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

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
because this man had the courage to stand up for what he believed in, that 9/11 should be investigated

Except of course 9/11 had nothing whatsoever to do with this court case....

reply to post by angelchemuel


I wish America had that option, i would gladly pay a fee to
get rid of all the commercials, adverts. they can turn a
40 min tv show in to 1 1/2 hours with no problem with all the dang
commercials.

One reason i do not have cable tv of any kind, just cant justify paying
for more commercial supported tv, i'd rather just have a few channels
i get with a antenna and rent movies.

reply to post by severdsoul


I like to think I am open minded on the subject of the TV licence and, although I can well understand why the concept is totally alien to most people who aren't used to it, I am broadly in favour of the BBC (broadly, not totally!) and in fact, all of the concerted attacks upon it I see tend to make me even more in favour of protecting the BBC.

I know thats going to take some explaining, so here goes.

Attacks upon the BBC, and in particular the TV license, almost always originate from just two sources.

The first is whichever political party happens to be in power at the time, as they find the BBC's reporting of their various activities embarrassing and intrusive. To me, that is a good thing. I notice they NEVER complain about ITN or Sky News, hmmm. The fact that it is ANY party in power attempting to curb the Beeb also demonstrates they aren't in either parties pocket, whatever the critics may say.

The second source is the various arms of the Murdoch empire, with the Sun and Times frequently taking up the cause. What strikes me there is that if the BBC can be removed, there would be nothing to prevent Murdoch's Sky becoming the THE most powerful and influential broadcaster in the UK, given that following its own Digital TV fiasco, ITV is but a shadow of what it once was. Whenever I see the Murdoch press laying into the BBC for, frequently fictional, failings I just hear alarm bells.

A single power monopoly is good for no-one except Murdoch.

Taking all that to one side, we should also consider that the lack of adverts also means the lack of any undue commercial pressure on the BBC's editorial policy. Personal bias may creep in, as it may anywhere, but the BBC also operates the ONLY viewer feedback access in the UK through its Newswatch and Points of View programmes to allow people to present their counterpoints. How come nobody else does?

Then their is the License Fee itself. £145.50 per year. Compare this with a Sky subscription. The current price for a full year including movies sport and HD is £804! Anyone who pays for Sky who also complains about the BBC licence fee is is either an hypocrite or an idiot, IMO.

Especially when you consider what the License fee covers. Not merely the TV and radio channels (plus the fact that the vast majority of their content is made here in the UK and later on gets repeated on those same Sky channels they charge so much for!) But there is also the technical innovation that the BBC has created down the years too, starting by being the first national broadcaster in the world, then the first TV broadcaster and all the way through to the development of digital TV, HD and the Iplayer etc. Indeed, I have seen people say that they dont think they should have to pay the License fee because........and then mention viewing programmes by a means that was invented by the BBC and funded by the same license fee, which is just bizarre.

It is also not true that the BBC is funded solely by the Licence fee. It actually keeps the cost of that down by exporting programmes such as Top Gear and Doctor Who all round the world, and also selling its technical innovations. for example the Iplayer software is THE streaming video player for all broadcasters today, even sky.

Of course there are many criticisms that can be legitimately levelled at the BBC, it would be very odd if there weren't, but I just feel, personally, that a great many of those who jump on the anti-beeb/anti-license fee bandwagon haven't taken the time to try to fully understand what they are getting from it, and what they would be left with if those efforts were to succeed.

The comparison of the actual cost alone with Sky does it for me. Whenever I have discussed this with people and I ask 'do you have Sky?' the answer is always yes. So, in a nutshell, £804 to watch Doctor Who or Mock the Week on satellite is fine, but £145 to the company who actually makes them is a problem? Yeah right.

reply to post by waynos


Blimmey...thank you I had forgotten I had started this thread!

But seriously that was a very good post, Thank you.
Rainbows
Jane

The Sky News anchor on 9/11 (Kay Burley) famously said that ...

"For those just joining us, the entire eastern seaboard of the United States has been decimated by a terrorist attack".

So I guess we're due a refund of our Sky TV subscription too ? Backdated to 2001 ?

Yay. That's Christmas paid for.

Malcher
I think that early on some were getting the buildings confused and were reluctant to admit that. If the footage shows the building still standing as they were discussing it then could it be the news people did not know what building 7 was since it was right there in the images?

Another person, very well known in conspiracy circles, did mix the buildings up. The way i figured this out was when he insisted the trade towers went down form the bottom because he watched it on t.v only anyone who watched the videos would conclude that he was referring to the footage of building 7 but did not realize it.

No you are wrong. The US government colluded with FOREIGN media outlet. The FOREIGN journalist who incorrectly, oops sorry let the cat of the bag, had the ear of the president.

After all that HAS to have happened in order for this ludicrous conspiracy to have any substance whatsoever.

Come on, you 911er's lob some grenades at me because you are too brainwashed to accept that journalists screw up from time to time........

(P.S. I agree with you completely Malcher)

i would gladly pay a fee to
get rid of all the commercials, adverts. they can turn a
40 min tv show in to 1 1/2 hours with no problem with all the dang
commercials.

You do realize that commercial free program is fully paid for by the government don't you?
That creates a conflict of interest in 'some 'types of programs.

A NY post writer cannot write a critical artical against his own editor and still keep his job.
It's the same with the BBC.

I'll take the commercials.

samkent

i would gladly pay a fee to
get rid of all the commercials, adverts. they can turn a
40 min tv show in to 1 1/2 hours with no problem with all the dang
commercials.

You do realize that commercial free program is fully paid for by the government don't you?
That creates a conflict of interest in 'some 'types of programs.

Far from it. The money comes directly from the public, therefore the broadcaster is NOT afraid to put out awkward exposes for fear of having funding withdrawn by sponsors. The onus is on journalistic integrity, which is why the BBC has come under fire from the govt so often in the past.

A NY post writer cannot write a critical artical against his own editor and still keep his job.
It's the same with the BBC.

I'll take the commercials.

You are perhaps forgetting the BBC documentary which exposed the goings on amongst BBC employees that led to the police operation yew tree? Journalistic integrity again.

There will always be corruptible and corrupting individuals in any organisation, but nothing corrupts the whole outlook of that operation like fear of losing money, ie through upsetting advertisers and sponsors.

There is no perfect solution, and equally I must say there have been, and are, some terrific reporters in the commercial sector, but overall, I prefer the balance that having both types brings.

Remember how Sky News made no mention of the Murdoch scandal until well after the story broke elsewhere?

reply to post by samkent


It's carried out by a levy on citizens which is carried out by the BBC itself, not by government. The government sets the level of the license fee and is usually trying to reduce it because they are annoyed at the BBC's critical reporting!