Posts
9/11
Truth has become less relevent, except as history, but we can
celebrate minor victories like this
BBC
Foreknowledge of 9/11 Collapse of WTC Building Seven: British Man Won
Law Suit against BBC for 9/11 Cover Up
10
March, 2014
Horsham,
UK, 2013 – Tony Rooke, in an act of civil disobedience, refused to
pay the mandatory £130 TV license fee claiming it violates Section
15 of the Terrorism Act. Rooke’s accusation was aimed at the BBC
who reported the collapse of WTC 7 over 20 minutes before it actually
fell, and the judge accepted Rooke’s argument. While it was not a
public inquiry into 9/11, the recognition of the BBC’s actions on
September 11th are considered a small victory, one that was never
reported in the US.
“Today
was an historic day for the 9/11 truth movement,”
Peter Drew of AE911Truth UK told Digital Journal, “with
over 100 members of the public attending, including numerous
journalists from around the UK as well as from across other parts of
Europe.”
Under Section
363 of the Communications Act,
citizens of the UK are required to purchase an annual license in
order to use a television receiver. Rooke refused to pay the license
fee due to a section of the Terrorism Act that states:
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.
The
fact that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty-three minutes
before it actually fell indicates that the UK was aware of the
attacks on 9/11 before they actually happened. The direct implication
is that they were working with the “terrorists”, all arguments as
to who the terrorists actually were aside.
Here
is a broadcast of the BBC’s announcement that WTC 7 (Salomon
Brothers Building) collapsed when it was still standing behind the
reporter:
Clear
picture:
Clear picture:
Clear picture:
Rooke
had been given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200
after admitting that he owned a television and watched it without a
license. He represented himself at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in
West Sussex.
“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.”
– District Judge Stephen Nicholls
In
Rooke’s statement to 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.”
Although
he was not allowed to show his video evidence in court due to the
District Judge deeming it irrelevant to the trial, the fact that the
BBC reported WTC 7’s collapse over 20 minutes beforehand proved to
be evidence enough.
He
also made reference to the theories behind the collapse of WTC 7
being a controlled demolition, as
the evidence suggests.
In an additional statement:
“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.
“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.”
In
response from Judge Nichols:
“Even
if I accept the evidence you say, this court has no power to create a
defence in the manner which you put forward.”
In
light of the evidence the judge took into consideration, Rooke was
given an unconditional discharge, which in British legal parlance
means he “was convicted but he does not suffer the consequences of
a conviction, and the conviction will be erased if he is not brought
before the court for six months.” He was not required to pay the
fee and non-payment fine either—only court costs of £200.
Sources:
Duell,
Mark. Daily
Mail.
Feb 25, 2015.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html)
Livingston,
Bob. Personal
Liberty.
Apr 5, 2013.
(http://personalliberty.com/british-man-wins-small-victory-for-911-truthers/)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.