• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Incontrovertible Evidence: Tony Rooke's new film

S

shanners

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
1,402
Reaction score
405
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Tony Rooke has been discussed here before:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-victory-over-bbc-wtc7-coverup-broadcast.html

Incontrovertible Evidence is his new film and covers a lot of ground, from WTC7 to the 7 July London bombings to April Gallop to MLK, though WTC7 is its central theme. Interviews with firemen, police officers and military personnel and further highlighting of the deception carried out by the BBC. One of the best films on the topic:

INCONTROVERTIBLE :: Killing Auntie Films
 
Not going to pay $20 for the film. Shouldn't the "truth' be free? :mrgreen:
 
The War On Terror, spawn of the attacks of 911, is a fraud of epic proportions. The government is so out of control.

Rooke is cool. :mrgreen:
 
As regards Tony Rooke’s case, Ian Henshall described it as a “moral victory” – my understanding of the verdict was that Rooke had to pay £200 costs, and handed down a 'conditional discharge'. That means that - if Rooke still refuses to pay he could be prosecuted later on (not that I agree with the whole TV licencing arrangements in the UK) – but I expect to see things accurately reported by a site concerning itself with the truth of 9/11. What apparently did NOT happen was that the BBC were in any way censured (i.e. "The actual object of the exercise") Apparently Rooke was not allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial – and Neils Harrit and other witnesses never spoke at the hearing/trial.

Check The Evidence - Tony Rooke and the BBC TV Licence Fee
 
zyzygy said:
As regards Tony Rooke’s case, Ian Henshall described it as a “moral victory” – my understanding of the verdict was that Rooke had to pay £200 costs, and handed down a 'conditional discharge'. That means that - if Rooke still refuses to pay he could be prosecuted later on (not that I agree with the whole TV licencing arrangements in the UK) – but I expect to see things accurately reported by a site concerning itself with the truth of 9/11. What apparently did NOT happen was that the BBC were in any way censured (i.e. "The actual object of the exercise") Apparently Rooke was not allowed to show his pre-prepared video evidence in court because the District Judge said it was not relevant to the trial – and Neils Harrit and other witnesses never spoke at the hearing/trial.

Check The Evidence - Tony Rooke and the BBC TV Licence Fee
Click to expand...

Yet to this day he still hasn't paid the license fee.

Victory.
 
zyzygy said:
Wow. What a victory for truthers!
Click to expand...

Some of us see a victory, a good thing, when principle wins out over political expediency and deception. :cool:
 
zyzygy said:
In what way was it a victory for truthers?
Click to expand...

It was a victory for principle mostly, and a bit for the truth, that the BBC had been more than misleading with its coverage.
 
Thoreau72 said:
It was a victory for principle mostly, and a bit for the truth, that the BBC had been more than misleading with its coverage.
Click to expand...

In what way misleading?

"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.'"
 
Last edited:
Thoreau72 said:
It was a victory for principle mostly, and a bit for the truth, that the BBC had been more than misleading with its coverage.
Click to expand...

Nope ... it isn't.

Rooke was at a bog-standard Magistrates court hearing about non-payment of a license fee ... this was NOT an actual court case, but a FIVE MINUTE PROCESS in front of a MAGISTRATE ... NOT a judge.

HUGE fail really ... it achieved NOTHING and Rooke remains a moron of the highest order.
 
A sof his *ahem* new film ... NOTHING more than a rehash and recycling of the same old spew of yore, with a few interviews of truther NOBODIES thrown in.

YAWN ... YAWN ... MEGA YAWN ... you are on another hiding to nowhere, like EVERY other truther effort this will achieve precisely ... NOTHING !!!
 
I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:
Nope ... it isn't.

Rooke was at a bog-standard Magistrates court hearing about non-payment of a license fee ... this was NOT an actual court case, but a FIVE MINUTE PROCESS in front of a MAGISTRATE ... NOT a judge.

HUGE fail really ... it achieved NOTHING and Rooke remains a moron of the highest order.
Click to expand...

A magistrate could be a local doctor or from another profession. Hardly the highest court in the the land or a vindication for 911 truth. If he doesn't pay his license fee every year then he will end up in court again.
 
I_Gaze_At_The_Blue said:
A sof his *ahem* new film ... NOTHING more than a rehash and recycling of the same old spew of yore, with a few interviews of truther NOBODIES thrown in.

YAWN ... YAWN ... MEGA YAWN ... you are on another hiding to nowhere, like EVERY other truther effort this will achieve precisely ... NOTHING !!!
Click to expand...

They have been achieving nothing since 2011 so why change a losing formula
Correction. Some truthers have achieved the object of increasing their bank accounts.
 
Last edited:
zyzygy said:
A magistrate could be a local doctor or from another profession. Hardly the highest court in the the land or a vindication for 911 truth. If he doesn't pay his license fee every year then he will end up in court again.
Click to expand...

Indeed, magistrates are not even legal experts, but lay members of the public of good standing, who receive some base legal training and sit on the lowest benches of the court system, dealing with very, very minor cases, like Rookes' non-payment of the TV Licence fee.

It staggers that truthers take with is the most lowly and basic kind of court process and try "spin" it into some kind of big deal high level court case with a judge and jury.

Also shows how dishonest they are ... and that they take something that happened back in 2013 and still use it as if it has meaning or credence here and now ... desperate AND dishonest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom