No offense, but you need to sit down with a good book on general relativity. (I like Sean Carroll's Spacetime and Geometry. YMMV.)
Hawking proved... No, he did not.
Unless of course, He did. The physics checks out; We've recreated the conditions in the lab. A direct observation is rather difficult because of the aforementioned alignment issue with blackholes -- in fact, every theory of black holes suffers the same problem of a lack of observation being, well, you know... black holes. Hawking's theories are the best-fit model to date, and until and unless better evidence comes along, that's what most physicists are going with... as you, yourself, pointed out.
Highly charged particles are emitted at the poles of a black hole... No, they are not.
the black hole itself is also rotating at the speed of light... No, it is not.
You get one or the other. Any theory you care to pick; You don't get both. If it's not rotating at the speed of light, then the particles do not 'think' better of it and shoot out the poles... where would they get the energy to escape from the accretion disk then? You can't escape gravity without energy to counter-act it. I'd love to hear your ideas about how those jets are blasting out particles without some kind of gravitational force pushing them back out -- the kind of gravitational force that, near an event horizon, can only come by something capable of vectoring it away at near the speed of light .. like, I don't know, something rotating at the speed of light with the gravitational force of, say, a black hole.
The area around an accreting black hole is perhaps the most violent spot imaginable in the universe; it should be no surprise whatsoever that once something has gone around the accretion disc a few million times it would have enough kinetic energy to go like hell off in another direction as soon as it collides with another particle.
Well thank you. And how, exactly, do you propose that two objects interact with each other's gravity, and yet only one of them accelerates? Everywhere else in physics, when an object in space passes at a right angle to another, they affect each other's orbits -- and, wait for it -- their spin too. Now if this is happening constantly around a black hole, how exactly do you conclude that it's ... not rotating?
Allow me to clear up your confusion on this matter, as although I haven't read your pet book, I do understand something more basic: There are many types of black holes.
The physics I outlined above is accurate for a rotating black hole. However, here's the glitch that you missed: Non-rotating black holes also emit energy. See that first blurb about Hawking radiation I posted above -- whether it's rotating or not, it emits radiation. The only thing rotation does is concentrate the emissions at the poles... the accretion disk does cause a lot more matter to be ejected at the poles as spacetime is locally deformed there and they can pickup enough energy to bounce off... but not all black holes have an accretion disk, and hawking radiation doesn't depend on rotation; It depends on phenomena that happens at the event horizon where virtual particle pairs are pulled apart...
The reason it can't be observed is because this radiation occurs in such a small quantity over such a long period of time, and at such low energy levels... that we haven't yet found a black hole close enough that current technology could directly observe it.
But to just handwave and say "no, no, no..." to one of the most interesting problems in physics is stupid. Science isn't about absolute proof, it's about the best fit model. And what I've stated... that's the current state of the art. If you want deterministic physics and models that are beyond questioning, go into religion. It's the only place where dogmatically repetitive denials of what anyone else says you disagree with is endorsed.