Democratic? No public enquiry on the 7/7 bombings.

[Kid_Eternity]

Jazz proving once again what a complete waste of fucking time conspiraloons are...

 

[Badger Kitten]

FOR THE LAST TIME, WHY DO I HAVE TO BE THE PERSON ON THESE BOARDS WHO CLASPS SUE TO MY BOSOM, JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT ME TO BACK HER, AND BY EXTENSION, YOU?

Why?

I don't know her. I didn't think it advisable for us to correspond, I advised her to get professional help.


I am not her ally or her enemy, I do.not.know.the.woman.

Why does she need you to bang on about the events for her? Why do I have to have an opinion about the treatment of suethomason in a thread about a public enquiry about the 7th of July? Stop trying to drag me into a row about her. What does she have to do with me, for god's sake?


When are you going to answer the question about the black ops assertion?

Otherwise, yes, tin foil box, last in. None of the conspiracy bloggers have managed to offer the slightest shred of evidence to back up their assertions,

why not? why not? why not?
because you haven't got any evidence, that's why, just a silly theory thatyou try to make the facts fit.

All this ''but look! I satnd up for suethomasson!'' is irrelevant and a smokescreen to justify your sense of feeling that you are on the side of the victims and of truth.

Well, if you are on the side of truth and the victims, here is a victim asking for your truth. And getting fuck all sensible in return.


Out with it!

Or back in the tin foil box with you. Ker-ist , I forgot I posted that, it seems tiresome years ago.

 

[dormouse]

Good, I think we have established that there is nothing in it to suggest that she was not a witness to the shooting of Charles de Menezes.

She wasn't a witness to the shooting.

I didn't see the shooting, but thought the shots were a terrorist firing on the public. My conscious mind knows the truth, but my unconscious mind doesn't seem to recognise that I'm no longer in danger.

I'm glad I didn't see the poor bloke get killed though.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3296747&postcount=14

(Sorry to resurrect the irrelevant tangent, just wanted to point it out)

 

[laptop]

Any more tangents?

This is one of my favourites:

* Looks at watch *

* f*ing hippy, doesn't own a watch *

* Looks at bottom right-hand-corner of screen *

 

[editor]

A trauma victim here, on your board editor, was accused of being a 'narcissistic confabulator'. This is not something you should take lightly.

Hold on, since when am I personally responsible for other people's content on this board?

The urban crowd are, on the whole, a pretty genuine and reasonable bunch, and if that's the conclusion many arrived at, then that's not my fault at all. It's hers.

 

[editor]

it's a pity that most of the rest of this year's offerings have found their way into the secret forum of the black lagoon, from which few threads return intact.

PM me the details and I'll dig 'em up and rescue them if they weren't deleted at the time or removed for legal reasons (as I believe some were).

 

[editor]

Right, this then is the thread that Jazz gets outed as being far more than a simple observer of the events he posts his claptrap about - it's clear now that he's actively seeking to manipulate and influence the behaviour of other people involved from behind the scenes. Dangerous territory Jazz.

That's a bit like the fruitloop 9/11 material he shoved in the hands of that hapless hotel owner in Brirmingham.

 

[editor]

There was nothing in that correspondence that I am ashamed of. Nor should she be, since she claimed to be sending it all over to a lawyer.

I forgot - she did the same to me. As a favour, I changed her user name after I returned from Cornwall, and then she dished out a half arsed legal threat!

I ignored it, natch.

 

[editor]

So now that even editor is distancing himself from the shocking treatment handed out to Sue, you more than anyone should care about this being sorted out.

Any chance of you stopping this fucking misrepresentation as it's getting on my tits now?

I am not 'distancing' myself. I am simply stating that I was not on the boards when it kicked off and I am not responsible for the comments made by others here, despite your tedious attempts to connect with them with me.

Got it?

 

[Jazzz]

She wasn't a witness to the shooting.

Yes she was. You can witness an event with any one of your five senses.

Badger Kitten

Your righteous indignation, so oft repeated, is starting to ring increasingly hollow. No-one ever asked you to clutch ST to your bosom. Quite honestly that doesn't seem a very appealing place from where I am.

The point is that you make out how awful, how utterly dreadful it is for any to cast doubt on the official narrative BECAUSE THAT IN SOME WAY INVALIDATES YOUR EXPERIENCE. Although no-one is doing that at all.

However when someone else, a fellow trauma victim WAS actually wrongly called a liar in the worst possible way - something that really set back her recovery from a traumatic event you accused ME of 'stirring' because I was pointing out the shameful treatment that urban75 moderators dished out.

You might recognise, now that editor has completely backtracked and is distancing himself from the whole thing - and that no-one now claims to have anything against her - that I - far from being someone who goes around accusing trauma victims of making up their experiences will actually campaign on their behalf when they are wrongly accused of doing so.

When it all kicked off "I.didn't.know.the.woman.either". Yet I was able to see that she was telling the truth and that the certainty which everyone else held was simply a load of small-town tittle-tattle.

And you know what?

I gave a fuck about it, and really stuck my neck out to correct the matter. You try standing up hard to Mrs Magpie, or editor, while your threads are being deleted.

Maybe you don't - that's up to you. But then, don't go around whining about how awful it is being the victim of something like this and how terrible it is that someone might think elements of the official narrative which have nothing whatsoever to do with your account might not be true, because now that I am finally routing out the last dregs of the '<real name removed: editor> is a narcissistic confabulator' nonsense, YOU, of all people, are in the way.

Having earlier called for the bin, I would hope you refrain from posting again on this thread, unless you have something worthwhile to say about supporting trauma victims who are unfairly accused of making the whole thing up to get attention. Heaven knows you milk that for all it's worth and way more where you are concerned, and frankly it now seems rhetorical.

editor

Rather than taking childish delight that you probably aren't going to get sued, as that's very costly, why don't you recognise that YOUR MODERATING TEAM (not the posters) introduced publicly the entirely false accusation that <real name removed: editor> was a 'narcissistic confabulator' and was 'rumbled as a fraud'.

I appeal to your decency. Stop running from the issue. It is not ok to go around accusing trauma victims of making the whole thing up whether you are sued or not. You repeatedly told me that you were sure the right thing was done. Yet - thanks to the deafening silence of anyone still wishing to maintain that she was a fraud - we now know the truth of the matter.

I really love urban75 but the treatment of <real name removed: editor> was utterly, utterly shameful. You must now recognise that.

 

[laptop]

* Has an intuition *

* Peeks at Jazzz posting *

utter shite

* Is utterly confirmed in opinion that Jazzz is not just self-centered but practically fucking solipsistic - theres' no-one in his world but him *

 

[editor]

You might recognise, now that editor has completely backtracked and is distancing himself from the whole thing...

I have not changed my position at all. Based on her postings, her PMs, emails and reports from others, I remained convinced that something isn't quite right about her - an opinion shared by many at the time.

That is the opinion I reached when I came back from Cornwall and it hasn't fundamentally changed, backtracked or altered in any shape or form.

Of course, in the words of the mighty John Lydon, "I could be right, I could be wrong" - just like you could be - but that is the opinion I hold about her.

So shut the fuck up with all this "backtracking" bullshit if you please, because it's getting very irritating now.

Now, to get back on topic, please explain why a proper inquiry would "reveal 7/7 to be the black op that it was"

Exactly what would be "revealed" please, and how?

 

[editor]

Here's how credible she was seen by a long established poster here on these boards at the time - he/she wrote to me because they thought we'd made her up!

It has occurred to me that the user st may have been created deliberately by U75 in order to serve as an example of what happens to
posters that don't behave (especially in the light of influx of new posters
following recent events).

That would be understandable although perhaps a
little far-fetched given the amount of posts/time taken. Whilst I think it's
unlikely, I wanted to ask you if this is the case before I pursue the matter
further. I'd appreciate your reply on this

 

[Jazzz]

You have changed your position. You now 'could be wrong'.

It's about time that was admitted.

Yet this is still not good enough. I am extremely disappointed by your lack of responsibility. There is no evidence against her beyond rumours, there never was, and it is about time you recognised that this is way gossip works.

You cannot have your moderating team publicly accuse trauma victims of making up their accounts unless you are absolutely certain. Saying 'something wasn't right' is just not good enough.

Should the Birmingham Six still be in jail because lots of people thought they were guilty at the time, and you know what they just might have had something to do with it?

 

[rich!]

Those are still in beta testing and won't be deployed until Q2 next year.

Actually, according to my BAES contacts, they're really unreliable, and we're now on Prescott4 as a result of initial failures.

Reliable deployment is Q5 20108

 

[laptop]

For Jazzz to accuse someone who (a) was present at a scene of carnage as sure as the gravity still works in here and (b) is according to their own description clearly still in a state of trauma about it, with flashbacks and survivor-guilt: for Jazzz to accuse her of "whining" and "milking it" is serious psychological abuse.

I've deleted my extract above. I ask that Jazzz' posting be be deleted and he be banned.

 

[Jazzz]

Here's how credible she was seen by a long established poster here on these boards at the time - he/she wrote to me because they thought we'd made her up!

I fail to see anything of relevance in that, except that foolish posters can easily suspect people are making things up without good cause; in this case, you.

Is this is your solid evidence that <real name removed: editor> wasn't genuine it is time you took a hard look at yourself.

 

[rich!]

Let us assume for one second that the government decided to blow people up. What was that supposed to achieve?

To be fair (and I don't want to be), we do know that, for example, extreme elements of the Italian government blew up commuters at train stations in the 70's as part of a "strategy of tension" - in other words, to enable the construction of a fascist state.

Sadly, this level of "historical fact-based analysis" won't happen here for another 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_tension

http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/strategy-of-tension-italy/

 

[editor]

You have changed your position. You now 'could be wrong'.

Nope. Didn't say that. I said, "I could be wrong, I could be right".
See the difference?

Now stop trying to fucking misrepresent me with your dishonest selective quoting. It might be a standard tactic on your lunatic conspiracy sources, but I'm not having it.

 

[TeeJay]

Oh just fuck off Jazzz

 

[Jazzz]

For Jazzz to accuse someone who (a) was present at a scene of carnage as sure as the gravity still works in here and (b) is according to their own description clearly still in a state of trauma about it, with flashbacks and survivor-guilt: for Jazzz to accuse her of "whining" and "milking it" is serious psychological abuse.

I've deleted my extract above. I ask that Jazzz' posting be be deleted and he be banned.

You, laptop, were the worst offender where <real name removed: editor> was concerned. Maybe you will know recognise the psychological abuse you dished out to <real name removed: editor>.

However, I have not accused badger kitten of making anything up.

 

[editor]

You cannot have your moderating team publicly accuse trauma victims of making up their accounts unless you are absolutely certain. Saying 'something wasn't right' is just not good enough.

Yes it is, if you knew the full facts.

Which you don't, as usual. Now is there any chance of you stopping your off-topic crusading and answering this question, raised in response to your own post:

Please explain why a proper inquiry would "reveal 7/7 to be the black op that it was"

Exactly what would be "revealed" please, and how?

 

[editor]

To be fair (and I don't want to be), we do know that, for example, extreme elements of the Italian government blew up commuters at train stations in the 70's as part of a "strategy of tension" - in other words, to enable the construction of a fascist state.

Not quite comparable to the UK in 2005 then, eh?

 

[rich!]

I dont know if anyone blew themselves up - that is my point

(For reference, I went to school with a dead failed suicide bomber of a different atrocity attempt)

We don't know if the bombers detonated their bombs. The "return ticket" stuff suggests they were expecting to come home, which suggests their handlers were sending them on a "dry run", and then arranging the atrocity.

This fits a traditional military model: if you have no extraction plan for that unit, don't tell them that, then they will keep fighting expecting extraction rather than surrender.

I agree it's irrelevant whether or not the bomb-carriers knew they were going to explode. Whether or not they could have been prevented, however, is clearly relevant.

 

[TeeJay]

I thought that all further discussion of ST was banned, as the whole matter is sub judice while the IPCC continues its investigation?

I also thought that conspiracy theories were banned from u75 as well - or is that just ones relating to 9/11? If so can 7/7 be added to the list?

 

[Jazzz]

Nope. Didn't say that. I said, "I could be wrong, I could be right".
See the difference?

Now stop trying to fucking misrepresent me with your dishonest selective quoting. It might be a standard tactic on your lunatic conspiracy sources, but I'm not having it.

No I do not see the difference. If you 'could be wrong, could be right' then you could be wrong.

Go on, tell us 'the full facts'. You are already publishing nonsensical pms.

 

[laptop]

You, laptop, were the worst offender where <real name removed: editor> was concerned. Maybe you will know recognise the psychological abuse you dished out to <real name removed: editor>.

Nah, you're treating it all as a world-versus-Jazzz those-who-aren't-with-Jazz-are-against-him game of two halves, as always.

I asked her a direct question about her claimed experience - something totally unrelated to her claims about Stockwell and very much related to my knowledge, contacts and experience - and ten minutes later she flounced.

Now, will you edit that appalling attack on BK or will you be banned, fuckwit?

Edited: of course editor and mods can go on inexplicably tolerating you - but of course what you wrote has real-world consequences.

 

[editor]

No I do not see the difference. If you 'could be wrong, could be right' then you could be wrong.

Yes. And I could be right too.

But you missed that bit out, because you like to selectively misquote people.

The bit I don't get is why, if you're trying to protect ST's 'honour', you've chosen to dredge the whole thing up again, even going as far as publicly reminding people of her other name here. Why?

You've already been told that she specifically asked me to change her name for personal reasons, so why are you going against her wishes and broadcasting it to the world?

Oh, and any chance of you finally answering my on-topic questions related to your post, please?

 

[editor]

Go on, tell us 'the full facts'.

I don't publish private correspondence where a poster's identity is revealed, but if you think I'm lying about my concerns, well, frankly, fuck you.

 

[Jazzz]

'fuckwit'?

You are the worst kind of smart-arse laptop. You are not nearly half as clever as you think you are.

I won't forget showing some people card tricks, only for you to be announcing like a five-year old child that you 'know how I did it' - even to the extent of yanking the deck out of my hand to look for the markings - which of course weren't there. I have never encountered someone who was so keen to actually demonstrate how foolish they were.

If <real name removed: editor> decided she wasn't bothering answering some question of yours I don't blame her. You have no good reason to think she wasn't genuine. IIRC, she deferred to you on some point of law on the thread concerned. That has nothing to do with her being a witness or not. If you think she doesn't work in publishing I can produce her work phone number. But that wouldn't interest you, because the truth is you just want any excuse to maintain your illusion.