The brother of a man murdered by Al Qaeda terrorists in the 9/11 World Trade Center attack is due to stand trial on charges of TV licence evasion.
Matt Campbell, whose brother Geoff was working in the North Tower on 11th September 2001, disagrees with the widely publicised belief that the World Trade Center collapsed due to the inferno caused when two fuel-laden jetliners were flown into the Twin Towers.
Instead Mr Campbell believes that both the Twin Towers and World Trade Centre Building 7 (a 47 storey tower not hit by an aircraft) collapsed as a result of controlled, explosive, demolition. Over the last few years Mr Campbell has been collating a dossier of expert scientific opinion, which is said to support his viewpoint.
If Mr Campbell's assertion is correct then it creates a very different picture about what really took place on 9/11, who was potentially involved, and who was actually responsible for his brother's murder.
Mr Campbell accuses the BBC of suppressing scientific opinion, thus failing to adhere to its own Editorial Guidelines and Royal Charter terms. By withholding the true events of that day, Mr Campbell believes that the BBC is complicit in an act of terrorism.
In a case echoing that of Tony Rooke, Mr Campbell's defence will revolve around the argument that by paying the £145.50 licence fee, which supports the activities of the BBC, he too would be guilty of a terrorism-related offence.
Mr Campbell's trial will take place at 2 pm at Hastings Magistrates' Court on Monday, 23rd March 2015. It should be quite an interesting afternoon, so anyone with a couple of hours to spare should go along and see what's happening.
Please remember to take your camera and see if you can get some snaps of Capita's legal big guns outside the court building!
You can read more of the background in this article on the Centre for Research on Globalization website.
4 comments:
I'm not expecting this to end well for him. Firstly the demolition theory has been widely debunked and is far more complicated than the structural failure that actually did happen.
Secondly if I refused to pay car tax because terrorists use the roads and by paying car tax I'm guilty of supporting terrorism, how well will I get on with that do you think?
It's disappointing because now we have another example of someone who should pay, not paying, thus reinforcing the perception that all people who don't pay are just crackpot evaders who need bringing in line with new legislation.
Because Jetfuel can't melt steel beams.
we were not put on this earth to be forced to pay or hand over a percentage of OUR labour and OUR hard work and OUR toil.
We "pay" our way because we have the State's loaded gun with their monopoly of violence, pointed at OUR heads.
And if we don't hand over OUR wealth to THEM, they will unleash THEIR Police jackboots upon us, fit us up in THEIR system and send us to THEIR rape prisons.
TV licence evasion is classed as an absolute offence so there isn't really any defence once it's established that TV broadcasts were being watched (or recorded) by a certain person at unlicenced premises during a particular time span. Even being completely blind or suffering from advanced dementia wouldn't be a defence.
Although, in a briefing for magistrates, TVL graciously concedes:
'Public interest is rarely served by prosecuting:
Genuine babysitters
Seriously ill, disabled or otherwise mentally incapacitated'
Note the word 'rarely' there.
Post a Comment