Jump to content

Will David Icke be suing these individuals


 Share

Recommended Posts

Apart from the content of the above, I would also like to 'sue' any video showing flickety joddery juddery movements (amen!)  

 

Does anyone know why some videos out there have this bizarre and annoying filming method -or after effect rendered on- (potentially used by any author, even Arnold Schwarzenggar as one example used in his political commentary video right after capitol hill riots)

Any offers to possibly explain why some are made in this crazy viewing style way?

 

My guess is its :-

  • to fixate (stupidly) & command grab your attention (again stupidly) by the flash effect which to me says brain wave manipulation technique AND/OR}} 
  • To make it hard to Edit and Copy certain videos with this maybe?? (*not to mention viewing is hard*) 

 

 

Edited by Acanthocereus tetragonus
To stop my text flashing at the readers, haha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard David say (somewhere to Brian Harvey i think) if its said publicly he would have them in court. You cant get much more public than putting it on YouTube.

David always makes a big thing about no one ever suing him over his allegations (not true) and gives the impression this lack of legal action adds credibility to his claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There needs to be another word for 'sue' , indict? 

 

Mr Icke has lasted so very long in an unforgiving world, etc, so surely he's more amirable than not, and so asking why would he lose credibility I don't have the answers to that.. Haven't researched it. 

Where did you find not true about his claim to lack of being sued if that is anything like accurate?  .... Just asking... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Acanthocereus tetragonus said:

There needs to be another word for 'sue' , indict? 

 

Mr Icke has lasted so very long in an unforgiving world, etc, so surely he's more amirable than not, and so asking why would he lose credibility I don't have the answers to that.. Haven't researched it. 

Where did you find not true about his claim to lack of being sued if that is anything like accurate?  .... Just asking... 

 

 

He does say that - pretty regularly actually. He says in 'Phantom Self', as one example, that someone read a section from 'The Biggest Secret' to Edward Heath, in which Icke accuses Heath of being a paedophile, and that Heath said nothing, and did not sue. He strongly inferred that this proved Heath's guilt. He made a similar inference regarding President George Bush senior, and others.

 

I don't know who this fucking Maloney fellow is, or what Brian Harvey's involvement in it is, but the whole thing is shady as fuck, particularly that people can openly make allegations like that in various areas of this forum, and the mods have not addressed this. I just don't understand this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2021 at 9:20 PM, Ethel said:

I don't know who this fucking Maloney fellow is, or what Brian Harvey's involvement in it is, but the whole thing is shady as fuck, particularly that people can openly make allegations like that in various areas of this forum, and the mods have not addressed this. I just don't understand this.

 

Mods can't be expected to read every single post and topic in this forum. If members see anything suspicious, questionable or otherwise in breach of the Forum Rules, then please use the Report post option to flag this up to us for attention.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloke in video is obviously a cockney..  He can cock off may I courteously say.. :D what next, video interview featuring claim "my pet iguana had sex with David Icke"..????.. Lolzzzz 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David did say, to Brian Harvey if i recall correctly, if (whats said in the video) is said in public he would have them in court. You cant get much more public than YouTube. 

Ive often seen David commenting how people never take him to court for his accusations against them, he uses this as if to say their lack of action is some sort of proof of guilt. However when Richard Warman did take David to court, despite asking for and receiving donations to fight the case David settled out of court on the eve of the trial.

There does seem to be a case of double standards here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^Fair enough??... Hmmmm. 

 

Anyhow... 

 

... My supposing (however random my thinking maybe)  goes like this...

 

Hopefully in the end (if this or that person comes up before a court) lets hope as David says about rather than a conventional Judge, wanting a Jury of The People is said (madeup of the people, as he mentions in a recent vaccine exposé video) for tackling vaccine iniquities... And that.

 

Could the same type of Public or Peoples Jury I wonder go yet further in theory, preside also over such matters and reign over the courts for things other than just (anti*-) vaccine justice*, which by that alone seems feesible since David thinks so!. ..Sounds good to me. 

 

Now for the rest, I maybe talking semi nonsense in the eyes of some more "court literate folk", but how far could we stretch or apply "Jury of The People" in terms of *individual persons* battling in court - (at least like one against one) - and each their arguments and allegations I am unsure..

 

I mean as sweet as justice may get with a People's Jury, is it the right way to go in all cases ideally??.. God knows if really always feesible as an idea of how to garner support OR DISSENT in cases of *character assassination* included (based on whatever guilt rises to the surface) ...

 

However, still is the question  how would it work then indeed?...

 

Does anyone know if we could OR CAN(?) EVEN NOW? apply THAT MASS STYLE OF COURT RULING to things NOT THINGS SO MUCH NECESSARILY, so l guess foremostly people being people by themself but to know DUBIOUS ASSETS OR MATERIAL CRAP could also play a part, (=God Forbid) like vaccines being the THING on trial -or- vaccine passport madness as THE (same evil) THING, etc..

 

As much as it is to my distaste, by contrast for others like Bill Gates it may rank as their (twisted) proudest moment like vaccines (if evil is your thing) and to others a scandal (me of the last opinion) 

There anyway, if people were not fully centre to a trial and not to be made fully liable (*difficult when they have indemnities*) the way could be to prosecute by mass peoples jury that could make more sense based on some numbers game, aka MASS OBJECTION AGAINST A THING AND ULTIMATELY A PERSON TOO CONVICTED (*not just fined*) all led by a suggested sort of trial by jury probably...

 

Whereas (repeating this) by contrast individuals looking to sue one another... that requiring maybe a more traditional court hearing.  

 

 

So I guess where people are concerned whomsoever gets  defensive by whatever has been 'offensive' to them/who/ & what, and is duly sick of stuff lingering on..  and that alone becomes stuff hard for them as a suspect to swallow and tough when someone feels umbrage and so winds up going to court, in frustration perhaps moreso than rational decision!??... (or else if a case is not simply ignored or settled out of court) ...

 

 

Well~ allegations lets suppose proceed to court or almost have done with David or whomever, he and the opponent each have the rite to defend themself on either side, whether one believes the other is in the wrong, or so and sod. well you see my point is this as I've kind of said already, isss MAAAAYBE, (I don't know I am not a legal expert) *is maybe based around* when a traditional  (up its own arse or not) court is MORE focused on a PERSON rather than a THING in the event that is deemed more important for whatever reason, (to meet the scope or perimeters of a particular trial),

Well....that could explain why to have a tradiitonal judge over a people jury I suppose or vice versa. But which is right or best concerning what issues?? 

 

So it would appear to me to be about not only which "premise"  on which something ends up in court but also about  "opposing individuals" as the case maybe instead of corporation on trial or business, so stuff may come out different or be approached differently depending on these factors?? ... 

 

Now Vaccines again a second,  which although 'doctored' by some evil, as an example, are what we have and are an untested array of vaccines and so easy to condemn that by any laymans view or mode of  justice! ..

 

But are the rules which govern such a court more likely legit when presented as a Jury of The People for the People and by The People as i've been exploring here??... And the question then being, could we target more effectively the OFFENDERS who seek to defend their CRIMES focusing about "a person" of wrong misguided iniquity like paedophilia, and have that be carried out by Peoples Jury in the same way and be just as legible and fair potentially whatever type of case is brought?  

 

 

Edited by Acanthocereus tetragonus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lamp Of Truth said:

Brian Harvey I think misses the limelight and celebrity lifestyle, he'll do anything for a bit of attention.

 

Maybe i dont know him or much about him, not my cup of tea as far as music goes. Has that got anything to do with the video in the opening post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Icke-Kia said:

 

Maybe i dont know him or much about him, not my cup of tea as far as music goes. Has that got anything to do with the video in the opening post?

 

It's Brian Harvey's YT channel that that video was uploaded on - BH TV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but is he endorsing it? I heard a recording of Harvey where he was warning David about this video saying it had been offered to him as some sort of trap. Thats where David said if it went public he would have them in court. Not sure if this is the video or part two is, maybe another. However if this 

Is not the video Harvey's sentiments are shown in the text below it where he writes 'David Icke is not a peadophile'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many points about this which are disgusting.

  • The dishonest desire for fame from scandal by the interviewer.
  • The shameful manipulation of the weak mentality of the interviewee.

In this day, where the sins of old are brought to light and yet where David had spoke of the BBC's nasty secret, where Jill Dando was assassinated for her investigations and many more where guilty by association and knowledge thereof. I'm not surprised that he had been targeted. Evil doesn't sleep, it rests not for it ever fears judgement, it's terrified therefore of the truth and hates those who will speak it.

 

We all know its best to give this as little energy and exposure, that even in object defence, it is still undesirable and thus unworthy of common knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Prometheus said:

 

We all know its best to give this as little energy and exposure, that even in object defence, it is still undesirable and thus unworthy of common knowledge.

 

Nod to that.  And the other stuff you say too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally i would do what David said he would and take them to court. David often points out those he accuses dont take him to court, if he doesn't act on this he needs to stop doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Whilst I get your point Icke Kia (funny name btw,  I thought of that too).... David maybe does the threat of going to court as the next best thing to actually going, and not b/c he is scared does he not push to go there. 

 

So, okay... In theory lets say it sounds reasonable you might think to stop flagging up would be intentions, about court threats, but legality is so boring and it wouldn't take many foes to meet in court before maybe bankruptcy became a factor as to why not go to court unless you really must.

 

I Don't Know legal rules for who pays costs, apart from the loser would normally payup *but* that simple known fact in civil cases may -I don't know the potential complexities- may further  depend on whats included as case material perhaps for each case.

 

But just THAT to be aware of simply about court costs are a deterrent perhaps on either side of a dispute...

 

And obviously as I and most people know it in UK... And which be either as Civil verses Criminal trials etc, so a lot may depend on that, regarding state of play regarding cost and who pays....

 

(Yeah I am not legal eagle but heyho) 

 

So as well as boring, its probably costly isn't it, if you legally and formally challenge every known foe out there!!?  

 

Plus to have to endure in court your opposers and accusers, --although --no worse I suppose (COULD ONLY BE IDEALLY SEEN IF FINANCIALLY VIABLE trying to nail them and nip them in the bud) --- no worse and no better either potentially - than public shaming of the alleged pinned on anybody, but still boring and expensive to go all the way challenging it all.

 

Besides, if we all help David exxxxpannnd to the mainstream more than he is (assuming this is always needed) ALL ALTERNATE VIEWS, then his presence & 'platform status' will speak for itself..  (on platforms bypassing twitter & youtube & FACE BLUFF, lol) where what this means is no matter who people are or where they go to for their online thirst quenching, the good things about DI and supporting his basic message internet wide (regardless of where he is censored+banned) is the real route out of those "one has foes" problems. Not by giving the stupids the time of day wasting energy on scurrilous, low life deceivers. 

Edited by TetraG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...