Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: joswift on May 03, 2020, 10:00:14 AM
-
https://londonreal.tv/1000000-fighting-for-freedom/
-
I assume he's a foilhat nutcase
Am i right?
And how come all those tough guys always end up being snowflakes complaining about how they get banned and shut down all the time?
-
I assume he's a foilhat nutcase
Am i right?
And how come all those tough guys always end up being snowflakes complaining about how they get banned and shut down all the time?
go and listen, you have nothing else to do
-
No way then maybe I will end up a nutcase too
I cant take that risk
-
He's right, the main killer will be the lockdown and its consequences.
-
wow there will be consequences of a lock down!!
WHAT A GENIUS
-
Icke is WAY out there but I find it interesting that they are taking down some of the guys like Alex Jones that for years were often called dis-info agents.
I mean if they are THAT nutty leave them up, right?
(https://www.dreadcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/V_ALIEN-300x300.jpg)
-
wow there will be consequences of a lock down!!
WHAT A GENIUS
How's that lifting coming FCD? You look lean.
-
YouTube, which is owned by Google, told the BBC: “YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO and the NHS.
“Due to continued violation of these policies we have terminated David Icke’s YouTube channel.”
So any differing opinion from these organisations, equals banning.
-
You will do as the government says or you will be punished.
WHAT A FUCKING JOKE!
-
Well at least we can discuss the REAL TRUTH about covid 19 here on getbig! And maybe David Ecke can register!
-
I assume he's a foilhat nutcase
Am i right?
And how come all those tough guys always end up being snowflakes complaining about how they get banned and shut down all the time?
Best way to describe him would be to say he is an intelligent and occasionally insightful guy who has some kinda brain damage.
-
Best way to describe him would be to say he is an intelligent and occasionally insightful guy who has some kinda brain damage.
Youre not bad yourself!
-
I assume he's a foilhat nutcase
Am i right?
And how come all those tough guys always end up being snowflakes complaining about how they get banned and shut down all the time?
You've just describe the OP. Props! The guy is as weird and kooky as they come. It's no surprise he suck Ickes' dick.
-
You've just describe the OP. Props! The guy is as weird and kooky as they come. It's no surprise he suck Ickes' dick.
Now who's following who?
try and avoid internet battles with your condition, early onset dementia and stress are not a great combination.
-
If one makes enough cooky predictions, some are bound to be right.
“Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”
-
If one makes enough cooky predictions, some are bound to be right.
“Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”
he doesn't make lots of random predictions, hes not Nostradamus
He has theories and ideas of how the world is run
His "problem , reaction, solution" theory is pretty hard to argue against.
-
Youtube is banning any video that is critical of the government during this "pandemic."
-
Do you think anything should be allowed on youtube?
-
Do you think anything should be allowed on youtube?
Not stuff like pornography but free speech, yes.
-
Not stuff like pornography but free speech, yes.
Whatabout people reaching millions with dangerous health advice? Should youtube provide a platform for that?
-
Whatabout people reaching millions with dangerous health advice? Should youtube provide a platform for that?
Who determines dangerous health advice? If someone tells you to eat meat and that goes against the "health experts" advice, should that be banned?
-
Who determines dangerous health advice? If someone tells you to eat meat and that goes against the "health experts" advice, should that be banned?
Drinking 5 gallons of water per day
-
YouTube, which is owned by Google, told the BBC: “YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO and the NHS.
“Due to continued violation of these policies we have terminated David Icke’s YouTube channel.”
So any differing opinion from these organisations, equals banning.
David Icke is a charlatan. Good riddance.
-
Drinking 5 gallons of water per day
Sure, freedom of speech. Youtube is owned by Alphabet, a publicly traded company.
-
David Icke is a charlatan. Good riddance.
Attack the messenger not the message.
-
Sure, freedom of speech. Youtube is owned by Alphabet, a publicly traded company.
Whatabout a youtubechannel, with an audience of millions where they every week shows how to mix the perfect rape drug?
-
Sure, freedom of speech. Youtube is owned by Alphabet, a publicly traded company.
They own Google as well. So Google and Youtube are owned by the same company.
Facebook owns Instagram and Whattsapp.
-
Funny how the best proof conspiracy nuts have about Covid-19 being a hoax is an idiot being banned from YouTube.
-
Who determines dangerous health advice? If someone tells you to eat meat and that goes against the "health experts" advice, should that be banned?
Properly raised meat is one of the healthiest foods you can eat. Period.
-
Now who's following who?
try and avoid internet battles with your condition, early onset dementia and stress are not a great combination.
You start shit with others and then cry when it happens to you.
Pussy.
(https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2015/04/crybaby.jpg)
-
he doesn't make lots of random predictions, hes not Nostradamus
He has theories and ideas of how the world is run
His "problem , reaction, solution" theory is pretty hard to argue against.
Only hard to argue by a moron like you. A brainwashed mindless drone taking commands from kooks over the internet.
-
Properly raised meat is one of the healthiest foods you can eat. Period.
No shit.
-
Only hard to argue by a moron like you. A brainwashed mindless drone taking commands from kooks over the internet.
Why do you keep poking me with a stick, you will end up a nervous wreak if you end up going backwards and forwards with someone who doesn't give a fuck about you.
You are too emotional for internet trolling, it's just not you, you are way too highly strung.
It will end up with me posting gifs and photos and one word responses and you posting walls of text saying how you are inside my mind and you own me... don't put yourself through all that effort, its not worth it.
Just look how upset you get about hobos and hamburgers
-
Why do you keep poking me with a stick, you will end up a nervous wreak if you end up going backwards and forwards with someone who doesn't give a fuck about you.
You are too emotional for internet trolling, it's just not you, you are way too highly strung.
It will end up with me posting gifs and photos and one word responses and you posting walls of text saying how you are inside my mind and you own me... don't put yourself through all that effort, its not worth it.
Just look how upset you get about hobos and hamburgers
Wah, wah, wah. Crying like a little bitch. A day never went by when you couldn't restraint yourself with your snarky dickhead comments and now when it's done to you it's "Hey, why do you keep poking at me?" I gave you four opportunities to just end it and you couldn't. That's four times and you still couldn't stop. You can stop it anytime you want. Just let me know you want to end it like I did with you four times and it will end. If not, I am not going to let a little cowardly punk-ass bitch like you harass me and prepare to go on and on and on until the day I die. Post all the gifs you want and I'll keep posting your naked pics you post on an all male bbing board obviously trolling for cock.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=665214.0;attach=1149081;image)
-
There was someone over a year ago who stated some things about Elon Musk on Reddit and got picked up by some CT sites. When Elon stuff came out, shit hit the fan and "they' targeted all those types of sites. The tinfoil gist of the Elon stuff was that he works for NASA and his Space-X was NASA's CGI/Hologram division. That Elon was going to fire up his hologram machine and create in the sky UFO/s for us all to see. Fake Alien invasion or contact. However we want to look at it. That they are going to do this and come out and say they are in contact with some sort of Alien race. And that the aliens won't give us their technology unless we all on earth unite and become some sort of One World entity. Is it all BS? Well, if we start to see the media talking a lot of UFO's and or aliens, I think it will be safe to say it may not be BS...
-
Youtube is not a government-run entity supported by the taxpayers. They can have a website and control any of the content that they wish. If they want a site where they only talk about muscle cars and deleted any posts or subjects that have nothing to do with muscle cars it is their right. I don't agree with a lot of their censoring but you do not have any legal right to post what you want. Just like this board. Ron can delete any post or ban any member he wants for any reason or no reason.
-
Wah, wah, wah. Crying like a little bitch. A day never went by when you couldn't restraint yourself with your snarky dickhead comments and now when it's done to you it's "Hey, why do you keep poking at me?" I gave you four opportunities to just end it and you couldn't. That's four times and you still couldn't stop. You can stop it anytime you want. Just let me know you want to end it like I did with you four times and it will end. If not, I am not going to let a little cowardly punk-ass bitch like you harass me and prepare to go on and on and on until the day I die. Post all the gifs you want and I'll keep posting your naked pics you post on an all male bbing board obviously trolling for cock.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=665214.0;attach=1149081;image)
Very strange.
-
Wah, wah, wah. Crying like a little bitch. A day never went by when you couldn't restraint yourself with your snarky dickhead comments and now when it's done to you it's "Hey, why do you keep poking at me?" I gave you four opportunities to just end it and you couldn't. That's four times and you still couldn't stop. You can stop it anytime you want. Just let me know you want to end it like I did with you four times and it will end. If not, I am not going to let a little cowardly punk-ass bitch like you harass me and prepare to go on and on and on until the day I die. Post all the gifs you want and I'll keep posting your naked pics you post on an all male bbing board obviously trolling for cock.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=665214.0;attach=1149081;image)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/TQbCSC7hZj2cU/giphy.gif)
-
https://vimeo.com/411499182?ref=fb-share&1
-
Very strange.
Not if you're a phaggot trolling for cock on gay websites.
Granny face definitely a switch hitter.
-
(https://media.giphy.com/media/TQbCSC7hZj2cU/giphy.gif)
Exactly. The collective disgust here is palatable.
Ironic that it was SF who first used that gif in describing the reaction to one of Primemuscle's post that you copied.
-
Exactly. The collective disgust here is palatable.
Ironic that it was SF who first used that gif in describing the reaction to one of Primemuscle's post that you copied.
hahaha, it just shows how little you have in your life that you can remember who posted a gif and about what years ago..
-
hahaha, it just shows how little you have in your life that you can remember who posted a gif and about what years ago..
Sure. Awesome point -- lol. Having a good memory means you have no life. A house that's a stone throw away from the beach, comfortable retirement, surrounded by family and friends and you, a 55 year man living in a one bedroom apartment in a cloudy gloomy culture as you stash away your pennies so that you can save for another tanning salon appointment to get that all-over tan to take more naked pictures of yourself to post on gay websites trolling for cock.
-
Sure. Awesome point -- lol. Having a good memory means you have no life. A house that's a stone throw away from the beach, comfortable retirement, surrounded by family and friends and you, a 55 year man living in a one bedroom apartment in a cloudy gloomy culture as you stash away your pennies so that you can save for another tanning salon appointment to get that all-over tan to take more naked pictures of yourself to post on gay websites trolling for cock.
meltdown
trying to justify your existence to someone who doesn't care a jot
I used to think winding Eric up was easy..
I have already explained how you are going to melt and here you are doing it
-
Youtube is not a government-run entity supported by the taxpayers. They can have a website and control any of the content that they wish. If they want a site where they only talk about muscle cars and deleted any posts or subjects that have nothing to do with muscle cars it is their right. I don't agree with a lot of their censoring but you do not have any legal right to post what you want. Just like this board. Ron can delete any post or ban any member he wants for any reason or no reason.
A publicly traded company can censor?
-
meltdown
trying to justify your existence to someone who doesn't care a jot
I used to think winding Eric up was easy..
I have already explained how you are going to melt and here you are doing it
Your responses are getting weaker and weaker. Why do you avoid answering the question about why you post naked pictures of yourself on an all male bbing board? Does your wife know you do this?
-
A publicly traded company can censor?
Why wouldn't it be? What if someone wanted to post porn vids on that site? Are they under any legal obligation to give an open forum to everyone and any ideas?
You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to force people to listen.
-
Why wouldn't it be? What if someone wanted to post porn vids on that site? Are they under any legal obligation to give an open forum to everyone and any ideas?
You have a right to free speech but you do not have a right to force people to listen.
No one is forced to listen to Icke's videos either.
-
No one is forced to listen to Icke's videos either.
The worry is that many who listen to that charlatan are influenced by things he says. It pleases me that he is banned.
Foolish people actually paid money to hear him present his crap.
-
The worry is that many who listen to that charlatan are influenced by things he says. It pleases me that he is banned.
Foolish people actually paid money to hear him present his crap.
So, who should be the authority on what or who we can listen to and who we can't?
-
No one is forced to listen to Icke's videos either.
Exactly. Which why YouTube turned him off.
-
So, who should be the authority on what or who we can listen to and who we can't?
In this case, YouTube. It's their site. They can have whatever legal content they want, be it all sports, all porn, all no Icke.
Whoever pays the piper calls the tune.
-
Exactly. Which why YouTube turned him off.
Which is good for Bitchute. Pellius, what do you have against free speech? I thought you would be against this censorship.
-
In this case, YouTube. It's their site. They can have whatever legal content they want, be it all sports, all porn, all no Icke.
Whoever pays the piper calls the tune.
But Youtube is a publicly traded company, not private.
-
Which is good for Bitchute. Pellius, what do you have against free speech? I thought you would be against this censorship.
People don't seem to understand what the right to free speech is. YouTube is a private company so they make the rules. You can say what you want in your own life but not at work. They can tell what you can and can not say. What you have to wear. What time you have to arrive and leave. This forum censors you. Ron can delete any posts he wants for any reason or no reason.
I am against YouTube censoring a lot of conservative leaning videos but it's their right. If some wants to start an alternate streaming service then they have that right. Just like if you don't like how this board is monitored and censored then start your own board.
-
People don't seem to understand what the right to free speech is. YouTube is a private company so they make the rules. You can say what you want in your own life but not at work. They can tell what you can and can not say. What you have to wear. What time you have to arrive and leave. This forum censors you. Ron can delete any posts he wants for any reason or no reason.
I am against YouTube censoring a lot of conservative leaning videos but it's their right. If some wants to start an alternate streaming service then they have that right. Just like if you don't like how this board is monitored and censored then start your own board.
Again they are a publicly traded company.
-
But Youtube is a publicly traded company, not private.
So what? If you own shares in Apple you had zero say in whether or not they should have kept the headphone jack. A lot people really miss that feature. If it bothers you that much then don't support Apple.
-
YouTube has already been sued for this before. Dennis Prager has sued them for censoring his videos and lost. They are appealing but they will lose again. You cannot force someone to publish your content. YouTube or any Tube can declare that they will not publish any videos that has any political content period. They will only publish comedy routines. Do they have that right?
-
YouTube has already been sued for this before. Dennis Prager has sued them for censoring his videos and lost. They are appealing but they will lose again. You cannot force someone to publish your content. YouTube or any Tube can declare that they will not publish any videos that has any political content period. They will only publish comedy routines. Do they have that right?
The ninth circuit decided that. It will be interesting to see if this goes to the Supreme Court.
-
YouTube has already been sued for this before. Dennis Prager has sued them for censoring his videos and lost. They are appealing but they will lose again. You cannot force someone to publish your content. YouTube or any Tube can declare that they will not publish any videos that has any political content period. They will only publish comedy routines. Do they have that right?
The problem is that they're basically monopolising social media. Google and Youtube are also owned by the same company.
Facebook owns Instagram and Whattssapp. All of these companies have massive influence.
Seems it's all within the law (at least US competition laws) but not an ideal situation to have. Because without competition, the company can do whatever they want and not worry too much about losing users/customers because even if it becomes a worse product, there's nowhere else to go which has anywhere near the same user base. And the size of the existing user base is a very important determining factor when people are choosing products to use.
-
The ninth circuit decided that. It will be interesting to see if this goes to the Supreme Court.
Do you believe a website should be forced to publish content they don't want? And before you say it, being a publically traded company has nothing to do with how it is run. It is not the investors that tell a company how it is run, it is how a company is run that attracts investors.
-
So what? If you own shares in Apple you had zero say in whether or not they should have kept the headphone jack. A lot people really miss that feature. If it bothers you that much then don't support Apple.
If you are moaning about censorship on Facebook and Youtube then dont use them ..
-
Also, videos on Youtube which criticise China and the CCP are almost always de-monetised.
So if you criticise a totalitarian communist dictatorship or voice support for the Hong Kong protesters or Taiwan, you are 'punished'.
-
As long as those old Rich Piano videos are still up on youtube we are all good!!
-
If you are moaning about censorship on Facebook and Youtube then dont use them ..
Haha the bisexual phaggot doesn't have a clue.
Your reading comprehension is even dumber than I thought. Your the type of guy that after a group of thugs pull a train on you, you still claim to be the top.
-
Do you believe a website should be forced to publish content they don't want? And before you say it, being a publically traded company has nothing to do with how it is run. It is not the investors that tell a company how it is run, it is how a company is run that attracts investors.
Yes they should, especially If the company becomes used like a public utility. I can ask you the same. Should a phone company be forced to provide service to people who spread information they don't want?
-
People don't seem to understand what the right to free speech is. YouTube is a private company so they make the rules. You can say what you want in your own life but not at work. They can tell what you can and can not say. What you have to wear. What time you have to arrive and leave. This forum censors you. Ron can delete any posts he wants for any reason or no reason.
I am against YouTube censoring a lot of conservative leaning videos but it's their right. If some wants to start an alternate streaming service then they have that right. Just like if you don't like how this board is monitored and censored then start your own board.
This is such a weak cop-out. I hear people run their mouth all the time about a "private" companys' right to do as it pleases when it come to speech but clam up when I bring up the the freedom of association clause as in the state shouldn't be able to force private citizens to associate with entities they don't want to associate with.... for example a refusal to serve or hire whites/blacks/asians in their private establishments. This is a guaranteed constitutional right by the way.
What say you pellius?
-
Haha the bisexual phaggot doesn't have a clue.
Your reading comprehension is even dumber than I thought. Your the type of guy that after a group of thugs pull a train on you, you still claim to be the top.
and there you go again, its not about you, just because I quote you it isn't a personal attack, you need to calm down Nancy
All Im saying is that if people disagree with Youtube and FB then they should stop using them, they can do what they like
The post wasn't aimed at you personally.
Now try and read things properly and count to ten before you post, you may keep your blood pressure down to a manageable level
-
Does anyone here on Getbig actually subscribe to the bullshit Icke peddles? That jerk has no shame whatever. He is smart enough to know that lots of gullible people will believe what he claims and thus buy his books and attend his talks. The guy is full of shit and deserves to be booted off all media so he can't poison so many simple minds.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Icke
-
David Icke says some out there stuff as well as truths. Rush Limbaugh used to say "deep state" was kook talk but now literally says "deep state" all the time. Trump used to and still does regard GW Bush as a pile of trash(he is). Now people who loved Bush praise Trump.
Don't let anyone bully you or anyone into telling you what is okay or not ok to listen to. You can listen for meaning, entertainment, different perspectives or whatever.
Icke was one of the most outspoken against Jimmy Saville(extreme molester) when the mainstream media called it conspiracy theory.
FUCK anyone that would try to silence anti-child-molestation speech. Don't wait until speech or thought has to be approved by dimwits until you speak out or have opinions.
Which idiotic, evil, insane FUCKING trash here is for Jimmy Saville...
Allegations of sexual abuse
Main article: Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal
During his lifetime
During Savile's lifetime, sporadic allegations of child abuse were made against him dating back to 1963,[106] but these only became widely publicised after his death. Savile claimed the key to his success on Jim'll Fix It had been that he disliked children, although he later admitted to saying this to deflect scrutiny of his personal life. He did not own a computer, claiming that he did not want anybody to think he was downloading child pornography.[2] His autobiography As it Happens (1974, reprinted as Love is an Uphill Thing, 1976) contains admissions of improper sexual conduct which appear to have passed unnoticed during his lifetime.[107]
Former Sex Pistols and Public Image Ltd vocalist John Lydon alluded to sordid conduct committed by Savile, as well as suppression of widely held knowledge about such activity, in an October 1978 interview recorded for BBC Radio 1. Lydon stated: "I'd like to kill Jimmy Savile; I think he's a hypocrite. I bet he's into all kinds of seediness that we all know about, but are not allowed to talk about. I know some rumours." He added: "I bet none of this will be allowed out."[108] As predicted, the comment was edited out by the BBC prior to broadcasting, but the complete interview was included as a bonus track on a re-release of Public Image Ltd's 1978 debut album Public Image: First Issue in 2013, after Savile's death.[109] In October 2014, Lydon expanded on his original quote, saying: "By killed I meant locking him up and stopping him assaulting young children... I'm disgusted at the media pretending they weren't aware."[110]
Former professional wrestler Adrian Street described in a November 2013 interview how "Savile used to go on and on about the young girls who’d wait in line for him outside his dressing room ... He'd pick the ones he wanted and say to the rest, 'Unlucky, come back again tomorrow night'." Savile, who cultivated a "tough guy" image promoted by his entourage, was hit with real blows during a 1971 bout with Street, who commented that had he "known then the full extent of what I know about [Savile] now, I’d have given him an even bigger hiding – were that physically possible."[111]
In a 1990 interview for The Independent on Sunday, Lynn Barber asked Savile about rumours that he liked "little girls". Savile's reply was that, as he worked in the pop music business, "the young girls in question don't gather round me because of me – it's because I know the people they love, the stars... I am of no interest to them."[112] In April 2000, in a documentary by Louis Theroux, When Louis Met... Jimmy, Savile acknowledged "salacious tabloid people" had raised rumours about whether he was a paedophile, and said, "I know I'm not."[113] A follow-up documentary, Louis Theroux: Savile,[114][115][116][117] about Savile and Theroux's inability to dig more deeply,[118] aired on BBC Two in 2016.[119]
In 2007, Savile was interviewed under caution by police investigating an allegation of indecent assault in the 1970s at the now-closed Duncroft Approved School for Girls near Staines, Surrey, where he was a regular visitor. The Crown Prosecution Service advised there was insufficient evidence to take any further action and no charges were brought.[120] In March 2008, Savile started legal proceedings against The Sun, which had linked him in several articles to child abuse at the Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne.[121] At first, he denied visiting Haut de la Garenne, but later admitted he had done so following the publication of a photograph showing him at the home surrounded by children.[122] The States of Jersey Police said that in 2008 an allegation of an indecent assault by Savile at the home in the 1970s had been investigated, but there had been insufficient evidence to proceed.[123] In 2009, in a taped interview with his biographer, Savile defended pop star Gary Glitter, convicted in 1999 of possession of child pornography, whom he described as a celebrity being vilified for watching "dodgy films": "It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is up to him as a person... they [viewers] didn't do anything wrong but they are then demonised." The interview was not published at the time, and the recording was not released until after Savile's death.[124]
In 2012, Sir Roger Jones, a former BBC governor for Wales and chairman of BBC charity Children in Need, disclosed that more than a decade before Savile's death he had banned Savile from involvement in the charity, because he felt his behaviour was "strange" and "suspicious", and had heard unsubstantiated rumours about his activities.[125] Former Royal Family press secretary Dickie Arbiter said Savile's behaviour had raised "concern and suspicion" when Savile acted as an informal marriage counsellor between Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the late 1980s, although no reports had been made.[89]
After his death
Immediately after Savile's death, the BBC's Newsnight programme began an investigation into reports that he was a sexual abuser. Meirion Jones and Liz MacKean interviewed one victim on camera and others agreed to have their stories told. The interviewees alleged abuse at Duncroft approved school for girls in Staines, Stoke Mandeville Hospital and the BBC. The item was scheduled for broadcast in Newsnight on 7 December 2011, but was never shown; the BBC broadcast tributes to Savile at Christmas 2011. Newsnight also discovered that Surrey Police had investigated allegations of abuse against Savile.[126] In December 2012, a review led by Nick Pollard of the BBC's handling of the issue described the decision not to broadcast the Newsnight investigation as "flawed". The review said that Jones and MacKean had found "cogent evidence" that Savile was an abuser. George Entwistle – at that time the Director of BBC Vision – who had been told about the plan to broadcast the Newsnight item, was described by the review as "unnecessarily cautious, and an opportunity was lost".[127][128]
There was no public mention of the Newsnight investigation into Savile at the time but in early 2012, several newspapers reported that the BBC had investigated but not broadcast (its report of) allegations of sexual abuse immediately after his death. The Oldie alleged there had been a cover-up by the BBC.[129]
On 28 September 2012, almost a year after his death, ITV said it would broadcast a documentary as part of its Exposure series, The Other Side of Jimmy Savile.[12] The documentary, presented by Mark Williams-Thomas, a consultant on the original Newsnight investigation, revealed claims by up to 10 women, including one aged under 14 at the time, that they had been molested or raped by Savile during the 1960s and 1970s.[130] The announcement attracted national attention, and more reports and claims of abuse against him accumulated. The documentary was broadcast on 3 October. The next day, the Metropolitan Police said the Child Abuse Investigation Command would assess the allegations.[131]
By 19 October 2012, police were pursuing 400 lines of inquiry based on testimony from 200 witnesses via 14 police forces across the UK. They described the alleged abuse as "on an unprecedented scale", and the number of potential victims as "staggering".[132] Investigations codenamed Operation Yewtree were opened to identify criminal conduct related to Savile's activities by the Metropolitan Police, and to review the 2009 decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to drop a prosecution as "unlikely to succeed".[16][17] By 25 October, police reported the number of possible victims was approaching 300.[13]
On 12 November 2012, the Metropolitan Police announced the scale of sexual allegations reported against Savile was "unprecedented" in Britain: a total of 450 alleged victims had contacted the police in the ten weeks since the investigation was launched. Officers recorded 199 crimes in 17 police force areas in which Savile was a suspect, among them 31 allegations of rape in seven force areas.[133] Analysis of the report showed 82% of those who came forward to report abuse were female and 80% were children or young people at the time of the incidents.[134] One former Broadmoor nurse claimed that Savile had said that he engaged in necrophiliac acts with corpses in their mortuary in Leeds; Savile was friends with the chief mortician, who gave him near-unrestricted access.[135]
The developing scandal led to inquiries into practices at the BBC and the National Health Service. It was alleged that rumours of Savile's activities had circulated at the BBC in the 1960s and 1970s, but no action had been taken. The Director-General of the BBC, George Entwistle, apologised for what had happened, and on 16 October 2012 appointed former High Court judge Dame Janet Smith to review the culture and practices of the BBC during the time Savile worked there;[136] and Nick Pollard, a former Sky News executive, was appointed to look at why the Newsnight investigation into Savile's activities was dropped shortly before transmission in December 2011.[136]
On 22 October 2012, the BBC programme Panorama broadcast an investigation into Newsnight and found evidence suggesting "senior manager" pressure;[137] on the same day Newsnight editor Peter Rippon "stepped down" with immediate effect.[138][139] The Department of Health appointed former barrister Kate Lampard to chair and oversee its investigations into Savile's activities at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Leeds General Infirmary, Broadmoor Hospital and other hospitals and facilities in England.[140]
Exposure Update: The Jimmy Savile Investigation was shown on ITV on 21 November 2012.[141] In March 2013 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary reported that 214 of the complaints that had been made against Savile after his death would have been criminal offences if they had been reported at the time. Sixteen victims reported being raped by Savile when they were under 16 (the age of heterosexual consent in England) and four of those had been under the age of 10. Thirteen others reported serious sexual assaults by Savile, including four who had been under 10 years old. Another ten victims reported being raped by Savile after the age of 16.[142]
During the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in March 2019, it was reported that Robert Armstrong, the head of the Honours Committee, had resisted attempts by Margaret Thatcher to award Savile a knighthood in the 1980s, due to concerns about his private life. An anonymous letter received by the committee in 1998 said that "reports of a paedophilia nature" could emerge about Savile.[143]
Aftermath
Within a month of the child abuse scandal emerging, many places and organisations named after or connected to Savile were renamed or had his name removed.[144] A memorial plaque on the wall of Savile's former home in Scarborough was removed in early October 2012 after it was defaced with graffiti.[145] A wooden statue of Savile at Scotstoun Leisure Centre in Glasgow was also removed around the same time.[146] Signs on a footpath in Scarborough named "Savile's View" were removed.[147][148] Savile's Hall, the conference centre at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, was renamed New Dock Hall.[149] Two registered charities founded in his name to fight "poverty and sickness and other charitable purposes" announced they were too closely tied to his name to be sustainable and would close and distribute their funds to other charities, so as to avoid harm to beneficiaries from future media attention.[150] On 28 October it was reported that Savile's cottage in Glen Coe had been vandalised with spray-paint and the door damaged.[151][152] The cottage was sold in May 2013.[153][154]
On 9 October 2012, relatives said the headstone of Savile's grave would be removed, destroyed and sent to landfill.[155][156][157] The Savile family expressed their sorrow for the "anguish" of the victims and "respect [for] public opinion".[158] Savile's body is interred in the cemetery in Scarborough, although it has been proposed that it be exhumed and cremated.[159]
Savile's estate, believed to be worth about £4 million, was frozen by its executors, the NatWest bank, in view of the possibility that those alleging that they had been assaulted by Savile could make claims for damages.[160] After "a range of expenses" were charged to the estate, a remainder of about £3.3 million was available to compensate victims, with those victims not having a claim against another entity (such as the BBC or the National Health Service) given priority, and all victims limited to a maximum claim of £60,000 against all entities combined, a compensation scheme approved by the courts.[161][162]
An authorised biography, How's About That Then?, by Alison Bellamy, was published in June 2012. After the claims made against him were published, the author said that, in the light of the allegations, she felt "let down and betrayed" by Savile.[163]
On 26 June 2014, UK Secretary of State for Health Jeremy Hunt delivered a public apology in the House of Commons to the patients of the National Health Service abused by Savile. He confirmed that complaints had been raised before 2012 but were ignored by the bureaucratic system:
Savile was a callous, opportunistic, wicked predator who abused and raped individuals, many of them patients and young people, who expected and had a right to expect to be safe. His actions span five decades – from the 1960s to 2010. ... As a nation at that time we held Savile in our affection as a somewhat eccentric national treasure with a strong commitment to charitable causes. Today's reports show that in reality he was a sickening and prolific sexual abuser who repeatedly exploited the trust of a nation for his own vile purposes.[164]
Richard Harrison, a long-serving psychiatric nurse at Broadmoor Hospital, said in 2012 that Savile had long been regarded by staff as "a man with a severe personality disorder and a liking for children". Another nurse, Bob Allen, agreed with assessments of Savile as a psychopath, and stated: "A lot of the staff said he should be behind bars." Allen also said that he had once reported Savile to his supervisor for apparent improper conduct with a juvenile, but no action was taken.[165]
-
David Icke is a fraud. He milks silly people and is a wealthy man.
https://web.archive.org/web/20141205070408/http://www.icke-exposed.co.uk/david-icke/
https://newspunch.com/david-icke-lied-about-jimmy-savile-explosive-claims-and-2000-reward/
-
Does anyone here on Getbig actually subscribe to the bullshit Icke peddles? That jerk has no shame whatever. He is smart enough to know that lots of gullible people will believe what he claims and thus buy his books and attend his talks. The guy is full of shit and deserves to be booted off all media so he can't poison so many simple minds.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Icke
rationalwiki ::)
-
It's funny how people believe they live in a democratic capitalist world for the past 20 years....
but the reality is much closer to a fascist-corporativist communism.
-
David Icke is a charlatan. Good riddance.
This . . . Icke is a lunatic.
J
-
and there you go again, its not about you, just because I quote you it isn't a personal attack, you need to calm down Nancy
All Im saying is that if people disagree with Youtube and FB then they should stop using them, they can do what they like
The post wasn't aimed at you personally.
Now try and read things properly and count to ten before you post, you may keep your blood pressure down to a manageable level
Nice backpedal granny face, you replied to my post expose as an idiot again and try to make excuses. I think it's time to post on your gay site to get another hook-up.
-
The question for me is what Icke actually believes himself. I have a feeling that it's a type of performance art project, the stuff about lizards etc. He may have some underlying plan behind it all. Of course Jews think when he says "lizards" he is really saying "jews" :D I don't know what Icke believes but it's interesting that some people feel he is talking about them.
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/icke-antisemitic-conspiracies-viewed-over-30-million-times-new-research-shows-1.499368
I don't like the fact that he's censored, even if his ideas are wacky and may even harm some people. And there are a TON of people buying everything he says. But the same can be said about any religion. And who should be the arbiter of what is true and what can be said? A scientist? When even scientists disagree about many things. The interesting thing about censorship is that its advocates are saying that people can't really be trusted with words or ideas, that people are very very stupid and someone needs to decide what they can handle. These same people talk about democracy being wonderful. ::)
-
The worry is that many who listen to that charlatan are influenced by things he says. It pleases me that he is banned.
Foolish people actually paid money to hear him present his crap.
People listen to and pay for crap all the time. Most of what we hear is crap. Most exercise scientists would say what you believe about muscle hypertrophy is crap. Should you be silenced?
-
https://londonreal.tv/1000000-fighting-for-freedom/
Requires a subscription...fuck that and fuck whoever this person is
-
People listen to and pay for crap all the time. Most of what we hear is crap. Most exercise scientists would say what you believe about muscle hypertrophy is crap. Should you be silenced?
I have a masters degree in the philosophy of science from Sydney University. David Icke doesn't sound like an educated person. David Icke is a fraud and is unscrupulous to boot. People like him are dangerous and shouldn't be given a platform to spew such bullshit.
Most exercise scientists are not bodybuilders so I doubt they are too wise about maximising hypertrophy.
-
Youtube goddess Susan Wojcicki and other opinion gatekeepers should completely pull Pumping Iron from all social media.
Pumping Iron has been thoroughly discredited and no one should consume information regarding its content.
Fact checkers refuted bodybuilding decades ago:
Arnold Schwarzenegger lied about a pump being as good as cumming.
Ken Waller didn't really steal Mike Katz's Tshirt.
Pumping Iron exaggerated Matt Ferrigno's involvement in Lou Ferrigno's contest preparation.
Arnold said he didn't attend his father's funeral when he actually did.
Matt Ferrigno said Arnold had "spaghetti arms" when he actually didn't.
Pumping Iron was edited out of temporal order.
Serge Nubret said he could "take" Arnold when, in fact, he could not best him.
The documentary makes it seem like Lou was Arnold's biggest threat.
It was never mentioned that Joe Weider sold supplements that didn't work.
The 1975 Mr. Olympia was filmed in apartheid South Africa which Zimbabwean Robert Mugabe would not have approved of.
Pumping Iron did not mention bodybuilders taking steroids.
Lou Ferrigno said he needed more oil when needing more oil is actually subjective. Where's the study that says he needed more oil?
Franco Columbu said he was more muscular than Arnold. Now, how can we believe anything Franco says?
Danny Padilla conspired with others to suggest that Franco Columbu was a bat when Snopes has proven that he wasn't.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0y21wrx7/snopes.jpg)
-
If some people are reptiilians rather than humans, does that mean that theyre immune to the coronavirus?
Has Icke spoke bout this?
Or is there no coronavirus to begin with?
-
Everyone can catch coronavirus, haven't you seen the news.....
Even if you don't have it you've got it.
-
The interview didn't need an email address to watch when it was live.
He spoke some time about the Coronavirus.
It was his opinion that's it's an excuse by governments to gain more control of the population, to create fear which puts people in survival mode and think differently, and make them more dependent on the state.
He also said the use of the masks was a way to create a visible threat, which creates even more fear.
He said when people are consumed by fear, they think less rationally, their brain shifts to survival mode and they will be more willing to give up freedoms in order to feel like this will increase their odds to survive.
He also mentioned the empty hospitals in the UK and that the government has encouraged the public to clap at a certain time everyday to thank medical staff, which is like something straight out of 1984. And a way of conditioning people to this kind of behaviour of giving thanks to the state.
-
Requires a subscription...fuck that and fuck whoever this person is
no it doesnt, just an e-mail address
-
Another Full video link below.
https://banned.video/watch?id=5eaf94333bf48800246c2f6a (https://banned.video/watch?id=5eaf94333bf48800246c2f6a)
Yet another link below. Always search bitchute.com if Susan Noahide has commanded a video banished. Most "dangerous" people also backup-post everything on bitchute.com
https://www.bitchute.com/video/H4W7FwBy0Ukh/
(https://www.bitchute.com/video/H4W7FwBy0Ukh/)
Thank goodness we have human beings that disallow what other human beings' eyes can see and ears can hear. Youtube now immediately deletes anything Star Wars related because Chewbacca has not been verified as real.
-
I have a masters degree in the philosophy of science from Sydney University. David Icke doesn't sound like an educated person. David Icke is a fraud and is unscrupulous to boot. People like him are dangerous and shouldn't be given a platform to spew such bullshit.
Most exercise scientists are not bodybuilders so I doubt they are too wise about maximising hypertrophy.
Would you say religious people are also dangerous and should be silenced? If someone believes demons roam the earth and gets others to believe it too, should they be silenced? Icke believes some crazy shit but so do billions of other people. Where do you draw the line on what people are allowed to say or hear?
-
Would you say religious people are also dangerous and should be silenced? If someone believes demons roam the earth and gets others to believe it too, should they be silenced? Icke believes some crazy shit but so do billions of other people. Where do you draw the line on what people are allowed to say or hear?
Vince believes in the thought police until they come after him.
-
Would you say religious people are also dangerous and should be silenced? If someone believes demons roam the earth and gets others to believe it too, should they be silenced? Icke believes some crazy shit but so do billions of other people. Where do you draw the line on what people are allowed to say or hear?
Icke being banned by YouTube has absolutely nothing to do with me. Sure, people can go and listen to Icke or buy his books. However, he posted stuff that went against the rules of YouTube and
hence he was banned. Most people believe lots of nonsense. This is inevitable. We accept that many people are religious and others are superstitious or believe in star signs, etc. We are free to believe what we
like. However, trying to influence others is another thing and that is when limits have to be placed on what some people and or groups do.
-
Icke being banned by YouTube has absolutely nothing to do with me. Sure, people can go and listen to Icke or buy his books. However, he posted stuff that went against the rules of YouTube and
hence he was banned. Most people believe lots of nonsense. This is inevitable. We accept that many people are religious and others are superstitious or believe in star signs, etc. We are free to believe what we
like. However, trying to influence others is another thing and that is when limits have to be placed on what some people and or groups do.
nothing he posted violated the standards they display on their site...
That question was asked, they refused to reply
-
nothing he posted violated the standards they display on their site...
That question was asked, they refused to reply
This is the reason they gave:
“YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO and the NHS.
“Due to continued violation of these policies we have terminated David Icke’s YouTube channel.”
Youtube also de-monetises people for criticising the CCP, supporting the Hong Kong protesters and Taiwan.
And the WHO is now run by someone paid by the CCP and who had appointed Mugabe as a 'good will ambassador'. The same WHO which criticised Trump when he wanted to close air travel from China at the beginning, and same WHO which gave false information and contributed to the global spread of the disease.
The same WHO which denies Taiwan exists and repeatedly says they 'can't hear the question' when asked by Taiwanese on what the WHO is doing for Taiwan.
-
This is the reason they gave:
“YouTube has clear policies prohibiting any content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO and the NHS.
“Due to continued violation of these policies we have terminated David Icke’s YouTube channel.”
Youtube also de-monetises people for criticising the CCP, supporting the Hong Kong protesters and Taiwan.
And the WHO is now run by someone paid by the CCP and who had appointed Mugabe as a 'good will ambassador'. The same WHO which criticised Trump when he wanted to close air travel from China at the beginning, and same WHO which gave false information and contributed to the global spread of the disease.
The same WHO which denies Taiwan exists and repeatedly says they 'can't hear the question' when asked by Taiwanese on what the WHO is doing for Taiwan.
Ah , well he did claim that Covid19 doesn't exist, there is no virus, thats something I disagree with him on, he should have stayed within the boundaries of suggesting it wasn't as virulent as predicted.
-
The problem is that they're basically monopolising social media. Google and Youtube are also owned by the same company.
Facebook owns Instagram and Whattssapp. All of these companies have massive influence.
Seems it's all within the law (at least US competition laws) but not an ideal situation to have. Because without competition, the company can do whatever they want and not worry too much about losing users/customers because even if it becomes a worse product, there's nowhere else to go which has anywhere near the same user base. And the size of the existing user base is a very important determining factor when people are choosing products to use.
YT will use live stream's succes against them and point out that 1.1 million viewers watched the London Real live stream, which means large audiences can be reached by other platforms.
-
Twitter will soon be issuing pre-post warnings via new algorithms detecting wrongthink tweets. Rationing influence and ideas are the keys to narrowing the range of thought.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/06/twitter-will-now-warn-you-if-you-are-about-to-post-wrongthink/ (https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/05/06/twitter-will-now-warn-you-if-you-are-about-to-post-wrongthink/)
-
So what I understand the repitilians are feeding off fear, so they create more fear in order to have more to feast on.
And the way to fight this is by love!
According to Icke.
Sounds like he's onto something there!
-
Ah , well he did claim that Covid19 doesn't exist, there is no virus, thats something I disagree with him on, he should have stayed within the boundaries of suggesting it wasn't as virulent as predicted.
I disagree with that too.
But all they've done now is give him even more publicity and news headlines with more people reading about him and what he's saying.
-
The problem is that they're basically monopolising social media. Google and Youtube are also owned by the same company.
Facebook owns Instagram and Whattssapp. All of these companies have massive influence.
Seems it's all within the law (at least US competition laws) but not an ideal situation to have. Because without competition, the company can do whatever they want and not worry too much about losing users/customers because even if it becomes a worse product, there's nowhere else to go which has anywhere near the same user base. And the size of the existing user base is a very important determining factor when people are choosing products to use.
That's the issue at hand here - the social media giants, in combination, probably have 80% of the internet's audience, and they are all colluding in terms of what gets published and what doesn't.
YouTube's advertisers pulling out actually did happen. So I understand that YouTube needs a business model that works.
I hate feeling like I have to make a choice between private property rights and freedom of speech rights.
-
Icke being banned by YouTube has absolutely nothing to do with me. Sure, people can go and listen to Icke or buy his books. However, he posted stuff that went against the rules of YouTube and
hence he was banned. Most people believe lots of nonsense. This is inevitable. We accept that many people are religious and others are superstitious or believe in star signs, etc. We are free to believe what we
like. However, trying to influence others is another thing and that is when limits have to be placed on what some people and or groups do.
But that's what the censors themselves are trying to do, Vince.
That's why discussion is always the best route. Let the Icke character get sorted through that, right or wrong.
-
But that's what the censors themselves are trying to do, Vince.
That's why discussion is always the best route. Let the Icke character get sorted through that, right or wrong.
LOL, exactly.
Vince knows that all he can do is call someone racist or sexist when they disagree with him using facts, and since that isn't working as well as it did throughout his adult life, his opposition has forced him into a situation where he has to use actual facts to make points, rather than insults.
Being unable to do that, Vince prefers censorship. Obviously that would be the case.
I remember being politically incorrect before it was cool. Now THAT was hard to do. But I NEVER wanted censorship of my opposing side. All I wanted was more speech to be encouraged all around.
Anyone with a losing argument like Vince would want censorship though. It's like an admission that on some level, he knows he is wrong. Like he and other lefties can feel it in their bones that they are wrong.
If David Icke is such a nutter, let the man speak! If it's as obvious as Vince claims it will be, most people will see it.
And most people DO see it. I feel that way about both him AND Alex Jones...but they do make good points at times, and I definitely don't want to see them banned for exercising their ability to speak their minds.
-
But that's what the censors themselves are trying to do, Vince.
That's why discussion is always the best route. Let the Icke character get sorted through that, right or wrong.
The thing is YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc., are businesses. None of them support total freedom of speech. How can they?
In my opinion lots of bullshit should be booted from those media. I am disappointed that so much crap is on YouTube. The uneducated and simpleminded cannot
discriminate among them so end up believing all manner of nonsense. I also would prefer that there were no religions or churches. All bullshit and man made.
-
LOL, exactly.
Vince knows that all he can do is call someone racist or sexist when they disagree with him using facts, and since that isn't working as well as it did throughout his adult life, his opposition has forced him into a situation where he has to use actual facts to make points, rather than insults.
Being unable to do that, Vince prefers censorship. Obviously that would be the case.
I remember being politically incorrect before it was cool. Now THAT was hard to do. But I NEVER wanted censorship of my opposing side. All I wanted was more speech to be encouraged all around.
Anyone with a losing argument like Vince would want censorship though. It's like an admission that on some level, he knows he is wrong. Like he and other lefties can feel it in their bones that they are wrong.
If David Icke is such a nutter, let the man speak! If it's as obvious as Vince claims it will be, most people will see it.
And most people DO see it. I feel that way about both him AND Alex Jones...but they do make good points at times, and I definitely don't want to see them banned for exercising their ability to speak their minds.
Matt, you are full of shit. I call some nasty Getbiggers sadistic perverts. They have no shame. Just like you when you allowed dickheads to moderate your forum.
I have two degrees in philosophy. To me, guys like Icke are the enemy of truth and free speech. That guy has profited from his bullshit and I find that reprehensible.
Why any sensible person would defend that asshole is beyond decent. Let people like Christopher Hitchens speak, but Icke, no. That lunatic should be kept as silent as possible.
-
The thing is YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc., are businesses. None of them support total freedom of speech. How can they?
In my opinion lots of bullshit should be booted from those media. I am disappointed that so much crap is on YouTube. The uneducated and simpleminded cannot
discriminate among them so end up believing all manner of nonsense. I also would prefer that there were no religions or churches. All bullshit and man made.
Nothing should be off limits, if you start censoring things then it doesn't ever get discussed
Take racism for example, if racism is banned and punishable by imprisonment and fines simply for speaking then racists will always be racists, it racist speech is allowed then racists can be identified and people then can engage them in discussion and at some point they may change their mind if their arguments dont hold up
Banning it and they will always be racists.
And you can replace "racism" with any other subject in the analogy.
-
'Banning' people whose views you don't agree with has the opposite effect from those intended, it doesn't silence them, it makes them even more vocal. It almost always backfires.
I'm surprised that some people on here fail to grasp this.
-
'Banning' people whose views you don't agree with has the opposite effect from those intended, it doesn't silence them, it makes them even more vocal. It almost always backfires.
I'm surprised that some people on here fail to grasp this.
Absolute total rubbish. Ron bans people here who seriously break the rules. Those who are banned are completely silenced until they try to return as someone else.
In my opinion guys like Icke have no integrity. He lies and distorts and bullshits and profits from it because so many people accept his crap....even, incredibly, defend him!
I claim to have integrity. I cannot and will not tell untruths about the world and the people in it. I never change the past nor do I fabricate what happened.
I attended 7 universities in Canada and Australia. When you have an advanced degree you have an obligation to behave in the way of highly educated people.
You cannot go around spouting absolute bullshit about viruses and other important things. That is a no no and people who do that deserve no platform whatever.
So, sure, freedom of speech is import. So is responsibility. I take total responsibility of everything I say and post. Icke does no such thing. He says stuff that
will impress the gullible and simpleminded out there. He makes a good living doing just that. A fraud and a sham.
If anything I post can be refuted then I will change what I believe. That is the scientific way and I am committed to doing exactly that.
When I imagine a new piece of exercise equipment I then have to sit down and precisely design it. Next step is building a prototype. This is not an easy thing
to do but I taught myself to do fabrication and engineering. My machines work and are all unique designs. You simply cannot bullshit when it comes to
engineering.
-
Nothing should be off limits, if you start censoring things then it doesn't ever get discussed
Take racism for example, if racism is banned and punishable by imprisonment and fines simply for speaking then racists will always be racists, it racist speech is allowed then racists can be identified and people then can engage them in discussion and at some point they may change their mind if their arguments dont hold up
Banning it and they will always be racists.
And you can replace "racism" with any other subject in the analogy.
Then start your own live stream service, granny face. Youtube can publish or not publish any legal content they want for any reason or no reason. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and can say what they want but they don't have the right to demand someone provide them with a platform to express their ideas. If a site wants to publish only pornography and nothing else it's their right. Youtube is under no obligation to publish anything just because you want them to. You cannot force another private entity to publish content that you don't want. Youtube has already been sued for censorship and won. Ron censors this site. Every place of business has limits on speech, behavior, and dress/appearance. Your right to free expression is that you don't have to be involved in their business or entity.
-
'Banning' people whose views you don't agree with has the opposite effect from those intended, it doesn't silence them, it makes them even more vocal. It almost always backfires.
I'm surprised that some people on here fail to grasp this.
I doubt YouTube thinks they can silence anyone. They just want them silenced when they're in YouTube's house.
-
I claim to have integrity. I cannot and will not tell untruths about the world and the people in it. I never change the past nor do I fabricate what happened.
I attended 7 universities in Canada and Australia. When you have an advanced degree you have an obligation to behave in the way of highly educated people.
If anything I post can be refuted then I will change what I believe. That is the scientific way and I am committed to doing exactly that.
.
No you will not change your opinion on anything. You have been booted off many forums for spouting rubbish, by "science guys". I'm not for banning you or anyone else, but that's what happens if people are free to censor anyone who disagrees.
"Science" can be abused. Scientists disagree among themselves all the time. You think if "science" is the measuring stick then you will never be censored but in reality you are the first to go, for being disagreeable, as has happened many times.
You would prefer it if religion was censored alltogether and a small elite of technocrats decided everything but you obviously don't realise the danger in concentrating power in a small clique of elites. I bet you also believe in democracy, like all the censors say they do. But that makes no sense. How can you believe in democracy if 90% of the ppublic can't think?
-
Jesus is the answer to Covid-19
-
Then start your own live stream service, granny face. Youtube can publish or not publish any legal content they want for any reason or no reason. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech and can say what they want but they don't have the right to demand someone provide them with a platform to express their ideas. If a site wants to publish only pornography and nothing else it's their right. Youtube is under no obligation to publish anything just because you want them to. You cannot force another private entity to publish content that you don't want. Youtube has already been sued for censorship and won. Ron censors this site. Every place of business has limits on speech, behavior, and dress/appearance. Your right to free expression is that you don't have to be involved in their business or entity.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/13GIgrGdslD9oQ/giphy.gif)
why dont you read my post properly before you comment, it will save you looking stupid
Where have I mentioned Youtube?
-
No you will not change your opinion on anything. You have been booted off many forums for spouting rubbish, by "science guys". I'm not for banning you or anyone else, but that's what happens if people are free to censor anyone who disagrees.
"Science" can be abused. Scientists disagree among themselves all the time. You think if "science" is the measuring stick then you will never be censored but in reality you are the first to go, for being disagreeable, as has happened many times.
You would prefer it if religion was censored alltogether and a small elite of technocrats decided everything but you obviously don't realise the danger in concentrating power in a small clique of elites. I bet you also believe in democracy, like all the censors say they do. But that makes no sense. How can you believe in democracy if 90% of the ppublic can't think?
Wow, what a nasty individual you are. You misrepresent me. I change my mind often about matters of fact. No one can watch YouTube or read books and stay the same.
I wasn't booted off lots of bodybuilding discussion forums. Only IronAge and they never gave me a reason. Two other heavy contributors were also banned at the same time.
I stopped posting on HST and other forums. I wasn't banned.
I don't believe in censoring religion. But I don't like when they are organised and become institutions. Individuals can still believe what they want.
-
I spent a long time listening to Jordan Peterson give a talk at Oxford University. He discusses free speech and also hate speech. He believes that attempts to define hate is impossible because it depends on who is defining it. Therefore trying to restrict people espousing hate is usually worse than allowing it. He believes that when most people hear the hate speeches they will decide what is proper and right and reject such beliefs. So I suppose he would let Icke be on YouTube so that others can make up their own minds about what he has to say.
The issue on YouTube was that Icke was espousing views relating to the current health crisis that was seen as harmful and so was banned from the medium.
Icke will keep doing his thing and many people will believe much of what he says or writes. I won't be one of his supporters.
You have to listen to the whole presentation to hear him answer questions about free speech and hate speech.
-
I doubt YouTube thinks they can silence anyone. They just want them silenced when they're in YouTube's house.
Either way, the video appeared back on Youtube and got 6 million views.
-
Icke has enjoyed the attention paid to him as a result of the controversy around the broadcast, with Google search interest in his name spiking as a result.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/20/tv-stations-interview-with-david-icke-posed-threat-to-public-health
As usual, such 'bannings' usually have the opposite effect, especially of a public figure and help create free media exposure.
Even we're talking about him now.
-
I spent a long time listening to Jordan Peterson give a talk at Oxford University. He discusses free speech and also hate speech. He believes that attempts to define hate is impossible because it depends on who is defining it. Therefore trying to restrict people espousing hate is usually worse than allowing it. He believes that when most people hear the hate speeches they will decide what is proper and right and reject such beliefs. So I suppose he would let Icke be on YouTube so that others can make up their own minds about what he has to say.
The issue on YouTube was that Icke was espousing views relating to the current health crisis that was seen as harmful and so was banned from the medium.
Icke will keep doing his thing and many people will believe much of what he says or writes. I won't be one of his supporters.
You have to listen to the whole presentation to hear him answer questions about free speech and hate speech.
So you agree that censorship isn't that clear cut, who to censor and not? Youtube and other online media censor people completely arbitrarily. A scientist could argue that any religious unscientific views are harmful so should be censored. But what happens is that only some people are silenced according to certain political aims.
I didn't listen to the Jordan speech but I would say "hate speech" is a completely ridiculous and meaningless term. Everyone hates something. According to the TPTB there is good hate and bad hate, but what is termed bad hate is completely arbitrary. Same with "hate crimes". A white beating a black is a hate crime whereas a black beating a white isn't even if the black says he is beating the white due to his race. Criticizing Islam or Judaism is hate whereas criticizing Christianity is completely fine. You can wish death on white males but not on minorities.
-
I will say that Brian Rose's claim of being for free speech rings hollow to me. Of course Brian isn't for free speech per se, only for free airing of his programs. I can think of a number of topics and opinions and "conspiracy theories" he would never lend credibility to. That's fine, but the point is that there is always an agenda. He isn't asking hard questions either nor really challenging his guests on the more outrageous theories. Would be more interesting if he did that IMO.
-
About David Icke.
-
There's a lot of stuff you cant find on youtube.
Why is it more important that David Icke gets to talk than showing two males making sweet love?
-
Peterson was an interesting character. He was part of the self-proclaimed "intellectual( :D) darkweb" which was comprised of moderate gatekeepers who were promoted as "right wing". Peterson was the token non-Jew, which is odd because over 96% of American IQs over 145 are non-Jewish and Peterson, although well-spoken, has an IQ very comfortably below 130. His daughter Mikhaila became known for posting pictures of herself in her underwear just around the time Peterson entered rehab for physical addiction to clonazepam and was placed in a medically induced coma.
Required reading:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Cxc6dY97/41-Bsa0-GNB5-L.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zvwxN1nn/etyetyeey.jpg)
-
Vince Basile, you are a major hypocrite.
You picking your own judges for the 1970 Mr. Canada is no different than a scientist cherry picking data, in order to fit his hypothesis and generate a specific conclusion. You cherry picked your own judges to generate a specific conclusion (you winning).
Yet, you talk about scientific integrity. Any learnt scholar knows that you can't cherry pick the specific variables to generate a specific conclusion. But, you did that when you rigged the 1970 Mr. Canada.
-
Absolute total rubbish. Ron bans people here who seriously break the rules. Those who are banned are completely silenced until they try to return as someone else.
In my opinion guys like Icke have no integrity. He lies and distorts and bullshits and profits from it because so many people accept his crap....even, incredibly, defend him!
I claim to have integrity. I cannot and will not tell untruths about the world and the people in it. I never change the past nor do I fabricate what happened.
I attended 7 universities in Canada and Australia. When you have an advanced degree you have an obligation to behave in the way of highly educated people.
You cannot go around spouting absolute bullshit about viruses and other important things. That is a no no and people who do that deserve no platform whatever.
So, sure, freedom of speech is import. So is responsibility. I take total responsibility of everything I say and post. Icke does no such thing. He says stuff that
will impress the gullible and simpleminded out there. He makes a good living doing just that. A fraud and a sham.
If anything I post can be refuted then I will change what I believe. That is the scientific way and I am committed to doing exactly that.
When I imagine a new piece of exercise equipment I then have to sit down and precisely design it. Next step is building a prototype. This is not an easy thing
to do but I taught myself to do fabrication and engineering. My machines work and are all unique designs. You simply cannot bullshit when it comes to
engineering.
"In my opinion guys like Icke have no integrity." So your opinion should be the litmus test for free speech? If these people are so crazy why suppress their speech? Wouldn't it be obvious and therefore discrediting in itself? What are you afraid of and why must they be silenced?
-
Peterson, although well-spoken, has an IQ very comfortably below 130.
Nonsense. His IQ is well beyond that.
-
"In my opinion guys like Icke have no integrity." So your opinion should be the litmus test for free speech? If these people are so crazy why suppress their speech? Wouldn't it be obvious and therefore discrediting in itself? What are you afraid of and why must they be silenced?
How is one supposed to have an intellectual discussion with people who simple are unable to comprehend what is written?
Because I believe Icke has no integrity doesn't make me the test for free speech. Since when am I against free speech? I am not trying to silence Icke or anyone else.
I said I was glad he was booted off YouTube. That was for philosophical reasons. That guy doesn't deserve a platform. Period.
-
Nonsense. His IQ is well beyond that.
No. Peterson is not brilliant.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/12/mailvox-creation-of-jordan-peterson.html
(http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/12/mailvox-creation-of-jordan-peterson.html)
"It would be interesting to know if the Canadian LSAT was also an IQ proxy, as this would prove that Peterson has been exaggerating his IQ. There are already some anomalies in his self-description of it; the fact that such an ambitious individual first attended a regional college also tends to suggest that his test scores were less than superlative.
You can see exactly how trivial a figure Jordan Peterson was prior to October 2016 from this Google Trends comparison from 2011 through the end of September 2016. Keep in mind that this chart begins more than 7 years after a 13-part televised series dedicated to Peterson's first book.
UPDATE: If it is true that Peterson applied to law school but did not get in, then he is lying about his supposedly high level of intelligence. From the Canadian Mensa site concerning prior evidence it accepts of a 98th percentile IQ.
LSAT Prior to 1982: 662. Effective 1982 (total percentile rank): 95. The average LSAT accepted by the University of Alberta Faculty of Law is the 90th percentile. In current terms, the 90th percentile is a score of 164, which equates to an estimated IQ of 124. That is the ceiling on Jordan Peterson's IQ.
UPDATE: Jordan Peterson's IQ claim:
I don't know what my IQ is. I had it tested at one point. It's in excess of a hundred and fifty but I don't know exactly where it lands now.... I'm not overwhelmingly intelligent from a quantitative perspective, you know. I think my GRE scores for on the quantitative end of things for about 70-75th percentile which isn't too bad given that you know you're competing against other people who are going into graduate school, but there's a big difference between 75th percentile and 99th percentile, and I think that's where it was verbally, something like that.
Now remember, Jordan Peterson is a habitual liar. Also note that if we put together the 75th percentile and 99th percentile on the GRE that he claims would indicate that he is at the 87th percentile combined. We can see that Mensa equates the 95th percentile on the GRE with the 98th IQ percentile, so adjusting for the difference in populations would move him up to the 90th percentile, or an IQ of 120, which fits right beneath his estimated IQ ceiling of 124.
UPDATE: Boom. Got him. I cannot believe I missed this! From Maps of Meaning.
"I wanted to become a corporate lawyer—had written the Law School Admissions Test, had taken two years of appropriate preliminary courses. I wanted to learn the ways of my enemies, and embark on a political career. This plan disintegrated. The world obviously did not need another lawyer, and I no longer believed that I knew enough to masquerade as a leader."
So, he did take the LSAT, he does know his IQ, and now, so do we."
-
No. Peterson is not brilliant.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/12/mailvox-creation-of-jordan-peterson.html
(http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/12/mailvox-creation-of-jordan-peterson.html)
"It would be interesting to know if the Canadian LSAT was also an IQ proxy, as this would prove that Peterson has been exaggerating his IQ. There are already some anomalies in his self-description of it; the fact that such an ambitious individual first attended a regional college also tends to suggest that his test scores were less than superlative.
You can see exactly how trivial a figure Jordan Peterson was prior to October 2016 from this Google Trends comparison from 2011 through the end of September 2016. Keep in mind that this chart begins more than 7 years after a 13-part televised series dedicated to Peterson's first book.
UPDATE: If it is true that Peterson applied to law school but did not get in, then he is lying about his supposedly high level of intelligence. From the Canadian Mensa site concerning prior evidence it accepts of a 98th percentile IQ.
LSAT Prior to 1982: 662. Effective 1982 (total percentile rank): 95. The average LSAT accepted by the University of Alberta Faculty of Law is the 90th percentile. In current terms, the 90th percentile is a score of 164, which equates to an estimated IQ of 124. That is the ceiling on Jordan Peterson's IQ.
UPDATE: Jordan Peterson's IQ claim:
I don't know what my IQ is. I had it tested at one point. It's in excess of a hundred and fifty but I don't know exactly where it lands now.... I'm not overwhelmingly intelligent from a quantitative perspective, you know. I think my GRE scores for on the quantitative end of things for about 70-75th percentile which isn't too bad given that you know you're competing against other people who are going into graduate school, but there's a big difference between 75th percentile and 99th percentile, and I think that's where it was verbally, something like that.
Now remember, Jordan Peterson is a habitual liar. Also note that if we put together the 75th percentile and 99th percentile on the GRE that he claims would indicate that he is at the 87th percentile combined. We can see that Mensa equates the 95th percentile on the GRE with the 98th IQ percentile, so adjusting for the difference in populations would move him up to the 90th percentile, or an IQ of 120, which fits right beneath his estimated IQ ceiling of 124.
UPDATE: Boom. Got him. I cannot believe I missed this! From Maps of Meaning.
"I wanted to become a corporate lawyer—had written the Law School Admissions Test, had taken two years of appropriate preliminary courses. I wanted to learn the ways of my enemies, and embark on a political career. This plan disintegrated. The world obviously did not need another lawyer, and I no longer believed that I knew enough to masquerade as a leader."
So, he did take the LSAT, he does know his IQ, and now, so do we."
150 IQ? lmao
What a bullshitter!
-
150 IQ? lmao
What a bullshitter!
Hs IQ really doesn't matter and I don't even know why its up for discussion.
I am sure Jordan Peterson is established and intelligent in his chosen profession.
My beef with him is that he got caught up in the hype and started to discuss areas in which he is not an expert in (e.g., history, nutrition).
-
Hs IQ really doesn't matter and I don't even know why its up for discussion.
I am sure Jordan Peterson is established and intelligent in his chosen profession.
My beef with him is that he got caught up in the hype and started to discuss areas in which he is not an expert in (e.g., history, nutrition).
Peterson initiated the discussion by falsely asserting that he had a 150+ IQ.
He's established and intelligent in his own profession but got caught up in his own hype and, with deceitful intent, grossly exaggerated his intelligence quotient score.
-
Never discuss areas where you are not an expert!
not a problem for getbiggers like yourself
but for others, thats good advice!!
-
Peterson initiated the discussion by falsely asserting that he had a 150+ IQ.
He's established and intelligent in his own profession but got caught up in his own hype and, with deceitful intent, grossly exaggerated his intelligence quotient score.
Fair enough, and I agree.
He should just stick with what he knows.
But....more content = more money.
Megalodon, I took a real IQ test, the WAIS-IV and scored a 111. I am not up to getbig standards. ??? ??? :-\ :-\
-
I agree.
He should just stick with what he knows.
But....more content = more money.
Megalodon, I took a real IQ test, the WAIS-IV and scored a 111. I am not up to getbig standards. ??? ??? :-\ :-\
111 is a palindrome and can only be good. You are more than up to Getbig standards.
-
111 is a palindrome and can only be good. You are more than up to Getbig standards.
haha, I never thought about it like that!! ;D ;D
-
Here's another thing David Icke said in the interview:
He believes 'woke' culture is designed to divide people and is funded by Soros.
-
No. Peterson is not brilliant.
N or an IQ of 120, which fits right beneath his estimated IQ ceiling of 124.
From the way you argue I would estimate that Jordan is at least 40 IQ points higher than yours. He is brilliant.
You cannot talk like he does on so many subjects and not be highly intelligent. Top 1 % for sure.
You have difficulty with comprehension and forming arguments. Just average IQ.
-
All the smartest people in the world seems to belong to the conspiracy camp
-
From the way you argue I would estimate that Jordan is at least 40 IQ points higher than yours. He is brilliant.
You cannot talk like he does on so many subjects and not be highly intelligent. Top 1 % for sure.
You have difficulty with comprehension and forming arguments. Just average IQ.
Dear Isaac Newton,
The quote you are disagreeing with was written by 152 IQ'd Hugo Award nominee and Bucknell graduate Vox Day who has written 18 books, including one on Peterson entitled Jordanetics.
Peterson is highly intelligent but 120 does not fall into the 130+ brilliant category.
You have difficulty with reading comprehension and following links, otherwise you would have some clue that the argument, which you had no intelligent response to, was not formulated by me.
Clean your room.
-
Dear Isaac Newton,
The quote you are disagreeing with was written by 152 IQ'd Hugo Award nominee and Bucknell graduate Vox Day who has written 18 books, including one on Peterson entitled Jordanetics.
Peterson is highly intelligent but 120 does not fall into the 130+ brilliant category.
You have difficulty with reading comprehension and following links, otherwise you would have some clue that the argument, which you had no intelligent response to, was not formulated by me.
Clean your room.
::)
-
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/13GIgrGdslD9oQ/giphy.gif)
why dont you read my post properly before you comment, it will save you looking stupid
Where have I mentioned Youtube?
You said, "Nothing should be off limits". Nothing? Every business, entity, website should allow anything that others want expressed? That includes Youtube and even this site.
I sometimes wonder what it must be like to go through life totally unaware of just how stupid you really are.
-
Either way, the video appeared back on Youtube and got 6 million views.
I have no issue with that.
-
Yet it was you that brought up YouTube. But once again you try to speak with authority of things that you know nothing about. There are indeed "off limits" that's why there are libel laws.
You really are a special kind of stupid.
I know there are, there shouldnt be, thats my point
Your determination to get one over on me is making you look stupid, try and read what I write before commenting
-
I know there are, there shouldnt be, thats my point
Your determination to get one over on me is making you look stupid, try and read what I write before commenting
Ah, up bright and early and straight to GetBig to reply to my post. This is what you will be doing for years to come.
Difference between you and me is that I tell the truth. You just have to make up lies to try so desperately to save face. You lied about me posting dick pics. You lied about me never having ever mentioned female relationships. You lied about me witnessing and/or participating in a teenager gangbang. You've already admitted that you don't believe in morals. It's just a matter of personal opinion. And it shows. You are a person of zero substance and character. No sense of honor. Just an arrogant, narcissistic, vapid, and hollow person.
-
So, so clueless. Yes, it is a normal time to be up in the morning. It is not normal that every morning a lonely loser rushes first thing in the morning to get right on to GetBig to check up and reply to someone on a bbing forum trying so hard to seek redemption and acceptance from total strangers. And no, I did not witness any child abuse. Prove it. You just made that up. Another demonstrably lie. Ask anybody that remembers that post. Someone told someone who told me. It was a third-hand verbal report. The issues were that many felt I should have reported it. Again, you have no proof whereas I know there are people out there that can collaborate my story. I can prove it. In fact, that's when I first started butting heads with SF. He was the first one who called me out on that. I disagreed and attacked him for it but the story was never in question. Chaos was another one I remember that was on that thread. Neither will remember that I ever said, nor did I witness, any rape or child abuse. Other than the girl, I never met or knew any of the people involved. Just more classic joswift. Speaking with authority on things he knows nothing about.
"I didnt lie about anything, I made things up"
LOL! More classic joswift. More classic Pellius owning.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/bf61f03718f7775090b6f645c4889666/tenor.gif)
-
(https://media.tenor.com/images/bf61f03718f7775090b6f645c4889666/tenor.gif)
Left speechless = check
Lame gif = check
lonely loser = check
-
Left speechless = check
Lame gif = check
lonely loser = check
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/CGxFmq3VzMmys/source.gif)
-
I have no dog in the fight, but Pellius never witnessed anything. He stated that he heard about the incident from someone else who heard about the incident.
Of course, people can draw their own conclusions about what someone should have done from that point forward, but from my recollection he never witnessed anything.
-
I have no dog in the fight, but Pellius never witnessed anything. He stated that he heard about the incident from someone else who heard about the incident.
Of course, people can draw their own conclusions about what someone should have done from that point forward, but from my recollection he never witnessed anything.
No one cares about your misguided recollection of the events..
He didn't get hounded all over the board for months based on a friend of a friend of a friends half story..
-
Dear Isaac Newton,
The quote you are disagreeing with was written by 152 IQ'd Hugo Award nominee and Bucknell graduate Vox Day who has written 18 books, including one on Peterson entitled Jordanetics.
Peterson is highly intelligent but 120 does not fall into the 130+ brilliant category.
You have difficulty with reading comprehension and following links, otherwise you would have some clue that the argument, which you had no intelligent response to, was not formulated by me.
Clean your room.
I don't want to be pedantic, but the words "brilliant" are not used in IQ scoring and the normal feedback sessions when telling someone their IQ results rarely, if ever, entails using the word "brilliant." The term "brilliant" is actually really hard to describe, even in terms of IQ, since the word can entail different meanings.
A 130+ score, would simply be considered in the "Very Superior" range. I would simply tell someone, "Your IQ is in the Very Superior range, which means that you did better than X amount of people on Y task."
The overall IQ score is really important, but its even more important to really see the breakdown of indices on the different domains and subtests. That's where it really gets interesting.
-
I don't want to be pedantic, but the words "brilliant" are not used in IQ scoring and the normal feedback sessions when telling someone their IQ results rarely, if ever, entails using the word "brilliant." The term "brilliant" is actually really hard to describe, even in terms of IQ, since the word can entail different meanings.
A 130+ score, would simply be considered in the "Very Superior" range. I would simply tell someone, "Your IQ is in the Very Superior range, which means that you did better than X amount of people on Y task."
The overall IQ score is really important, but its even more important to really see the breakdown of indices on the different domains and subtests. That's where it really gets interesting.
Agreed. I was personally referencing over two standard deviations above average as "brilliant". The main thing I was trying to convey is that Peterson is a charlatan and dishonest. He claimed to have an IQ over three standard deviations above average when his IQ isn't even two standard deviations above the mean.
Peterson isn't interacting on Getbig. Professionally, Peterson speaks on the record, with authority, to paying audiences on subjects he's very far from an expert on. Ignorant young paying audiences suck up information Peterson is ignorant on.
Peterson Bible expert:
"Peterson began his public series of lectures on the bible without bothering to read it first." -Vox Day, "Jordanetics"
Yes, Peterson admitted it.
Peterson Marxism expert
"That he hasn't read any Marxist literature becomes obvious early on...That he hasn't read any Marx is even more obvious...Let's not pass by the fact that Peterson doesn't know when the Communist Manifesto was written. He says ''1880 or 1890, whenever Marx wrote it.'' Marx and Engels published it in 1948: a year that nobody remotely familiar with modern European history is likely to overlook. Marx was, of course, dead by 1883. -Alexander Douglas, "Review of Jordan Peterson's Stupid Lecture"
Peterson Supreme Court expert
"It's not a good thing when there is general discomfort with the manner in which something as important as the naming of a new Chief Justice is undertaken. It doesn't bode well for the stability and peace of the state(and -perhaps- there is nothing to more important to preserve than that)."
-Jordan Peterson, "Notes on my Kavanaugh Tweet"
"The fact that a Canadian was offering unsolicited advice to Americans on the composition of their highest legal institution was bad enough. The fact that he was doing so in ignorance of the actual position involved was incredible, especially when one considers that The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr. is still the Chief Justice of the United States, as he has been since 2005.
Despite the fact that the nomination and confirmation hearings had been in the news for weeks, Peterson didn't even realize that Judge Kavanaugh was replacing the empty seat on the Supreme Court vacated by the retired Anthony Kennedy, who had served as an Associate Justice since 1988." -Theodore Beale
-
David Icke says some out there stuff as well as truths. Rush Limbaugh used to say "deep state" was kook talk but now literally says "deep state" all the time. Trump used to and still does regard GW Bush as a pile of trash(he is). Now people who loved Bush praise Trump.
Don't let anyone bully you or anyone into telling you what is okay or not ok to listen to. You can listen for meaning, entertainment, different perspectives or whatever.
Icke was one of the most outspoken against Jimmy Saville(extreme molester) when the mainstream media called it conspiracy theory.
FUCK anyone that would try to silence anti-child-molestation speech. Don't wait until speech or thought has to be approved by dimwits until you speak out or have opinions.
Which idiotic, evil, insane FUCKING trash here is for Jimmy Saville...
Allegations of sexual abuse
Main article: Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal
During his lifetime
During Savile's lifetime, sporadic allegations of child abuse were made against him dating back to 1963,[106] but these only became widely publicised after his death. Savile claimed the key to his success on Jim'll Fix It had been that he disliked children, although he later admitted to saying this to deflect scrutiny of his personal life. He did not own a computer, claiming that he did not want anybody to think he was downloading child pornography.[2] His autobiography As it Happens (1974, reprinted as Love is an Uphill Thing, 1976) contains admissions of improper sexual conduct which appear to have passed unnoticed during his lifetime.[107]
Former Sex Pistols and Public Image Ltd vocalist John Lydon alluded to sordid conduct committed by Savile, as well as suppression of widely held knowledge about such activity, in an October 1978 interview recorded for BBC Radio 1. Lydon stated: "I'd like to kill Jimmy Savile; I think he's a hypocrite. I bet he's into all kinds of seediness that we all know about, but are not allowed to talk about. I know some rumours." He added: "I bet none of this will be allowed out."[108] As predicted, the comment was edited out by the BBC prior to broadcasting, but the complete interview was included as a bonus track on a re-release of Public Image Ltd's 1978 debut album Public Image: First Issue in 2013, after Savile's death.[109] In October 2014, Lydon expanded on his original quote, saying: "By killed I meant locking him up and stopping him assaulting young children... I'm disgusted at the media pretending they weren't aware."[110]
Former professional wrestler Adrian Street described in a November 2013 interview how "Savile used to go on and on about the young girls who’d wait in line for him outside his dressing room ... He'd pick the ones he wanted and say to the rest, 'Unlucky, come back again tomorrow night'." Savile, who cultivated a "tough guy" image promoted by his entourage, was hit with real blows during a 1971 bout with Street, who commented that had he "known then the full extent of what I know about [Savile] now, I’d have given him an even bigger hiding – were that physically possible."[111]
In a 1990 interview for The Independent on Sunday, Lynn Barber asked Savile about rumours that he liked "little girls". Savile's reply was that, as he worked in the pop music business, "the young girls in question don't gather round me because of me – it's because I know the people they love, the stars... I am of no interest to them."[112] In April 2000, in a documentary by Louis Theroux, When Louis Met... Jimmy, Savile acknowledged "salacious tabloid people" had raised rumours about whether he was a paedophile, and said, "I know I'm not."[113] A follow-up documentary, Louis Theroux: Savile,[114][115][116][117] about Savile and Theroux's inability to dig more deeply,[118] aired on BBC Two in 2016.[119]
In 2007, Savile was interviewed under caution by police investigating an allegation of indecent assault in the 1970s at the now-closed Duncroft Approved School for Girls near Staines, Surrey, where he was a regular visitor. The Crown Prosecution Service advised there was insufficient evidence to take any further action and no charges were brought.[120] In March 2008, Savile started legal proceedings against The Sun, which had linked him in several articles to child abuse at the Jersey children's home Haut de la Garenne.[121] At first, he denied visiting Haut de la Garenne, but later admitted he had done so following the publication of a photograph showing him at the home surrounded by children.[122] The States of Jersey Police said that in 2008 an allegation of an indecent assault by Savile at the home in the 1970s had been investigated, but there had been insufficient evidence to proceed.[123] In 2009, in a taped interview with his biographer, Savile defended pop star Gary Glitter, convicted in 1999 of possession of child pornography, whom he described as a celebrity being vilified for watching "dodgy films": "It were for his own gratification. Whether it was right or wrong is up to him as a person... they [viewers] didn't do anything wrong but they are then demonised." The interview was not published at the time, and the recording was not released until after Savile's death.[124]
In 2012, Sir Roger Jones, a former BBC governor for Wales and chairman of BBC charity Children in Need, disclosed that more than a decade before Savile's death he had banned Savile from involvement in the charity, because he felt his behaviour was "strange" and "suspicious", and had heard unsubstantiated rumours about his activities.[125] Former Royal Family press secretary Dickie Arbiter said Savile's behaviour had raised "concern and suspicion" when Savile acted as an informal marriage counsellor between Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the late 1980s, although no reports had been made.[89]
After his death
Immediately after Savile's death, the BBC's Newsnight programme began an investigation into reports that he was a sexual abuser. Meirion Jones and Liz MacKean interviewed one victim on camera and others agreed to have their stories told. The interviewees alleged abuse at Duncroft approved school for girls in Staines, Stoke Mandeville Hospital and the BBC. The item was scheduled for broadcast in Newsnight on 7 December 2011, but was never shown; the BBC broadcast tributes to Savile at Christmas 2011. Newsnight also discovered that Surrey Police had investigated allegations of abuse against Savile.[126] In December 2012, a review led by Nick Pollard of the BBC's handling of the issue described the decision not to broadcast the Newsnight investigation as "flawed". The review said that Jones and MacKean had found "cogent evidence" that Savile was an abuser. George Entwistle – at that time the Director of BBC Vision – who had been told about the plan to broadcast the Newsnight item, was described by the review as "unnecessarily cautious, and an opportunity was lost".[127][128]
There was no public mention of the Newsnight investigation into Savile at the time but in early 2012, several newspapers reported that the BBC had investigated but not broadcast (its report of) allegations of sexual abuse immediately after his death. The Oldie alleged there had been a cover-up by the BBC.[129]
On 28 September 2012, almost a year after his death, ITV said it would broadcast a documentary as part of its Exposure series, The Other Side of Jimmy Savile.[12] The documentary, presented by Mark Williams-Thomas, a consultant on the original Newsnight investigation, revealed claims by up to 10 women, including one aged under 14 at the time, that they had been molested or raped by Savile during the 1960s and 1970s.[130] The announcement attracted national attention, and more reports and claims of abuse against him accumulated. The documentary was broadcast on 3 October. The next day, the Metropolitan Police said the Child Abuse Investigation Command would assess the allegations.[131]
By 19 October 2012, police were pursuing 400 lines of inquiry based on testimony from 200 witnesses via 14 police forces across the UK. They described the alleged abuse as "on an unprecedented scale", and the number of potential victims as "staggering".[132] Investigations codenamed Operation Yewtree were opened to identify criminal conduct related to Savile's activities by the Metropolitan Police, and to review the 2009 decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to drop a prosecution as "unlikely to succeed".[16][17] By 25 October, police reported the number of possible victims was approaching 300.[13]
On 12 November 2012, the Metropolitan Police announced the scale of sexual allegations reported against Savile was "unprecedented" in Britain: a total of 450 alleged victims had contacted the police in the ten weeks since the investigation was launched. Officers recorded 199 crimes in 17 police force areas in which Savile was a suspect, among them 31 allegations of rape in seven force areas.[133] Analysis of the report showed 82% of those who came forward to report abuse were female and 80% were children or young people at the time of the incidents.[134] One former Broadmoor nurse claimed that Savile had said that he engaged in necrophiliac acts with corpses in their mortuary in Leeds; Savile was friends with the chief mortician, who gave him near-unrestricted access.[135]
The developing scandal led to inquiries into practices at the BBC and the National Health Service. It was alleged that rumours of Savile's activities had circulated at the BBC in the 1960s and 1970s, but no action had been taken. The Director-General of the BBC, George Entwistle, apologised for what had happened, and on 16 October 2012 appointed former High Court judge Dame Janet Smith to review the culture and practices of the BBC during the time Savile worked there;[136] and Nick Pollard, a former Sky News executive, was appointed to look at why the Newsnight investigation into Savile's activities was dropped shortly before transmission in December 2011.[136]
On 22 October 2012, the BBC programme Panorama broadcast an investigation into Newsnight and found evidence suggesting "senior manager" pressure;[137] on the same day Newsnight editor Peter Rippon "stepped down" with immediate effect.[138][139] The Department of Health appointed former barrister Kate Lampard to chair and oversee its investigations into Savile's activities at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Leeds General Infirmary, Broadmoor Hospital and other hospitals and facilities in England.[140]
Exposure Update: The Jimmy Savile Investigation was shown on ITV on 21 November 2012.[141] In March 2013 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary reported that 214 of the complaints that had been made against Savile after his death would have been criminal offences if they had been reported at the time. Sixteen victims reported being raped by Savile when they were under 16 (the age of heterosexual consent in England) and four of those had been under the age of 10. Thirteen others reported serious sexual assaults by Savile, including four who had been under 10 years old. Another ten victims reported being raped by Savile after the age of 16.[142]
During the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in March 2019, it was reported that Robert Armstrong, the head of the Honours Committee, had resisted attempts by Margaret Thatcher to award Savile a knighthood in the 1980s, due to concerns about his private life. An anonymous letter received by the committee in 1998 said that "reports of a paedophilia nature" could emerge about Savile.[143]
Aftermath
Within a month of the child abuse scandal emerging, many places and organisations named after or connected to Savile were renamed or had his name removed.[144] A memorial plaque on the wall of Savile's former home in Scarborough was removed in early October 2012 after it was defaced with graffiti.[145] A wooden statue of Savile at Scotstoun Leisure Centre in Glasgow was also removed around the same time.[146] Signs on a footpath in Scarborough named "Savile's View" were removed.[147][148] Savile's Hall, the conference centre at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, was renamed New Dock Hall.[149] Two registered charities founded in his name to fight "poverty and sickness and other charitable purposes" announced they were too closely tied to his name to be sustainable and would close and distribute their funds to other charities, so as to avoid harm to beneficiaries from future media attention.[150] On 28 October it was reported that Savile's cottage in Glen Coe had been vandalised with spray-paint and the door damaged.[151][152] The cottage was sold in May 2013.[153][154]
On 9 October 2012, relatives said the headstone of Savile's grave would be removed, destroyed and sent to landfill.[155][156][157] The Savile family expressed their sorrow for the "anguish" of the victims and "respect [for] public opinion".[158] Savile's body is interred in the cemetery in Scarborough, although it has been proposed that it be exhumed and cremated.[159]
Savile's estate, believed to be worth about £4 million, was frozen by its executors, the NatWest bank, in view of the possibility that those alleging that they had been assaulted by Savile could make claims for damages.[160] After "a range of expenses" were charged to the estate, a remainder of about £3.3 million was available to compensate victims, with those victims not having a claim against another entity (such as the BBC or the National Health Service) given priority, and all victims limited to a maximum claim of £60,000 against all entities combined, a compensation scheme approved by the courts.[161][162]
An authorised biography, How's About That Then?, by Alison Bellamy, was published in June 2012. After the claims made against him were published, the author said that, in the light of the allegations, she felt "let down and betrayed" by Savile.[163]
On 26 June 2014, UK Secretary of State for Health Jeremy Hunt delivered a public apology in the House of Commons to the patients of the National Health Service abused by Savile. He confirmed that complaints had been raised before 2012 but were ignored by the bureaucratic system:
Savile was a callous, opportunistic, wicked predator who abused and raped individuals, many of them patients and young people, who expected and had a right to expect to be safe. His actions span five decades – from the 1960s to 2010. ... As a nation at that time we held Savile in our affection as a somewhat eccentric national treasure with a strong commitment to charitable causes. Today's reports show that in reality he was a sickening and prolific sexual abuser who repeatedly exploited the trust of a nation for his own vile purposes.[164]
Richard Harrison, a long-serving psychiatric nurse at Broadmoor Hospital, said in 2012 that Savile had long been regarded by staff as "a man with a severe personality disorder and a liking for children". Another nurse, Bob Allen, agreed with assessments of Savile as a psychopath, and stated: "A lot of the staff said he should be behind bars." Allen also said that he had once reported Savile to his supervisor for apparent improper conduct with a juvenile, but no action was taken.[165]
What the fuck is your problem?
-
Agreed. I was personally referencing over two standard deviations above average as "brilliant". The main thing I was trying to convey is that Peterson is a charlatan and dishonest. He claimed to have an IQ over three standard deviations above average when his IQ isn't even two standard deviations above the mean.
Peterson isn't interacting on Getbig. Professionally, Peterson speaks on the record, with authority, to paying audiences on subjects he's very far from an expert on. Ignorant young paying audiences suck up information Peterson is ignorant on.
Peterson Bible expert:
"Peterson began his public series of lectures on the bible without bothering to read it first." -Vox Day, "Jordanetics"
Yes, Peterson admitted it.
Peterson Marxism expert
"That he hasn't read any Marxist literature becomes obvious early on...That he hasn't read any Marx is even more obvious...Let's not pass by the fact that Peterson doesn't know when the Communist Manifesto was written. He says ''1880 or 1890, whenever Marx wrote it.'' Marx and Engels published it in 1948: a year that nobody remotely familiar with modern European history is likely to overlook. Marx was, of course, dead by 1883. -Alexander Douglas, "Review of Jordan Peterson's Stupid Lecture"
Peterson Supreme Court expert
"It's not a good thing when there is general discomfort with the manner in which something as important as the naming of a new Chief Justice is undertaken. It doesn't bode well for the stability and peace of the state(and -perhaps- there is nothing to more important to preserve than that)."
-Jordan Peterson, "Notes on my Kavanaugh Tweet"
"The fact that a Canadian was offering unsolicited advice to Americans on the composition of their highest legal institution was bad enough. The fact that he was doing so in ignorance of the actual position involved was incredible, especially when one considers that The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr. is still the Chief Justice of the United States, as he has been since 2005.
Despite the fact that the nomination and confirmation hearings had been in the news for weeks, Peterson didn't even realize that Judge Kavanaugh was replacing the empty seat on the Supreme Court vacated by the retired Anthony Kennedy, who had served as an Associate Justice since 1988." -Theodore Beale
Yes, then I 100% agree with you. Peterson is a charlatan in many regards and he should stick to what he knows. I wish he would have stuck to what he knows. :-\ :-\
-
Agreed. I was personally referencing over two standard deviations above average as "brilliant". The main thing I was trying to convey is that Peterson is a charlatan and dishonest. He claimed to have an IQ over three standard deviations above average when his IQ isn't even two standard deviations above the mean.
Peterson isn't interacting on Getbig. Professionally, Peterson speaks on the record, with authority, to paying audiences on subjects he's very far from an expert on. Ignorant young paying audiences suck up information Peterson is ignorant on.
Peterson Bible expert:
"Peterson began his public series of lectures on the bible without bothering to read it first." -Vox Day, "Jordanetics"
Yes, Peterson admitted it.
Peterson Marxism expert
"That he hasn't read any Marxist literature becomes obvious early on...That he hasn't read any Marx is even more obvious...Let's not pass by the fact that Peterson doesn't know when the Communist Manifesto was written. He says ''1880 or 1890, whenever Marx wrote it.'' Marx and Engels published it in 1948: a year that nobody remotely familiar with modern European history is likely to overlook. Marx was, of course, dead by 1883. -Alexander Douglas, "Review of Jordan Peterson's Stupid Lecture"
Peterson Supreme Court expert
"It's not a good thing when there is general discomfort with the manner in which something as important as the naming of a new Chief Justice is undertaken. It doesn't bode well for the stability and peace of the state(and -perhaps- there is nothing to more important to preserve than that)."
-Jordan Peterson, "Notes on my Kavanaugh Tweet"
"The fact that a Canadian was offering unsolicited advice to Americans on the composition of their highest legal institution was bad enough. The fact that he was doing so in ignorance of the actual position involved was incredible, especially when one considers that The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr. is still the Chief Justice of the United States, as he has been since 2005.
Despite the fact that the nomination and confirmation hearings had been in the news for weeks, Peterson didn't even realize that Judge Kavanaugh was replacing the empty seat on the Supreme Court vacated by the retired Anthony Kennedy, who had served as an Associate Justice since 1988." -Theodore Beale
I would love you to sit down and debate some topics with him...
-
I wonder how much IQ it takes to write about David Icke in a thread about David Icke?
-
I would love you to sit down and debate some topics with him...
Were you for or against against Kavanaugh being on the Supreme Court?
Peterson tweeted, "If confirmed, Kavanaugh should step down."
Do you agree with Peterson on that?
Do you think Kavanaugh should step down?
-
Were you for or against against Kavanaugh being on the Supreme Court?
Peterson tweeted, "If confirmed, Kavanaugh should step down."
Do you agree with Peterson on that?
Do you think Kavanaugh should step down?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
If whats confirmed?
-
I have no idea what you are talking about.
If whats confirmed?
Never mind. I thought you were from the US.
-
Never mind. I thought you were from the US.
If it's about the rape charges then no, he shouldn't be on the supreme court if he was a rapist.
Accused of something shouldn't warrant a punishment
If thats what you were getting at