J7 Decline to participate in BBC's Conspiracy Files

Shortly after the second anniversary of 7th July 2005, J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign was contacted by Chris Alcock of the BBC who advised us of plans for a BBC documentary covering the events of 7th July 2005. No detail about the nature of the 'documentary' was provided until five months later, in December 2007, when another BBC employee, Assistant Producer Susan Prichard, advised us by email that the BBC production in question, rather than being a serious documentary effort for which the BBC was once well known, was in fact an episode of BBC2's risible Conspiracy Files series.

For anyone that missed out on the 'privilege' of watching the first four episodes of the Conspiracy Files, previous programmes have covered the events of 11th September 2001, the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly, the murder of Dodi Fayed and the Oklahoma bombing. Some episodes of the first Conspiracy Files series are available to view online and links are provided below:

• 10 December, 2006: How Diana Died
• 18 February, 2007: 9/11 (Watch on Google Video | Adrian Connock's rebuttal on Google Video)
• 25 February, 2007: David Kelly (Watch on Google Video)
• 4 March, 2007: Oklahoma Bomb (Watch on Google Video)

Upon learning that our assistance was being requested in connection with the production of an episode of the formulaic Conspiracy Files rather than a serious, honest, open-minded and in-depth documentary that examined the official Home Office account of events -- the original 'conspiracy theory' about what happened -- the lack of evidence to support it, the errors exposed by J7's ongoing research and the numerous anomalies and inconsistencies in the story the government has endeavoured to fob the British public off with in place of a full and independent public inquiry outside of the Inquiries Act 2005, J7 issued a response to the BBC declining to participate in the programme and outlining our reasons for reaching this decision. What follows is a full copy of the J7 response to the BBC request to participate in its Conspiracy Files series. Much of what is written below is equally applicable to other broadcast and print media:

Date:     Wed, 12 Dec 2007
From:     J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign
To:       Susan Prichard
Subject:  Re: BBC Documentary

Dear Susan,

As you will be aware, earlier this year, J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign was contacted by Chris Alcock with regard to our participating in a BBC programme, although the programme in question was never identified. We cooperated fully with Chris, providing him with links to further information and avenues of investigation and Chris also took it upon himself to directly contact several of the highly respected authors and academics who have written articles for J7 that are published on our web site. In none of these communications was the nature of the programme in question mentioned, although all those contacted were primed for a possible appearance in a BBC documentary examining the events of 7th July 2005.

It is difficult to express how appalled and disgusted we felt when we learnt, as we did from your email of last week, that the 'documentary' for which Chris Alcock was soliciting participants is in fact an episode of BBC2's risible Conspiracy Files series.

For the sake of clarity, it is worth establishing precisely, according to dictionary definitions, what the term ‘conspiracy theory’ means. While the definition of what a ‘theory’ is requires little or no clarification, in law, for it is under the law which alleged criminals are charged for their crimes, a conspiracy is defined as, “an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.” Therefore, by the very definition of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ any theory about how the events of 7/7 came to be that involves two or more people making it happen, is in fact a ‘conspiracy theory’. As such, the official government narrative, which is based on four, young, British Muslim men conspiring to kill themselves and others is, technically, by the legal and dictionary definitions of a ‘conspiracy’, a ‘conspiracy theory’. As there has been no due legal process – recall the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” – by which the four accused have had their guilt established beyond reasonable doubt, nor has there been an Independent Public Inquiry held outside of the constraints of the Inquiries Act 2005, the official version of events remains precisely a 'conspiracy theory'.

The July 7th Truth Campaign has never posited an alternative theory of what happened on 7/7, ‘conspiracy theory’ or otherwise. Therefore, the July 7th Truth Campaign cannot be defined, nor dismissed, as ‘conspiracy theorists’ in the traditional, pejorative sense, nor even the legal sense, of the term for the simple reason that, unlike the ‘conspiracy theorists’ which you are no doubt seeking for your programme, we do not promote any alternative ‘conspiracy theory’ about what might have happened that fateful day. Instead, the basis of the July 7th Truth Campaign has, since its inception, been that of endeavouring to uncover real, tangible evidence about the events of 7/7 and to challenge the official government narrative in instances where evidence proves the falsehoods in this narrative.

Furthermore, there exists in the public domain absolutely no evidence to support the Home Office narrative, much less evidence which proves it beyond reasonable doubt. Rather, there is evidence in the public domain that directly contradicts the version of events outlined in the Home Office story, evidence that has twice resulted in the Home Office amending the highly flawed narrative that was ten months in the making. It is worth noting that as a result of these two amendments forced by J7’s questioning, the official Home Office narrative has become more convoluted and even less coherent than it was originally, featuring as it now does, a scenario in which the four accused allegedly don their rucksacks on two separate occasions outside Luton station, once at 0649 and then again at 0714.

The BBC is an organisation funded by the licence-fee paying British public and the State, which itself is funded by the tax-paying British public. The BBC and the State are both public service organisations and, as such, should serve the public who fund their existences. Yet, with regard to the events of 7/7, neither the government nor the BBC can be described to have served the public in any respect, unless promulgating factually inaccurate, unsubstantiated speculations is considered to be a public service. In fact quite the opposite of serving the public has occurred, and both organisations have repeatedly performed a shameful disservice.

The events of 7th July 2005 resulted in the single biggest loss of life in London since the Luftwaffe bombings of the second World War and, in the two and a half years that have passed since, the behemoth that is the BBC has never yet found within itself the resources, time or inclination to address -- with the level of detail, gravitas and import that such an event deserves – precisely what happened on 7th July 2005, how it happened, or who was responsible for making it happen. Further, the BBC has never endeavoured to tackle the many unanswered questions, anomalies and inconsistencies in the official version of events outlined in the Home Office report dealing with the subject, despite the plight of the bereaved families whose questions about their loved ones have yet to be satisfactorily answered, and despite the continued efforts of the July 7th Truth Campaign to analyse the validity, or otherwise as is more often the case, of the official version of events. Where is the BBC programme championing the cause of the bereaved families and assisting them to obtain the truth from the authorities about how their loved ones died? As one bereaved family member summed up when they contacted us by email, “Yes, we do need the truth to come out (personally speaking I don't believe it has yet) but truth is what it has to be for proper closure.” Indeed, the father of 18 year old Hasib Hussain, accused of perpetrating the explosion on the number 30 bus, when doorstepped by a BBC journalist and TV crew, despaired at having never been shown any evidence of his son’s involvement or guilt.

It is beyond comprehension that the BBC is not endeavouring to hold the State to account – a state which is already proven to be mendacious, to have lied about Iraq’s WMD, and that has been complicit in the slaughter of over a million Iraqi civilians -- for its production of a speculative, unsubstantiated and entirely evidence-free 'narrative' that is little more than an egregious insult to the victims, their bereaved relatives, and those who survived the event. That the BBC's approach appears instead to be one that will endeavour to portray the July 7th Truth Campaign, or anyone with perfectly legitimate and unanswered questions to which we all deserve answers, as 'Conspiracy Theorists' is still less comprehensible. This approach is as distasteful as it is abhorrent.

We also noted with extreme interest the following line in your email with regard to your proposed episode of the Conspiracy Files:

"Throughout our focus will be on establishing the evidence and building up as definitive an account as possible of what happened."

To the best of our knowledge, "building up as definitive an account as possible of what happened" on 7/7 is not the function of the BBC, for the task of piecing together the story behind what Sir Ian Blair termed, “the largest criminal inquiry in English history”, is the job of the State in the form of the government and police. If you are indeed interested in building up such an account we can only suggest that you, the bereaved families, the survivors who have been all but forgotten as far as the media is concerned and your viewing public would be far better served by an episode of the Conspiracy Files which features representatives from the government and police who have access to information that has hitherto not been made public. After all, it was the Home Office branch of government that produced the official ‘conspiracy theory’ about what happened on 7th July 2005 in the form of a 'narrative' – a story -- that the July 7th Truth Campaign has proven to be based on information that was neither factual nor truthful.

The July Truth Campaign has been consistently appalled by the fact that, with regard to coverage of anything 7/7 related, the efforts of the BBC have been disingenuous, deceitful and downright dishonest and that no effort has been made to rectify this. There are countless examples where the BBC has, either wittingly or unwittingly, placed misinformation into the public domain, whether this be in ‘news’ items or ‘documentary’ programmes. We outline below a few of the more blatant examples of the BBC’s wilful ignorance of the few facts that are known, or dubious tactics employed:

• Just one week after 7/7, the BBC broadcast an episode of Real Story with Fiona Bruce which gave considerable time to the eye-witness testimony of Richard Jones, an individual who has given many and varied versions of what he claims to have seen aboard the number 30 bus which means that, at best, he is an extremely unreliable witness. Furthermore, none of his accounts bear any relation to Hasib Hussain. The BBC has never revisited the testimony of Richard Jones.
  


• On the afternoon of 7th July 2005 information came to light via BBC Radio Five Live’s Drivetime programme about a private company running a terror rehearsal operation at the time that real explosions were reported to have occurred on the London transport network. This information was revealed by the Managing Director of Visor Consultants, Peter Power who, in his own words, was rehearsing, “simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened.” Since the day of 7/7, the BBC has used Peter Power as an ‘independent’ security consultant with monotonous regularity across its entire broadcast media yet, curiously, he has never been questioned about his activities on the day of 7/7 while strenuously making the case for 90 days internment and how the British people must live in fear of another attack as part of what he calls ‘new normal’. Mr Power has also revealed ‘mock broadcasts’ were used as part of his operation and that, “there was a few seconds when the audience didn't realise whether it was real or not.”. Mr Power also featured in a Panorama programme broadcast in May 2004 in which a fictional attack on the London Underground took place, with three explosions occurring on underground trains, followed by another explosion above ground about an hour later. It was the BBC that put together ‘mock broadcasts’ featuring a bona-fide newsreader, Kirsty Lang, who, no doubt coincidentally, just happened to be the ‘relief presenter’ for BBC World on the day of 7/7. This is an irregularity on a par with the efforts of another BBC World presenter, Jane Standley, who announced on 11th September 2001 that WTC Building 7 had collapsed despite it not being hit by a plane, yet the building could be seen standing proudly in the background of her report before the feed fizzled out. WTC7 Building 7 went on to collapse 23 minutes after Jane Standley’s premonitory collapse report announcing it had already done so. Standley and BBC World’s amazing, prophetic foresight was never mentioned during the 9/11 Conspiracy Files and would have made for far more relevant and compelling viewing than the interview with a writer of the X-Files.
  


• BBC news stories about the events of 7th July 2005 have regularly and shamefully been presented with a backdrop that deceitfully shows footage of three of the accused taken from 28th June 2005, some 9 days before 7/7. The severity of this deception is further amplified by the fact that this footage has often appeared in edited form so that the actual time and date stamps are not visible. The lack of any CCTV footage from the day of 7/7 has never been questioned by the BBC, nor has the fact that, in the one CCTV image allegedly showing all four perpetrators outside Luton station, three of the faces are completely unidentifiable.
  


• On 27 October 2005, a BBC Horizon programme aired, “The 7/7 Bombers – A Psychological Investigation: What makes someone want to blow themselves – and others - up?", featuring forensic psychiatrist Marc Sageman and Dr Andrew Silke, which claimed to offer a psychological profile of the suicide bombers. The programme stated that the accused caught the 0748 train from Luton to King's Cross and that they arrived at King’s Cross at 0826. This was not the case and yet no amendment or apology for the inaccurate version of events outlined in that programme has ever been issued by the BBC. In response to a complaint about these factual inaccuracies, the laughable explanation was that while “re-tracing the journey of the 4 bombers, he [Silke] was not re-enacting it so there are some bits of his journey that do differ from the journey of the bombers.” Quite what the point of re-tracing steps that obviously weren’t taken by the accused remains a mystery. That the train times had been supplied to the programme makers by the Metropolitan Police Specialist Operations office was also worthy of comment and investigation.
  


• There are several documented examples demonstrating the BBC’s guilt in editing stories on the BBC News web site where phrases implying details about the alleged bomber’s journey, such as, “Passengers on the 0748 Thameslink from Luton to King's Cross”, have been edited out, yet the ‘last edited’ date and time has, rather disingenuously, not been updated to reflect these amendments. This is in direct contravention of the Press Complaints Commission guidelines which specify, “A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.”
  


• The BBC, along with the Metropolitan Police, claimed that the explosion on the Piccadilly Line train occurred by the first set of double doors on carriage one. The BBC web page containing this information was accompanied by a graphic showing this as the alleged seat of the explosion. Without any explanation, the BBC then changed this information to say that the explosion occurred by the second set of double doors and the graphic was updated accordingly. Curiously the Metropolitan Police – whom one might think would be the source for such information – have never amended or updated their account of the explosion being by the first set of double doors.
  

While the following information will serve little or no use in the production of an episode of the Conspiracy Files dealing with 7/7, as ‘researchers’ and/or ‘journalists’ you may be interested to note that, while the July 7th Truth Campaign is the only organisation that has been openly and publicly challenging the government on their flawed and inaccurate story of 7/7 since the day the incidents occurred, the government is also being privately challenged by families of the bereaved and survivors with regard to the accuracy of the report. In particular, the government has been taken to task over discrepancies in the alleged locations of the blasts on the underground trains. Another fact that the BBC has failed to investigate is that in August 2006, the then Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, responded that, over a year after the events occurred, a final forensics report had not yet been received.

More recently, after Coroner Dr Andrew Reid sent, unsolicited and without warning in early December, post-mortem reports to the bereaved, at least one family member has noted that there were "fundamental" differences between what they saw when they viewed their son's body and what the post mortem report said. This too has received no further comment or investigation from the BBC.

By way of conclusion to this communication, the magnitude and importance of the events of 7/7 and the repercussions of those events must not be underestimated. The official yet unsubstantiated story has been seared into the public consciousness as the 'first suicide-bombings' on British soil, a concept only trumped by the fact that this also qualifies the official story of 7/7 as the first 'suicide bombings' in the whole of Western Europe. The Home Office narrative of 7/7 is repeatedly used as unquestionable justification by the State and its corporate advisor apparatchiks to institute increasingly repressive legislation, including the widely abused 28 days detention without charge while the authorities struggle to uncover the evidence required to bring charges in a court of law. It wasn’t that long ago evidence was required before arrests were made.

To understand a little more about the wider context of 7/7 and everything that has happened since, one need only look to the words and wisdom of the Ministry of Defence who, on page 81 of a March 2007 report entitled, "The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Programme 2007-2036 (Third Edition)", noted what the State considers to be a core threat in the foreseeable future:

The Middle Class Proletariat

The middle classes could become a revolutionary class, taking the role envisaged for the proletariat by Marx. The globalization of labour markets and reducing levels of national welfare provision and employment could reduce peoples’ attachment to particular states. The growing gap between themselves and a small number of highly visible super-rich individuals might fuel disillusion with meritocracy, while the growing urban under-classes are likely to pose an increasing threat to social order and stability, as the burden of acquired debt and the failure of pension provision begins to bite. Faced by these twin challenges, the world’s middle-classes might unite, using access to knowledge, resources and skills to shape transnational processes in their own class interest.

The official story of 7/7 has been used to demonise and dehumanise the Muslim community, in much the same way that the Jewish community was demonised in 1930s Nazi Germany following a similarly questionable and catalysing event, the Reichstag fire, and has proved to be the enabling factor for the rapid and unchallenged institution of more Draconian laws that impose unprecedented restrictions on the civil liberties of everyone. It is worth remembering that the far-reaching scope of the law, "anti-terrorist" or otherwise, is applicable not just to the Muslim community but to each and every one of us and the State has no qualms about using its laws against anyone and everyone from whom it perceives a threat to what State actors refer to as, “our way of life”.

These factors are testimony to just how seriously 7/7 requires honest, principled and open-minded investigation to get to the facts and the truth about what happened. Only the truth will stand up to rigorous investigation and questioning yet, to date, this questioning and investigation has fallen to ordinary members of the public who have taken it upon themselves to do so, ordinary members of the public like J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign.

The July 7th Truth Campaign would be more than happy to participate in any serious programme that honestly examines 7/7 in its correct historical and political context, the government narrative, the lack of evidence to support it, the nonsensical amendments that have been made to the narrative, and the ever increasing list of unanswered questions that engulf the events of 7/7.

However, we do not feel that the Conspiracy Files is the vehicle that will facilitate this, nor will it treat the event or issues arising from it with the level of seriousness that they demand, and nor will it further the cause of the July 7th Truth Campaign’s quest for the truth about what happened on 7th July 2005. As such, the July 7th Truth Campaign has no intention of participating in the proposed episode of the Conspiracy Files and can only hope you will take on board the points we have raised in this communication in consideration of your public service duty to the people of Britain, a people that includes at least 56 families whom, through your continued refusal to honestly address the events of 7/7, you have hitherto failed abysmally.

For truth and justice,
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

--

Update 1: The independent film-making team behind Ludicrous Diversion have also refused to participate in the BBC Conspiracy Files and once again call into question the integrity, honesty and remit of the BBC. Read their response here.

Update 2 - 13/06/08: J7 have noted that since our refusal to participate in or co-operate with the making of the BBC's Conspiracy Files, the BBC seem to have approached anyone even remotely connected to the events of July 7th 2005. Many of those approached also declined to be involved. Moreover, a relative of Richard Chang left a very interesting comment on our response to the BBC, suggesting that the BBC have previous form for mendacity when making their 'documentaries' about events which still have yet to be thoroughly, independently and conclusively investigated.

This week, the UK 9/11 Truth Campaign began advertising an event which is taking place later this month, at which prominent author and researcher Nafeez Ahmed is due to speak; the flyer for which was also advertising the presence of "J7 researchers".

J7: The July 7th Truth Camapign were not at any time approached with regard to this event, nor were we asked permission for our website to be included on the flyer. After asking for an explanation regarding this oddity, we were told that the "J7 researchers" was in fact Nick Kollerstrom, a man who we recently discovered is a keen participant in the making of the BBC's 'Conspiracy Files' programme, whose approach to 7/7 research is markedly different to that of J7, who recently discovered that his theories regarding the holocaust of the second world war were rather unpopular and who, needless to say, is not affiliated to or associated with J7. It also transpired that the BBC were due to film the event - something which had not been previously made clear to at least one of the participants.

Mike "I was right away impressed with just how little I knew" Rudin from the BBC stated on Wednesday of this week, "Along with his views of 7/7, Nick Kollerstrom's views about the Holocaust will be scrutinised and challenged in the programme."

How very unsurprising for a programme apparently dedicated to examining 'conspiracy theories' regarding the horrific events in London in the summer of 2005. In order to reiterate J7's position and to avoid any confusion we sent the following email to the producers of the Conspiracy Files:

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 4:22 PM
From "J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign"
To "Tristan Quinn"
Cc mike.rudin@bbc.co.uk
Subject Nick Kollerstrom 7/7 Conspiracy Files

Dear Tristan

We recently became aware of a meeting to be held in London on 25th June which you were intending to film for the 7/7 Conspiracy Files programme you are making with Nick Kollerstrom. We were appalled to find that the flyer for this meeting developed by the UK 911 Truth Movement, without our knowledge or consent, advertised a 'J7 researcher' and included a link to our website when no member of J7 knew of the meeting, much less agreed to appear at it. It transpires that this alleged 'J7 researcher' would appear to be one Nick Kollerstrom.

As the BBC has a duty with respect to the accuracy of facts presented to its viewing public, please be informed that Nick Kollerstrom is not a member of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign and therefore cannot be classed as a J7 researcher. Kollerstrom is, if anything, a 9/11 researcher who belongs to the 9/11 Truth Movement UK & Ireland and it is with the operations of that group that Kollerstrom is involved with at a high level.

Over the last few months, Nick has been contacting various members of J7, mostly for information that would be in his possession if he were indeed a serious researcher into the events of 7/7, but also to arrange to collect J7 leaflets. It now transpires that he attended Leeds with your film crew, presumably with J7 leaflets in hand, where he attempted to make contact with the families of the accused.

These events lead us to suspect that efforts are being made either by or for your production to somehow conflate Kollerstrom with J7.

Surprisingly enough, not everyone that has questions about the events of 7/7 is a member of J7 and for the BBC to portray otherwise would be a new level of disingenuousness.

We would like an assurance from you that your Conspiracy Files programme will not be referring to J7 in relation to Kollerstrom or any other researcher.

Regards
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign