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

reply to post by NeoParadigm


LOL ok fair enough

I will put this all down to the drinking.

gladtobehere
reply to post by Gibonz

 

Wait, what?

The Brits have to get a license and pay a fee to watch TV? A TV tax?

The State also knows who has a TV and how many? What in the...?

Ha, that's not even the half of it. Haven't you seen the threads by our UK members about the TV Police showing up at the door demanding TV taxes which have gone unpaid? Gold...

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


I still think he won though.

When you get charged with a crime and get fined, and you end up without a conviction and without a fine, then it seems closer to winning than losing.

Granted he had to pay court costs.Llike I said, it is a huge moral victory anyway. His 911 based defense obviously got him of he hook, even though he was found guilty.

reply to post by NeoParadigm


He was still found guilty

yes he did get a very lenient sentence but he was still found to be wrong in the eyes of the uk legal system as he was found guilty ordered to pay court fee's and start paying his TV license.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

He was still found guilty

Yes but he didn't set out to refute the fact that he was guilty, he obviously was. The point is that he had a good enough reason to explain why he had the right to commit his "crime".

There was no way that the judge could find him not guilty so he basically let him off without setting a precedent that would empower 1000's of people to stop paying their fee.

reply to post by NeoParadigm


I really dont understand you argument

he was not paying his TV license

So UK TV Licensing took him to court over it because he was watching live TV with out a license

His stated defense for not having a TV license was that by paying it he would be committing a act of terror because by doing so in his view he would be funding a terrorist organization that had prior knowledge of 9/11.

The Magistrate did not accept this defense because he could not rule the BBC as a terrorist organization (although he could have passed this higher up the legal system) and that even if he were to accept his defense that still would not constitute a defense because the reason a TV license is needed is not to fund the BBC but rather to pay for the infrastructure that permits live broadcasting, although some of that money does go to the BBC.

As such he was found guilty and ordered to pay out £200 in court fee's and to get a TV license

I really dont understand how you can still say he won.

he didn't for him to have won the magistrate would have to have deferred his case to a higher court to find the BBC guilty under the Terrorism act and as such not delivered any verdict.

he lost its very simple.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


He won because he was found guilty and did not prove that the BBC funds terrorism - come on - it's that simple - how can you not see it??

I mean it's right here in NP's post on page 2 of this thread::

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

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I have already apologized and owned up to that mistake, that is more than I can say from you. You were posting false ionformation and this has been pointed out to you yet no retraction.

You said,

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.

but,

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.

He won because he was found guilty and did not prove that the BBC funds terrorism

Again, this was not what the case was about, it was about him being charged and fined for not paying his license fee.

In the end he was not convicted nor fined and the reason was his 911 based defense.

Again, there was no possibility of him being found not guilty, in the first place. All he had to win was to get away with it.

reply to post by NeoParadigm


Oh - sorry - completely missed that he won because he was found guilty and ordered to pay court costs.

And mea culpa for getting it wrong that the conditional conviction is not recorded.

oh...hang on....it IS recorded and remains on your record......

how a conviction becomes spent:

How a Conviction becomes Spent

The way in which a conviction can become ‘spent’ under the ROA will depend upon the sentence received for the offence, and the rehabilitation period that applies to that offence sentence. The principles apply to convictions in a criminal court, findings in a juvenile court, certain offences in service disciplinary proceedings and hospital orders under the Mental Health Act 1983.

The time required before the conviction is spent – the rehabilitation period – will be different depending upon the nature and length of the sentence, be it a term of imprisonment, a fine, a surcharge order, probation, or an absolute or conditional discharge. Relevant rehabilitation periods are set out below.

Unless otherwise stated, the rehabilitation period runs from the date of the conviction and will generally depend upon compliance with the sentence.

.
.
.

Conditional discharge, binding over, care order, supervision order, reception order - Either 1 year after making of order, or 1 year after the order ends, whichever is the longer

And the Police et al get to keep your record - however you simply are not required to disclose it in normal dealings:

Retention and disclosure of information about your convictions and other involvement with the police

Although the ROA gives you the right, in certain circumstances, not to reveal spent convictions about yourself, it still preserves the right of others – such as police forces and government departments – to keep information about unspent and spent convictions from official records, to access it and to share it in the course of their duties with people who have a legitimate interest in finding out about such information. Persons with such a legitimate interest may include members of other police forces, other government departments, or current or prospective employers.

- another page on that site

sorry about that.

Not.

If you get rid of your TV do you still have to pay in UK? TV is so bizarre in the USA I don't watch it. I say, "get a life and turn the beast off".

Why did we get redirected from one HOAX to another...Nah! don't tell me I know the angle.
Still and all, Tony Rooke had a point to make as to how appropriately was the BBC using TV licence money, and in his mind they were covering up aspects of 9/11... that's what he has said, or perhaps more importantly at least from my point of view, were they/or do they participate in misleading people, ( as if there is a difference since we don't actually know in the former) while the answer to that in the latter is a patent yes.
Thing is the guy got off, he wasn't fined, and he paid very nominal court costs, but just think, had he had a tribe of people behind him doing just the same thing in regard to a public organisation using public money, what would the outcome have been?