UK courtroom to hear evidence against the official narrative of 9/11

[DotCommunist]

by my calculations if he had paid the lisense he'd be 80 quid up on the 200 quid costs

 

[butchersapron]

by my calculations if he had paid the lisense he'd be 80 quid up on the 200 quid costs

But down on the truth vibrations.

 

[existentialist]

by my calculations if he had paid the lisense he'd be 80 quid up on the 200 quid costs

Ah, but it's about the principle. What's £80 in the great fight against the Global Jew Hegemony?

 

[butchersapron]

Who did you think has more money, Des Lynam or David Icke?

 

[existentialist]

Who did you think has more money, Des Lynam or David Icke?

Well, Icke does sell a lot of books...

 

[DotCommunist]

des doesn't even have a steady commentating gig these days does he

 

[butchersapron]

Never was a commentator, just a presenter. He doesn't need to do all this stuff and he's prob as rich as Icke.

 

[binka]

des probably has a better accountant

 

[butchersapron]

Better hair for sure.

 

[two sheds]

by my calculations if he had paid the lisense he'd be 80 quid up on the 200 quid costs

200 quid up - he still has to pay the licence.

 

[editor]

I wonder if that loom has been on here.

 

[existentialist]

I wonder if that loom has been on here.

He doesn't look much like the sort of person who could find his arse with both hands and a map, so it's quite possible that he'd have similar trouble finding Urban.

 

[DotCommunist]

fruit of the loon

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

West Sussex County Times (plus video clip)

Any chance of you giving an opinion/comment on the result, rather than your usual cut and paste bollocks?

 

[editor]

I wonder if urban has a bigger readership than the West Sussex County Times.

 

[equationgirl]

I wonder if urban has a bigger readership than the West Sussex County Times.

Bound to have.

Jazzz - there's no such thing as a 'no score draw' in the legal world. Not even in Scotland where there is 'that bastard verdict' Not Proven. Just so you're clear this was not a victory of any kind.

 

[Spymaster]

I doubt even Jazzz would think that.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I doubt even Jazzz would think that.

You have read his posts over the years, yeah?

 

[Lemon Eddy]

He asked to submit evidence which he said would show that the BBC had consistently failed to report the true story.

District Judge Stephen Nicholls said that, even if he accepted and agreed with the evidence, that would not give him grounds to rule that Rooke was not guilty.

The Magistrate won't even deal with any of that stuff for one second. S/he'll simply point out this case is being judged on strict liability grounds (i.e it doesn't matter why he didn't pay, all that counts is he did did or not) and all this other guff is irrelevant.

How could butchers have predicted it quite so accurately eh? Simple - it's just further proof that he's one of them.

 

[equationgirl]

How could butchers have predicted it quite so accurately eh? Simple - it's just further proof that he's one of them.

 

[elbows]

 

[Jazzz]

Moral Victory for Protestor who says BBC 9/11 Coverage was False
Campaigner and film maker Tony Rooke claimed a moral victory today after a UK court gave him a conditional discharge even though he has refused to pay his BBC license fee. Over 100 supporters from as far away as Denmark and Norway cheered in front of the court house as independent media people conducted interviews and photographed the crowd. Court officials had booked their largest room for the case but were at a loss to find that well over 50 people could not be fitted in.

Tony said: "I am taken a back and hugely grateful for all the support." He is asking for at least one person to take up the campaign by refusing to pay or taking other legal action (see below).

Rooke argued that the BBC's coverage of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York has been so distorted that it amounts to giving aid and comfort to the unidentified terrorists who demolished three World Trade Centre buildings in 2001. Two hijacked planes were flown into the famous Twin Towers and a third tower WTC7 collapsed later in the day. The attacks were used as the pretext for a decade of wars and the introduction of police state measures across the NATO countries. Vast personal fortunes were made by White House and CIA officials who failed to thwart 9/11.

The official 9/11 story was promulgated by the US media within minutes of the first collision, based on anonymous sources in the Bush White House. Despite a mass of new evidence coming to light in the intervening years the story has never changed and holds that the destruction was entirely caused by a band of Muslim fanatics, they succeeded without any help, and were organised by the notorious Osama Bin Laden who it is admitted was once a CIA agent. A man described as Osama Bin Laden was captured, assassinated and deposited in the ocean by US forces in Pakistan two years ago.

Sceptics say that the collapse of WTC7 must have been the result of something more than limited fires and damage from the Twin Towers, hit by the two hijacked planes. Argument has revolved around the speed of the collapse. In the BBC Conspiracy Files series, which endorsed every aspect of the official 9/11 story, it was stated that the building did not collapse at free fall speed, but later US officials were forced by video evidence to admit that it did just that.

A large group of over 1500 architects and engineers known as AE911 say that free fall collapse implies that the building had all its supports removed at the same instant which can only happen with a controlled demolition. Tony Rooke's legal argument is that in failing to correct their free fall misinformation and many other misstatements of fact, the BBC are a party to covering up the terrorists who organised the controlled demolition of WTC7.

The BBC has also failed to publicise the finding of Richard Clarke, head of counter terrorism at the White House in 2001. Two years ago Clarke made a bombshell announcement: in the weeks before 9/11 a secret "decision" must have been taken at the CIA to over rule FBI officers who wanted to arrest some of the people who according to the official story went on to commit the attacks. Clarke says that if this decision had not been made the 9/11 attacks would not have happened. Before Clarke went public the BBC programme makers were adamant this was a "conspiracy theory". Afterwards they failed to give it any prominence and failed to reinterview any of the officials who, if Clarke is right, must have lied to them.

Back in Horsham Magistrates Court campaigners have been planning future tactics. Tony Rook's victory, helped by lawyer Mahtab Aziz, implies that the BBC has a case to answer, but expert witnesses including Danish associate professor Niels Harrit were not called due to legal technicalities. However the District Judge would have read their statements before the hearing and taken them into account.

Conditional discharges are often used in political cases to indicate that the accused, though technically guilty, occupies the moral high ground. In addition the case provides a yardstick that can be raised by future campaigners. On the other hand because he has not been convicted, Tony cannot appeal and force the courts to scrutinise the highly questionable activities of the BBC as a conduit for CIA propaganda.

It's now essential for Tony's campaign that at least one person should take up the baton, refuse to pay their licence fee and appeal any conviction. Anyone interested should contact him at
rookietone@hotmail.com

Story by Ian Henshall, Reinvestigate 911

 

[butchersapron]

No story, same spam as OP. Any thoughts?

Sounds like he is capitulating on exposing the biggest lie ever. There could be a line of you fool. Do you pay your licence fee jazzz? Let's get vexatious.

 

[butchersapron]

Do you pay your licence fee Jazzz?

 

[butchersapron]

Conditional discharges are often used in political cases to indicate that the accused, though technically guilty, occupies the moral high ground. In addition the case provides a yardstick that can be raised by future campaigners. On the other hand because he has not been convicted, Tony cannot appeal and force the courts to scrutinise the highly questionable activities of the BBC as a conduit for CIA propaganda.

He has been convicted. Do you even read what you're given?

 

[binka]

moral victories are the best kind of victories imo

 

[editor]

I think Jazzz needs the law explained to him:

Absolute and conditional discharge

Where a court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence (not being an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law and certain other very serious offences) is of the opinion, having regard to the circumstances, including the nature of the offence and the offender’s character, that punishment is inexpedient, it may make an order either discharging the person absolutely or discharging him subject to the condition that he commits no offence during such period, not exceeding three years, as may be specified in the order (Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, s.12).
http://www.cans.org.uk/notes/admini...ffenders/2-absolute-and-conditional-discharge

What is an absolute or conditional discharge?

...A conditional discharge is where an offender is not punished at the time of sentence, but receives a period of grace, often for 12 months. If the offender were to be convicted of another offence during the period of discharge, they face being sentenced for that offence, as well as the original offence.http://ukcrime.wordpress.com/tag/conditional-discharge/

 

[Nylock]

moral victories are the best kind of victories imo

No way, Pyrrhic victories rule!

 

[editor]

It's now essential for Tony's campaign that at least one person should take up the baton, refuse to pay their licence fee and appeal any conviction.

Jazzz: here's your big chance to sock it to The Man and hit him hard with your Truth Baton!

 

[cesare]

Discharges are given for the least serious offences such as very minor thefts. The court may give an absolute discharge, which means it decides not to impose a punishment because the experience of going to court has been punishment enough. However, the offender still gets a criminal record.

A conditional discharge can also be given – this means that if the offender commits another crime, they can be sentenced for the first offence and the new one.

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/sentencing/discharges.htm

Part II
ABSOLUTE AND CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE
12 Absolute and conditional discharge.
(1)Where a court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence (not being an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law or falls to be imposed under section 109(2), 110(2) or 111(2) below) is of the opinion, having regard to the circumstances including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, that it is inexpedient to inflict punishment, the court may make an order either—
(a)discharging him absolutely; or
(b)if the court thinks fit, discharging him subject to the condition that he commits no offence during such period, not exceeding three years from the date of the order, as may be specified in the order.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/6/part/II

​

Conditional Discharge
1. ‘The 2000 Act’ is a reference to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. ‘The 2003 Act’ is a reference to the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. Conditional discharges are now governed by section 12 of the 2000 Act.
3. The following form of words seeks to comply with section 174 of the 2003 Act, which imposes duties, amongst others, to give reasons for and explain the effect of any sentence passed.

1. I have taken into account the nature of your offence and the mitigating factors in your case. [Expand on these matters as appropriate – see Note 1].

2. I am going to discharge you conditionally for [state the period – see Note 2].

3. The condition is that you commit no offence during that period (see Note 3). If you do commit another offence you can be brought back to this court which can sentence you in a different way (see Note 4). You could then receive a custodial sentence. But if you stay out of trouble you will not be punished for this offence.

Notes

1. Unless otherwise stated, the section numbers in this note are of the 2003 Act. See s.174(1)(a) and (2)(b), (d) and (e). Note that the court is specifically required to take into account, if they arise:

a) The offender’s culpability and any harm which the offence caused, was intended to cause or might foreseeably have caused (s.143(1)).
b) Previous convictions as aggravating factors, if it is reasonable to do so (s.143(2), (4) and (5)).
c) The commission of the instant offence whilst on bail as an aggravating factor (s.143(3)).
d) Racial or religious aggravation, if the offence is not one contrary to ss.29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 (s.145).
e) Aggravation related to sexual orientation or disability (s.146).
f) As a mitigating factor, the stage at which and circumstances in which the offender indicated that he would plead guilty (s.144(1)).
g) Any relevant guidelines from the Sentencing Guidelines Council (s.172). Those entitled: (1) Over-Arching Principles – Seriousness, (2) Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea, and (3) New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003 are of general application. A sliding scale of discounts for a guilty plea is suggested in para. 4.3 of (2).
Note that (d) and (e) must be referred to in open court if they arise (ss.145(2)(b) and 146(3)(b)).

2. The maximum period is three years. There is no minimum period: see s.12(1)(b) of the 2000 Act.
3. See s. 12(1)(b) of the 2000 Act.
4. See s.13(6) of the 2000 Act.