DAVID ICKE: TPV (THE DIRECTOR’S “CUT”)
MAN CREATES CORPORATE PERSON.
MAN BECOMES DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE PERSON.
MAN TERMINATES HIS DIRECTORSHIP OF CORPORATE (LEGAL FICTION) PERSON.
THIS IS TPV – THE DIRECTOR’S CUT!
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.
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,
From: TV.Licensing@ofcom.org.uk
To: Earthling
Subject: RE: Content licensing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:29:12 +0000
Yes.
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.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/guidance_notes_and_apps/
From: Earthling
To: tv.licensing@ofcom.org.uk
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:
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:
Subject: RE: Content licensing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:29:12 +0000
Yes.
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.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/guidance_notes_and_apps/
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,
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
Julia
|
Published on 5 Dec 2012 http://www.davidicke.com http://www.davidicke.com/articles/chi… Music “Jimmy Jangle” Braaayks Unskippable
00:09:13
Added on 07/03/2013
1,076 views
|
 |
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)”.
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:
noun
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 (http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/other-issues/religious- 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.
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.”
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!
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.
Regards,
OFCOM ARE DRAGGING THEIR FEET REGARDING THEIR REPLY TO THIS.
MEANWHILE:
BACK TO THE DIRECTOR’S CUT
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?
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 Icke.com” 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).
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?
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. 🙂
Another nice little tweet from the “enlightened” Sean Tabatabai
http://www.infiniteloveforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=2964
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
<div “”=””>Cc: miranda.woodgate@, djkennedy@, mark, sylviachen, sally.singer@, kellykpr@, stacey@, sean@thepeoplesvoice.tv, simon@simonludgate.com
ENLIGHTENMENT INDEED!
David Icke: And the little question about approximately £270K of profit from donations.
My humblest apologies to all of you Icke fans out there in never never land. I was wrong! So wrong! What can I say? Except this…….
In my blog “David Icke: The turd in the punchbowl” I offered you information (correct information) as to the costs associated with setting up what David was setting up. I pointed you to his own words regarding the costs and the quality of such equipment and, as he said, the £100K (then £300K) would be just enough to get TPV on air. I stated that this was rubbish, impossible (and David Icke did say he was “performing miracles” after all) and my calculations (again, still valid) regarding ALL of the costs to do what he was stating was being done, suggested that he could never achieve it and have change out of a couple of £million.
ALL of the above is correct and, if you have read the blog entitled “David Icke: The turd in the punchbowl” you will realise it is so. I provide detail on the costs of equipment and rental of premises plus telecom utilities (although the telecom utilities are variable but, to chi eve what he had suggested using fibre optics and, therefore, substantial leased lines to bring the highest quality broadcasts would be in excess of the example I gave). One needs to further consider the costs of other utilities such as heating, lighting, power for all equipment – costs of which are significant in such a case. All of these ongoing costs would need be taken as, at the very least, an annual contract. He could NOT say to a telecom provider for instance: “We’ll take a leased line for a month and continue month to month and see how the donations go”. Same applies to the rental on the premises and all other utilities.
However, ignoring that for the moment because to get the channel launched with the £300K, he stated quite clearly that the money would be spent primarily on the substantial cost of equipment needed (even though, as I have just said, £300K would not even cover 5 of the “top range” broadcast cameras he told you he would purchase. But ok, let’s assume he got a good deal and managed it all within £300K. What would be left to ensure, as he added, the critical personnel such as Simon Ludgate, Sean Tabatabai (very strange relationship there which I intend to cover again at some point), Sonia Poulton plus a handful of others. If you believe these people are working for nothing well, in David’s words, I’ve got a nice two bed seafront bungalow in Birmingham if you’re interested?
Consider this:
Simon Ludgate’s IMDB profile –
Now, am I saying Simon SHOULD work for nothing? NO not at all! Neither should Sonia nor any of the others (including the abused volunteers even though they love being abused). How can someone possibly work for nothing if it is their career? Come on people, at least be a little more “awake” please!
Here’s Simon. Nice big bright smile for the camera (although seeing him in the studio once or twice, I couldn’t recognise that smile at all – I wonder if it was already the “Icke effect”? Probably not. After all everyone smiles for a publicity shot right? :-))
Now, if you happened to view my video regarding Icke’s noncompliant compliance in an earlier blog, you may have noticed this pic of Ludgate and the following article being connected without stating exactly what that connection was.
Note the date of the article.
Note that the TPV Limited Company was “born” during late May of this year.
Note the premises for TPV weren’t acquired until approx the July/August time if you remember. Therefore, at most, the cost of having those premises plus the little utilities needed through to this month (November) would be, at the very most say £7000.
Note the amount required by the donation drive: £300K. Subtract £7000 and you arrive at £293K.
So, they bought all of that equipment with, at the most, £293K? So you still feel you got your money’s worth right? Although, as I said, correctly, there is no way it all could have been bought for £300K EVEN WITH a very good deal.
BUT I ADMIT I WAS WRONG DON’T I? ALWAYS be willing to admit when you’re wrong!
How was I wrong? Well, a TPV insider (who wishes to remain anonymous, for which I apologise but I keep my word when asked) has advised me of the following:
“Ok you can mention the £20k Teddington equipment. It was my understanding from Deanna the original quote to buy was £30,000 however Simon Ludgate negotiated down to £20,000 for all the equipment, including the cameras in the studio. The desks and pc monitors were thrown in to the deal as Teddington studio’s were clearing out and desk’s etc would have been thrown in skips, so TPV simply loaded them up.”
“It’s possible Deanna has a working visa, but I don’t know that, didn’t ever ask her. What I do know if she’s a seamstress and by default not done any work since June at least, so she must be getting paid by TPV to survive. She’s living in the apartment in Islington that was rented originally for Matt Smith and his people, so that won’t be coming cheap. Before that she was living in Camden. I believe she’s been in Hawaii the past 2 weeks, that was her plan at the end September. Not cheap to go to Hawaii …!”
Nice apartment guys!
Now, Deanna Amato is a seamstress in Australia. Yes, a seamstress. She’s been in the UK since June this year so not making an income from her seamstress activities then. So where’s the income coming from? And here’s a question: Does she have a working visa or a vacation visa? Is she paying taxes? If so, where? Or is the money being sent to Hawaii? 😉
“Another Australian, a presenter doing a show called ‘Wakey, Wakey’ called Ellisa Hawke is definately on a holiday passport from July as I have met her, had lunch with her and she cannot officially earn any money from TPV with the passport she has. Regardless, David Icke has employed her, but I don’t know if she’s being paid or not (cash in hand?).
There are many many volunteers, all doing unpaid work, and in my view the venture cannot survive on people’s good will only. It’s clear there are certain individuals being paid though.
Your blog from October resonated with me as I had so many similar experiences with Deanna and TPV.”
” I do believe there is alot happening behind the scenes that would possibly ‘kill’ the TPV venture dead if people knew. “
Well now they do! At least some of it. There’s some which is not for publication at the moment but would you believe racism? And David Icke did NOTHING about it! Once more he chose to protect his favourites within the inner sanctum of Ickeland.
Oh and I meant to add: I, personally met Matt Smith while at the studios one day. He had his father, his sister and one other over with him. He was meant to be heading up the L.A. studio. We chatted and we seemed to get along. So much so, he asked me if I’d like to work with him on some of his programmes. “Sure!” I said. A very strange look and reaction came across from Sean Tabatabai at that point and he said to Matt “Do you want to do that? You don’t have to”. I mean WTF??
Matt replied “Yeah I like the guy”. Perhaps we would have done some good things together but, unfortunately, Matt was offloaded even before I was! I was shocked. No-one would say why and yet I thought about the work his father did in the studio – he had just come off a plane from LA and got right to work. The LA studio, at least for now, is not happening (lucky Americans!). But recently I heard the strangest thing from an inside source:
“The LA studio has been cancelled. Matt Smith (ex LA child actor) was chosen to run an LA studio and he came over in late September with his lady friend, a few days later his father was also brought over to help out with the construction of the studio. I met his father at Heathrow airport. Within 4 days Mr Icke had sent back Matt Smith, his father and friend to LA as he felt TPV has been infultraited by the lady friend. So forget the LA studio for now.”
It would seem David doesn’t trust women too much. First Pamela and now Matt’s “lady friend” (I think the source is referring to Matt’s sister).
I’ll say this for Matt: He had a sunny character. Easily likeable. Perhaps that was the problem? More likeable than “Ickeable”?
WAKEY WAKEY ICKEY WIKEYS!
CURIOSITY COULD KILL THE ICKE
Ok folks, I would, if you will, like you to consider this very carefully. It is a clear as day scenario which I really do hope you can recognise for what it represents. It is VERY important that you grasp the nature of the media, manipulation, the use of “bad press” as good press and the sheer desperation to suppress REAL criticism while using fake (or so very easily dealt with) MSM criticism (in this case a “smear campaign” used to your every advantage).
David Icke and TPV are complaining bitterly about the Daily Mirror article which attempts to use the unfortunate death of a young boy about 6 months ago to “smear” David Icke and “blame” the death on him. TPV and Icke are also saying “Isn’t it strange how they are running this story JUST before we launch?”
Now, please think very clearly about this. YES, I would agree it IS very strange they are running this story just before the launch.
Have you heard the term “All publicity is good publicity”? That is what all these celebs who are just celebs because of their celebrity use. Jordan/Katie Price etc. They have nothing to offer in terms of talent so how do they create their “celebrity”? By crass, “bombshell” stories – either positive OR negative – which keep you talking about them and buying “OK” and all the other mags.
Have you heard of reverse psychology and “paradoxical marketing”? I’m sure you have heard the former but research the latter if you have not heard of that. These techniques are being used against you every single day.
Have you heard about the curiosity that killed the cat? Sure you have!
Yes, by now I figure you know EXACTLY where I’m going with this and you’d be right. The timing of that article IS perfect (while it is an OBVIOUS “smear” such that it is no smear at all for the even slightly intelligent). So why do it?
CURIOSITY for one thing. How many people reading it will wonder about David Icke and google him and check out his website and find TPV?
You have heard of stories being “placed” in news for propaganda purposes. To highlight people or points etc. To drive an emotional response (no matter if positive or negative). This is the best thing David Icke could have happen to him and HE KNOWS IT.
Why do I say he knows it?
Here’s why:
He USES it. He actually links to the piece on his own website. Plus, because it is such an obvious smear, he gains kudos for it through the belief by fans that it is REAL attempt to attack him. It is brilliant. Not only that but Richie whatsisname is actually trying to get the journalist to appear on the show. Who guesses she will appear? She might and I would not be at all surprised if she did. Perhaps even to offer an apology, you never know!
Emily Retter is quite into her art plus she also has done freelance writing for the likes of the Mirror, the Sun, the Sunday Mail etc. Now, notice they’re all quite trashy publications which just publish all sorts of crap to a rather low brow readership but quite a mass audience of not too bright people (sorry but true). Now just imagine this for a second (it’s not that big a stretch): Let’s say Emily knows Sean, or Neil Hague or Sonia Poulton or any of the inner crew (media is a small world you know). Is it outwit the bounds of possibility that any one of them has said “Hey Emily, we know each other” or “Hey Emily, I know your editor” or even just go straight to the editor. Do not be naive. I KNOW how things work in the corporate world and they can be dirty – media is one of the dirtiest as you know!
Now think about this for a moment before saying “Yes but he needs to respond to trash like that!”
I am nothing when it comes to media. And yet, I know of a number of people now who have simply posted my blogs re David Icke to the David Icke forum and EVERY TIME this has been done, the moderators remove them on the basis that “He is a hateful, vindictive person” or similar (Yes “I-am”, I mean you). They remove the blogs rather than respond to them. They also, therefore, remove the capability of any and all who may wish to debate them on the David Icke forum. Those debates could end up being VERY negative and hateful toward me. I don’t care. That is not the point. Anyone who wishes to state their opinion to me on my blog is welcome to do so. You have to take the rough with the smooth. I will never allow comments that are pure character assassination not based upon considered points however just as I was concerned about a few comments made toward Icke (until the poster explained they were not intended to be threatening).
If David Icke is so quick and happy to actually publish (link) to a mainstream article which has an IMMENSE readership and is having a go at him, why would that be when he is absolutely suppressing all discussion and/or links to my blog on his forum?
Are you beginning to see this?
You see, I am not smearing him or attacking him on the basis of some poorly considered, trash “hit piece”. Further, David knows the circulation of the Mirror and how that can bring a tremendous number of people to his and TPV’s sites. What he WOULD NOT want is for that same number of people to read my articles on him because my articles are not trash. They are not poorly considered. They hit him hard because they actually use his very own words.
Sometimes a man’s worst enemy can be himself and his ego.
Nevertheless, brilliant promotion David. I tip my hat to you once more. 🙂
David Icke: The non compliance Ofcom alliance!
Introducing the Secretary of State for Culture, sport and media: Ed Vaizey.
On 18 May 2009 the Daily Telegraph reported that receipts submitted by Vaizey show that he ordered a £467 sofa, a £544 chair, a £280.50 low table and a £671 table in February 2007 from Oka, an upmarket furniture shop. The Commons Fees Office initially rejected the claim as the receipt said that the furniture was due to be delivered to Vaizey’s home address in West London, but was later paid when Vaizey advised the Fees Office that the furniture was intended for his second home at his Wantage constituency. Vaizey told the Daily Telegraph that we (he and his wife) “had it delivered to London because we would be in to collect it and we were driving down with it.”
When these claims became public, Vaizey said that he had repaid the cost of the Oka furniture and the antique chair which he had bought with taxpayers’ money: “I accept that the £300 armchair was an antique item and therefore that claim should not have been made. I also accept that the Oka items could be deemed as being of higher quality than necessary. I have paid back both these claims. I have not claimed for any other furniture bought for my constituency home at any time before or since.” Vaizey has described himself to be “relatively affluent”.
In November 2011, it was further reported that Vaizey had submitted expenses claims of 8p for a 350-yard car journey and 16p for a 700-yard journey.
[A comment related to my own experience of submitting expenses during my career. It takes time to fill in an expense claim. If I were to sit at my desk and fill in an expense claim for 8p and 16p, given the time taken to do so and the salary I was on which meant, in that time (5 mins?) I was paid approx £3 through salary; I would be sacked on the spot and rightly so.]
Ed Vaizey then, as much a cheap bastard as David Icke (Teddington Dave – tell them about Teddington). Luckily for Ed he works for the government however and his 8p and 16p expenses will be paid. Thank god you don’t work for David Icke Ed. But then, it can honestly be stated he reports to you doesn’t he? He’s submitted to your regulation after all.
Ed Vaizey is the man OFCOM report to at present. Ed Vaizey is part of the system (as is Ofcom) which David Icke purports to wishing to remove and destroy and his main way of doing that, he says, is for us all to play “the non comply dance”.
I want to make something clear to all you TPV workers who assume I am out to get you off the air: WRONG, I am not. What I AM interested in doing is showing YOU as well as a multitude of others, the charlatan that David Icke is (and most of his core team you work for as they get paid and you don’t). Once you’re of no further benefit to them (and I promise you this) your volunteering will be dropped. You’re a resource – cheap and to be used, abused and then, at the right time, no more. IF you have the guts you try to portray you do to take on the system then let’s see them: First, since you are supporting the network through your free labour and since you probably funded it through donations, TELL ICKE YOU WANT TO SEE THE BOOKS! Then, also, TELL ICKE YOU WANT TO DRAW THAT LINE IN THE SAND AND FIGHT OFCOM.
But you won’t will you? You’re all so defiant aren’t you? Far far easier to throw tantrums and boos at the likes of me than take on what you suggest you’re taking on. Shame you’re so full of shit and scared of your own shadow while you follow a man that doesn’t EVER walk his talk! What hope do you possibly have in taking on the system? Zero!
Anyhow, it’s this guy, Ed Vaizey, who is ultimately responsible for deciding who is and who is not “a fit and proper person” for holding a UK broadcast licence. Would you give your enemy the keys to your front door? For christ’s sakes grow up people, nevermind wake up because you’ve got a long way to go before you do that!
DAVID ICKE, OFCOM & THE PEOPLE’S VOICE
Hi David,
Sorry for the little delay that introduced but, you see, I don’t like the idea of you screwing with your audience. The people who are funding you. I also, personally, do not like to be either lied to or misled. You now have a real problem whichever way you look at it and I can state, categorically, that I would have done the same even if I had been working at The People’s Voice today.
Why? Well, for the above reasons but also for a much bigger reason:
YOU tell people to get up off their arses and fight this system. Here’s an example of you saying exactly that (as if you are some “big boy” who ever says “boo!” to the system)….
SO! Where is your “line in the sand”? Where is your fight against the system? Where’s YOUR challenge to them? SHOW YOUR AUDIENCE DAVID! WHERE IS IT?
Let’s see that walk David. Let’s see it because I’ve heard the talk!
If you don’t David, “Don’t look to me for sympathy when you’re regulated mate because you’ve got your chance now!” GET THE POINT DAVID?
So here’s your challenge David: Get your flock together with a focus and a strategy and attack the establishment through OFCOM. You have the numbers David. Actually use them! Are you “big” enough to take the challenge and show your leadership? Are your Ickolytes sufficiently motivate to support you in the fight David or have they just got enough “mouth” to throw tantrums at people like me for calling you out? You’ve got the numbers David. Instead of just droning on and offering up the same old shit and the same old faces talking about the same old shit, why don’t you USE your flock? Get them motivated to attack OFCOM and the establishment. THEN David, and ONLY then, will I sit up and listen. THEN you may be deserving of your “title”. Otherwise, you’re all mouth Dave looking for the next donation.
Now, your Ickolytes are shouting about this OFCOM regulation and they probably despise me for having inquired and brought it to OFCOM’s attention but I did it for the sake of the truth movement” you suggest you are supportive of and you wish to be the “Big Cheese” of. So “Big Cheese”, the thing about a “Leader” is he has to lead BY EXAMPLE or he’s nothing but a windbag! You see, I believe wholeheartedly that you’re a windbag and it is my wholehearted belief you’re in this for the money and the money alone.
If you were “fighting the system” as you scream at others to do, then you would not have registered your company under the Communications Act 2003 (which, ironically protects you from having to open up to your audience what you’re doing and how you’re doing it). THAT is why, although you KNEW you needed a licence (for if you didn’t then you are incompetent in your business), you didn’t wish to advise your audience for the very reason they are now communicating about – they see you’re just as controlled under regulation as anyone else.
THE ONLY WAY OUT IS TO FIGHT THE SYSTEM ICKE OTHERWISE YOU’RE PART OF IT (which I entirely believe you are and that is why I am sure you will get your licence because the establishment want you to ‘lead’ a flock down a cul-de-sac (emphasis on the word “CUL”).
The thing is – and your audience don’t even understand this – THEY think “we funded it so let’s fight OFCOM” LOL. So funny. They can’t fight on your behalf because YOU and “The People’s Voice” (you being the Company Director) are the only two “legal persons” who can fight this if you DON’T get the licence because it is only you and the legal person of OFCOM who are a party to the contract.
IF you DO get the licence however, what are you then going to tell your audience? “Oh it doesn’t matter”. LOL
Sure it doesn’t David. It doesn’t matter to you, to Sean and to “The People’s Voice” company because you will still have your business, your audience, the money and your station.
The ONLY people it matters to are those who comprise the very audience you are misleading. They can’t POSSIBLY get the unspun truth you are trying to suggest they will get. But I know, so many of them will just still blindly follow you Dave.
Last thing though Dave: You did say you could see I knew what I was talking about all those weeks ago. Well, when you want intelligence, you get it but a word in your ear – don’t fcuk with it when you do!
I WANT A REAL “PEOPLE’S VOICE” DAVID BUT YOU’RE NOT IT. A REAL PEOPLE’S VOICE WOULD HAVE A MAN IN FRONT CHARGING INTO OFCOM AND TELLING THEM WHERE TO STICK THEIR LICENCE. A REAL PEOPLE’S VOICE WOULD NOT BE REGISTERED AS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT 2003 BECAUSE A REAL PEOPLE’S VOICE JUST CANNOT OPERATE WITHIN THEIR LAW. AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE A CHARLATAN DAVID. THERE IS NO BULLSHIT YOU CAN REPLY WITH THAT WOULD HOLD ANY WATER WHATSOEVER.
DAVID ICKE ADMITS OFCOM REGULATION
You may criticise me. You may despise me in your belief that I have, somehow, attempted to cause “The People’s Voice” problems due to my having to leave the organisation. You may believe whatever you wish, it is entirely your choice.
However, I had reason to seriously question this man Icke and his proclamations about various things. I found that they did not stand up to scrutiny and I truly believed it was important that YOU were made aware of them because the organisation is promoting itself as absolute truth.
One of those major points that David Icke made was that TPV DID NOT NEED an OFCOM licence. This is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO YOU because his suggestion that this was the case was for the purpose of having you believe that TPV could not be controlled by anyone or anything EXCEPT the law of libel. This then giving you the impression that they were free to talk about anything without the fear of being taken off air. THAT WAS NOT TRUE!
Now, considering he has – via TPV live in the last few minutes – advised you that OFCOM had contacted them within the last two weeks (therefore, after my contacting them simply to ask the question whether such a licence was required and finding out TPV, the company, is broadcasting under the protection of the Communications Act 2003) and told them they required a licence, do you think for one minute that this one single guy (i.e. me) would know the position better than the entire People’s Voice organisation? Do you TRULY believe that?
David Icke has just suggested that OFCOM have just advised him of something he did not know WHILE HE HAD REGISTERED HIS COMPANY UNDER THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT 2003 – Do you TRULY believe that he did not know and do you TRULY believe that he had not planned to apply for such a licence?
TPV have now had to put back their launch. If my contact with OFCOM caused that then so be it. I make no apologies for it. However, I must state clearly that I DO NOT agree with the fact that The People’s Voice should be regulated by such and it is another example of how the establishment has things tied up. Now, if you’re smart, you can then use this information to lobby the government to drop this requirement – thereby supporting TPV. Why would I suggest you do that and that you could have a significant impact if you did, if I was wishing for the suppression of speech?
I will state again, I am on YOUR side, by being on your side, I am willing to look at anyone and criticise anyone who I see as lying to you or abusing your trust. I don’t care who it is.
As I stated in my blog “David Icke: The turd in the punchbowl”…..
Whatever the following outcome of this communication is with OFCOM, if Icke is correct in what he believes, then OFCOM are wrong or have been misleading. IF, however, OFCOM are correct then Mr Icke has been misleading. Further, I had a telecon with OFCOM and they expressed the need for ALL TV/internet to be regulated by ATVOD (and TPV are producing Video on Demand as well as live shows. As I understand it from what I was told, even while the BBC and ITV provide live shows on their respective internet channels, they are regulated by ATVOD. Hmmm. it’s somewhat of a conundrum isn’t it? According to OFCOM, he needs a licence so I guess he will have applied and been granted one? If not, David might just be in a spot of bother. Otherwise, he has applied and received one and he’s in a spot of bother with you because he has told you and all of us that he is free to say and do what he pleases because he is “regulation free” of OFCOM. And he didn’t mention ATVOD at all now did he?
From: Mark
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,
Mark
From: TV.Licensing@ofcom.org.uk
To: mark
Subject: RE: Content licensing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:29:12 +0000
Yes.
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.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/guidance_notes_and_apps/
https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/david-icke-the-turd-in-the-punchbowl/
I simply told you the truth because I am sick of you being lied to from EVERY side! But hey, shoot the messenger.
The question now is this: Now that TPV IS regulated and they have to apply for a licence, think about it. IF the establishment give him a licence then the establishment is giving him a licence to “kill” them. There is no getting away from that and you know how STUPID that scenario is.
If they allow it then there is a reason for them allowing it. That ONLY reason is that they see no threat. HOW could that possibly be?
ALL I WANT FOR YOU IS FOR YOU TO USE YOUR INTELLIGENCE!
The mainstream is what it is because it is regulated by the establishment. As you are now aware, The People’s Voice are regulated by that same establishment. So there you are. End of story!
David Icke: SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BUDDHA!
PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS CAN VERY EASILY BE DONE.
THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL STOPPING THIS HAPPENING.
BE AWAKE, BE VERY AWAKE!
Could Icke have sold out to the dark side? Could the very “reptilians” who possess the personalities he speak of possess him? Is that so hard to believe? Well let’s see….
David Icke: Sold to the highest Buddha!
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM WORKS AS APPLIED TO COMPANIES: THEY ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT LEGAL PERSONS!
DAVID ICKE ALREADY HAS A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE AND, THROUGH “THE PEOPLE’S VOICE” HE INTENDS TO CAPTURE TENS TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS MORE. PERHAPS MILLIONS. NOW IMAGINE WHAT A LIZARD COULD BE WHISPERING SOFTLY IN HIS EAR REGARDING HIM HAVING A BROADCAST NETWORK ALL TO HIMSELF AND PAID (HE WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE) ENTIRELY BY YOUR DONATIONS. A BROADCAST NETWORK WHICH IS ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM “DAVID ICKE BOOKS LTD” WHILE THE LEGAL SYSTEM, AS IT CURRENTLY FUNCTIONS, SEES “DAVID ICKE BOOKS LTD” AS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE “LEGAL PERSON” FROM “THE PEOPLE’S VOICE”.
Let’s start this little journey into David Icke’s “Twilight Zone” by first taking a close look at the BBC and how they do things. You will see why… promise! 🙂
Have you ever heard of “BBC Enterprises”? It started life as such but is now known as “BBC Worldwide”.
BBC Enterprises was set up as a “mechandising arm” of the BBC. Essentially, it would take BBC content and product (for product think Tellitubbies for example, licensed to any and all sorts of manufacturers to produce Teletubbies merchandise) and sell it. Nothing wrong with that on the face of it right? But just give it a little more thought as to what is going on here. Let’s say there are 20 million homes in the UK all paying a TV licence (which goes to the BBC because the BBC “DOES NOT ADVERTISE”). 20 million homes x £145 = £2.9Billion. We (if you pay a licence) are funding the BBC Corporation per year to the sum of approximately £2.9Billion. The BBC then provides (poor and propagandised) content to us while the quality of shows and drama etc has just dropped dramatically over the years and more and more repeats (funded decades ago in some cases) are provided. If it was not for our funding of it, the BBC would not exist but, more to the point, BBC Enterprises (BBC Worldwide) would not exist. The latter sells content and product worldwide, and to us ourselves, which has been funded by us. It is like its own virtuous circle: It promotes content to us by way of the BBC broadcasting shows, characters etc (which we fund) and then BBC Worldwide sells us those same shows and characters and generates over £1billion in revenues and a healthy profit which is paid back to the BBC Broadcasting company. No, the BBC does not advertise!! It advertises every single day its own content and product (again funded by us) and has its merchandising arm sell us the content we have funded.
As an example:
There are 34 pages of 500 titles each page which the BBC sells to us and which they never would have been able to create without our money funding them. Essentially, we are buying our own creations. Strangely, this is exactly how the entire world works when you step back (as Icke would say but he won’t like it being done in this instance) and view it again. It is so clear. As an aside, let me give you another couple of examples of how we buy our own funded creations. Recognising all of this may shock you if you haven’t thought of it before.
1. Energy
We build national grids and offshore rigs (oil, gas, wind farms etc) and we work extracting the resources to provide ourselves with our energy requirements. We are paid, of course, to do so but we are also taxed. Meanwhile, the entire energy grid and the natural resources are owned by people who have never picked up a spade in their lives. It is suggested by these same people that it is all in public ownership and that we benefit from the income generated which is, in part, given to the treasury. But what does the treasury do with that money? It pays toward the national debt (interest on money borrowed by the nation where, globally, the only way of paying the interest is by borrowing more money from the same source which increases the debt further but is indebting the future generations). The real owners of all the resources and energy is, in the case of the UK, the Crown. I have blogged about this many times now. The Crown then licenses corporations to extract the resources (and we work for the corporations – we ARE the corporations) and the corporations (legal person entities) make a profit. This profit then being distributed among shareholders – the major shareholders being? You guessed it – the Crown and those individuals within it who have never done a real day’s work in their lives. These people then sell our resources to us which we have extracted for them and keep increasing prices on us while our salaries do not ever keep in line with the increases. We effectively build and generate our own energy and then pay for it. It is incredible what we will do and never question. We just seem unable to figure out the most simplest of cons.
2. Mortgages and housing
We build homes for ourselves. Yes we do. Builders, craftsmen, electricians, plumbers and all the other skills which go into building a home. We then take a mortgage from a bank (such a loan being unnecessary because it is we who create the money for the banks in the first place but that’s been covered numerous times now) by way of signing a promissory obligation which creates the money for the bank who then lend us our own money/value which we have to pay back (again with interest which, globally, is non existent. To pay it back we then have to “win” the race or the game of finding money from someone else). But, nevertheless, it is us, generally speaking, who build our homes. Let’s forget that the land we build upon is, once again, owned by land owners – a major landowner being the Crown – so we never truly own our homes, we simply rent them. If we owned our property we would have every right to do as we wished with it without planning approval. So we buy (and pay interest on) the very homes we build but we go a step further than that. The banks (and it is us once more that keep these legal persons called banks operating while they use our own money to indebt us with) then take the value of our properties (the promissory note we have signed to bring the money into existence for them) and sell them on. Who do they sell the values of our properties to? To you and I. How? They sell them to pension funds and the general market. Who do these pension funds etc invest for? For us! So we are buying our own properties once more. The banks then crash the property market making our properties worth far less and the derivatives sold on in the market worthless so our pensions are worthless. But what have they done in the meantime? Well, it is they who create the market conditions and it is they who then, with that insider knowledge, invest in shorting the property and derivative markets so that, as it falls, they have bet ON it falling and the money goes directly to them. How stupid is the human race?
And yet, David Icke proclaims “Human Race get off your knees” while he, as I am about to demonstrate to you, uses the exact same methods to create wealth for himself and his trusted little team.
Back to the BBC…..
Have a look at this:
So, as I said, a revenue of over £1billion and profit of £156M returned to the BBC. ALL of it generated from coercion of you having to pay for a licence which funds the corporation and allows its shareholders to generate massive income for themselves and the various BBC employees who you look to as “celebrities” and people worthy of your praise and hero worship.
A “public service mission” which then pays profits to shareholders. It commercialises but it doesn’t “advertise”! haha What an incredible doublespeak that is.
“BBC Advertising sells advertising…….”
“Be commercially efficient” – Indeed.
And oh look: “… highest standard of ethics…” etc. It’s amazing what you can state on paper or promote to your audience while keeping a straight face. It’s called “Sales” in essence and, personally, I’ve been in this arena for decades. I like to think, however, I DID have ethics in my approach – at least as far as I could afford to have them. But I know that, at the top, ethics DO NOT exist. They are merely words. I expected (naively) that “The People’s Voice” and David Icke would be different. I can assure you there is zero difference and you only have to have that “open mind” David speaks of and look at how he is doing what he is doing to recognise how you are getting screwed in precisely the same manner. Promoting yourself as ethical is such a crowd pleaser isn’t it? Getting the crowd to “buy in” to the promotion of a person or concept is especially easy when you are promoting what you know the market wants (and that’s ALL you are to David Icke – a market to tap into). Look how Tony Blair was promoted in 1997 and the landslide victory he had. People will buy anything if it’s promoted just right. In a war you are taught to know your adversary. In sales, you are taught to know your target market. You know how to press their buttons and you’ve got them just where you want them.
Ok, on to David Icke in earnest.
What we have here is “David Icke Books Ltd”. (now one could theorise about the figures you see here but there’s no real point in doing that. You’d have to have access to his accounts to understand fully what is going on there so I’d rather not theorise on it).
This how David Icke makes his money. By selling his books (and his talks etc).
Then along comes another, entirely separate legal entity called “The People’s Voice”. BOTH companies, however, run by David Icke. He is a Director in both. Gareth, his son, is also a Director of “David Icke books Ltd” while Sean Tabatabai is a Director of “The People’s Voice”.
David likes to sell books doesn’t he?
Have you ever heard of “Transfer Pricing”? Well, once upon a time, I worked for a well known multinational telecommunications company who were at the top of their game, during which, I was involved in Business Management globally. Transfer pricing is all about the creation of profit by one division or subsidiary of the multinational company selling its product to another division or subsidiary of the same company. Transfer pricing can then be manipulated in whichever way is preferred by the divisions and the overall corporation to ensure that, on transfer from one division in one country (say the UK) to another division in another country (say the USA), the most “appropriate” pricing can ensure minimal tax being paid by the organisation as a whole.
Have a look at this:
Now, don’t go off on a tangent here and say I’m suggesting David Icke is money laundering or terrorist financing. No, no ,no. What I am saying is that “Transfer pricing” is a perfectly LEGAL and accepted way of doing business and YET, it is through such practice that such things can be, and are, achieved. Now, I’m not even suggesting transfer pricing by David Icke because transfer pricing is used between subsidiaries of the same company. “David Icke Books Ltd” and TPV are not subsidiaries of the same company. So what AM I getting at then?
“Hey, I have an awesome idea!”
“What’s that?”
“Well, I write books and I publish them. I was thinking how I could create an ever larger captive market for them and even have my own broadcasting station to promote my work. A broadcasting station which has global reach, will appeal to an even broader audience because it will broadcast everything from news and current affairs to music and art etc.”
“Yes but where will you source all the content and at what cost?”
“From the people themselves who will not only be desperate to have their voices and their art and music broadcast but who will provide their content for free.”
“Great idea but what about the investment that is needed to create this broadcasting network and keep it on air? It’s a shitload of money that’s needed for that Dave! Are you going to invest that £25K cash you have in “David Icke Books Ltd” and/or liquidise the assets of over £200K you have to fund it?”
“No no no. It will ALSO be funded by the people. I’ll do a donation drive through Indiegogo. I’m not going to spend my own money! This is not “David Icke’s Voice”, I’ll promote it as “The people’s Voice” – THEY can fund it! Although I won’t mention the obviously needed further funding coming from somewhere otherwise people will start asking questions. I mean most of the idiots out there haven’t a scooby regarding the real cost of funding a project like this and they won’t care. They’ll believe every word I say. I give them truth remember and I point fingers at corruption so how could they possibly consider me to be sucking them dry?”
“Oh man, you’re a genius! They pay for it, they provide the content free and they end up buying the content that you produce. Your very own multi-media empire spitting out your propaganda. But where does “David Icke books Ltd” come into the equation?”
“Oh come on man! It’s simple. Get with the programme! “The People’s Voice” is going to have me introducing movies, giving talks, promoting myself and the station as a whole right? So then I will also be promoting my books won’t I? Just exactly the same proven format adopted by BBC Enterprises or BBC Worldwide. Of course, I’m not getting paid by TPV – it’s for the “love of humanity” you understand. It just so happens that I have all of these books – a whole back catalogue of them too – which would then be promoted and sold through TPV as a “public service”. After all, TPV is all about truth so, to have an expense attributed to TPV for buying my “truth books” is entirely rational isn’t it? And justifiable.”
“Hey but that doesn’t make sense David! How can you profit from yourself buying from yourself?”
“Man, what is it you don’t understand about what I have just said. I’M not investing in TPV. It’s not MY money. So when TPV decides to buy “David Icke books Ltd” product for stock and then sell it to the public (who have funded TPV), it’s THEIR money, not mine, which is buying the books. TPV is an entirely separate legal entity from “David Icke Books Ltd” and so they buy, perhaps 1000 at a time? That generates profit for “David icke Books Ltd” and a rather substantial income for me. Whatever TPV then sell of those book numbers are bought by the very audience which has already bought them FOR TPV through their funding of TPV!”
“Oh Jesus Christ David, you truly are the messiah! Only he could come up with a scheme like that! It’s brilliant!”
This is how it works. VERY simple and VERY legal. Moral? That’s for you to decide….
“IMAGINE FINDING A PLACE TO ADVERTISE WHERE THE BROADCASTER ENDORSES YOUR BUSINESS. HAS AN AUDIENCE THAT IS LOOKING FOR EXACTLY THE KIND OF PRODUCTS YOU PROVIDE AND RUNS PROGRAMMING THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE BENEFITS OF THOSE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.”
Stated out in the open, right under your nose! Furthermore, the legal person and company named “David Icke Books Ltd” does not, unlike all other potential advertisers and sponsors, have to pay a solitary cent for its advertising on TPV. IT IS ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT! David, I seriously do tip my hat to you!
So let’s analyse just exactly how this works:
David Icke sets up a company/broadcasting network which will advertise and promote everything David Icke related. This company, called TPV, does not receive a cent’s worth of his own money but he generates that money through donations from the public. He creates for himself FREE MONEY (JUST EXACTLY like the banks). He doesn’t even pay a cent of interest on it. There is absolutely no risk for him whatsoever. Not a penny. This new company, “TPV” will then buy assets with that money (for example, a cost to the business can be anything from buying the equipment to buying PROPERTY (YES PROPERTY). The property purchases can “justifiably” be stated as required to house certain members of the team who have travelled from different parts of the UK and world to relocate. Those members then, perhaps, pay rent of one form or another, to TPV the company which then pays off mortgages TPV may have taken out. This is all totally and utterly legal.
TPV then pays salaries to the core team of TPV while David Icke works “for free”. All of the investments TPV makes, with YOUR money, then become valuable assets to TPV and, at any point in the future – near or far future – those assets can and will be sold. Property is a very valuable asset and while you will have funded TPV’s purchase of such, when it comes to selling the asset and liquidising it into cash, who gets it? Even if that is 20 or 30 years in the future.
Meanwhile, there is an entirely separate company to TPV called “David Icke Books Ltd”. The latter is solely interested in selling David Icke’s books (would you believe?). TPV then turn to “David Icke books Ltd” and say “Hello David, we would be interested in stocking your books and selling them worldwide.” David turns to TPV (perhaps he speaks to one of it’s Directors and does a deal – he could, for instance, speak with….David Icke) and says “Sure. Sounds good. What about taking 1000 books per month as a stock and selling them on? At a retail price of about £25 each that would be an income to David Icke books Ltd of £25,000 per month or £300,000 a year. I might even give you a discount David but really, in this case, it’s unnecessary. TPV is a not for profit concern so if you buy at £25 and sell at £25 then there’s no profit right? No problem!” And David Icke, on behalf of TPV says “Sure, sounds good to me but what happens if we don’t sell that number per month?”. “No problem…” says David Icke of “David Icke Books Ltd”, “..you can just burn the excess for all I care. Take it as a loss and I still get paid.” “Ah indeed you do David. I wish I was as smart as you!” says David Icke of TPV. “You are as smart as me David, you are me! We’re all one consciousness remember? Remember who you are David!”. Then David Icke, Director of TPV, says “But David, I don’t like wasting all that money and losing it. You wouldn’t like to lose money would you?” and David Icke of “David Icke Books Ltd” states the obvious: “But David, what are you talking about? You haven’t lost a cent because all that money you are buying the books with isn’t yours! It’s money donated by the public. You’re losing THEIR money and all that money is coming across to me at “David Icke Books Ltd”. Trust me David, I WILL share it with you!”.
The central equitable principle applicable to directors is to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest.
The purpose of the no conflict rule is to ensure directors carry out their tasks like it was their own interest at stake. Beyond corporate opportunities, the law requires directors accept no benefits from third parties under section 176, and also has specific regulation of transactions by a company with another party in which directors have an interest. Under section 177, when directors are on both sides of a proposed contract, for example where a person owns a business selling iron chairs to the company in which he is a director,[110] it is a default requirement that they disclose the interest to the board, so that disinterested directors may approve the deal. The company’s articles could heighten the requirement, say, to shareholder approval. If such a self dealing transaction has already taken place, directors still have a duty to disclose their interest and failure to do so is a criminal offence, subject to a £5000 fine. While such regulation through disclosure hovers with a relatively light touch, self dealing rules become more onerous as transactions become more significant. Shareholder approval is requisite for specific transactions with directors, or connected persons, when the sum of money either exceeds 10% of the company and is over £5000, or is over £100,000 in a company of any size. Further detailed provisions govern loaning money. On the question of director remuneration where the conflict of interest appears most serious, however, regulation is again relatively light. Directors pay themselves by default, but in large listed companies have pay set by a remuneration committee of directors. Under section 439, shareholders may cast a vote on remuneration but this “say on pay“, as yet, is not binding.
Finally, under section 172 directors must “promote the success of the company”. This somewhat nebulous provision created significant debate during its passage through Parliament, since it goes on to prescribe that decisions should be taken in the interests of members, with regard to long term consequences, the need to act fairly between members, and a range of other “stakeholders“, such as employees, suppliers, the environment, the general community, and creditors. Many groups objected to this “enlightened shareholder value” model, which in form elevated the interests of members, who are invariably shareholders, above other stakeholders. However, the duty is particularly difficult to sue upon since it is only a duty for a director to do what she or “he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company”. Proof of subjective bad faith toward any group being difficult, directors have the discretion to balance all competing interests, even if to the short term detriment of shareholders in a particular instance. There is also a duty under section 173 to exercise independent judgment and the duty of care in section 174 applies to the decision making process of a director having regard to the factors listed in section 172, so it remains theoretically possible to challenge a decision if made without any rational basis. Only registered shareholders, not other stakeholders without being members of the general meeting, have standing to claim any breach of the provision. But section 172’s criteria are useful as an aspirational standard because in the annual Director’s Report companies must explain how they have complied with their duties to stakeholders. Also, the idea of whether a company’s success will be promoted is central when a court determines whether a derivative claim should proceed in the course of corporate litigation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_company_law
In short, if you can’t be arsed reading the above, there is recognition in law regarding the reality of doing precisely what a “reptilian possessed” David Icke is capable of doing and that the ethics are far more than suspect (because it is obvious what is happening) but, given the TPV and “David Icke Books Ltd” set up and the fact there are only two shareholders of each, all very happy with how things turn out, then the reptilian possessed Icke would get away scot free. 🙂
And all Ickeans will say is “Well he’s got to make a living!” Sure he does and he is doing so very well from your money you stupid, naive, gullible prat!
Now, TPV may WELL be a “Not for profit” enterprise or it may not. I have no evidence of either. IS it registered as a charity? Or as a “Not for profit”? There is absolutely no evidence of that but it matters not one iota! “David Icke books Ltd” is a FOR PROFIT enterprise which can entirely legally sell its books to a “Not for profit” enterprise. The two separate legal entities can conduct business with one another. The “Not for profit” taking on an expense and the “For profit” making…. well…. a very healthy profit!
There is so much more to this and the capabilities of TPV to create a vehicle for, and take all the cost for, setting up Gareth Icke with his own little music business but I could go on forever demonstrating how all this can be done and what can be done.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND HOWEVER THAT THE FOREGOING ONLY CONSIDERS WHAT IS POSSIBLE AND LEGAL AND PROBABLE IF DAVID ICKE WAS POSSESSED BY A REPTILIAN. IT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT DAVID ICKE, THE FINE UPSTANDING TURTH GURU WHO EXPOSES CORRUPTION, WOULD RESORT TO SUCH PRACTICE (EVEN THOUGH THE DONATIONS PROVIDING HIM WITH ABSOLUTELY FREE MONEY AND THE ABILITY TO BUY ASSETS OF VARIOUS KINDS THEN SELL AT A LATER DATE MAKING A HANDSOME PROFIT PLUS THE VERY FACT THAT DAVID ICKE IS PROMOTING DAVID ICKE ON TPV, FUNDED BY YOU, IS ALL INESCAPABLE FACT).
In the UK, many nonprofit companies are incorporated as a company limited by guarantee. This means that the company does not have shares or shareholders, but it has the benefits of corporate status. This includes limited liability for its members and being able to enter into contracts and purchase property in its own name. The goals (“objects”) of the company are defined in the Memorandum of Association when the company is formed. The profits of the company (also referred to as the trading surplus) must be invested in achieving these goals and not distributed to the company’s members.
http://business.fiu.edu/newsletters/BusinessNetworks/2008/07/business_insight.cfm
I don’t have any time for this guy and his promoter, Jones, either but this speaks volumes nonetheless.
Meanwhile, check this out. EXACTLY the same wording except for one obvious element:
Here is the ad on Facebook for anyone who’s a musician and wishes to “come long” to the TPV studio to be part of a launch film for “The Banned” music programme hosted by Gareth Icke.
Now, here is the exact same wording for the ad which appears on a specific website for musicians/student musicians:
Spot the difference? 🙂
THEY REALLY DO HOPE YOU WILL COME OF COURSE. Let’s ignore that, once more, they are advertising for a certain type of person, a certain look, a certain attitude (that THEY like of course) – what happened to “The People’s Voice”? They are very choosy of what sorts of people and look and attitude they attract for it to be solely for “the people”. People come in all shapes, sizes, ages, attitudes, types but they want CERTAIN SPECIFIC TYPES to promote a certain specific type of network/channel/”hip” (in their view). It’s kinda like turning up at the nightclub but the bouncer turning you away because they want to attract a certain crowd. But let’s forget all that.
Noticed it yet?
Well, in the Facebook “shout out” they have “Sadly, there’s no fee for turning up, but we’ll provide some food, some drinks!” – But that’s for the general dumb populace who are just avid fans of anything and everything Icke does. That’s why they’re on his Facebook page after all.
The ACM one (not an Icke page then but Icke wants to attract the muso’s and cool student types): “Sadly, there’s no fee for turning up, but we’ll provide some food, some drinks and we can cover basic travel expenses.”
Hahahaha. So they finally considered travel expenses as being important to cover – just not for volunteers giving their energy and time constantly but for those who the station are desperate to attract.
Good on ya Deanna. You certainly have your priorities sorted!
“We pay for what might be a bit more difficult to attract however serious fans are already captured so fuck them!” LOL
SO BLATANT MAN!
One last thing: “It’s raunchy, decadent…… people who look like they know how to party”
Let’s consider what decadent means.
-
1.characterized by or reflecting a state of moral or cultural decline.“a decaying, decadent Britain”
synonyms: dissolute, dissipated, degenerate, corrupt, depraved, louche, rakish,shameless, sinful, unprincipled, immoral, licentious, wanton,abandoned, unrestrained, profligate, intemperate; More
Now, doesn’t that remind you of exactly what you would consider the “elite” (that is, in Icke’s language, “the reptilians”) are into and want from the world? Moral and cultural decline – for example, pedophilia. What a strange irony in so many ways Icke is displaying.
BUT IT WOULD APPEAR THAT HIS FOLLOWERS HAPPILY HAVE: THEIR EYES WIDE SHUT!
The People’s Voice & OFCOM.
There you are.
It’s YOUR voice right? David keeps telling you that. It’s YOU funding it too right? David keeps telling you that too. It’s for the public’s interest isn’t it? That’s the whole idea of it isn’t it? To be in the public’s interest to expose these nasty people across the board isn’t it?
So, go for it. According to OFCOM, information as to whether “The People’s Voice” has applied or is being considered for a licence cannot be divulged (and this is the thing that gives you the power to put him on the spot) “is not, so long as that business continues to be carried on, to be disclosed without the consent of the person for the time being carrying on that business. ” (They quote the Communications Act 2003 and that Act expressly states that if you do not have consent from the business owner – that OBVIOUSLY not being you then! lol – then they will not reveal the information. So then ASK for David’s consent! He is transparent isn’t he? He wouldn’t be hiding anything would he? Why on EARTH would he do that? 🙂
But here is the sensational irony which shall be totally lost on all the Icke congregation:
British regulatory legislation is protecting David Icke from the need for transparency in his business dealings which are meant to be for the British (and world) public and funded by the British (and world) public!
While David Icke and TPV is about absolutely destroying the very establishment which has decided to provide him with that protection from transparency!
WHOOSH! Right over Icke followers heads!
To: Me
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:25:23 +0000
Dear Mr
Please find attached a response to your request for information.
Kind regards
Julia
Dear Julia,
From: TV.Licensing@ofcom.org.uk
To: Me
Subject: RE: Content licensing
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:29:12 +0000
Yes.
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.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/guidance_notes_and_apps/
Therefore, my follow up questions are as follows:
1. I must assume, therefore, that if such an organisation has not been issued with a licence by the time of commencing broadcasting, that they shall be in breach of the statutory requirements in such an instance? This is a general question relating to any and all broadcasters and potential broadcasters of internet content. If this assumption is incorrect, can you advise me of the specific situations in which a broadcaster need not apply for and be granted a licence by OFCOM (or ATVOD)?
2. Specifically, is it necessary that “The People’s Voice” DOES have a licence (content licence) to broadcast? According to the reply above, this is the case. Is the reply correct?
3. Further, I would wish to add this: “The People’s Voice” is, as can be clearly evidenced by the continuing requests for donations by the public and the continuing promotion of the station as being “The People’s” station, suggesting it is purely being set up and broadcast FOR the “public interest”. It is the public funding it (unless I am mistaken – which is very probable in my opinion although that is not what is being “sold” TO the public). If, then, it promotes its entire raison d’être as being “in the public interest” then it is not, at all, in the public interest that they do not know and have no way of knowing whether the public’ interest is being served by the station/company (a Private Limited Company suggesting it is non profit) complying with the statutory requirements. If the public is not allowed such information then it is a clear indication that the company is acting in a private and non transparent manner and that OFCOM and present legislation is enabling such.
How, then, can it be stated that it not require a “public interest test” to provide this information for a broadcast network funded by the public? Please answer this question for me very logically.
4. Having read section 393(1) of the Communications Act, it does occur to me that for, as you say, the information to be “classified” (for that is what this is – classified and not available to the public), the “business” must have been granted a provision to operate under that act for the protection of section 393(1) to come into force. Am I correct?
393 General restrictions on disclosure of information
(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—
(b)the enactments relating to the management of the radio spectrum (so far as not contained in this 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?
So here’s how the conversation went between David Icke and those who granted him the benefit of conducting his business under the Communications Act 2003:
“Hello Mr Icke, what can we do for you?”
“Well I’d like to set up a business in broadcasting over the internet please”
“Indeed Mr Icke. What exactly is it you intend to broadcast?”
“Oh just a lot of the REAL news that the BBC etc don’t broadcast and show everyone the truth of the corruption and paedophilia etc etc which goes on among our legislators, the Police, Government, Parliament, the Queen and generally do whatever is possible to expose the scum for what they are.”
“Hmmm. Do you realise that it is all of those institutions and the people within them and who you speak of who create the laws and legislation of this country Mr Icke? It’s highly unlikely then that you shall be granted such a business under the Communications Act 2003 which will, effectively, protect you from having to give information out to those who fund you and those who you say the tv network is for and on behalf of. Generally speaking in the real world Mr Icke, one’s enemies being in such a powerful position, do not tend to provide the legal vehicle for one to attack them. Are there any extenuating circumstances as to why you think it would be different in your case?”
“33”
“Oh I see! How would you like to pay?”
“American Express?”
“That’ll do nicely sir, thank you!”
GET REAL ICKEANS! Actually use your newly found “enlightenment” to THINK assholes!
David, if I had an audience like yours I’d be grinning like a cheshire cat too!
Addendum:
While this guy who wanks off strangers in public toilets (and you find out Tony Blair or any other politician does the same and what do you do?) gets a prime slot on BBC television to make the call for “Revolution” while neither he nor Icke have ANY form of solution (they do not have the intellect to propose a solution!!).
What is it you do not understand about the very thing Icke and co talk about? “Ordo Ab Chao”. This is PRECISELY what you are seeing these same people creating – CHAOS. Because, without a solution, a “revolution” WILL simply create that chaos! JOB DONE!
To all of you who consider yourself “awakened” WAKE THE FUCK UP! And no, I shall not apologise for the language. You deserve the sheer condescension thrown at you!
“Do you have a solution Earthling? If not shut up!” – Well in fact I do. I have solutions but I would need people to listen and support them as much as these guys have their audience otherwise I am pissing in the wind. There are two main elements: The monetary system and the legal system. There is also the religious aspect but that can wait. With numbers supporting what I would have planned (and it is very easy and takes nothing but sheer numbers to support WORDS. Yes WORDS. That is ALL it takes.) not “I” but WE could literally destroy this system BUT (and this is the big thing) BUT we would destroy it with a solution NOT just “We want a revolution”. Give him his due (and I hate to) Paxman was right to say “Yes but what do you replace it with?”
Why are these people getting to raise their profiles on the BBC etc? While they have no solution? It is because they are the perfect, well known (loved) celebrities that the vast majority of plonkers out there will listen to in abject ignorance! It is PERFECT for the establishment. If you do not understand this then you do not deserve the description of “Awakened”.
Don’t get me wrong. I recognise what I believe to be sincere (although I have been proven wrong with Icke and that is a certainty) and correct points being made by Brand. He delivers the points well also BUT, without a solution, the people who we are working against utilise every side to create the hegelian “synergy” that they need to create the change that THEY wish to impose. They do it subtly and they do it well. You KNOW that. And until such times as a solution is put forward and listened to and supported, all you are doing by “rah rah”ing Russell Brand and co is creating the chaos that these people want. That is why he is on the BBC. IF he had a solution (a real one) the BBC would not got near him with a ten foot pole.
Brand mentions support of a solution if one comes forward, then, while I have blogged about them incessantly over the last year or so (having concentrated on the problems beforehand), it is now time to support solutions. The destruction of the present monetary system and replacement with MPE (or equivalent) is one aspect. The other is the recognition of the legal person and how it is implemented to all our detriment then, not so much replacing it but recognising the con in it and adjustment of such to create a TRUE “everyone is equal before the law” system. Both of these elements go hand in hand – they MUST do because they feed off one another.
How to achieve it? Simple (it really is): I can write to 10 Downing street and copy to all media outlets (tv and press) and provide absolute fact and evidence coupled with total logic which YOU would support) and, with your support (but it would have to be hundreds of thousands of people – that’s it, it needs NUMBERS. Numbers which Icke and co have but do not utilise for the purpose of lobbying) we could shake the UK government and parliament to its very core based upon pure intellect. NOT chaotic, on the streets revolution (it never achieved anything).
But then who am I right? Well, who are you?
And that is the underlying problem: You look to celebrity to sort it or be your “spiritual” leader. This NEVER works. What DOES work is understanding the solution (and even if there are certain areas of it you do not understand or even disagree with – we are NEVER all going to agree on every detail, that’s what makes us individuals – you still recognise the fundamentals being 100% accurate and beneficial to you and us all) and then taking the view that the best interests of the 99% are served in such a case. You do not achieve “nirvana” for all in one single step but the first step will be catastrophic for the 1% and create the basis for progressing toward that “nirvana”.
One small step…….
The question remains: How do we gather hundreds of thousands? THAT is the issue.
Earthling 
25 comments