Another Lawsuit?

[Unsecured Coins]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/121107_bbc_apologize.htm

BBC To Apologize For 9/11 Truth Hit Piece?

The BBC could be forced to apologize and admit mass public deception for airing a documentary on the 9/11 truth movement that was clearly riddled with errors, lies and bias, as the scandal-hit corporation desperately squirms to avoid a potential court case brought by a British scientist.
John A. Blacker, a qualified physicist & mechanical engineer and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, is currently engaged in a pre-action protocol with the BBC in an attempt to settle out of court and get an apology from the broadcaster as well as a guarantee that the program will never be shown on television again.

"The Conspiracy files team spoke to and recorded the testimony of many eyewitnesses, fire fighters, police officers, and public high witnesses, plus also officialdom high witnesses and had access to written testimony from many high witnesses via official sites on the WWW," writes Blacker. "YET NOT ONE SINGLE HIGH WITNESS WAS PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTARY TO PUT THE TRUTH PERSPECTIVE," he adds.

From what I'm gathering, he's all butt hurt because no "truthers" were interviewed? If that's the case, allow me to consult my legal team on the prospect of suing Dylan for not including Mark Williams' accounts in his "no plane hit the Pentagon" segments of Loose Change

 

[Dave Rogers]

"YET NOT ONE SINGLE HIGH WITNESS WAS PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTARY TO PUT THE TRUTH PERSPECTIVE," he adds.

Can this be taken to mean that the only witnesses putting the truther perspective are the ones that were high?

Dave

 

[BenBurch]

Settling out of court? More likely they will seek legal costs against the "Scholarz."

 

[CurtC]

"The Conspiracy files team spoke to and recorded the testimony of many eyewitnesses, fire fighters, police officers, and public high witnesses, plus also officialdom high witnesses and had access to written testimony from many high witnesses via official sites on the WWW,"

Oh yeah, some scholar he is.

 

[CHF]

"YET NOT ONE SINGLE HIGH WITNESS WAS PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTARY TO PUT THE TRUTH PERSPECTIVE," he adds.

Careful, twoofers!

That's not the best position to take when your case rests largely on quote-mining.

 

[JamesB]

Heh, I love the last line of this guys letter to the beeb:

PS: Why was Prof Judy Wood not asked to explain the 911 physics?

Of course if they did that half the troof movement would be screaming that it was disinfo.

 

[apathoid]

I hope this does see a courtroom, with the BBC counter suing and making the conspiracy guy pay all the court fees. It'd be sort of like Darwinism at work....it can be a beautiful thing.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Ha. Ha. Maybe they will do a "David Irving" on this and the BBC will demolish them at the trial.

 

[rwguinn]

And I thought Extortion by Lawsuit was a purely US phenomenon...
So, frivolous lawsuits are allowed in the UK, huh. You guys have been lying to us all along, eh whot?

 

[leftysergeant]

Maybe the BBC could turn it into another investigative report. As part of the settlement of their countersuit, they could get all the Scholarz research materials and all commercial rights to that material.

I think the British libel laws are a little more stringent than ours. And frivolous law suits are dealt with a bit more harshly.