Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageSmall but significant triumph for 9/11 truth activist in UK court Special

By Victoria N. Alexander     Feb 27, 2013 in Politics
Horsham - In an act of civil disobedience, Tony Rooke refused to pay a £130 TV license fee, alleging that the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks. Facing a judge Monday, Rooke was 'not convicted' and did not have to pay the fine.
Rooke, a documentary maker who made his protest against the BBC in Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex, claims the BBC reported that World Trade Center 7 collapsed “due to an office fire, which, even the NIST report says, fell at free-fall speed for eight floors in 2.5 seconds. That is absolutely impossible without a controlled demolition being involved.” The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the US government agency charged with investigating the collapses.
Rooke is now encouraging other activists to follow his example and refuse to support the BBC. Although technically Rooke is guilty of not paying the license fee, he pleaded “not guilty” to not having an “appropriate” license. As he explained in the above video clip, “the license is not appropriate … because I know the BBC has covered up the true events of the day.” Rooke further explained that supporting the BBC cover up would be tantamount to supporting the terrorists responsible for the controlled demolition. He further argued that anyone supporting terrorists is in violation of the Terrorism Act, Section 15, which 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.” In this Rooke employed a standard tactic of civil disobedience, claiming to be in a position where he must break one law, a local law, in order to respect a higher law. If defendants are successful in such cases, they are said to occupy “the moral high ground” and are generally given light sentences or have their cases dismissed.
Prior to the court date, Rooke had provided the court with evidence that both World Trade Center towers, as well as a third building, WTC7, were destroyed, not as a direct result of plane-impact and subsequent fires, but by controlled demolition. The judge gave Rooke a conditional discharge, which means that “if he is not brought before a court in the next six months he is automatically deemed to have no conviction for the offence of refusing to pay his license fee, ” according to Peter Drew, an AE911Truth UK action group facilitator, who gave an email interview with Digital Journal. Drew is organizing the campaign against the BBC and pointed out that others required to pay the license fee should know the BBC has “very strict requirements through their royal charter and their agreement and their editorial guidelines. They have to present evidence that is impartial and accurate. They are required to correct mistakes that they make…. In 2007, the BBC, in one of their documentaries, suggested that Building 7 did not come down in free fall speed and said that the scientists and architects who were suggesting that it had come down in free-fall speed were wrong. But then in 2008, we had the official investigators, who came out and actually then said, ‘Well, no. Building 7 did come down at free-fall speed,’ which is a huge statement to make because we know it can only come down in free fall speed through controlled demolition. So the BBC made a very, very big mistake in 2007 by saying that free fall had not occurred.”
Drew reported that Rooke was required to pay court costs, which the judge set at the minimum level allowed, £200. Drew further said, "Today was an historic day for the 9/11 truth movement. With over 100 members of the public attending, including numerous journalists from around the UK as well as from across other parts of Europe.”
CORRECTION: Although Mr. Rooke stated that he had "not been convicted," a conditional discharge offers a circumstance in which a defendant may only be "deemed to have no conviction," as reported above by Peter Drew. Such wording, though confusing, indicates that for all practical purposes, the defendant does not suffer the consequences of a conviction, but it is technically still a conviction. I thank Sonia Gable for helping me clarify the conditions of the sentencing. See comments section below.
More about tony rooke, horsham court case, 911 truth
More news from
Latest News
Top News