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

[Mrs Magpie]

I suspect most likely because that's what they give to everyone they see who hasn't paid their TV licence.

My nasty ranty sister got a £1000 fine plus legal costs

 

[gosub]

Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it, either from the prosecution or defence?

(that said, don't take that as sneering at that jury, they did the exact right thing)

Technically, since 1670 Edward Bushell, yes

 

[butchersapron]

A sample of their reports after the conviction:

Tony Rooke persuaded the courts that BBC must answer allegation that, in covering up info on 9/11 attacks they are colluding with terrorism

Unbelievable victory for protestor, Tony Rooke who affirms that the BBC's coverage of 9/11 was false

Conditional Discharge for 9/11 activist Tony Rooke -V BBC - indicates Judge at Horsham Mag had sympathy for his not paying TV License!

The hero of the day is Tony Rooke...brilliantly challenging the#BBC in court today for colluding in the 9/11 cover-up

UK media blackout on today's Horsham Court case started by Tony Rooke against BBC alleging cover up and disinfo on 911.

#BBC #9/11 —Coverage was False—Moral Victory for FilmMaker Tony#Rooke at #UK court

BBC In the DOCK

now ROOKE needs to sue BBC PROPERLY!

 

[editor]

now ROOKE needs to sue BBC PROPERLY!

That'll be a laugh.

 

[Yelkcub]

A sample of their reports after the conviction:

Tony Rooke persuaded the courts that BBC must answer allegation that, in covering up info on 9/11 attacks they are colluding with terrorism

Unbelievable victory for protestor, Tony Rooke who affirms that the BBC's coverage of 9/11 was false

Conditional Discharge for 9/11 activist Tony Rooke -V BBC - indicates Judge at Horsham Mag had sympathy for his not paying TV License!

The hero of the day is Tony Rooke...brilliantly challenging the#BBC in court today for colluding in the 9/11 cover-up

UK media blackout on today's Horsham Court case started by Tony Rooke against BBC alleging cover up and disinfo on 911.

#BBC #9/11 —Coverage was False—Moral Victory for FilmMaker Tony#Rooke at #UK court

BBC In the DOCK

now ROOKE needs to sue BBC PROPERLY!

Is there a mental illness element to this? Genuinely?

 

[two sheds]

A cult element although those two things do tend to merge

 

[butchersapron]

Is there a mental illness element to this? Genuinely?

I should think so yes. Amplified by a society that they feel (and correctly) that they have little or no control over. Try telling them that though!

 

[TruXta]

Generalised paranoia.

 

[8ball]

I should think so yes. Amplified by a society that they feel (and correctly) that they have little or no control over. Try telling them that though!

In this case it's like a weird parallel universe version of Alcoholics Anonymous where the mutual support consists of gathering together for a massive piss-up.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

A sample of their reports after the conviction:

Tony Rooke persuaded the courts that BBC must answer allegation that, in covering up info on 9/11 attacks they are colluding with terrorism

Unbelievable victory for protestor, Tony Rooke who affirms that the BBC's coverage of 9/11 was false

Conditional Discharge for 9/11 activist Tony Rooke -V BBC - indicates Judge at Horsham Mag had sympathy for his not paying TV License!

The hero of the day is Tony Rooke...brilliantly challenging the#BBC in court today for colluding in the 9/11 cover-up

UK media blackout on today's Horsham Court case started by Tony Rooke against BBC alleging cover up and disinfo on 911.

#BBC #9/11 —Coverage was False—Moral Victory for FilmMaker Tony#Rooke at #UK court

BBC In the DOCK

now ROOKE needs to sue BBC PROPERLY!

They're just in a complete fantasy land

 

[kabbes]

I've just caught up with this thread.

Is this shit actually real? Not a pisstake?

 

[existentialist]

I've just caught up with this thread.

Is this shit actually real? Not a pisstake?

Well, you have to wonder. But if it's in the Daily Mail, it must be true!

Seriously, though, looking at all the grandiose "press releases" from Conspiraloon Central, and the delightful exhibitions of trainspotter chic in all the photos, I think what we're looking at here are some seriously insignificant people desperately trying to persuade themselves that they are Terribly Significant Fighters For Truth And Justice, despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

[equationgirl]

I've just caught up with this thread.

Is this shit actually real? Not a pisstake?

It is actually real, unlike their theory that the BBC supports terrorists.

 

[equationgirl]

This paragraph is my favourite:

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.

Utter, utter bollocks, all of it. Neils Harrit not called due to 'legal technicalities' ffs

 

[equationgirl]

Jazzz - this is not a political case by any stretch of the imagination or a moral victory. Just so you're clear this was not a victory of any kind. Really. It's. Not. A. Victory.

Other than for common sense and legal process, obviously.

 

[Grandma Death]

Jazz you were right along. Now stop posting this tin foil hat bollocks please. Thanks.

 

[Grandma Death]

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

This could be like the anti poll tax campaign. Except with tv licences and box full of mad frogs..

 

[Grandma Death]

I've just caught up with this thread.

Is this shit actually real? Not a pisstake?

No it's a holograph. Jazz is an autobot and this whole thing is controlled by a cabal of jewz.

Has anyone actually met jazz in real life... I rest my case.

 

[Grandma Death]

The BBC is notoriously renowned for hiding the truth. I mean look how they protected that nonce Saville. Bastards. Given their track record I wouldn't be surprised if they were in on all of this. The towers. The explosives. The grassy knoll. The list goes on.

 

[Pickman's model]

Apparently the truthers are seeking a review of the incidents around the collapse of the tower of babel, it seems it was an aeroplane rather than god

 

[Voley]

Unbelievable victory for protestor, Tony Rooke who affirms that the BBC's coverage of 9/11 was false

That's brilliant.

 

[el-ahrairah]

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

the toilet walls in the albert have a bigger readership etc.

 

[equationgirl]

Jazzz has deserted the thermite thread as well

 

[el-ahrairah]

Has anyone actually met jazz in real life... I rest my case.

yes, sorry. he does magic. it's his thing. i have to admit, i think it's the thing he uses to chat up women. what do pick up artists call their thing? it's like that.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

How any loon vaguely involved in trying to spin this epic clusterfuck total non-event into some kind of victory for their movement, how they can have the temerity to accuse the beeb of "ignoring important facts" in reaching the conclusion it did regarding 9/11 conspiracies, well, the irony just makes your head spin.

What about the important facts that his argument doesnt appear to have been heard, and he was found guilty?

It's all the proof you'd ever need that anything these loons ever say, the opposite must be true.

Tony Rooke persuaded the courts that BBC must answer allegation that, in covering up info on 9/11 attacks they are colluding with terrorism

Unbelievable victory for protestor, Tony Rooke who affirms that the BBC's coverage of 9/11 was false

are the two most disingenuous comments. It's one thing to misinterpret (or, more likely, try to lead others to misinterpret) the meaning of a conditional discharge, as some kind of "guilty but morally correct" sentence. It's quite another to completely make up outcomes which imply that some kind of legal judgement has been made against the BBC. This shit is fucking bonkers.

 

[JimW]

Utter, utter bollocks, all of it. Neils Harrit not called due to 'legal technicalities' ffs

The old legal technicality of having fuck all to do with the case. These lizards aren't half cunning with their loopholes.

 

[existentialist]

Apparently the truthers are seeking a review of the incidents around the collapse of the tower of babel, it seems it was an aeroplane rather than god

Aeroplane??? Pshaw, it was holographic archangels. With flaming swords and wings and shit. Here, watch this nine hour YouTube video.

 

[Grandma Death]

Jazzz has deserted the thermite thread as well

Jazz is the equivalent of a suicide bomber for conspiracy theorists. One minute hes there-then he's gone.

 

[Jazzz]

Some good coverage in the Daily Mail.

TV licence evader refused to pay because the 'BBC covered up facts about 9/11 and claimed tower fell 20 minutes before it did'

• Tony Rooke represented himself at Horsham Magistrates' Court in Sussex
• Told inspector on visit in May 2012 that he would not be paying licence fee
• Rooke said he was withholding fee under Section 15 of Terrorism Act 2000
• This states it's an offence for someone to provide funds used for terrorism
• He said he didn't want to give money to an organisation 'funding terrorism'
• Rooke said BBC claimed World Trade Centre 7 fell 20 minutes before it did
• But judge made Rooke pay £200 costs and gave him conditional discharge

By Mark Duell
PUBLISHED: 18:49, 25 February 2013 | UPDATED: 07:37, 26 February 2013

Wouldn't pay: Tony Rooke (pictured at Horsham Magistrates' Court today), did not want to give money to an organisation 'funding the practice of terrorism'
A 49-year-old man refused to pay his TV licence because he believed the BBC covered up facts about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Tony Rooke, who represented himself today at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex, said he did not want to give money to an organisation 'funding the practice of terrorism'.
Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 costs.
He was visited in May 2012 by an inspector after withdrawing his licence in March, but said he was withholding the funds under the Terrorism Act.

rest of article

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

no Jazzz just no

This could be like the anti poll tax campaign. Except with tv licences and box full of mad frogs..

you leave the mad frogs alone