Man in court for not paying TV Licence

KIA · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:27

TJM said:
Laffo. His defence is ludicrous and the court will not allow him to bang on about 9/11 for three hours (which is the estimated time for the hearing, not a time allotted to the defence to talk about whatever they like). Trial of the century this ain't.

LOL. Poor Tony is so out of touch with reality. He needs help.

Robbo · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:27

Nitefly said:
Idiots will be idiots of course.

On a semi-related note, I was speaking to somebody who shared with me something rather disturbing, which you can take or leave. When he has been involved with the interviewing of terrorist suspects, and there is military involvement, there can be 'indeterminate noise' on the recording tapes. Apparently this represents the guys from the CPS leaving the room the room and turning a blind eye whilst the military kick the living **** into said suspect.

Who knows what goes on behind all the closed doors in the world...

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Destination · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:29

Is this court case not regarding the guy not paying his TV licence?
So the BBC as such won't be in the dock, but the chap will stand there for three hours ranting about them?

Maybe I've misunderstood.

Destination · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:30

Nitefly said:
Idiots will be idiots of course.

On a semi-related note, I was speaking to somebody who shared with me something rather disturbing, which you can take or leave. When he has been involved with the interviewing of terrorist suspects, and there is military involvement, there can be 'indeterminate noise' on the recording tapes. Apparently this represents the guys from the CPS leaving the room the room and turning a blind eye whilst the military kick the living **** into said suspect.

Who knows what goes on behind all the closed doors in the world...

Why kick when you can waterboard?
Much cleaner process, doesn't leave marks.

piggeh · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:31

I hope he succeeds, then I can stop paying my TV licence.

Glaucus · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:32

Hikari Kisugi said:
Is this court case not regarding the guy not paying his TV licence?
So the BBC as such won't be in the dock, but the chap will stand there for three hours ranting about them?

Maybe I've misunderstood.

No you understood, apart from the 3hr bit is estimated time for the whole thing.
He has to show BBC intentionally mislead and thus helped terrorism.
Just tha, these "media" sources aren't relaying the news in an unbiased way. Something they kick such a fuss up of the mainstream doing.

Jokester · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:32

Hikari Kisugi said:
Is this court case not regarding the guy not paying his TV licence?
So the BBC as such won't be in the dock, but the chap will stand there for three hours ranting about them?

Maybe I've misunderstood.

Ah yes, your right, this article is appallingly written. So in fact, it's just some nut job trying to argue that the BBC is a terrorist supporting organisation and thus he would be breaking the law to pay his license fee.

Section him.

Energize · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:32

Nitefly said:
Idiots will be idiots of course.

On a semi-related note, I was speaking to somebody who shared with me something rather disturbing, which you can take or leave. When he has been involved with the interviewing of terrorist suspects, and there is military involvement, there can be 'indeterminate noise' on the recording tapes. Apparently this represents the guys from the CPS leaving the room the room and turning a blind eye whilst the military kick the living **** into said suspect.

Who knows what goes on behind all the closed doors in the world...

Doesn't sound very credible, why leave obvious physical damage on someone when you can use waterboarding which is a more effective method of torture anyway?

TJM · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:32

Hikari Kisugi said:
Is this court case not regarding the guy not paying his TV licence?
So the BBC as such won't be in the dock, but the chap will stand there for three hours ranting about them?

Maybe I've misunderstood.

Hole in one.

Deific · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:33

BBC is owned by the those in charge of western government...of course it isn't going to give unbiased reports. It's whole purpose is to spew propaganda.

piggeh · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:35

Anyway this hearing is at a magistrates court. Magistrates are pretty much unqualified and he'd only get a fair hearing if he went to the crown courts. So I fully expect he'll lose this case initially, and will take it further.

Robbo · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:35

Jokester said:
Ah yes, your right, this article is appallingly written. So in fact, it's just some nut job trying to argue that the BBC is a terrorist supporting organisation and thus he would be breaking the law to pay his license fee.

Section him.

And the OP, too.

semi-pro waster · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:38

zoomee said:
Interesting how not a single UK media outlet is covering this:

I've got no doubt that the mainstream media don't pick up everyone who goes to court for failing to pay their TV licence fee either. I'm afraid Mr Rooke is not unique in refusing to pay, his argument may be novel but I'd be surprised if he gets to present much of it - not because "the man" is keeping him down but because it's an irrelevance to whether he should be paying the TV licence.

Nitefly said:
Idiots will be idiots of course.

On a semi-related note, I was speaking to somebody who shared with me something rather disturbing, which you can take or leave. When he has been involved with the interviewing of terrorist suspects, and there is military involvement, there can be 'indeterminate noise' on the recording tapes. Apparently this represents the guys from the CPS leaving the room the room and turning a blind eye whilst the military kick the living **** into said suspect.

Who knows what goes on behind all the closed doors in the world...

Not to deliberately sound stupid but wouldn't it be easier just to switch off the tapes for a few moments (or however long it takes to carry out) to avoid the indeterminate noise (or should that be the case to add in the noise) and then falsify the time stamps? I'll admit I may be taking too simplistic a view here but it strikes me as more effort than it's worth to introduce that additional element for people to question when you could just avoid it.

It is, of course, possible that many things go on that most people don't know about but I'm usually of the opinion that looking for unnecessary complications doesn't tend to serve a useful purpose.

*Moangroan* · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:39

Nitefly said:
It does always amuse me that posters vigorously back official versions of events stating that facts are 'obvious', when really they have no first hand information and are simply placing faith in what they consider to be the more reasonable source of information. I guess you can extent that principle to anything, but it's particularly relevant with the endless 9/11 debates.

true

People believe what they are told from the TV.........they trust corporations like the BBC (lets not mention the obvious knowledge of pedos here....rofl) and they stare at the tv night after nigth soaking the manure up like a sponge.

Thus its easy to tell people what they need to be told. Like weapons of mass destruction etc etc etc

Maybe lets not mention the BBC mention of WTC7 collaspsing b4 it did....snigger ....snigger

joeyjojo · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:41

Glaucus said:
Exactly the overall time was far slower than free fall.
NIST final report stated this

Forget about that stuff, isn't the fact that WTC 7 collapsed at all quite surprising? The original report even says so! Chapter 5 of the 2002 report:

The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

Anyway CBA to get into this now...

Glaucus · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:44

Mhmm old report, and everything that day was low probability.

Nitefly · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:46

semi-pro waster said:
Not to deliberately sound stupid but wouldn't it be easier just to switch off the tapes for a few moments (or however long it takes to carry out) to avoid the indeterminate noise (or should that be the case to add in the noise) and then falsify the time stamps? I'll admit I may be taking too simplistic a view here but it strikes me as more effort than it's worth to introduce that additional element for people to question when you could just avoid it.

It is, of course, possible that many things go on that most people don't know about but I'm usually of the opinion that looking for unnecessary complications doesn't tend to serve a useful purpose.

The suggestion was the noise accounted for a spliced tape in that it hides when tapes are turned off / paused, kick the crap out of was my turn of phase not his.

I agree about people looking for unnecessary complications with things.

RDM · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:50

So rather than the "BBC in the dock for manipulating evidence of 9/11" the thread title should actually be "Man in court for not paying TV Licence"? Any mod fancy changing the title?

Robbo · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:54

*Moangroan* said:
true

People believe what they are told from the TV.........they trust corporations like the BBC (lets not mention the obvious knowledge of pedos here....rofl) and they stare at the tv night after nigth soaking the manure up like a sponge.

Thus its easy to tell people what they need to be told. Like weapons of mass destruction etc etc etc

Maybe lets not mention the BBC mention of WTC7 collaspsing b4 it did....snigger ....snigger

Careful, don't conform to any CT nutjob stereotypes... oh, too late.

RDM said:
So rather than the "BBC in the dock for manipulating evidence of 9/11" the thread title should actually be "Man in court for not paying TV Licence"? Any mod fancy changing the title?

They're way ahead of you.

Mr^B · 24 Feb 2013 at 18:59

*popcorn*

Great thread, thanks!