HOT: UK Man Wins Court Victory Over BBC for 9/11 Coverup Broadcast

[shortwave]

HUGE NEWS: UK Man Wins Court Victory Over BBC for 9/11 Coverup Broadcast

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/uk-man-wins-court-victory-over-bbc-for.html


Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks , he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack.

He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

(I think this might be the Pandora's box that opens the whole 9/11 official story into question. I think this is a major victory as the gentleman was able to prove that the BBC lied)

[CharliePrime]

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with 9/11.

The judge rule he didn't have to pay because he disagreed with the programming. That itself is interesting because it invalidates the whole U.K. television tax scheme.

Is it possible to read the judge's decision?

[shortwave]

(04-11-2013, 01:55 AM)CharliePrime Wrote: Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with 9/11.

The judge rule he didn't have to pay because he disagreed with the programming. That itself is interesting because it invalidates the whole U.K. television tax scheme.

Is it possible to read the judge's decision?

The judge has agreed that the BBC reporting of 911 was bogus. This puts the reporting of 9/11 not only of the BBC but also other news outlets in question. The reasoning being if the BBC lied, well so could the other news outlets as well.

This is the proverbial can of worms that the powers that be did not count on. The person challenging the TV license/fees USED the BBC reporting as an example in order not to pay the license.

I believe the license fee and honest reporting complaint was USED by the person to bring the truth about 9/11 to the mainstream. He USED the issue intentionally IMO to expose 9/11 lies by the mainstream and he succeeded.

I would imagine that if he just complained about the BBC 9/11 reporting, it would have gone nowhere. But it appears that he USED the BBC 9/11 reporting as a REASON for not paying TV license fees. The TV fees is the main issue now and the BBC 9/11 bogus reporting is the side issue.

Since the TV taxes in the UK does not seem popular, this story gets traction there because not only did he challenge the TV taxes...he gave the reason why.

So now he opened up a can of worms with this, the 9/11 bogus reporting gets press as a side issue with the TV license as the main issue. But this is brilliant because both issues have to be mentioned for the story to appear...and to make sense.
They just can't say that the person does not have to pay his license fees and leave it at that...they have to say the REASON why.

And no matter matter what country you are in, finding out that you don't have to pay taxes or fees on something anymore is a big story with universal appeal. Again, while the TV license is the main story , it is the vehicle for the side story .... the bogus 9/11 reporting by the BBC.

Brilliant, f-ing brilliant.

[CharliePrime]

I see what you mean. Good on him.

[Swordfish]

"So now he opened up a can of worms with this, the 9/11 bogus reporting gets press as a side issue with the TV license as the main issue. But this is brilliant because both issues have to be mentioned for the story to appear...and to make sense."

Dont want to put a damper on this but I live in the UK and this is very definately not been opened up "as a can of worms" by any means.

Truth is it has not reached any news outlet Ive seen, it may be on the alternative news circuit but as far as any mainstream papers, radio or TV stations it hasnt been mentioned.....

[shortwave]

There are many Satellite/Cable TV tech and support and Geek forums out there around the world. This story should be posted on those forums. The subject line should be "Man doesn't have to pay his TV license fees" or "Judge finds that man not liable for TV license fees" or "TV license fees do not apply".