Unwarrented Censorship

[TeeJay]

Well I have suffered from paranoia and manic depression before so I can imagine having wierd ideas, but I don't have much of a desire to get into that kind of mental space or way of thinking again. I recognise that there is a certain appeal and perverse 'enjoyment' in indulging fantasies even negative ones and that there are also links to political ideas and emotional feelings about life, other people, society.

Considering alternatives, scenarios and what-ifs is all fine - the bit that I don't see so much value in is losing touch with logic and rationality when looking at alternative scenarios. I don't know if I can explain this very well, but it is like looking at something under a microscope or standing back and looking at it in context - a 'what-if' can be very intense, interesting and give all sorts of creative links and ideas ... almost as if you can actually think in new and interesting ways by letting go of a constraining, stable 'context' or paradigm ... kind of an intellectual self-induced acid trip.

Maybe by ditching a load of assumptions people can have great new ideas however unless these can be reigned back in and reconnected with "normal reality" then you can end up with all sorts of problems - both with the ideas and the outcome for them and others.

Some people however actually want to go off on some 'escape from reality' - for all sorts of reasons including feeling more comfortable there, doing it to resolve various issues, working through ideas, after trauma or illness or whatever. Of course "reality" is a construct, but I think you know what I mean.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well yes. My working hypothesis about conspiracy theorists is that they get compelling emotional benefits from their existential commitment to being lonely and deeply courageous seekers of the TRUTH which is precisely why I came up with this thought-experiment (see previous page for the details)

If I'm right, they will not be able to even provisionally entertain for a moment the idea that there might be no more to the 7/7 bombings than the accepted mainstream view that they happened because some young British muslims got very angry about Iraq and decided to do a suicide bombing in response.

If I'm right about their motives, that would be intolerably painful for them, because if they allowed themselves to provisionally entertain the idea for a moment, they would lose all the emotional benefits of being a priviedged and frequently persecuted minority in sole possession of the TRUTH.

I could be wrong though, and I'd be interested to see some of them try to demonstrate that I am by making a sincere attempt at the challenge I posed. What I find interesting, and what surprised me, was that nobody on the anti-conspiranoid side of the argument wanted to take the challenge.

 

[TeeJay]

Well it is the middle of the night - and also I'm still trying to get my head around what it is I need to be arguing for. I have had a go at a "conspiracy" but mine is more cynicism, screw up & cover up than 'black ops'. If I was going to invent a fantasy then why not make it exciting and stick in some invisible pink unicorns?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yes it is late isn't it?

I fell asleep in the garden earlier today, and I'm still far too wide awake now.

Time for bed now though I guess.

I'll be interested to see what happens tomorrow.

 

[fela fan]

So, the reason I suggested the experiment was because I was interested in whether people could simply provisionally entertain a different point of view. Even for just one post. I'd like to think that I could, and would be quite worried if I just bounced off the notion of even provisionally entertaining a view different to the one I hold (which is that the most probable explanation was a self-starting cell of young British muslims politicised by Blair's support for Iraq and similar events.)

For me personally 911 and 7/7 are two events that occurred. I favour government complicity in the former, and have no idea about the latter.

The former i can accept as staggering incompetence, although i find it unlikely. The latter i could well accept that government complicity of some sort was involved, but i really have no idea about this particular event.

The thing is when you don't have the facts, you can't know for sure either way.

What i always find interesting here on urban75 (and nowhere else) is the sheer nastiness that people indulge in towards those who are sceptical of official versions of the events.

Look at this thread, it is dripping in nastiness. Those who are responsible must have a problem in their lives to display such hatred and bitterness and need for revenge and vengeance and all the like.

[For example, personally, I express an opinion and i'm told to fuck off. Hey, quality stuff lads!! Good old british level of debate.]

 

[fela fan]

That's what I meant by provisionally entertaining the possibility that I might be wrong in thinking that the basic official story is the correct one. It doesn't require any involvement with lizards or anti-semitism. Just the ability to provisionally entertain the possibility that I'm wrong and to take seriously the strongest arguments of the other side.

I would be very interested to see any of our '7/7 truth' advocates try to take the test I proposed.

Bernie, what about those who don't entertain one theory or the other, but who simply question the official versions given us?

All i've ever wanted over 911 is for all the huge apparrant incompetence to be investigated in the mainstream media.

As for 7/7 i don't give a shit, it's small news compared to 911. Solve 911 and 7/7 will solve itself. Incidentally you ask who else might have made this occur, you forgot the USG...

 

[fela fan]

Originally Posted by TeeJay
All you ever do is hang around making snide comments about other posters, like some annoying, parasitic, poisonous, little toad. Either say something substantive to do with the topic of this thread or fuck off, arsehat.

I actually quite enjoy your postings. Most of the time.

Look there goes that teejay again, with his nasty language and behaviour.

Really it's not very nice saying these sorts of things about other human beings. Never mind the hypocrisy, since he's guilty of the very thing he accuses lock about.

 

[fela fan]

This really is proving quite an interesting experiment, and in a way that I didn't expect.

I really thought it was going to be the conspiracy theorists who would be avoiding the challenge.

Still, perhaps some of them will show up to try it.

Bernie, with all due respect, i'm surprised you're surprised! I've been here for four years worth of 911 threads, and the constant theme has been that any valid questions posed about possible complicity by USG has been drowned out by accusations of conspiracy theory, conspiraloon, loonspud, and other associated words that have created their very own lexical set on this forum.

With this is the blatant attempt to rubbish posters who hold the 'wrong' opinion. And if you look at any of the threads mate, it's a very one-way street regarding both of these points i've made.

You can tell which people have very fixed ideas on these topics - they inevitably resort to personal insults towards those who hold different opinions to they.

 

[fela fan]

Well yes. My working hypothesis about conspiracy theorists is that they get compelling emotional benefits from their existential commitment to being lonely and deeply courageous seekers of the TRUTH which is precisely why I came up with this thought-experiment (see previous page for the details)

Bernie, for that term 'conspiracy theorist' to have any currency other than words with the means to silence pesky people, you'd need to name urban's very own conspiracy theorists.

Posters talk about them often, yet i'd like to know about all these people. Who are they? Can we have a list please?

 

[ianrcrane]

Empathetic Cognisence

Hi Bernie,

It’s pleasing to be reminded that there is intelligent life within the Urban 75 community. With the exception of Fela Fan, it was beginning to appear as though the exchanges would not get beyond the level of a bad ‘Eastenders’ script!

With regard to your proposed ‘test’ to establish the capability of demonstrating empathetic cognisence; I would have to acknowledge that I absolutely comprehend and can relate to the plausibility of the ‘pre-narrative’ official account for the events of July 7th last year.

The ignorant and aggressive foreign policies of the US and the UK, towards non-co-operative Islamic nations, are certainly more than sufficient to instill ill-feeling amongst the British Muslim Community. Perhaps one of the greatest tragedies is that the US, as a melting-pot of the world’s nationalities, adopts such a self-serving US-centric approach to global governance.

Ten years ago, the US was almost universally respected, few world try to argue that this is the case today.

The prospect of ‘Home-grown’ terrorism is, without doubt, being exacerbated by the duality of UK/US foreign policy in the Middle-East. Pre July 7th, it was widely believed that it was not a case of ‘if’ but ‘when’ there would be a Muslim terror attack on UK soil. Although it does seem that the focus was on the potential of an attack coming from outside the UK, rather than from within.

For Tony Blair to suggest that the attack was ‘unrelated to the presence of UK troops in Iraq’ was either naïve or carefully contrived but either way the statement was intellectually unsustainable.

See: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Blair%92s%20Blunders.html

I have not actually come across anyone involved in the UK Truth Movement who would deny the plausibility of the case that four disaffected British Muslim youths perpetrated the events on July 7th last year. Indeed it is a credit to the British Muslim Community that an ‘IRA’ style terror campaign has not been launched.


The case of the Truth movement is perhaps summarized by the following Email which I received earlier this year from a contributor on the nineeleven forum:

In an open democracy, …all questions are valid until such time as full, frank and open judicial review has been properly conducted.

For those who are confident that the evidence supports the official version of events, why is it that they feel the need to argue so vehemently that the issue of the alleged perpetrators is not appropriate for inclusion in the Terms of Reference of any Independent Public Inquiry?

In the interests of absolute transparency, the concerns of the 7/7 research community should be addressed by an Independent Public Inquiry; surely, we are all simply interested in ensuring that the long-established values of this country are upheld by our elected representatives?

In the interests of due democratic process, our issues and concerns should be addressed and brought to closure, by placing the appropriate irrefutable evidence in the public domain.

Reproduced with permission

I have lived and worked in the Middle East and was actively involved in the Kuwait fire-fighting after the first gulf war; where we lost two Indian employees in a tragic accident; subsequently spending a week in Southern India trying to locate the family of one of the men involved. I also had the experience of one of my team being taken 'hostage' by Saddam's Militia immediately after the invasion of Kuwait. Although it took a while to establish his whereabouts, he was actually treated extremely well by his 'hosts' and released in Mid December 1990.

On the other side of the coin, two employees were beheaded by Islamic extremists in Hassi Massoud, Algeria earlier in that same year. Actually, we would have lost a third employee, if it were not for a local hand, running up to the attackers and telling them that the guy they were about to behead had recently converted to Islam.

My international oilfield experience has provided me with insights to certain events that were almost always reported in such a way as to support the prevailing Western geopolitical agenda ...our illustrious media never allowing the facts to get in the way of a good story. A point upon which I wholeheartedly agree with Milan Rai.

So please indulge me with my request for the production of irrefutible evidence before unquestionably accepting an 'official account', unsubstantiated by any judicial or independent inquiry.

Ian R. Crane

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thanks for going along with my proposed thought-experiement Ian. I don't think you're going to get irrefutable evidence for any scenario though.

I see, having done a bit of digging around, that you've posted what appears to be the same post as the one that's had it's thread locked here, in several other online forums. I note also that you have a DVD about this stuff to sell.

 

[editor]

You can tell which people have very fixed ideas on these topics - they inevitably resort to personal insults towards those who hold different opinions to they.

Perhaps that's because some people obsessively keep on repeating the same fucking bullshit week in and week out without offering anything remotely approaching credible evidence or analysis.

It's like arguing about the existence of God with a religious fundamentalist with a short term memory.

Utterly pointless.

 

[editor]

So please indulge me with my request for the production of irrefutible evidence before unquestionably accepting an 'official account', unsubstantiated by any judicial or independent inquiry.

How about you oblige us with the same before jumping in with threads about exciting conspiracy theories?

Looks like all you've got is a half-baked point about the train timetable (already discussed at considerable length here), a ton of built in prejudice, an overwhelming desire to be part of the 'truth seeking' gang and that's, er, your lot.

 

[ianrcrane]

Motivation

Hi Bernie,

thanks for mentioning the DVD but I am right out of copies of this at present so my appearance on Urban75 has absolutely nothing at all to do with promoting that particular product. Anyway, it seems that someone has taken the initiative to upload the DVD onto google video; the picture quality is not that great but it does seem to download fairly quickly.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7193024010983572797&q="7/7"

I do agree with your observation that the desire to achieve irrefutable evidence may be rather ambitious by let's aim high and see what is ultimately delivered.

By the way, for the record, I do not believe that the British Government had anything to do with the events of July 7th but it is perhaps appropriate to recall Hitler's observation in Mein Kampf which loosely translated, is as follows, and is also applicapable to terror attacks conducted by other states:

"The greater the crime perpetrated by the Leadership, the less likely it is that the people will ever believe that their Leaders are capable of perpetrating such an event."

Of course, Machiavelli, who preceded Hitler by almost 500 years, said pretty much the same thing!

 

[editor]

By the way, for the record, I do not believe that the British Government had anything to do with the events of July 7th

So who do you think was responsible, then?

 

[detective-boy]

Small flaw in the experimental procedure, Bernie G.

I agree. The conspiracy theorists have an entirely different (in fact, almost diametrically opposed) approach to "investigation".

1. A competent approach: (a) Establish best possible evidence (witnesses, scene examination, times trains actually ran on the day ...); (b) assess the reliability and value of that evidence; (c) put it together and see what that tells you about the sequence of events; (d) compare that with any available hypotheses about what happened; (e) eliminate any hypotheses which do not fit with reliable evidence; (f) if possible (and it often isn't) distinguish between any remaining possible hypotheses, using the relevant reliability and value of the different bits of evidence that fit with them.

2. The nutters approach: (a) Decide on a particular hypothesis; (b) Look for any evidence which supports it, but discount everything else; (c) Identify any particular flaw in evidence said to support another hypothesis and assign to it total reliability (regardless of whether or not it merits such definition); (d) State the flaw repeatedly, loudly and as absolute fact.

There is absolutely no way that your experiment would work as they would apply their own mad approach to the task you set them!

 

[detective-boy]

...who had in fact murdered the real rachel north and replaced her with a plant"

Poor love did seem a bit wilted yesterday ...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, I think the experiment was flawed for a number of reasons, which isn't surprising given that it was late and I'd been into the brandy when I came up with it.

I think it would be interesting if it could be made workable though, because I suspect that there is a useful distinction to be made between people who are understandably suspicious of our evidently dishonest government and 'true-believers' who are getting emotional fulfillment from possessing the TRUTH.

I don't think the test I was proposing does that effectively however, because there are many possible reasons why people might decline it and there is no reliable way to detect whether an intelligent 'true-believer' was dissembling.

Alternative suggestions for a workable method will be gratefully accepted.

 

[Groucho]

So who do you think was responsible, then?

Was it the alien lizards?

I think Ian R Crane believes that 7/7 was perpetrated by a pan-dimensional lizard clique who have been interfering in human development throughout our history, and feeding on our brainwaves. A small handful of these lizards enter our dimension in order to direct the material world. These shape shifters require human blood to sustain themselves. He may be a little shy in saying so....

Ian - it was the alien lizards wasn't it? I just know it was the alien lizards!

Ian knows it was the lizards. But he believes that he can't just spring the alien lizards thing on us in an o/p. He has to sow doubt first to dispel our delusions in the material world. So we are first confronted with the 'evidence' of a train timetable that 'proves' that 7/7 could not have happened in the way we are told it happened. Perhaps we should try accepting it and seeing how many steps there are from there to the lizards (or whatever). But no let's not bother.

 

[detective-boy]

The thing is when you don't have the facts, you can't know for sure either way.

That, for me, is the key issue.

We presently have a number of ways that the facts get into the public domain within the UK:

1. Criminal trial (the vast majority of which are entirely in public)
2. Inquests
3. Enquiries by official bodies (e.g. IPCC)
4. Public / judicial enquiries

Unfortunately all of these have strict parameters on how they operate. Although most scenarios where the public may want / be entitled to the facts result in one or other of the processes, not all do. Even those which do end up with an unsatisfactory outcome as each process serves it's own ends and does not address the point that public need to be told the facts.

Criminal trials are a trump card, I think. There is a very strong argument that nothing should be published until the evidence is heard in the trial because to do otherwise would make a fair trial impossible. But if the trial ends in a plea of guilty then the evidence is briefly summarised at best. And even in a contested trial much may be accepted and not tested. Once the trial(s) have finished there should be a process whereby a "best known" factual account is made publicly available, along with supporting evidence (photos, video, scientific reports). This may, or may not, need to be accompanied by a new-style Public Enquiry as described below.

Inquests need always to be accompanied by the release of such an account - they are so tightly restricted that they are next to useless in investigating the surrounding issues.

Public and judicial enquiries, as currently operated, are usually very, very slow, expensive and cumbersome. They are something of a mix between an investigation and a test of the evidence gathered. I think there is scope for them to be replaced (or added to) by another type of enquiry which I would call a Public Investigation. I would envisage a professional investigator being appointed (police, IPCC, corporate investigator, retired investigators ...)to gather and present the evidence which is then tested in a pseudo judicial Public Enquiry, chaired by a Judge or similar and with powers to compel witnesses, etc., with counsel appointed as advocate for the enquiry to test the evidence in the same way that a defence counsel would in a criminal trial. The evidence could be released to the public in advance (in the same way as disclosure is made to the defence in advance of a criminal trial) and it would be possible for additional evidence / questions to be submitted to the enquiry in advance to ensure, so far as possible, that all issues were fully tested during the enquiry itself. If anything new arose, however, the chair would be empowered to adjourn the enquiry and order further investigation. I'm not sure that a "verdict" as such would be needed, but the enquiry should be empowered to declare the matter "closed", subject to new evidence coming to light (which could be dealt with in exactly the same way as new evidence in a criminal case, resulting in an "appeal" hearing if considered of sufficient strength by something like the CCRC.

Investigations carried out by other bodies (e.g. the IPCC) currently seem to be the first bit of this proposed new system but, because there is no public examination of the evidence they have gathered, there is public cynicism of their throughness, independence, etc.

In my experience thorough, competent investigations ARE carried now out in the UK. The problem is that "Because we say so" is no longer accepted (and probably quite rightly) by the public as closure. Time to get brave and put our professional investigations to the test, even if there is no criminal trial.

No matter what we put in place we need to ensure that our media become far, far more competent in reporting and testing evidence - their importance in passing any message to the public is indisputable. They need the skills to do that in a way which ensures that there is full and proper understanding of the issues.

 

[detective-boy]

.. and the constant theme has been that any valid questions posed about possible complicity by USG has been drowned out by accusations of conspiracy theory, conspiraloon, loonspud, and other associated words that have created their very own lexical set on this forum.

Those who simply want to question the official account, or to seek further information, are "drowned out" by those who substitute alternative conspiraloon theories and ignore any answers / explanations provided. They turn off the vast majority and bore them. Sadly this means that reasonable questions are also lost.

 

[Aldebaran]

For example, could you write a post taking seriously the merits of a point of view distinctly different to the one you hold?../...

Or do you have some sort of existential committment that gets in the way?

I think that could be done with every possible subject (playing the devil's advocate) and could be an interesting (in some cases very pleasent or funny) experiment.

On a US board I proposed I would start such a thread arguing and defending the Iraq invasion from US-interests point of view, proposed rules for others to participate (my "helpers" and the opposite camp) to avoid that the thread would get derailed from the first few posts, but it never got started. So I guess nobody was able or interested to do it (or maybe no US'er could or wanted to argue and defend my side).

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's completely mad, that's what it is. I've tried to engage with them. I 've tried to ask them why they come on my blog and try to convert me, argue with me, have huge discussions about me, I've tried to defend myself, I've got angry, laughed at them, ignored them. In a way it is fascinating: they are so obsessed with an event that is still very much on my mind, but they weren't there and they have such odd ideas about it all and they go on and on about it. But it is also annoying, and upsetting, and when it comes to vague threats and personal abuse, distressing.

It is fascinating yet also rather frustrating to confront people who were not there, have no clue, can't speak but from their far distance and impressions, yet arrogantly claim to know everything better then you, eye witness, present where it happened and facing the consequences every day.
I know the feeling. Don't let it get to you.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

For what it is worth in discussions like this:

I would LOVE to see it that there were no young and misled Muslims involved in events like this, but I'm afraid that although the historical truth isn't fully known yet - and can't be known yet - there is little hope - let alone expectation - in my mind for that to come true.

By the way: Do the deniers even bother to seek for evidence that the young men accused of being the suicical bombers didn't even exist? Because if they did exist, were they by accident then "only among the victims" and did the police prepared the video's on which they appear with their backpack (the day itself and if I recall well also some days in advance as a sort of "general rehearsal") on forehand? Did they get paid to participate in this staged video show and what were they told about its purpouse?

There are many such simple questions. I wonder how they are answered.

salaam.

 

[TeeJay]

So please indulge me with my request for the production of irrefutible evidence before unquestionably accepting an 'official account', unsubstantiated by any judicial or independent inquiry.

What would you consider irrefutable evidence?

Seeing as there isn't the possibility of a criminal trial for the 4 lads, then how should this evidence be presented and would it even be legal to produce the detailed evidence against them, if they didn't have any defence lawyers?

What is the irrefutable evidence (or any kind of evidence) that UK or foreign government agencies carried out 7/7?

In a case where there isn't conclusive evidence on either side and it hasn't been brought to a proper trial, then isn't it acceptable for people to come to a provisional conclusion based on whatever evidence is available? As this isn't a legal judgement of guilt, doesn't involve putting anyone in prison then surely the public is entitled to come to a conclusion about what happened and who was responsible based on reasonable inference from publically avaliable evidence?

I'd put it to you that the only reasonable inference to be drawn both from available evidence and what is generally accepted to be the way various UK agencies work is that the 4 lads were responsible, and that the "official account" - while lacking in detail and not being a formal legal finding of guilt - is the most plausible one on the table, whereas various alternative accounts involving 'balck ops' and secret service agents, are far less plausible, lack any kind of decent evidential basis and are therefore not reasonable inferences as to what happened?

 

[TeeJay]

I do agree with your observation that the desire to achieve irrefutable evidence may be rather ambitious by let's aim high and see what is ultimately delivered.

I hope you are not using the following logic:

"Unless you produce irrefutable evidence for your account I am going to believe any old shit based on no evidence whatsoever"

You say that unless the official account meets an impossible high 100% standard, then it you are justified in saying that your own account is better even if it has about, let's say "a 1% evidence level".

Surely the only rational thing to do is to say that the account with the best evidence is the one that is most plausible - in this case the official account which has far more evidence available to support it (even if not 100% irrefutable evidence).

You might argue that this is not sufficient to convict in a court of law (although based on just the public evidence I think that a jury *would* convict the 4 lads if they had somehow planted their bombs and walked away, let alone all the additional forensic and witness evidence that has not been published). However, the current debate is not a criminal case - it is a debate about what happened, and there isn't the need to prove someone guilty in court before sending them to prison - it is a case of the public deciding what they believe happened and why. There is no problem with putting forward an account to the public nor is there a need to disclose detailed evidence or conduct cross examinations - all these things are there in a legal trail to safeguard the accused's freedom, but here there is nooone being held in custody or being threatened with prison, so no need to go through a trial process in setting out the police account.

 

[TeeJay]

...I think there is scope for them to be replaced (or added to) by another type of enquiry which I would call a Public Investigation...

Isn't there a problem in the case of 7/7 that the investigation might in fact be fairly open ended and long-term - tracing possible connections to lots of other people in the UK and Pakistan? Even if the four guys came up with and carried out the plan themselves it seems that they had had contact with a whole range of people previously and isn't there a danger that ongoing investigations and intelligence gathering would be compromised by fully disclosing all the evidence collected so far? For example anyone else who *was* involved would be able to see exactly how far the police had got in linking them and would be very interested in seeing how they could better cover their tracks next time.

While in a criminal trial there is a clear standard of evidence that has to be provided to secure a conviction and the downside of putting forward evidence and intelligence can be set against the advantage of convicting someone. In a general inquiry would there be any clear yardstick for disclosure? Could a presiding judge be both impartial and able to weigh up the importance of keeping ongoing investigations out of the public realm? Does this kind of issue arise in the French system of investigating judges?

 

[detective-boy]

By the way, for the record, I do not believe that the British Government had anything to do with the events of July 7th ...

You seem to say otherwise in your (entirely evidence free) video though. Make your mind up.

I have my own theory. YOU are an MI5 "asset". You are being paid to produce such ludicrous and ill-evidenced trash so that the majority of the public get totally pissed off and bored with the whole thing and any genuine issues or requests for information to be released become totally lost.

To ask your own question "Cui bono?" from the your existence ... the State who have something to hide and who you provide a convenient smokescreen for.

Your video (as with every other example of such material I have ever seen) consists entirely of you stating things. Yet you never produce any of the actual source evidence "we have". WHY should I believe you? Why DON'T you produce your source evidence?

Is it because the construction you put upon it will not stand any scrutiny whatsoever? Just like the construction you put upon your central issue of the Visor Consultants exercise - despite Peter Power clearly stating that the organisation he was working with had 1000 employees in all and he was working with a small team of crisis managers you repeatedly take that as them having 1000 people engaged in the exercise. And, if it was the fantastic cover-story for the events of the day, why was he gobbing off about it on national TV within hours? (I'll give you a clue - it wasn't and he was grabbing with both hands some free advertising (which has backfired because his comments were ill-advised and it has damaged his reputation within the crisis management sector)).

You are either (a) stupid; (b) deluded or (c) malicious.

 

[detective-boy]

Seeing as there isn't the possibility of a criminal trial for the 4 lads, then how should this evidence be presented and would it even be legal to produce the detailed evidence against them, if they didn't have any defence lawyers?

There is no reason in general UK law why this would not be possible.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That, for me, is the key issue. <snip>

In my experience thorough, competent investigations ARE carried now out in the UK. The problem is that "Because we say so" is no longer accepted (and probably quite rightly) by the public as closure. Time to get brave and put our professional investigations to the test, even if there is no criminal trial.

No matter what we put in place we need to ensure that our media become far, far more competent in reporting and testing evidence - their importance in passing any message to the public is indisputable. They need the skills to do that in a way which ensures that there is full and proper understanding of the issues.

The problem is though, while some of what you're advocating makes a lot of sense, we don't have a system that works that way.

In this case we're not even getting so much as a Hutton-type whitewash by some bent old judge, we're just getting a 'narrative'.

So the field is left wide open for both understandable scepticism and paranoid true-believer stuff.