First of all I should say that I have been following David's work for the best part of 20 years. I am not one of the school of thought which says that he is a complete fraudster and only in it for the money.

However I have noted over the years that David is susceptible to all sorts of theories some soundly based and some less so

For the great mass of the public the only thing they know about Icke is that he once appeared on the Terry Wogan show and said that he was the directly created son of God; also that he believed the Royal Family, Edward Heath and other assorted notables were shapeshifting reptiles.

I have also noted from comments on various other Internet forums that some people think he died years ago and they express surprise that he's still with us!

Some of what Icke said in his early years during his search for truth has been used to discredit him. I just wonder whether he is now too toxic to act as any sort of ambassador in the truth movement, however well intentioned he might be. Which might also be one of the reasons for the like the failure of TPV, ie because potential advertisers and sponsors are too nervous of being associated with the name of David Icke.

What are your thoughts and do you have any suggestions as to who might be a better ambassador for truth?

Joe rogan

Verlander wrote:

He's got too many flaws to be taken seriously any more.

The outlandish claims that turn a lot of people off.

The bellicose & narcissistic attitude.

Te plagiarism with no credit ever extended to the actual researchers.

The begging / demanding money.

The way he allows his forum to be run.

The hypocrisy (eg. preaching that people n general control each other with ridicule, yet ridiculing people who don't give him credence, with labels like Sheeple).

I could go on.

Personally, I'd recommend people read up as many different sources for things they're interested in, and avoid the concept of an ambassador for truth altogether if possible.

John Pilger, Greg Palast or Owen Jones at the independent are all decent hardworking journalists, if you want a peoples voice Id suggest donating to them instead.
Chunkymark the taxi driver does a better job than Icke .

Most of what I was going to say has been covered, so I'll answer your question thusly:

Yes.

Too many of DI's 'ideas' (adopted ideas) are speculation.
Speculation and truth don't mix unless you want to pass off your speculation as if it were truth to gullible idiots.

I don't think anything else, need be said.

I think that Icke is right with regards to the reptillians. Well I have seen one of them myself. Back in about 1984. I saw a police officer shapeshift.

Ian2day wrote:
Virtually anything you could imagine has been seen by someone, somewhere.

Icke does not even get taken seriously by many conspiracy theorists, the mainstream media only ever have him on to ridicule him, he is easily the worst ambassador the "truth movement" could ever pick. Having his name associated with anything is a big turn off, I think Sonia mentioned in her video she had serious trouble trying to recruit anyone to work with her at TPV, even her close friends in the business did not want to be associated with DI

Great comments.

I do think that Icke is a poor ambassador and a deterrent to advertisers etc. Perhaps this is why he resigned, last October, as a director of the company which runs TPV (People's Voice Broadcasting Ltd). Sean Adl-Tabatabai is now the sole director (Link).

However, TPV is still so closely identified with Icke that he is probably their biggest liability!

oioioi wrote:
I still would like to know what that bit's about?!

I figure he's so unimportant he flew under the radar.
Or Paul McCartney took over.
Or or or
Its a time slip

Gilly wrote:
Can I add this to me sig pls? Same credit as HS.

Course you can.

Verlander wrote:
He resigned around the time that it was realised that an OFCOM license would be needed. There's nothing like the thought of a large fine for clarifying the mind with regards to liability...

But it's a limited company. An Ofcom fine would be on the company's assets not on Icke personally. In practice it would come out of the donations!

Maybe as a Director Icke couldn't be classed as a priority creditor. So not first in line to receive any money back if it goes tits up due to being fined by OFCOM. I'm not up with company law so I'm only guessing at best.

Please?

Listen to everyone, follow no-one.

Icke's finito.