UK man wins court case against BBC for 911 cover up

This looks like a smoking gun to me. Remember when the BBC reported the that WTC 7 has collapsed. Twenty minutes before it did. Well on these grounds he refused to pay his BBC license and went to court over the matter.

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

topinfopost.com...

reply to post by purplemer


Yes this is old news now , the article is dated April 28, 2013 and saw it posted on ATS at the time it happened.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


Yep, posted 5 months ago:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



If I didn't know better, I'd think someone is just posting to get stars and flags. First a hoax, now a 5-month-old story, both posted in the span of 10-15 minutes? Come on, purple.

ever wonder why the b.b.c has lost it's tapes from that day and use the world service tapes go out on the streets and ask people what time they heard about the attack .

see my thread on this for my story what time did you hear about 9-11 the answers might shock you

Regardless of what Tony Rooke says, in furtherance of his own agenda and ego, he did not win a "victory", as he was found guilty, given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs. The conditional discharge basically gives him a second chance to pay the licence fee and keeps the door open for prosecution if he does not.

His excuse for not paying the licence fee was based on his view that the BBC coverage of the 9/11 atrocity was distorted, therefore gave support for terrorists. He cited Section 15 of the Terrorism Act.

Some pundits think he has a point. Most just think he's got too much time on his hands and likes the attention. Personally, I think the latter!

Victory - my arse.

Regards

paraphi
Regardless of what Tony Rooke says, in furtherance of his own agenda and ego, he did not win a "victory", as he was found guilty, given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs. The conditional discharge basically gives him a second chance to pay the licence fee and keeps the door open for prosecution if he does not.

His excuse for not paying the licence fee was based on his view that the BBC coverage of the 9/11 atrocity was distorted, therefore gave support for terrorists. He cited Section 15 of the Terrorism Act.

Some pundits think he has a point. Most just think he's got too much time on his hands and likes the attention. Personally, I think the latter!

Victory - my arse.

Regards

Oh really - Bringing the BBC to justice is a BAD cause?

Jeeze, no wonder the worlds in a backwards state!!

He gets a round of applause off me!

ObservingYou
Oh really - Bringing the BBC to justice is a BAD cause?

The BBC had nothing to do with it, they were not on trial, nor even in the court... so just why do you claim the BBC was bought to justice?

hellobruce

ObservingYou
Oh really - Bringing the BBC to justice is a BAD cause?

The BBC had nothing to do with it, they were not on trial, nor even in the court... so just why do you claim the BBC was bought to justice?

I didn't say it had been brought to justice. He lost the case. Durr.

They participated in the lie. Durr.

Durr.

Durr.

Durr.

Dunno why I bother with ATS when most people can be replied to by "Durr".

Durr.