Tony Rooke, representing himself at Horsham Magistrates’ Court, said he did not wish to give money to an organization 'funding the practice of terrorism'.
Rooke, who was found guilty of using an unlicensed TV set, said his refusal to pay the license fee was in accordance with Section 15 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, which states that it is an offense to obtain money for purposes of terrorism.
Rooke told the court:
I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the license fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect.In support of this claim, Rooke said, was the fact that the BBC reported that World Trade Centre Building 7 had fallen 20 minutes in advance of the collapse. (The building could be seen in the background behind BBC television reporter Jane Standley as she reported live from New York that WTC7 had already collapsed.)
Rooke said: The BBC reported it 20 minutes before it fell. They knew about it beforehand.Mr. Rooke was granted a conditional discharges, which according to the Daily Mail, is "often used in political cases to indicate that the accused, though technically guilty, occupies the moral high ground."
 |
| Tony Rooke's supporters outside the Horsham Magistrate's court. |
The case has been ignored by Britain's major news organzations, as noted by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky:
With the exception of London’s Daily Mail, the British mainstream media, including The Guardian and the Independent, chose to abstain from coverage or commentary of this historic court case, which points to a criminal process of media disinformation by the BBC.February 22, 2007: Lost BBC Precognition Tape Found on Internet Archive
The BBC chose to “cover up its own coverup.” Not a single word from the BBC to justify or explain or refute their lies, particularly regarding the collapse of WTC building 7 which had been announced by the BBC 20 minutes before the collapse took place, suggesting that the BBC and other media had advanced knowledge of the collapse of a WTC building 7 which was not even struck by an aircraft.
This is one among a string of BBC media fabrications including fake images and video footage.
We will recall that in August 2011, the BBC showed fake video footage of Libyans celebrating “Liberation” in Tripoli’s Green square, following NATO’s humanitarian bombings. Oops. They were waving Indian flags. They are not Libyans but Indians. “We made a mistake”, assuming that the British public would not see the difference.
It is our hope that Tony Brooke’s initiative will encourage people across the United Kingdom to question the legitimacy of the TV Licence fee, which supports an organization involved in outright war propaganda on behalf of the British government.
On 22nd February 2007, an extensive collection of television broadcast footage covering the 9/11 attacks was discovered on the Internet Archive, and this was reported on 911 Blogger.
One activist then discovered that BBC World had reported the collapse of WTC7 23 mins before it happened and they produced the attached video. ...
Source: U.K. IndyMedia
February 27, 2007: Part of the conspiracy?
Richard Porter, Head of News, BBC World, responded (on a BBC blog site) to reports that, on 9/11, BBC News reported the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7 more than 25 minutes in advance of the event. You can see these comments by following this link. (If they are still there, that is.)
At the end of Mr. Porter's comment there is an invitation to respond, which I accepted. However, instead of posting my comment, the BBC responded to my response with the following notice followed by a bizarre sequence of additional announcements, suggesting extreme panic about public reaction to apparent BBC complicity in hiding the truth about its advance knowledge of an apparent controlled demolition WTC Building 7.
{My comments in response to the BBC's notice and subsequent announcements are in curly brackets}
Problems with comments
* Host * 18 May 06, 12:51 PM
{Note that this message was actually delivered at around 2030 h PST on February 28, 2007, not on the date or at the time indicated above.}
At the minute, we've got a bit of a problem with comments not appearing promptly.
The number of comments you see after each post (and on the right hand side of the main blog page) is the number of comments that should be on each post. But we have some technical problems which slows this process...
{Actually, I saw no numbers, but it doesn't seem as though they meant a whole heck of a lot. Or not so as you could tell from their explanation, anyhow.}
Here's why it happens.. (you may have seen this explanation before, on Nick Robinson's blog..)
{Who the Dickens is Nick Robinson?}
"The difference is due to the way that the content of the blogs is published. Without going into too much heavy detail, when a blog is updated, certain bits of it are rebuilt and certain bits are automatically changed. These rebuilt sections are then transferred across multiple servers. Sometimes due to the heavy load on bbc.co.uk some of the bits find themselves stuck in a queue waiting to be published. The rebuilt bits can take longer to arrive than the others... and so there is sometimes a disparity between number of comments 'totals' and actual published numbers."
{Phew! I'm glad they didn't go into too much heavy detail.}
We are looking into a solution.
{That's great, but just in case the BBC loses my astute comment before they find the solution that they're "looking into," or "certain bits" of it (my comment that is) are "automatically changed" while transferrring "rebuilt sections across multiple servers", causing a "disparity" between what I said and what the BBC might eventually publish, here's what I said, which is pretty much what I've said before. But it seems to make a good point}:
The problem for the BBC is this. It cannot explain how it announced the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 in advance of the event without admitting that the collapse was known in advance. But the collapse could only have been known in advance if it was the result of human intervention: that is, if it was a controlled demolition.
In fact, we know it was a controlled demolition because the building's lease owner, Larry Silverstein, bizarrely stated as much in the PBS documentary "Rebuilding America."
However, until this point, the fact that it was a controlled demolition has not entered the 9/11 story as recounted by the mass media. Having blundered by pre-announcing the demolition, the BBC in effect demolished the official 9/11 account. But it did so, only for those few people whose attention has been drawn to the BBC blunder by a thousand or so blogs.
So how does the BBC respond. With some fatuous comments on a blog site. In this way, the story remains out of the mass media and will likely so remain. And if you doubt it, search Google News for WTC7 +BBC and see how many mainstream news sites have covered the story (to date, 2030 h PST, February 28, none).
And this is a most significant fact. Many 9/11 "conspiracy theory debunkers" argue that, if 9/11 had been an "inside job," so many people would have been in the know that it would have been impossible to prevent the truth leaking out.
But here we see that the truth has leaked out, part of it anyway, yet the media won't mention it. So it doesn't count as the truth even though it is known to many people. It doesn't count as the truth because it can only be known to the majority of the people if the corporate media tells them about it. And what we see is that the corporate media, with remarkable discipline, will not mention the subject.
So even when thousands and probably millions of bloggers and their readers know the truth, the truth will never be publicly acknowledged. Thus, the truth will never become a political fact.
March 01, 2007: The MSM: The Dog that Wouldn't Bark
The News 24 "timestamp" footage of the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened was uploaded to Youtube. But although the clip is under 30 seconds in length and clearly constitutes fair use, Google yanked the video after it was prominently featured in our article yesterday.
Source: PrisonPlanet
July 2, 2008: The BBC eventually explains everything: Just a "cock-up" not a conspiracy to conceal evidence
The way the BBC came by advance knowledge of the collapse of WTC7 is clearly vital evidence relating to a the greatest domestic crime in the history of the United States. The claimed disappearance of the BBC's archive tapes proving foreknowledge of the destruction of WTC7 suggests the deliberate destruction of evidence and the obstruction of justice. Forced to respond, the BBC declared: "Oh, it was just that we put the incriminating tape on the wrong shelf. Sorry about that."
POSTCRIPT
So even though Mr. Porter admits to a BBC "cock-up" (weird the expressions the British use), he's actually handled the situation quite deftly. The BBC admitted it "cocked-up" (if one can verbify a cock-up), but it won't go public with the story, as in an announcement on a major news broadcast. And so, the truth, although known, will not be widely known. For whether it is "catapaulting the propaganda" or simply informing the public, it's the mass media that still does the heavy lifting. Yep, it isn't for nothing that Mr. Porter is Head of News at BBC World.
9/11 News the Corpo Media Won't Cover
Search Google News for "WTC7 +BBC" this morning (1000 h PST) and you get one hit.* Search blogs for the same terms and you get 1,186 hits. And that does not cover hundreds maybe thousands of other news-following web sites (such as this one) that also covered the BBC's psychic advance announcement of the demolition of the World Trade Center Tower 7.
So what's with the corpo. media? Are all their employees castrated as a condition of employment, or what?
In any case, this is the real smoking gun. If there was an easy way to dismiss the evidence that the BBC announced the collapse of WTC7 more than 20 minutes before it actually fell, you can be sure that The Globe and Mail, the National Putz, the Guruniard, Murdoch's Times, WaPo, the NYT, the Jerusalem Post and all the other rubbish papers that people so strangely pay good money to read, would obviously have dismissed it.
But the story cannot be dismissed, at least not on the basis of the truth, without admitting what is known on other grounds to be the case: namely, that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition, which many people, not just one reporter at the BBC, were informed about before the event. And if that is admitted, then it is clear that for five years the U.S. Government has been lying about WTC7, for the obvious reason that, if it is admitted that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, it makes controlled demolition a more plausible, indeed the most probable, explanation for the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.
The failure of the corpo. media to touch this story, no, let us say the determination of the corpo. media not to touch this story, is enormously revealing for another reason.
Many conspiracy theory "debunkers" argue that, if 9/11 had been an "inside job," so many people would have been in the know that it would have been impossible to prevent the truth leaking out.
But here we see that the truth has leaked out, part of it anyway, yet the media won't mention it. So it doesn't count as the truth even though it is known to many people. It doesn't count as the truth because it can only be known to the majority of the people if the corporate media tells them about it. And what we see is that the corporate media, with remarkable discipline, will simply not mention the subject.
So even when thousands and probably millions of bloggers and their readers know the truth, the truth will never be publicly acknowledged. Thus, the truth will never become a political fact.
Which leaves a fascinating question to resolve. How are the media controlled? How do they exercise such discipline?
A free subscription to the Canadian Spectator for the fist correct answer. Send your answer, together with a $10.00 contest entry fee too ...
* That Google search was made in February 2007. Interestingly, if you repeat the search today, Feburary 2013, you get only six hits, four of them in foreign language publications. If you do the blog search today, you'll get over 83,000 hits. So who you gonna trust, the MSM or those lyin' blogs?Other amazing instances of precognition about WTC7
It has now been discovered that CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 "has collapsed or is collapsing" over an hour before it fell. ...
Jones Report
Actually, this isn't so amazing. Larry Silverstein, lease owner of the Trade Towers and Building 7, admitted during the PBS special "Rebuilding America" that they decided to "pull" Buidling 7: "and then we watched the building come down." So of course the collapse of the building was known in advance.
The only problem for the U.S. government is that it has been lying about the collapse of Building 7 for five years. And if it admits now that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demo, then the main argument against controlled demolition of WTC1 and WTC2, namely that there was no way the buldings could have been prepped for demolition in advance of 9/11 without anyone knowing about it, collapses like the towers themselves.
BBC: The Bizarro Broadcasting Corporation
9/11 Precognition: Part II
The Amazing Foresight of Jerome Hauer
On September 11, 2001, Jerome Hauer advised the White House to begin taking Cipro, an antibiotic which is effective against anthrax. .... "
Winter Patriot
Accidental precognition at the BBC
If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that.... "
Richard Porter of the BBC
BBC 9/11 Rebuttal Rebutted
How the BBC faked audio clips, provided fascinating details about Dylan Avery's laptop, gave a guided tour of Jim Fetzer's basement, and failed to explain how they knew WTC7 was coming down twenty minutes before it happened (see next item), and in general failed to deal with anything remotely relevant to the case for an inside job.
video.google.de/
Sere gute. The Germans really do understand bullshit better than most people. But then they have more experience of its disastrous consequences.
And needless to say, Google has pulled this informative video.
More fascinating and colorful details about the total corruption of the BBC and its concealment of evidence of treason and crimes against children and humanity over at Aangirfan.
And this: Jimmy Saville's paedophilia consistent with BBC culture.
And this: UK man wins court case against BBC for 911 cover up
No comments:
Post a Comment