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

[likesfish]

impressonable muslims stirred up by fanatical preacher and or litriture about islams problems in the middle east fromer yugoslavia chechnya etc and then iraq and the birtish goverments ignoring or making muslims lives activly worse.
decide the only option is to commit suicide bombing like they do in palenstine.
security services missed this bunch of nutters
uk forign policy encourages this sort of behaviour in violent nutters
Bad mr blair bad bad mr blair
can I have 5 million quid now

 

[Idaho]

That would of course depend on who did the public enquiry.

I don't know about how they work, nor who is involved in the 'enquiring'.

But surely in a country that professes freedom for its citizens, then some kind of independent enquiry should be mandatory for such events. I mean, at the very least we might be presented with evidence as to who committed the crimes, thereby affording us with some knowledge to help avoid them being repeated.

Evidence and facts are what we want, regardless of how we get them. Whatever evidence is available should be presented to citizens of a free country. Then we people can help guide our leaders in helping to avoid a repeat performance. After all, that's the way a democracy works.

What we don't need is the fact-free fantasies propagated by biased slash uninterested newspapers and urban posters too ready to accept the official version, as proffered by politicians and policemen, both of whom are known to be blatant liars. The former are also prolific in their lies and bullshit.

If you believe in the conspiracies, why do you also believe that we can use the, in your eyes, discredited mechanisms of state to redress the balance.

If you think that we are all controlled by shadowy forces who can control everything for their own ends - then why delude yourself into thinking you have any power to redress the balance?

Do you think that a public inquiry would finally validate any of this stuff you believe in?

 

[editor]

Do you think that a public inquiry would finally validate any of this stuff you believe in?

I doubt it, but it would certainly give him something new to go on about as being an evil cover up/conspiracy etc etc zzzz.

 

[untethered]

The point of a public inquiry would be to at least attempt to come to an agreed version of events that is neither the official government line, nor the posturing of loonies who'd believe or say anything that fitted with their political prejudices.

7/7 is a highly significant, recent event. There are various direct stakeholders (survivors, families of victims, families of supposed bombers) and then there's the rest of us who would very much like to know whether the government at the very least did its best to prevent the attack, are in a position to do so in future, etc.

The recency of 7/7 and the fact that it is part of an ongoing, serious situation makes a significant difference between it and the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

It's unfortunate that an inquiry would make a few rich lawyers richer. I hold out no hope whatsoever that its conclusions would be accepted by everyone or would ever be the final, definitive word on the matter. But they would make a huge contribution toward the public understanding of the issue that would be very hard to replicate in any other way, not least by an official government pronouncement.

Perhaps Parliament should be doing more to scrutinise the event but it isn't. Whether this is because it isn't able or doesn't want to would be the topic of a separate, lengthy thread.

A public inquiry would cost less than keeping our boys in Basra for another couple of weeks and to my mind, provide significantly better value for money. It's a shame that the so-called "7/7 truth campaign" are a bunch of dribbling whackos, but it doesn't diminish the need for the public to know more about the event than what the current entirely discredited government deign to tell us.

 

[aurora green]

Well it sits uneasy with me, the idea that because public enquiries dont work, we shan't bother having them.
I mean surely, we dont know everything, there are unanswered questions...
Can it be right to let the government just decide on a 'narrative' of events?
It seems alarmingly big brotherish to me.

 

[bristol_citizen]

Accurate? Whoa, steady on there fellow.

In the two examples I cited - Bloody Sunday and Hutton/WMD - the press have produced a far more accurate and coherent version of events than any of the official sources or nutjob websites. They have also done this, often, in the face of considerable establishment pressure.
Like it or not, the press is the best thing we have unless you want to believe the cops, blame-free public enquiries or the conspiraloons...

 

[fela fan]

The Savile Inquiry into Bloody Sunday cost the taxpayer more than one hundred and fifty million pounds. Most of it went to pay lawyers' fees. You tell me if that resulted in a clear and uncontestable clarification of the facts. Let's say that a public inquiry into the events in London on 7th July 2005 cost only a third of that and we paid only fifty million pounds to the lawyers. Would it really result in the evidence or facts you want?

Would it satisfy Jazzz?

I don't give a fuck who it would satisfy, that's not the debate.

As for 50 million quid, or whatever amount of millions, it's a non-debate. You tell the government to quit paying for nuclear weapons, and instantly we have lots of tax payers' money to spend.

See? It's a non-debate.

Rather the debate should be how much we can depend on a public inquiry, and who should be on it. Certainly no-one employed by the state.

If you want a democracy, and we get massive crimes against the citizens, then we need answers. Now debate how we're going to get those. If not public inquiry, then what?

 

[Fullyplumped]

Well it sits uneasy with me, the idea that because public enquiries dont work, we shan't bother having them.

If things don't work we should stop doing them, at least with public money.

Nice use of "shan't", though!

 

[fela fan]

If you believe in the conspiracies, why do you also believe that we can use the, in your eyes, discredited mechanisms of state to redress the balance.

If you think that we are all controlled by shadowy forces who can control everything for their own ends - then why delude yourself into thinking you have any power to redress the balance?

Do you think that a public inquiry would finally validate any of this stuff you believe in?

Read my post and stop putting bullshit into my mouth.

No, i have no trust in public inquiries since i've seen some bollocks come out of them.

But i either want them cleaned up so we can accept their findings with no suspicion or ill-will towards inordinate amounts of money lining lawyers' pockets, or i want another mechanism to find out who's fucking with british peoples' lives: politicians and other vested interests of the state, or brainwashed idiots.

And if it's the latter, than get to the fucking brainwashers, find evidence, charge them, and get them in jail. If it's the former, bung em in jail too.

We're a democracy. We have no evidence of what happened on this major crime against the people, and we want it. And we want to be able to believe it.

If it costs money to keep our democracy, then fucking spend it. The alternative is a loss of most of your freedoms. Take your pick. I left already.

 

[Fullyplumped]

You tell the government to quit paying for nuclear weapons, and instantly we have lots of tax payers' money to spend.

No argument from me.

Rather the debate should be how much we can depend on a public inquiry, and who should be on it. Certainly no-one employed by the state.

Well I think this what Parliament is for. Failing them, the Tricycle Theatre Company have an excellent track record in this kind of thing.

 

[fela fan]

I doubt it, but it would certainly give him something new to go on about as being an evil cover up/conspiracy etc etc zzzz.

Trust you to come barging in. You've not been reading properly either. I've not stated what i believe in here.

I don't know what my position is here, we've never been given any answers. I want them.

Now, just leave me the fuck alone in this thread. You ruin enough good ones by dissing posters based on your faulty beliefs about their own beliefs.

Let the thread run, debate the issues not the bloody debaters.

 

[fela fan]

Well it sits uneasy with me, the idea that because public enquiries dont work, we shan't bother having them.
I mean surely, we dont know everything, there are unanswered questions...
Can it be right to let the government just decide on a 'narrative' of events?
It seems alarmingly big brotherish to me.

That's coz it is aurora. It sits uneasy with me too.

Interestingly for a politically independent alternative website, there are a lot of posters who seem to not care about finding the answers.

If they are, then okay, diss the public inquiries, but what are we gonna have instead?

 

[fela fan]

In the two examples I cited - Bloody Sunday and Hutton/WMD - the press have produced a far more accurate and coherent version of events than any of the official sources or nutjob websites. They have also done this, often, in the face of considerable establishment pressure.
Like it or not, the press is the best thing we have unless you want to believe the cops, blame-free public enquiries or the conspiraloons...

Unfortunately, that's a fair post!

 

[tobyjug]

Public enquiries are the best way to determine the truth of the matter.

What country do you live in please? I have lived in Britain for all of my 57 years and I can't remember a public enquiry ever getting to the truth.

 

[fela fan]

Do you think that a public inquiry would finally validate any of this stuff you believe in?

And anyway idaho, you gonna tell me how you're sitting fucking thousands of kms away and you know what i 'believe in'?? Eh?? Especially as i believe in a big fat fuck all in my life.

Go on, tell me what i believe in. And if you say anything, you're wrong.

Now do me a favour and retract this bullshit.

 

[mod]

What exactly do we need a public inquiry into the bombings for?

We know what happened. The bombings were perpetrated by four Islamic extremists who had been brainwashed by hate-filled bigots spouting a grotesquely distorted version of their religion. Their minds, no doubt, were all the more ready to accept what they were being poisoned with as a result of Britain's participation, against the will of a majority of the British public, in an illegal war and occupation in Iraq which resulted in the needless deaths of thousands of Muslims. Not that that excuses mindless violence perpetrated against innocent people.

There is no evidence of which I'm aware of serious failings on the part of the police, emergency services or intelligence. They can't be aware of the actions and intentions of every nutjob whose minds have been inflamed by the extremist bullshit that the bigots have been preaching.

Sadly, Britain (which, realistically, meant London) was going to be attacked by Islamic terrorists; it was a question of when rather than if. So I don't really see what there is to inquire into. Unless, of course, you're a conspiraloon who believes that there were no bombings, but the explosions were caused by the melting of the tube tunnels by gamma rays sent by lizards from the planet Zog who were in conspiracy with a dark cabal of Illuminati, Jews, members of Opus Dei and the Mafia to .... er .... take over the world, innit.



We know what "influenced" the attacks. It was Blair's evil and illegal war in Iraq. We don't need an expensive public inquiry to tell us.



I agree with you that such laws are oppressive and unnecessary, but what the fuck does this have to do with the question of whether there should be a public inquiry into the bombings?

aylee

Thats my point. Any public enquiry would conclude the attacks were influenced by our invasion of Iraq. Blair would not be able to survive this as he has publicly stated against this. He would have to quit and thats why any public enquiry will never happen.

My other point about £1000 was just something else that happened to piss me off this morning.

 

[aylee]

What country do you live in please? I have lived in Britain for all of my 57 years and I can't remember a public enquiry ever getting to the truth.

"The truth"? One person's truth is another person's half-truth and a third person's pack of lies. Ultimately, what we perceive to be the truth is influenced by our own prejudices, political and otherwise.

There are two purposes to public inquiries:

- to investigate some catastrophic event in order to understand what took place and to prevent a repetition.

- to enable those involved in such events to understand what took place and come to terms with their experiences.

There have been many public inquiries which have done good things for our society. For example, inquiries into the deaths of children due to the failings of the child protection authorities to protect them from abuse have resulted in wholesale changes in police and social work practice that will have undoubtedly saved the lives of many children and saved many more from appalling abuse by allowing abuse to be identified and action taken at an earlier stage.

Furthermore, if the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, when the report is finally published, actually helps with the healing of the massive rift between the communities of Northern Ireland, it will be worth every penny spent on it. I personally doubt that it will have that effect, but one can only hope.

I personally don't see how an inquiry into the events of July 7th can fall within either category set out above. The victims of the bombs, and their relatives, know only too well what happened. They don't need to be told.

 

[Jazzz]

I personally don't see how an inquiry into the events of July 7th can fall within either category set out above. The victims of the bombs, and their relatives, know only too well what happened. They don't need to be told.

How good of you to inform us of their needs, aylee.

And Saba Mozakka, whose mother Behnaz died in the Piccadilly Line bomb blast near King's Cross, said it was "unacceptable" not to hold a public inquiry.

"The families will be campaigning for there to be a full public inquiry," she said.

"A narrative of events will not satisfy anybody. This is not something we will go away on."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4526604.stm

 

[Idaho]

And anyway idaho, you gonna tell me how you're sitting fucking thousands of kms away and you know what i 'believe in'?? Eh?? Especially as i believe in a big fat fuck all in my life.

Go on, tell me what i believe in. And if you say anything, you're wrong.

Now do me a favour and retract this bullshit.

What I am saying is that I don't see the logic in conspiracy theorists demanding public inquiries, seeing as they believe such institutions can be easily perverted by all powerful groups.

If you are not a conspiracy theorist yourself then you needn't trouble yourself with my assertions.

 

[Jazzz]

The ultimate way to pervert such an inquiry is not to hold it at all, idaho.

Take the Hutton enquiry into Dr. Kelly's death - another case where the right inquiry (coroner's inquest) didn't happen. That was clearly a whitewash (if there hadn't been Hutton there would have to have been a coroner's inquest). However, as it involved things like sworn testimonies under oath, it provides a record as to the circumstances of Kelly's death.

 

[Idaho]

Also one of the best ways to obvuscate an issue, waste time and money is to hold one.

There possibly should be an inquiry - but what would it ask?

 

[Fullyplumped]

How good of you to inform us of their needs, aylee.
url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4526604.stm[/url]

Judging by the comment in the quote, they are looking for a therapeutic outcome, what is sometimes called "closure".

Very well, but a public enquiry won't give them that. It never does, and it's an awful waste of public money that could be better used elsewhere. A lot of the commenters in favour of public inquiries have acknowledged that they are unlikely to lead to the "truth" emerging, or to bring opponents together, or achieve any other desirable outcome. This is not a child protection case. The main arguments in favour are that they will influence the political processs - in which case why not use real politics instead of hiding behind a Judge - or they will make relatives feel better - but we know they won't. And fifty million pounds or however much it would be of taxpayers' money is too much to pay.

I know I'm obsessing over the money but I think it's important and there are so many better things we could do with it.

 

[Jazzz]

The families are demanding to know exactly what happened on the day of 7/7. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, and not something to dismiss as something a few sessions with a shrink could cover for.

Seeing as so many died, and the implications of the event are so vast a full public enquiry is very much deserved. If we have a democracy that means there may be times when its apparatus must be applied. This is one of those times.

What's with the coloured font?

 

[Idaho]

Hmmm. Ok - I'm sold on the idea of a public inquiry on it.

 

[Fullyplumped]

What's with the coloured font?

Colours are funky!

 

[detective-boy]

The families are demanding to know exactly what happened on the day of 7/7.

The families of all murder victims want to know what happened. That is why Family Liaison Officers have been introduced following the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry (where the Enquiry was set up because of substantial concerns (which were eventually realised) that the police investigation had been inadequate). There is absolutely no reason why the actual events of 7 July cannot be communicated to the families, individually or as a group, through the FLO process. That process, bearing in mind the circumstances, could be extended to provide a public presentation of the facts by the police (after the families have been informed privately).

I repeat, calls for public enquiries are a knee-jerk reaction. They have their place but they are not the answer to every issue. I am not saying don't address the issues but there have to be less ungainly alternatives available.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Surely the big issue here is the desire of Number 10 not to have a whole lot of people, in particular the media, talking about the avowed reasons provided by the bombers for their actions?

I think they want to downplay the causal effect of invading Iraq.

 

[tobyjug]

How the hell is anyone going to determine the motivation of dead people?
Anyone care to tell me the motivation of Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton?

 

[newbie]

Surely the big issue here is the desire of Number 10 not to have a whole lot of people, in particular the media, talking about the avowed reasons provided by the bombers for their actions?

I think they want to downplay the causal effect of invading Iraq.

Aye, and more besides I shouldn't wonder.

A 'narrative' will detail verifiable sequences of events, and provide a background for understanding areas like the emergency services response. But it won't provide context, nor the opportunity for cross examination.

That's the role of a PI, to detail all the known evidence (or as much as can be squeezed out of government) in the open and under proper scrutiny, including contextual political and security background.

The Hutton Inquiry revealed huge amounts about not only the specific Kelly incident but also about the political climate in which it happened. The report itself was as expected, and Blair survived but as a result of the evidence we know far more about the process of government lieing than any narrative will produce.

I don't know what such an inquiry would produce, same as I didn't know what Hutton would reveal. But I can't help thinking 7/7 was rather more important than Kelly.

 

[bristol_citizen]

That's the role of a PI, to detail all the known evidence (or as much as can be squeezed out of government) in the open and under proper scrutiny, including contextual political and security background.

A public enquiry works to strict terms of reference. It's not a generalised twawl or fishing expedition on a subject. In the case of Hutton, the terms were to look at the death of Kelly, not the reasons for the war with Iraq. This made a hell of difference to the outcome.