| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Tony Rooke wins his TV License case by stating the BBC were complicit in 9/11.
seriously, this is EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT in the sense that the BBC didn’t mention this before being taken to court by Tony Rooke: and they still haven’t talked about it.
Points Of View, anyone?
The interesting aspect of this, for me, is that not only did Tony Rooke get away with not paying for his TV license due to his claim that the BBC were somehow ‘in league with or coordinated with the terrorists i.e. T.H.E.Y.’ on the day of 9/11 when the US Air FOrce stood down allowing two commercial airliners to fly over restricted airspace for an hour and then crash into the WTC buildings 1 and 2 after which WTC Building 7 came down AT FREEFALL SPEED without any plane having hit it late on the afternoon of September 11th 2001.
^^^that.
2013-04-09 11:21:00
Source: http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2013/04/tony-rooke-wins-his-tv-license-case-by.html
Source:
What I have found interesting is that this story which attempts to expose the ‘truth’ is in fact entirely incorrect.
Tony Rooke did not win his case. He was found guilty. He was given a conditional discharge and will still have to pay for a tv licence.
He did not take the BBC to court, it is standard procedure for non-payers of tv licence to receive a court summons. The magistrate deemed his ‘evidence’ as being totally irrelevant to the case.
http://www.westsussextoday.co.uk/news/county-news/9-11-controversy-in-horsham-court-1-4829773
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2284337/TV-licence-evader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html