posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:39 AM
This is administrative law.. he's challenging the decision to fine himn for not paying the licence by saying that the decision is ultra vires and as
He's saying its ultra vires because a licence fee is only payable if the bbc is operating within its mandate.
Crafty use of admin law.
Evidence will need to be presented that bbc is not being accurate and impartial.. I assume that the documentaries in question misrepresented 9/11
theories and portrayed the theorists as loonies. Thus evidence would be led to show that those documentaries were inaccurate and partial..
This could have much wider implications, I recall earlier in a Ron Paul thread, seeing a BBC report where ron paul was completely ignored.. this would
also be impartial.
The implications of this, if he is to win, is that people can choose not to pay their TV licences if BBC continues to report inaccurate and
I think he probably apply for writ of mamandus or certiori (decision to impose fine will be quashed or sent back to original decision make for re
edit on 20-2-2013 by bigdohbeatdown because: (no reason given)