UK Man Wins Case Against BBC 9/11 Cover Up [Pic]

Submitted by: monkwarrior 2 years ago in

TV licence evader refused to pay because the "BBC covered up facts about 9/11 and claimed tower fell 20 minutes before it did"

  • Tony Rooke represented himself at Horsham Magistrates" Court in Sussex
  • Told inspector on visit in May 2012 that he would not be paying licence fee
  • Rooke said he was withholding fee under Section 15 of Terrorism Act 2000
  • This states it"s an offence for someone to provide funds used for terrorism
  • He said he didn"t want to give money to an organisation "funding terrorism"
  • Rooke said BBC claimed World Trade Centre 7 fell 20 minutes before it did
  • But judge madeRookepay 200 costs and gave him conditional discharge

PUBLISHED: 25 February 2013

Wouldn

Wouldn"t pay: Tony Rooke (pictured at Horsham Magistrates" Court today), did not want to give money to an organisation "funding the practice of terrorism"

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.

Tony Rooke, who represented himself today at Horsham Magistrates Court in West Sussex, said he did not want to give money to an organisation "funding the practice of terrorism".

Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay 200 costs.

He was visited in May 2012 by an inspector after withdrawing his licence in March, but said he was withholding the funds under the Terrorism Act.

Section 15 of the 2000 Actstates that it is an offence for someone to invite another to provide money, intending that it should be used, or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for terrorism purposes.

"I am withholding all funds from the BBC, the Government and subsidiaries under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, he told the inspector.

He added that he had already lodged a complaint with the BBC.

Rooke told the court: "I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the licence fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect. I do not use this word lightly given where I am."

He was not allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial.

But the major point Rooke said he relied upon was that the BBC allegedly reported that World Trade Centre 7 had fallen 20 minutes before it did.

Fan base: Around 100 supporters of Tony Rooke arrived at Horsham Magistrates

Fan base: Around 100 supporters of Tony Rooke arrived at Horsham Magistrates" Court in West Sussex to watch the court case - although only 40 could pack into the public gallery

He also made reference to a theory about the way the skyscraper was said to have fallen in on itself, which some people believe showed signs of a controlled demolition.

Mr Rooke said: "The BBC reported it 20 minutes before it fell. They knew about it beforehand. Last time I was here I asked you (the judge): Were you aware of World Trade Centre 7?

Happy: Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was

Happy: Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was "pleased" with the outcome, "all things considered"

You said you had heard of it. Ten years later you should have more than heard of it. It"s the BBC"s job to inform the public. Especially of miracles of science and when laws of physics become suspended.

They have made programmes making fools of and ridiculing those of us who believe in the laws of gravity. American reports have shown that the fall was nothing but a controlled demolition.

I am not looking at who demolished it - that is impossible - but the BBC actively tried to hide this from the public."

Not paying a TV licence under Section 363 of the Communications Act is a strict liability offence, said Garth Hanniford, prosecuting. He asked Rooke why he continued to watch the BBC with no licence.

Rooke said: "Ignorance is not an excuse - I need to know what these people are saying." He later added: "You are asking me to commit a crime if you are asking me to pay."

Around 100 supporters arrived at Horsham Magistrates Court today to watch the court case - although only 40 could pack into the public gallery.

The court called in back-up from Sussex Police with two officers standing at the door to the court and several more outside. There was cheering and applause as Rooke put his case forward in court.

Flashback: This is a grab from BBC World

Flashback: This is a grab from BBC World"s breaking news coverage of the September 11 attacks in 2001

District Judge Stephen Nicholls said: "This is not a public inquiry into 9/11. This is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act."

He said he had difficulty sitting in the magistrates court as he "did not believe he had the power to rule under the terrorism act".

"I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the licence fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect. I do not use this word lightly given where I am"- Tony Rooke -

He said: "Even if I accept the evidence you say, this court has no power to create a defence in the manner which you put forward."

Sentencing, Judge Nicholls said: "Mr Rooke puts the basis of his defence under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, effectively asking the court to find the BBC is a terrorist organisation and that if he continues to pay them he himself is committing a criminal offence.

"I have explained to Mr Rooke even if I were to accept his evidence I would be unable to find a defence."

Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was "pleased" with the outcome, "all things considered".


The "official story" continues to crumble apart in slow mo"!
Credits: source
There are 36 comments:
Male 1,421
As much as i hate tv licenses in principle, if it means we have one neutral channel: hell i`d pay double. it is also forced on people, not very good thing but sometimes, things need to be done without the fear of money running out. Specially important journalism. We don`t have FOX type news channels.. They can`t exist when there is no"left wing / right wing tv" but one channel that stands apart from those issues... Try lying when one channel doesn`t take the bait but simply says "that is a lie" and the people believe the latter..

I love YLE.
0
Reply
Male 1,421
BTW, tv license, as backwards and as "governement intrusion" is may seem, the side-effect is actually a tv station that is free from commercial pressures (free to experiment, free to put out programs that do not attract great audience but need to be done) but also free of government pressures, they are the ones in Europe that make the largest noise bout corruption and shady politicians. The commercial channel only pick those stories if they are interested in slander or they have no other option. The only news i trust is the tv license/government grant based public tv station; they have NO need to bow down to anyone... The most groundbreaking, the most artistic, the shows that dare to challenge old values: all comes from those broadcast companies. Hollywood then picks those up in 2-3 years after they have been tested here, on government money.. Think about that...
0
Reply
Male 1,421
Who was the moron who submitted this? The title is literally false. If i didn`t know better, i would suspect an agenda behind the submitter, which case make the false title not accidental but either A: the person really is a moron or B: he is deliberately lying. I`m voting for touch of A and whole lot of B.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]But Drawman, seriously?[/quote]

Where the hell have you been??

[quote]Whatever dude, your tin foil hat is becoming more visible by the day.[/quote]

Once again where the hell have you been. He`s one of the worst. Have you seen the things he`s submitted it`d be funny if it weren`t so sad.
0
Reply
Male 660
Where did it say he won? It didn`t he got a conditional discharge and paid costs. i.e pay for the license fee or gett he full punishment.

As for the 9/11 BS the judge clearly stated it was irrelevant and was not going to get into it.

This does nothing to prove anything much like most of the "truther" "evidence"
0
Reply
Male 1,397
Good Lad!!!
0
Reply
Female 7,994
Yeah- i added in the bit you have to click on iplayer. if you declare you have no license you havee to wait until the programm e has finished to watch,
0
Reply
Male 3,147
lol, I was just reading that licence page from that link. This is what they say about the military position on licencing.

"The Ministry of Defence fully supports us in applying the law regarding TV Licensing"


Yeah right... nearly every base I`ve lived on there`s been at least a few days notice of an impending inspection. Usually something along the lines of `the tv detector vans (they still called them that even when it was just a guy with a clipboard coming round checking) will be round on such a day... make sure you`ve got a licence or there is no tv visible in your room`

The implication being if you didn`t want to buy a licence, make sure you stored your tv in a locked wardrobe that day. btw, say there are 20 rooms in a barrack block, and 20 tvs. that is 20 licences needed, not one package deal price where you can all club together to buy one. I thought that was unfair at the time
0
Reply
Male 3,147
"If you needed a licence merely for possessing the equipment, everyone with any computer with a screen and an internet connection (which would include almost all modern mobile phones) would need a TV licence for that."

True.... but they do try and check if you have one when you buy a tv or pc. e.g. buy a pc here in the uk from a large firm like pc world they tell you they need your postcode.. that data is passed on to check if that postcode holds a valid tv licence. It`s a lot cheaper way of finding out where the tvs are if you try and get their location at point of sale.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
For supporting evidence, here is the relevant page on the official TV licensing website:

Straight from the horse`s mouth
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Okay- the rule is that you need a license to receive TV through an aerial- OR to watch BBC live. In the not too distant past all tvs had an internal tuner which picked up via an aerial- so it was the equipment NOT the use. Things have moved on a bit now, but basically even if you don`t use it, if your equipment can get TV as it is broadcast you must have the license.[/quote]

That`s another variation on the common misunderstanding.

You don`t need a licence merely for possessing equipment capable of recieving and displaying TV as it`s broadcast.

You only need a licence if you watch or record TV as it`s being broadcast.

If you needed a licence merely for possessing the equipment, everyone with any computer with a screen and an internet connection (which would include almost all modern mobile phones) would need a TV licence for that.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Damn, if that`s true and the BBC did report the fall of WTC 7 20 min before it actually fell[/quote]

That would indeed be incontrovertible evidence of prior knowledge if it was true...but it isn`t true. Believing it to be true is an act of faith for conspiracy believers.

The thread title is a similar example of how conspiracy believers have faith in the truth of things that can be and have been proven to be untrue - the man *lost* his case. It even says so in the article that it links to - he was fined *because he lost the case*. Being found guilty of what you`re charged with and being fined for it is not winning your case. But conspiracy believers (and other kinds of political activists) know that lying can be politically useful even when it`s that blatant.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Not being a Brit, I will take a stab at this... As I understand it, in the UK you Pay to have a TV. Not just to buy it, which is a totally separate cost, but you have to pay to have a functioning television in your home so that you can watch it.[/quote]

Your stab misses. Not really your fault - it`s a false statement very often claimed to be true so it`s not at all surprising that some people think it is true, especially overseas.

You need a TV licence in the UK if you watch TV as it`s being broadcast. The reason is that the BBC in the UK does *not* have any adverts (other than brief ones between programs and only for other BBC programs).
0
Reply
Male 3,147
Monkwarrior, I`m interested to know your thoughts on this now it`s been pointed out several times that he lost this case, not won it as you mistakenly took from reading the article.
0
Reply
Male 1,412
Thanks for clarifying my loose understanding of how the BBC tax works.
0
Reply
Female 7,994
No dog licenses any more- but it must have a tag. Okay- the rule is that you need a license to receive TV through an aerial- OR to watch BBC live. In the not too distant past all tvs had an internal tuner which picked up via an aerial- so it was the equipment NOT the use. Things have moved on a bit now, but basically even if you don`t use it, if your equipment can get TV as it is broadcast you must have the license. It is strongly suspected this will change to reflect modern usage- but support for some kind of public funding is quite good... the BBC sells well abroad and its remit means it makes some excellent stuff free from the popularity one which broadcasters such as SKY face,
0
Reply
Male 671
`Ignorance is not an excuse - I need to know what these people are saying.`

Cool story, bro.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
as an aside, do you still need a dog licence in the UK? I remember as a kid being sent to the post office to buy one.
0
Reply
Male 1,497
Needing a license for a TV odd. Is it the act of owning one or is it the getting cable?
Would someone using a TV solely for a PS4 need to pay?
0
Reply
Male 3,147
Orlitoq, that wasn`t a bad stab at it. The receiver has to be capable of picking up live transmissions. LJ, I think some people have won cases (or they`d stopped persuing them) if they could demonstrate that their vhs machines and tvs were only used to watch commercial vhs tapes and not live transmissions. I`m sure I read about one guy who physically disabled the tuner in his tv and could prove conclusively the set wasn`t capable of getting or recording the live transmissions.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@drawman

Whatever dude, your tin foil hat is becoming more visible by the day.
0
Reply
Male 3,147
"Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay 200 costs."

Yeah... he won the drat out of it huh.
0
Reply
Male 4,039
The funniest part was the BBC reporter was in front of a live feed that showed building seven standing in the background when she made the announcement.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Orlitoq,

I believe that BBC America has advertising, but you don`t have to pay the fee. No adverts in the UK. I can see a lot of arguments against the fee and I`ve opted out of paying it by replacing my telly with book shelves but I think there is a lot to be said for a non-commercial public service broadcaster. Ratings obiously matter but they are not central so risks can be taken and shows can be allowed to grow even if they dont initially hit the numbers.

Compare the Discovery Channel to the BBC Natural History Department. Or the History Channel to the BBC`s history output. That`s value for money right there.

There needs to be a funding system which is fair but does not depend on the market or slavishly chasing rating.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Damn, some of the comments. One expects it of MonkWarrior (aka 747Pilot) and Agent00Smith because that`s what they do. But Drawman, seriously? The BBC was part of a conspiracy to blow up the WTC? How would that even work?

0
Reply
Female 7,994
Orlitog- no advertising on the BBC itself. But this is the most desperate attempt to avoid the fee I have heard in a while,stupid arse.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
He didnt win his case. He was given a coditional discharge and had to pay 200 quid in costs. A conditional discharge, btw, means he was found guilty but no conviction is registered as long as the defendant agrees to certain conditions, usually for two or three years. Effectively probation. It stays on your criminal record for three years after completinfg probation. It tends to be used in very trivial cases, like this one. So, no he did not win. He was found guilty and told to pay costs and bugger off. The article does not specify the conditions.

And why the hell would any putative conspiracy feel the need to bring the BBC into the mix?

BTW, the licence fee is on its way out. The way people use media has changed so much. I got rid of my telly a couple of years ago because I can get all the content I want on-line.
0
Reply
Male 40,277
Stupid "anti-terror" laws come back and bite the Gov`t in the butt?
Sweet! :-)

0
Reply
Male 7,774
Orlitoq, you are on the right lines. This license dates back to when we only had the BBC for our tv and radio. Between them and the government they came up with the money-making idea of to own either you had to have a license.
Even if you owned a VCR and no TV you were deemed to own a receiver.
Today everything is digital only - no analogue - so channels can easily be scrambled. Yet the BBC license fee is still in force.
You can choose to pay for a subscription to Sky, BT etc for sports, movies and so on but, f*** you, pay the BBC license fee whether you watch it or not.
ITV, the commercial channel gets its revenue from advertising.
Still beyond me why this nation of tv addicts never stands up against this enforced tax.
0
Reply
Male 1,412
@robthelurker

Not being a Brit, I will take a stab at this... As I understand it, in the UK you Pay to have a TV. Not just to buy it, which is a totally separate cost, but you have to pay to have a functioning television in your home so that you can watch it. Either the television companies, or the government polices these licences, and have absolutely no sense of humor about it.

You still get advertising too!
0
Reply
Male 7,774
Cajun247, Miscommunication? You keep telling yourself that if it makes your world feel safer.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Oh please the NYFD were evacuating people by then, and were thinking that it could collapse. By the time BBC got wind of it, they most likely heard that it did thanks to miscommunication.

In other words the BBC is being labeled a terrorist organization for misstating the facts because, somehow, they knew the WTC was going to be attacked around the time. Witch hunt much? In the same vein I suppose now the US Federal Govt should start putting NPR and PBS personnel on no fly lists who`ve said kind things about certain terrorists?

I`ll hope they`ll appeal this, it`s ridiculous. You "truthers" are just grasping at straws now.
0
Reply
Male 410
Damn, if that`s true and the BBC did report the fall of WTC 7 20 min before it actually fell......well draw your own conclusions. I believe there is way more to the whole 9/11 incident to begin with and so this doesn`t actually surprise me one bit.
0
Reply
Male 2,579
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha
0
Reply
Male 3,614
what the drat is a tv license?
0
Reply
Male 4,691
Link: UK Man Wins Case Against BBC 9/11 Cover Up [Pic] [Rate Link] - The `official story` continues to crumble apart in slow mo`!
0
Reply