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

page: 3
72
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

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.




Yes the headline is wrong....I didn't write it as I have explained in a post above.




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


But it had nothing to do with the BBC~




I knew he couldn't have been taken to court by the BBC but had to be the TV licensing.[/b]



.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.




in other words, making those who report/msm/etc accountable and stop them from doing biased and 'sexed up' reporting



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?


No I am not......do you actually READ what people post?



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.

Rainbows
Jane
edit on 10-4-2013 by angelchemuel because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-4-2013 by angelchemuel because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rubic0n


No one knew the building was going to come down


Bzzz, wrong. Firefighters had been warning for hours that they thought the building was in danger of collapsing. Do some research.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Rubic0n


No one knew the building was going to come down


Bzzz, wrong. Firefighters had been warning for hours that they thought the building was in danger of collapsing. Do some research.


Very true, that is why they pulled the firefighting teams out of it....

The funniest thing about this thread is some people want to make others take responsibility for mistakes, but refuse to accept any responsibility for their own mistakes!



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Rubic0n


No one knew the building was going to come down


Bzzz, wrong. Firefighters had been warning for hours that they thought the building was in danger of collapsing. Do some research.


I think the words they used were "blow up". They were telling people to get back because the building was going to blow up.




posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
wait so did he win the case or not? It appears he actually lost the case. If you want to call that a loss.


The vast majority of people would categorise this as a loss. But if you're from the P.T. Barnum "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right" school of thought, then I guess you could qualify this as a 'win' in the Humpty Dumpty "Words mean precisely what I want them to mean, neither more nor less" way of 'thinking'.

Fitz



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:25 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

Not really. If he'd only not been buying a tv license for the previous 2 years, he'd already be up on the deal, and they still can't force him to buy a license. Now he knows he can't avoid paying his license fee by claiming the BBC are abusing their charter, he'll probably take up that XBOX suggestion that you made.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
As far as I can tell the judge could not make a ruling over the 911 evidence as it came under the terrorist
act.

www.dailymail.co.uk...



District Judge Stephen Nicholls said: 'This is not a public inquiry into 9/11. This is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act

He said he had difficulty sitting in the magistrates’ court as he 'did not believe he had the power to rule under the terrorism act'

He said: 'Even if I accept the evidence you say, this court has no power to create a defence in the manner which you put forward.'

Sentencing, Judge Nicholls said: 'Mr Rooke puts the basis of his defence under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, effectively asking the court to find the BBC is a terrorist organisation and that if he continues to pay them he himself is committing a criminal offence.

Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was 'pleased' with the outcome, 'all things considered'.


Does this Rooke have to take it to a higher court to win?
if so what court would do it?

Am I right in thinking it went like this
We are not qualified to deal with your defense therefore it is irrelevant and we will rule against
you anyways on the basis of what we know..
.....what?

EDIT :


Not paying a TV licence under Section 363 of the Communications Act is a strict liability offence, said Garth Hanniford, prosecuting. He asked Rooke why he continued to watch the BBC with no licence


I see further down that he was still watching the BBC even as he was aware of his evidence.

"If someone watches dubious videos that are illegal, goes to court with a case against the video company but
still continues watching those dubious videos.....".. In my opinion he deserved it.

Limbo
edit on 10-4-2013 by Limbo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

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.


So, remind me - why was he in court, again? It couldn't possibly be because the BBC were claiming he needed a license, could it?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
I'm kind of reeling from someone's post saying an inspector went into his house to check on his TV. That seems so very intrusive to me.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by aboutface
I'm kind of reeling from someone's post saying an inspector went into his house to check on his TV. That seems so very intrusive to me.


it is, and you don't have to let them in. they have ZERO power of entry unless you actually LET them in. i've encountered them a few times and each time, told them, quite simply, that they could not come in. then they left.

people these days tend to crumble before 'perceived/assumed' powers that authorities have, when often their only leverage is fear and intimidation.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
This story is so bizarre. It would be like me getting a speeding ticket and talking to a judge about having it dismissed..... and then surprising him by making him sit through a long presentation with evidence and graphs about a huge conspiracy theory that happened over a decade ago.

You know when you're in a room with a crazy person, and you'll do or say anything to get them to leave? I think that's what this story is about.
edit on 10-4-2013 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
This story is so bizarre. It would be like me getting a speeding ticket and talking to a judge about having it dismissed..... and then surprising him by making him sit through a long presentation with evidence and graphs about a huge conspiracy theory that happened over a decade ago.

You know when you're in a room with a crazy person, and you'll do or say anything to get them to leave? I think that's what this story is about.
edit on 10-4-2013 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)


I'm only guessing, but it seems to me his point was "why should I pay a license fee to a company I think is as bent as a banana, or at least failing in its duty to keep the populace as informed as it needs to be?"



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Rubic0n


No one knew the building was going to come down


Bzzz, wrong. Firefighters had been warning for hours that they thought the building was in danger of collapsing. Do some research.


Very true, that is why they pulled the firefighting teams out of it....

The funniest thing about this thread is some people want to make others take responsibility for mistakes, but refuse to accept any responsibility for their own mistakes!


I think the firefighting teams would NEVER have pulled out if the other 2 buildings had not exploded and crumbled into a hailstorm of dust, not too mention all the other ridiculous shocking things that changed their perception that day.

The exploded lobby of building 7 before the towers even came down must have unsettled them as well.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by maryhinge

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


I keep seeing this hoax again and again...apparently according to the conspiracy crowd all the BBC journalists should have been well aquainted with the proper name of every foreign building before they becomes famous for them to "kknow the building right outside their window was WTC 7". If that's the case then you yourselves should be able to identify the name and location of THIS building without looking it up-



In fact I'll even accept just the city it's located in. After all, if you're judging BBC reporters over knowing/not knowing where/what the Solomon brothers building was BEFORE 9/11 and BEFORE it became famous then in all intellectual honesty you should be able to do likewise, otherwise all you're doing is coming up with artificial criticisms based entirely on 20/20 hindsight.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Here is my Ryugyong Hotel thread here at ATS.

Also in that thread I tackle some of the more common myths about North Korea.
Too bad discussions of that nature are not very popular.

On topic: I didn't know such a thing existed. Anyone care to explain what the permit allows you to do that would normally not be allowed? Is having a TV illegal without this "license"? Or is this about a paid subscription service and piracy?
edit on 10-4-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Ryugyong Hotel in North Korea.
Opps! Now they'll know.


But your point is correct. Names of buildings you have never seen before are just that. Names.
Most large'ish buildings are named. But most of us never know them by name.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


They used a lot of formulations, but mostly they just said it would collapse. And they established a collapse zone past which they withdrew.

Of course they could all be in on it. They'd have to be, because they still all defend the OS to this day.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ParasuvO
 


I suppose you could always read their testimony and find that in fact they based their assessment on the condition of the building. But then you might also come across information which renders your other 'facts' null and void. So perhaps it's best just to proceed in happy ignorance.
edit on 10-4-2013 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Okay then, let's run with that for a minute and suppose that they got the names mixed up. Which building collapse were they referring to in that case?



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Okay then, let's run with that for a minute and suppose that they got the names mixed up. Which building collapse were they referring to in that case?

More likely they mixed up 'going to collapse' with 'collapsed'.

There were lots of erronious reports that day. Many have been posted here.





new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join