By Ian Henshall February 27th 2013. Find Article Here:-
Campaigner and film maker Tony Rooke claimed a moral victory today after a UK court gave him a conditional discharge even though he has refused to pay his BBC license fee. Over 100 supporters from as far away as Denmark and Norway cheered in front of the court house as independent media people conducted interviews and photographed the crowd. Court officials had booked their largest room for the case but were at a loss to find that well over 50 people could not be fitted in.
Tony said: “I am taken a back and hugely grateful for all the support.” He is asking for at least one person to take up the campaign by refusing to pay or taking other legal action (see below).
Rooke argued that the BBC’s coverage of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York has been so distorted that it amounts to giving aid and comfort to the unidentified terrorists who demolished three World Trade Centre buildings in 2001. Two hijacked planes were flown into the famous Twin Towers and a third tower WTC7 collapsed later in the day. The attacks were used as the pretext for a decade of wars and the introduction of police state measures across the NATO countries. Vast personal fortunes were made by White House and CIA officials who failed to thwart 9/11.
The official 9/11 story was promulgated by the US media within minutes of the first collision, based on anonymous sources in the Bush White House. Despite a mass of new evidence coming to light in the intervening years the story has never changed and holds that the destruction was entirely caused by a band of Muslim fanatics, they succeeded without any help, and were organised by the notorious Osama Bin Laden who it is admitted was once a CIA agent. A man described as Osama Bin Laden was captured, assassinated and deposited in the ocean by US forces in Pakistan two years ago.
Sceptics say that the collapse of WTC7 must have been the result of something more than limited fires and damage from the Twin Towers, hit by the two hijacked planes. Argument has revolved around the speed of the collapse. In the BBC Conspiracy Files series, which endorsed every aspect of the official 9/11 story, it was stated that the building did not collapse at free fall speed, but later US officials were forced by video evidence to admit that it did just that.
A large group of over 1500 architects and engineers known as AE911 say that free fall collapse implies that the building had all its supports removed at the same instant which can only happen with a controlled demolition. Tony Rooke’s legal argument is that in failing to correct their free fall misinformation and many other misstatements of fact, the BBC are a party to covering up the terrorists who organised the controlled demolition of WTC7.
The BBC has also failed to publicise the finding of Richard Clarke, head of counter terrorism at the White House in 2001. Two years ago Clarke made a bombshell announcement: in the weeks before 9/11 a secret “decision” must have been taken at the CIA to over rule FBI officers who wanted to arrest some of the people who according to the official story went on to commit the attacks. Clarke says that if this decision had not been made the 9/11 attacks would not have happened. Before Clarke went public the BBC programme makers were adamant this was a “conspiracy theory”. Afterwards they failed to give it any prominence and failed to reinterview any of the officials who, if Clarke is right, must have lied to them.
Back in Horsham Magistrates Court campaigners have been planning future tactics. Tony Rook’s victory, helped by lawyer Mahtab Aziz, implies that the BBC has a case to answer, but expert witnesses including Danish associate professor Niels Harrit were not called due to legal technicalities. However the District Judge would have read their statements before the hearing and taken them into account.
Conditional discharges are often used in political cases to indicate that the accused, though technically guilty, occupies the moral high ground. In addition the case provides a yardstick that can be raised by future campaigners. On the other hand because he has not been convicted, Tony cannot appeal and force the courts to scrutinise the highly questionable activities of the BBC as a conduit for CIA propaganda.
It’s now essential for Tony’s campaign that at least one person should take up the baton, refuse to pay their licence fee and appeal any conviction. Anyone interested should contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org
Televisions have never looked better – and they’ve never sounded worse. That’s the verdict from a growing number of aficionados and increasingly from the public too. Little wonder more and more users are choosing to upgrade the sound quality of their TVs with extra kit.
Chief among the complaints has been that dialogue is increasingly hard to hear; such criticism may often be put down to deafness, but in fact it’s sometimes also due to the way TVs process sound. Speakers using simple left and right channels neglect the fact that speech in films is easier to hear if its given a separate, third channel of its own. As TVs with straightforward stereo combine the dialogue with the rest of the sound, its clarity is lost.
And as TVs are now marketed on their ultra-slim designs, with their miniature profiles as much a part of their supposed appeals as the quality of the picture, the problem has been exacerbated. So the space for speakers, previously hidden in enormous cabinets, has shrunk to almost nothing. Some mobile phones are now thicker than TVs, and the quality of sound has suffered.
That’s why the market for “soundbars” – slimline arrays of speakers that fit beneath TVs – has grown by 60 per cent in a year, compared to three per cent for the overall “home theatre” market. That’s in large part due to consumers rejecting the complexity of hi-fi set ups that require several remote controls and a complex spider’s web of cables to link them all together.
This week, audio brand Sonos joined Bose in offering a soundbar aimed at the increasing number of people who realise that their expensive new televisions may offer HD pictures, but don’t offer matching sound quality.
The Sonos Playbar will sell for £599 and goes on sale on 5 March; Bose’s equivalent comes with a subwoofer and costs £1,300. Both, however, seek to address a market that is clearly already spending a substantial amount on TV equipment. The Sonos model can be connected to the company’s own subwoofer and a pair of additional speakers to create a full “surround-sound” option. Perhaps most crucially, they also connect to internet radio and a user’s music collection, meaning that in theory a user could improve the sound quality in their living room while also rendering the hifi redundant. It’s a neat solution.
By Colin Marshall January 24th 2013. Find Article and 13min Video Here:-
S.G. Collins doesn’t trust the United States government. They “lie all the time, about all kinds of things,” he insists, “and if they haven’t lied to you today, maybe they haven’t had coffee yet.” Like some of those who express a similar distrust, he claims he has no way to verify that NASA landed on the moon in 1969. But unlike most of that subset, he doesn’t think the government could have pulled off a convincing hoax about it. In other words, America “did have the technical ability, not to mention the requisite madness, to send three guys to the moon and back. They did not have the technology to fake it on video.” Calmly, methodically, with a deadpan wit, Collins uses the thirteen minutes of Moon Hoax Not to explain exactly why, as improbable as the real moon landing sounds, a fake moon landing would have been downright impossible.
“The later you were born,” Collins says, “the more all-powerful movie magic seems.” Hollywood could now fake dozens of moon landings every day, but they didn’t always have that ability. Marshaling knowledge accrued over thirty years as a photographer, he addresses each of the points that moon-landing conspiracy theorists commonly cite as visual evidence of the supposed fraud. He also brings to bear facts from the history of video technology, such as 1969′s complete lack of the high-speed video cameras, needed to shoot the sort of slow motion necessary to create the illusion of low gravity. And what if they’d shot the entire Apollo 11 telecast on film instead? Collins also knows, and names, exactly the problems even the most ambitious, technologically advanced charlatans would have encountered, even—as in moon-landing hoax mockumentary Dark Side of the Moon—with Stanley Kubrick on their side.
Millions expected to suffer from interference.
Thousands of British homes will have to be reconnected to the television network – at a cost of up to £10,000 a time – after it emerged that interference from the new 4th-generation mobile phone network would wipe out their TV signals.
More than two million households near new base stations will suffer problems ranging from distortion to complete blackouts when the networks begin to share the spectrum currently used by digital terrestrial television (DTT) in the middle of next year.
Ministers will be forced to spend £180m on re-establishing television services to those homes closest to the base stations. The communications minister Ed Vaizey has confirmed that the 500 worst-affected households will receive up to £10,000 each from a special fund put together to deal with widespread 4G interference expected in the coming years.
Critics including MPs, broadcasters and unions have warned that families who rely on Freeview will find themselves victims of the lucrative auction of 4G licences within months.
Ruling raises questions about the ability of the American justice system to seize material held by media outside the United States.
The BBC has been ordered by an American court to surrender unused footage filmed for a documentary about former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to American victims of suicide bombings in Israel.
In a ruling which raises questions about the ability of the American justice system to seize material held by media organisations outside the United States, a judge in New York said the Corporation was obliged to hand over outtakes from interviews with two Palestinian fighters.
It now has until 1 October to lodge a further appeal or produce the material along with a sworn statement from a BBC employee confirming its authenticity. The Corporation said yesterday it was still considering the ruling.
The material is being sought by lawyers representing victims and relatives of those killed by suicide bombs in attacks around Jerusalem. The group is attempting to bring a civil damages claim against the Palestinian Authority and others for allegedly funding terrorist groups behind the bombings.
The victims believe that the BBC interviews with a leader of Fatah, the political movement founded by Arafat, and an alleged terrorist in the Al Aqsa Brigades in the West Bank city of Jenin, contain statements which will help prove a link between the bombings and the PA and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).
The BBC resisted the application, arguing that complying with the demand would compromise its editorial independence and damage its ability to gather news.
The judgment will have the effect of forcing a non-American broadcaster to surrender unbroadcast footage from a documentary – Arafat Investigated – made almost a decade ago for a British audience.
BBC Covers Up War Crimes – Misleads Over Syrian Security Operations.
Update: Indeed BBC did not see “MIGs” bombing Aleppo, though it appears they weren’t even anti-tank SU-25’s but rather training aircraft. Aero L-39 Albatros are also not even “Russian-made” as the BBC claimed. The article below has been amended to reflect this information.
When big lies must be told, BBC is there. From Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya and now Syria, BBC has paved the way for Western disinformation meant to mange public perception around a war the public would otherwise never support or tolerate.
The BBC, caught on record producing entire “documentaries” on behalf of corporate-financier interests, has already been caught in immense lies regarding the NATO-fueled destabilization of Syria. This includes the disingenuous use of photos from Iraq, to depict a so-called “massacre” in the village of Houla, Syria.
Now, as NATO’s Al Qaeda mercenaries operating under the banner of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” flow over the Turkish-Syrian border in an attempt to overrun the city of Aleppo, BBC is there, attempting to manipulate the public’s perception as the conflict unfolds.
BBC’s Ian Pannell admits he rode with a convoy of militant fighters into Aleppo at night. He claims many are desperate for the FSA to succeed, “clamoring for freedom denied by their president,” but concedes many others fear an “Islamic takeover” and sectarian “division and bloodshed.” The latter of course, is self-evident, while the former is the repeated, unfounded mantra of the Western media used to cover up the latter.
Pannell poses amongst staged settings, claiming a single burning tire equates to a barricade set up by the militants (see more on the use of burning tires as propaganda here and here). He concedes that militants are taking to the rooftops with sniper rifles in the districts they claim they control – begging one to wonder where else terrorist snipers have been, and how many “sniper” deaths have been mistakenly blamed on the government.
Published: 18th July, 2012. Find Article Here:-
The BBC is considering making an appeal against a court order which stopped it from broadcasting a dramatized film on last year’s riots in London.
The film, which features actors portraying anonymous rioters sharing their experience of the events, was due to be broadcast on Monday evening, but was banned by a court order hours before hitting the airwaves
Its script was written by award-winning playwright Alecky Blythe and is based on interviews from some 270 people conducted by the Guardian and London School of Economics as part of a study into the massive public disorder.
The first installment of The Riots: In their own Words focuses on rioters, while the second film of the two-part series shares the impressions of police officers on duty at the time.
Both were banned from being broadcast by a court ruling, which BBC lawyers now plan to appeal against, reports the Guardian. The newspaper says for legal reasons it cannot report the name of the judge who made the controversial ruling, the court in which it was done or the case he was presiding over.
Little detail was disclosed on the content of the ruling itself. The British newspaper cites it as saying: “It is ordered that the BBC programme ‘The Riots: In their Own Words’ due for broadcast on BBC 2 tonight is not broadcast by any media by any means until further order.”
The ruling also ordered the BBC to remove a clip promoting the film from its website, which the broadcaster did. The clip, previously available on a blog posted last Friday, featured a BBC producer saying that the “important and illuminating” interviews in the drama would provide insight into “why and how the riots had happened”.
After the court ruling arrived the BBC said it would put the program out at a later date. The film was part of the company’s package prepared for the coverage of the one year anniversary of the August 2011 riots in Britain.
What started as peaceful protest in Tottenham erupted into five nights of violence, looting and a subsequent police crackdown. Five people were killed and more than 2,500 shops and businesses damaged. Over a thousand people received jail for their part in the disorder.