Author Topic: David Icke live, taken down from Youytube 97k viewing, still available here  (Read 15029 times)

Humble Narcissist

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32610

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?

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
No one is forced to listen to Icke's videos either.

Exactly. Which why YouTube turned him off.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
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.

Humble Narcissist

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32610
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.

Humble Narcissist

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32610
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.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
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.

Humble Narcissist

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32610
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.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
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.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
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?

Humble Narcissist

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32610
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.

Griffith

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9374
  • .......
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.

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
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.

joswift

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 35431
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 ..

Griffith

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9374
  • .......
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'.

friedchickendinner

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1133
  • I've had it
As long as those old Rich Piano videos are still up on youtube we are all good!!

pellius

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22827
  • RIP Keith Jones aka OnlyMe/NoWorries. 1/10/2011
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.



f450

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
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?


f450

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
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?

joswift

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 35431
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

Vince B

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12981
  • What you!
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

Megalodon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7699
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]



Humble Narcissist

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 32610
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  ::)

Rusty Trombone

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3454

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.


JAGO

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2750
  • Biden/Harris 2020
David Icke is a charlatan. Good riddance.

This . . . Icke is a lunatic.

J