Man in court for not paying TV Licence

Status
Not open for further replies.
groen said:
He lost, wasted his time and got a £200 bill for it as well. Probably have another tv license letter waiting for him when he gets home as well.

There is no chance that a) courts will listen to any evidence regarding 9/11 b) that the bbc will be found guilty of covering up terrorism. c) that you can use bbc crimes to get out of paying the tv license.

The BBC have the legal system in their back pocket. IF you end up court, you will be robbed no doubt. Sorry "fined". There is no amount of reason or logic that can be accepted in the context of the TV license.

It is like trying to explain to a robot that has been programmed a specific way to understand what they know differently. Just does not compute for these people. Might as well be speaking another language.
Click to expand...

If you can prove these things, there are far more apropriate and better battles to be had with it than arguing over paying for a TV liscence.

Sadly for you you cannot prove those things because it is absolute nonsense and you couldn't stand and bang on the issues for either love or money.
 
Robbo said:
Returnee alert.
Click to expand...

4l37yb.gif
 
You mean they actually really do punish people for this? I thought they just tried to scare you with the letters they send in the post.
 
nath247 said:
You mean they actually really do punish people for this? I thought they just tried to scare you with the letters they send in the post.
Click to expand...

try to scare you with letters, then send round people to try and scare you in person. then if you do pay up give your money to idiots on Bargain hunt to fritter away at car boot sales :mad:
 
Cane316 said:
try to scare you with letters, then send round people to try and scare you in person. then if you do pay up give your money to idiots on Bargain hunt to fritter away at car boot sales :mad:
Click to expand...

That last bit is pretty funny, as Bargain Hunt is from what I understand one of the very cheapest things the BBC shows, and any money given to the participants is tiny compared to the cost of the actual programme ;)
IIRC Bargain Hunt is likely to be in the £10-60k per hour category, so giving the people taking part £100 each would be something like 1% or less of the budget (and you can get anything up to about 50+ hours of Bargain hunt for one hour of Spook or Doctor Who).
 
Werewolf said:
That last bit is pretty funny, as Bargain Hunt is from what I understand one of the very cheapest things the BBC shows, and any money given to the participants is tiny compared to the cost of the actual programme ;)
IIRC Bargain Hunt is likely to be in the £10-60k per hour category, so giving the people taking part £100 each would be something like 1% or less of the budget (and you can get anything up to about 50+ hours of Bargain hunt for one hour of Spook or Doctor Who).
Click to expand...

I think what bothers me is that you see them physically throwing the cash away :D
 
nath247 said:
You mean they actually really do punish people for this? I thought they just tried to scare you with the letters they send in the post.
Click to expand...

They try and scare the average Joe Bloggs with letters, but when you make a point of not paying, & tell them your making a point by not paying, court action is inevitable.
 
UK Man Wins Court Victory Over BBC for 9/11 Coverup Broadcast


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. 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 licensing fee.
Click to expand...

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

Ohhhh this could get interesting.
 
Last edited:
Yep, the BBC had inside knowledge of all the attacks and how things are going down, the US Gov made sure because as we know, no better way to report live news than know the script before it happens, makes the events look more 'real'.

Oh wait.

What actually happened is the BBC probably made a mistake in reporting which building collapsed, afterall it was a busy day for them.
 
Was this that case that was being heard over in Horsham?

I'm not really sure I understand the reasoning for the outcome - if he has been using a TV to watch live broadcasts and has not paid his license, surely that is a breach of the law? I'm struggling to understand the relevance of the WTC collapse to this case, other than him simply using it as a soapbox.

The judge cannot rule that the BBC were complicit in terror attacks in a TV License dispute, just seems like a total non-issue?
 
In the real world;

The judge gave Rooke an unconditional discharge, which in British legal parlance means he was convicted but he does not suffer the consequences of a conviction and the conviction will be erased if he is not brought before the court for six months. He was not required to pay the fee and non-payment fine but had to pay court costs of £200.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy nuts really need to try harder.

:/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom