Historic 9/11 Case Brewing as AE911T Presents Evidence in Court Against BBC!

reply to post by Tardacus


I have to agree. However, if for some insane reason, the establishment doesn't do its due diligence, a successful run of this case could be a springboard to further suing BBC.

With all the truthers out there, I'm really surprised they haven't pulled their money together and filed a real suit. With that note, this whole thing doesn't make sense. Its like both sides are being paid by the same movie studio.

Originally posted by Tardacus
I don`t like watching commercials on T.V. so, If i see one and disagree with the content and claims being made in the commercial can I be excused from paying my T.V. fee?

I think the whole thing is pretty lame and expect the inevitable conviction for fee evasion.
Questions about the alleged impartiality of BBC broadcasts are no defence to using equipment to receive live broadcasts without paying the fee. Commence a private prosecution against the BBC regarding such things and see how it goes as an accuser and not the accused. This person will not win the argument in court, that is certain.

I haven't paid the BBC licence for over 13 years as I inform them I do not use equipment to receive live broadcasts and refuse any access to my property to confirm or deny the situation. There is no UK law requiring any citizen to assist the BBC in building evidence for a legal case against homes without a valid licence. Trying to pull 911 conspiracy theory into a BBC licence fee evasion case is laughable at best. Lets see how quickly this thread dies next week after the court case

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Excellent! Who knows, maybe they'll get lucky and get an impartial judge, who will side with the defendants

In which case he wouldn't be impartial, would he?

But anyway, it's funny what nonsense freeloaders will try in a vain attempt to get off paying for what they use.

@ the OP, I look forward to your opinion of the courts decision on Monday considering the alleged funding of terrorist BBC groups through enforced payment of the licence fee by the defendant.
If this is important to people then the option of a private prosecution is always available to interested parties.
Trying to establish that the BBC is a terrorist organisation which cannot be legally funded (in a licence fee evasion prosecution) is rather silly though...as you will certainly discover in less than a week from now.

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 such void..

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 impartial.

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 making)..

Originally posted by CodeRed3D
reply to post by Tardacus

 

I have to agree. However, if for some insane reason, the establishment doesn't do its due diligence, a successful run of this case could be a springboard to further suing BBC.

With all the truthers out there, I'm really surprised they haven't pulled their money together and filed a real suit. With that note, this whole thing doesn't make sense. Its like both sides are being paid by the same movie studio.

You can;'t just 'file a real suit' if you have enough money. You still need standing for access to administrative law.. Who are 9/11 truthers going to sue? For admin law you need a decision which effects you more so than it does ordinary members of society.. thats why this guy can sue because the decision is to fine him - it effects his rights.

One route would be a defamation case.... sue someone who calls a 9/11 truther 'crazy' for defamation, if the defendant decides to plead truth, then you present evidence of 9/11 to show you aren't crazy..

But it would be very hard... I guess victims of 9/11 could sue the federal government for wrongful death, but they'd have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the fed was responsible.. very hard..

Originally posted by bigdohbeatdown
He's saying its ultra vires because a licence fee is only payable if the bbc is operating within its mandate.

He will fail on Monday because the magistrates are only concerned with Communications Act 2003 and the relevant paragraphs:

(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who— (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection, is guilty of an offence.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

There is no mention anywhere about BBC impartiality being a defence against not paying for a licence to use a television receiver. You can pull as many Latin phrases up as you wish but this guy will fail in his challenge just the same as everyone else who has tried in the past.
How right or wrong we think it may be is a different issue, but he will lose this case on Monday, that is certain.

So if it turns out that he does have a case.....IF......

Then this will just get bumped to crown court...SURELY ??

Then you've got something that will drag on for possibly years...

prediction for that would be it'll be thrown out for lack of evidence...WOULDN'T IT ??

the people with the power to affect change about 9/11 have already been dealt with. the "persuasion" they encountered is self-evident.

Originally posted by jimmyx
the people with the power to affect change about 9/11 have already been dealt with. the "persuasion" they encountered is self-evident.

edit on 20-2-2013 by jimmyx because: spell

Exactly,this doesn't smell right,surely they must think they have a case,(i know some people will chance stupid ideas)

The best he can get is a fine and court costs

Hhmm maybe he has time and money to throw away

Is a funny world ey

Just about anything the defendant wants to say will be ruled inadmissible, case will be over in quarter of an hour.

Originally posted by pikestaff
Just about anything the defendant wants to say will be ruled inadmissible, case will be over in quarter of an hour.

You've never been before a magistrates court ey...

It can take three months to scratch their heads

reply to post by tropic


But if his hearing is just a Magistrates court then chances are they won't even give him the time to air his views or present any credible evidence.

Magistrates are for small crime and are local.

If he's going for the BBC about anti terrorism then it has to be a bigger forum and a specified case for any real evidence to be heard.

reply to post by CodeRed3D


This is the UK, people are apathetic and tend to put up and shut up, it isn't litigious, to a fault.

I have worked for so many UK companies that if they were in the US they would be hauled over the coals many times over, but here the employees sit and take it, or they kiss ass and watch those with scruples that dare to talk getting the flak.

reply to post by samkent


Some people here do, I know NY and have pictures of me standing under various WTC 7 etc. signs on the buildings not long before they collapsed.

Surprised anyone still pays a TV License, seems all a bit old hat to be honest.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


What I don't understand about Building 7 falling after it was reported is: If it was a huge conspiracy, Why would a simple reporter know all about it before hand? Seems like only top officials would be in the know

Was the show about conspriacy theories about 9/11 or a documentary about what happened on that day? These things are not usually the same as you well know.
If it was about conspiracy theories then it will just present things about that which may or may not represent any truth. In that case its really poetic license and so they shouldnt be held to any rules about presenting actual facts. In fact it would likely present more things that could not be proven than actual fact.
However if it was a documentary about what actually happened that day then they should indeed present only material that is proven to be factual.

reply to post by mymymy


My name is Ron Burgundy?

Good find. I think its great to hear the actual evidence in
any court of law, even if its in another country.

Rebel 5