Antifa NGOs campaign to have David Icke thrown off social media for
Covid-19 comments; YouTube deletes his account
Newsletter published on May 5, 2020
(1) David Icke interview on Covid-19 - takes a line like Global Research
(2) Event 201 Pandemic Simulation Official Videos - watch the Highlights
(12 min)
(3) Antifa NGOs campaign to have David Icke thrown off all social media
platforms
(4) Who are the "Center For Countering Digital Hate"?
(5) Who engineered Katie Hopkins's cancellation? - James Delingpole
(6) Hope not Hate vs Nigel Farage
(7) YouTube deletes David Icke's account for his comments on coronavirus
(8) Ofcom 'protects the public from harmful or offensive material'
(9) Ofcom rules David Icke's coronavirus comments could have done
'significant harm'
(10) Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite, by Samuel
P. Huntington
I agree with Icke that the Global elite are trying to manage the outcome
of the Covid-19 pandemic, but disagree about other matters; I will
explain why in the next few days. Despite my disagreement, I believe
that Icke puts an impressive case, and deserves to be heard. The attempt
to de-platform him is alarming, a tactic of the Ministry of Truth. Who
funds these Antifa NGOs? - Peter M.
(1) David Icke interview on Covid-19 - takes a line like Global Research
From: Richard Krege <r_krege@iimetro.com.au>
I listened to this talk today which covers the big picture regarding the
"Pandemic". Now I'm not a fan of David Icke and his Lizard nonsense but
I found in this interview he gave an exceptionally good insight as to
what's happening and why, suggest you might like to see it too.
You can see the first 45mins here:
The rest of the 2hrs can be seen here:
(2) Event 201 Pandemic Simulation Official Videos - watch the Highlights
(12 min)
Event 201 > Event 201 Videos
Statement about nCoV and our pandemic exercise
Highlights Reel
Selected moments from the October 18th Event 201 Exercise (Length: ~12
minutes)
Videos of Event 201
These five segments include discussions among high-level leaders of
global businesses, governments, policy and public health. (Length ~3 hours)
Segment 1 - Intro and Medical Countermeasures (MCM) Discussion
Segment 2 - Trade & Travel Discussion
Segment 3 - Finance Discussion
Segment 4 - Communications Discussion and Epilogue Video
Segment 5 - Hotwash and Conclusion
Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security logo
World Economic Forum logo
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation logo
(3) Antifa NGOs campaign to have David Icke thrown off all social media
platforms
This Week in the Guardian #6 This week sees more boosting of censorship,
a collection of cognitive dissonance and the return of our old Russian
friends.
#DEPLATFORMICKE
The Guardian has a story covering the campaign from two NGOs to have
David Icke thrown off all social media platforms. While the article is
very long on the various claims made by Icke and the D-list celebrities
who agree with censoring the man, it goes into decidedly less detail on
who funds the NGOs involved.
It also disregards entirely the potential ethical problems posed by
large well-funded institutions campaigning for the censorship of an
individual. And avoids any questioning of the idea of giant tech
companies cooperating with the government to decide which opinions are
allowed.
This isn't about David Icke, it's about setting a precedent – censorship
for the public good. The Center for Countering Digital Hate and Hope
Note Hate are the terrifying face of modern authoritarianism. Fascism in
the name of friendliness and safety.
"First they came for the conspiracy theorists…"
THE LOCKDOWN AND DOUBLETHINK
This is just a nice display of how modern journalism requires an
editorial line that totally disregards internal logic.
In this article, Simon Tisdall documents all the ways in which the
lockdown-generated economic crash could destroy the lives of people in
the third world. And in this one Polly Toynbee goes into great detail
about all the unemployed young people we're about to create…because of
the lockdown. Neither of them argues the lockdown should be ended.
Whilst here, Robert Reich says that Trump ending the lockdown would be
terrible and dangerous and kill people, and Lloyd Green blames Trump for
surging unemployment in the US, without mentioning the lockdown at all.
You see, ending the Lockdown is bad, because Trump wants to do it. But
also, the lockdown is causing massive unemployment – both here and
abroad – which could kill millions of people thanks to poverty, famine,
and non-Covid diseases.
Keeping the meat-packing plants open is dangerous and irresponsible, but
there are fears of panic buying or food shortages if they're closed.
There's no word on the potential deaths caused by starvation and food
shortages, which are discussed at length in other articles.
In summary, we're told he lockdown's effect will kill literally 10x more
people than the disease has done so far, but if you want to end it
you're a pro-Trump anti-science virus-denier.
Mind-boggling.
RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA!
Perhaps a sign that the Covid19 narrative is waning is The Guardian's
abandonment of it's happy-clappy Coke-advert approach to globalism, and
return to what it does best – vilify Russia based on flimsy evidence and
to very little purpose.
Firstly, by repeating the totally unsubstantiated claims that Putin is
planning to assassinate the mayor of Prague. Apparently the motive is
the removal of a statue of a Soviet war hero. At least, according to the
"anonymous sources in Czech intelligence", whose assertions (and
existence) remain unquestioned throughout the article.
Secondly, by claiming that the aid Russia delivered Coronavirus aid to
Italy was donae partly for "political purposes" – to which the response
"No shit Sherlock" comes to mind.
Maybe The Guardian genuinely thinks that when NATO countries deliver aid
they do it out of the kindness of their hearts, anonymously, without
even a thought to geo-politics or public relations. Or maybe they'll say
any rubbish they're told to say.
It is interesting that this story appears this week, though, and not a
month ago when the aid was delivered. A sign that narrative cohesion is
collapsing? Or that some people (namely Russia) won't be welcome at the
globalist party? Or maybe that they plan to abandon the "we're all in
this together" aspect of the Coronavirus panic?
Who knows. It's reassuring to see Russophobic nonsense back on the
Guardian's front page though.
(4) Who are the "Center For Countering Digital Hate"?
Katie Hopkins Ban | Who Are The "Center For Countering Digital Hate"?
Any group with the word 'hate' in their title are normally everything
they claim to be against. So when Katie Hopkins had her Twitter account
suspended on Wednesday 29th January 2020, an account with over 1 million
followers, we decided to take a look at the 'Center for Countering
Digital Hate'.
But first, the background.
Katie Hopkins is known for her provocative statements, and
uncompromising views on issues that dominate the news cycle. She is
never PC, or worried about sensitivities. This has made her a hated
figure among the far left, and as we know, the closer to the target you
are, the more flak you receive. We looked for any evidence of any
incitement to hate & violence, the charge levelled against her by
Twitter as justification, but could find nothing.
However, as the day of the suspension progressed, the reality of what
happened started to reveal itself. A recently formed organisation called
Center for Countering Digital Hate (@CCDHate on Twitter) claimed
responsibility for the censorship, stating that along with Rachel Riley,
they had met Twitter UK and presented a case for Hopkins to be banned.
CCDH have been endorsed by London Mayor Sadiq Khan and pundit Gary
Lineker. This meeting took place without Katie in attendance to provide
context to whatever was raised, or to defend herself and the tweets in
question. The group had also not seen fit to engage with Katie prior to
the meeting. Action was swift (the day following the meeting) and the
gloating from the left wing press followed almost instantly (The
Independent managed to publish an article within moments of the ban,
suggesting they may have been briefed). Riley also revelled in what she
saw as a victory, though a read through her twitter feed reveals she has
a minority view that this is a good thing. Riley and CCDH also called
for George Galloway to be banned, citing anti-Semitism, but Twitter
failed to act on this.
The alarm expressed by many was that yet again, Twitter had met with
left wing activists and acted on their bidding. The political
discrimination against the right has been proven by Project Veritas and
others, with many accounts falling victim to mass reporting by trolls
and activists (itself a violation of Twitter ToS). At time of writing,
the account Zero Hedge with over 600,000 followers has also been
suspended. Many have predicted that 2020 would see a Conservative and
pro Trump crack down, and it is clear that political interference isn't
a problem for Twitter. UK political party "For Britain" had both the
party account and the leader banned from the platform. A perfectly
legitimate political party registered with the Electoral Commission,
banned for (justifiably) criticising the police over grooming gangs. The
police have since apologised for their handling of grooming gang cases,
but this hasn't brought back the banned accounts. At time of writing,
the Iranian regime, responsible for murdering 1500 citizens also can
happily tweet away. Far left Account Rachel Swindon was re-instated by a
Twitter exec after mass complaints from left wing activists following a
ban. The exec tweeted 'he would sort it' prior to the account coming
back online. Swindon is currently accused of antisemitism and many
Jewish activists have called for her account to again be banned.
Other accounts still live include Nish Kumar who stated "I want you
white people in the audience to do something for me….. I want you to go
home and kill your racist Brexit-voting parents".
If Katie Hopkins had said the above about muslims she would likely be in
prison, not just banned from social media. But anti white racism and
incitement doesn't appear to trouble the CCDH or Twitter.
Worse was to come for Katie, as a fake award 'hit job' was posted online
the same day. She was mocking a muslim couple sent to prison for
plotting a terror offence and hatching plan to behead her. All this was
(badly) edited out to make her speech look as damning as possible, no
context around who she was mocking or why. Katie had of course lost the
right to reply by this point, so figures such as Piers Morgan then
amplified the message that Hopkins is clearly 'racist'. Her fate was
being sealed in a similar manner to Tommy Robinson and others before
her. The Stasi would be proud.
See how this works yet?
So, who are the new fascists of our age, dictating to Twitter what
statements are acceptable and who should be allowed to express an
opinion? Remember, in the UK we have a right to freedom of expression
and that includes a right to offend. The left crave a totalitarian world
where all these liberties are taken away.
Let's look at the CCDH.
The news was broken by CEO Imran Ahmed (@imi_ahmed), fronting up the
message for the CCDH. Ahmed is political advisor to Hilary Benn, Labour
MP, a position taken after a number of years as a Labour activist, which
included working on Andy Slaughter's 2010 election campaign with
communications and targeting.
AltNewsMedia can reveal the email sent to Twitter after the meeting with
both the CCDH and Riley, stating the follow up action expected of them.
CCDH was previously registered as Brixton Endeavours Ltd, before
re-registering as Center For Countering Digital Hate in November 2019.
The company is British (trading address in East Finchley London), with
the mis-spelling of Centre presumably trying to provide the appearance
of an American organisation.
Directors include:
Siobhan Marie McAndrew – University Lecturer at Bristol University.
McAndrew lectures on Politics. One of her papers, published in 2015 was
entitled 'Mosques and Political Engagement in Britain'. Her work has
been commissioned by the Home Office.
Kirsty Jean McNeill – Executive at 'Save The Children' and 3 years as a
'special advisor' to Number 10.
Morgan James McSweeney – Director at 'Labourlist' and formerly a
director of 'Dr Majeed' in partnership with Iraqi Hayder Majeed
AltNewsMedia will be following up on a number of aspects to this story,
and the individuals involved.
Update:
We have been passed further information with links to Fiyaz Mughal
(founder of the discredited activists Tell Mama) and Hope Not Hate,
which we will be looking into and seeking to clarify.
(5) Who engineered Katie Hopkins's cancellation? - James Delingpole
First They Came for Katie Hopkins…
LONDON ,JULY 11:
James Delingpole
5 Feb 2020
What would Katie Hopkins have tweeted about the latest terror attack on
the London streets by a committed jihadist freshly released from prison?
Hard to be sure, but we can guess it would have been pretty pungent and
that it would have struck a chord with a lot of ordinary, sensible folk.
Maybe she would have focused on the absurdity of the attempted killer's
sentence: just 14 months served by a committed Islamist who'd been
caught with bomb making equipment, hundreds of computer downloads on
stuff like how to kill people, and was so radical that he'd urged his
girlfriend to behead her parents because they were kuffar (ie unbelievers).
Maybe she would have highlighted the utter ineptitude of the English
justice system which still seems to be more interested in protecting the
human rights of savage and incorrigible terrorist killers than it is in
protecting people who'd prefer to push their kids in pushchairs or ride
on bicycles without being knifed by convicted terrorists fresh out of jail.
Maybe she would have drawn attention to the large numbers of similarly
radicalised, intransigent, Islamist terrorists about to be released onto
the streets.
One thing we do know: her comment would have been angry, darkly funny,
punchy, likely a bit tasteless, a bit 'Did she really say that?'. But
also very apt.
She would have said the kind of thing that lots and lots of people think
privately but dare not express so bluntly in public. That's one of the
things that was great about Katie Hopkins on Twitter and why she had
garnered more than a million followers. She had popular appeal. She
often hit the nail on the head. People were interested in what she had
to say which is why they chose — note: chose –– to follow her.
But now Katie Hopkins's Twitter followers have been denied that choice.
A delegation of activists — an unholy alliance of cry-bully Muslims and
celebrity wankerati — has successfully got Katie Hopkins cancelled.
The cancellation was initiated by one of those ad hoc leftist campaign
groups which no one has ever heard of – the Center for Countering
Digital Hate – and given a celebrity face by Rachel Riley, a pretty
Cambridge graduate who does impressive arithmetic on the cultish UK
daytime TV game show Countdown.
As Allum Bokhari reported:
Progressive TV presenter Rachel Riley, who previously led a campaign
against antisemitism in the British Labour party, said that she and a
member of the Center for Countering Digital Hate had met with Twitter
shortly before Hopkins' suspension to lobby the tech company about her
continued presence on the platform.
Just look at some of her fellow wankerati involved in engineering
Hopkins's cancellation: they include Mayor of London Sadiq Khan and
ex-footballer/overpaid BBC presenter Gary Lineker. The Center for
Countering Digital Hate, meanwhile, appears to be another of those
Soros-style leftist sock-puppet organisations, not unlike Sleeping
Giants or Hope Not Hate.
Its purpose, reading between the lines, is to advance the left's Social
Justice Warrior agenda by closing down right-wing voices while
pretending to be merely about silencing 'hate.'
(Whatever 'hate' means: surely it ought to be obvious with anyone with
half a brain, let alone a clever girl who went to Cambridge, that one
person's 'hate' is another person's 'vigorously expressed home truth.'
It depends entirely on perspective. The idea that some random
organisation, fronted by someone – Imran Ahmed – whom no one, not even
his own mother probably, has ever heard of before, should suddenly
acquire the power to go to Twitter and close down people who don't share
its ideology is outrageous beyond measure).
There is no doubt whatsoever that Rachel Riley is very easy on the eye.
Still less is there any doubt — as she demonstrates every weekday — that
Riley is really, really good at adding up numbers quickly.
What's less obvious, though, is quite what gives this blessed child of
gene pool privilege the moral right to deny Katie Hopkins — or anyone
else for that matter — the opportunity to express herself on social media.
Riley was widely praised for her courage and outspokenness in
confronting the rampant anti-Semitism within Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party.
But any credibility she might have earned for sticking her head above
the parapet on that one issue has been squandered on this disgracefully
illiberal silencing of Katie Hopkins.
In any case, if it's bravery we're talking about, Riley is not fit to
lick the boots of Katie Hopkins.
Lots and lots of people — me included, and I don't think I'm
particularly brave — pointed out what a bunch of vile anti-Semitic
scumbags Jeremy Corbyn's crowd were and are.
Hopkins, on the other hand, tends to focus on the issues where you're
not pushing at quite such an open door: the rapes and grenade attacks in
Sweden; the torture and murder of white farmers in South Africa; the
difficulties created by mass migration; the Muslim rape gangs….
These are issues that the mainstream media has often been loath to cover
for reasons of cowardice and political correctness. But that doesn't
mean the problems aren't real. Hopkins has done a truly heroic and noble
thing – often exposing herself to great personal risk – by covering
these issues in her inimitable style and getting the word out there.
Sure, there are occasions when in her eagerness to drive home the
message Hopkins oversteps the mark.
Every now and then, Hopkins will phrase herself in such a way as to make
friends and admirers — and I count myself both a friend and admirer of
Katie, whom I know to be fundamentally a good, decent, unmalicious
person — wish that she was just a little better at reining in her invective.
The most recent example of this was the cruel and unpleasant stitch up,
organised by a woke YouTube prankster called Josh Pieters, whereby
Hopkins was flown out to Prague in the belief that she was to receive an
award.
It's quite excruciating to watch. To a backdrop that says C**T Award,
Hopkins makes an impromptu speech of gratitude — explaining how touched
she is because normally no one wants to give her awards — to a small
audience of alleged fans, all of whom are in fact actors playing up the
enthusiasm and egging Hopkins on to be more and more outrageous.
Hopkins duly obliges with a number of excruciating, squirm-inducing,
shock-jock-type remarks on Muslims, on disabled people and so on which
means that now, when even the great Brendan O'Neill writes a defence of
Hopkins's right to free speech, he has to preface it with a wheedling,
self-preserving cop-out intro like this:
Katie Hopkins is a racist. Anyone who hadn't already gleaned that from
her dalliances with the vile race-baiters of Generation Identity types
or her use of the word 'cockroaches' in a column about immigrants will
surely see it now following the speech she made at a phoney awards
ceremony in Prague. Internet pranksters invited Hopkins to accept the
Campaign to Unite the Nation Trophy (CUNT), during which Hopkins made a
speech filled with racist epithets. She mocked Pakistani speech
patterns. She compared Asians to epileptics. She described Muslims as
retards who rape their mothers. She said that if you shout 'Mohammed' in
a British playground, thousands of 'fucking' kids will come running, and
'you don't want any of them'. Vile, hateful stuff.
I don't dispute that what Hopkins said was embarrassing, ugly and
horribly ill-judged. But I also believe if you're going to bandy about
terms like 'vile' and 'racist' you need to take a view on the totality
of someone's track record, rather than cherry-picking their worst
moments in order to cover your sorry arse lest anyone accuse you of
'endorsing' racism.
Tone-policing is the enemy's game and no one on the side of free speech
should play it, however tempted the opportunity to virtue signal might be.
The good that Hopkins has done far, far outweighs the occasional slip to
which she is sometimes understandably prone given the intolerable
pressure under which she operates and given her unfiltered,
attention-seeking personality (a double-edged sword which explains both
why she is so loved and so hated).
And the people she speaks for above all aren't the chin-stroking,
libertarian-leaning fanboi types who can't get enough of Brendan O'Neill
(I'm one of them by the way); nor are they the sophisticated
free-thinkers who adore and worship Douglas Murray (me too, again); nor
are they the people who rightly think the stuff I write is great too.
No, Katie Hopkins speaks for the masses who have been dispossessed,
silenced and all but disenfranchised by our politically correct,
egg-shell treading culture. They are not racists (though of course the
MSM and now, sadly, it would seem Brendan O'Neill too, would happily
brand them as such). They are simply ordinary, decent people who see the
world they know and understand, the culture that is their birthright,
slowly being dragged away from them by forces they do not understand.
Hopkins – sometimes clumsily, more often funnily and punchily –
articulates their despair in a way they cannot.
Which is why — AGAIN — Katie Hopkins amassed more than a million
followers on Twitter. She strikes a chord!
No one, anywhere, is going to be seriously harmed by even the worst
things Katie Hopkins has said or done.
Lots and lots and lots of people are going to be harmed by the causes
championed by the left-liberal Wankerati — Josh Pieters; Rachel Riley;
Gary Lineker; Sadiq Khan; the list of wankers just goes on and on — none
of whom is ever going to be banned from Twitter, despite the destructive
nature of the leftist beliefs they endorse.
Oh, and by the way, I don't think the former MP, radio broadcaster,
hard-left pro-Islamist bruiser George Galloway should have been banned
from Twitter either — despite the fact that the hypocritical tosser once
sought hard to get me banned from Twitter just for being rude — would
you believe it — about Jeremy Corbyn.
Free speech is free speech. The bad guys have just won a major victory.
(6) Hope not Hate vs Nigel Farage
What does Hope not Hate actually do?
The anti-racism group hit back at Nigel Farage after he accused it of
being violent and 'extremist' this week. This is what really happens at
their workshops
This week, former Ukip leader Nigel Farage accused the widower of the
Labour MP Jo Cox of having links to extremism. The "extremists" in
question are the anti-racist group Hope not Hate, an organisation
supported by Brendan Cox through his wife's memorial fund. "He backs
organisations like Hope Not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and
peaceful, but actually pursue violent and undemocratic means," Farage
told LBC Radio on Tuesday. Hope not Hate said it might take legal action
in response, and has begun crowdfunding for its legal costs.
The group's chief executive, Nick Lowles, says he has been overwhelmed
by the support. "For a lot of people, including ourselves, there is a
wider issue. People are horrified by the toxic nature of our political
debate, certainly in terms of what has gone on in Britain and in the US
– and this is just one example of it."
Lowles says they have received thousands of donations, not just from
existing backers, but from the general public. Though it has also
exposed them to new attacks from online trolls, the controversy has
significantly raised the group's profile, making many more people
interested in what they do.
Farage accuses Brendan Cox of backing extremist groups In November, I
went to a Hope not Hate event at a mosque in Cardiff – a three-hour
workshop on how to challenge and discuss anti-migrant and prejudiced
sentiments. It drew a crowd of around 20, one or two of them local
muslims and a few with migrant backgrounds, but the majority were white
Welsh, many of whom had not previously been in a mosque. The organiser,
Jonathan, began the session by asking what had prompted people to
attend. Many described feeling worried, frustrated and in need of a
toolkit for discussing race and immigration with family, friends and
colleagues.
"What usually happens is I either move the conversation on to something
else, or I get angry," said Amy (some names have been changed), a
30-year-old with family roots in Wales. "I want a third way." One woman
in her 50s, from a village in the south Wales valleys, said she was
struggling to discuss these issues with her fellow allotment gardeners.
A younger man living in Cardiff worried that facts and statistics were
no longer getting through to people he spoke to.
Next we split into groups to draw a chart of the kind of opinions we
would expect to find in the wider public about migration, and in what
sort of numbers. Afterwards, the organiser shared with us Hope Not
Hate's research on public opinion around migration, explaining that,
while there may be a very vocal "hostile" camp, most people in Britain
are in the neutral section of the spectrum – perhaps holding concerns,
but not with strong animosity. We then took part in some roleplays,
practising listening skills and conversation techniques such as asking
open questions that encourage broad responses, rather than a simple yes
or no.
"We don't have all the answers, but we know two things work," explains
Jonathan later. "One is listening to people, to challenge prejudice
constructively. The second is building an inclusive narrative through
shared action." The former, he explains, is about being respectful and
creating space for open discussion. The second is recognition that this
work has to be community-led, finding shared pursuits and common ground.
Sarah, a Welsh woman in her 40s, told the group she had been struggling
with racist conversations, including with her own family. "People have
become more open about saying these things," she said. Afterwards, she
spoke of having more usable strategies. "Being in that meeting gave me
support that I'm not on my own – because sometimes you do think, 'Is it
just me, am I the only one that doesn't think this way?'"
After the workshop, some participants joined a small group of volunteers
to go door-knocking. They travelled to the Adamsdown neighbourhood of
the city, near one of Wales's four asylum-seeker dispersal areas.
Adamsdown is a low-income, inner-city area of Cardiff; the idea of
door-knocking along its terraced streets on a Saturday afternoon was to
put some of the techniques picked up into practice – to start the
conversations.
You might think this exercise could result in a lot of swiftly shut
doors, but Jonathan says most people are happy to talk ("as long as
you're not a politician, a salesman or from the council"). Using events
at a local centre for asylum-seekers and refugees as a conversation
starter, the door-knockers encountered a range of views. There was the
couple who wanted to support the centre, and the man in his 60s who was
deeply hostile; in between were the ambivalent or anxious – the target
group. "Everyone seems surprised that we are asking these questions,"
says volunteer Sian. "I was pleased we were able to have the
conversations – nobody slammed doors in our faces. It's reassuring that
we can go to doorsteps with this complicated and turbulent issue."
It's this sort of slow, grassroots effort that Hope not Hate considers
vital in post-Brexit Britain. Their concern is that, in the absence of
such engagement, an opportunistic, populist right will find it easier to
take hold. In May this year, Ukip took seven seats in the Welsh assembly
– before then, it had zero.
Jonathan says that, since November, there have been two more training
sessions in Cardiff, and others in Swansea and Newport. Volunteers have
also been door-to-door several times in Adamstown, where some of the
locals who initially expressed doubts about the area's refugee centre
attended its Christmas bazaar a few weeks ago. Workshops are
oversubscribed and attendees have included local activists from Plaid
Cymru, Labour and the Lib Dems – as well as people with no background in
politics. There are 18 more Hope Not Hate events planned across the UK
in the new year, including in Manchester, Liverpool, Derby, Bristol,
Swindon and Sheffield. "Recruitment is not a problem at the moment,"
says Jonathan. "It's just something that people really want."
(7) YouTube deletes David Icke's account for his comments on coronavirus
YouTube deletes conspiracy theorist David Icke's account
Online giant takes the 68-year-old's platform down for violating its
policies on sharing information about coronavirus
By JEWISH NEWS REPORTER
May 3, 2020, 9:59 am
YouTube have deleted conspiracy theorist David Icke's account.
The video-sharing site said the 68-year-old violated its policies on
sharing information about coronavirus.
The former footballer has made controversial unproven claims about the
virus on several internet platforms, including one that it is linked to
the 5G mobile network.
The video service, 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."
This comes after Countdown star Rachel Riley, the Community Security
Trust and the MP Damian Collins were among public figures throwing their
weight behind an open letter urging social media companies to
"deplatform" the conspiracy theorist.
Icke has previously claimed the world is run by reptiles, has faced
accusations of antisemitism from anti-racism and Jewish groups in the past.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) unveiled a report on
Friday, alleging Icke is spreading "dangerous misinformation" about
covid-19 to his two million followers, including the claim that
"Sabbatian Frankists" and the Rothschilds are behind, or helped plan,
the outbreak.
The ban follows a similar move by Facebook, who removed Icke's page from
their site on Friday.
Famous medics including Dr Christian Jessen and former junior doctor
Adam Kay have called on social networks to remove Icke from their platforms.
They are backed by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), who
claim Icke's conspiracies over Covid-19 have been viewed more than 30
million times.
"We commend YouTube on bowing to pressure and taking action on David
Icke's channel," said CCDH's chief executive Imran Ahmed.
"However, there remains a network of channels and shadowy amplifiers,
who promote Mr Icke's content (and) need to be removed."
They asked for other networks to follow the lead, and added: "It is time
for Instagram and Twitter to follow Facebook and YouTube by acting to
remove Icke and his content from their platforms.
"Lies cost lives in a global pandemic, and their failure to act promptly
puts us all at risk."
This comes after Ofcom sanctioned a local TV channel, London Live, for
broadcasting an interview in which Icke aired "potentially harmful"
views about the coronavirus pandemic. A London Live spokesperson said
the TV channel "respects Ofcom's decision in this case and apologises
for any harm this may have caused."
(8) Ofcom 'protects the public from harmful or offensive material'
The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the
government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the
broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries of the United
Kingdom.
Ofcom has wide-ranging powers across the television, radio, telecoms and
postal sectors. It has a statutory duty to represent the interests of
citizens and consumers by promoting competition and protecting the
public from harmful or offensive material.
This page was last edited on 27 April 2020, at 01:09 (UTC).
(9) Ofcom rules David Icke's coronavirus comments could have done
'significant harm'
Ofcom rules David Icke's coronavirus comments could have done
'significant harm'
Harrison Jones
Monday 20 Apr 2020 3:57 pm
A television channel has been sanctioned after allowing a well-known
conspiracy theorist to air views 'which had the potential to cause
significant harm' to viewers in London during the coronavirus outbreak.
Ofcom imposed a sanction on London Live today, following an 80-minute
interview with David Icke – known for his belief that the world is ruled
by shape-shifting reptiles – during which his 'unsubstantiated' views
went 'largely unchallenged'.
The regulator received 48 complaints about the interview, which it said
'cast doubt on the motives behind official health advice to protect the
public from the virus', when it was broadcast on April 8.
In a statement, Ofcom explained: 'Our investigation found David
Icke?expressed views which had the potential to cause significant harm
to viewers in London during the pandemic. We were particularly concerned
by his?comments casting doubt on the motives behind official health
advice to protect the public from the virus.
'These claims went largely unchallenged during the 80-minute interview
and were made without the support of any scientific or other evidence.'
Presenter Brian Rose said he believed coronavirus was created
'naturally' when he questioned Mr Icke, who claims the world is
controlled by a cult that wishes to create a 'tyrannical technocracy'.
(10) Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite, by Samuel
P. Huntington
Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite
Samuel P. Huntington
The National Interest
March 1, 2004
Significant elements of American elites are favorably disposed to
America becoming a cosmopolitan society. Other elites wish it to assume
an imperial role. The overwhelming bulk of the American people are
committed to a national alternative and to preserving and strengthening
the American identity of centuries.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.