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 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?
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.
Originally posted by Rubic0n
No one knew the building was going to come down
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.
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.
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.
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
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'.
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
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.
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.
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)
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!
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
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?