Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Tony Rooke vs BBC courtcase

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
sherbetbizarreOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Total posts: 1748
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 07-03-2013 11:49    Post subject: Tony Rooke vs BBC courtcase Reply with quote

Quote:
UK 9/11 TRUTHERS GET THEIR DAY IN COURT (WELL, KINDA)

Last year, documentary filmmaker Tony Rooke decided he’d had enough of the mainstream media’s repression of what he considered the irrefutable case for the existence of a 9/11 conspiracy, and in an ingenious illustration of the old adage about using an enemy’s own weight and strength against them, had refused to pay his TV license on the grandiose grounds of Article 3, Section 15 of the UK 2000 Terrorism Act, which states that it is an offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism (the TV License is a compulsory fee for all UK TV owners and pays for the BBC).

“Mr Rooke’s claim is that the BBC has withheld scientific evidence that demonstrates that the official version of 9/11 is not possible,” explained a press release circulated by the AE911Truth UK Action Group, “and that the BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public.” As part of his defense, it added, Rooke had secured three hours to present his case, and had assembled a “formidable team” of defense witnesses, including Professor Niels Harrit (Professor of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen) and former intelligence analyst Tony Farrell. “Evidence such as this,” it concluded, “has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law…”

(...)

So, Rooke climbed into the witness box and launched into a decent speech. His tone was steady, reasonable, and wry as he addressed Nicholls. “I have incontrovertible—and I don’t use that word lightly—evidence against the BBC. The BBC had advance knowledge of twenty minutes of the events of 9/11 and did not do anything to clarify what the source of that information was. At the preliminary hearing I asked if you were aware of WTC7. You said you had ‘heard of it.’ Over ten years after 9/11 you should have more than heard of it. It’s the BBC’s job to inform the public—especially regarding miracles of science where the laws of physics become suspended. Instead, they have made documentaries making fools of and ridiculing those of us who believe in the laws of gravity.”

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/uk_9_11_truthers_get_their_day_in_court_well_kinda
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
garrick92Offline
Invisible Flaneur
Joined: 29 Oct 2001
Total posts: 1015
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 09-03-2013 19:29    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blimey, what a crazy bloke.

I wonder why the judge didn't sentence him properly?

I've seen people sent to the cells for non-payment (admittedly, in one case it was just for the afternoon, but still).
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 926
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 29-04-2013 10:53    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.reinvestigate911.org/content/court-victory-protestor


Quote:
court victory for protestor



Moral Victory for Protestor who says BBC 9/11 Coverage was False

Campaigner and film maker Tony Rooke claimed a moral victory today after a UK court gave him a conditional discharge even though he has refused to pay his BBC license fee. Over 100 supporters from as far away as Denmark and Norway cheered in front of the court house as independent media people conducted interviews and photographed the crowd. Court officials had booked their largest room for the case but were at a loss to find that well over 50 people could not be fitted in.

Tony said: "I am taken a back and hugely grateful for all the support." He is asking for at least one person to take up the campaign by refusing to pay or taking other legal action (see below).

Rooke argued that the BBC's coverage of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York has been so distorted that it amounts to giving aid and comfort to the unidentified terrorists who demolished three World Trade Centre buildings in 2001. Two hijacked planes were flown into the famous Twin Towers and a third tower WTC7 collapsed later in the day. The attacks were used as the pretext for a decade of wars and the introduction of police state measures across the NATO countries. Vast personal fortunes were made by White House and CIA officials who failed to thwart 9/11.

The official 9/11 story was promulgated by the US media within minutes of the first collision, based on anonymous sources in the Bush White House. Despite a mass of new evidence coming to light in the intervening years the story has never changed and holds that the destruction was entirely caused by a band of Muslim fanatics, they succeeded without any help, and were organised by the notorious Osama Bin Laden who it is admitted was once a CIA agent. A man described as Osama Bin Laden was captured, assassinated and deposited in the ocean by US forces in Pakistan two years ago.

Sceptics say that the collapse of WTC7 must have been the result of something more than limited fires and damage from the Twin Towers, hit by the two hijacked planes. Argument has revolved around the speed of the collapse. In the BBC Conspiracy Files series, which endorsed every aspect of the official 9/11 story, it was stated that the building did not collapse at free fall speed, but later US officials were forced by video evidence to admit that it did just that.

A large group of over 1500 architects and engineers known as AE911 say that free fall collapse implies that the building had all its supports removed at the same instant which can only happen with a controlled demolition. Tony Rooke's legal argument is that in failing to correct their free fall misinformation and many other misstatements of fact, the BBC are a party to covering up the terrorists who organised the controlled demolition of WTC7.

The BBC has also failed to publicise the finding of Richard Clarke, head of counter terrorism at the White House in 2001. Two years ago Clarke made a bombshell announcement: in the weeks before 9/11 a secret "decision" must have been taken at the CIA to over rule FBI officers who wanted to arrest some of the people who according to the official story went on to commit the attacks. Clarke says that if this decision had not been made the 9/11 attacks would not have happened. Before Clarke went public the BBC programme makers were adamant this was a "conspiracy theory". Afterwards they failed to give it any prominence and failed to reinterview any of the officials who, if Clarke is right, must have lied to them.

Back in Horsham Magistrates Court campaigners have been planning future tactics. Tony Rook's victory, helped by lawyer Mahtab Aziz, implies that the BBC has a case to answer, but expert witnesses including Danish associate professor Niels Harrit were not called due to legal technicalities. However the District Judge would have read their statements before the hearing and taken them into account.

Conditional discharges are often used in political cases to indicate that the accused, though technically guilty, occupies the moral high ground. In addition the case provides a yardstick that can be raised by future campaigners. On the other hand because he has not been convicted, Tony cannot appeal and force the courts to scrutinise the highly questionable activities of the BBC as a conduit for CIA propaganda.

It's now essential for Tony's campaign that at least one person should take up the baton, refuse to pay their licence fee and appeal any conviction. Anyone interested should contact him at

rookietone@hotmail.com
Back to top
View user's profile 
garrick92Offline
Invisible Flaneur
Joined: 29 Oct 2001
Total posts: 1015
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 03-05-2013 23:39    Post subject: Reply with quote

Analis wrote:

Moral Victory for Protestor who says BBC 9/11 Coverage was False


How, precisely, is it a moral victory when he lost his case?

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


No they are not.

Quote:
In addition the case provides a yardstick that can be raised by future campaigners.


Good luck with that.

Quote:
It's now essential for Tony's campaign that at least one person should take up the baton, refuse to pay their licence fee and appeal any conviction. Anyone interested should contact him at

rookietone@hotmail.com


By Christ, how depressing. Deliberately not paying your TV licence in order to argue the toss over 9/11.

The stuff about Clarke is interesting though.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
AnalisOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Total posts: 926
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 11-05-2013 09:05    Post subject: Reply with quote

I cannot comment on the meaning of the decision, but the matter of paying licence or not is only peripheral to the wide controversy, which should revolve around the matter of media accountability and responsibility (including criminal).

garrick92 wrote:

The stuff about Clarke is interesting though.


Not more than the rest. The fact that it appears to have been completely overlooked by the media is the most interesting fact relating to Clarke's revelations (?). Their contents amounting to hardly anything new, just stating what had been obvious from the start.
Back to top
View user's profile 
garrick92Offline
Invisible Flaneur
Joined: 29 Oct 2001
Total posts: 1015
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 12-05-2013 01:41    Post subject: Reply with quote

Analis wrote:
I cannot comment on the meaning of the decision, but the matter of paying licence or not is only peripheral to the wide controversy, which should revolve around the matter of media accountability and responsibility (including criminal).


The matter of paying your TV licence fee is completely unrelated to matters of media accountability.

To argue otherwise is like refusing to pay your council tax on the grounds that the buses don't run on time.

Which is to say, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

(Apols to one-legged readers).

Quote:
The fact that it appears to have been completely overlooked by the media is the most interesting fact relating to Clarke's revelations (?). Their contents amounting to hardly anything new, just stating what had been obvious from the start.


Yes, they are interesting -- Clarke is hardly some crank fringe figure. I shall certainly look up more on his remarks, and see what I think.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
YithianOffline
Keeping the British end up
Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Total posts: 11948
Location: Vermilion Sands
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 12-05-2013 02:53    Post subject: Reply with quote

garrick92 wrote:

The matter of paying your TV licence fee is completely unrelated to matters of media accountability.

To argue otherwise is like refusing to pay your council tax on the grounds that the buses don't run.


No, it isn't because you are not legally responsible for the buses' performance, whereas the law forbids you to fund both crime in general and terrorism specifically. I'm not saying the argument is valid, but I will concede that it is both novel and a little clever. He's not just saying I won't pay my licence because I don't like what the BBC is doing/has done. He's claiming that their actions were illegal and by funding them he would himself be legally culpable - hence he is right to refuse.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
garrick92Offline
Invisible Flaneur
Joined: 29 Oct 2001
Total posts: 1015
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 13-05-2013 18:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wasn't drawing logical parallels between his argument and my example about buses.

Rather, I intended to illustrate the fact that they were both equally flimsy.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - The War on Terror All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group