Feb 26 2013
Before I say anything else, I have to say well done to Tony Rooke for having the balls to stand up and be counted. If there were more like him in this country things would be nowhere near as bad as they are. Having said that; you just know that I am going to piss on his parade… A task, I do not relish, but feel it wrong not to.
Now, for the past week, I have been so wrapped up in this NSPCC case that I haven’t had much time to keep abreast of other matters… Still haven’t for that matter.
Never the less, I was aware that this ‘9/11’ court case was going ahead, but only in so much that I had seen the headlines, not the facts.
So, with that being the case, I was under the impression that Tony was taking the BBC to court over their blatant insider knowledge regarding 9/11 – thus making the beeb a party to terrorism. My interest levels then shot up ten fold when someone sent me the following article yesterday morning (the day of the court case), which had appeared on the www.globalresearch.ca website:
9/11 Court Case in Horsham Today: BBC Must Answer Allegation Regarding the Covering up of Information
Tony Rooke has persuaded the courts that the BBC must answer the allegation that, in covering up information on the 9/11 attacks, they are colluding with terrorism. Many truth activists are planning to attend the three hour hearing in front of a judge at Horsham magistrates court this Monday 25 February at 9.00am.
There are only 30 seats available in the court room and they will be on a first come first serve basis. Some activists will be flying long distance. The hearing will be at The Law Courts, Hurst Road, Horsham West Sussex England RH12 2ET. At least one mainstream media crew will be present but Tony is asking activists not to talk to them and not to hold up placards which do not represent his views.
Please go to bottom to see his message in full. The message to the mainstream media is that Tony will be making a statement after the hearing and they should wait for that. Campaigners are concerned that the media will seek out and interview whoever they can find pedalling a radical 9/11 theory and use them to attempt to discredit months of hard work. This has been a common tactic, for instance from the BBC in their Conspiracy Files programmes. To prevent this happening, organisers intend to physically obstruct interviews with mainstream media outside the court if necessary. Activists attending the hearing are asked to make sure any signs represent the message of this campaign: that the BBC has covered up the truth on 9/11.
Those with signs saying anything that would appear speculative to a general audience (eg 9/11 was an inside job) will be seen as undermining the court case and Tony’s campaign. On the factual side Tony is most concerned to highlight the symmetrical collapse of WTC Building 7, a large portion of which fell at free fall speed and which was announced by the BBC some half hour before it happened. He says the Jimmy Saville scandal shows that the BBC were unable to investigate a child molester in their midst, so it is hardly surprising that they do not have the courage to impartially investigate the crime of the century. ‘Despite recent offers from mainstream sources, Tony Rooke and his defence team feel that this has come all too late and is not consistent with far too many years of indifference towards the scientific facts that incontrovertibly disprove the official account of 9/11.
Illegal wars have come and continue to be fought under the pretext of that day. Civil liberties have been erased along with the countless lives of troops, civilians and children abroad. These overtures of ‘friendly’ interest are not to be trusted. This court case has happened only BECAUSE of mainstream media’s indifference, antipathy and often ridicule towards those who have researched and found the truth of 9/11, in tandem with a conspicuous silence in the face of such overwhelming evidence that disproves the official version. The mainstream press are to be treated with the contempt they deserve. This case is being fought by those whose ONLY interest is in seeing the science of the 9/11 event analysed by a court, a scrutiny of FACTS that SHOULD have been undertaken by the commercial press and the BBC a long time ago.
Any individual who engages in conversation with a demonstrably deceptive mainstream media at Horsham, does NOT speak for myself or the defence team and we disassociate ourselves from those who cannot resist such insincere overtures. Win, lose or draw, we hope that this court case prompts all those who mistrust our media, to engage in similar, peaceful action, until such numbers become impossible to ignore.
The time for ‘research’ is long over. The obvious suspects, complicit in the orchestration and cover-up of 9/11, now need to be questioned by uncorrupted police officers. This will NOT be achieved sat in front of your PC. Ignore ITN, ignore ANY mainstream journalist. They have earned your suspicion.’ Thank you to all who have supported this stand for progress.
Now, having actually taken five minutes to read this article, as I hope you have too, my perceived understanding of the court case was not only re-enforced, but I also actually began to believe that we were finally getting somewhere.
So, fair to say that I was a little bit pissed off when I learned the truth. You see, as you probably already know, the above article is seriously sensationalising the story. The headline alone is very misleading:
9/11 Court Case in Horsham Today: BBC Must Answer Allegation Regarding the Covering up of Information
Since when did the AM, merge with the MSM?
Then, when you first read the article you can’t help but get the impression that this was some sort of test case to indirectly challenge the official version of events surrounding 9/11.
But it wasn’t.
Tony Rooke, wasn’t taking the BBC to court at all. Tony Rooke was being taken to court on behalf of the beeb for not paying his fucking TV licence. Therefore, that fact kinda makes a mockery of the article which contains sentences such as:
- There are only 30 seats available in the court room and they will be on a first come first serve basis. Some activists will be flying long distance.
- The message to the mainstream media is that Tony will be making a statement after the hearing and they should wait for that. Campaigners are concerned that the media will seek out and interview whoever they can find pedalling a radical 9/11 theory and use them to attempt to discredit months of hard work.
- ‘Despite recent offers from mainstream sources, Tony Rooke and his defence team feel that this has come all too late and is not consistent with far too many years of indifference towards the scientific facts that incontrovertibly disprove the official account of 9/11.
“Only 30 seats available”!
That’s 29 too many then by rights.
“Some activists will be flying long distance”!
Why, What do they think is going to happen?
“Months of hard work”!
Fair play to Tony for standing his ground, but where is the hard work? He deliberately withheld his Licence fee money – as you should all be doing – on the basis that the BBC are assisting terrorists. The TV Licence inspectors are cunts and took him to court. Where is the hard work?
“Tony Rooke and his defence team feel this has all come to late”!
What ‘defence team’, he represented himself?
Now please, please don’t think that I am belittling Tony. I get what he was trying to do, but fuck me, lets get it in perspective. It wasn’t a test case to challenge the official version of 9/11 at all!
That fact is actually made quite clear once the initial excitement wears off and you read the article again:
‘Tony is asking activists not to talk to them and not to hold up placards which do not represent his views’.
Logic tells you that Tony can only be referring to placards with slogans such as ‘9/11 was an inside job’. Therefore, if that isn’t representative of his views, then Tony must buy into the official version.
Bit of a kick in the bollocks for those globe trotting activists then.
So, how did it go in court?
According to Tony it was a “score draw”.
According to Spivey it wasn’t.
It was in fact a fucking disaster. Tony had arrived in court intent on having a film show. Yet he wasn’t even allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial.
Ob-fucking-jection your Ponceness. How can he rule it irrelevant if he hasn’t fucking seen it?
Then, the Judge told him before he had even looked at Tony’s other evidence that he was still going to find him guilty… Fucking Hell, how much of a fuck you is that?
Apparently, Judge Kiddie Fiddler didn’t even look at the evidence in court. He fucked off back to his torture chamber to do it. I don’t expect he took too long to read it while drinking his whisky laced cup of tea and watching Jeremy Kyle on ITV plus 1.
Judge Fiddler then re-entered the court and promptly sentenced Tony, whom I imagine before yesterday didn’t have a criminal record, to a 6 month conditional discharge and £200 court costs.
Outside court, Tony pointed out to the jet lagged activists that he had held his own with the Judge since he hadn’t received a fine. Had he held the Judges instead of his own, the outcome could have maybe been different… And that £200 quid court costs must surely smart a bit.
Furthermore, since Tony now has to pay his Licence fee – which, also has to smart – no matter which way I look at it, Judge K Fiddler ‘done’ Tony ‘up like a kipper’.
That sad fact aside, to Tony, I say at least you have balls mate. But, to those in the AM who bigged this case up out of all proportion, I have to say… Get a fucking grip for fucks sake.
‘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 made Rooke pay £200 costs and gave him conditional discharge
By Mark Duell
PUBLISHED: 18:49, 25 February 2013 | UPDATED: 18:51, 25 February 2013
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 Act states 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.
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”?
‘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.More…
- 9/11 victim’s family attacks Zero Dark Thirty on eve of Oscars and demands public apology after film used a recording of her voice against their wishes
- Hate preacher Abu Qatada’s family wins ‘anti-harassment’ injunction against people wanting to protest outside their home
- Pakistan banks on ‘B-Company’ as Indian Mujahideen oust Dawood as ISI’s go-to terror outfit
‘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.
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’
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’.