It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

David Icke To Launch 'The People's Voice'

page: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
The fact that there's a few people on here who think there is no agenda to the mainstream media shows that the brainwashing is indeed working...




posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
This is the same David Icke who said that the Jonas Brothers were shape shifting reptilians (Not a joke.). This is the same David Icke who saw analogue video tracking problems & anomalies in news footage and said this was proof of alien reptilian shapeshifters. FFS, this guy is a complete joke. He is out of his effing mind and should not be supported financially to spread this crap.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
So if David Icke is asking for people to give him money to set up an internet TV station (could do it for practically free if he really wanted to), does that then mean he will not be taking any profits from it?

Will it be run as a business? What will happen to the profit?

Doesn't David Icke earn a lot of money from his talks, books, website etc? Surely if he needs 100k he can dip into his own funds?

If he is profiting from this new venture, with other people's money, then it's a big scam.

Why does he not get a channel on Feeview or similar? An internet TV show will not get him much attention, and if it''s not a proper TV channel that reaches the masses, and competes with the main stream media, then his whole venture is a complete waste of time.

Can't see this being that good to be honest.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


As I said yesterday... I like what Icke has to say but with today's tech, he can just stream live over the net.... you don't a License these days to broadcast webcam! You can even set up a channel on Youtube, I believe.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 





Elsewhere they have advertising that subliminally controls the minds of the masses into buying stuff they don't need.


What does advertising have to do with the MSM?....the MSM don't create adverts, adverts are created by private companies, everything from global corporations to small family run businesses.....it's how commerce operates in the 21st century!

I wonder if Ickey will allow subliminal mind controlling advertising on his shiny new station?......you bet your ass he will! and if they are paying the fees...he won't give a rats ass what it is they are selling!

Bottom line is that Ike is a player.....just like everyone else in business.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 





If you ask why Icke should be in London (and hence require money to pay for the prime position), you should also be asking why the BBC and others should be wasting taxpayers money on similar prime locations...London is obviously central to and well connected to travel links, hotels and hospitality for the guests you mention...come on, it's a capital city so there's also a prestige value to having a venue there.


Actually the BBC is in the process of moving a large chunk of their operations to Manchester to save money......take note Mr Ike.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Just re-reading the OP, and I can't help thinking:

Despite my misgivings, I've been a fan and reader of David Icke.

No matter what anyone says nowadays, he awoke people to the possibility of thinking very differently about the world other than the mainstream.

But "A People's Voice"?
That sounds like a Marxist propaganda newspaper from Zimbabwe, or some cult.
Or even worse, vitamin "cure-all" tablet salesmen and snake-oil entrepreneurs.
When I hear lip-service to "the people", I just want to run, because that lingo never reflects anything good.

It's rather unfortunate, because it made me think of the Icke industry in a very skeptical light all of a sudden.

But as far as I've read Icke, he never intended for people to follow anything blindly.
The name is such a contradiction.
To my mind Icke encouraged individuality, and not a hive collective like "the people".
Maybe things have changed with his popularity, but to me they have not.


edit on 1-6-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Wow, one day already of a 30 day campaign and he's already got 25K pounds pledged, or 25% of the amount he has to get pledged by the end of the month to get fully funded.

I'm not sure everyone realizes it, but he's talking a 24/7 completely uncensored news and commentary station; even if this can be done on the internet, you still need to pay technicians and reporters, get them to where the news is happening, etc. It'll take that 100K pounds just to keep the lights on.

More power to him, we certainly need something besides the obviously corrupt news that's out there. I'm sure we're all plenty able to use our own discernment to sort the wheat from the chaff.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
So this was his big announcement?
smh. That is not something you do a pre-announcement announcement for.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I like many here, have learnt a lot a from Icke with his epic 6 hours videos. He is such a well of knowledge, not all of it is true, but I wouldn't be surprised if 95% was indeed true!

Have donated 10 pounds and wishing them well for this project!



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Don't you think you're being a tad cynical here? I mean really, what's not to like about the people being given a voice? That may have negative connotations to you for whatever reason, but it's never been done by David Icke before. I trust him to produce something good, and I don't think the show should be judged before it's even on the road. Let's see what comes out of it.....



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiro

Originally posted by Sankari
No it doesn't. The TV licence doesn't go to the mainstream media, it goes to the government. The government requires this money by law, not the mainstream media.


You obviously dont live in the UK. It does go to mainstream media [at least partial] becuase they need funding to improve. The money goes nowhere near the government.

For reasons see my post above.

Be safe be well

Spiro


Actually the government sets the fee (fixed until 2016), but the BBC (or MSM in the UK) get's it and decides how to spend it.

And they spend so much money on the BBC website ALONE that it makes Ickes £100,000 look much less than chicken feed.

BBC Online cost £186.6 Million in 2011, that is AFTER a 25% reduction in spending in 2010...Vs. Icke's costs for a 'people's voice' Streaming TV and radio service at around £100,000.

Who's the money grabber again?



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by MysterX

Actually the government sets the fee (fixed until 2016), but the BBC (or MSM in the UK) get's it and decides how to spend it.


It appears you are in agreement with my post because I said the same thing, more or less.


And they spend so much money on the BBC website ALONE that it makes Ickes £100,000 look much less than chicken feed.

BBC Online cost £186.6 Million in 2011, that is AFTER a 25% reduction in spending in 2010...Vs. Icke's costs for a 'people's voice' Streaming TV and radio service at around £100,000.

Who's the money grabber again?


I am not entirely sure why you are asking me who the money grabber is? I am well aware of the BBC vrs Icke funding. I have not said anything about it? I was replying to a member who said that the the governement get the money, not anything to do with what your saying?

Whats the point of your post?

Be safe be well

Spiro
edit on 2-6-2013 by Spiro because: fix quote tags



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiro
Greetings,


Originally posted by MysterX

Actually the government sets the fee (fixed until 2016), but the BBC (or MSM in the UK) get's it and decides how to spend it.


It appears you are in agreement with my post because I said the same thing, more or less.


And they spend so much money on the BBC website ALONE that it makes Ickes £100,000 look much less than chicken feed.

BBC Online cost £186.6 Million in 2011, that is AFTER a 25% reduction in spending in 2010...Vs. Icke's costs for a 'people's voice' Streaming TV and radio service at around £100,000.

Who's the money grabber again?


I am not entirely sure why you are asking me who the money grabber is? I am well aware of the BBC vrs Icke funding. I have not said anything about it? I was replying to a member who said that the the governement get the money, not anything to do with what your saying?

Whats the point of your post?

Be safe be well

Spiro
edit on 2-6-2013 by Spiro because: fix quote tags


Although i was replying to essentially support your own point of view, i was also addressing the wider ATS reader, not just yourself.

The point i was making was for those posters who are centered on the financial aspects of Ickes' new venture, to show that in comparison to established corporations, the finance required to get 'The People's Voice' website up and running is laughingly negligible, thus demonstrating if Icke was a conman proposing the venture simply to elicit money, he's very, very cheap...essentially free by the BBC's financial standards.

Since Icke is setting his website up in direct competition with the BBC's, £100,000 of funding against £186.6 Million of funding is a very small price to gain another voice with which to inform the British Public.

That's all.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
It already exists. I mean there are already alternative Tv channels. So wondering how Ickes will differ from the others.

All the money that tax payers pay for TV. Is not going or being spend on Tv programs. Because they just repete the same programs to save money and reality TV is very cheap to film.

Its a con.

I think hes going to do like Alex Jones has done with his radio station. Thats the feeling Im getting from the whole thing.
Maybe he will treat it like his " hobby" .
edit on 2-6-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
Although i was replying to essentially support your own point of view, i was also addressing the wider ATS reader, not just yourself.

The point i was making was for those posters who are centered on the financial aspects of Ickes' new venture, to show that in comparison to established corporations, the finance required to get 'The People's Voice' website up and running is laughingly negligible, thus demonstrating if Icke was a conman proposing the venture simply to elicit money, he's very, very cheap...essentially free by the BBC's financial standards.

Since Icke is setting his website up in direct competition with the BBC's, £100,000 of funding against £186.6 Million of funding is a very small price to gain another voice with which to inform the British Public.

That's all.



Greetings,

I understand now, thank you


I do agree with everything you said too


I hope Icke gets it going!!

Be safe be well

Spiro



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
This is a desperate money-grab by Icke, who can't handle the fact that most people simply don't find him remotely interesting.

Not even his former followers.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
It already exists. I mean there are already alternative Tv channels. So wondering how Ickes will differ from the others.

All the money that tax payers pay for TV. Is not going or being spend on Tv programs. Because they just repete the same programs to save money and reality TV is very cheap to film.

Its a con.


I too will be interested to see if Icke brings anything new to the 'news' table..hopefully the format will be different, less conformist and 'plastic' perhaps, and actually report on the issues that the people of the UK and the wider world will recognise as being newsworthy, relevant and not drowning in bias and propaganda.

Time will tell i suppose.

Repeats and reality are cheap to produce...which make me wonder exactly how BBC1 alone spends almost £1.5 BILLION a year (when hospitals A&E's are collapsing up and down the country) and so on.

It's a disgrace IMO, that such sums are dragged kicking and screaming from the Public pocket and spent in such a Cavalier fashion when there are SO many more areas the money would be better spent and of so much more benefit to the British people...people are literally dying for lack of adequate funding, nobody will die from lack of Eastenders (etc.)

ETA: Thanks Spiro.


edit on 2-6-2013 by MysterX because: added text



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


Yep, well those billions are going on what they want them to go on. Whats more as Tv gets worse it gets cheaper.

So maybe more alternative channels are the key.

But I think David Icke needs to tread carefully. If this falls through I think many will not be buying his next book.

If he really wants to make it more of a peoples channel he needs to allow " phone ins" and maybe even do like discussions , abit like you have on BBC where people are togeather and discuss different topics.

That way we can see , that its not just his viewpoint.

Its always hard to tell when TV is being manipulated, faked and so on. Because its simply so easy for them to do. Since its " acting" mostly.
edit on 2-6-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join