David Icke - This clown is why I am hesitant to adhere to conspiracy theories! No end of stupidity.

Starting from post #2095 there is some interesting stuff about the financial set up of TPV.
My point being for posting this is to show that if DI can blatantly lie to his supporters about, in all practical and legal sense, about how and why their good donations are being spent....then how can he be trusted with all the other things he talks about? Which takes us full circle back to the OP.

Anyway, here's the link if anybody is in the remotest bit interest in weighing up truth from fiction....
sanctumzone.co.uk...

Rainbows
Jane

reply to post by angelchemuel


I have yet to see any evidence that any sort of financial skullduggery has occurred. It's all speculation and questionable testimony.

reply to post by LiveForever8

Well, if you'd care to have a look at the link I provided, you will see evidence, including screen shots of DI's registration of TPV at company house...which a poster went to the trouble of paying for, to see how TPV was registered. It's NOT what he's been telling his supporters.
.....I'll leave it with you.
Rainbows
Jane

reply to post by angelchemuel


I did look at the links.

Just to be clear, what HAS Icke been telling his supporters? Knowing this might make me think differently about the supposed evidence.

reply to post by LiveForever8

That's OK then, you've read the link, made up your mind, and that's perfectly fine.
I didn't provide the link to enter into a debate with anyone.
Rainbows
Jane

reply to post by angelchemuel

angelchemuel
That's OK then, you've read the link, made up your mind, and that's perfectly fine.

Not true. I haven't made up my mind, hence why I asked you a question so that I might better understand the significance of the evidence you presented.

angelchemuel
I didn't provide the link to enter into a debate with anyone.

You're posting information on a discussion forum and so must be prepared to face the scrutiny of fellow members. Heaven forbid you might have to converse with fellow humans!

I'm just as interested in getting to the bottom of this potential debacle as you are.

LiveForever8
reply to post by angelchemuel

 

angelchemuel
That's OK then, you've read the link, made up your mind, and that's perfectly fine.

Not true. I haven't made up my mind, hence why I asked you a question so that I might better understand the significance of the evidence you presented.

angelchemuel
I didn't provide the link to enter into a debate with anyone.

You're posting information on a discussion forum and so must be prepared to face the scrutiny of fellow members. Heaven forbid you might have to converse with fellow humans!

I'm just as interested in getting to the bottom of this potential debacle as you are.

Icke has been putting it over as a not-for-profit organisation, which I believe he is doing to skirt round a legal loophole. Why not say non-profit like most people? Because it is very probable that they're going to turn a real profit. They're set up to not have to declare detailed accounts (all of this stuff is in that link) and they're also set up so that not shares are bought and sold without the directors say so. There is NO CHANCE of transparency. You can't become the majority shareholder like you can with a Plc who's tradings are all transparent public knowledge. TPV is 100% private. Doesn't that strike you as odd? That a not for profit organisation is actually a private profitable business and not a charity that can be controlled by the very people who put the money in? ie The donators/would-be shareholders.

How many other private ltd companies do you know that have started on a publicly donated purse?

They've got the best of all worlds, and none of the agro like transparency.

Read the threads over there, all the info you need is available. Read this article if you wanna get up to speed on almost everything else: silvarizla.wordpress.com...

reply to post by LiveForever8

Then may I politely suggest that you have a look at the other links I have provided in the thread please?. I can't see any purpose in re-posting links to evidence to the back story.
Hope this helps you.
Rainbows
Jane

has anyone ever taken david icke to court for the things he puts in his books or got any of his books banned for defamation of character as some of them are pretty strong

NoRulesAllowed
For me,

people who claim (and/or BELIEVE) such hideous things are either

* mentally challenged (or have some actual mental illness going on)
or
* they have a deeper, more sinister agenda WHY they spread such things

Any other theory I can "logically" not follow since it would not in my head why someone could *seriously* believe in such theories and people. But this is not only in regards to Icke but also a majority of the current conspiracy theories but also religious craziness like people who claim the rapture is coming and then actually gather supporters.

The answer, I guess, is simply that mankind is irrational and basically nuts (to various extents)...leading to that such people are even taken seriously or can even sustain with their theories in public.

By the way....re "Ancient Alien Theory"...please do not forget this theory started way back in the 70s and how the SHOW presents it should not matter. (90% on TV is crap anyway). But when the AA theory started out in the 70s with EvD as it's "father", he at least made attempts to provide EVIDENCE, whether some/a lot of it was disproven later on or not, doesn't matter. At least he asked questions and had things to show WHY such a theory could be feasible.

This is significantly different to those types of people and theorists or prophets who claim things WITHOUT showing one single bit of evidence. EvD did NOT go public and said that Cheezus or DOG appeared to him in dreams and "told him" about the Ancient Aliens..at least he had things to show for WHY he developed the theories.

I'm sorry but this is a slightly absurd reply lol - seemingly fueled by unintentional (I assume) bias, generalisations and down right personal anger. Where can we go with that?

I'm not saying this because you are 'attacking' the theories of Icke, but because you are attacking them without even bothering to give them 2 seconds of your time. Did you hear the phrase 'shape-shifting reptilian overlords' and make your mind up in a speed close to resembling the Planck scale of time? This is the beauty of the media and how it can destroy something with the use of a few sentences.

You claim EvD at least provided evidence, but if you had listened to Icke talk on the subject you would've realised he also references a multitude of 'evidence' - no different in essence to the 'evidence' presented by EvD, but perhaps in greater quantity and variety.

The funny thing is, if we are both honest, AA theories date back to ~3000 BC with the 'kingships descended from heaven' that ruled us for 240,000 odd years. It's right there - the Sumerian's King List - for you to see and did not stop in any way, shape or form for the next 5000 years.

It is absolutely pointless to argue 'who said it first' or 'who pinched it from who' or whatever because this has been going on from the inception of history lol. The only difference is those more modern speakers of the theory have a different well of 'evidence' to draw from.

Anyway, I'm not claiming Reptilians run the world and you should listen to me, but I am saying Icke actually has a basis for his 'reptilian' claims and 'explains' them if you actually listen to him. He does speak a lot of sense on a variety of topics (Reptilians or not) and it's unfair to just turn around and claim anyone who believes what the guy says is mentally disabled/has a sinister agenda.

Check our my earlier reply for how he arrives or at least attempts to 'explain' this 'reptilian' thing; www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's worth getting to know your enemy.

angelchemuel
Starting from post #2095 there is some interesting stuff about the financial set up of TPV.
My point being for posting this is to show that if DI can blatantly lie to his supporters about, in all practical and legal sense, about how and why their good donations are being spent....then how can he be trusted with all the other things he talks about? Which takes us full circle back to the OP.

Anyway, here's the link if anybody is in the remotest bit interest in weighing up truth from fiction....
sanctumzone.co.uk...

Rainbows
Jane

No doubt something fishy is going on with the whole TPV situation, but checking on it on a day-to-day basis is only going to make it seem worse - as people get increasingly agitated.

I say give it 2 weeks to a month and see what really happens. It all seems abit too ridiculous/comical to me right now. Like a comedy sketch.

I'll be the first to admit he's truly lost the plot if he thinks he can pull this off completely lol. He's handling it like a panicked dictator at the face of a revolution if it is the case.

But in regards to your question:

My point being for posting this is to show that if DI can blatantly lie to his supporters about, in all practical and legal sense, about how and why their good donations are being spent....then how can he be trusted with all the other things he talks about? Which takes us full circle back to the OP.

It is a moot point.

Almost EVERYTHING Icke claims or draws upon already exists independently to Icke and has in various forms since the beginning of mankind. All Icke did was put it in a way and connect the dots in a manner that anyone could listen to and 'comprehend' it. He's like the Brian Cox of the conspiracy world lol.

But it doesn't matter if he's a fraud or not, because people have and will forever continue to express the theories of his in better and more complete forms because they are instrincally linked to us as humans.

The validity of the messenger of the information has no connection to the validity of the information if the information already existed in the same form prior to the messenger delivering the information.

reply to post by SilvaRizla

SilvaRizla
Icke has been putting it over as a not-for-profit organisation, which I believe he is doing to skirt round a legal loophole. Why not say non-profit like most people?

Not-for-profit is a perfectly acceptable title, it means exactly the same as non-profit.

SilvaRizla
Because it is very probable that they're going to turn a real profit.

There is nothing wrong with nonprofit organisations making a profit, afterall, they cant depend on the generosity of donations and financiers forever. Any surplus revenues must be retained by the organization for its self-preservation, expansion, or to achieve it's goals. Where is the proof that this isn't happening at TPV?

SilvaRizla
They're set up to not have to declare detailed accounts (all of this stuff is in that link) and they're also set up so that not shares are bought and sold without the directors say so. There is NO CHANCE of transparency. You can't become the majority shareholder like you can with a Plc who's tradings are all transparent public knowledge. TPV is 100% private. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Of course they have to declare accounts, they just don't have to show them to you. Although Icke has stated that he will share the full accounts at the end of the financial year so he can't have anything to hide, surely?

As for the shareholding issue...I can understand why he has avoided going down that route. The second you allow people to buy shares you become a target, you stop being an organisation and start being a commodity.

SilvaRizla
That a not for profit organisation is actually a private profitable business and not a charity that can be controlled by the very people who put the money in? ie The donators/would-be shareholders.

How many other private ltd companies do you know that have started on a publicly donated purse?

This isn't some sort of free-for-all, all you can eat buffet. I couldn't donate £5 and then expect to walk into their offices and start giving directing advice or declare a board meeting be held.

You are making this all sound a lot more sinister than it actually is, really.

However, I would like to ask Mr Icke why TPV was not set up as a private company limited by guarantee which is an alternative type of corporation used primarily for non-profit organisations that require legal personality. That, it seems, would have been the more obvious solution. Although even then it is legal for profits to be distributed to it's members.

It's a hard task to do what needs to be done without pissing someone off. I think sometimes people are bound by legalities and it is always going to look like the organisation is pulling a fast one.

projectbane

amazing

Bassago
reply to post by projectbane

 

Icke is great entertainment. Whether he believes or not shouldn't effect you, what do you care what he says?

Oh and the queen is a definite reptile.

hmmm now that's a tantalizing reptilian! My favorite is the news reporter who's eyes turn white.

I think that is a bloodshot eye or a eye problem she had.

I have not seen the one with the reporter. Can you direct me to it?

My pleasure! I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation but...this is my favorite video.

www.youtube.com...

Not-for-profit is a perfectly acceptable title, it means exactly the same as non-profit.

You may want to actually do some research before you assert something. The IRS makes a crucial distinction (so I assume HMRC do too) Not-for-profit is in relation to an activity, and nonprofit is in relation to an organisation.

There is nothing wrong with nonprofit organisations making a profit, afterall, they cant depend on the generosity of donations and financiers forever. Any surplus revenues must be retained by the organization for its self-preservation, expansion, or to achieve it's goals. Where is the proof that this isn't happening at TPV?

You sound like I did some weeks ago.

Yes this is correct, but it is also possible that the organisation can indeed be run for profit and has been set up as such. In light of other underhanded activities that have come to light, what's to suggest this isn't the case? It seems very probable to me.

Of course they have to declare accounts, they just don't have to show them to you. Although Icke has stated that he will share the full accounts at the end of the financial year so he can't have anything to hide, surely?

As for the shareholding issue...I can understand why he has avoided going down that route. The second you allow people to buy shares you become a target, you stop being an organisation and start being a commodity.

They key word in my sentence was "detailed". I did not suggest no accounts need to be filed. You haven't done any further reading whatsoever, have you? If you had you would be able to understand my point. As for being a target or commodity, so what? Its about not wanting to hand over control and allow people to see your inner workings. Much the same as a charity has a board of directors that often come and go and collectively decide what's good for the people. Not solely what Sean Adl-Tabatabai decides.

This isn't some sort of free-for-all, all you can eat buffet. I couldn't donate £5 and then expect to walk into their offices and start giving directing advice or declare a board meeting be held.

You are making this all sound a lot more sinister than it actually is, really.

That is not what I've suggested. Please do go and read the information that people keep providing and stop trying to twist my words. I'm talking in broader perspectives of how the company has been set up.

Bloody hell, for a site full of truth seekers you lot don't do much truth seeking do you?

However, I would like to ask Mr Icke why TPV was not set up as a private company limited by guarantee which is an alternative type of corporation used primarily for non-profit organisations that require legal personality. That, it seems, would have been the more obvious solution.

What do you mean why hasn't it been set up like that? Has it not become obvious to you?

amazing

projectbane

amazing

Bassago
reply to post by projectbane

 

Icke is great entertainment. Whether he believes or not shouldn't effect you, what do you care what he says?

Oh and the queen is a definite reptile.

hmmm now that's a tantalizing reptilian! My favorite is the news reporter who's eyes turn white.

I think that is a bloodshot eye or a eye problem she had.

I have not seen the one with the reporter. Can you direct me to it?

My pleasure! I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation but...this is my favorite video.

www.youtube.com...

This is my favourite video, and as Robin said, its funny because its true.

www.youtube.com...

Icke?

The man is a sociopath who changes his story every few years to keep selling books and tickets (anyone heard from Rakorski in a while?), recycles poor scholarship (Hislop's work on Catholicism, Acharya S' halfbaked Son-of-God/Sungod bull), spoons out regurgitated Theosophy, finds a 'spiritual' reason to cheat on his wife several times (who puts up with it in a way I've seen in abused spouses), and then bleats about how people turn against him when he sucks up £300,000 from the gullible and uses it to overspend on some grandiose TV scheme that seems to revolve around drivel and pushing his son's "music career".

The only thing funnier is when Alex Jones calles him a "championship goalie". Championship? The man was a second-rate ball catcher for Coventry City.

And that is before we get to the idea of shapeshifting invisible lizards piloting a hollow moon across space before going into orbit and waiting till humans developed modern electronics so that lizards could take over the world.....

Can of Tennants anyone? It's thirsty work fleecing people.

reply to post by SilvaRizla

SilvaRizla
You may want to actually do some research before you assert something. The IRS makes a crucial distinction (so I assume HMRC do too) Not-for-profit is in relation to an activity, and nonprofit is in relation to an organisation.

I have and from what I can see the difference is negligible. It is only specified in some IRS publications and most organisations are comfortable using them interchangeably. They both make clear that profit for private gain is not allowed.

SilvaRizla
You sound like I did some weeks ago.

Yes this is correct, but it is also possible that the organisation can indeed be run for profit and has been set up as such. In light of other underhanded activities that have come to light, what's to suggest this isn't the case? It seems very probable to me.

Again, of course it is set up to make a profit and yes, it is allowed as long as the profits are used to expand and improve. Of course they could take the money and run, yes. But they would be in serious hot water and I don't see the logic behind that idea. I certainly don't see it as being "very probable."

SilvaRizla
They key word in my sentence was "detailed". I did not suggest no accounts need to be filed. You haven't done any further reading whatsoever, have you? If you had you would be able to understand my point.

I have done much reading. Especially all of the forum posts on the links that have been offered in this thread. None of it proves that something nefarious is going on at TPV.

SilvaRizla
As for being a target or commodity, so what? Its about not wanting to hand over control and allow people to see your inner workings.

Hand over control to whom exactly? There needs to be a structure, a hierarchy, a vision. If there isn't all hell would break loose and it would be a complete shambles. Now, are those currently in charge on a ego/power trip? Possibly, I wouldn't argue against that to be honest. But are they hiding their inner workings because they are planning on robbing people blind? I don't think so.

SilvaRizla
That is not what I've suggested. Please do go and read the information that people keep providing and stop trying to twist my words. I'm talking in broader perspectives of how the company has been set up.

I have looked into how it has been set up and I don't see anything sinister.

SilvaRizla
Bloody hell, for a site full of truth seekers you lot don't do much truth seeking do you?

You haven't been here long, have you?

reply to post by LiveForever8


Can't see the wood for the trees eh mate? Oh well.

reply to post by SilvaRizla


There is no wood.

alienreality
All of these people that are against the status quo, do have some things of value, like another poster said, it is still worth listening to it all and take what's good, and toss out what is bad..

Ickes does have very accurate info on the Obama administration and the main people behind Obama, and it exposes these people in vivid detail, all can be separately verified.

I have never bothered to worry much about the reptilian junk, and even if it was actually true, what could anyone do about it? It would take more than anti venom to deal with I'm sure..

I second that...

Keep an open mind and do not take their word for everything they, like Icke, say.

I think it is very unwise to disregard everything a person says based upon one or more previous made mistake.