Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UK man wins court case against BBC for 9/11 cover up!

page: 2
72
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:35 AM
link   
wow it really amazes me people arent catching the real story

THEY TOLD OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSING BEFORE IT EVEN FELL


HEEEEELLLLLLOOOOOOO IS THIS THING ON TAP TAP TAP

i saw it happen on that day and i was like wtf.

then i tried to cram it into my brain of some kind of time zone difference then i was like wtf dude are you retarded thats impossible lol




posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
This thread should be moved to hoax section.

Its embarrassing to see how people can be gullible to swallow this kind of youtube BS.

This man did not win any case against the BBC for 9/11 cover up.

The thread title is a complete LIE.

This man did not pay his tv licence.

He spun god knows what story to the court.

He was ordered to pay £200 in court charges. A TV licence costs £149.50.

He was also ordered to go and buy a TV licence.

Wake up to BS.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Cobaltic1978
 


A conditional discharge is not a conviction, unless the person breaches certain conditions, in this case he must get a TV license. A fine, however, is a conviction. The thread title and the premise of the OP is a lie.

So, this thread is actually totally bogus and a prime example of the BS some people will believe if they want to and the places they will go to in order to drag up "evidence"..



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

In the UK people are forced to pay a "tv license" fee if they want a tv in their house.


Untrue, I use a HTPC and watch non-live internet TV (including catch-up TV from the major TV broadcasters, inc the BBC), I have a 42" Plasma TV with built in freeview tuner, however, I have removed all aerials from the house so as not to watch TV as it is being broadcast.

The TV licensing company sent one of its muppets inspectors round, he was satisfied I do not use my TV to watch TV as it is being broadcast...I therefore DO NOT need a TV license.

You DO NOT need a TV license to simply own a TV in the UK.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend
I see this as being fodder for future posts.. Judge says he agrees, ra ra.

Sounds to me like the judge, without having weighed the evidence in the case re WT7, sees that from what is presented in front of him, in a legal manner, simply agrees that the guy has a case to be looked at.

Nothing more.

but it will no doubt fuel the flames - no pun intended - of the argument that this was a planned event. Rather than a case of over zealous - once more and yet again - bad media reporting.

Either way, I rekon I'll be hearing about this till the day I die. And not a single thing will have changed.
edit on 9-4-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-4-2013 by winofiend because: reconfigure sentences..


You call that just bad reporting?

No one knew the building was going to come down and according to the OS the building came down by itself and it did so perfectly symmetrically due to random fires (who needs demolitions when you can just set of a few fires to do that)

Yet the bbc knew in advance that it was going to come down ,failed and, reported it collapsed prematurely. oops



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubic0n
 


If anything, the source article for this thread is "bad reporting"..

In fact, it's just a bare faced lie, which is worse.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Rubic0n
 


If anything, the source article for this thread is "bad reporting"..

In fact, it's just a bare faced lie, which is worse.


Implying that the bbc report is not a lie...



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by angelchemuel
This could open up a whole can of worms for the BBC.......and others?


Why post this nonsense? There is already a thread, and the bloke LOST! The judge did not want to know about his 9/11 nonsense, he was fined 200pounds and had to buy a license..... but I suppose truthers are desperate for some MSM coverage, so that is the reason they consider this a win!

The BBCwere not in court, they had no involvement in this case.... also you are a bit late, the verdict was given over 6 weeks ago....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubic0n
 


I'm not disputing the BBC story from 12 years ago (I really don't care to be honest), I am disputing this apparent victory over the BBC in court, as posted in the OP.

A few points:



  1. The BBC never takes anyone to court over TV licenses and were not even present in the Courtroom.
  2. The man was convicted, made to pay a fine and giving a conditional discharge. This is not a victory for anyone other then the TV Licensing Authority
  3. The Judge dismissed the mans wacky claims as they had no bearing on whether he was liable to pay his TV license. He would have had a better argument if he said he only used his TV for his XBOX.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rubic0n
Implying that the bbc report is not a lie...


The BBC were not involved in this trial at all.... so this thread is a lie!
edit on 10-4-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Thank you all for your various responses.

First I would like to point out that the title of the thread is not mine but the one that came with the article. I thought that like other sections here on ATS you had to use the headline from the article you are quoting. Apologies.

Secondly, this thread has been moved from where I had originally posted it to this 9/11 section. Which is fair enough and I understand why. However, I posted it in another section as I was not so much concerned about the rights/wrongs/ of building 7, I was more interested in the fact that somebody had taken on the TV licencing people and although not an all out victory, a point was made about bad news reporting, in this case an out and out lie at the time.

What I like about ATS is that when we post a thread (in 'factual' sections) we are to support our posts with 'evidence' from research. I just wish the msm could do more of the same, and to me this man was quite right to bring to light, the arguments about whether building 7 did just collapse or was brought down appart. It was a blatant lie.

As to the TV licence in the UK, I am on the fence. No, I don't like the fact that my licence fee goes in majority to a corporation that is blatantly biased in its reporting in many cases. But on the other hand I really do appreciate that my viewing doesn't keep getting interupted with adverts.

So please, don't have a go at me for what has transpired as though somehow I am the one that wrote the report. That's a tad unfair.

Rainbows
Jane



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by angelchemuel
reply to post by bluloa
 


I don't know about all that part.
I do want to apologise for the second video, I have tried avery combo to get it up...it's the actual BBC news footage clearly showing WTC 7 still standing....20 minutes before it actually colapsed!
Maybe somebody can sort it for me pretty please?

Rainbows
Jane


i can remember that report by a woman stating that WTC7 had fallen

but you could still see it in the background

star and flag
edit on 10/4/2013 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by maryhinge
 


I remember it well. I was watching it live at the time. They had already reported that they had reports that building 7 was on fire, and even said it was 'unrelated' to the WTC, and showed pictures of it. So we already knew what we were looking at. Then the female reporter came on to announce not once but twice that they had reports that "building 7 has now indeed collapsed". Both me and my neighbour said....how? What?...It's behind you, you stupid woman, and we just put it down to 'bad news reporting'....yeah right!

Anyways, for me the ifs buts and maybe's of building 7 are not what I intended when I started this thread...but hey ho, my bad maybe for not saying something sooner.
Rainbows
Jane



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Rubic0n
 


I'm not disputing the BBC story from 12 years ago (I really don't care to be honest), I am disputing this apparent victory over the BBC in court, as posted in the OP.

A few points:



  1. The BBC never takes anyone to court over TV licenses and were not even present in the Courtroom.
  2. The man was convicted, made to pay a fine and giving a conditional discharge. This is not a victory for anyone other then the TV Licensing Authority
  3. The Judge dismissed the mans wacky claims as they had no bearing on whether he was liable to pay his TV license. He would have had a better argument if he said he only used his TV for his XBOX.



What was the point of those points since the points you made are a lie!?

The man took the BBC to court, not the other way around.
The man was not convicted nor did he get fined.
The judge did not dismiss the mans "wacky claims" in fact he took them seriously.

Not sure how you dreamed all that up tho.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rubic0n
What was the point of those points since the points you made are a lie!?


No, they are not. Actually check your facts, don't just believe the OP.


Originally posted by Rubic0n
The man took the BBC to court, not the other way around.


Er, no. He was up on charges of non payment of his TV license.


Originally posted by Rubic0n
The man was not convicted nor did he get fined.


He was given a conditional discharge and fined £200.


Originally posted by Rubic0n
The judge did not dismiss the mans "wacky claims" in fact he took them seriously.


No, he didn't.


Originally posted by Rubic0n
Not sure how you dreamed all that up tho.


I dreamed up nothing, it's you making stuff up.

Here is an actual report (albeit it's the Mail) on the case
edit on 10/4/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rubic0n
The man took the BBC to court, not the other way around.


You do not realise no one from the BBC was even at the trial, it had nothing at all to do with the BBC - he was taken to court by the government for non payment of his tv license


The man was not convicted nor did he get fined.


He got fined 200pounds, why lie and claim he was not fined?


The judge did not dismiss the mans "wacky claims" in fact he took them seriously.


No, he did not even listen to them, they had no part of this hearing.


Not sure how you dreamed all that up tho.


You are the one dreaming things up here - exactly what is your source for all your silly claims?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Why is this thread going on and on?

The guy lost!
He had to pay up!
They didn't even listen to any 911 stuff.

The lengths that people go to just keep their pet conspiracy alive.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:05 AM
link   
[img]
Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/img]
This is why I refuse to pay a license fee, they use it to hire child rapists.
[IMG]http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/9729/jimmysavileclaimedpolic.jpg[/I MG]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   
A. The £200 was for costs...totally different to a fine....sorry. And before anybody starts...just remember all those cases where people are fined X ammount AND court costs of X ammount.

B. Yes the headline is wrong....I didn't write it as I have explained in a post above. I knew he couldn't have been taken to court by the BBC but had to be the TV licensing. Now do you understand why I have said that this case opens the floodgates about, shall we call it mis-representation of the facts?

C. The OP as somebody keeps pointing out is a misrepresentation of the case.....and so it continues AFTER the case hey........but by association of using the 'OP', you are by proxy inferring me, myself, I. Please refer to my view directly below the article I presented. Hence the reason I didn't post this in the 9/11 forum initially.

Now personnally....as it is my 'OP'....I would like the discussion to go along the lines of what sort of other news 'reports' could be brought to court as a blatant lie........in other words, making those who report/msm/etc accountable and stop them from doing biased and 'sexed up' reporting as for example WMD's in the Iraq war.
I don't want to discuss individual cases....more what we can do to hold people accountable for misrepresenting facts....as here on ATS

Rainbows
Jane



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by angelchemuel
Now do you understand why I have said that this case opens the floodgates about, shall we call it mis-representation of the facts?


No, as it had nothing at all too do with the BBC.


Please refer to my view directly below the article I presented.


But it had nothing to do with the BBC~


.I would like the discussion to go along the lines of what sort of other news 'reports' could be brought to court as a blatant lie


None.


more what we can do to hold people accountable for misrepresenting facts....as here on ATS


So are you accountable for the nonesense in your first post?





new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join