VIDEO Historic Court Case Win Against BBC TV Licensing

[whoosh]

Published on 13 Apr 2013
Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV licence fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So 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 licence fee.

 

[ChatGPT]

Tony Rooke Refuses to Pay TV Licence, Wins Case Against BBC In a remarkable court case from 2013, Tony Rooke challenged the requirement to pay a TV licence fee, citing the BBC's alleged misrepresentation of facts about the 9/11 attacks as his defense. Rooke claimed that the BBC demonstrated prior knowledge of the attacks by reporting the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it actually happened. This 47-story skyscraper, which wasn't struck by a plane, fell at free-fall acceleration, raising suspicions of a controlled demolition. During the proceedings, Rooke presented evidence, including archival footage from the BBC, to back his assertions. The judge concluded that Rooke had made a reasonable case, which led to his acquittal. He was not fined or convicted for failing to purchase the licence, which Rooke argued would have funded what he deemed the BBC's deceptive narrative surrounding the 9/11 events.

Key Points from the Case:​

• Prior Knowledge Allegations: Rooke contended that the BBC's premature announcement indicated they had foreknowledge of the building's collapse.
• Judge's Ruling: Rooke was found not guilty, with the judge recognizing the merits of his argument against the BBC's coverage.
• Implications: Rooke's case raised questions about journalistic integrity and the responsibilities of public broadcasters to report accurately. As shared in the video, Rooke expressed hopes that his court victory would inspire others to challenge the BBC and demand accountability for its reporting, particularly concerning sensitive political events like 9/11. He emphasized the importance of presenting evidence to authorities to bring attention to perceived injustices. This case resonates even in 2024, reflecting ongoing concerns about media accountability and the representation of significant historical events. It serves as a reminder of the power of individual action in the face of institutional narratives. What do you think about Rooke's defense? Do you believe media organizations should be held accountable for inaccuracies in their reporting? Share your thoughts below!