Difference between revisions of "Tony Rooke"
(Added: sourcewatch.) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Tony Rooke''' is an activist who in May 2012 refused to pay his [[BBC]] license, citing Section 15 of the [[2000 Terrorism Act]], 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". | '''Tony Rooke''' is an activist who in May 2012 refused to pay his [[BBC]] license, citing Section 15 of the [[2000 Terrorism Act]], 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". | ||
| − | == | + | ==2013 Trial== |
[[image:Tony Rooke with supporters.jpg|left|470px]] | [[image:Tony Rooke with supporters.jpg|left|470px]] | ||
Rooke represented himself at Horsham Magistrates' Court in Sussex, where 100 supporters turned up. He stated that “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. I do not use this word lightly given where I am.”<ref>http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/05/bbc-lawsuit-911-coverup/</ref>In February 2013, district [[judge]] [[Stephen Nicholls]] demanded that Tony Rooke pay £200 costs, but effectively dodged the issue about whether the law implied that Tony Rooke should not pay, stating that "This is not a public inquiry into 9/11. This is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act... I have explained to Mr Rooke even if I were to accept his evidence I would be unable to find a defence."<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html</ref> | Rooke represented himself at Horsham Magistrates' Court in Sussex, where 100 supporters turned up. He stated that “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. I do not use this word lightly given where I am.”<ref>http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/05/bbc-lawsuit-911-coverup/</ref>In February 2013, district [[judge]] [[Stephen Nicholls]] demanded that Tony Rooke pay £200 costs, but effectively dodged the issue about whether the law implied that Tony Rooke should not pay, stating that "This is not a public inquiry into 9/11. This is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act... I have explained to Mr Rooke even if I were to accept his evidence I would be unable to find a defence."<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html</ref> | ||
===Corporate Media Lack of Reporting=== | ===Corporate Media Lack of Reporting=== | ||
| + | [[image:Tony Rooke daily mail.jpg|left|290px]] | ||
Rooke's stand for 9-11 Truth (and the fact that the judge refused to allow him to show the evidence he had compiled) was reported on by the ''[[Daily Mail]]'', but ''not'' other UK {{ccm}}.<ref name=dmail>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html</ref> | Rooke's stand for 9-11 Truth (and the fact that the judge refused to allow him to show the evidence he had compiled) was reported on by the ''[[Daily Mail]]'', but ''not'' other UK {{ccm}}.<ref name=dmail>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html</ref> | ||
Revision as of 15:25, 13 December 2018
 Tony Rooke    (activist, filmmaker, 9-11/Dissident) | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Nationality | UK |
| Interests | 9-11/WTC7/Destruction |
A 9-11 dissident who refused to pay the BBC, stating that this would be a crime under the 2000 Terrorism Act since he "had reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for terrorism purposes". | |
Tony Rooke is an activist who in May 2012 refused to pay his BBC license, citing Section 15 of the 2000 Terrorism Act, 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".
2013 Trial
Rooke represented himself at Horsham Magistrates' Court in Sussex, where 100 supporters turned up. He stated that “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. I do not use this word lightly given where I am.”[1]In February 2013, district judge Stephen Nicholls demanded that Tony Rooke pay £200 costs, but effectively dodged the issue about whether the law implied that Tony Rooke should not pay, stating that "This is not a public inquiry into 9/11. This is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act... I have explained to Mr Rooke even if I were to accept his evidence I would be unable to find a defence."[2]
Corporate Media Lack of Reporting
Rooke's stand for 9-11 Truth (and the fact that the judge refused to allow him to show the evidence he had compiled) was reported on by the Daily Mail, but not other UK commercially-controlled media.[3]
Incontrovertible
In 2015, Tony Rooke published a film, Incontrovertible, which was critically acclaimed within the 9-11/Truth movement. Kevin Barrett stated declared it “One of the best 911 movies ever made!”[4] By February 2017, it had over 444,000 hits on YouTube.[5]
References
- ↑ http://victuruslibertas.com/2016/05/bbc-lawsuit-911-coverup/
- ↑ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html
- ↑ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html
- ↑ http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/incontrovertible-new-911-documentary-by-tony-rooke-2/151137
- ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44LkjAenNzM
