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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html

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 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

 

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'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 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.

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 galleryFan 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 'pleased' with the outcome, 'all things considered'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's breaking news coverage of the September 11 attacks in 2001Flashback: 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’.

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

10 Responses to TV licence evader refused to pay because the ‘BBC covered up facts about 9/11 and claimed tower fell 20 minutes before it did’ – Daily Mail

  1. Pingback: Twin Towers, Hurricane Erin, Reported H.A.A.R.P. TTA’S WARFARE 20 MINUTES PRIOR TO EVENT | GEOENGINEERED WORLD

  2. Pingback: Chris Spivey » Blog Archive » 9/11 hype comes crashing down faster than the Twin Towers.

  3. Pingback: Alternative News Network – 9/11 hype comes crashing down faster than the Twin Towers.

  4. Pingback: FW: [MRG] Moral Victory for UK 9/11 Protester – Annette R.S. |

  5. Pingback: Re: Fwd: TV licence evader refused to pay because the ‘BBC covered up facts about 9/11 – Veronica: C. |

  6. Pingback: BBC – no say -don’t pay an unlawful licence fee. – angry old git. |

  7. Tony Butler says:

    I think that the mistake was allowing the case to be heard by a Magistrate instead of a jury. A member of the Bar, (they unlawfully created a monopoly over law, by making it a criminal offence for non-members to represent people in court) are barred from bringing the Law into disrepute. A jury, however, has the power of nullification, and a duty to examine the law involved, as well as the controversy. The members of the jury can refuse to convict if they feel the law is unfair. They can also refuse to convict, if they feel the accused acted reasonably under the circumstances, even if the law was broken. Applying Parliament’s statutes to people is in itself an unlawful act, which judges have sworn, upon their oaths of office, to prevent.
    Licences are a criminal act of extortion. According to Common Law we can go about our lawful business without interference. If its lawful – we can do it – without permission or paying for it.

  8. Pingback: Was the BBC’s reporting of the science of World Trade Centre 7 accurate? – Truthloader |

  9. Pingback: | UK Man refuses to pay for TV License because BBC covered up facts about 9/11! | | truthaholics

  10. Pingback: ‘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 |

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