UK man wins court case against BBC for 9/11 cover up!

Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. 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.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

www.activistpost.com...

This could open up a whole can of worms for the BBC.......and others?

Rainbows
Jane

hmm so we can sue the cable stations now for putting things on tv that aren't true?

watch out faux news im getting a lawyer!!

Great post S&F!

No mention of this in mainstream media, obviously they don't want people to know the truth and they clearly don't want peoe to know they can refuse to pay the UK licence.

If I remember correctly didnt building 7 contain some main federal departments and wasn't one of them investigating high level corruption in the government and Enron or something similar?

reply to post by bluloa


I don't know about all that part.
I do want to apologise for the second video, I have tried avery combo to get it up...it's the actual BBC news footage clearly showing WTC 7 still standing....20 minutes before it actually colapsed!
Maybe somebody can sort it for me pretty please?

Rainbows
Jane

I see this as being fodder for future posts.. Judge says he agrees, ra ra.

Sounds to me like the judge, without having weighed the evidence in the case re WT7, sees that from what is presented in front of him, in a legal manner, simply agrees that the guy has a case to be looked at.

Nothing more.

but it will no doubt fuel the flames - no pun intended - of the argument that this was a planned event. Rather than a case of over zealous - once more and yet again - bad media reporting.

Either way, I rekon I'll be hearing about this till the day I die. And not a single thing will have changed.

reply to post by angelchemuel


Hi Jane. Would you mind clarifying for those of us across the pond who are not sure about what a TV license is? My auto license allows me to drive a car, so by default this fellow runs a TV station?

IT's great that he used the evidence and won, but in being found not guilty, what was he accused of doing?

reply to post by aboutface


Hi there. no problem. All our tv stations have advertising to cover their running costs. The BBC does not have advertising and raises it's 'operating' fund with a TV license.
The main problem is, you have to have the licence to view not just BBC but tv in general. We have no means of cutting out as it were the BBC channels and just receive the other stations which don't require a licence.

He was charged with not having a TV licence.

Hope that helps.
Rainbows
Jane

reply to post by aboutface


In the UK, public television like the BBC is paid for by TV Licenses. You need one for each TV in your home as far as I understand it. That pays for BBC broadcasting and other UK specific TV stuff as far as I understand it.

In the United Kingdom and the Crown Dependencies, any household watching or recording live television transmissions as they are being broadcast (terrestrial, satellite, cable, or internet) is required to hold a television licence. Since 1 April 2010 the annual licence fee has been £145.50 for colour and £49.00 for black and white.[1][2][3] Income from the licence is primarily used to fund the television, radio and online services of the BBC.

Total levies from the licence fee were £3.681 billion in 2011–12[4] of which £588.4 million or 16.0% was provided by the Government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk of the BBC's total income of £5.086 billion in 2011-2012.[4]

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Nope...not quite right...almost though. You only need one licence per address, not per TV in your home.
Rainbows
Jane

This is incredible news..! I will read up later & comment further.

The judge seems to agree that a conspiracy is afoot?!?!?!

(Apologies - Small post so it appears in my subscribed feed.)

FITO

reply to post by angelchemuel


This has already been covered in this thread :-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He was convicted of not having a tv licence and given a conditional discharge. The judge was not prepared to hear his 9/11 evidence as it was irrelevant. The BBC was not present nor represented at the hearing.

reply to post by angelchemuel


one question - if he " won " why does he state that he is going to buy a TV licence ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by angelchemuel

 

This has already been covered in this thread :-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He was convicted of not having a tv licence and given a conditional discharge. The judge was not prepared to hear his 9/11 evidence as it was irrelevant. The BBC was not present nor represented at the hearing.

Can you post a link relating to the conviction, because although he was asked to pay £200 costs, he was conditionally discharged.

''Conditional discharges are often used in political cases to indicate that the accused, though technically guilty, occupies the moral high ground.''

If the court didn't even listen to the 9/11 evidence on what grounds was he given a conditional discharge?

Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
''Conditional discharges are often used in political cases to indicate that the accused, though technically guilty, occupies the moral high ground.''

Uh.....what legal site or opinion are you linking to with that quote? All a Google search turns up is this quote from truther blogs and conspiracy sites

TIA
Fitz

SnF. Cool.

The spark that could lit the prairie fire.
I am really looking forward to see who gets burn next.

He lost the case.............. gee do some research guys

Originally posted by angelchemuel
reply to post by aboutface

 

Hi there. no problem. All our tv stations have advertising to cover their running costs. The BBC does not have advertising and raises it's 'operating' fund with a TV license.
The main problem is, you have to have the licence to view not just BBC but tv in general. We have no means of cutting out as it were the BBC channels and just receive the other stations which don't require a licence.

He was charged with not having a TV licence.

Hope that helps.
Rainbows
Jane

edit on 9-4-2013 by angelchemuel because: (no reason given)

Additionally, the main criteria for the need to have such a license is that you watch or record live broadcasts on your set, regardless of whether they are broadcast by the British BS Corporation. Auntie Beeb likes the public sucking on her tits and doesn't want them getting their sustenance anywhere other than via her monopoly.

reply to post by angelchemuel

Once in the while, the establishment will throw us a bone, so long as we dont get too close.

Still, a win for the good guys.

Originally posted by angelchemuel
reply to post by bluloa

 

I don't know about all that part.
I do want to apologise for the second video, I have tried avery combo to get it up...it's the actual BBC news footage clearly showing WTC 7 still standing....20 minutes before it actually colapsed!
Maybe somebody can sort it for me pretty please?

Rainbows
Jane

I think that early on some were getting the buildings confused and were reluctant to admit that. If the footage shows the building still standing as they were discussing it then could it be the news people did not know what building 7 was since it was right there in the images?

Another person, very well known in conspiracy circles, did mix the buildings up. The way i figured this out was when he insisted the trade towers went down form the bottom because he watched it on t.v only anyone who watched the videos would conclude that he was referring to the footage of building 7 but did not realize it.

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
hmm so we can sue the cable stations now for putting things on tv that aren't true?

watch out faux news im getting a lawyer!!

Well that's not exactly what happened. In the UK people are forced to pay a "tv license" fee if they want a tv in their house. He refused to pay the fee and I assume BBC probably took him to court to force him to pay... I bet they didn't expect him to win the case. Ahahahaha!!!

edit: wait so did he win the case or not? It appears he actually lost the case. If you want to call that a loss.