The 7/7 Report

[laptop]

For those of us who believe in simple things like Truth and Justice, uncritically using proven liars as sources is paramount.

 

[Blagsta]

You do realise Larry O'Hara is spreading paranoia

Oh the irony. The tragic thing is you don't get it.

 

[Prole]

Attack the messenger if you don't like the message eh? The information in Chris Hudson's email is correct and has been verified. More than once.

It appears that the authorities are the ones who used the scheduled time table and failed to notice that the 7.40 was cancelled.

As I've always maintained, they could release the evidence

 

[editor]

The information in Chris Hudson's email is correct and has been verified. More than once.

By who, please?

Oh, and has anyone asked to see if the station's CCTV was displaying the correct time?

Occam's razor and all that...

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Mr Hudson,

Sorry to cause you any hastle or irritation if this has been asked before. (Thought i'd get that out of the way to start with). If you do have better things to do with your time then a reply to that effect would be fair.

There is an email attributed to you http://www.financialoutrage.org.uk/thameslink_database1.htm on a website that proposes the theory that the attacks on 7/7 were either staged somehow or wildly different to the generally accepted offical story.

Would that email be a fair copy of what you sent and the train times on the day? Also if it wouldn't be too much trouble would you be able to give a brief explanation of how those times are recorded?

This has been stuck up on a web board www.urban75.net/vbulletin Link to thread: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=162112&page=1 (you need to be registered to view it) and assuming you have no objections i will be posting your reply on there too.

Thank you for your time.

********* (Urban75 handle Bob_the_lost)

There, let's get some verification from the source shall we? Email sent as of 00.16 05/06/06

 

[editor]

There, let's get some verification from the source shall we? Email sent as of 00.16 05/06/06

Kudos for trying but I wouldn't be surprised if you don't get a reply. Lord knows how many loons and (guffaw) 'registered charities' have been bothering the fella of late.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Kudos for trying but I wouldn't be surprised if you don't get a reply. Lord knows how many loons and (guffaw) 'registered charities' have been bothering the fella of late.

Yeah, i know hence the bit at the start.

Edit: He's a real person, (http://corporateresponsibility.go-ahead.com/pdfreports/Thameslink_CSR.pdf) there's a contact phone number on the last page, although i'm not going to waste my credit or time let alone his calling him up to confirm.

 

[Jazzz]

Kudos for trying but I wouldn't be surprised if you don't get a reply. Lord knows how many loons and (guffaw) 'registered charities' have been bothering the fella of late.

Well who's lying now? James Stewart didn't use that phrase on his website, correct me if I'm wrong. Presumably because his website was not a registered charity. Did you just add it in to make it look as if he was really being dodgy?

 

[editor]

Well who's lying now? James Stewart didn't use that phrase on his website, correct me if I'm wrong.

I was quoting the Charity Commission actually so you can shut the fuck up with the 'lying' bullshit - I'll leave that to your nutcase mates.

The Charity Commission is not impressed. It says: "Financial Outrage is not a registered charity. We will be contacting the people responsible for organisation to find out why they are calling it a 'charity' and to ask about its activities.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian_jobs_and_money/story/0,3605,1201683,00.html

And guess what? His laughably dodgy remortgagenow.co.uk site is STILL boasting a link entitled, "Charity internet Site: www. financialoutrage .org.uk"

So what do you think about people knowingly and fraudulently claiming to be a charity - despite being asked by the Charity Commission to stop over a year ago, Jazzz?

 

[editor]

And he just can't stop his lies!

Financial OUTRAGE - a Charity - presents: "RATCATCHERS MORTGAGE MATRIX"
www.remortgagenow .co.uk/site_contents.htm

Financial OUTRAGE - a Charity
http://www.ripoffsandscams .com/Adobe Docs/a3font2.pdf.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

And he just can't stop his lies!

http://www.ripoffsandscams .com/

What a wonderfully ironic web address

 

[Jazzz]

As I said, I don't approve of his use of the term at all, I've asked him to take that remaining reference down, but I'm not convinced it's fraudulent.

He applied in good faith to become a charity, was turned down (he claims very unreasonably) and as a result removed all references to charity from his site, forgetting one.

While laptop and others might be wetting their pants about it, I don't think anyone else is, as you say the charities commision know have known about the site for ages. Old hat, and not nearly the hat you guys are making out to be.

http://financialoutrage.org.uk/charity_commission.htm

 

[Bob_the_lost]

James Stewart
All of our communications systems have been blocked most of the time since Aug-03 - if blocked ring xxxxxxxxxxxx - sorry, at this moment in time I simply do not trust you with the only safe number..

Very wise, this way i can't offer him £50k a year to stop talking.

 

[laptop]

Well, of course Jazzz wouldn't think it a big deal to post claims knowing them to be false, or not caring whether they were false.

 

[Jazzz]

Of course I do laptop, why do you think I've asked him to take the remaining reference down?

But he doesn't seem to have been acting in bad faith here.

 

[editor]

Of course I do laptop, why do you think I've asked him to take the remaining reference down?

But he doesn't seem to have been acting in bad faith here.

What?!!!

He was exposed as lying about his charitable status in a national newspaper over a year ago and he's STILL trying to fool people with false claims on his home page.

Don't you think it's a little odd that you have to ask him to take down a claim which he knows to be fraudulent?

You're defending the indefensible and you know it.
And it's pathetic.

 

[editor]

Very wise, this way i can't offer him £50k a year to stop talking.

That's a good point. How could he take the call if all his communications systems had been blocked most of the time since Aug-03?

And how have they been blocked? By whom? Any idea Jazzz?

 

[Jazzz]

As I've said -

• Although I don't approve, his use of the word charity may not be any offence. He hasn't said that financialoutrage was registered with the charities commission, and his site isn't profit-making.
  
  
• He applied, was turned down (he claims unreasonably) and removed references
  
  
• If he left a couple of references up it is not deliberate. He said he thought he had deleted all of them (careless perhaps, but not 'fraudulent').
  

Reading his site is obvious he's going to be up against it if he wants to expose the many frauds of the financial services industry. Have you noticed the recent news about bank charges being illegal? They are simply crooks and deserve exposure.

 

[Jazzz]

Well, of course Jazzz wouldn't think it a big deal to post claims knowing them to be false, or not caring whether they were false.

And you are one to say that!

I haven't forgotten your 'evidence' for a complete character assassination - someone didn't reply to your pm.

 

[editor]

As I've said -
Although I don't approve, his use of the word charity may not be any offence. He hasn't said that financialoutrage was registered with the charities commission, and his site isn't profit-making.

What a load of fucking weaselling bollocks.

He knew exactly what he was doing, because he'd been exposed in a national newspaper over a year ago. The Charity Commission had told him - in no uncertain language - that he had no right to call himself a charity. And he carried on with the claims. And the claim wasn't hidden away somewhere - it was on his front page!

And here's ample proof - in another bonkers page - that he knew their decision:
http://www. financialoutrage.org.uk/ charity_commission.htm

Oh - and look! He's claiming to have had even more death threats! Not over his <guffaw> 'insights 'into 7/7 but from the "Financial Services Industry management"

I have been relentlessly trying to expose this since Jul-02 mainly by E Mail. The National media will not print it. Corrupt Regulators and Failed Civil Service Departments blatantly whitewash it. Yet the figures do stack up.
Their cover up has also been “silent” with E Mail diversion filtering and deletion, 0845 phone number redirection, death threats and web site deletion to hinder me. Absolute irrevocable proof of this is on the www.eurocardirect.co.uk web site under “The Cover Up”. I need a secure web & E mail provider.

Why do you think the Charity Commission turned him down Jazzz?

I'd say a quick read of that utterly moonfruit page might offer a few clues or ten.

 

[editor]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

Please remember that my life has already been threatened twice in my pursuit of the truth. Are you really going to let the establishment kill an honest man who has simply exposed a major conspiracy to defraud by spreadsheet calculations?
Make no mistake I won’t walk away, so that is their only alternative, because I know, they know (that’s why they have blocked my incoming communications since Aug-03), and you know that the only way that this fraud can be successfully exposed is by the full page monthly MORTGAGE MATRIX being published in every national & eving newspaper.
No-one in positions of power or trust is trustworthy - look at all my replies from practicually every Government Department.
There is no alternative.
Yours sincerely
Financial OUTRAGE

 

[Jazzz]

The Charity Commission had told him - in no uncertain language - that he had no right to call himself a charity.

No they didn't. They said they were going to invite him to apply if his website was being used for charitable purposes (although clearly concerned about the use of the term).

And he carried on with the claims. And the claim wasn't hidden away somewhere - it was on his front page!

If people gave money to financialoutrage they were not doing so thinking they were giving to guide dogs for the blind, or buying timeshares. This hardly seems 'fraud'. It's someone who launched a non-profit site in good faith, was turned down from becoming a charity and has been sloppy (in a way I don't condone).

 

[pk]

[*]If he left a couple of references up it is not deliberate. He said he thought he had deleted all of them (careless perhaps, but not 'fraudulent').

Fucking hell, you really are that gullible...

 

[zArk]

Gosh, did the bombers get the actual 7. 40 train - or did they get on a train that left for Kings Cross at 7.40am?


What do you think people? Have we compelling evidence that the bombers were never on a Thameslink train and so July 7th was undoubtedly a false flag evil pixie satanic owl hoax, or is there a faint chance that...

answers on a postcard.

Even if they got a train that left at 7.40am the train times show that it didnt make it there before 8.35am -- in that case how can the cctv pick them up at kings cross at 8.26am?

It is an important point especially in a murder investigation.

 

[Blagsta]

Attack the messenger if you don't like the message eh? The information in Chris Hudson's email is correct and has been verified. More than once

...except that you're unable to find a primary source. Don't ever become a history teacher.

 

[detective-boy]

It is an important point especially in a murder investigation.

* Rings Senior Investigating Officer *

* Points out insight from zArk *

* SIO immediately takes steps to remedy the glaring hole in their investigation *

 

[zArk]

*oh dammit, he was replying to Badger Kitten and i just realised*

ahem

 

[scalyboy]

Could it be that the "7.40AM departure time" was assumed by either police/journalists on the basis that the 4 were seen at King's Cross at 8.26AM, and a normal journey time would be around 40 minutes? In fact as we now know, Thameslink trains were severely disrupted/delayed that morning.

I have argued to my own satisfaction that they must have taken the 7.26 train instead, but am far too weary (despite 2 cups of coffee) to go into it all one more time.

I suspect the "7.40AM" was first cited as reasonable conjecture and has now passed into fact.

NB all this is assuming that the email from Chris Hudson was genuine -awaiting a reply to Bob the Lost's enquiry with interest.

 

[editor]

No they didn't. They said they were going to invite him to apply if his website was being used for charitable purposes (although clearly concerned about the use of the term).

Please get a grip on reality. He was trying to get money off punters while fraudulently claiming he was a charity.

Unfortunately, Financial Outrage is not a registered charity even if the website has a link to the Charity Commission. Stewart tells Capital Letters that he wants to raise money - he tells site readers to send in cheques and postal orders - to buy full page adverts in newspapers so he can publicise his mortgage thoughts.

He says he has the charity registration forms but has not filled them in yet. He says he will do this "within a couple of months" or when he finds a major sponsor.

The Charity Commission is not impressed. It says: "Financial Outrage is not a registered charity. We will be contacting the people responsible for organisation to find out why they are calling it a 'charity' and to ask about its activities.

..."If we establish that it is not carrying out exclusively charitable purposes, the people responsible for the organisation will need to stop calling it a charity so as not to mislead the public." Perhaps Stewart should stick to his Quixotic battle against LloydsTSB.

 

[zArk]

7/7 report

The report follows a six-month inquiry into the response to the attacks.

oh, wait, whats that sound?
more money more money more money more money

But many survivors want a full-scale public inquiry into why and how the attacks happened - so far resisted by the government. It says it would divert resources away from the fight against terrorism.