In response to FatherLukeDuke I would say the following:
IMHO the programme started out with the intent of making Icke look an object of derision. That is how it was trailed and it is the sole reason why I
made a special effort to watch it in the first place.
That is my interpretation of the situation, you are entitled to yours. I respect your right to disagree with what I say, wouldn’t the world be
boring if everybody saw everything in the same way.
I agree that the existence of the Bilderberg group is not in itself secret, but their meetings most certainly attempt to be clandestine in nature.
If, as you say, everybody knows about the Bilderberg group, why would the rich and powerful people attending want their privacy protecting as you
suggest? There are now lists of attendees in the public domain;
www.bilderberg.org...
To me the covering up of the hotel foyer contributed strongly to the appearance of a meeting of people who had something to hide, although I know not
what. I merely ask, as the production team did, why the area was covered up if we could all find out very easily who was there anyway, after all a
canvas awning affords no protection from terrorist attack, particularly when you could see who was getting out of each vehicle. The attendees clearly
did not want to be seen, but why?
The fact that there was a security presence at this meeting was not a surprise at all. Having seen the programme yourself, you will recall the
sinister way though in which the camera crew’s vehicle was ‘stalked’ by the Mercedes in what appeared to me, and most certainly to them, to be
an attempt at intimidation. This is how I viewed it, but you are entitled to differ. It would have been the easiest thing simply to pull the
crew’s vehicle over, question them and ask them to leave, but this is not how it was handled.
There is no point in suing somebody with no money? I would say that by bankrupting David Icke and going for his personal assets to settle any damages
you would cause him a considerable degree of discomfort to say the very least.
It would also have the effect of discouraging him from continuing. Further, by making an example of him, it would also have a very strong deterrent
effect on any potential sympathisers thinking of speaking out in public.
I would say therefore that it would make very good sense for those targeted by him to sue him. If they have nothing to fear it would shut David Icke
up once and for all and make him look ridiculous. By them not doing anything to protect their reputations, inferences of there being no smoke without
fire will be drawn, rightly or wrongly, by the general public, as always happens in such situations.
As regards child molestation, that involves criminal activity and as such is not the responsibility of David Icke to pursue. It would be down to the
criminal justice system in the appropriate countries. I do not know why he has apparently not chosen to provide evidence to the authorities, you
would have to ask him that. Perhaps he has.
It is generally acknowledged that David Icke is perceived by some Jewish groups as anti Semitic, but at the time of the programme I do not think that
this was as widely known as now, nor were the unexpected cancellations attributed entirely to the Jewish groups at the time, otherwise I would not
have mentioned them. There certainly appeared to be darker, hidden forces at work, although I have no idea who they might be and the programme
didn’t either.
I am not an apologist for David Icke. I have merely learnt from my many years on this planet that you pre-judge people at your peril.
Peace to you all, whatever your race, colour, creed or religion.
