Rachel North, Kirsty Jones, Jo Kerr and John Reid on the need [or not] for an Independent Public Inquiry into 7/7
I've beeen waiting to hear from Rachel all day before getting into the whitewash that is the MP's report, and the narrative on the events of 7/7.
Rachel from North London, Kirsty Jones and Jo Kerr [7/7 survivors and relative] provided the lead in to C4 News' interview with John Reid tonight. Their calm measured pragmatic positions made the 'attack dog' Reid look like a petty, vituperitive, snarling Pit Bull terrier who knows if he lets go of the stick he has clamped between his jaws, he will never get it back.
Watch here [11min 55sec into the clip], or Listen to Rachel, Kirsty and Jo [LoFi mp3] here , and listen to John Reid [LoFi mp3] here.
Kirsty wants to know what drove 4 men to blow themselves up.
Rachel points out that the suicide video obviously points to Iraq, and wants to know if the government are considering their foreign policy position.
Jo welcomes the reports as at least something, but points out that both are massively flawed by the political context in which they are written and says he can almost see the censor's blue pencil at work in the Narrative. He gives as an example, the absence of any real discussion of Iraq as a contributory factor. There are only 2 indirect references to Iraq in the narrative, one in the timeline mentioning Feb 2003 as the start of Coalition action in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, and the second a reference to "robust allied action in Muslim countries". This he quite appropriately describes as a "pisspoor description". He points out that in his opinion it is wrong to make crude causal links, but that nobody outside Government thinks Iraq and 7/7 are not linked.
Rachel reiterates the point that in order to prevent further attacks, we need to understand why this attack happened,
Asked what message they had for the Home Secretary, who was waiting to be interviewed, their message was clear.
Rachel - "I would like a Public Inquiry John."
Kirsty - "I would second that, and if not public then at least independent."
Jo - " That a sense of urgency is missing, and we must take action to stop this happening again."
All the above appeared like reasonable pragmatic obvious stuff, but it's time to let the dog out. A breathtaking performance even by John Reid's standards.
Apparently we are 2/3 of the way there on calls for a public independent Inquiry, because the Intelligence and Security Committee is independent... and woe betide anybody who suggests it isn't even if its members are appointed by the Prime Minister... We would be unwise, scowls John, to question it's integrity...
He assures us everything possible is being done to keep us safe, assuring us that the security services will have sufficient resources in future, but that offers no guarantees...
Challenged on the comparison to the scale of the 911 commission, and that a similar investigation might address the perception of 'covering backs' that is persisting with enquiries into the 7/7 bombing, John scales down his assertions of the ISC's independence, to now having "a degree of independence". The real and main reason we are told, that we aren't getting an independent Inquiry, is that it would require resources. Diversion of said resources into an Inquiry, in the 4th largest economy in the world, would put the security of the nation at risk. [Subtext - so those of you calling for one, are putting the security of the Nation at Risk, which I guess is one step away from describing those calling for one as a threat to our National Security...]
However, in an attempt to patronise survivors and families, and to marginalise the rest of us, John is prepared to meet them, and answer their questions... though what he is going to tell them that he can't tell us, or wasn't in the 2 reports published today is far from clear...
When challenged about the war in Iraq as a factor, John shows his canine tendencies assuring us that there is no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with what caused 4 young men to blow themselves and their fellow countrymen up, and that such an idea is based on our preconceptions [and Sidique Khan's presumably], and it would be improper for the government to make such a thing up!?
Like any Pit Bull, John Reid's main aim in life [like his predecessor] is to protect his master. That role has defined his ministerial career.
His robust refusal to accede to the more than reasonable request for some sort of independent public Inquiry into the worst terrorist outrage we have ever seen on the United Kingdom mainland has got to lead one to believe he is continuing to put protecting his Boss, above protecting us.
Today's reports appear to have satisfied nobody, Reid told Parliament today that this was not a party political issue - this was followed up by Conservative and Lib Dem front benchers calling for a Public Inquiry. The sad thing is, this has been reduced to a party political issue, Labour are the only party resisting full and frank investigation into the events of 7/7.
I haven't read the full narrative yet, and I have only skimmed the ISC report and government response, so I am not going to get into the detail of what they do, or do not clear up here [Davide does an excellent job in this previous post]. From what I have heard, watched and read today there appears to be little that is new, and lots that is unresolved after todays reports. Victims and survivors still want answers, as do the rest of us, and the conspiraloons who take the legitimate questions that remain unanswered will continue to draw their own conclusions, blurring the issues and marginalising those who are asking the questions, not answering them.
The refusal to hold a full Independent and or Public Inquiry, IMHO, is one of the most shamefull and blatantly self serving decisions this Labour government has taken in recent times, and let's face it, the bar is set pretty high.
I notice the BBC have the
I notice the BBC have the forged Met photo of the "4 hijackers" on their news homepage. The original is on the Met's website at http://www.met.police.uk/news/terrorist_attacks/groupcctv.jpg. For anyone not familiar with this obvious forgery, look at the guy with the white cap and the fence post which runs over his left arm, and partly through his face. An obvious and badly done forgery. One wonders why the only piece of "proof" we have been presented has so obviously and amateurishly been tampered with...
Reid implicates al Quaeda in
Reid implicates al Quaeda in 7/7 but refuses to accept that Khan's posthumously released statements included Iraq among the Muslims subjected to western injustice or that UK invasion of Iraq is a cause. Is he admitting al Quaeda and Iraq are unrelated? Does this not beg the question what the f**k we are doing there?
The Government will still write the terms of reference of a public inquiry that will exclude consideration of the role that foreign policies exert on domestic events - its called blowback. Thats the macro picture. Its politically more expedient to quibble over the micro management of details. The 9/11 commission did just that.
Funny that resource constraints become an issue in a country that can find scarce resources to progress ID cards which wouldn't have stopped 7/7.
I am not being cynical but in politics they never intitute a procedural mechanism unless they can control the outcome. Heavens, if that happened, it would be democracy.
Reid accepts circumstantial
Reid accepts circumstantial evidence that the bombers were linked to al-Qaida, but refuses to accept direct evidence that they were motivated (partly) by Iraq. Excellent doublethink, Doctor. We now know we can't believe a word you say.
This pic has suddenly
This pic has suddenly vacated itself from the Met police site.
Hmm????
I don't understand why they
I don't understand why they won't have an inquiry. It's not as if its going to write a report that blames Tony.
These things are always hedged and they give politicians the benefit of the doubt at every stage. Any report would be full of weasel words: "it appears that there might be the perception of ...", "with hindsight ...", "unfair to blame individuals ...", "communications problems ...", "could not happen again ...", "minor failings were identified and have already been resolved ..."
It doesn't make sense to me. If there was some huge blunder they were trying to cover up then it would have been leaked by now. Just about everyone already thinks there's some link between 7/7 and Iraq. What other reasons might there be for not wanting to know what happened?
Pic still accessible (Fri 12
Pic still accessible (Fri 12 @ 09:15) via the link above ..............
How can there be an
How can there be an independent Public Inquiry, given the huge powers which have been granted to Ministers to supress and censor any of the findings under the Inquiries Act 2005 ?
Pic gone when i looked 11.50
Pic gone when i looked 11.50 am
Elvis, if you scrutinise the
Elvis, if you scrutinise the video frame you refer to, you will see that there are no such inconsistencies in the image. Besides, why would the police release such an obvious fake (if it were indeed a fake)?
I think some people don't like the idea that such events are unforseeable and unstoppable: they want to believe there is organisation and reason behind it, whether that is 'al Qaeda' or nefarious government agencies. The reality is that some excluded and resentful young men got infected with fanatacism and went and blew themselves up along with scores of other people. Even Tony's nascent police state can't prevent this kind of thing from happening. The way to reduce the chance of this happening is simple - take away the causes: reduce religious sectarianism, improve integration, alleviate poverty, stop bombing muslim countries. These are in complete contrast to Tony's policies.
What was that phrase they
What was that phrase they kept using with ID cards....oh yes with regard to a public enquiry about the London bombing of 7/7/05
"If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear"
That was it.
Funny that Germaine Lindsay
Funny that Germaine Lindsay is carrying a white plastic bag in the 7/7 image and in the 28/6 footage. Funny that Shezad Tanweer's clothing is white top/black bottom in the 7/7 image and black top/white bottom on 28/6. Funny that the narrative says:
04.54: The Micra stops at Woodall Services on the M1 to fill up with petrol.Tanweer goes in to pay. He is wearing a white T-shirt, dark jacket,white tracksuit bottoms and a baseball cap. He buys snacks, quibbles with the cashier over his change, looks directly at the CCTV camera and leaves.
...
07.21: The 4 are caught on CCTV together heading to the platform for the King’s Cross Thameslink train. They are casually dressed, apparently relaxed. Tanweer’s posture and the way he pulls the rucksack on to his shoulder as he walks, suggests he finds it heavy. It is estimated that in each rucksack was 2-5 kg of high explosive. Tanweer is now wearing dark tracksuit bottoms. There is no explanation for this change at present.
Read the narrative and check it carefully.
I suppose you all believe Al
I suppose you all believe Al Quaeda and Bin Laden wot dun 911??
I suppose you all believe Al Quaeda and Bin Laden wot dun 911??
"I suppose you all believe
"I suppose you all believe Al Quaeda and Bin Laden wot dun 911??"
No, I don't think many people believe that. Besides, al Qaeda is a mythical organisation. It seems quite clear that a handful of young fools detonated some homemade bombs.
It isn't possible for the security services to have masterminded the bombings - too many people would need to be involved, many would refuse, and it would be impossible to keep secret. The same with 9/11.
ID-Theft Epidemic in Indy
ID-Theft Epidemic in Indy today --- so many civil servants are so badly paid,that they are easily persuaded to sell our deets to criminals--- really magnificent publicity for the ID Card PROJECT ....
I'll sign the petition, but without much hope of results, just a reminder to those Upstairs that we are watching them.
We all know that "Iraq" is part of an explanation of 7/7. We don't need an inquiry to confirm it for us ?
As for the conspiracy versus incompetence versus 'inevitable stuff' theories, the last two apply very often, to some degree !
The first is harder to believe, but there are precedents.