Man in court for not paying TV Licence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldato
OP
Joined
15 Dec 2004
Posts
5,756
Location
Hudds, UK
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? :D

:) :)

Let me have my fun with a sensationalist headline ;) - My thread title is taken from the webpage directly, so is not 'untrue'

GDI!, you guys are party poopers, there's a news story here somewhere!! (hence why its in ere and not SD :D )

EDIT: 2 late! - modded :(
 
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Posts
5,215
Location
North East England
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? :D

This clearly. Its a report about misleading media, and yet its very headline is misleading. Face palm anyone lol

This is usally about the level of the conspiracy theorist. Funny that.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2002
Posts
3,495
:) :)

Let me have my fun with a sensationalist headline ;) - My thread title is taken from the webpage directly, so is not 'untrue'

GDI!, you guys are party poopers, there's a news story here somewhere!! (hence why its in ere and not SD :D )

EDIT: 2 late! - modded :(

:rolleyes:
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,164
I hope he succeeds, then I can stop paying my TV licence.
I dont pay one and keep getting stupid letters.
They have no idea who lives here and they cant get to my place unless someone buzzs them in the door :p

I only get broadband+phone and dont own a TV.

Whilst I do not watch live streams on the internet I am not prepared to let some random person inspect my computer and my browsing history I would consider that an invasion of my privacy the BBC have no right to know what websites I visit.

denying implied right of access to the bbc is considered "evasion" and they will try to get a warrant based on any evidence you provide them in writing

Did this actually happen?
Theres a video from a live recording on one of the american news websites from a tv camera on a helicopter that zooms in on a block and a plane apears out of nowhere (you cant see the plane approaching when the camera is zoomed out), the "plane" goes through the building and its nose still intact comes out the other side of the tower even though the nose would have been crushed or ripped off.
Real explosion with a fake plane added to the video? the helicoper drifts to the side and the overlayed plane isn't alligned with the image like it should be?

on the repeated broadcasts they fade to black before the plane comes out the other side.
another network shows the same footage but with a huge logo at the bottom of the screen blocking the view of the plane actually going into and coming out of the building

Aren't planes noses fiberglass and hollow and would not pass through steel walls etc
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
21 Jan 2003
Posts
5,594
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.

My take on this, people love to be seen as being right, call it a superiority complex. Hence arguing against a CT is seen as an easy target.

It's the equivalent of internet bullying (and I'm not exaggerating if you look in the recent 9/11 thread the sheer volume of persons who came along to berate and call names at the CT's).

Personally I don't care if somebody believes a CT, it's tantamount to religion, you can't disprove/prove the existence of God, so why even argue it.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,791
Location
Stoke on Trent

People believe what they are told from some random bloke on You Tube.........they trust idiots on You Tube (lets not mention the obvious knowledge of pedos here....rofl) and they stare at You Tube night after night soaking the manure up like a sponge.

Thus it's easy to tell people what they need to be told. Like the planes were holograms etc

SEE WHAT I DID?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
35,487
My take on this, people love to be seen as being right, call it a superiority complex. Hence arguing against a CT is seen as an easy target.

It's the equivalent of internet bullying (and I'm not exaggerating if you look in the recent 9/11 thread the sheer volume of persons who came along to berate and call names at the CT's).

Personally I don't care if somebody believes a CT, it's tantamount to religion, you can't disprove/prove the existence of God, so why even argue it.

My thoughts exactly.
 
Associate
Joined
25 Apr 2012
Posts
904
Location
West Sussex
My take on this, people love to be seen as being right, call it a superiority complex. Hence arguing against a CT is seen as an easy target.

It's the equivalent of internet bullying (and I'm not exaggerating if you look in the recent 9/11 thread the sheer volume of persons who came along to berate and call names at the CT's).

Personally I don't care if somebody believes a CT, it's tantamount to religion, you can't disprove/prove the existence of God, so why even argue it.

Well said. I've stated as much in the other 9/11 thread. Whilst there is very very little in the other thread that I believe I don't feel the need to lambaste others for doing so.
There are a couple if not a few posters in particular that I won't mention that are nothing but trolls but since they are amongst the majority and popular camp, get away with doing nothing but berating and trying to humiliate others.
One in particular does literally nothing but flame and actually states that he is debunking everything with ease yet does precisely **** all at debunking anything.
No surprise that he is in this thread doing the same.....
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,791
Location
Stoke on Trent
My take on this, people love to be seen as being right, call it a superiority complex. Hence arguing against a CT is seen as an easy target.

It's the equivalent of internet bullying (and I'm not exaggerating if you look in the recent 9/11 thread the sheer volume of persons who came along to berate and call names at the CT's).

I said in the other 9/11 thread that I don't know how posters can get away with insulting CT'ers and I'd like to see it stopped.

Personally I don't care if somebody believes a CT, it's tantamount to religion, you can't disprove/prove the existence of God, so why even argue it.

Well God can't be proved or disproved but science can disprove all of the 9/11 CT claims.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
2 Jan 2009
Posts
60,169
My take on this, people love to be seen as being right, call it a superiority complex. Hence arguing against a CT is seen as an easy target.

It's the equivalent of internet bullying (and I'm not exaggerating if you look in the recent 9/11 thread the sheer volume of persons who came along to berate and call names at the CT's).

Personally I don't care if somebody believes a CT, it's tantamount to religion, you can't disprove/prove the existence of God, so why even argue it.

Arguing against a CT is probably the most difficult thing you can do. Well, perhaps not difficult, but totally pointless.

Taking groen as an example, no matter how much the stuff he comes out with is shown to be hilariously incorrect, he never changes his tune, and never will.

I have a huge amount of respect for the likes of Glaucus who is happy to continually shoot them all down over and over again. Maybe one day they'll see how silly they are. Doubt it though. :(
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
159,534
Maybe lets not mention the BBC mention of WTC7 collaspsing b4 it did....snigger ....snigger

This yet another fairly amusing part of the entire conspiracy theory. What do you think that means?

Do you think that not content with rigging the entire thing themselves, the US government briefed the media on what they planned to do, and as a result of this the BBC accidently reported it early? I mean... what?
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jul 2007
Posts
24,529
Location
Solihull-Florida
My take on this, people love to be seen as being right, call it a superiority complex. Hence arguing against a CT is seen as an easy target.

It's the equivalent of internet bullying (and I'm not exaggerating if you look in the recent 9/11 thread the sheer volume of persons who came along to berate and call names at the CT's).

Personally I don't care if somebody believes a CT, it's tantamount to religion, you can't disprove/prove the existence of God, so why even argue it.


Hear Hear
 
Man of Honour
Joined
29 Mar 2003
Posts
56,791
Location
Stoke on Trent
I have a huge amount of respect for the likes of Glaucus who is happy to continually shoot them all down over and over again. Maybe one day they'll see how silly they are. Doubt it though. :(

I certainly changed.
Back around 72 to 76 I came out with a lot worse than groen but I suppose I started to use Occams Razor without even knowing about it.
I really really really want to believe CTs but there is nothing there that now convinces me, in fact I'll make a bold statement and say that I bet all the posters who make posts against CT's would love to come across evidence that makes them raise their eyebrows.
I watched Ancient Aliens 509 today (I've watched every one) and I just keep shouting 'No' at the TV and not at Giorgio either because he's the sane one out of the bunch however I'd love some of their theories to be true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom