Channel 5

If it was a proper debate, there would have been facts on both sides.

But it wasn't.

One side had all the facts. All Katie Hopkins and her ilk had was ignorance, bigotry and hatred. I don't give the same weight to bigotry in an argument, than I give to facts. I give the bigotry no weight at all. And it is irresponsible of a broadcaster, any broadcaster, to give bigotry equal weight with facts.

But then, this is Channel 5 owned by Richard Desmond, who also owns the Daily Star and the Daily Express, that we are talking about, so I expect right wing bigotry to be given equal weight. Doesn't mean I agree with it.

An entertainment format out of current affairs? That would be just plain dumb.

If you understand the meaning of the phrase "high profile", it's pretty hard to disagree that she was high profile (and, to a certain extent, still is). They're still not comparable no matter how you try and twist it.


No, he literally believes that the Royal Family are shape-shifting reptiles. He has to say that because, otherwise, people accuse him of being anti-Semitic, and even he knows that doesn't wash over here.

David Icke is far more extreme than Alex Jones.

Point me to where he says that, as that hasn't come up in the research I've done. I've read where he says that some of the major political and royal families have reptilian bloodlines, but not that the Royal Family are shape-shifting reptiles.

I'm pretty sure David Icke is signed up to the "NWO having weather control" idea too.

Well done. You find something I couldn't find.

But I think what's more telling in that piece, is the fact that some supposedly sensible people have really weird ideas about hidden meanings and codewords. There is a lot of weirdness about, and David Icke did attract a lot of it out of hiding.

But still, he's not as dangerous as people like Rush Limbaugh, Katie Hopkins, or Alex Jones, who get more media attention than David Icke does.

David Icke has his own channel in The People's Voice (which he hopes to launch on Sky, I believe, based on the fact he has an Ofcom licence). He's raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for it, and it has been running for less than a year. He gets regular mentions in the mainstream media. In this country at least, Alex Jones is a relative unknown. Icke is known here and in the US, and Alex Jones gives him regular mentions on his show.

But, if you honestly think that David Icke's cult-leader-like status as the head of TPV, disseminating all sorts of scaremongering crap to his loyal followers is less dangerous than Katie Hopkins being yet another serial offence-causer like Richard Littlejohn used to be, or Nick Ferrari, or other similar prats, then you're deluded.

How many people listen to Nick Ferrari on LBC? How many people read Katie Hopkins in the Sun? Those numbers are in the millions, compared to David Icke, whose twitter follower count is only 107k.

A lot of David Icke's followers won't be on Twitter, because it exists simply as a way for the NWO to spy on the sheeple.

Oh brother!

Let's get back to what matters, and that's not David Icke.

I can't believe that anybody can seriously consider that programme to be in the spirit of the rules on fairness and impartiality.

Since when is allowing bigotry on the air part of impartiality? When one side has all the facts on their side, and the other just bigotry and hatred, that is hardly fair, balanced, or impartial.

Nick Ferrari's follower count on Twitter is 27.4K, and Katie Hopkins has hardly shot ahead of Icke with 142.5K.

Twitter is not an accurate enough metric for determining popularity or how well known someone is, especially considering the NWO fearmongering factor that dosxuk rightly pointed out.