9/11 controversy in Horsham court – West Sussex County Times – Paul B.

Hi Folks,

Just resending, as ‘Comments’ are still open and it is an opportunity to put some info into the press.

Paul

 

http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/local/9-11-controversy-in-horsham-court-1-4829773

9/11 controversy in Horsham court

editorial image
Published on Wednesday 27 February 2013 09:47

The 9/11 truth movement had its day in court this week, as the BBC’s news coverage of the attacks was cited in a case of an unpaid TV licence.

Tony Rooke, 49, of Broyle Close, Chichester, pleaded not guilty to using a television without a licence.

He told Horsham Magistrates’ Court that he was not prepared to give money to the BBC because of the way it had covered the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US.

He said the BBC’s reporting of the incident and subsequent investigations made it complicit in acts of terrorism.

Therefore, he argued, paying for his licence would put him in breach of Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, which makes it illegal to provide funds for a terrorist group.

“I’ve been to the police, I’ve spoken to the BBC about this, I’ve spoken to the Home Office, who’ve assured me that there are no exceptions to Section 15,” he said.

Rooke asked to submit evidence which he said would show that the BBC had consistently failed to report the true story.

“The BBC had prior knowledge of an act of terrorism, by at least 20 minutes, and didn’t contact the police,” he said.

He referred to the collapse of ‘WTC 7’ – a third building on the World Trade Centre site – claiming that it ‘could be nothing other than a controlled demolition’, and that the BBC had reported its collapse 20 minutes before it actually happened.

Garth Hannaford, representing TV Licensing, said one of their enforcement officers went to Rooke’s home on May 23 last year, and he had admitted watching TV without a licence.

“This is not a public enquiry into the events of 9/11, this is a prosecution under Section 363 of the Communications Act,” he said.

He challenged Rooke as to why he kept on watching BBC programmes, while claiming to disagree so strongly with the corporation’s output.

“I had a licence at the time of the coverage,” said Rooke.

“I continued to watch because ignorance is no excuse.”

He told District Judge Stephen Nicholls: “I will pay for a TV licence once the police finds that the BBC are guilty of withholding information.

“If they are funding terrorism, then I don’t pay.

“I truly do feel that yourself and the people who are here should be made aware of what they are funding.”

There were cries of ‘hear hear’ from the public gallery, which was packed with Rooke’s supporters and well-wishers.

Judge Nicholls said that, even if he accepted and agreed with the evidence, that would not give him grounds to rule that Rooke was not guilty.

A magistrates’ court did not have the authority to make a ruling under the Terrorism Act, he said, so he would not be able to say that the need to obey it outweighed the need to obey the Communications Act.

He found Rooke guilty, and imposed a six month conditional discharge with £200 legal costs.

Outside court, Rooke said the case had been a ‘score draw’ since the judge had looked at the evidence – albeit in private – and had decided not to fine him.

He called for anyone who has evidence which challenges the official version of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to pass it to the authorities.

===================

14 comments

Sort by:

Rate:

thereisagod

8:42 AM on 28/02/2013

uglybetty. “No evidence”!? What a comical girl you are..
The collapse of WTC7 was an OBVIOUS demolition (I won’t trouble your tiny head with the physics of the situation). No plane struck the building (a few feet short of the height of Canary Wharf) and it underwent total collapse in about 6.5 seconds, allegedly from fire (uniquely in history. Skyscrapers never collapse due to fire….there’s plenty of evidence for this too). But hey, why bother with evidence when anyone who disturbs your comfortable media-induced coma is quite simply a fool.
9/11 was necessary to provide the pretext (to ourselves, the western public) for western invasions into the middle east to take control of the world’s most valuable resources.

This operation was VERY important to the powers-that-be and the success of such a project cannot be left in the hands of a bunch of vodka-drinking, call-girl embracing Muslim idiots (which is what many of the so-called 9/11 terrorists [actually 'patsies] actually were).

@horshamd
You reject theories because Alex Jones “is 100% fruitloop”.
Marvellous quality of argument here. A highly focused, brilliantly analytical, detailed deconstruction of the enormous evidence available re 9/11. Next time I am setting up a project that requires the participation of truly fine minds, you will be my first port of call. Thank you so much for that.

Rate:

uglybetty

8:10 AM on 28/02/2013

Quite agree horshamd, they have no evidence and hence no basis for any discussion.
still prefer the term nutjob but fruitloop is good also.

Rate:

horshamd

8:04 AM on 28/02/2013

Paul Barbara. Firstly, a plane did hit the Pentagon. This has been proven beyond doubt and most of the key theorists have moved on from this.
Secondly, I am aware of the 1700 architects and engineers. Sure, 1700 sounds like a lot but how many of these are credible? And how many architects and engineers do you think there are in the world? 1700 probably doesn’t even make 1%.
Thirdly, the ex FBI, CIA, military (and so on) members. No one ever questions why they are ex members.
Finally, and the reason why I use the word nutjob, a lot of these theories are in some way connected to Alex Jones. That guy is a 100% fruitloop.

Rate:

horshamd

7:55 AM on 28/02/2013

Please do not compare this to Hillsborough. It’s lazy and the cases are incomparable. Largely due to evidence. The families had tonnes of evidence that was ignored. The 9 11 theorists have only that: theory. They have no, and I repeat no evidence.

Rate:

scubadiver007

6:44 AM on 28/02/2013

Hello,

I would agree that Ugly is correct with respect to this particular case.

However, what concerns me more are the hostile reactions such as “nutjobs” and “conspiracy theorists” that is now all too common place.

If Hillsborough had happened in the last year, people with radical ideas about police coverup and the altering of evidence would be “nutjobs” peddling “conspiracy theories”, yet the families have spent a long time and their resolve means the truth about what happened has finally been revealed.

So if 9/11 was down to incompetence why has no-one been prosecuted or made accountable for their actions given the numerous warnings in the previous months? In fact, people in key positions were either promoted and / or given pay rises and bonuses. Why would that happen?

I will leave you with this thought:

the official theory of the collapses is gravity since “officially”, the initiator of the collapse were the alleged fires. Before you mention airplane impacts, NIST admitted these impacts had no bearing on the failure of the buildings.

So if the collapses were gravity driven, how did concrete get pulverised to the consistency of talcum powder at the start of the collapse, and steel beams get thrown SIDEWAYS at up to speeds of 70mph (as shown by analysis of video footage).

In fact, a basic understanding of physical principles would easily demonstrate those buildings should never have collapsed. Why? Because the force bearing down from above was much less than the opposing force upwards from below.

People who consider us “nutjobs” won’t consider such evidence for fear of the implications that they have been told a pack of lies.

Rate:

uglybetty

12:38 AM on 28/02/2013

Paul – firstly please read the facts.
This was a Magistrates’ Court and as such can not rule under the terrorism Act, only crown court and above can do that. This wasn’t a case about 9/11 it was about a man who simply refuses to pay a licence fee for his TV, but condems the BBC and funnily enough still watches it… bizarre.

Also please get your facts straight – Mr Rooke was given a sentence – which was £200 in costs AND a 6 month conditional discharge. that means ANY wrong doing by Mr Rooke in that 6mths HE WILL go to be tried again. He has been found guilty of evading the TV licence which is tantermount to theft – taking something for which you haven’t paid!

the Magistrate did not agree to anything regarding 9/11 as it could not as it does not have the power. Had Mr Rooke been in a crown court he would have been ripped to shreds and probably imprisoned.

If anyone should be reported for abuse it should be all of you guys who are peddling this rubbish, wasting peoples and the WSCT’s time and above all wasting the courts time.

lastly, there is a saying which is ‘if the world didn’t have stupid people then the internet would be very boring’. So thanks for brightening my day with your bizarre and to be frank idiotic septic ideas.

Rate:

Paul Barbara

10:52 PM on 27/02/2013

Thank you County Times for reporting this important case. The judge obviously did not find the case either ‘frivolous’ or ‘lunatic’; he did nor fine the defendant, and openly stated his court ‘did not have the authority to make a ruling under the Terrorism Act’.
If the ‘commenters’ (whom I have reported for abuse) had any arguments, other than just ‘ad hominem’ attacks, they should have given them.
1,700+ Architects & Engineers (the vast majority Americans) have called the facts into question, yet they do not get air- or press coverage.
Pilots have a website where they say no Boeing hit the Pentagon; a long list of ‘Patriots’, including top ex-FBI, CIA & Military (including a retired Major General, and Bob Bowman, who did 101 flight missions in Vietnam and was also the head of the ‘Star Wars’ program under two President, say the US Government is lying about 9/11.
I hope some readers of this paper will take the trouble to do a bit of online research on the questions that surround 9/11, and come to their own conclusions.
Well done, Tony Rooke! It is a pity there are not more with your courage and thirst for the Truth.

Rate:

uglybetty

5:38 PM on 27/02/2013

How does the phrase go….

nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs,nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs, nutjobs.

NOW can my local paper the WSCT please stop giving space to these idiots. its making your credibility look bad.

Rate:

fireyfish27

5:35 PM on 27/02/2013

this does NOT need more air time.
WHY ARE YOU, WSCT, GIVING THEM MORE SPACE TO SPOUT THEIR INSANE IDEAS?

Rate:

VernonII

1:57 PM on 27/02/2013

In the USA where much more is known on the subject: a Zogby International poll found the following in 2007:-

“that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts”

9/11 was setup by the USA in order to obtain an excuse to attack Iraq. Desmond Tutu’s has criticized Blair’s fabrications which led to the this invasion including his lies about the country’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, and his refusal to allow UN inspectors more time to establish whether or not Saddam Hussein posed a genuine threat to world peace.

That the BBC should post misinform with US propaganda is inexcusable, therefore this matter should be of concern to us all.

Rate:

paulchristopher

1:21 PM on 27/02/2013

‘It’s a global issue’ – you said it. Please let’s not descend into personal insults.
Regards

Rate:

Normalnorris

1:08 PM on 27/02/2013

Hear hear horshamd! Please WSCT can we have OUR newspaper back. This man doesn’t even live in the Horsham district. 9/11 is a global issue not a local one. These idiots have already got enough places to spew their bile, especially online-please don’t give them another.

Rate:

paulchristopher

1:08 PM on 27/02/2013

A great , objective, and ,for once, unbiaised article on the events of 11th September 2001. May this be the beginning of a trend leading to an independant investigation on behalf of the many bereaved.

Rate:

horshamd

12:28 PM on 27/02/2013

WSCT – This story already has two articles. Why does it need a third? Nothing new has been reported here and several of your regular readers have already psoted their distaste regarding this man. Please do not provide a further platform for these nutjobs to spout their “truth” in a quest to attract more hits to your site.

2 replies

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to 9/11 controversy in Horsham court – West Sussex County Times – Paul B.

  1. Pingback: RUNNYMEDE GAZETTE A Journal of the Democratic Resistance FEBRUARY 2013 – Frank Taylor |

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Add video comment