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.

 

'Conspiracy Author' David Icke Banned From EU, Labeled A "Terrorist"

page: 25
68
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
If someone made a formal complaint then what we have said above stands.

Correct.


He is presumed be innocent until the opposite is proven. And he is innocent until proven guilty.

Wrong. He is either one or the other, he cannot be both.
At the start of a trial he would be presumed innocent, at the end of the trial, if the accusations weren't proved, he would be declared innocent.


However in this case he is not even charged with any crime but there are unsubstantiated allegations offline and online about anti-semitism and whatever else. It could be that he is a holocaust denier and every other ridiculous claim made.

True. I only think you aren't being impartial when you classify the claims made as "ridiculous", as you are taking a position about it.


If Icke decide to take those who accused him to court then the English Law is quite protective against defamation. The burden of proof is now reversed and the one accused needs to prove that their claims are not defamatory.

True.


You do understand how risky is to make these allegations online without much evidence to support them. Even if you have bits and pieces that won't be enough to prove anything in a court of law and moreover it will cost you a fortune as you are very likely to loose the case and pay compensation for libel & defamation.

It will cost me nothing, as I'm not making any claims, but I understand what you mean and I mostly agree.


I wasn't referring to you by the way but to the previous members who have been accusing him providing what they 'think' it's evidence. It's better to keep your thoughts inside your mind in these cases and especially when these serious accusations are made that cannot be supported.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
It is the same thing as far as the law is concerned. Someone is innocent until proven guilty.

It's not the same thing.
If people were considered innocent there would be no reason for a trial, the trial happens to try to find if the person is innocent or guilty, and if they cannot prove the person is guilty the the person is declared innocent of those specific accusations.


And the presumption of innocence is key in fair and decent legal system. Even if someone is convicted they still have the right in most cases to appeal against their convictions.

True, but irrelevant for what we are talking about.


For the rest of what you are saying I will refer you back to my messages. Not all laws in all European countries are the same. The libel and defamation laws are different in the UK as it seems and the defamatory accusation is presumed to be false until proven the opposite.

That's also irrelevant, and, as far as I know, not really true, as far as I know defamation laws reverse the burden of proof in all European countries' laws. In Portugal it even applies to defamation of dead people and can result in a sentence up to six months imprisonment.


Again you need to understand that nobody is guilty until proven otherwise.

I do understand that. That's what courts are supposed to decide, if someone is guilty or innocent.


Icke ha never been conducted or even charged with anything.

True, as far as I know.


So this is more or less a fact and not an assumption. Sometimes I use the words 'it seems he has never been convicted or chargef' but that's what we use in the English/American vocabulary. It's an expression so we won't sound absolute and leave an open window in case we don't know something.

That's what I usually do, when I do not have the absolute certainty of something I show it and do not presented it as if I am certain about it.


In general the conversation isn't about whether Icke is innocent or guilty. He hasn't been charged with anything. Given though the online accusations such as the ones earlier in the thread, if Icke wanted to take a few people to court on the basis of libel & defamation, these few people would find it very hard to defend their accusations and most likely will have to pay a large amount of money in court fees and compensation.

I agree.


As for Icke he has been a victim of censorship and political correctness by the State which instead of arresting or threatening to arrest the derailed activists preferred to ban Icke making him more popular.

Typical state reaction, it's easier to deal with one foreign person than with an unknown number of possibly violent nationals.


By the way, I have been to courts and have a reasonably good experience on how matters work.

I was only once in a court, as a defence witness in a case in which my boss was accused of hitting one worker. He was declared innocent.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Last part is a general question. I wasn't referring to you when I asked if you have any evidence to substantiate your accusations.

OK, I thought it could be that, but I prefer things to be clear.



According to your logic we can never be sure of someone's innocence on a theoretical level and we will be living in a state of continuous uncertainty. But that's not how justice is conducted.

Exactly.

To me, we cannot be sure of any thing until we have enough proof about it.

To the justice system it's more or less the same thing, with courts existing to remove the uncertainty about specific accusations. That's why the courts sometimes (depending on the cases) declare the defendants not guilty of something but guilty of something else.
And even if someone is considered not guilty, that applies only to those specific accusations, so the uncertainty remains about everything else.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3




I will repeat that Icke doesn't seem to have a criminal record. And as far as I know he doesn't have a criminal record. Unless there is someone who can show he has a criminal record (which I very much doubt).


Because someone has no previous convictions proves nothing. As an example, a serial killer who hasn't been caught is stil a serial killer.



We assume someone is innocent until proven guilty or we can say someone is innocent until proven guilty.


You don't seem to be able to understand the differences here and ArMaP in my opinion later explains it to you perfectly. If they were inoccent then there would be no court case and they would be free to go.



As far as I am concerned he had never been indicted or convicted of anything hence any allegations don't stand unless they can be proven. Personal opinions by keyboard online warriors don't constitute evidence and they worth nothing.


The meaning of allegation: the act of alleging something.
ATS isn't a court of law and is a place for people to post opinions and try to show evidence to support their opinions, so accusing people of being keyboard warriors for this is a bit hypercritical considering the posts you've made on the site with your opinions about things like Covid and other subjects?



If any of you have any evidence that he has committed any crime post it here. Or any other evidence that he is anti-semitic and a holocaust denier. What the other member has posted was his personal opinions and not evidence.


I've posted the facts on Icke antisemitism which you've just ignored and made no comments on or shared opinions on other than "word salad" or "refuted" as childish come backs.
His publisher refused to publish his book because of antisemitism and others have called it out too.

From the Times of Isreal
Times of Isreal


Opposition Labor MP Tim Watts on Wednesday warned that Icke “could be spouting his vitriol” in Melbourne, home to Australia’s largest Jewish community, within weeks if he were allowed into the country.

“David Icke, a well-known British Holocaust denier, should not be allowed entry into Australia to preach his toxic message,” he told parliament.

Icke’s 1995 book, “And the Truth Shall Set You Free,” focused on a global conspiracy by “Rothschilds and Rockefellers” and contained a chapter questioning aspects of the Holocaust and criticizing society for suppressing “alternative information to the official line of the Second World War.”


CST.Org


Note the Stars of David and Israeli flags pinned to the reptilian NATO warmongers. It shows the unavoidable linkage between Icke’s “Rothschild Zionist” conspiracy theory and antisemitism, and is one of many images in his show that include Jewish and Israeli symbolism. This is no surprise, as much of his imagery comes from the wildest fringes of the American far right and 9/11 “truthers”.


Business Insider


Icke has long been accused of anti-Semitism, as his writings on the reptilian conspiracy theory are clearly evocative of the centuries-old blood-libel conspiracy theory, which alleged that a cabal of Jews were controlling the world and drinking the blood of Christian children. He has denied being anti-Semitic, The Guardian reported in 2001. Insider sent a message to Icke via the media-request contact form on his website, but had not heard back at press time.

edit on 27-11-2022 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2022 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
It is the same thing as far as the law is concerned. Someone is innocent until proven guilty.

It's not the same thing.
If people were considered innocent there would be no reason for a trial, the trial happens to try to find if the person is innocent or guilty, and if they cannot prove the person is guilty the the person is declared innocent of those specific accusations.


And the presumption of innocence is key in fair and decent legal system. Even if someone is convicted they still have the right in most cases to appeal against their convictions.

True, but irrelevant for what we are talking about.


For the rest of what you are saying I will refer you back to my messages. Not all laws in all European countries are the same. The libel and defamation laws are different in the UK as it seems and the defamatory accusation is presumed to be false until proven the opposite.

That's also irrelevant, and, as far as I know, not really true, as far as I know defamation laws reverse the burden of proof in all European countries' laws. In Portugal it even applies to defamation of dead people and can result in a sentence up to six months imprisonment.


Again you need to understand that nobody is guilty until proven otherwise.

I do understand that. That's what courts are supposed to decide, if someone is guilty or innocent.


Icke ha never been conducted or even charged with anything.

True, as far as I know.


So this is more or less a fact and not an assumption. Sometimes I use the words 'it seems he has never been convicted or chargef' but that's what we use in the English/American vocabulary. It's an expression so we won't sound absolute and leave an open window in case we don't know something.

That's what I usually do, when I do not have the absolute certainty of something I show it and do not presented it as if I am certain about it.


In general the conversation isn't about whether Icke is innocent or guilty. He hasn't been charged with anything. Given though the online accusations such as the ones earlier in the thread, if Icke wanted to take a few people to court on the basis of libel & defamation, these few people would find it very hard to defend their accusations and most likely will have to pay a large amount of money in court fees and compensation.

I agree.


As for Icke he has been a victim of censorship and political correctness by the State which instead of arresting or threatening to arrest the derailed activists preferred to ban Icke making him more popular.

Typical state reaction, it's easier to deal with one foreign person than with an unknown number of possibly violent nationals.


By the way, I have been to courts and have a reasonably good experience on how matters work.

I was only once in a court, as a defence witness in a case in which my boss was accused of hitting one worker. He was declared innocent.


Considered innocent until the opposite is proven.
So yes it is the same thing. Everyone IS innocent until proven guilty.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Last part is a general question. I wasn't referring to you when I asked if you have any evidence to substantiate your accusations.

OK, I thought it could be that, but I prefer things to be clear.



According to your logic we can never be sure of someone's innocence on a theoretical level and we will be living in a state of continuous uncertainty. But that's not how justice is conducted.

Exactly.

To me, we cannot be sure of any thing until we have enough proof about it.

To the justice system it's more or less the same thing, with courts existing to remove the uncertainty about specific accusations. That's why the courts sometimes (depending on the cases) declare the defendants not guilty of something but guilty of something else.
And even if someone is considered not guilty, that applies only to those specific accusations, so the uncertainty remains about everything else.


You misunderstood me here. You are presenting a scenario of absolute uncertainty. This doesn't exist though.

The law only considers whether you have evidence for your accusations. Nothing more. If you don't then you can't prove anything. This is an evidence based process.
edit on 27-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3




I will repeat that Icke doesn't seem to have a criminal record. And as far as I know he doesn't have a criminal record. Unless there is someone who can show he has a criminal record (which I very much doubt).


Because someone has no previous convictions proves nothing. As an example, a serial killer who hasn't been caught is stil a serial killer.



We assume someone is innocent until proven guilty or we can say someone is innocent until proven guilty.


You don't seem to be able to understand the differences here and ArMaP in my opinion later explains it to you perfectly. If they were inoccent then there would be no court case and they would be free to go.



As far as I am concerned he had never been indicted or convicted of anything hence any allegations don't stand unless they can be proven. Personal opinions by keyboard online warriors don't constitute evidence and they worth nothing.


The meaning of allegation: the act of alleging something.
ATS isn't a court of law and is a place for people to post opinions and try to show evidence to support their opinions, so accusing people of being keyboard warriors for this is a bit hypercritical considering the posts you've made on the site.



If any of you have any evidence that he has committed any crime post it here. Or any other evidence that he is anti-semitic and a holocaust denier. What the other member has posted was his personal opinions and not evidence.


I've posted the facts on Icke antisemitism which you've just ignored and made no comments on or shared opinions on other than "word salad" or "refuted" as childish come backs.
His publisher refused to publish his book because of antisemitism and others have called it out too.

From the Times of Isreal
Times of Isreal


Opposition Labor MP Tim Watts on Wednesday warned that Icke “could be spouting his vitriol” in Melbourne, home to Australia’s largest Jewish community, within weeks if he were allowed into the country.

“David Icke, a well-known British Holocaust denier, should not be allowed entry into Australia to preach his toxic message,” he told parliament.

Icke’s 1995 book, “And the Truth Shall Set You Free,” focused on a global conspiracy by “Rothschilds and Rockefellers” and contained a chapter questioning aspects of the Holocaust and criticizing society for suppressing “alternative information to the official line of the Second World War.”


CST.Org


Note the Stars of David and Israeli flags pinned to the reptilian NATO warmongers. It shows the unavoidable linkage between Icke’s “Rothschild Zionist” conspiracy theory and antisemitism, and is one of many images in his show that include Jewish and Israeli symbolism. This is no surprise, as much of his imagery comes from the wildest fringes of the American far right and 9/11 “truthers”.


Business Insider


Icke has long been accused of anti-Semitism, as his writings on the reptilian conspiracy theory are clearly evocative of the centuries-old blood-libel conspiracy theory, which alleged that a cabal of Jews were controlling the world and drinking the blood of Christian children. He has denied being anti-Semitic, The Guardian reported in 2001. Insider sent a message to Icke via the media-request contact form on his website, but had not heard back at press time.


I think in your case it would be best not to make serious accusations online having no evidence other than your personal opinion. If Icke was to accuse you of defamation you most likely to have been paying him a lot of money. Throwing serious accusations online isn't a wise tactic.

It's obvious that you understand very little or nothing in regards to the laws and the court proceedings.
edit on 27-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3




I think in your case it would be best not to make serious accusations online having no evidence other then your personal opinion. If Icke was to accuse you of defamation you most likely to have been paying him a lot of money


You only make these statements because you can't prove the statements in his books and his support of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" aren't untrue and clearly show his antisemtisim.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3




I think in your case it would be best not to make serious accusations online having no evidence other then your personal opinion. If Icke was to accuse you of defamation you most likely to have been paying him a lot of money


You only make these statements because you can't prove the statements in his books and his support of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" aren't untrue and clearly show his antisemtisim.


I don't have to prove anything as I haven't made any claims in regards to his book or books. Nor have I accused him of anything.

It is you who made the accusations.
The burden of proof is on you and not on me or Icke. If you have any serious evidence you could take him to court about these matters and accuse him. I am quite confident of the outcome of these court proceedings by the way.

I am also confident what will happen if he makes counter accusations about libel & defamation.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

In a few words Icke is a victim of political correctness and of a range of actions that are threaten by some derailed activists in the Netherlands. Mainly left-wing activists and ideologists who can't deal with the presence of Icke and have threaten civil unrest and disorder. Instead of getting arrested Icke was banned.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage


You have posted no facts about your accusations and you should be by now have become more wise to refrain from incriminating your position further. You don't seem to understand it though.

Even more absurd is that is you have been aging others to prove Icke's innocence...

It is you who has to prove he is guilty having made accusations against him.

You have no understanding of who has to prove what.

If you 'think' you have evidence then take him to court. First you need to consider a lawyer who will in turn advise you not to make stupid and potentially disasterous moves.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

No, you don't have to prove anything, but you've asked for evidence which I've supplied and show to be accurate and you've blatantly refuse to comment on and deny it.
Your only way of dealing with it is to live in denail



Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER

edit on 27-11-2022 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Considered innocent until the opposite is proven.

True.


So yes it is the same thing. Everyone IS innocent until proven guilty.

Wrong. Everyone is presumed innocent, as it says in the law.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You misunderstood me here. You are presenting a scenario of absolute uncertainty. This doesn't exist though.

Well, I think it is, and that's what the courts try to clear, the uncertainty about specific accusations.


The law only considers whether you have evidence for your accusations. Nothing more. If you don't then you can't prove anything. This is an evidence based process.

Right, but it doesn't make the defendant innocent of everything else either, that's why I said the uncertainty remains, there's always uncertainty about things we do not investigate.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
a reply to: ArMaP

In a few words Icke is a victim of political correctness and of a range of actions that are threaten by some derailed activists in the Netherlands. Mainly left-wing activists and ideologists who can't deal with the presence of Icke and have threaten civil unrest and disorder. Instead of getting arrested Icke was banned.

I think it's more a victim of the political unrest created by the bad decisions the Dutch government has made in the last couple of years or so and the present energy crisis.
When they saw there was another potential trigger for civil unrest that could grow the already existing they chose the lazy approach, as governments usually do.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

No, you don't have to prove anything, but you've asked for evidence which I've supplied and show to be accurate and you've blatantly refuse to comment on and deny it.
You're only way of dealing with it is to live in denail



Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.
CHARLES TREMPER


I have already commented on your 'evidence' as being nonsense and without any merits.

As the matter of fact suppose you were to visit a lawyer and get some advise and show him/her these messages then they would advise you to refrain from making these accusations. If you shoe term your 'evidence' they will advise you to stop the conversation altogether.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Considered innocent until the opposite is proven.

True.


So yes it is the same thing. Everyone IS innocent until proven guilty.

Wrong. Everyone is presumed innocent, as it says in the law.


Nope! I am quite right.

Pressured innocent means he/she is innocent until proven guilty.

I don't think you have a good understanding of this matter. Everyone is innocent until the opposite is proven whenever they are charged.

Icke hasn't even been charged.


edit on 27-11-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You misunderstood me here. You are presenting a scenario of absolute uncertainty. This doesn't exist though.

Well, I think it is, and that's what the courts try to clear, the uncertainty about specific accusations.


The law only considers whether you have evidence for your accusations. Nothing more. If you don't then you can't prove anything. This is an evidence based process.

Right, but it doesn't make the defendant innocent of everything else either, that's why I said the uncertainty remains, there's always uncertainty about things we do not investigate.


Clearly you don't seem to understand the legal proceedings and the process of establishing someone's guilt. A defendant is innocent until proven the opposite. As simple as that.

The only case in English Law where the burden of proof is reversed are in cases of libel and defamation.

A court doesn't care whether someone in theory could be guilty but whether you have the evidence to prove your accusations against them.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Asmodeus3

See, again you can only use your poor understanding of the law as a defence of Ickes comments. That's all you've done for the last 10 pages or so.
You havent spoken about his comments in his books other than to deny his antisemitism.



posted on Nov, 27 2022 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
You misunderstood me here. You are presenting a scenario of absolute uncertainty. This doesn't exist though.

Well, I think it is, and that's what the courts try to clear, the uncertainty about specific accusations.


The law only considers whether you have evidence for your accusations. Nothing more. If you don't then you can't prove anything. This is an evidence based process.

Right, but it doesn't make the defendant innocent of everything else either, that's why I said the uncertainty remains, there's always uncertainty about things we do not investigate.


We don't live in environments of absolute uncertainty. And If there is uncertainty it works in favour of the defendant mainly and not the other way around.




top topics



 
68
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join