TV licence evader.. BBC covered up facts about 9/11..
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:01 pm
TV licence evader refused to pay because the 'BBC covered up facts about 9/11 and claimed tower fell 20 minutes before it did'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2LyByXukf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
A 49-year-old man refused to pay his TV licence because he believed the BBC covered up facts about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Tony Rooke, who represented himself today at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex, said he did not want to give money to an organisation 'funding the practice of terrorism'.
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.
He was visited in May 2012 by an inspector after withdrawing his licence in March, but said he was withholding the funds under the Terrorism Act.
Section 15 of the 2000 Act 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.
'I am withholding all funds from the BBC, the Government and subsidiaries under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act,’ he told the inspector.
He added that he had already lodged a complaint with the BBC.
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. I do not use this word lightly given where I am.'
He was not allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial.
But the major point Rooke said he relied upon was that the BBC allegedly reported that World Trade Centre 7 had fallen 20 minutes before it did.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc[/youtube]
Imagine if the assassination of JFK had been announced 20 minutes before it had happened!... Would you have a problem with that? OF COURSE YOU WOULD!
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2LyCEaTvj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2LyByXukf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
A 49-year-old man refused to pay his TV licence because he believed the BBC covered up facts about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Tony Rooke, who represented himself today at Horsham Magistrates’ Court in West Sussex, said he did not want to give money to an organisation 'funding the practice of terrorism'.
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.
He was visited in May 2012 by an inspector after withdrawing his licence in March, but said he was withholding the funds under the Terrorism Act.
Section 15 of the 2000 Act 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.
'I am withholding all funds from the BBC, the Government and subsidiaries under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act,’ he told the inspector.
He added that he had already lodged a complaint with the BBC.
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. I do not use this word lightly given where I am.'
He was not allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial.
But the major point Rooke said he relied upon was that the BBC allegedly reported that World Trade Centre 7 had fallen 20 minutes before it did.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc[/youtube]
Imagine if the assassination of JFK had been announced 20 minutes before it had happened!... Would you have a problem with that? OF COURSE YOU WOULD!
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2LyCEaTvj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
