BBC's Biased Coverage of 9-11 Goes To Court In UK Feb 25!

[Peter Lemkin]

I'm sorry, I've been a 9/11 Truther for ten years but this struck me as a pointless stunt that was going nowhere right from the start. I'm not remotely surprised that the media didn't cover it. He's refusing to pay his TV licence because the BBC, by discrediting those who challenge the official narrative, is supporting terrorism? Who's going to buy that? The predictable result was, the judge told him to go away and buy a TV licence and the rest of the world took no notice. As for the notion that others should also start refusing to pay their TV licence, how likely is that? I salute the intention and the sincerity of Tony Rooke but feel, really, that this whole episode does nothing more than confirm the prejudice that we are all a bit fringe and weird. It was naive and makes us look naive. IMHO.

Maybe, but he tried....and others are trying to find a way in the rigged game. The Court could have allowed in evidence to support his contention. There were witnesses and experts willing to give testimony. In my mind it is the Court and the State that look stupid and sinister - afraid to confront the ugly truths. I don't see it as a 'stunt', but an attempt. I agree it failed, but I see no harm done. We must all try every chance we get. People can stop paying taxes too and try to get into court with the reasons. Get out in the streets...whatever it takes. The White Rose was seen as naive and pointless by some, I'm sure, in Nazi Germany. They made a difference by doing the right thing. Fighting a wrong, by whatever means, is never pointless, in the end. Every little drop sooner or later makes a difference. If we fail, the World will soon be too ugly to contemplate. It is already very difficult for me to behold without deep pain.