Is this verifiable because it goes completely against what I've heard elsewhere? Also, if this is actually the case quite clearly it will be impossible for it to survive unless they generate significant advertising revenue.

only source is sonia so far

how to verify it is v difficult as we do not have accounts or volunteers willing to come forward.

I do know that a lot of people have offered to volunteer and not be gotten back to and the picture of the tpv 'team' xmas photo did not show more than 25 people.

thoreau wrote:
Do you have a source for sonia saying this? She said she got £300 per month

-I preferred your thornetto

So the volunteers are on £100 per day !

Fuck me! The people earning less than that who've sold their Fools 'n' Horses clocks & gone without a winter coat should be seething about the false pretences employed.

dawnbreak wrote:
yes I do have the documents in pdf format, however I doubt I can just post the full thing as Im sure there is some copyright shit involved as I had to pay £1 to download them from companies house. I can say the words "not for profit" cannot be found, though I have not read the mem and arts completely, but I would expect that status to be prominent.

That being said, I am happy to post any excepts you need, or who knows, the pdf file may be on a torrent soon.....

dawnbreak wrote:
Correct, such organizations usually have that info not far from their logo, or as a footnote on webpages and documents.
I know this as I work for one of them, as was my previous employer, it's attractive to customers.

Wonder if they are putting them through the books PAYE/NI

No bet it's volunteers expenses

They could get themselves in a right load of doodoo with HMRC if they are paying people and not accounting for it

That's what brings down the biggest gangsters isn't it...tax issues

diforumreject wrote:
PM the linky thing to Dawney.....

found them online, could have saved a £1:-)
www.megafileupload.com/en/file/490378/TPV-company-pdf.html

dawnbreak wrote:
I can almost imagine them doing the non compliance dance as we speak.

SilvaRizla wrote:
on her facebook page - here is a screenie

thoreau wrote: The reason I ask is that she claimed to have only received £300 per month. I find it pretty difficult to believe that a mainstream journalist, who regularly appears on terrestrial television, with over twenty years of experience is willing to work for this while watching others make circa £500-600 per week. I suppose it's possible, but I smell bullshit here to say the least. I wouldn't be willing to tolerate this, absolutely no chance, and I don't have the sort of CV that she does.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I have to say I am inclined to believe that she was only paid £300 a month as knowing full well the project was going to be funded by donations I doubt she would have expected the same pay as an msm job would provide. I would not be surprised if she had been told that any 'wage' would increase once the station was self sufficient. I would also not be surprised that finding out that richie or others are being paid a lot more made her pretty angry.

As another aside. a quote from I_AM on the doom and gloom thread on dif - did she not listen to ickes skype diatribe about water and food being cut off and people being dragged crying like children from their homes

I_AM blinkered.

The upper case 'currently' suggests that their going rate has fluctuated and this is perhaps a recent development.

thoreau wrote:
It's I-Am, therefore, black is white and up is down if she says so!

WUBs correct me if I'm wrong but I think she said she got paid £300 not received £300 .....there is a big difference (expenses/company credit card/car allowance etc)

The volunteers being paid £100 a day though sounds very very strange if she was on £300 a month ..the two do not tally at all

I could understand her only taking/asking for £300 a month as she seemed passionate about the venture and it gave her a platform to move from freelance journalist into TV presenter, and it was not her only source of income so it's not like see would be struggling financially

The whole thing is starting to annoy me as it seems like David Icke wants people to fund his lifestyle and his dreams and work for nothing and be grateful for it

I reckon he has about 8 months left before the whole house of cards he has built comes tumbling down

nail on head for me there dawn - he said as much in his richie interview.

WUB's could you not ask to be interviewed on there.

You have a book out about all the stuff the channel is ment to represent

I think you should go TPV (ans plug the sanctum zone )

Nothing like laying down the gauntlet Dawney....like it!......Well WuB's...or are you sticking to radio?

dawnbreak wrote: I'm not sure, but from my personal perspective, I would have been willing to do some work for them, but I don't work for free, and I wouldn't work for peanuts especially if I know other people are being paid okay. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that she would, but perhaps I'm wrong.

My personal experience is that when two parties have a massive fall out and feel the need to issue polemics against one another that the truth is somewhere between those two points. It's probably easy for those that are 'Icke fans' to smear Poulton, and equally easy for those that are suspicious of Icke to accept Poutlon's version of events. My view is that most people act in self-interest to a some extent, apart from anything else it's simply necessary to survive, and it's extremely difficult for me to believe her version of events regarding pay.

Also, didn't Richie Allen state that he pays the rent for his flat from his pay from TPV?dawnbreak wrote: I wouldn't really want to be on TV that much, I don't really have any desire to gain that sort of publicity unless it is essential. Some people like being the centre of attention; I really don't. Doing a few radio programmes was okay, but I prefer writing in all honesty. People have said I'm a good public speaker, but I don't really enjoy it. I would have carried on making those radio programmes if I thought it was going to change anything, but I don't.

It would have been nice for my book to have reached a wider audience, as I know it's a good book and it’s also factually accurate and all not merely provable but proven. And much of what I predicted in it has already happened, or is well on the way to happening. But it's not economically essential for me, and writing it taught me a lot. I’m happy doing what I’m doing now which is going better than I could have reasonably hoped.

There is more important work that I could be doing, but it’s not really economically viable unfortunately, and if you try to make a living that way you either end up with your hand out, as we’ve seen, or you have to do what Peter Joseph does which is do another job (that he says he doesn’t like) in order to make the money to live off. My way is a compromise without at the same time having to compromise my values, answer to anyone, or do anything that I don’t want to do, and I make good money without having to have my hand out, so I can’t really argue with that as most people don’t get to live that way. I have a massive list of ideas for books, and I’d started to write a book on the BBC which could have been really good, but you simply have to accept that there’s no money in writing books unless you’re incredibly fortunate.