UK Man Wins Court Case Against BBC For 9-11 WTC 7 Cover Up (Video)

reply to post by NeoParadigm


Yes it is the default but when you go to court saying your refusing to pay it under the terrorism act because by paying it you believe you would be funding a terrorist organization and the court dismisses that as a defense and tells you that you have to pay it. YOU LOSE!

If he was to continue to not pay it when he should be paying it, then he would be taken back to court and then probably ordered to pay a fine.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

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. 'I have explained to Mr Rooke even if I were to accept his evidence I would be unable to find a defence.' Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was 'pleased' with the outcome, 'all things considered'.

seems like judge was more or less saying he agreed but nothing could be done in magistrates

www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by anonymous1legion


No the judge was saying that even if he were to agree with him that the BBC was a terrorist organization it still would not be a defense for not paying a TV license probably because the TV license is for more than just the BBC but for the infrastructure that provides all live broadcasting.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by anonymous1legion

 

No the judge was saying that even if he were to agree with him that the BBC was a terrorist organization it still would not be a defense for not paying a TV license probably because the TV license is for more than just the BBC but for the infrastructure that provides all live broadcasting.

no I think if you read it again he says even if he agreed he didnt bellive he had the power to rule the bbc a terrorist organisation, nothing about his defence for not paying

OK I am done with this thread

The responses form some members are frankly stupid and i find it increasingly frustrating to the point where i no long have a civil word to contribute to this thread as i feel like i am banging my head against a brick wall of stupidity.

So to you all please go enjoy your ignorance because I am done with this thread and some of the members posting in it who quite honestly dont know what they are talking about.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

This particular thread used "Before It's News" as a source, which is a known hoaxer news outlet, and also which is banned on ATS as a resource for anything credible.

My my what a neat little parrot.

So even though the information is clearly correct, it is still a hoax because this particular source was used?

Is this the situation? And you dont see a problem with that?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Yes leave so you don't have to admit that you were wrong. Bye.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
OK I am done with this thread

The responses form some members are frankly stupid and i find it increasingly frustrating to the point where i no long have a civil word to contribute to this thread as i feel like i am banging my head against a brick wall of stupidity.

So to you all please go enjoy your ignorance because I am done with this thread and some of the members posting in it who quite honestly dont know what they are talking about.

whoa there cowboy hope you aint calling me stupid because you cant seem to read plain english, the jugde says...

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

NO POWER to rule under the terrorism act, dont get all stroppy because you cant get your personal opinion accross jeez

NeoParadigm
And you dont see a problem with that?

My problem is people not reading, comprehending, or researching:

We've come to realization that "Before It's News" has pushed more hoaxes than "Sorcha Faal" ever did, therefor ALL threads started with BIN as the only source will go immediately into the HOAX Bin.

From the ATS thread titled:

**ALL MEMBERS*** Before Its News as a source


Hope that clears things up that any thread made with "Before It's News" as a source will automatically get shipped to the HOAX bin, regardless of the accuracy of the story.

For clarities sake, you only have to pay for a UK TV license if you watch or record *live* broadcast TV. It's technically classified as a tax so you can be prosecuted for evading it.

If you solely (as I do) watch iPlayer/ITV player/4OD etc in a replay capacity then there's no need for a TV license.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I am aware of those rules.

I have to say that this thread's premise and title is false, because there was no court case against the BBC, it was against the state. He was being charged with the crime of not paying his fee. He was not convicted and not fined.

So he won.

He was convicted of not paying, and given a conditional discharge - conditional upon his paying the fee.

And in addition he had to pay UKL200 in court costs.

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.

Daily Fail

In the UK system you can be convicted and then discharged conditionally or without penalty at all if the offense is considered minor- the conviction still appears on your "record" tho.

So no, he did not "win" the court case - he was found guilty, and given an appropriate (relatively minor) punishment.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Thank you so much for posting that, I have been banging my head against a wall of ignorance trying to explain to people that he was guilty

you have made a much better job of explaining this to these people than I have but thank you for denying ignorance.

if only others could do the same.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

He was convicted of not paying, and given a conditional discharge - conditional upon his paying the fee.

No he was not convicted and was not punished.

A conditional discharge is a sentence that diminishes the finding of guilt in which the offender receives no punishment provided that, in a period set by the court (not more than three years), no further offence is committed. If an offence is committed in that time, then the offender may also be resentenced for the offence for which a conditional discharge was given. Under criminal law, a conditional discharge does not constitute a conviction unless the individual breaches the discharge and is resentenced.

www.lawontheweb.co.uk...

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.

Like duh, how could he not be, he obviously didn´t pay. So even though he was guilty he was let go without a conviction, and without being fined, which would be normal procedure.

He also didn´t have to pay back the money he had refused to pay, he was told to get a license if he would continue using it. Did you make that up?

Seems like he won, to me, except he had to pay the court costs. I would say a huge moral victory in any case.

Here another case, look what happened, no 911 based defense and this man gets fined for 315 pounds.

news.bbc.co.uk...

So, blah.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Thank you so much for posting that, I have been banging my head against a wall of ignorance trying to explain to people that he was guilty

That is pretty moronic because it was a given and completely obvious to anybody that he was guilty. There was no way that he could have been found not guilty.

NeoParadigm
A conditional discharge is a sentence that diminishes the finding of guilt......

www.lawontheweb.co.uk...

Yep - found guilty - thanks for providing your own evidence that you are wrong!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Really that is your response. I just said he was obviously guilty, he even admits to, i has been a given from the start.

Are you going to ignore the false information you posted?

He was not convicted and he was not punished.

What about the other case where the guy was fined?

reply to post by NeoParadigm


Do you even bother to read your own rubbish that you post because on the previous page you said this

He did win the case. He was charged for not paying his TV license fee. He was relieved of the charges.

So you were arguing with me that he was not guilty, that is a reasonable interpretation of your own words and following this you and I had a little back and forth with me saying he was guilty and you saying not he wasn't all he was "relieved of the charges".

yet now, when someone shows you a link that proves he was guilty you have this to say to me.

That is pretty moronic because it was a given and completely obvious to anybody that he was guilty. There was no way that he could have been found not guilty.

So in other words you now agree with what I originally said that he was actually guilty

Dude, really

you just need to think before you post this stuff!

Regardless after all of that I am glad at the very least we can now agree with each other that he was guilty

oh and just to be clear you cant say he was guilty but won his case, he was found guilty ordered to pay the tv license and court fee's.

so he lost.


EDIT

you have also said above that

The case was not about wether or not he was guilty, it is about giving the defendant a chance to come up with a defense why he didn't pay it.

His defense was sufficient apperently.

Now dont take this the wrong way but have you been drinking

because what you are saying is that it does not matter if he was guilty or not because this was actually about his choice of defense which you the say was sufficient.

but that makes no sense because if it was sufficient then he would not have been ordered to start paying the TV license.

and editing the post does not take away from the fact that you still posted it.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Now dont take this the wrong way but have you been drinking

I removed it when I read it.

My point was that this was never about having the BBC declared as a terrorist organisation, like the judge himself said, he does not have the power to judge under the terrorism act.

My point was that he had a defense reasonable enough to relieve him of the penalty. If this was about the BBC he should have sued the BBC or reported the crime. It is a case of him vs the state where he is allowed to defend his actions. The case was never about the BBC.

He was not convicted and not fined.

Yes he had to pay the court cost but he was ordered to get a license if he kept on using the broadast system. There was no back pay involved.

Off course he has to pay from now. He never set out to change that with this case.

So you were arguing with me that he was not guilty, that is a reasonable interpretation of your own words and following this you and I had a little back and forth with me saying he was guilty and you saying not he wasn't all he was "relieved of the charges".

Well you're right, my sincere apologies, I really hadn't meant to say that the charges were dropped, but I did I guess, I mean I had read the article too and I had read with my own eyes that he was found guilty, I meant that he was relieved of the penalties.

I am sorry about that.

and editing the post does not take away from the fact that you still posted it.

I removed it before your post was there. And so what, it didn't convey what i wanted to say so I removed within 2 mins.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Now dont take this the wrong way but have you been drinking

Lol, I admit I was yesterday.