Get Informed

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Matt Campbell Versus BBC Cover-up of 9/11 Evidence

Written by Peter Drew

UK citizen Matt Campbell lost his brother in the North Tower on 9/11. Over the last few years Matt has been on a campaign to find some justice for his brother's murder and to help expose the evidence that the US and British governments, and the media have covered up. As part of this campaign, on March 23rd Matt went to court in Hastings against the BBC as he refused to pay his TV licence fees on the basis that the BBC has deliberately covered up incontrovertible evidence relating to how his brother was murdered. Here is a summary of the outcome of that court case as well as some searching questions for the BBC and the British government.

Matt Campbell's legal position with the BBC

Matt Campbell's position was that he believed he had reasonable cause to suspect that his TV licence was inappropriate because of the BBC's continued cover up of incontrovertible scientific and forensic evidence regarding 9/11, and in particular the evidence supporting the controlled demolition of WTC Building 7.

As such, Mr Campbell believed that he had a situation of conflict of law where if he obeyed the law which required him to pay his TV licence fee then he would also be in breach of Section 15 of the 2000 Terrorism Act which makes it illegal to provide financial support to any organisation which supports terrorism. If the BBC is covering up incontrovertible evidence about 9/11 then they are supporting terrorism. Therefore by paying his TV licence fee he would be committing a serious crime.

For refusing to pay his TV licence Mr Campbell was charged with the crime of not having an appropriate TV licence. Mr Campbell therefore went to court wishing to plead not guilty to that charge because he believed he had reasonable cause to suspect that the TV licence was not appropriate due to the 2000 Terrorism Act and the BBC's continued cover up of evidence about 9/11. He wished to argue that he would be happy to pay his TV licence fee so long as it didn't get paid to the BBC because that would put him in conflict with the 2000 Terrorism Act.

Unfortunately the Hasting Magistrates Court did not even allow Mr Campbell to put this argument forward and present his evidence to support that position. The court simply made Mr Campbell's case a situation of 'Strict Liability', which simply asked the question of whether Mr Campbell had or hadn't been paying his TV licence fee, to which Mr Campbell had no choice but to plead guilty. Mr Campbell was fined £75 and asked to pay court costs of £320 despite a precedent having already been set two years ago by Tony Rooke for such a case to receive a conditional discharge.

tony rooke"A 49-year-old man refused to pay his TV licence because he believed the BBC covered up facts about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Read more: TV licence evader refused to pay because the 'BBC covered up facts about 9/11 and claimed tower fell 20 minutes before it did'," DailyMail.comThe implications of that court decision are quite profound. If hypothetically Mr Campbell's evidence did prove that the BBC was covering up key evidence about 9/11 then the Hastings Magistrates Court has essentially forced Mr Campbell to breach the 2000 Terrorism Act and commit a serious crime.

Does this make the Hastings Magistrates Court guilty of a crime also?

If hypothetically the BBC did decide to support terrorist activity by covering up key evidence, what legal avenue is there for someone to challenge whether the BBC is in breach of the 2000 Terrorism Act or not? On the basis of this court case, it would seem that the BBC is legally immune from this type of accountability for potentially supporting terrorism.

Other methods of holding the BBC accountable for supporting terrorism

If official legal channels are not possible for holding the BBC to account for potentially supporting terrorism, are there any other methods for holding them accountable?

The BBC and the British Government have told us that this can be done through the BBC's formal complaints process. So let's have a look at what the result was of that official process, because this process was also attempted at length by members of the public.

  1. In 2012 members of the public challenged the BBC's cover up of 9/11 evidence through the BBC's official complaints process via the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit. This was subsequently supported by more than 500 members of the public submitting letters of support to the BBC Trust
  2. Despite extensive documentation of clear and blatant breaches of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines, the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit determined that the BBC had no case to answer regarding the cover up of 9/11 evidence
  3. The public complainants then took their complaint to the House of Commons Media Committee, a committee charged with ensuring appropriate operating standards by the British media. The response of that committee was that it was not within their jurisdiction to take action on an issue like this. This was despite that very same Media Committee having recently taken very strong action against the BBC's cover up of the Jimmy Savile scandal. The Media Committee said that if individual's had a complaint with the BBC then they would need to raise it with their local MP
  4. Approximately 40 members of the public then contacted their local MP raising this complaint and providing the evidence. Most MP's simply brushed it off. However, several MP's did raise these complaints with the BBC and were informed that the BBC has a formal complaints process which should be used for these types of complaints.

So the process goes full circle and back to square one. Therefore we have to conclude that if the BBC decided to engage in a cover up of terrorist evidence or engage in terrorist propaganda, it is simply impossible for the public to hold the BBC to account for this through any internal complaint processes or through official legal channels.

On the basis of Matt Campbell's court case, the legal system will force the public to continue to provide financial support to an organisation that is supporting terrorist activity and force the public to commit a serious crime and breach Section 15 of the 2000 Terrorism Act.

Some key questions for the BBC in light of the above

  1. If hypothetically some rogue elements within the BBC or controlling the BBC decided to engage in a process of supporting some specific terrorist activity, what should be the public's process of response bearing in mind what has been outlined above? How should they try to challenge the BBC on their support of terrorist activity?
  2. In November 2008, NIST, the official investigators into the collapse of the three towers on 9/11, officially admitted that WTC Building 7 collapsed at free fall acceleration for at least part of its collapse. As 2,300 professional architects and engineers have signed their professional names to, free fall can only occur through controlled demolition, which means that other terrorists had to have been involved on 9/11. Why hasn't the BBC informed the public about this incredible announcement by NIST? Why wasn't this headline news on the BBC when it was announced by NIST, especially since the BBC had previously informed the public that free fall had not actually occurred? Why hasn't the BBC gone to NIST and asked them for an explanation as to how free fall could have occurred and what the implications are for that finding?
  3. Since 9/11 the BBC has shown numerous documentaries about the collapse of the towers on 9/11 and discussed whether or not explosives were involved. The BBC's summary outcome of those documentaries has always been that the evidence doesn't support the use of explosives for controlled demolition. As part of these various documentaries we need to ask the BBC the following questions:
    1. Why hasn't the BBC informed the public about NIST's announcement of free fall of WTC Building 7 which proves controlled demolition?
    2. Why hasn't the BBC informed the public about the 118 official eye-witness testimonies by frontline fire fighters and police officers on 9/11 stating that they heard or saw explosions going off in all three towers
    3. Why did the BBC edit out sounds of huge explosions in WTC Building 7 just before it collapsed and then say there was no evidence of explosions? Why did they also edit out the footage of a police officer asking the public to 'move it back, the building is about to blow up'

More than 500 members of the public sent this information to the BBC and demanded that the BBC show it. Why hasn't the BBC shown this information, and why have they instead covered up this information?

On the basis of this, why should the public continue to fund the BBC when it deliberately covers up evidence like this which supports terrorists to get away with their crime?

Why aren't those at the BBC who are responsible for this incredible cover up being arrested and tried for treason?

Peter Drew
UK Coordinator – Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth


Related Events
No events

Actions

find your coordinator 8ac61

Subscriptions Banner

donation form banner

No events

BlueBar b5252