Or just maybe they are buying it to offer their support to the victim's families and show their solidarity against terrorism, but no... you have to say they want to laugh at Mohammed cartoons. Do you really think they would have not bought it regardless of the content?

 

Do you understand what Charlie Hebdo are about?

 

You are aware it's a satirical magazine right? Satire is intended to be funny?

Obviously I'm aware they are selling significantly more copies than usual due to the 'supporting the victims' element, but I'm sure the editors would hope readers will have a laugh, or at least raise a smile at the content. I certainly would if I was part of the Charlie Hebdo team.

 

You said clearly they bought it to laugh at the Mohammed cartoons, now you are saying that is not so clear as they bought it to show their support and the editors hope they have a laugh at the cartoons. Which is it?

 

Charlie Hebdo publishing more cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed,is it time muslims turned the other cheek or will this cause more problems ??

 

I like to think the conspiracy theories of the world are just that.....but once in a while something pops up that makes you question that. This vid link could be utter garbage.....but it makes you think.

 

What "once in a while",

that the BBC misreported the WT7 collapse (a simple mistake by a reporter, reporting a live piece, to camera on one of the most momentous news day in the last 75 years)

Or the fact that an unhinged lunatic took the bbc to court, lost, given a conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £200 costs

What "once in a while"

 

More the BBC reporting bit tbh. He at least looks like a man who didn't get convicted or pay a fine for not paying his TV License citing the Terrorism Act. If there was no doubt he'd have been prosecuted on a spurious attempt to avoid paying his license. After all, you can't cite fantasy in a court of law as fact without evidence to back it up and expect to be taken seriously. For me, there is something in that. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with theories surrounding that particular event, but if a Judge is willing to take the evidence he submitted and not charge him with avoiding his license there must be something in it. That, or the video is bogus and there is nothing to see here.

Granted, it's not everyone's favourite tabloid but a quick Google search appears to validate the video.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...acts-9-11.html

 

If anything it just shows how loopy the Law is........

 

Err, what are you talking about, he was found guilty


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.


Fine he, and his conspiratorial nutters spun it as a victory ( well they would wouldn't they)

But if that convinces you that 911 was an inside job, blah blah - crack on

 

He was not fined for not having a license and was given a conditional discharge despite receiving live television without a license. Surely, given the latter part of that sentence it's a simple closed case. Fine. Conviction. Move on. Technically he's lost, but in reality he hasn't paid a fine or been convicted citing something that most people (myself included) would consider to be utter garbage.

For the record, it's covered in these posts, I've not said that I think 9/11 was an inside job. I do not think he is an "unhinged lunatic" well certainly not from the evidence at least.

 

You know what, I bet the simple answer is the magistrate saw him as a fruitcake and simply wanted to get him out of his court

He was found GUILTY and told to go and get a TV licence, and pay 200 costs

I suspect the magistrate was glad to see the back of him - without having to debate the conspiracy theories around 911

 

Possibly and I have thought that myself but that would be supposition and only that. The news report indicates that a Magistrates Court wasn't equipped to deal with defending the allegations so the evidence could not be put forward on that basis. Whether or not that was an educated way of saying "Whatever" is anyone's guess. From where I'm sat, if he's guilty he should be charged and fined. Job jobbed. It's not like he's fighting the licensing on account of it not being a common law offence or not having a contract or not agreeing with an imposed Statute......which he probably could have argued and not been pigeon-holed with the tin foil hat brigade.