By Wendy Murray
A Brit who took on the BBC and their staged reporting of the attacks of 9/11 ~ ~ and won:
In a story that was quickly overshadowed by the terrorist attack at the Boston Marathon, this fascinating story is worth highlighting.
49 year-old Tony Rooke refused to pay his required TV licence to the BBC because he believed the BBC covered up facts about the 9/11 terrorist attacks and paying his bill would be tantamount to supporting “the practice of terror.”
“I am withholding all funds from the BBC, the Government and subsidiaries under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act,” he said.
In Feb. 2013 he was found guilty of using an unlicensed set and given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200.
He represented himself in court 9 April 2013 at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex, where he admitted to owning a TV and watching it without a licence. He said he was withholding the funds under the Terrorism Act, Section 15 of the 2000 Act, which 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.”
In his court appearance Rooke added, “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.”
Rooke cited, among other things, that the BBC reported during the attacks of September 11, 2001 that World Trade Centre 7 had fallen, when, in fact it stood erect and in tact over the shoulder of the reporter reporting it. The news story occurred 20 minutes before building actually collapsed. (The screen capture, right, shows a BBC reporter announcing the collapse of WTC7, even while it stood erect behind her; it collapsed 20 minutes later).
Rooke said to the court: “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?’” (WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.)
“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.”
Rooke said that since the BBC had prior knowledge that the building was doomed and did not warn Americans about it, it made them complicit in the attack.
District Judge Stephen Nicholls responded: “This is not a public inquiry into 9/11. This is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act.” The judge added that he “did not believe he had the power to rule under the terrorism act” but agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case and thus found him not guilty. He was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.
Note to Readers: “The Lunatic of the Month” is rendered to one who, in the modest opinion of this writer and in keeping with the mandate of this blog, has made a worthy attempt to see “clouds as mountains amid machinations of a no-holds-barred culture,” regardless of gender, race, orientation, ethnicity or political affiliation. The conferral of the award does not suggest endorsement or promotion of a recipient’s expressed affiliations. Nominations are welcomed.
Follow Wendy on Twitter:@WenMurray