It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
In the UK people are forced to pay a "tv license" fee if they want a tv in their house.
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..
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.
Originally posted by angelchemuel
This could open up a whole can of worms for the BBC.......and others?
Originally posted by Rubic0n
Implying that the bbc report is not a lie...
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
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:
- The BBC never takes anyone to court over TV licenses and were not even present in the Courtroom.
- 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
- 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.
Originally posted by Rubic0n
What was the point of those points since the points you made are a lie!?
Originally posted by Rubic0n
The man took the BBC to court, not the other way around.
Originally posted by Rubic0n
The man was not convicted nor did he get fined.
Originally posted by Rubic0n
The judge did not dismiss the mans "wacky claims" in fact he took them seriously.
Originally posted by Rubic0n
Not sure how you dreamed all that up tho.
Originally posted by Rubic0n
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.
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?
Please refer to my view directly below the article I presented.
.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
more what we can do to hold people accountable for misrepresenting facts....as here on ATS