BBC's Biased Coverage of 9-11 Goes To Court In UK Feb 25!

[Adele Edisen]

Sat, February 23, 2013 6:04:52 AMMichel Chossudovsky: Historic Court Hearings - The BBC in the Dock for Manipulating Evidence and Providing Biased Coverage of the September 11, 2001 Attacks
From: Global Research E-Newsletter <newsletter@globalresearch.ca>

Historic Court Hearings: The BBC in the Dock for Manipulating Evidence and Providing Biased Coverage of the September 11, 2001 Attacks
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, February 22, 2013
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/historic-co...ks/5323881

Deafening silence of the mainstream media. A historic law suit is in making. The BBC will be in the Dock in a British court accused of manipulating the news.

What is at stake is the BBC's coverage of the 9/11 attacks.

On February 25, in the small town of Horsham in the United Kingdom, there will be a rare and potentially groundbreaking opportunity for the 9/11 truth movement. Three hours of detailed 9/11 evidence is to be presented and considered in a court of law where the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) will be challenged over the inaccurate and biased manner in which it has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11.

Over the last 16 months, BBC has been challenged strongly by individuals in the UK over two documentaries that they showed in September 2011 as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, namely 9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip' and The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 Ten Years On'.

Formal complaints were lodged with BBC over the inaccuracy and bias of these documentaries, which, according to 9/11 activists, was in breach of the operating requirements of BBC through their Royal Charter and Agreement' with the British public.
This document requires BBC to show information that is both accurate and impartial. These complaints were supported by the US-based educational charity Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), which submitted detailed scientific evidence to BBC to buttress the complaints. The evidence focuses in particular on the confirmed free-fall of WTC 7 and NIST's 2008 admission of this fact. In addition, over 300 AE911Truth petition signers supported these complaints by sending letters to BBC, requesting that BBC show this evidence to the public.

Not a single mainstream media has acknowledged the court case. and it is highly unlikely that the proceeding will be the object of unbiased coverage.

Global Research will be covering this event alongside other alternative media.

We encourage people throughout the UK to attend these historic hearings.

9/11 Truth is fundamental in disarming "the war on terrorism" which is a fabrication.

And the BBC through its biased reporting, not to mention the manipulation of photographic evidence, has acted as an instrument of war propaganda. It is complicit in war crimes.

As a continuation of this process with the BBC, documentary film maker Tony Rooke has decided to take a personal stand on this issue. People in the United Kingdom are required to pay an annual TV licence fee which is used to fund BBC's operations. Tony has refused to pay his TV licence fee on the basis of specific anti-terrorism legislation.

Section 15 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000, Article 3, states that it is offence to provide funds if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism. Tony's claim is that BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events of 9/11 is not possible and that BBC has actively attempted to discredit those people attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, BBC is supporting a cover-up of the true events of 9/11 and is therefore potentially supporting those terrorist elements who were involved in certain aspects of 9/11 who have not yet been identified and held to account.

Rooke has been charged with a crime for not paying his TV Licence Fee. However, he has lodged a legal challenge to this charge and has now been successful in being granted an appearance in a Magistrate's court, where he has three hours available to present his evidence to defend himself against the charge. Tony has put together a formidable team to support him in presenting the evidence, including the following two outstanding 9/11 researchers:

Tony Rooke has set the stage in the UK for not paying the TV Licence fee used to fund a media entity routinely involved in media disinformation and war propaganda.

The evidence about 9/11 that will be presented by the various individuals above has rarely, if ever, been seen in any court of law in the United Kingdom, so this court case represents a unique and valuable opportunity for the 9/11 Truth movement.

The BBC has been on the defensive.

It has not made any statements in anticipation of the court hearings.

One expects that there will be attempts to block the presentation of evidence on procedural grounds.

Why is this important?
9/11 is the pretext to wage war and repeal civil liberties.

The BBC turn realties upside down. The Lie is portrayed as the Truth.

When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.

The Lie of the mainstream media including the BBC must be exposed for what it is and what it does.

September 11 has been used profusely by US and its allies as a justification for waging a preemptive war without borders.

The so-called "War on Terrorism" is a lie.

Acts of war are heralded by the main stream media as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards restoring democracy.

Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented by the BBC as "peace-keeping operations."

This system relies on the manipulation of public opinion.

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of September 11.

Exposing the BBC is an important step in reversing the tide and dismantling war propaganda which sustains a criminal military agenda.

The date and location of the hearing are as follows:

February 25th at 10:00 am

Horsham Magistrates' Court [Court 3] The Law Courts Hurst Road

Horsham

West Sussex England RH12 2ET

Tel: 01444 417611
Fax: 01444 472639

MAP

"HORSHAM FEB 25, THE BBC IN THE DOCK FOR MANIPULATING THE NEWS"

Copyright © 2013 Global Research

GLOBAL RESEARCH | PO Box 55019 | 11 Notre-Dame Ouest | Montreal | QC | H2Y 4A7 | Canada

Adele

[Peter Lemkin]

That will be tomorrow, as I write. Probably, the BBC's lawyers will try to dismiss the whole thing; or not allow admission of evidence or expert witnesses....and no matter what....the other MSM will NOT cover this....nor will the BBC. What a joke of democratic states we live in now..... electronic neo-feudalism! Fight Back!

[Peter Lemkin]

With the exception of London's Daily Mail (see below), the British mainstream media, including The Guardian and the Independent, chose to abstain from coverage or commentary of this historic court case, which points to a criminal process of media disinformation by the BBC.

The BBC chose to "cover up its own coverup." Not a single word from the BBC to justify or explain or refute their lies, particularly regarding the collapse of WTC building 7 which had been announced by the BBC 20 minutes before the collapse took place, suggesting that the BBC and other media had advanced knowledge of the collapse of a WTC building 7 which was not even struck by an aircraft.

This is one among a string of BBC media fabrications including fake images and video footage.

We will recall that in August 2011, the BBC showed fake video footage of Libyans celebrating "Liberation" in Tripoli's Green square, following NATO's humanitarian bombings. Oops. They were waving Indian flags. They are not Libyans but Indians. "We made a mistake", assuming that the British public would not see the difference.

It is our hope that Tony Brooke's initiative will encourage people across the United Kingdom to question the legitimacy of the TV Licence fee, which supports an organization involved in outright war propaganda on behalf of the British government.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, February 25, 2013

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Rooke represented himself at Horsham Magistrates' Court in Sussex

Told inspector on visit in May 2012 that he would not be paying licence fee Rooke said he was withholding fee under Section 15 of Terrorism Act 2000

This states it's an offence for someone to provide funds used for terrorism He said he didn't want to give money to an organisation funding terrorism'

Rooke said BBC claimed World Trade Centre 7 fell 20 minutes before it did

But judge made Rooke pay £200 costs and gave him conditional discharge

By Mark Duell

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.

Fan base: Around 100 supporters of Tony Rooke arrived at Horsham Magistrates' Court in West Sussex to watch the court case although only 40 could pack into the public gallery

Fan base: Around 100 supporters of Tony Rooke arrived at Horsham Magistrates' Court in West Sussex to watch the court case although only 40 could pack into the public gallery

He also made reference to a theory about the way the skyscraper was said to have fallen in on itself, which some people believe showed signs of a controlled demolition.

Mr Rooke said: The BBC reported it 20 minutes before it fell. They knew about it beforehand. Last time I was here I asked you (the judge): "Were you aware of World Trade Centre 7"?

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

You said you had heard of it. Ten years later you should have more than heard of it. It's the BBC's job to inform the public. Especially of miracles of science and when laws of physics become suspended.

They have made programmes making fools of and ridiculing those of us who believe in the laws of gravity. American reports have shown that the fall was nothing but a controlled demolition.

I am not looking at who demolished it that is impossible but the BBC actively tried to hide this from the public.'

Not paying a TV licence under Section 363 of the Communications Act is a strict liability offence, said Garth Hanniford, prosecuting. He asked Rooke why he continued to watch the BBC with no licence.

Rooke said: Ignorance is not an excuse I need to know what these people are saying.' He later added: You are asking me to commit a crime if you are asking me to pay.'

Around 100 supporters arrived at Horsham Magistrates' Court today to watch the court case although only 40 could pack into the public gallery.

The court called in back-up from Sussex Police with two officers standing at the door to the court and several more outside. There was cheering and applause as Rooke put his case forward in court.

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'.
- See more at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/historic-91...q8S0W.dpuf

[Malcolm Pryce]

I'm sorry, I've been a 9/11 Truther for ten years but this struck me as a pointless stunt that was going nowhere right from the start. I'm not remotely surprised that the media didn't cover it. He's refusing to pay his TV licence because the BBC, by discrediting those who challenge the official narrative, is supporting terrorism? Who's going to buy that? The predictable result was, the judge told him to go away and buy a TV licence and the rest of the world took no notice. As for the notion that others should also start refusing to pay their TV licence, how likely is that? I salute the intention and the sincerity of Tony Rooke but feel, really, that this whole episode does nothing more than confirm the prejudice that we are all a bit fringe and weird. It was naive and makes us look naive. IMHO.

[Peter Lemkin]

I'm sorry, I've been a 9/11 Truther for ten years but this struck me as a pointless stunt that was going nowhere right from the start. I'm not remotely surprised that the media didn't cover it. He's refusing to pay his TV licence because the BBC, by discrediting those who challenge the official narrative, is supporting terrorism? Who's going to buy that? The predictable result was, the judge told him to go away and buy a TV licence and the rest of the world took no notice. As for the notion that others should also start refusing to pay their TV licence, how likely is that? I salute the intention and the sincerity of Tony Rooke but feel, really, that this whole episode does nothing more than confirm the prejudice that we are all a bit fringe and weird. It was naive and makes us look naive. IMHO.

Maybe, but he tried....and others are trying to find a way in the rigged game. The Court could have allowed in evidence to support his contention. There were witnesses and experts willing to give testimony. In my mind it is the Court and the State that look stupid and sinister - afraid to confront the ugly truths. I don't see it as a 'stunt', but an attempt. I agree it failed, but I see no harm done. We must all try every chance we get. People can stop paying taxes too and try to get into court with the reasons. Get out in the streets...whatever it takes. The White Rose was seen as naive and pointless by some, I'm sure, in Nazi Germany. They made a difference by doing the right thing. Fighting a wrong, by whatever means, is never pointless, in the end. Every little drop sooner or later makes a difference. If we fail, the World will soon be too ugly to contemplate. It is already very difficult for me to behold without deep pain.

[Jeffrey Orling]

How much of your Truman Show is real and how much is memorex?