The 7/7 Report

[Jazzz]

Tell me more about the sci-fi holographic planes from 2025 in that "army manual" you linked to, Jazzz.

No.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I would like to ask fridgemagnet as to how many posts from prole have been reported.

I think she is an exceptional poster, and the reason she receives exceptional hostility here is because she dares to think very differently and is prepared to stand up for her position.

There have been a number of people in the past who have repeatedly failed to flounce and have actually asked to be banned because they just couldn't help themselves any more. It would be positively remiss of me not to bring up the possibility in this instance.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Like Home Office Narratives?

Fair point I'd say.

Without due process, why should we trust the government's version of events any further than we'd trust something off prisonplanet or rense.com?

We already know they make shit up if it suits them.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Before this gets taken as a ringing endorsement of black ops theories, I suppose I"d better qualify that statement a little bit.

Where you have due process, whether legal as in the case of a public inquiry, or in other contentious cases, say academic peer review or some equivalent system, you have at least some assurance that facts have been verified as far as the process permits.

Without such processes, either in the case of government narratives or stuff on websites with lots of exclamation marks, all you have is a narrative which the authors are able to spin in any direction they want.

The conspiracy sites may want to sell you the thrill of being a 'truth seeker', a lonely and heroic figure in possession of terrible secrets. The government may want you to forget all about Iraq as a possible motivation for the bombings, to roll over and play dead why they repeal your civil liberties and probably to obfuscate a few intelligence secrets (Either operational details or evidence of incompetence. On recent showings, most likely the latter)

The lack of any 'quality assurance' process, such as that provided by legal process in a public inquiry, or peer review among historians say, means that the narratives of both groups are entirely at the disposal of the story they're trying to sell to the public.

 

[detective-boy]

Watch the video

What the fuck is it with you? Another 27 wasted fucking minutes of my life. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING new in there AT ALL.

You obviously believe that repeatng something will make people believe it so, in the spirit of that belief:

You are a stupid fucking cunt. Fuck off.

Thank you.

 

[detective-boy]

I think she is an exceptional poster, and the reason she receives exceptional hostility here is because she dares to think very differently and is prepared to stand up for her position.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but the reason she receives "exceptional hostility" from me is because she is a fucking tedious, timewasting bore. And, quite clearly, fucking insane.

 

[detective-boy]

Where you have due process, whether legal as in the case of a public inquiry, or in other contentious cases, say academic peer review or some equivalent system, you have at least some assurance that facts have been verified as far as the process permits.

....

The lack of any 'quality assurance' process, such as that provided by legal process in a public inquiry, or peer review among historians say, means that the narratives of both groups are entirely at the disposal of the story they're trying to sell to the public.

This basically sums up my concerns over the narrative as well. Whilst I have no great problem with the basic story, and I don't believe that there is any evidence that anyone but the four named suspects were responsible on the day, the narrative is not at all what I epxected would be released.

I would put a lot of money on the fact that it was not written by any kind of police officer,certainly not one involved in the investigation. Whilst it discloses the existence of all sorts of evidence it does not provide any detail about it.

I expected it to be similar to the sort of file put together by an investigator at the conclusion of the case, to justify a prosecution to the CPS or to explain why no charges could / should be brought. This would - like the narrative - provide a "best-known" sequence of events but - unlike the narrative - it would be cross-referenced to the original evidence - exhibit, witness statement or whatever (whether or not that was also published). I am sure (that in this case at least) a very full and thorough investigation has been conducted but that cannot be judged unless there is some public forum in which the findings are heard and tested.

Such a document would enable a professional investigator to make a judgement on the conclusions drawn as it would identify the source evidence and give an indication of the evidential value placed on each piece. The narrative does not allow this to be done - the best that can be done is to make an informed guess at the basis for each conclusion and each part of the sequence of events.

I am aware that there are a variety of reasons why it may not be possible to release any more detailed account at this time and, provided that there is an intention to release more eventually, then I think we must be patient. But I have not seen any clear acknowledgement that what has been released so far is only a first pass. And I am concerned that they could, if they wished, have released a far more thorough version of the narrative, revealing nothing new but providing more detail. I do not see any justifiable raeson for not doing this.

In important cases such as this where, for whatever reason, there will be no public trial or other forum in which the evidence is outlined and tested I believe there is a need to find a mechanism whereby the findings can be properly revealed and tested. I do not think a Public Enquiry is the right mechanism - they are far too turgid and expensive - what is needed is a wholly new concept with pieces drawn from criminal trial procedure, coroner's inquest procedure and public enquiry procedure.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The problem with asking for a new process, is that the process will be built under the eye of the present government, who will have their own goals in mind while they are in control of how it's being set up.

The advantage of an established procedure, even if it's not perfect, is that it's harder for them to fuck with.

 

[detective-boy]

The advantage of an established procedure, even if it's not perfect, is that it's harder for them to fuck with.

The trouble is that there is no existing structure which will achieve the aims I don't think.

I can't see any criminal trial ever getting into what happened on the day in any great detail. We all know that inquests don;t really go very far back from the time / date / place / cause of death and identification of the victim. And Public Enquiries are set up with some objective in mind - to find out whether something or other was or was not done - and those terms of reference would inevitably copme into conflict with testing the actual evidence of what happened on the day.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sure. The government has already demonstrated with Hutton and Butler how blatantly they can rig an inquiry simply by setting its terms of reference so as to avoid any issue that makes them uncomfortable.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

... and of course they can also influence the result in other ways.

In the original draft a passage on page 114 contained stronger criticism of Mr Blair's Commons statement of September 24, 2002. The report as published stated, in one of very few direct references to Mr Blair's conduct: "The language in the dossier may have left with readers the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence behind the judgments than was the case: our view . . . is that judgments in the dossier went to (although not beyond) the outer limits of the intelligence available.

"The Prime Minister's description, in his statement to the House of Commons on the day of publication of the dossier, of the picture painted by the intelligence services in the dossier as 'extensive, detailed and authoritative', may have reinforced this impression."

In the original draft this last sentence was much stronger, expressing the opinion that Mr Blair personally masterminded the misleading impression left by the dossier. The passage is important because Downing Street maintained last week that the report at no point questions Mr Blair's "good faith".

According to a member of the inquiry, however, the Prime Minister should not be regarded as in the clear. "The whole thing points straight to the man in charge . . . absolutely to where responsibility belongs, which is the Prime Minister, which is what we could not say."

The disclosures will put further pressure on Mr Blair following the revelation that the earlier Hutton inquiry was not told about the withdrawal of key intelligence which formed the basis for claims made by the dossier. Downing Street admitted that MI6 withdrew some elements of the intelligence supporting the Government's case for war because it was unreliable, but decided not to tell the Hutton inquiry.

source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Now if you set up a public inquiry under the full rules, and gave it a brief along the lines of "How and why did the 7/7 bombing happen and how do we avoid a repetition?" then you might end up with a more useful and credible outcome.

On past experience though, this government is way to fly too let anything like that happen no matter how strong the public pressure.

 

[detective-boy]

Now if you set up a public inquiry under the full rules, and gave it a brief along the lines of "How and why did the 7/7 bombing happen and how do we avoid a repetition?" then you might end up with a more useful and credible outcome.

I think that is going on to the next stage. A judgment (by politicians or the public) on HOW or WHY something happened or HOW to prevent a repetition is very different from working out WHAT actually happened.

It is WHAT happened that I am concerned with - I am an investigator, not a politician and I do not think the two things should be muddled up. I also think that it would help come to a judgement on whether or not a Public Enquiry aimed at working out the HOW and WHY is required if WHAT actually happened were established first.

It's sort of like the difference between trial and sentence - establish what happened first and then work out what to do about it.

I think we need some structure by which the investigator's conclusions about WHAT happened in cases such as this can be tested in a public forum. It could also be used in cases such as the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, Harry Stanley, etc. where there is clearly public concern that the decisions and actions taken by the police were justified. Instead of the CPS making their decision whether or not to charge based on written evidence, the process would provide a forum in which evidence were tested as necessary and, when announced, the public would know the basis for the CPS decision, removing concerns that a (probably quite proper) decision that charges cannot be justified has been taken "behind closed doors".

 

[TAE]

"Two to_the_power_of seven" pages!

 

[detective-boy]

And post number two read ...

Nothing to see here, move along please.........