Stuuuuuu
Well-Known Member
My point was that there may still be a case to be answered, that's all.
blue cigar
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2005
- Messages
- 4,014
Isnt this one of david ickes old allegations? He had a pop at a royal involvement but thought he was on about a senior royal...or 2 senior royals? If so,how does he know all this and is he a fruitcake after all?
-dabz-
Well-Known Member
Here's something for you to ponder about....blue cigar said:
David Icke called out Jimmy Savile in one of his books in the nineties. Savile notoriously threatened to sue people all the time. He never touched David Icke no matter how many times Icke called him out for his, now proven, seedy life.
Icke can't claim credit for it though, and indeed he doesn't. A publication called The Scallywag did there homework on this fucker and many others coming to the boil as we speak. The writers both died in nefarious circumstances.
Or how about Edward Heath? Icke said what he said about him a good seven years before he died...did he sue? Did he fuck.
Fast forward to the Lord McAlpine debacle.....
He sued the BBC and ITV for about 750,000 quid if memory serves me, even though his name was never mentioned on both channels?
Add that to the fact he somehow gleaned I think it was five quid a piece from whoever named him on Twatter, including a fair bung from the wife of somebody, I forget who for now. All the way through it Icke shouted come and sue me....guess what?....he never did.
What Icke has said about the Royals involvment in all this.....I'm afraid you'll just have to suspend your disbelief and listen to what the guy has to say himself rather than the controlled medias version of it and him, and make your own mind up.
This isn't an Icke fan boy rant as some of you will no doubt try to paint it, these are facts.
Hamann Pineapple
Well-Known Member
stony said:
He calls them shape shifting lizards, don't exaggerate
blue cigar
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2005
- Messages
- 4,014
Interesting stuff. I know he's mentioned the royals being involved but didnt realise he nailed savile years ago.
Regarding prince andrew,does he have a case to answer or not?he has a name as a top cocker but. Id be suprised if he's involved in this kind of thing.
Regarding prince andrew,does he have a case to answer or not?he has a name as a top cocker but. Id be suprised if he's involved in this kind of thing.
-dabz-
Well-Known Member
stony said:
I agree, the whole lizard thing has been a kiss of death for him, and is a bit weird to wrap your head round, but if you listen to what he has to say (which most people don't) you can see how he arrives at these conclusions no matter how misplaced we take them to be. Are they true? is he right? fuck knows, but what Icke says about stuff cannot be condensed into just sound bites to appease those with low a attention span so you only get to hear about him and what he has to say second hand more often than not.
I will say this. There is more to David Icke than just the lizard shit, The Savile affair has proved this and we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water where Icke is concerned. If we had listened to him when Savile was around, maybe justice may have been done with the khunt.
-dabz-
Well-Known Member
I've been very careful of what Icke has said about Savile out of respect for the site, but trust me, it's only a fraction of what he's accused him of....blue cigar said:
Not just Savile either....
He's called out some very, very, very, powerful people.....most still living.....never been sued.....no warnings....fuck all. And he's openly stated.....come and sue me.....Nowt...go figure.
D
D
dronefromsector7g
Guest
How's he still walking around? Most people who call people out seem to crash into trees or fall off balconies.-dabz- said:
Blumers Bloomers
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 7,264
dronefromsector7g said:
Who else has he called out, and for what?
MCC
Well-Known Member
Blumers Bloomers said:
Baconface?
-dabz-
Well-Known Member
I'll pm you mate.Blumers Bloomers said:
-dabz- said:
I know. I know for absolute certain that the Queen of England is not a shape shifting lizard.
That is because shape shifting lizards do not exist.
And now we're into the realms of madness I see. Firstly lets go back to your ideas about "the nefarious deaths of the writers of the Scallywag". There were many writers of Scallywag, most of them are still alive. Two people who are dead are Angus James who smashed into a lorry when in the car with his mates after a party in Cyprus and Simon Regan who died 6 years later at the age of 58 after an illness.
"Nefarious"
Nowadays we'd call Regan a troll - he purposely printed false allegations in his little newsletter about anybody and everybody in power with the stated goal of producing anarchy. As in he literally said that is what he was doing, and his magazine was put out of business because he was sued by anybody and everybody and couldn't produce a single scrap of evidence in his favour. Despite formerly being a journalist, he spent the rest of his life blacklisted because he made up stories.
Then let's look at another facet to this claim - that "David Icke knew about all of this stuff for years". Unluckily for him, you can actually find PDFs of all of his writings online:
Here is the Robots Rebellion (1994),
here is And The Truth Shall Set You free (1996),
here is the Biggest Secret (1998),
here is Alice in Wonderland and the WTC disaster (2002),
here is Infinite Love is the Only Truth (2003),
here is the David Icke Guide to Global Conspiracy (2005),
here is Human Race Get Off Your Knees (2010) and here even is a newsletter written in 2010 where he accuses Ted Heath of being a Satanist, a child killer and a paedophile as well as George Bush.
These constitute the main body of work by David Icke prior to the discovery of the Jimmy Savile case. Within them he names several people as paedophiles and Satanists and lizards and all sorts of stuff.
Luckily with it being a digital archive we can quickly search for mentions of Jimmy Savile. How many do you think there would be, remembering that he named several dozen people within those books as being corrupt in some fashion including talking about sex rings? Would it shock you to learn that Jimmy Savile is only every mentioned twice in the whole body of work by Icke, one of which is where he was recounting an autobiographical tale about his time at the BBC, and another one was linking him as a friend of Ted Heath who he then went on to accuse as a paedophile? Two mentions in his entire body of work for this prolific and rampant rapist who Icke was daring to sue him and Icke has now claimed so much credit off of is not much of an indication of his thoughts about this monster in our midst is it. It's almost unrealistic to suggest that David Icke knew all about Savile and his member ship of a high level paedophile ring yet only ever mentioned it twice in his entire written works, despite mentioning other people connected with that ring.
That's because it IS unrealistic. I lied. The total amount of mentions Jimmy Savile garnered by David Icke in any of his written works prior to the public disclosure of his case was 0. Do it yourself, open those files, press Ctrl-F and search for Savile. 0 mentions. Ever.
Oh but he's mentioned him hundreds and thousands of times after the fact as more evidence to how he "knew all along".
This is a classic David Icke tactic and a tactic of all conspiracy theorists everywhere - they throw out so much garbage that it takes on an almost Nostradamus like quality of being able to say whatever it is that you want it to say in the future. It doesn't matter whether or not you ever said it because the type of people who buy into people like David Icke are not the type of people who buy into things like rigorous fact checking of claims, and half remember something that might have been a bit like what he claims to have said so take it as a given. It's confirmation bias where any information that buys into the story is accepted and any evidence, no matter how strong, that doesn't buy into the story is immediately rejected.
Hamann Pineapple
Well-Known Member
Hamann Pineapple said:
Yes when discussing controversial topics, news agencies often have to pass their copy to their legal representatives to ensure that it doesn't fall under libel, slander or any other possible litigious term. This then comes back as an approved wording which they then run as stories.
DOES ANYBODY IN THE WORLD JUST THINK ANY MORE?
Hamann Pineapple
Well-Known Member
Damocles said:Hamann Pineapple said:
Yes when discussing controversial topics, news agencies often have to pass their copy to their legal representatives to ensure that it doesn't fall under libel, slander or any other possible litigious term. This then comes back as an approved wording which they then run as stories.
DOES ANYBODY IN THE WORLD JUST THINK ANY MORE?
We know this, you're not a genius. It's still funny the caption guy fucked up.