Breaking News

Brothers of Briar

Help Support Brothers of Briar:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
In Britain, television is a state monopoly ; people are charged an annual licensing fee for having (and watching) one.

In May, 2012 one viewer, Tony Rooke, told an inspector that he was refusing to pay that fee on the basis of Section 15 of the Terrorism Act of 2000. This makes it an offence "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."

The BBC (British Broadcasting Company) took him to Horsham Magistrates Court in Sussex over his refusal.

Rooke told the court: "I believe the BBC, who are directly funded by the licence fee, are furthering the purposes of terrorism and I have incontrovertible evidence to this effect."

The most telling of it was this screen shot of the BBC live broadcast at the point when the announcer reported that Building Seven had just fallen :

wtc7-is-still-here-500w.jpg


(As this shows, Building Number Seven was not only still standing when its collapse was announced, but it remained standing for 20 more minutes before it was demolished). From this (and other evidence), it was an inescapable conclusion that the BBC was reading from a script prepared in advance and obviously complicit in the plot.

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.
Click to expand...
http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2013/09/uk-man-wins-court-case-against-bbc-for-9-11-wtc-7-cover-up-video-2440298.html

:face: 
 
or the statement that it was already collapsed was a mistake in what was really reported, when ever there is a crisis, bad news travels faster than truths, and truths often change when handed from one person to the next, and with out time to research what is really going on, in order to be the first to give BREAKING news they often report false information by accident or with negligence.
 
What's important here isn't the "right or wrong" of breaking news. It is the fact that his argument was persuasive enough to convince a judge :twisted: 

That's why Yak started this with "NOT "politics," "conspiracy theory" or disturbing the peace. NEWS."
 
com·plic·it (km-plst)
adj.
Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime; having complicity: newspapers complicit with the propaganda arm of a dictatorship.

with out trying to give any pretense that I might know why a judge would decide one way or another, like this article does...whether or not they knew of the strike beforehand or not, or had anything to do with the act of reporting on it makes them associated with event
 
The sensible and knowledgeable part of me has it in good authority to state that newspeople are idiots. Especially techs and producers. Often those "background" feeds are captured early, not live, and used/looped as needed. Could have been slightly older feeds ran for effect. Now if they were "live" and something was missing BEFORE they knew/talked about it (and had no chance to screw around with the images), that'd have been something.

Meanwhile, the story unfolds. I remain open to ideas, but have made no decision. I know the situation isn't what history reports or what we're fed (because it never is), but something tells me there's things yet to be discovered that really could blow the lid off the situation that truly cannot be ignored. Smelling wisps of smoke is a good way to tell there's a fire...but where is it?

We may never know. Which is the most disturbing thing. Still fascinating, though.

8)
 
It's a matter of record that Rooke recieved a ‘conditional discharge'. This was a guilty verdict. Rooke was not found innocent and judge did not find the BBC guilty of supporting terrorism.

Tony Rooke is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who previously produced a documentary detailing his beliefs. By not paying his licence fee I suspect he received a lot of publicity from the ensuing court case......

I'm not saying that Rooke's conspiracy theories are necessarily wrong but to assume that a UK judge has found the conspiracy theories convincing appears incorrect.

Fraternally

Jers
 
Jers --

1) Of course he was generating publicity -- it's the only way to get an issue being otherwise downplayed to public attention. Same with the whole "civil rights" and anti-war movements. The validity of your issue aside, if you're not on telly or in the papers, you might as well not be there at all. And the best way to ensure that is to rock the boat.

2) Had there been nothing to his defence, I suspect he would have been found guilty outright rather than the verdict boiling down to his having presented enough of a case that his refusal to pay the annual user's fee wasn't as cut and dried a matter as it would otherwise have been.

:face:
 
Rooke, who admitted owning a TV and watching it without a licence, was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a six-month conditional discharge and told to pay £200 costs.
Click to expand...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html

Conditional discharge - the offender is released and the offence registered on their criminal record. No further action is taken unless they commit a further offence within a time decided by the court (no more than three years).
Click to expand...
http://www.cps.gov.uk/victims_witnesses/going_to_court/sentencing.html

Basically his defence was thrown out of court, and the judge found him guilty, imposed a fine + costs, and he now has a criminal record. If he commits another crime with the six-month period he will then face whatever sentence is due for that crime PLUS the outstanding sentence from this crime.

He lost.
 
District Judge Stephen Nicholls said: 'This is not a public inquiry into 9/11. This is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act.'

He said he had difficulty sitting in the magistrates’ court as he 'did not believe he had the power to rule under the terrorism act'.

He said: 'Even if I accept the evidence you say, this court has no power to create a defence in the manner which you put forward.'

Sentencing, Judge Nicholls said: 'Mr Rooke puts the basis of his defence under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, effectively asking the court to find the BBC is a terrorist organisation and that if he continues to pay them he himself is committing a criminal offence.

'I have explained to Mr Rooke even if I were to accept his evidence I would be unable to find a defence.'

Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was 'pleased' with the outcome, 'all things considered'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html#ixzz2fcWHg0NQ

:face: 
 
I fail to see your point Yak.

The guy lost his case. His defence was thrown out. There is no spin that can be put on this that could say he won.

To be honest there are very easy ways to avoid paying the licence fee in the UK. This was not one of them. The more effective route is to not answer the door to the licence inspectors. They have no power to enter your home without a warrant from a court. A court will not issue a warrant without evidence of wrongdoing. Catch 22 for the TV licence inspectors :D 

Mr Rooke could of course choose to appeal his case to a higher court, one which does have the power to adjudicate on his terrorism act defence.
 
sounds to me from all of the other posts that "before its news" isn't a very reputable news source, and that they would probably be found "complicit" to be on the side of domestic terrorism which is all conspiracy theorists are anyways
 
OK. Try it this way, stripped to its essentials :

District Judge Stephen Nicholls said . . . he had difficulty sitting in the magistrates’ court as he 'did not believe he had the power to rule under the terrorism act'.

He said: 'Even if I accept the evidence you say, this court has no power . . .
Click to expand...
The court in which Rooke was tried lacked juristiction to consider Rooke's argument, so the judge set the supporting terrorist organisations defence aside and ruled on that aspect of the case the court he presided over had juristiction over to rule on.

That is a very different matter, making the claim that Rooke's allegations were thrown out of court, and a false inference drawn from it an example, IMO, of people reacting in anger because the verdict wasn't what they wanted to hear. Either that, or it's another example of the media snow job as usual.

:face:
 
Sorry Yak this is just another case of the news source leading it's readers to a personal agenda of what they want their readers to believe the verdict was and or meant.

When the Jugde said "Even if I accept the evidence you say, this court has no power to create a defence in the manner which you put forward.'

It was his nice way of saying , This isn't the place for this, quit being an idiot.

But also no where does he say "If this was the right court for this I would accept your evidence" it's a matter of hearing what you want to hear
 
:fpalm: 

His defence was based on the Terrorism Act.

[The judge] said . . . he 'did not believe he had the power to rule under the terrorism act'.
Click to expand...
:face:
 
you focus on terrorism part I focus on this part "Even if I accept the evidence you say" this snippet doesn't say his evidence is worthy, he said "IF" not that he would accept it, he pretty much said lets not waste our time I can't rule on it
 
I can't rule on it
Click to expand...
Give that man a cigar !  :cheers: 

Like raising a federal issue in a state court. The judge involved has no juristiction.

So he mooted the argument.

NOT "threw it out."

:face:
 
But you say this as tho the evidence was credible and no where does it say that, the judge was saying I'm not arguing your evidence cause I cant rule on it anyways,, you read into it what you want to read, not whats there
 
Top