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

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


That's ridiculous.

The existing thread is not a hoax but this one is a hoax because the OP used BIN as a source?

Like I said, why not close it and redirect to the existing thread?

reply to post by NeoParadigm


Well if you dont like it go complain to a Mod but I have explained why it is a hoax.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


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

So part of your explanation is false, the other part is obviously ridiculous.

Why are you even answering questions that are aimed at staff?

NeoParadigm
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

The only 9/11 threads in the HOAX bin are the ones that are proven 9/11 HOAXES like the "tv fakery / cgi planes / no planes hit the WTC" garbage.

I disagree and so do many others.

By "many others", you mean a handful of hoaxers who keep making accounts over and over under different names to peddle a known hoax.

NeoParadigm
It is also pathetic to pre label things as a hoax.

There's nothing being pre-labeled here. The "no-plane / cgi / tv fakery" garbage was proven to be a hoax years ago by myself and several others on this and other forums. As such, most forums and legitimate 9/11 research organizations around the net have banned the discussion of the "no-plane / cgi / tv fakery" hoax.

And it keeps getting proven to be a hoax time and time again, every single time someone makes a thread about it. Once you take a look around, you'll see almost all of the "no-planers" have been banned, and their threads moved to the HOAX bin.

Once you get your WATS score up to "10", and you think you have "proof" that no planes hit the WTC, and that the planes were CGI and that tv fakery was used, by all means, make a thread about it. It will get debunked and moved to the HOAX bin like every other. Every single time.

reply to post by NeoParadigm


He was ordered by the Court that he had to conform to the law by getting a TV license

If he were to have won then he would have be told by the judge that he could lawfully not pay a TV license as it would have been funding terrorism.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

And it keeps getting proven to be a hoax time and time again, every single time someone makes a thread about it. Once you take a look around, you'll see almost all of the "no-planers" have been banned, and their threads moved to the HOAX bin.

Yes, because they are prelabeled a hoax and Skeptic "has got a great big ban hammer, and he is not afraid to use it".

You are really using that to prove your point? Pathetic.

Maybe you have debunked a claim that was false, most of the time I see no valid debunks of blatant inconsistencies and anamolies at all.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

He was ordered by the Court that he had to conform to the law by getting a TV license

The case was about him being charged with the crime of not paying his license. He was relieved of those charges so he did win the case.

reply to post by NeoParadigm


You can say he did all you want, but he did not, if i went to court for not paying my TV license on the grounds that I believed that by paying it i would be funding terrorism and I was then told by the court that no, that was not the case and i had no legal grounds not to pay it and as such the court ordered me to start paying it then i would not call that a win.

but you can believe what ever you want.

NeoParadigm
Yes, because they are prelabeled a hoax and Skeptic "has got a great big ban hammer, and he is not afraid to use it".

You are really using that to prove your point? Pathetic.

I was debunking the "no-plane/tv fakery" garbage long before I even came to ATS. The owner of this site has no bearing on my, or anyone else's ability to easily debunk and refute every single claim made by the "no-plane/tv fakery" hoaxers.

NeoParadigm
Maybe you have debunked a claim that was false, most of the time I see no valid debunks of blatant inconsistencies and anamolies at all.

You're still not getting it. Not just "a" claim. Every single claim. Every single "inconsistency" and "anomaly" can be very easily explained and debunked. Every single one, every single time.

Like I said in my last post, if you have some sort of new evidence or "proof", please start a thread. Otherwise, there's nothing else to say on this particular subject.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by NeoParadigm

 

You can say he did all you want, but he did not, if i went to court for not paying my TV license on the grounds that I believed that by paying it i would be funding terrorism and I was then told by the court that no, that was not the case and i had no legal grounds not to pay it and as such the court ordered me to start paying it then i would not call that a win.

but you can believe what ever you want.

It is not about what I or you believe, it is about the facts.

Let me explain it again, he was found not guilty of what he was charged with. He was not fined.

The case was not about wether or not he had a legal right to not pay in the future.

reply to post by Gibonz


why is this in the Hoax forum?

This actually happened and was national news.

reply to post by NeoParadigm


He was forced by the court to pay the TV License if you see that as a win go for it.

you asked for a explanation as to why this in in the Hoax forum i have provided you with explanation.

if you dont like it again, go cry to a mod.

but stop trying to say I and others are wrong simply because you dont like the explanation.

NeoParadigm


The case was about him being charged with the crime of not paying his license. He was relieved of those charges so he did win the case.

This...

He was taken to court to pay (something like) a £5,000 fine for not paying his license fee, which he escaped based on the fact that WTC7 was reported early and that it's a crimed to fund terrorism.

He won his case and escaped the fine and was told to pay future TV licenses regardless of the BBC being complicit in terrorism.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by NeoParadigm

 

He was forced by the court to pay the TV License if you see that as a win go for it.

He also escaped the £5,000 fine.

Would you say £150 was more or less than £5,000?

How can you not consider that a win?

Beavers
why is this in the Hoax forum?

This actually happened and was national news.

The original thread is not in the HOAX forum:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



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.

reply to post by Beavers


£5000 fee is the maximum penalty for not paying a TV license, at the other end of that scale you have the court ordering you to pay the TV license. So he was handed down the lowest "punishment" if you like

reply to post by _BoneZ_

I was debunking the "no-plane/tv fakery" garbage long before I even came to ATS. The owner of this site has no bearing on my, or anyone else's ability to easily debunk and refute every single claim made by the "no-plane/tv fakery" hoaxers.

You were using the fact that those threads end up in hoax to prove your point though.

You're still not getting it. Not just "a" claim. Every single claim. Every single "inconsistency" and "anomaly" can be very easily explained and debunked. Every single one, every single time.

Links?

Like I said in my last post, if you have some sort of new evidence or "proof", please start a thread. Otherwise, there's nothing else to say on this particular subject.

You know I can't so the only reason for you to say that is for the purpose of being a douche.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I see!

Not sure I'd collate my data in such a black and white way, but I at least understand, thank you.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Ha, now you know you are grasping at straws. Paying the fee is not punishment because it is default.

He won the case against him.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


He was issued the £5k fine before the case tho... that's why he went to court.

The court dismissed the fine and said he has to pay future license fees based on the evidence about WTC 7.

He won his actual case.