Bbc Intentionally Misrepresented Facts About The 9/11 Attack

[pewter]

I know you lot love the truth. 

Even a judge agreed.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/EZBM-pkJPio?feature=oembed

 

[ProDave]

Care to spell it out in a paragraph or 2?  I CBA to watch 8 minutes of video to find out.

 

[pewter]

Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV licence 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. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

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 licence fee.

I found it while i had to sit and act as a peace keeper and stop the 2 children from having a Jihad on each other while eating there dinner.

 

[Murdoch]

The BBC tell the truth? Impartial??

Whot a load of bxlls

 

[kerching]

BBC

B....roadcasting

B....ollox

C....onsistently

Just saying

 

[Evans Electric]

How did the video change  from the Tony bloke to a load of  people shouting about something? 

Its a conspiracy!!!!

I love conspiracy theories but I'd have to see all facts before I'd take this one in TBH  .  

As in :-    What time did the BBC report that WTC7  had collapsed   and what time did it actually collapse .  It was an evacuated building that had been on fire all day it seems .  

There are many stories in the Naked City and this may just be one of them. 

I'm also thinking ...what does the BBC gain ....by doing ..what exactly ....  they showed the attacks on the twin towers in the morning LIVE ................how can they KNOW a building is to collapse at a certain time ,,,and  broadcast it before it happens !! 

 

[kerching]

The Naked City........FFS that dates you!

Just remembering it, just

 

[Evans Electric]

Does this mean we can all stop paying our license fee ?

One of our regular customers never had a TV license , reason being , he didn't have a TV .   The TV license is a massive tax on the people in the same way as the Road Tax Disc is .    The BBC do NOT get all that money in the same way as the roads don't get ALL the Road Tax spent on them .

Its just called the TV License because a small percentage funds the BBC  instead of the US system of  advertising where , if the company doesn't like or agree with the content of your programme , they threaten to pull their product placement until you do what they want .   So that hard hitting documentary expose' is replaced with The Waltons .  

Every year the goverment threatened him with court action & sending the detector van round & every year he told them to notify him of the court date and he would attend . They never did in  22 years .  

They are both part of general taxation .  They'd get about £40,000 from my road alone .

The Naked City........FFS that dates you!

Just remembering it, just

I'd never heard of it ...Stepps told me about it  ....honest

    Said it replaced Dragnet  ...which I'd never heard of either .

Does anyone how/why the OP's video changed ? 

Please keep the conspiracies coming .  I have to but will return .................if I don't you'll know that THEY were waiting for me !!! I'll avoid the road tunnel in case Prince Charles has the SAS waiting to take me out .

Is that how you spell conspiracies ? Conspiracys  ?

 

[kerching]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_City_(TV_series)

Must have been a few reruns because i was only 7 when the series finished

Just....thanking you for making me feel so old

 

[pewter]

Ban the BBC has its own youtube channel

This vid is lots of different footage of people challenging the TV people when they come to there door.

Very entertaining.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/677i43QfYpQ?feature=oembed

 

[apprentice87]

Here we go again.....

This is going to be as good as the "freemen" rubbish....

Now then, not going to get involved in any daft conspiracy theories or any of that nonsense, just a few facts...

1, There is no such thing as a "tv detector van" It is complete nonsense. back in the 1960's, yes, you would see a van going round with an aerial on the roof. These things were NOTHING to do with detecting televisions though. They were to measure the signal strength, as, with a boom in new towns and people putting up "high rise buildings" they had to check the signal strength to see if they had to put up any more transmitters to rectify matters.

2, I was driving down the motorway once. [sometime in the 1990's i suppose] I saw one of these things going along, and, despite the blacked out windows, due the the direction the sun was shining i could see straight into it. Just an ordinary minibus complete with seats, despite the fact that it said "TV Detector Van" in big letters on it.

3, I saw one broken down once. Walked straight up to it pressed my face against the glass, and once again, an ordinary minibus.

4, Saw once just parked in a car park once; Needless to say, walked straight up to it and pressed my face against the glass, and once again, just a minibus.

Now, i am not condoning people not having a tv licence, i have not got one, but then i have not got a television either, but it is all a hoax.

If a shop sell you a television set, BY LAW they have to take your details and inform the licencing people, this is how they catch people. Other than that, they just threaten people and intimidate them. I personally know of a person that has a mental illness related to extreme anxiety. They have him so frightened, that he buys a television licence even though he HAS NOT GOT ONE [A television that is]

You do not need a licence to have a television, you could have every room in your house stacked to the ceiling with them. You ONLY need a licence if the thing is actually being used, OR is installed, ready for use.

They CAN get a warrant to search your house or vehicle to see if you got one, but ONLY if they have presented evidence ON OATH to a JP that they have "reasonable grounds" to believe that you have got one, AND that you are using it or have it installed ready for use. JP's do not give out warrants lightly and they would want to see the proof..... [which the television people have not got] If you wanted to be funny, you could go to court and ask them to prove to an expert that their "detector" was approved for this use and correctly calibrated. This would result in the case being closed as they could not do this cos there is no such thing. Imagine if the police claimed to have caught you speeding with a speed camera, but refused to produce the "evidence" or even the existence of such a device to the court, what you think would happen??

So far as i know the government are going to "decriminalise" not having a licence soon. That will make no difference whatsoever, as, all it means is that you will merely get a visit from an ordinary [useless] bailiff that you can safely laugh at. Until that is, they rack the costs up to above £750, and when they do, they will bankrupt you if the house is in your name.

All this "decriminalisation" is for is to unclog the magistrates courts and pass some work to the civil courts, not for your benefit..

Oh, and before i forget, the bloke that went to court was NOT NOT NOT found not guilty at all. He had a six months condition discharge and had to pay costs of £200....

john...

 

[kerching]

Why do they not like being filmed?.....just curious

 

[apprentice87]

Same reason that me and you would not want to be filmed. Besides, all they are doing is what they have been instructed to do, and 99% of the people they go to see are morons, I mean, do you have a camera for when people call at your house?? If you HAVE a telly, then get a licence. If you do not, just tell them so and ask them to produce their evidence that you DO have one and close the door in their face. If they persist, if it were me, i would phone the police and tell them I was being threatened. When the police come, I would show the police i have not got a telly and that would be the end of the matter. One thing the police do not like is people pretending they have police powers when they do not. The TV people CAN get a warrant to enter your house on their own, but this would be difficult as they have no evidence, but in practice they would come with the police, As you have already established to the police you do not have a telly, you could then tell them the telly people were causing you alarm and distress..... That would sort them out..

john..

 

[Evans Electric]

I always wondered about the detector vans TBH

I have to say though , that whatever your feelings are on TV licenses , along with Income Tax, NI,  VAT ,  CIS,  Fuel Tax, Stamp Duty, Road Tax, Spare Bedroom Tax ,Booze Duty,  Tobacco Duty,   etc, etc, etc  .......some of us have to pay them to fund the NHS & the Benefits System that the none payers are using . 

As I said above , and its just my opinion , but the BBC is used as a whipping boy ...a small percent goes to them , the rest is a massive , general tax ,  THATS the reason they have always been paranoid over non payers . 

To refer back the OP  and its disapearing video , the guy was still fined for not having a license, irrespective of what building collapsed and at what time .

 

[apprentice87]

I should add though, that all the above assumes that, like me you genuinely DO NOT have a television. If you have, or records show that you have or had one, then it is a different matter entirely....

I watched the video, and to be honest, all the house holders are the ones that look like idiots!!!!

It boils down to this;

If you HAVE got a licence, they already know about it and will leave you alone. If they still come, show them the licence, end of problem.

If on the other hand you have NOT got a licence and the records show you HAVE GOT a television, they WILL get a warrant, as their records are their evidence for the JP. [no fictitious vans needed]

As some of the licencing people stated, no worries, they will [if they have evidence that shows that it is a reasonable assumption that you have a television installed [it makes no difference as to whether you actually use it] just get a warrant... and can then use ANY amount of force to gain entry.....

As for all this "implied right of access" crap, where do these people get this rubbish from!!!! TOTAL BALONEY They are empowered to enter upon your premises by whatever the act of parliament is called.

The act actually specifies that one of the requirements for obtaining the warrant [they must also be able to establish that they have good reason for thinking you need a licence] is that;

"there is no person entitled to grant entry to the premises or vehicle with whom it is practicable to communicate"

So there you have it, unless you speak to them in a civil manner, they will almost certainly obtain a warrant just on those grounds...

Once it is decriminalised it will be different as i explained. You will merely have a call from a certificated bailiff that can be safely ignored, as i said, until the bill gets above £750, and then you will, [assuming they know you have sufficient assets [they will do a land registry seach] bankrupt you and bye bye house...

john...

 

[pewter]

I actually think the BBC is fantastic.

The TV license for me is worth it just for iplayer.

BBC iplayer supplies me with fantastic documentaries and things to watch. 

If it wasnt for the BBC i would spend all my viewing hours watching conspiracy / funny cats/ car videos on youtube.

I like the rude people with cameras just for the wind up, and entertaining me.

 

[ProDave]

The TV license for me is worth it just for iplayer.

BBC iplayer supplies me with fantastic documentaries and things to watch. 

And you do NOT need a licence to watch stuff off i player, you only need a licence to watch live tv, whether that's from an aerial or over the net.

 

[binky]

i suspect the empty TV detector vans was abit of high profile scare tactics - cost effective i'd say! bit like the dummy police cars they were putting on motorway bridges a few years ago. as for the BBC, it really could be more cost effective, but it is also selling lots of programmes to foreign countries who like the 'high quality' to generate revenue, . The tv liscence compared to sky tv charges is bloody cheap. we paid for the sky film package over xmas as we thought it would be good whilst we has some time to watch a few films. Anything worth watching we had already seen, and we watched few re-makes of old classics like Godzilla, cos we could, but beyond that, a total waste of money, and more repeats than you could shake a stick at!

 

[Phoenix]

John is almost right...

AFAIK however there were such things as TV detector vans, and they worked by detecting noise that was given off by the timebase circuits in the TV receiver and emitted through the aerial, the detectors TV set could then be tuned to the same frequency to see what was being received. These days being digital, they would only be able to work out which of the six multiplexes was being received, with no idea what channel inside it was being shown on the screen. Thats if the filtering hasn't improved to avoid the stray emmissions....

However now that is out the way, most of them were indeed decoys, they realised all they needed to do was drive the van down a street where there were a lot of houses without licenses and the over the next week most would go out and buy them.

 

[Murdoch]

A large proportion of the people who complain about paying the TV licence, are also paying Sky huge sums of money every year AND watching 16 minutes of adverts per hour. So they are effectively "paying" twice to watch Sky

At £145.50 per year I'll happy pay it - all I'd like is "public" representation on the BBC board as I'm fed up with it being the unofficial TV channel of The Guardian.