andyh wrote:
Exactly, it looked that response was from Sean...not from icke. I reckon Sean or whoever intercepts stuff like that so it never reaches the top. As I say, if Icke was naive enough to let someone steal the rights to his books - then maybe he isnt the businessman people claim and he's just not on top of everything.

Ab Origine wrote:

OMFG!!!!!

You've just bowled me over!

At this point then I am bound to offer my sincerest thanks for some of the PMs you sent me over there. As you know I went through a dark period of it all getting to me a while back and those PMs brought me back from the brink. You were a star then and you are a star now. Big up yourself.

domathy wrote:
If thats the case then you are still jiggered.
All comms will be 'intercepted' so to speak.

domathy wrote:
Dothamy , I don't think you'll find anyone here openly venting about David Icke? As far as I can see anyway?

So weighing eveything up you will hopefully see it was the forum that people had issues with not David Icke per say

This is also the second time you have suggested you will contact David Icke or his wife (which one?) ....what reaction are you hoping for , someone to say 'Oh you have David Icke's phone number you must be important?


If you know David Icke personally , great , I'm sure he is a nice man but this forum didn't spring up out of nowhere ......it evolved through the treatment of some forum members getting shafted and others getting fed up of the blatant racism, white Christian Nazi's that are very active over there

irrepressible wrote:
The thing he has total control over is his books, and thats where he is 100% accountable for his words. the forum is supposed to be about free, uncensored speech - as that is everything he claims to stand for - so I cant see how he can be held accountable for people being, well, people (im referring to racism etc). I do think moderation is necessary - but fairness is key, so if Sean is acting out of line then that should be addressed. If Icke releases a statement saying Sean can do what he likes as long as its good for businuess (or not is so many words) then that would make me think differently. But it just seems people vent justified anger with Sean, at Icke - who for all we know doenst know the full scale of the issues on the forum (due to him spinning to many plates or whatever). I would just feel less uncomfortable if facts were gathered first and people had made a concerted effort to contact Icke personally before maligning. The problem with gossip is its impossible to defend agianst - and its something which i feel strongly about (hence why im harping on maybe too much).

dubmeup wrote:
Aww...shucks.

You're most welcome.

You can also testify that I at no point tried to trick you into sleeping with me by pretending to be a woman...largely due to the fact that I could really only have carried that misconception on for so long (the beard and hairy legs may have given me away eventually) and partly due to the fact that I'm genuinely not a 'deceptive' type, generally.

domathy wrote:
Let's get it done, then. Once and for all. We can publish everything right here for all to see that way too.

dawnbreak wrote:
No, I dont have his number
I meant Linda (or the woman who handles the books/admin) - I emailed about a question I had, and she basically responded on his behalf and forwarded my message. What I meant is it wouldnt be hard to gt in touch (i used the email address in the back of one of is books) - so why not bypass the mods (who you KNOW are corrupt) and go straight to the top. If people had made the same effort appealing to Icke, then the issues might have got sorted by now and Sean might have been gone. Sean might be laughing to himself thinking everyone assumes Icke is complicit, so theyll never report the issue and so nothing his status will never be challenged. I guess its just the fact assumptions are not useful in this sort of situation.

domathy wrote:
Theres a difference between free speech and hate speech.
The Icke forum does have clear rules against it, yet it does not enforce them provided that the racists dance around the fine print and encourage conflict.

domathy wrote:
Linda will just pass it on to Sean.
Looking at the previous official notice thats precisely what happened last time...

Ab Origine wrote:
I have missed lots of posts due to the fact I dip in and out in between other stuff Im doing - Im happy to contact Icke (if no one else wants to do it) but need to know all the beef people want me to raise. So if poss - a clear list of facts would be very handy. I havent had any scrapes with mods - besides a very minor misunderstanding, but i guess thats because I never questioned the power structure.

domathy wrote:
Fair enough. Do we want to do it here or in a seperate thread? Lets get these details thrashed out so Dom can get on it.

Worth noting what others like Andy above have said about any response you receive though.

What we really need is a vid response! (Which he has absolutely no obligation to give us, but would certainly put things straight).

Right, I've started somewhere to dump your points, if you wish to participate here sanctumzone.co.uk/forum/26-Projects--Mee...to-Mr-Icke.html#7404.

It's currently in the private area but can be moved if you so wish, just let the mods know.

Perhaps we should continue 'discussion' in this thread and just submit any points we'd like included on the thread linked above? This may make it easier for whoever compiles their communication to Mr Icke to make sure your point is included.

andyh wrote:
Actually I think Icke just says people should do and say what they want, as long as they dont impose their will on others. The rules are more for legal reasons than anything else. But yes, the forum is a dark place, and I wish Id got out sooner. The really interesting people either dont hang around there, or their voice is drowned out by idiots - so Im all for change.

domathy wrote:
You don't sound like a loser to me dom. You sound like you are giving Icke the benefit of the doubt and that is commendable.

I take what you said about his domicile and car. He certainly doesn't live the high life.

I would like to think he is for real. I certainly don't think he went through the Wogan humiliation as part of some long term business plan!

However, knowing what I know now about how his Empire is run, I have very very real doubts about him. He has to make a living like all of us. That's fine. But that site is everything we are saying it is. It thrives on the negativity that's rampant there. As has been said, the more people that post in opposition to the racists, the more racist posts etc, the better. It's all about numbers. Numbers=revenue.

It is any business owner's duty to take responsibility for their business. Especially one who touts themselves as being ethical. The very most rope you could give Icke is that he is just banking the cheques and not making sure that his business is run responsibly. Even if that is all there is too it, he is still responsible, it's his site.

Ab Origine wrote:
Thanks Ab - it may be a long-shot but got to be worth a try!

domathy wrote:
And if the MSM catch on to the stuff going on in there he'll find out exactly how relevant those legal reasons are...

Ab Origine wrote:
No sorry, I can't testify to that, MF was a filthy tart....

domathy wrote:
Definitely. Never let it be said that Sanctumites just like to sit and moan.

We like to 'do', too!!

dubmeup wrote:
This is true...