard was down. Why is winning so important to blackmailers, we ask ourselves. Why are they doing this to us? Why do they need to get their way so badly that they’ll punish us if they don’t?

Blackmail takes two: it is a transaction. Following clarity comes change. It’s easy to focus on other people’s behavior and to think that if they change things will be fine. The change has to begin with the blackmail target. Our compliance rewards the blackmailer, and every time we reward someone for a particular action, whether we realize it or not, we’re letting them know in the strongest possible terms that they can do it again. The price we pay when we repeatedly give in to emotional blackmail is enormous. It eats away at us and escalates until it puts our most important relationships and our whole sense of self-respect in jeopardy.

Part 1: Understanding the Blackmail Transaction What Emotional Blackmailers Do

  •   Threaten to make things difficult if you don’t do what they want.
  •   Constantly threaten to end the relationship if you don’t give in.
  •   Regularly ignore or discount your feelings and wants.
  •   Tell you or imply that they will neglect, hurt themselves, or become depressed if you don’t do what they want.
  •   Shower you with approval when you give into them and take it away when you don’t.
  •   Use money as a weapon to get their own way.Components of Emotional BlackmailThe issues may differ, but the tactics and actions will be the same, and clearly recognizable.
  1. Demand–someone wants something
  2. Resistance–the other does not feel comfortable with the demand
  3. Pressure –used to make the resistant one give in
  4. Threat –to turn up the pressure
  5. Compliance–on the part of the resistant one
  6. Repetition–this pattern reoccurs in at least other situations (just with a different name)

Examples of Emotional Blackmail

  •   “If I ever see another man look at you I will kill him.”
  •   “If you ever stop loving me I will kill myself.”
  •   “I’ve already discussed this with our pastor/therapist/friends/family and they agree that you are being unreasonable.”
  •   “I’m taking this vacation – with or without you.”
  •   “Your family hates me. How can you say you love me and still be friends with them?”
  •   “You’ve ruined my life and now you are trying to stop me from spending money to take care of myself.”
  •   “I took the money because you always put yourself first and don’t seem to care about my needs.”

The Four Types of Blackmailers
1. Punishers (“If you go back to work, I will leave you”) let us know exactly what they want, and the consequences we’ll face if we don’t give it to them, are the most glaring. They may express themselves aggressively or they may smolder in silence, but either way, the anger is always aimed directly at us. The closer the relationship, the higher the stakes and the more vulnerable we are to punishers. When blackmail escalates, the threatened consequences of not acceding to a punisher can be alarming: abandonment, emotional cutoff, withdrawal of money or other resources. Explosive anger directed at us. And, at the most terrifying extreme, threats of physical harm.

  1. Self-punishers (“Don’t argue with me or I will get sick or depressed”) turn the threats inward threatening what they will do to themselves if they don’t get their way. High drama, hysteria and an air of crisis (precipitated by you, of course) surround self-punishers, who are often excessively needy and dependent. They often enmesh themselves with those around them and struggle with taking responsibility with their own lives. The ultimate threat self-punishers can make is frightening in the extreme: It’s a suggestion that they will kill themselves.
  2. Sufferers are talented blamers and guilt-peddlers who make us figure out what they want, and always conclude that it is up to us to ensure they get it. Sufferers take the position that if they feel miserable, sick, unhappy, or are just plain unlucky, there’s only one solution: our giving them what they want ‘ even if they haven’t told us what it is. They let us know, in no uncertain terms, that if you don’t do what they want, they will suffer and it will be your fault. Sufferers are pre-occupied with how awful they feel, and often they interpret your inability to read their mind as proof that you don’t care enough about them.
  3. Tantalizers put us through a series of test and hold out a promise of something wonderful if we’ll just give them their way. They are the subtlest blackmailers. They encourage us and promise love or money or career advancement, and then make it clear that unless we behave, as they want us to, we don’t get the prize. Every seductively wrapped package has a web of strings attached. Many tantalizers traffic in emotional payoffs, castles in the air full of love, acceptance, family closeness and healed wounds. Admission to this rich, unblemished fantasy requires only one thing: giving in to what the tantalizer wants.

Each type of blackmailer operates with a different vocabulary, and each gives a different spin to the demands, pressure, threats and negative judgments that go into blackmail. There are no firm boundaries between the styles of blackmail, as they can be combined.

Emotions Felt by Victims of Emotional Blackmail

 They feel insecure, unimportant, unworthy and generally bad about themselves.

 They doubt their ideas and needs.

 They feel isolated.
 They may have consistent physical ailments as a result of the stress.

Characteristics of the Victim and Emotional Blackmailer


• Constantly seeks approval
• Does their best to avoid anger and keep peace
• Takes the blame for anything that happens to others • Has compassion and empathy
• Tends to feel pity or obligation

• Believes they need to give in because it is the “right thing to do”

• Has self-doubt with no sense of their worth, intelligence or abilities

Emotional Blackmailer:

  • Has great fear of abandonment and deprivation or of being hurt.
  • Feels desperate.
  • Needs to be in control of things.
  • Experiences frequent frustration.
  • Has thought distortions regarding the reasonableness of their demands.

• Has had someone emotionally blackmail them and sees that it works to get them what they want.

A Blinding FOG

Blackmailers create a thick ‘FOG ‘ that obscures their actions. FOG is a shorthand way of referring to Fear, Obligation and Guilt. Blackmailers pump up an engulfing FOG into their relationships, ensuring that we feel afraid to cross them, obligated to give them their way and terribly guilty if we don’t.

Fear, the Real F-Word

Blackmailers build their conscious and unconscious strategies on the information we give them about what we fear. The blackmailers fear of not getting what they want becomes so intense that they become tightly focused, able to see the outcome they want in exquisite detail but unable to take their eyes off the goal long enough to see how their actions are affecting us. At that point, the information they’ve gathered about us in the course of the relationship becomes ammunition for driving home a deal that’s fed on both sides by fear. One of the most painful parts of emotional blackmail is that it violates the trust that has allowed us to reveal ourselves.


Often our ideas about duty and obligation are reasonable, and they form an ethical and moral foundation for our lives. Sometimes these are out of balance. Blackmailers never hesitate to put our sense of obligation to the test. Reluctance to break up a family keeps many people in relationships that have gone sour. Most of us have a terrible time defining our boundaries when our sense of obligation is stronger than our sense of self-respect and self-caring; blackmailers quickly learn to take advantage.


Guilt is an essential part of being a feeling, responsible person. It’s a tool of conscience, in its distorted form, registers discomfort and self-reproach if we’ve done something to violate our personal or social code of ethics. One of the fastest ways for blackmailers to create undeserved guilt is to use blame, actively attributing whatever upset or problems they’re having to their targets. Once blackmailers see that their target’s guilt can serve them, time becomes irrelevant. There is no statute of limitations. Guilt is the blackmailer’s neutron bomb. It can leave relationships standing, but it wears away the trust and intimacy that makes us want to be with them.

Tools the Emotional Blackmailer Uses to Create FOG

  • Making demands seem reasonable.
  • Making the victim feel selfish.
  • Labeling with negative qualities and connotations.
  • Pathologizing or crazy making.
  • Making a demand that needs an immediate response.
  • Allying themselves with someone of authority or influence i.e. parents, children, mental health professionals, religious leaders etc.
  • Comparing the victim to a person that the victim does not like or is in competition with. Learning the victim’s “triggers”.
  • Assess how much pressure to apply before the victim will give in. Tools of the TradeThe tools are a constant that runs through the endlessly varied scenarios of emotional blackmail, and all blackmailers, no matter what their style, use one or more of them:The SpinBlackmailers see our conflicts with them as reflections of how misguided and off base we are, while they describe themselves as wise and well intentioned. They let us know that they ought to win because the outcome they want is more loving, more open, more mature. Any resistance on our parts is transformed from an indication of our needs to evidence of our flaws. In addition to discrediting the perceptions of their targets, many blackmailers turn up the pressure by challenging or character, motives, and worth. We may be labeled heartless, worthless or selfish in any relationship with a blackmailer, but those labels are especially difficult to withstand when they’re coming from a parent who can wipe out our confidence faster than anyone else.


    Some blackmailers tell us that we’re resisting them only because we’re ill or crazy. This is called pathologizing. The experience of being pathologized can be a devastating blow to our confidence and sense of self and is therefore an especially toxic and effective tool.

    Pathologizing often arises in love relationships when there’s an imbalance of desires more love, more time, more attention, more commitment when it’s not forthcoming, he/she questions our ability to love. Like the spin, pathologizing makes us unsure about our memories, our judgments, our intelligence, and our character. With pathologizing the stakes are higher, and can make us doubt our sanity.

Enlisting Allies

When single-handed attempts at blackmail are ineffective, black-mailers call in reinforcements (parents, children, mental health professionals, religious leaders etc.), to make their case for them and to prove that they are right. They may turn to a higher authority such as the bible.

Negative comparisons

Blackmailers often hold up another person as a model, a flawless ideal against which we fall short. Negative comparisons make us feel suddenly deficient. We react competitively.

The Inner World of the Blackmailer

Emotional blackmailers hate to lose. Blackmailers can’t tolerate frustration. To the blackmailer, frustration is connected to deep, resonant fears of loss and deprivation, and they experience it as a warning that unless they take immediate action they’ll face intolerable consequences. These convictions may be rooted in a lengthy history of feeling anxious and insecure. Complementing and reinforcing possible genetic factors are powerful messages from our caretakers and society about whom we are and how we are supposed to behave. Blackmailers believe that they can compensate for some of the frustrations of the past by changing the current reality.

The potential for blackmail rises dramatically during such crises as a separation or divorce, loss of a job, illness and retirement, which undermine blackmailers’ sense of themselves as valuable people. Often people who have had everything and have been overprotected and indulged have had little opportunity to develop confidence in their ability to handle any kind of loss. At the first hint that they might be deprived, they panic, and shore themselves up with blackmail.

Usually blackmailers focus totally on their needs, their desires; they don’t seem to be the least bit interested in our needs or how their pressure is affecting us. They often behave as though each disagreement is the make-or-break factor in the relationship.

Blackmailers frequently win with tactics that create an insurmountable rift in the relationship. Yet the short-term victory often appears to be enough of a triumph ‘ as if there were no future to consider. Most blackmailers operate from an I-want-what-I want-when-I-want it mind-set. Any logic or ability to see the consequences of their actions is obscured by the urgency blackmailers feel to hold on to what they have.

The most important thing to take away from the tour of a blackmailer’s psyche is that emotional blackmailer sounds like it’s all about you and feels like it’s all about you, but for the most part it’s not about you at all. Instead it flows from and tries to stabilize some fairly insecure places inside the blackmailer. Many times it has more to do with the past than the present, and it’s more concerned with filling the blackmailer’s needs than with anything the blackmailer says we did or didn’t do.

It Takes Two

Blackmail cannot work without the target’s active participation. The target gives it permission to occur. You may be aware of the blackmail but feel as though you can’t resist it, because the blackmailer’s pressure sets off almost programmed responses in you, and you’re reacting automatically or impulsively.

Blackmailers may be aware of your hot buttons. Faced with resistance, blackmailers’ fear of deprivation kicks in and they use every bit of information to ensure that they prevail. The protective qualities that we have that open us up to emotional blackmail are:

  • An excessive need for approval.
  • An intense fear of anger.
  • A need for peace at any price.
  • A tendency to take too much responsibility for other people’s lives.
  • A high level of self-doubtWhen kept in balance and alternated with other behavior, none of these styles dooms you to the status of ‘preferred target’ of an emotional blackmailer. Emotional blackmailing takes training and practice. Emotional blackmailers take their cues from our responses to their testing, and they learn from both what we do and what we don’t do.The Impact of BlackmailEmotional blackmail may not be life threatening but it robs us of our integrity. Integrity is that place inside where our values and our moral compass reside, clarifying what right and wrong for us.
  • We let ourselves down.
  • A vicious cycle ensues.
  • Rationalizing and justifying.
  • We may betray others to placate the blackmailer.
  • It sucks the safety out of the relationship.
  • We may shut down and constrict emotional generosity.The impact on our well-being:
  • Mental health
  • Physical pain as a warningPart 2: Turning Understanding into ActionTo change, we need to know what we have to do and then we have to act. If you’re willing to take action now and let your feelings of confidence and competence catch up with you, you can end emotional blackmail.What is Necessary to Stop Emotional Blackmail

    • The victim must begin to look at the situation in a new way.

    • They must detach from their emotions.

    • They must realize that they are being blackmailed and that it is not appropriate for the blackmailer to be treating them in that manner.



  • They must make a commitment to themselves that they will take care of themselves and no longer allow this abusive treatment.
  • They need to see that a demand is being made on them and that it makes them uncomfortable.
  • They must determine why the demand feels uncomfortable.
  • They must not give into the pressure for an immediate decision.
  • They must set boundaries to be able to take time to consider the situation and to look at all of the alternatives to make the decision.
  • Finally, they must consider their own needs first for a change, in this process. How to Respond to Emotional BlackmailersBelow are some specific ways to answer the most common types of responses. It can’t be emphasized too strongly how important it is to practice saying these statements until they feel natural to you; how to respond to the other person’s catastrophic predictions and threats. Punishers and self-punishers may try pressuring you to change your decision by bombarding you with visions of the extreme negative consequences of doing what you’ve decided to do. It’s never easy to resist the fear that their bleak vision will come to pass, especially when the theme they’re pounding home is “Bad things will happen – and it’ll be your fault.” But hold your ground.


When they say:

page8image17496 page8image17920

page8image18952 page8image19880

page8image20752 page8image21848

Then you say:


page8image23880 page8image24640


  •   If you don’t take care of me, I’ll wind up in the hospital/on the street/unable to work.
  •   You’ll never see your kids again.
  •   You’ll destroy this family.
  •   You’re not my child anymore.
  •   I’m cutting you out of my will.
  •   I’ll get sick.
  •   I can’t make it without you.
  •   I’ll make you suffer.
  •   You’ll be sorry.

page8image31672 page8image33272



  •   That’s your choice.
  •   I hope you won’t do that, but I’ve made mydecision.
  •   I know you’re very angry right now. When you’ve had a chance to think about this, maybe you’ll change your mind.
  •   Why don’t we talk about this again when you’re less upset? Threats/suffering/tears aren’t going to work anymore.
  •   I’m sorry you’re upset.



page8image43152 page8image44248

When they say:

page8image47744 page8image48168 page8image49264 page8image50024



Then you say:



page9image680 page9image1776

  •   I can’t believe you’re being so selfish. This isn’t like you. You’re only thinking of yourself. You never think about my feelings.
  •   I really thought you were different from the other women/men I’ve been with. I guess I was wrong.
  •   That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
  •   Everyone knows that children are supposedto respect their parents.
  •   How can you be so disloyal?
  •   You’re just being an idiot.

page9image8736 page9image10336


  •   You’re entitled to your opinion.
  •   I’m sure that’s how it looks to you.
  •   That could be.
  •   You may be right.
  •   I need to think about this more.
  •   We’ll never get anywhere if you keep insulting me.
  •   I’m sorry you’re upset.


page9image21040 page9image22136

When they say:

page9image24288 page9image25048

page9image25968 page9image26728 page9image27824


Then you say:

page9image30128 page9image30552

page9image31248 page9image32176 page9image32600

  •   How could you do this to me (after all I’ve done for you)?
  •   Why are you ruining my life?
  •   Why are you being sostubborn/obstinate/selfish?
  •   What’s come over you?
  •   Why are you acting like this?
  •   Why do you want to hurt me?
  •   Why are you making such a big deal out of this?



page9image41992 page9image42416

  •   I knew you wouldn’t be happy about this, but that’s the way it has to be.
  •   There are no villains here. We just want different things.
  •   I’m not willing to take more than 50 percent of the responsibility.
  •   I know how upset/angry/disappointed you are, but it’s not negotiable.
  •   We see things differently.
  •   I’m sure you see it that way.
  •   I’m sorry you’re upset.

page9image48144 page9image49408


Handling Silence

But what about the person who blackmails through anger that is expressed covertly through sulks and suffering? When they say nothing, what can you say or do? For many targets, this silent anger is far more maddening and crazy than an overt attack. Sometimes it seems as if nothing works with this kind of blackmailer, and sometimes nothing does. But you’ll have the most success if you stick to the principles of non-defensive communication and stay conscious of the following do’s and don’ts.



In dealing with silent blackmailers, DON’T:





DO use the following techniques:



  •   Expect them to make the first step toward resolving the conflict.
  •   Plead with them to tell you what’s wrong.
  •   Keep after them for a response (which willonly make them withdraw more).
  •   Criticize, analyze or interpret their motives, character or inability to be direct.
  •   Willingly accept blame for whatever they’re upset about to get them into a better mood.
  •   Allow them to change the Subject.
  •   Get intimidated by the tension and angerin the air.
  •   Let your frustration cause you to make threats you really don’t mean (e.g., “If you don’t tell me what’s wrong, I’ll never speak to you again”).
  •   Assume that if they ultimately apologize, it will be followed by any significant change in their behavior.
  •   Expect major personality changes, even if they recognize what they’re doing and are willing to work on it. Remember: Behavior can change. Personality styles usually don’t.


page10image28840 page10image29600


  •   Remember that you are dealing with people who feel inadequate and powerless and who are afraid of your ability to hurt or abandon them.
  •   Confront them when they’re more able to hear what you have to say. Consider writing a letter. It may feel less threatening to them.
  •   Reassure them that they can tell you what they’re angry about and you will hear them out without retaliating.
  •   Use tact and diplomacy. This will reassure them that you won’t exploit their vulnerabilities and bludgeon them with recriminations.
  •   Say reassuring things like “I know you’re angry right now, and I’ll be willing to discuss this with you as soon as you’re ready to talk about it,” Then leave them alone. You’ll only make them withdraw more if you don’t.
  •   Don’t be afraid to tell them that their behavior is upsetting to you, but begin by expressing appreciation. For example: “Dad, I really care about you, and I think you’re one of the smartest people I know, but it really bothers me when you clam up every time we disagree about something and just walk away is hurting our relationship, and I wonder if you would talk to me about that.”
  •   Stay focused on the issue you’re upset about.
  •   Expect to be attacked when you express a grievance, because they experience your assertion as an attack on them as an attack on them.
  •   Let them know that you know they’re angry


page11image728 page11image2096 page11image4720 page11image5416 page11image6784 page11image8552

and what you’re willing to do about it. For example: “I’m sorry you ‘re upset because I don’t want your folks to stay with us when they’re in town, but I’m certainly willing to take the time to find a nice hotel for them and maybe pay for part of their vacation.”

  •   Accept the fact that you will have to make the first move most, if not all, of the time.
  •   Let some things slide

page11image14848 page11image15816These techniques are the only ones that have a chance to interrupt the pattern that’s so typical of a silent, angry blackmailer, the cycle that goes “Look how upset I am, and it’s all your fault. Now figure out what you did wrong and how you’re going to make it up to me.” I know how infuriating it is to have to be the rational one when you feel like strangling the other person, but it’s the only way I know to create an atmosphere that will allow change to take place. Your hardest job will be to stay non defensive and to convince the quietly angry person that it’s OK for them to be angry when they’ve spent a lifetime believing just the opposite.

(This review is based on the book: “Emotional Blackmail” by Susan Forward, Ph.D. The author is an internationally acclaimed therapist, lecturer, and author.) Emotional Blackmail

TPV liquidation: Sean the “businessman” (UPDATE)

Posted in Media by earthling on January 9, 2014

I really am not one to say “I told you so” but……

TPV insolvency


I told you so!


The following is a blog I wrote 9th January 2014. Over the course of writing these blogs re TPV, Icke and Tabatabai, I’ve received a lot of shit from TPV lovers. People who just didn’t want to know. People who “believed”. And they will STILL exist! Even if a certain person from TPV ended up shagging their 5 year old daughter, they’ll STILL “believe”. There’s nothing you can do about people like this (except feel sorry for them). The Kent Freedom Movement (hahaha) despised what I wrote about TPV and Icke (it’s a personal thing! They’d despise anything I wrote because they didn’t get a free lunch. Bed and board yes plus a taxi service but oops! Forgot to feed them too! Thank god for a £20 win on the geegee’s eh? Otherwise they’d never have eaten at all! ;-)) because they “believed” (or perhaps wanted the KFM to bask in the glory of TPV and get their mugs on telly?) but just wouldn’t listen because of a grudge. Let’s hope it wasn’t a Scots/English thing! Love and light and no borders and we’re all one consciousness and all that you know?

Anyhow, the “twoof movement” now firmly left behind (thank fcuk!) and I’ll leave it all to the amateurs – of which there are a few – because trying to bring to the attention of those who believe in reptilians and nibiru etc at 40 and 50 year old, some of the REAL issues and their real solutions is like pulling teeth. Believing in fairy tales at that age. Must be a midlife crisis! Stupid bastards!

As for Sonia Poultry: Well darlin’ you didn’t like it when you were still part of it but you got there in the end huh?

You see, when people are so desperate to believe a lie because they desperately want to believe someone’s doing the right thing and they wish to be part of it, someone like me pointing at the Emperor with no clothes gets ridiculed, slated, despised etc. But then isn’t that one of Icke’s lines? “At first they laugh at you….” etc. Well Dave sometimes it ends up that they laugh at you too!

Lucky thing I have broad shoulders eh? It comes from not giving a toss about the views of incompetents. Sorry if that sounds arrogant but I suppose it is. Too bad! You’d rather be told shit from people who smile at you than be given the bold, bare faced truth. Just shows that mentality doesn’t just affect the “sheep” but the so called “awakened”. You just think you’re “awake” but you’re really sleepwalking. I used to care. I tried to shout “stop swallowing shit” but did you listen? Well some of you did for sure but many more – nah. You still like your “heroes” in the media. The “big” personalities. You’re just as prone to that shit as anyone else and, as long as you are, there’ll be wolves out there who will carry on fleecing you.

So, liquidation for TPV (I’m sure there’ll be a story for it) and their creditors will perhaps get some of their money back. The strange thing is, YOU were meant to have been the ONLY “creditors” BUT it was all freely given donations wasn’t it? Another thing I shouted at you was this: DO NOT DONATE BUT DEMAND THAT YOU GET A SHARE IN A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY! But you never listened there either did you?

So where’s the money gone? Hahaha. How many companies has Sean dissolved now? 😉

Take care y’all and one last thing…. GET SMART! Is that asking for too much?

Enlightened? My ass!


Sean's quotes

Yet, you wonder why I have the “audacity” to call you stupid if you do?

Ask yourself: Would you buy Double glazing or a second hand car from a company about to go bust?

Ask yourself: If, on one hand, the company was about to be dissolved due to negligence regarding filing their annual return or, on the other hand, the sole shareholder himself was dissolving the company so he did not have to pay his creditors and then could walk away with over £80K in the bank account and the company was about to be struck off the Company Register, would you do business with them? Would you donate any money to another business they had just started and were sole director of?

If you answered “Yes” to either one of these questions then, be my guest and adopt the “in the corner with the ‘D’ cap on your skull!”

It’s entirely up to you. Again, I’m just giving you information.

Sean ADL Tabatabai: Sole Director of TPV Limited, “Guardian of the ethos” and “exceptionally gifted businessman” and David Icke’s right hand man.


Sean Magus

The above simply illustrates that £1 of share capital in a company does not mean the equity figure is £1 and that is all the company shareholding is worth. As a company grows, that shareholding can become ENORMOUS! That is what Icke and Tabatabai are looking for out of TPV using YOUR money to achieve it! THAT is why they are getting hot under the collar when you’re not donating!

Next: Look at this –

Magus figures

NO tangible or intangible assets of any kind in this business.

CASH at bank is £81,192

Debtors (People who own Magus money): £15,317

Add cash and debtors and you get Total current assets of ££96,509

However, Sean has creditors of £90,540. NOT A GOOD POSITION TO BE IN. WHO the creditors may be is another story. A Bank? An individual? Another “Corporate person”? Who knows? But who cares?

IF it is not a bank however and it is trade creditors of one form or another, then what can Sean do? Here is what he can do (and, certainly on paper, it would appear IS doing):

Magus strike off

He last submitted his annual return for Magus Media in August 2012. He has lapsed in 2013. So now he has a “First notification of strike off….”

If a company persistently fails to submit its statutory returns (the Annual Return or the Annual Accounts), Companies House MAY decide that the company is dead and will start the process of having the company struck off the Company Register.

A company has to have been quite negligent to have allowed the situation to have got to that position.
The decision to have the company struck off is always published in the London Gazette and an outside interested party – such as a creditor – can apply to have the striking off procedure suspended. However, you have a time window of six months within which to file your objection to the striking off.

In many cases, striking off is initiated by the directors of a company when they have decided that they no longer want the company.

Had he submitted a return in 2013, it would have been plausible to consider that something had gone wrong in the business and at least he was attempting to fix it. But that is not what is happening here. What has happened is that he has not made a return at all for 2013. It is then, without much doubt, his intention to dissolve the company. If he achieves that without paying back his creditors (again we do not know anything about who these creditors may be) then he walks away with £81,000 in cash.

Now FINAL thing is this: David Icke and Sean ADL Tabatabai have pleaded with you for donations of £300K to set up their venture when, between them with their own companies, they have cash at the bank of approx £268,000. They had it then and they have it now and yet, now, they are asking you for an additional £400,000.

I’m sorry folks but what I am telling you are just facts. Pure unadulterated facts. Do and think as you wish.

You know what though? Call me crazy but I just have a sneaking suspicion that Icke, Sean and Sonia might all just kiss and make up. Then who do you think they would ALL turn on? It’s just a plausible hunch of course! 😉 Just not outwith the bounds of possibility that is all. Imagine the avalanche of support TPV would get if they pulled that off though eh? Think about it.


DEAR GOD! It just occurred to me what COULD very plausibly be happening here. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS BUT IT COULD BE, TOTALLY PLAUSIBLE AND NOTHING STOPPING IT.

The CREDITOR of MAGUS MEDIA ‘could” easily be TPV Limited or it could be “David Icke Books Ltd” or “Lion’s Epoch Ltd”. Sean then folds THIS particular company and walks away with the £80K cash and TPV are not going to say a word (or Icke) because that COULD exactly be what Icke wants and/or Tabatabai has simply transferred funds as a loan to Magus media from TPV. I am NOT saying that has happened but I AM saying it could so very simply be done. Why is it he did not submit an annual report this very year? Why is he now closing it down? All after the donation drive. 

Studio equipment was first £20K now it’s £142K??? There is NO clarity in this table whatsoever (and there was never meant to be). Office rent for 7 months (or even 4 months) £1200? More like £1200 PER month but I was told while I was AT TPV it was £1000 per month! £75K for direct wages when everyone you ever hear of says they don’t get paid. Except Richie recently but, trust me, that is a whole other story I can assure you. While I am positive I read somewhere that Sonia Poulton said she was getting £300 a month. I’m positive I saw that somewhere but perhaps I am wrong. If it were so though, how come Sonia £300 and Richie at least £1200 (at least).

Anyhow back to this bullshit in this table. The one thing that stands out like a giant sore thumb for now is the cost of studio equipment. I stated in a blog before TPV admitted it that they got the WHOLE LOT for £20K. They then admitted that. So where the HELL has another £120K gone? Let me now ask you this: Does £81,192 fit into £120K? Yes I do believe it does. Would the costs of a very expensive trip for a couple or handful of TPV people to California cost as much as £40K? Probably not (but you NEVER know) but even if not, the rest could be made up by “sundry items” of spend.

This STINKS! The stench is overwhelming now.

TPV financials


CORRECTION: The £81K cash in the bank for Magus was in there at end of August 2012. So the last comments above re transferring that figure do not apply. What STILL potentially applies however is that TPV Limited could act as a creditor to Magus. We will never know because he is closing shop. There COULD have been all sorts of transfers between Aug 2012 and now but there are NO ANNUAL RETURNS for 2013 to give us a view of that. Isn’t it good timing?

David Icke: Living it up in California!

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Media by earthling on January 8, 2014

Ok people, here is a VERY simple question for you:

Let’s say you had £100K in the bank. Let’s say it was in the HSBC for example.

Now let’s say you wanted to set up business in the US but you only had that £100K and you wished to look after it – it’s YOUR hard earned money after all right? With me so far?

But “DING!”, an idea comes to mind and you decide to launch a donation drive on Indiegogo and it raises £300K.  You quickly deposit that money into Barclay’s Bank. The even better thing is, obviously, it’s not YOUR money in the sense it has taken absolutely NO effort on your part to make that money. You just ASKED for it and “abracadabra” you got it! The universe brings to you that which you wish for – David Icke was right! Just have positive energy! Try it! 😉

So, now you have £400K and you think “Great, we can go to the US and have a whale of a time while trying to set things up!”. So you book the best hotels, have sumptuous meals and check out the bars. You spend, perhaps around £20K, perhaps more (but it doesn’t matter even if you spent £1, the issue is still the same).

Someone says “Hey, you’ve certainly lived it up while I cannot say whether it was the donation money you spent or not”.

You turn round and say “No, we didn’t spend the donation money! I can show you the credit card withdrawals coming from the HSBC bank account”.

Here’s the simple question: Does it make ANY difference which bank account the cash was withdrawn from when the fact is this: You wouldn’t have spent that much money from your own £100K IF it wasn’t for the fact you had reached the £300K goal of the donation drive would you?

That means that you HAVE in essence spent on the basis of receiving those donations.


Another way of looking at it (for those with logic impairments): If you had an income of £1000 a week and outgoings of £1000 a week, you’re pretty unlikely to spend, a non budgeted for, £5K on a holiday to Barbados are you?

Now, let’s say your father dies and leaves you £100K in his will that’s now in a savings account of yours. Would you consider the Barbados holiday then?

"Sean, if we keep this up with a donation drive every 6 months, we can do this as often as we wish!"

“Sean, if we keep this up with a donation drive every 6 months, we can do this as often as we wish!”


Devin JM Warnshuis

posted toSonia Poulton 56 minutes ago via Mobile

Hello Sonia. First I would like to thank you for the work that you have done. I was shocked to hear that you were leaving TPV yesterday when I saw the announcement posted both on your Facebook page and TPV page. However, I kind of sensed something was about to surface. Here is my story.

I met Sean and Deanna in Los Angeles in August of 2013. I have been a fan of David Icke’s research and was following TPV from its initial announcement. I donated money to the cause twice because I believed in it full-heartedly. Sean and Deanna were very personable, and I was excited to meet them and hopefully become involved with TPV. My partner befriended both of them on Facebook and later he noticed that they were staying in very high end hotels and expensive areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco. They were posting pictures of their escapades at bars and restaurants, etc. I remember wondering if this was being funded by the money I had donated to TPV along with many others. I also was surprised that they would choose such expensive places to stay. However, I do not know how all of this was paid for and it is certainly possible that the money donated to TPV was not used to fund this.

Fast forward to last week when I became aware of the telethon that was scheduled to raise more money for TPV since it was in danger of going off the air. I specifically read the article on the ActivistPost website where David was interviewed. The article was explaining TPV appeal for more funding and I remember thinking “what are they doing with they money?” I thought if they were spending the money on high end hotels and bars then it certainly does not budget matters. It also does not look good.

For the record, I have no proof that TPV funds were used inappropriately. However, it is very uncanny that my thoughts on this entire situation are shortly followed by the events of yesterday and today. Coincidence? Perhaps…

Sonia, if what you are saying is true I commend you for having the courage to go where others will not. I absolutely agree with you that the finances of TPV should be public. After all, it IS the PEOPLE’S voice…is it not?


David Icke: Once a footballer, now a jockey!

Posted in Media by earthling on January 7, 2014


He’s fleeced his sheep!


Infinite consciousness! Infinite love!

The departure of Sonia Poulton (and Icke’s criticism of her) proves: It’s infinite bullshit!

But remember, “when we open our mouths and criticise others, we’re really speaking about ourselves” – David Icke!


Just to make it clear, the sheep he is riding is called “CB” – short for David’s own Central Bank! 😉

The question is: Will he hit the finish line or is he finished?

No doubt he’ll survive (with a whole heap of less believers thank god) because there are others enabling him.

You can take that to the central bank!

You just had to be open and honest Davey Dyke! Lived up to your “name” and your preaching. But you didn’t because you couldn’t.

A private limited company owned by shares Davey!

No transparency Davey.

OFCOM Davey.

The list goes on and on. As does the plea for donations.

Donations for your legal fees a few years ago.

Donations for your legal fees during your divorce.

Donations for your website upkeep.


Giving you a free Broadcasting network (yes, free for you while your companies – “David Icke Books Ltd” and “Lion’s Epoch” Limited have £160K in cash in the bank and the equipt only cost £20K while you led your donators to believe that is what most of the £300K was for).

Now you’re asking for £400K and the idiots keep donating.

Once that Broadcasting network is funded and you’re really making waves, it’ll be worth a bob or two and you know it.

But your sheep don’t see it.

Word to David’s sheep: The “sheep” YOU speak of at least are not quite so stupid as to fund the setting up of a broadcast network for a guy that just clicks his fingers, says “I’m David Icke. truth sayer” and then he walks away with their money.

So before you EVER call someone a “sheep” Ickeans, look in the bloody mirror will you? 🙂


Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Law, Media by earthling on November 21, 2013





The Grand media chessboard: King replaced by Bishop. Now pay your “tithes” to the Bishop!

Company founded 17th May 2013.

Two Directors appointed 21st May 2013.

People's Voice 6

David Icke fans throw over £300K of donations at company in their trust of David Icke, the Director. Free money, just like Quantatitive Easing, on the recognition of a “trust” – for that is what it is. The trust formed being that between David Icke and the people – the latter believing he will use that money in their best interests to buy all the equipment necessary to launch a TV internet channel and offer them a voice.

TPV, then, is launched and the people ignore the fact that the equipment was bought for just £20K.

Meanwhile, a twat called “Earthling” contacts OFCOM because he can’t quite figure out how David Icke is telling his entire audience that no regulatory licence is needed when even he, Earthling – not involved in media at all – can see just with a quick 5 minutes spent on google, that any tv style programming, even broadcast over internet, requires a licence by OFCOM/AVMS.

Contact made with OFCOM

From: Earthling
Sent: 08 October 2013 14:55
To: TV Licensing
Subject: Content licensing

Dear sirs,

 I am trying to understand the following from your information on the Ofcom website. Can you please tell me if it is necessary to apply for a content license, or any license, from Ofcom if one intends to set up an internet based broadcasting service from the UK with live news channels and others on a 24/7 live broadcast basis?

In other words, does Ofcom regulate such broadcasting in any shape or form?

Thank you,

To: Earthling
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.

From: Earthling
Subject: RE: Content licensing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:01:09 +0000

Thank you.

 I assume, therefore, you are aware of the internet TV station due for launch on the 18th November by the name of “The People’s Voice”?

Can you please confirm that this channel, run by David Icke, has applied for and been granted such licensing? It is being run as a “not for profit” enterprise, so we are led to believe (if it is not licensed as such by the appropriate authority, I would consider this to be a fraudulent claim) and Mr Icke has consistently expressed that there is no need to come under the auspices of OFCOM since he is broadcasting over internet. I believe he is incorrect from what you have just replied and I don’t consider that Mr Icke would not already be fully aware of the need to apply and be granted such a license.

Please treat this as a Freedom of Information Act request regarding a promoted “Not for profit” organisation requiring licensing, like any other, from OFCOM.

I presume there is no difficulty in responding to such a request for information. After all, you have just expressly stated that such a undertaking as Mr Icke is taking, requires a content license. I simply wish to ensure that such has been applied for and accepted.

Thank you.

Ofcom’s reply:

Ofcom 1

From: Earthling
Sent: 24 October 2013 17:49
To: Julia Snape
Subject: RE: The Peoples Voice 1-245308060

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: Earthling

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’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?

393General 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—

(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,

RE: The Peoples Voice 1-245308060‏
Informatio​n Requests (
To: Earthling
Dear Earthling

Thank you for your further comments and questions regarding this matter. I will come back to you again in due course once we have considered the points you have made.

Kind regards


RE: The Peoples Voice 1-245308060‏

DAVID ICKE – The Queen,The BBC & The Royal Child Catcher To The Establishment

Published on 5 Dec 2012… Music “Jimmy Jangle” Braaayks Unskippable
Added on 07/03/2013
Hello Julia,

I am a little perplexed as to what may be causing such a delay in answering what I view as very simple, direct, to the point questions regarding general policy of OFCOM in regard to the issuance of licences.
I note, however, that OFCOM have, in fact, issued a licence to “The People’s Voice” within the last few days and that it shall be broadcasting from 25th November. Therefore, it would appear that OFCOM and the Secretary of State of the United Kingdom consider Mr David Icke a “fit and proper person” to broadcast to adults and children alike absolute contemptuous propaganda (some of which, no doubt, is based on facts but the driver behind it all being a man who is evangelising to the the British public and world at large that “Reptilian creatures from the constellation Draco are possessing the British Royal family and most of the political and banking class and causing them to, through a “Brotherhood” bloodline, ritually murder children after having paedophile relations with them and then drinking their blood to remain young”.
You (OFCOM and the secretary of state of the United Kingdom on behalf of the government of the United Kingdom) are stating to me that this is what you consider a “fit and proper person” to hold a broadcasting licence in this country? A man who slanders the British monarchy and many within the higher ranks of government, parliament, police, judiciary, banking and the list is never ending. He is being given a licence to spread this “knowledge” which is directly for the purposes of undermining the british public’s trust in the entire british establishment who control the issuance of such licences through legislation. A man who is deemed “fit and proper” perhaps because he has never been charged with a crime yet he evangelises to the public to “get off their arses” (his words) and “draw a line in the sand” and, effectively, is calling for revolution against the very establishment which is bestowing a licence upon him?
Please can OFCOM, and/or the Secretary of State, advise me whether you are serious? And I am not being flippant here, I am being absolutely serious in asking this question.
Mr Icke has created a Private Limited Company, protected by the Communications Act 2003 (as well as having to abide by its rules – which, in fact, he had no intention of doing because he had no intention of applying for licence yet, he has had many years experience in media, as you know and would have been quite aware of the requirements for such, internet broadcasting or not (after all, I did and I am not involved in such business yet it took me moments to recognise the need and a single email confirmed it) and is now to follow the guidelines and law applicable to such while, at the same time, he is broadcasting material which is advocating revolution against the very legislative body which provides him with such protection and licence.
There are a multitude of examples (they never end in fact) of Mr Icke slating the entire basis of British democracy and the history (up to present day) and the people who control such. He has even stated that his aim is to destroy the entire fabric of such control and he has an ever increasing number of followers who believe that his teachings (fundamentally spiritual/religious in nature) are factual. IF a teacher at an educational facility in this country were to teach what Mr Icke teaches his gullible audience, such a teacher would be sacked on the spot. Yet you are happy to provide this character with a BROADCASTING licence?
As for “fit and proper person”. You cannot “hide” behind the “Corporate person” fiction in this case because the Corporate person of “The People’s Voice” was not who picked up the phone or filled in the application for a licence and, therefore, without such a licence, that “Corporate person” would not be deemed to exist for its purpose. The “fit and proper person” has to be that of the natural person by the name of David Icke. It is that natural person who is a Director of David Icke books (which promulgates such teachings as above) and it is also David Icke who is the major Director (of two Directors) of “The People’s Voice”.
During the broadcast the station made live a few days ago, it was filled with the words of David Icke and also advertisements for his Wembley Arena show coming up in 2014 where he preaches to his audience his entire spiritual and highly political teachings.
To further make this point clear. From your own documents:

Determining who should hold the licence
52. Ofcom has published guidance about who we regard as the person who is the provider of a broadcasting (i.e. TV and radio) service and should therefore hold a broadcasting licence to provide the service. Generally, the provider of the service is the person who is in a position to determine what is to be included in the service or, in the words of the Communications Act 2003, the person “with general control over which programmes and other services and facilities are comprised in the service (whether or not he has control of the content of individual programmes or of the broadcasting or distribution of the service)”.

I understand for the Communications Act 2003 and the related passages of the 1990 Act that persons are disqualified from holding a licence who:
 Part II

Disqualification for Holding Licences

General disqualification of non-EEC nationals and bodies having political connections

1(1)Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the following persons are disqualified persons in relation to a licence granted by the Commission or the Authority:

(d)a body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature;

(e)a body affiliated to a body falling within paragraph (d);

(f)an individual who is an officer of a body falling within paragraph (d) or (e);


    a body corporate which is an associate of a body corporate falling within paragraph (d) or (e)

The above states quite clearly “of a political nature”. Politics is defined in the Oxford English dictionary as follows:


  • 1 [usually treated as singular] the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power:the party quickly gained influence in French politicsthereafter he dropped out of active politics
  •  the activities of governments concerning the political relations between states:in the conduct of global politics, economic status must be backed by military capacity
  •  the academic study of government and the state:[as modifier]:a politics lecturer
  •  a particular set of political beliefs or principles:people do not buy their paper purely for its politics
  •  (often the politics of) the principles relating to or inherent in a sphere or activity, especially when concerned with power and status:the politics of gender

Politics is not confined to purely political parties, as I am sure you are aware, but stretches across fundamental philosophy, belief systems, capitalism/communism etc and, also, subversive activities.
15. Applicants with religious objects are advised to allow approximately eight weeks for their application to be considered by Ofcom in the light of the Guidance for religious bodies applying for a Broadcasting Act licence ( guidance). Applicants should be aware that Ofcom is under a duty to ensure that it does not license bodies with objects which are of a wholly or mainly political nature, and will consider applications carefully in the light of its duties. Applications where questions arise in relation to this issue may take a number of months to consider.

And yet, where you state that such questions may arise leading to this issue taking a number of months to consider, you seem to have simply provided the licence to Mr Icke within a matter of a couple of weeks. I would have to seriously question OFCOM’s and the legislative body’s competence for due diligence in this regard. Otherwise, I have to simply deduce that the British establishment actually wish that Mr Icke and his “The People’s Voice” succeed in their subversive endeavours. It is either one of the two and I ask that you advise me which it is?
I have, below, provided direct quotes from Mr Icke’s book (only one of many on the same theme) “The biggest Secret” plus I have added a few youtube videos which clearly demonstrate Mr Icke’s politics, ambitions and teachings. In providing this to you, I am offering you the opportunity of carrying out further due diligence with respect to Mr Icke as a “fit and proper person” to hold such a licence and would request that you confirm that you have taken all of this onboard and that either: You still consider this man “fit and proper” or otherwise. If you do consider him “fit and proper” then please advise the Secretary of State that such teachings should form part of the educational curriculum in this country and, if not, I would ask why not? If it is suitable and acceptable for broadcast to the nation then it must be deemed fair and appropriate to discuss these matters and hold such beliefs. If so, then we live in an open and free democracy and, as such, teachers within our schools and other educational establishments, must, I assume, be free to impart such teachings for open discussion/debate with their students. If you do not see this as appropriate, then please state, logically, why this is the case.  (David Icke: British royal family and establishment murder children and drink their blood.)

From “The Biggest Secret”

“Advancing the Agenda becomes their indoctrinated mission from very early in their lives. By the time their turn comes to join the Brotherhood hierarchy and carry the baton into the next generation, their upbringing has moulded them into highly imbalanced people. They are intellectually very sharp, but with a compassion bypass and an arrogance that they have the right to rule the world and control the ignorant masses who they view as inferior. Any Brotherhood children who threaten to challenge or reject that mould are pushed aside or dealt with in other ways to ensure that only ‘safe’ people make it to the upper levels of the pyramid and the highly secret and advanced knowledge that is held there. Some of these bloodlines can be named. The British House of Windsor is one of them, so are the Rothschilds, the European royalty and aristocracy, the Rockefellers, and the rest of the so-called Eastern Establishment of the United States which produces the American presidents, business leaders, bankers and administrators. But at the very top, the cabal which controls the human race operates from the shadows outside the public domain. Any group which is so imbalanced as to covet the complete control of the planet will be warring within itself as different factions seek the ultimate control. This is certainly true of the Brotherhood. There is tremendous internal strife, conflict and competition. One researcher described them as a gang of bank robbers who all agree on the job, but then argue over how the spoils will be divided. That is an excellent description and through history different factions have gone to war with each other for dominance. In the end, however, they are united in their desire to see the plan implemented and at the key moments they overwhelmingly join forces to advance the Agenda when it comes under challenge.”

“As I revealed in I Am Me I Am Free, and will elaborate upon in this book, the Brotherhood hierarchy today are seriously into Satanic ritual, child sacrifice, blood drinking and other abominations that would take your breath away. Yes, I am talking about some of the biggest royal, political, business, banking and media names on the planet. People like Henry Kissinger, George Bush, the British royal family and many other presidents, prime ministers and members of royalty. Fantastic? Of course it is, but since when did the truth not sound fantastic in a world of such denial and illusion?”

“….as represented by the orthodox rabbis today, makes it a religious offence to save the life of a Gentile, unless there would be unpleasant consequences for Jews not doing so. The charging of interest on loans to a fellow Jew is banned, but by Talmudic law they must charge a Gentile as much interest as they possibly can. It is demanded that Jews must utter a curse every time they pass a Gentile cemetery and that when they pass a Gentile building they must ask God to destroy it. Jews are forbidden to defraud each other, but that law does not apply to the defrauding of Gentiles. Jewish prayers bless God for not making them Gentiles and others ask that Christians may perish immediately. A religious Jew must not drink from a bottle of wine if a Gentile has touched it since it was opened. The Jewish writer, Agnon, after being awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, said on Israeli radio: “I am not forgetting that it is forbidden to praise Gentiles, but here there is a special reason for doing so – that is, they awarded the prize to a Jew.”17 These are the laws of the belief system called ‘Jewish’ which is constantly complaining about, and condemning, racism against Jews! The very belief system is founded on the most extreme racism you will ever encounter.”

“Add to that the fact that the truth of what is going on is so bizarre that most people will not believe it and you have the perfect situation for ongoing, unchallenged control.

Until now.”

So he’s challenging the entire system – that is his MO and he is being given a licence to operate a broadcasting network BY that system?

“Another version is Lilibet or Elizabeth and this is why the present British Queen is called Elizabeth (El-lizard-birth) and was known to her family circle as Lilibet. She is a major reptilian gene carrier who produced a major reptilian full-blood called Prince Charles. Both are shape-shifting reptilians, a fact that will be supported by later evidence. So is the Queen Mother, formerly Elizabeth (El-lizard-birth) Bowes-Lyon.”

A FACT, he says. No suggestion. A fact! 

“Sir Winston’s daughter-in-law, Pamela, married the American, Averell Harriman, one of the great Brotherhood manipulators of the 20th century and much documented in .. And The Truth Shall Set You Free. Pamela Harriman, who had formerly been married to Winston’s son, Randolph, became very influential in the American Democratic Party and is widely named as the force behind Bill Clinton’s election as US president. She was rewarded by being made US ambassador to the key Brotherhood city of Paris, where she died in 1997 at the age of 76. Her son, also named Winston, is a British member of Parliament who is close to the Rothschilds. Pamela Churchill-Harriman dated Elie de Rothschild before marrying Averell Harriman. In 1995 the Churchill family were given £12,500 million of National Lottery money when they sold some of Sir Winston Churchill’s Second World War speeches to ‘the nation’. The speeches were purchased with this public money by the National Heritage Memorial Board, chaired by… Lord Jacob Rothschild. Just a coincidence, nothing to worry about. The Churchill-Harrimans are bloodline families. One of Pamela Harriman’s ancestors conspired with the Percy family, ancestors of George Bush, in the attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament in the so-called Gun Powder Plot led by Guy Fawkes on November 5th 1605. As a Harriman, Pamela represented the ‘Democratic’ wing of the Brotherhood while the Bush’s, close associates and business partners of the Harrimans, represent the ‘Republican’ wing. Both have answered to the same master to ensure that the United States, like every other country, is a one-party-state. The Bush family are close friends of the Windsors, which shouldn’t surprise anyone who has read this far because both are shape-shifting reptilians. Bush and his associate, the Brotherhood’s tireless global manipulator, Henry Kissinger, have both been knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.”

“This is why I keep saying that London is the centre of the operational level of the Brotherhood. Even greater power lies elsewhere, some of it in the Vatican, and, ultimately, I think, on the physical level, somewhere under the ground in Tibet and Asia. The people of America have been bled dry by this scam and continue to be so. Land of the Free? What a joke! And, people of America, your presidents and leading government officials know this. In turn, it must be stressed, the King John agreement with the Pope presumably gave away the sovereignty of England, also. And who controlled King John? The Templars did.

When you know what you are looking for, the truth is in your face. I said that the Virginia Company and King James I decreed that criminal courts in the colonies would be controlled by Admiralty Law, the law of the sea. What Admiralty were they talking about? The British Admiralty, of course. When a court is being run under Admiralty or maritime law, the flag in the court has to have a gold fringe around it. Look in any criminal court in the United States or the united states and you will see it has a gold fringe. The same with many other official buildings. Those ‘American’ criminal courts are being run under BRITISH admiralty law. The Crown and the Brotherhood families of Britain also control the American criminal courts and the core of that control is with the secret societies based in Temple Bar in London, the former Templar lands, the centre of the British legal profession. The Grand Lodge of English Freemasonry is in Great Queen (Isis/Semiramis) Street in London and has controlled most Freemasonry across the globe since it was formed in 1717. Through this, the British reptile-Aryans control the American judges, lawyers, police, and so on, and through other organisations, like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, they manipulate the American political system. The American judges are fully aware that their courtrooms are controlled by British Admiralty Law, but they keep quiet and take the money. The Rockefeller family are the bloodline branch managers in America for the London headquarters and it is the Rockefellers who, quite provably, decide who is going to be President. In other words, the London Elite decide. The Queen of England, Prince Philip and the main members of the British royal family all know this and are helping to orchestrate it. Who is the Grand Master of the English Mother Lodge of Freemasonry? The Queen’s cousin, the Duke of Kent.”

Slandering George Bush (Snr) as a paedophile and a drug launderer. Icke has not been convicted of such slander but, nevertheless, he states it (while he also stated to me, directly, in the People’s Voice studios, that William Hague was also “into children” though he has never put this in print…..
“Control of the media
The names Rothschild, Rockefeller, Kissinger and Carrington appear on the boards and ‘advisory’ boards of global media corporations and that’s no surprise. To control humanity through the mind and emotions you simply have to control the media. Without that it’s impossible. This is made so much easier because the overwhelming majority of journalists in the world, including the so-called ‘big names’ in each country, are either agents for the Brotherhood (the small minority) or they don’t know their arse from their elbow when it comes to understanding what is going on in the world. I’ve been a journalist and so I have seen both sides and what is termed the communications industry is really the blind (journalists) leading the blind (their readers and viewers). My experience as a journalist, and as the target of journalists, has shown me very clearly how remarkably few brain cells you need to do the job. Every day on television stations all over the world, journalists and correspondents give their viewers the official version of the event they are reporting. “White House sources say this…, the Prime Minister says that…, the FBI say the other… “In all my time in journalism I cannot recall a single conversation in a newsroom that didn’t reflect the official version of life and the world. Most journalists are not manipulating, they are simply stunningly uninformed and often incredibly arrogant. They believe that if anything of magnitude was going on they would know about it because they are ‘journalists’. In truth they are the last to know. Arrogance and naivete, the mental combination that produces so many journalists, is a telling and highly destructive combination. Add a padlocked mind and you’ve got the job. One BBC interviewer said to me in all seriousness that we should be no more concerned about the membership of the Freemasons than we should the membership of the local squash club. I’m not kidding. I have given many journalists the story of what is going on and they have either dismissed it without even looking at the evidence or they have ridiculed the information without looking at the evidence. I remember meeting a guy, I think his name was Taylor or something, in Los Angeles in early 1997. He worked for The Observer newspaper in London. I told him about the paedophile activities of George Bush and his drug running operation. I offered to put him in touch with some of those who had been abused by Bush. What did this ‘journalist’ do? He went away and wrote an article making personal attacks on me, including the fact that my eyes appeared bloodshot.”This is the sort of content that OFCOM are condoning. It is not that it shall ever be broadcast so openly and directly on the network by ANY of the employees BUT it is David Icke’s work through his books (which he is advertising and promoting on the network and the network is also his vehicle for “self promotion”) which his audience fully appreciates and buys into. His audience is literally buying the station for him (if David Icke is to be believed) through donations because of their belief in his teachings. OFCOM, therefore, are giving such a voice complete approval as a “fit and proper person”. You are, therefore, allowing this man to materially and financially gain (including his “The People’s Voice” employees) by advertising his books on such a broadcast network. You are not only allowing the broadcasting of subversive politics but also the evangelisation of what is essentially, a quasi religion.
OFCOM withdrew Press TV’s licence (for obvious reasons) plus OFCOM will either fine or withdraw the licence/ban any and all advertisements for products which are misleading in content and yet, you are allowing a person who promulgates the view that the British royal family are reptilian, shape shifters and part of a brotherhood of pedophiles and child murderers and you do not view these teachings and the asking of donations for a channel entirely controlled by this man, as “misleading”?

I am sorry but you have GOT to be kidding me!
An attempt to undermine the British monarchy and its government is quite factually, as per current legislation, TREASON. Yet you, acting as the British establishment’s regulatory authority and report to the Secretary of State for Culture, Sport and Media, are providing a platform for this man under the Communications Act 2003.


Finally, let me be clear that I, personally, am aware and in agreement with much of what David Icke states regarding the actual facts and workings of the political and financial system. However, this man, through his own words and teachings is exceptionally dangerous in what he is trying to achieve and by which methods and beliefs.
Either OFCOM recognise the dangerous subversive (and substantial misleadings) of David Icke and reconsider this application for a licence you have already provided or you are clearly stating that you are supportive of the aims of David Icke.

I would like to know which.

I look forward to your imminent reply on the questions put to you in my previous email and would also wish to hear (even at a later date) your reply to this regarding the decision that David Icke is a “fit and proper person” to hold a UK broadcasting licence.





What happened on the 23rd October 2013, just 5 months and 6 days into his Directorship? It would appear (I say appear and it is fact ON PAPER) that David Icke got sacked or resigned his position. What an interesting (and unexpected?) turn of events. Now WHY would the leading man, whom you all trust with your money, resign his position as Director and leaving Sean Tabatabai (the “Bishop”) as the ONLY remaining Director of “The People’s Voice Broadcasting Ltd” company?

Icke terminated Icke retired

Now, once more, check out the timing. It is precisely around the time David Icke states that contact was made with Ofcom and that fits precisely with the timing of my communications (thus far) with them. Oh I KNOW my communications with Ofcom created a stir because I have the words of Sonia Poulton, sent to me in confidence, to prove it. You have a very kind turn of phrase Ms Poulton you “old hag” (I’m simply repaying your “compliments” dear within a similar mould. It would generally not be a level I would stoop to but having read your comments, I see it is a level you do – wonderfully “enlightened” you are then and full of “love and light” for your fellow humans UNLESS they have questions that is right? They can and should question anyone and everyone except you it would seem – then the “claws” come out ;-)).

Two possible reasons:

1. OFCOM read their own regulations and recognised that they could not provide a Broadcast licence to THE PEOPLE’S VOICE BROADCASTING LIMITED with David Icke being the Director. The decision would not hold up to scrutiny given Icke’s political motivations (read the regulations and those who are disqualified from holding a licence).

2. The conflict of interest issue I wrote about in “David Icke: Sold to the highest buddha”.

However, no matter which (and it could be both) there are many questions surrounding this “chess move” by Icke and they are questions you should be VERY concerned about unless you simply have blind faith in the man. However, even having blind faith in the man, you STILL have a problem: David Icke is now NOT “the man” (at least on paper). It is not David Icke you are now sending your donations to -if you are and he is sending them on via his “David Icke Books Ltd” then that, in itself, is a legal issue. However, whatever is happening, the fact is that you are now sending your money to ONE MAN. A man called Sean ADL Tabatabai. The question is: Do you know him? Do you know ANYTHING about this guy (except that he works for David Icke). You were sending money to David Icke and now you’re not. David Icke is now a “volunteer” (haha) just like anyone else with the exception of the inner core.

So what the hell is going on eh? 😉 There is now ONE Director of THE PEOPLE’S VOICE and it’s Sean Tabatabai.

Yet do you think for ONE MOMENT that David Icke has seriously left the control of this entire enterprise to Sean Tabatabai? What is he? David Icke’s illegitimate son? Or is he something even darker than that? He’s a 31 year old guy – in my view not that bright but that’s just my impression – but he has something on a 60 odd yr old guy. Could a 31 yr old lad be a “handler” for David icke? Does David Icke NEED a “handler”?

Or is there another interested party in TPV which actually does have the total control over it? I wrote before about there being another couple of “People’s Voice” companies started within a month of your beloved one.

Now, it is possible that, to get the licence, Icke has resigned his Directorship and shall simply be re-instated once all the hoohah calms down. Yes that can be done. TPV can employ anyone they wish as a Director – it’s just at the point of application, if the main Director is a person who is deemed “not fit and proper” then that person (and TPV therefore) would not be given a licence.

Now do you think for one second that OFCOM wouldn’t know what was going on when they saw David Icke terminate himself and yet the company STILL apply for the licence? Do you think for one second they would not be aware that David icke would STILL be the driving force behind it?

Then think of David and his “Fight the system” shit. Doing what he has done is, once more, showing you he isn’t in the least bit interested in fighting the system. He’s dodging it WITH YOUR HELP! So where is he sticking his neck out? Nowhere! He’s a fucking fraud!

Meanwhile, I’ll republish the Sean Tabatabai info from a previous blog just for the sake of those who may not have read it:

Sean Tabatabai link to globalist operations.

So who’s the guy with the strange name (with “ADL” in the middle of it? A strange quirk considering isn’t it? Not that I’m suggesting anything I just found it funny for obvious reasons).

Well Sean is a Producer – as stated – and is also Icke’s “David” webmaster as well as his trusted partner in this venture. But he has strange connections. Now, anyone else with 47 connections on their LinkedIn profile, 2 of which (the most from one organisation) being the BBC, PLUS connections with “Newstate Partners LLP” (look them up) and “EF Education First (first for what? Conditioning students into a globalist mindset AND which has trips to Nazi Concentration Camps in Germany just to keep the holocaust in mind no doubt) would have ANY ONE OF YOU think “Ahah!!” if it were anyone else but the partner of David Icke but, since it is the partner of David Icke then “there must be some simple sort of explanation (which, you can be assured, there will be I’m sure).

Newstate Partners

Their roots with S.G. Warburg indeed while they advise governments and Central Banks on debt management etc. Yeah, he probably just does their websites too right? Plus the BBC’s, plus EF Education First – ALL globalist organisations. Sure the guy just has to make a living right?

EF Education First

Sean's network

Each of the circles on the outer ring represents one of his connections. This is where, if you hover over them on his LinkedIn page you find, amongst others, Newstate and EF. The large circle in the middle represents his largest number of connections with one organisation and that is only 2, both with the BBC.

Sure, if Icke has a LinkedIn he might even have a couple of people as connections from the BBC – who knows? – after all he used to work for them (Wogan might even be one of them! ;-) ) but Tabatabai having connections with them AND the other two is just a LITTLE teeny weeny bit strange. However, I’m sure you don’t think so so by all means carry on believing.

The words of an "enlightened" man. Rather misogynist but I'm sure Icke's female fans will forgive him. After all, it's only a joke right? Fish and slags. :-)

The words of an “enlightened” man. Rather misogynist but I’m sure Icke’s female fans will forgive him. After all, it’s only a joke right? Fish and slags. 🙂

Another nice little tweet from the "enlightened" Sean Tabatabai

Another nice little tweet from the “enlightened” Sean Tabatabai

Sean mod1Sean mod2

Now the following makes sense. Deanna Amato wanting ALL communications cc’d. Watch out People’s Voice workers, your calls and your emails are being monitored. You can take that to the bank!

  • UK Advertising Team‏

To see messages related to this one, group messages by conversation.
deanna (


To: aaron.calland@

<div “”=””>Cc: miranda.woodgate@, djkennedy@, mark, sylviachen, sally.singer@, kellykpr@, stacey@,,

Outlook Active View
3 attachments (total 2012.8 KB)
Download TPV program schedule 24-9-13.xlsx (158.1 KB)
TPV program schedule 24-9-13.xlsx
View online
Download The People's Voice Sponsor Deck.pdf (1812.9 KB)
The People’s Voice Sponsor Deck.pdf
View online
Download PROGRAMMES TO SORT TECHNICALLY 2 (1).docx (41.7 KB)
View online
Hi Aaron, Miranda, Dan, Mark, Sylvia and Sally…
Welcome aboard The People’s Voice – UK  Advertising Team!
David, Sean and I are very grateful for your contribution to this project.
It was discussed at yesterdays meeting that Aaron would co-ordinate this team, however, this is (as David states) not a dictatorship, so you are all welcome to offer suggestions and use initiative where appropriate, please work as an effective team – communication being the key, please keep me and the UK sponsorship team CC’d in emails we alI know what’s going on to date..
I would also suggest the following –
Aaron could send you all, the advertising package he has created,  that can be discussed as a group in a skype meeting.
The directory/list of ethical companies that has been initiated by Aaron could be uploaded into google docs allowing us all access-  to contribute companies we suggest and/or have contacted
You are all welcome to access the emails at
password : Eepp5CPj
Each of you will be given an email address with your name @ the peoples voice .tv as we are moving over to a new email server.
These inboxes listed above will become redundant so some or all of you (that are a lot more tech savvy than i am) may want to download the emails onto your OUTLOOK before this
All the leads/companies/contacts in the inboxes could be input into the directory spreadsheet that Aaron can upload to google docs?
I am also CC’ing as a FYI to Sean (director/business partner to David Icke) Kelly & Stacey (our US Advertising/Sponsorship/PR team) Simon Ludgate (head of production) – please note : anyone I may have missed who would like to be part of the UK team – details can be sent to Aaron to be brought onboard and up to speed 🙂
Attached are the following documents:
– draft of the program descriptions
– draft of the program schedule to pencil in program specific advertisers
– TPV sponsor deck in USD, GBP and EURO
Below are the details for the sales/advertising team in the UK – Name, Email, Skype and Phone contact :
{List removed for privacy}
If I have missed anything / left any details out, please let me know!
Thank you again for your passion, energy and willingness to contribute your time to make this project a sustainable alternative media outlet for the entire planet – on behalf of David and the entire TPV team – we cannot express how grateful we are that you are all on board!!!! It was lovely meeting you all – Sally, we look forward to meeting you too and showing you around the office. Until then, I send you all infinite love and hope you can all organise amongst yourselves to work remotely and make this a huge success!!!!
Deanna Amato
Executive director of operations (and seamstress. The former sounds much better however. )
The People’s Voice



New World media




David Icke’s Corporate sponsors

Posted in Gross stupidity within society, Uncategorized by earthling on July 7, 2013

Re-publishing this article because it was written PRIOR to my applying to TPV. I have already explained why I did and my change of heart (not so much a change of heart but thinking “I need to give these guys the benefit of the doubt”). So I did and guess what? I found I shouldn’t have! lol

Always go with your gut instinct. I MUST remember that. But the real interesting stuff here is Tabatabai’s connections. Globalist ones which you will see clearly IF you research them.

Following on from my blog entitled: David Icke: “A Central bank of his own” (

Icke does it again! He takes yet another step which demonstrates this is about a business venture; a media empire?; Icke’s voice not yours.

Time and again, we hear the words of politicians and bankers – they sound “good” some of the time and well justified. They say “Obamacare will provide healthcare for every family” without explaining the massive cost of doing so and the inability for you to opt out while the Congress and Senate do not have “Obamacare”. We hear him say “I won’t sign the NDAA” and he does. We hear “I will close Guantanamo” and he doesn’t. We hear “The Bush administration must stay within the law rather than illegally wiretap” and VOILA! NSA and Obama knew all about it. We hear him say “This will be the most transparent Whitehouse ever” and then journalists are targeted as are whistleblowers.

So what’s that got to do with Mr Icke? After all, I wrote the previous blog and some of the reactions of Icke’s followers were as entirely expected while some were hilarious in their naivety and gullibility. Well, Mr Icke is telling you one thing while he gets £300,000 from you to start up his venture (again, HIS not YOURS – he’s not giving YOU an interest whatsoever in it EXCEPT that he’s going to give you “the truth” – HIS truth. And of course, his followers will accept it as the truth because, to do otherwise, would have them have to admit that where they have spoken to friends, neighbours and family and invested so much of themselves into what he says – a lot of it, I admit, is fact but just enough of it is total utter bullshit and helps no-one even if it were fact! – they would lose face AND, don’t forget, they would then have to “opt out” of the “Icke gang”. People HAVE to have and be a member of SOME “gang” or other otherwise they feel lost. YET, Icke fans will say “think for yourselves”. I gotta laugh – if a lot of them thought for themselves their heads would explode!). That thing being that this is “your voice”, the “People’s Voice”. To a great extent it may well be BUT that’s just like the political parties who ask for their donations from THEIR “sheep”. Icke now has formally got himself “Icke lambs” (to the slaughter). These political donations to parties – do the parties then truly speak for the people who donate (the little guy who’s a member?) or do they speak for the large donors and the corporate donors?

Ask yourself that question then give yourself the answer which you know full well!

So you’ve donated to Mr Icke while he asks for £50 for a t-shirt and THEN – wait for it! – if you actually do wish for YOUR voice to be heard on his channel (NOT yours) then he’s only asking for £10,000 from you for a one half hour slot! You can learn to play guitar with a teacher for £10 per 1/2hour slot! Imagine giving a guitar teacher £10K for lessons. It would last you and he’d teach you until you surpassed Jimi Hendrix or Eddie Van Halen for christ’s sakes!

Anyhow, you’ve donated and get N O T H I N G except the pleasure of watching and listening to what Mr Icke decides to broadcast and you think “Hey! My 10 pence contributed to that!” YOU ASSHOLE! But don’t worry there are a hell of a lot of you so you’re in good company – part of the gang as I said. After all you’re “awake” (in your dreams!). Like George Carlin once said: “It’s called the American dream because you’ve got to be asleep to believe it”. Well with Icke it’s “If you don’t believe it or me then you’re not awake”. Sure most of you sense or can see all that is wrong in the world but that doesn’t mean you have any concept of being used like an evangelist uses his followers in their “church” where they donate and the evangelist walks away rich as hell and you are left with false hopes.

So, before I wrote my last blog on this, Mr Icke hadn’t mentioned a word about the donation v investment issue. Then he did. I don’t propose it was due to my blog on the subject BUT the timing was immaculate. This is the video he produced to “justify” what he was doing:

He has, since, gone on to accept Indiegogo’s suggestion/offer of another 10 days of “Crowdsourcing” funding for the TV channel venture.

BUT NOW, he’s taken a further step which shows his hand. Now I repeat – THIS IS A GUY THAT, UP UNTIL NOW, I PRETTY MUCH TRUSTED AS BEING ON THE LEVEL (with, perhaps, a few reservations but nothing like the reservations I have now) – I even shook his hand at Bilderberg 2013. However, I am quite simply stating this: David Icke and Alex Jones – whether or not they fully realise it – are doing a “job” for the globalists who are trying to turn this world on its head. The globalist want fear, they also want to show you the corruption and they want to create chaos and have you all in a mental state of confusion and an ignorantly based belief system that “capitalism is bad” or even “socialism” or any ism is bad. The fact is yes, they all are BUT this creation of chaos and the opening of “Pandora’s Box” showing the world how corrupt the present system is and our political leaders are is part of the globalist agenda! You even KNOW this when you read and take in what you read of their own documents PLUS if you read the protocols. They want the destruction of the present political system! I’m not saying it shouldn’t be destroyed, I am just concerned (for good reason) that the populations of the world are not going to be able to arrive at a populist solution but simply take what is offered to them!


But what they ARE doing is profiting from your misery just as the politicians and bankers are doing, From your misery, your ignorance and your gullibility!

Oh you’re NOT gullible?

How, then, is it that you are not demanding what Icke is offering to CORPORATES – Sponsorship deals! Now I’m sure that he said he didn’t want “Investors”. Didn’t he say that? I’m sure he did! But, once more, you Ickians will justify and excuse (the exact same behaviour you despise from those still not “awake” and supporting Obama or a political party or an “ism”).

“Sponsorship doesn’t mean Investor” I hear some (or most) of you say. Like the guy who turned to me and said “He’s asking for donations not investment” not recognising what a bloody stupid, obvious thing to say considering my point in the last blog was that he was asking for donations because he did not wish to give you an investment in HIS business!

So let’s look more closely at what Sponsorship means:

Corporate sponsorship can take many forms, but generally involves a company or organisation attaching its name to a charity, event, or other promotion in exchange for providing funds or paying a sponsorship fee. Corporate sponsorship is an effective means of advertising for many organisations, because it promotes goodwill. Companies are more likely to spend large amounts of money sponsoring highly publicised events due to the amount of publicity that can be generated and the opportunity to be affiliated with a good cause or popular event.

Typically a director of development from a charitable organisation initiates the contact. They begin by approaching marketing directors of different companies to solicit funding. Rather than solicit straight donations, the charity makes the offer sweeter for the company by offering sponsorship opportunities in exchange for monetary donations. The company is more likely to donate money to a charitable cause when they have the ability to gain publicity as a result.

The specific terms of the agreement are then outlined in a written contract. For example, a company is sponsoring a charity golf tournament. The terms of the agreement state that the company’s name and logo will be used on all marketing and promotional materials leading up to and on the day of the event. The company will be credited as the headline sponsor for the event in all radio and television advertising leading up to the event, and the company’s logo will appear on event T-shirts.

The company making the donation typically becomes actively involved in the charity after the relationship has been established. For example, the president or other representative of the sponsoring company may sit on the board of directors for the charitable organisation, or a representative from the sponsoring company takes an active role in helping to plan and organise the charitable event.

Now, whether or not those sponsors actually get a say or a chair on the board, the point is that Icke is going to have to keep the message(s) on the “People’s Voice” in line with the wishes of his Corporate Sponsors OR he isn’t going to get any. Not only that but these sponsors actually get something of value to them out of donating (in this case it IS an investment for them and David is quite happy to allow an investment – “but with no financial return to them you understand right?” ;-)) whereas you’re not even being offered anything of value for YOUR donation! (Except that naive belief that he’s going to be YOUR voice! LOL).

So, once more, Icke creates money out of nothing for himself (The effective “Quantitative Easing” by creating hundreds of thousands of pounds from the many’s small donations) and then he’s inviting the sponsors in – the advertisers – but no matter how much money he gets it will ALL be ploughed back into the station (let’s ignore that the “Directors” and staff – essentially Icke and his family and friends – will receive probably pretty good salaries out of this venture and as the sponsorship deals come through and advertising, so the salaries will increase. So “no profit” just damned nice salaries! 😉

But David’s going to work for free. Yes SURE he is. He won’t take a salary – of COURSE not – he’ll take a 6 monthly or yearly dividend. YOU don’t need to know that do you?

Now, here is the Company vehicle for “The People’s Voice”:

People's voice Directors

People’s voice Directors

So who’s the guy with the strange name (with “ADL” in the middle of it? A strange quirk considering isn’t it? Not that I’m suggesting anything I just found it funny for obvious reasons).

Well Sean is a Producer – as stated – and is also Icke’s “David” webmaster as well as his trusted partner in this venture. But he has strange connections. Now, anyone else with 47 connections on their LinkedIn profile, 2 of which (the most from one organisation) being the BBC, PLUS connections with “Newstate Partners LLP” (look them up) and “EF Education First (first for what? Conditioning students into a globalist mindset AND which has trips to Nazi Concentration Camps in Germany just to keep the holocaust in mind no doubt) would have ANY ONE OF YOU think “Ahah!!” if it were anyone else but the partner of David Icke but, since it is the partner of David Icke then “there must be some simple sort of explanation (which, you can be assured, there will be I’m sure).

Newstate Partners

Their roots with S.G. Warburg indeed while they advise governments and Central Banks on debt management etc. Yeah, he probably just does their websites too right? Plus the BBC’s, plus EF Education First – ALL globalist organisations. Sure the guy just has to make a living right?

EF Education First

EF Education First

Sean's network

Each of the circles on the outer ring represents one of his connections. This is where, if you hover over them on his LinkedIn page you find, amongst others, Newstate and EF. The large circle in the middle represents his largest number of connections with one organisation and that is only 2, both with the BBC.

Sure, if Icke has a LinkedIn he might even have a couple of people as connections from the BBC – who knows? – after all he used to work for them (Wogan might even be one of them! ;-)) but Tabatabai having connections with them AND the other two is just a LITTLE teeny weeny bit strange. However, I’m sure you don’t think so so by all means carry on believing.

Why do I write these blogs about Icke these days? Because, to me, he’s now transparent. I’m not saying he’s a bad dude but I despise the way he’s actually treating you, his audience. If you enjoy being treated in such a way then more power to your elbow.

Personally, however, I don’t think you’re NEARLY awake. Just naive and FAR too trusting and gullible.