(Brussels)–The case that the Horsham Magistrates Court of West Sussex in the United Kingdom heard on Feb. 25 is historic: The BBC, one of Britain’s main media outlets and a public corporation, stood accused of colluding with terrorism. Court officials had booked their largest room, yet crowds were so large that more than 50 people were not allowed in. Despite the presence of supporters who had come from as far away as Denmark and Norway, media coverage was rather limited.
It all started last year, when Tony Rooke, a British film documentary producer, refused to pay his television license fee under section 15 of the British Terrorism Act 2000 (Article 3), which states that it is an illegal to provide funds to an entity if there is a reasonable cause to suspect that those funds may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
Rooke argues that the BBC’s coverage of the 9/11 terror attacks in New York has been so distorted that paying the fees would amount to giving aid and comfort to the unidentified terrorists who demolished three World Trade Center buildings in 2001, when two hijacked planes were flown into the famous Twin Towers and a third tower, 7 World Trade Center (WTC 7) collapsed later that day.
Rooke is especially vocal about the “inaccurate and biased manner” in which the BBC has portrayed the events and evidence of 9/11 in two documentaries that were aired in 2011, around the 10th anniversary of 9/11, namely “Conspiracy Files: 9/11 ten years on” and “9/11: Conspiracy Road Trip.” He claims that the BBC has withheld scientific evidence which demonstrates that the official version of the events is not possible and could,therefore, not have been carried out in entirety by those who have been accused by U.S. officials.
In addition, he says, the BBC has actively blocked and smeared those attempting to bring this evidence to the public. According to Rooke, by doing this, the 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 the attacks and who have not yet been identified and held to account.
The court case is significant in two ways: first and foremost, it aims at underlining a major principle in democracy, which is that the public is entitled to the truth. If there is scientific and forensic evidence showing that there is something wrong with the official version of 9/11, then governments should provide additional explanations to the public, or start a new independent inquiry if deemed appropriate.
The second issue is more about the media: historically, its aim is to inform the public and to act as the guardian of democracy. This includes challenging the official version and governmental discourse whenever there is reasonable evidence to think they are not telling the truth. It is bad enough that a lot of media nowadays seem to have forgotten about their primary purpose and have proceeded instead to blindly endorse what is being told to them by government officials. It is even less understandable when it is about a media organization with a public service mandate.
Media indifference
Rooke was charged with a crime for not paying his television license fee. He subsequently lodged a legal challenge to this charge and was granted an appearance in a Magistrate’s court, where he was given three hours to present his case and to defend himself against the charge. He put together a team to support him in presenting the evidence, including two 9/11 researchers.
He says he wants to react against far too many years of indifference towards the scientific facts that incontrovertibly disprove the official account of 9/11. This court case has happened, he comments, “only because of mainstream media indifference, antipathy and often ridicule towards those who have researched and found the truth of 9/11, in tandem with a conspicuous silence in the face of such overwhelming evidence that disproves the official version. The mainstream media are to be treated with the contempt they deserve.”
On the factual side, Rooke is most concerned with highlighting the symmetrical collapse of WTC building 7, a large portion of which fell at free-fall speed and which was announced by the BBC some half hour before it happened. Several architects and engineers think that the collapse of WTC 7 must have been the result of something more than limited fires and damage from the nearby Twin Towers, hit by the two hijacked planes. They say the free fall collapse implies that the building had all its support removed at the same instant which can only happen with a controlled demolition.
Instead, the official 9/11 story was promulgated by the U.S. media within minutes of the first collision, based on anonymous sources in the White House. Despite a mass of new evidence coming to light in the following years, the story has never changed and holds that the destruction was entirely caused by a band of Muslim fanatics, who succeeded without any help, and were organized by the notorious Osama bin Laden.
Rooke also denounces the fact that Britain has been taken into two wars on the basis of the official story of 9/11, which was regurgitated by the BBC and the rest of mainstream media. According to him, “they have so misrepresented the facts of 9/11 to the British public that basically we have gone to war on a lie.” Additionally, the attacks were used as the pretext for the introduction of police state measures across the NATO countries.
BBC breached its editorial guidelines
Rooke’s action is actually part of a wider movement carried out in the United Kingdom. Three individuals, Peter Drew, Paul Warburton and Adrian Malett, who signed the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition have filed separate and formal complaints with the BBC over the two documentaries aired in 2011.
According to Warburton and Malett, the BBC has breached its Royal Charter and Agreement, as well as its Editorial Guidelines, which include editorial values that promise truth, accuracy, impartiality, editorial integrity and independence, fairness, transparency and accountability in all of the BBC’s programs. The BBC allows for formal complaints if a person thinks the BBC has breached these Editorial Guidelines and Editorial Values; which is exactly what the three petition signers did.
But the BBC executive board rejected their complaints and instead opted for a change in strategy. They are now asking the 11 MPs on UK’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which has oversight authority over the BBC, to get involved. The MPs on this Committee, they think, are the ones who can really hold the BBC accountable to its Royal Charter and Agreement and Editorial Guidelines. The Committee monitors the policy, administration and expenditure of the department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated bodies, including the BBC, on behalf of the House of Commons and the electorate.
More specifically, the three individuals have asked for a meeting with the Committee to present their arguments and evidence and answer the Committee’s questions. They also want the Committee to conduct its own inquiry into the biased coverage of 9/11 by the BBC.
The complaints are supported by the U.S.-based educational charity, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which submitted detailed scientific evidence to the BBC to buttress the complaints. This organization is composed of 1,700 technical and building professionals and 16,000 other individuals who have signed their names in support of the request for a new and truly independent investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
The experts were not heard by the Horsham Magistrates Court due to “legal technicalities.” After the hearing, District Judge Stephen Nicholls commented: “This is not a public inquiry into 9/11. This is an offense under section 363 of the Communications Act – not paying the license fee.” He declared he had difficulty sitting in the magistrates’ court as he did not believe he had the power to rule under the terrorism act. He gave the complainant a conditional discharge, made him pay the Courts’ costs for the case and ordered him to pay his television license fee.
Rooke declared himself pleased with the outcome of the court hearing. In a declaration to the press after the hearing, he said: “I have not been convicted; I have no fine … I have to behave myself and get a television license which of course I’ll be running down the post office tomorrow to buy. But hopefully we’ve set a little precedent here which might encourage other people to do the same.”