Horsham Magistrate’s Court, West Sussex, 25th February:

‘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’            Tony Rooke

‘I am withholding all funds from the BBC, the Government and subsidiaries under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act,’ Mr Rooke told a police inspector (Section 15 of the 2000 Terrorism Act makes it an offence to invite another to provide money, intending that it should be used, or having reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for terrorist purposes).

Account of the Historic Day by Tony Farrell (who had been invited to give evidence by Tony Rooke but the judge would not allow it)


Tony Rooke is a very brave individual indeed. Yesterday he was in court at Horsham following his candid refusal to pay for a BBC TV Licence and an earlier appearance on 17th December 2012 before the Magistrate Court at Crawley.

Yesterday, in a hearing before the same Magistrate Stephen Nicholls, Mr Rooke risked being convicted of a criminal offence over his non-payment stance. However, yesterday the Magistrate Judge decided after reading the evidence not to convict him.  Instead, Tony was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £200 court costs.  Being a Gunner supporter, he afterwards described this to me as a draw. However, most of the 100 or so people present saw it as a moral victory for him. Whatever, Tony is to be applauded for his courageous stance to date and the decision by the Magistrate Stephen Nicholls is an intriguing one worthy of some further scrutiny.


The Magistrate’s decision has to be seen in the context of Tony Rooke amassing  a team of witnesses who had submitted witness statements and evidence to the court prior to yesterday’s hearing. These witnesses came from a variety of backgrounds and composed of the following:

·         Ian Henshall – Reinvestigate 9/11 and author

·         Peter Drew – activist against BBC broadcasting standards

·         Ray Savage – former Police Officer with experience in Counter Terrorism and Regional Intelligence Units

·         Niels Harrit – Scientist from Copenhagen

·         Adrian Mallett – Firefighter and Engineer

·         Tony Farrell – former Principal Intelligence Analyst for South Yorkshire Police

In the event not one of the above witnesses were allowed into the hearing as the Magistrate Stephen Nicholls by his own admission claimed that he was not qualified to assess the evidence.  As Tony Rooke has not been convicted of a criminal offense, it remains to be seen whether he will appeal the decision to a higher court.

The event had been advertised in advance and attracted a turn-out of over 100 people. The majority did not get to see the hearing as seating capacity was limited to 30. Despite the frustrations about room capacity and the judge’s decision not to call any of the witnesses to give evidence.  Despite these frustrations, the gathering was very amicable and a police presence of several uniformed officers was maintained at the courts where there was friendly and inquisitive interaction. Representatives from ITN were present with cameras. Nobody from the BBC was there to cover the hearing.


Tony Rooke knows we have not had anything remotely like the truth about 9/11. He knows that the BBC has played their part in concealing the truth about what happened in America on 11th September 2001.  He objects to this. He is acutely aware that the BBC has by various TV programms and news coverage countenanced the perpetuation of the Western Governments’ lies and the deceit about those attacks. Finding this offensive, Rookie was not prepared to be silent on the matter.  He decided to make a personal stance and imaginatively turned terrorist legislation back against the government and the BBC BY using Section 15 Article (iii) of the Terrorist Act 2000. He alerted his local police force in writing and he wrote letters to the Home Office to seek clarification on the Terrorism Act 2000. Tony Rooke made his own documentary compilations and these issues.

In some respects, it was a pity though not entirely unexpected that the judge chose not to call the witnesses to be heard as evidence although he had read the evidence himself beforehand. This seemed like a damage limitation exercise.  The outcome leaves things somewhat unclear. One the one hand anyone seeking to use Section 15 Article (iii) of the Terrorism Act to withhold TV license fees or indeed Council Tax payments may draw some encouragement from the verdict.  The Magistrate did not convict Mr Rooke.

Tony Rooke’s main legal argument had been that such payment would be inappropriate for him to make because he argued that he has reasonable cause to suspect that the BBC have been and continue to be complicit in the cover-up of terrorist activity. Paying fees to that organisation would therefore be an offence under the S15 (iii) Terrorism Act 2000. Tony Rooke kept the details about his own views on 9/11 as simple as possible by not straying from how the BBC covered the events of 9/11 with particular reference to their premature announcement of the fall of WTC Building 7. Readers should be aware that the BBC announced this a full twenty three minutes before the building actually fell. Readers should also be aware that Building 7 was never hit by a plane and imploded in free fall speed indicative of controlled demolition. The BBC’s position on this fact alone is indefensible.

Tony Rooke cares deeply about the state of the nation and opposes the corruption from within. Over time he has developed a keen interest in geopolitics post 9/11 attacks.  In deciding to act as a witness for Tony Rooke, I provided a two page character reference for him.



 A British 911 court Hearing (by NK)

Tony used the Jane Stanley case in his defence. Remember her? On 9/11, she was the BBC’s pre-cognitive reporter in New York. In the words of the Daily Mail, in its report of the trial, ” the BBC allegedly reported that World Trade Centre 7 had fallen 20 minutes before it did.” 

Advance News from the BBC The BBC reported that World Trade Centre building 7 had collapsed, at 21.54 GMT on September 11th. The BBC’s reporter Jane Stanley was in New York giving this on the spot report – with WTC-7 right behind her in the picture still standing! The video of her report faded out five minutes before its actual collapse! It collapsed at 22.20 GMT. Tony Rooke rightly sees this as DIRECT COMPLICITY IN AN ACT OF TERROR.
FoxNews also reported the collapse of WTC-7 before it happened:

…we are getting word from New York that another building has collapsed and we understand this is a 47 story building … is that smoke coming from this third collapse?

Take a look at that right hand of the screen.

It’s going down right now.


Its a shame Tony Farrell was not allowed to speak, as he would have alluded to important evidence whereby the BBC has been complicit in the London Bombings of 2005, which is a bit nearer to home. As it was, the case focused entirely upon the american event.


From Tony Farrell’s written testimony to the Court:

  1. … Mr Rooke is broadly saying he has reasonable cause to suspect that both US and UK governments and associated mainstream media networks  were involved in the conspiracy to commit, cover up and apportion wrongful blame regarding the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and the 7/7 attacks in 2005. To his way of thinking, that renders our western governments as the real terrorists. Mainstream media in the UK are equally complicit in putting reputations before truth even when monstrous criminal acts have been committed. Given his beliefs, any payment to the BBC would be tantamount to him personally committing an offence under the Terrorism Act. Unwilling to break the law, he made his stand. Committing such an offence could have led to his imprisonment.
  2. Mr Rooke has been in an invidious position. His options were either to pay his TV Licence and thus knowingly commit a serious offence under the terrorism act or withhold payment for a TV Licence. I know from our conversations how Mr Rooke has agonised over having to make such an awful choice.  I am aware that Mr Rooke has written to the Home Office and alerted Sussex Constabulary of his concerns. I have seen documentation to this effect. For almost identical reasons, Mr Rooke has with-held payment of his council tax because to pay it would entail committing the same offence by law. I do not doubt Mr Rooke’s sincerity. He is not seeking to find obscure ways to get out of paying taxes or licence fees. He would sooner be paying all his taxes and licence fees promptly, reassured that our governments and our media corporations adhere to decent ethical standards. Sadly if we are honest with ourselves, we know that decent standards have fallen by the wayside. In an era when cash is king, it is plain to see that Mr Rooke sets himself different standards. He sees that the BBC has fallen short by some distance.  It is my assessment that he sees the BBC as doing nothing to counter balance the distorted picture that that it has put out initially about the 9/11 and 7/7 terror attacks.
  3. I know from our discussions that he sees the BBC as fully protecting a deceitful and unacceptable position. When I watch the BBC cover issues on terrorism and the threat from young Jihadists – I cringe because I know it is based on deceit and lies. Mr Rooke will point towards Jane Stanley – the BBC presenter famously making a premature call on the collapse of Building 7 after the fall of the twin towers. That 9/11 faux pas is conspicuous and shames the BBC. Their silence and evasiveness ever since renders them complicit in the cover up. Closer to home, I would point towards the racially bias overtones the BBC have shown in making putrid propaganda programmes such as BBC Generation Jihad, 7/7 Conspiracy Files, and 7/7 Conspiracy Roadshow.  I could go on.
  4. Mr Rooke has inspired me. Following his lead, I have withheld my own council tax and I have not paid any TV Licence for two years. For my part, I would like to congratulate Mr Rooke on his brave and morally correct stance. Had he paid money to the BBC while knowingly suspecting them, he would have committed a serious offence under the S15 Article (iii) of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Home Office have confirmed to him in writing that there can be no exemptions. Mr Rooke has done his research into 9/11, 7/7 and the role of the media. Anyone examining the quality behind his two main internet based films will see that he is genuine in his beliefs and his research is extensive. He does indeed have reasonable cause to suspect. That much I cannot doubt.
  5. Finally, let none dare say that our media, our police or our governments could not cover up such things. The recent revelations about Jimmy Saville are a case in point for the BBC. Likewise, the 23 year long cover up of the Hillsborough disaster within my own previous police force is a case in point for the police, the judiciary and the governments.  Men and women become accomplices to the evil they fail to oppose and the price good men and women pay for indifference to public affairs is that they become ruled by evil men. The nation is in a terrible moral crisis and frankly me we need more not less like my friend Rookie. Ethics is not for wimps. Tony Rooke is brave and courageous. I applaud his filmmaking, his integrity and his ethical stance against the BBC.