Tuesday 9 December 2008

Release the Evidence Petition: an update

J7 launched a petition to the British government to "Release the Evidence" to conclusively prove its Official Report beyond reasonable doubt, because the Official Report had been proven to be inaccurate and because the evidence in the public domain was so very limited, particularly in respect of CCTV images.

J7 has since submitted many requests to public bodies in order to obtain more evidence, most of which have been turned down. A common response has been that the evidence cannot be released because that would prejudice any trials in connection with the events in London on 7th July 2005.

Earlier this year, three men were tried on charges of assisting those alleged, but not yet proven, to have carried out the 'London bombings'. During that trial more evidence was indeed released into the public domain, but it was very limited and if anything raised more questions than it answered.

At the trial, it was claimed that the ID of the 'bombers' was not found at the expected locations, indicating that the ID had been deliberately scattered by means other than the explosions. The only images released were of rail cards and tickets (some expired) in the name of Tyrone Smith, with the photograph detached from the card. These were claimed to be of Lindsay, but all accounts of the Piccadilly train agree that it was so crowded that it would have been physically impossible for Lindsay to have scattered his ID around the carriage.

It was also claimed that the 'bombers' were not wearing the rucksacks, but had placed them upon the floor before detonating them. Again, this would hardly seem possible on the crowded Piccadilly train.

The CCTV images released were far from complete.

The image of Tanweer looking directly at the camera at Woodall Services was not released, nor were any of him arguing with the cashier over change, both of which are mentioned in the Official Narrative.

No images of Khan, Tanweer or Lindsay have been released later than 0826 at Kings Cross Thameslink. None show them at Kings Cross Mainline or in any part of the Underground. The images of the four suspects parting after hugging each other euphorically, mentioned in the Official Narrative, have not been released.

The only images of Hussain at Kings Cross Mainline show him in shops or on the concourse. There is no image of him purchasing a battery, as claimed by the Official Narrative. None show him in the Underground, and none show him boarding or travelling on any bus.

The images which show the explosions do so only indirectly, limited mostly to showing the expansion of dust, smoke and the flying debris that resulted from the explosions and the reactions of people who were a fair distance from the explosions and who themselves only had a slim chance of directly seeing the explosions. Furthermore the timestamps on those images do not correspond to the times of the explosions given in the Official Narrative (even after allowing for British Summer Time), for example 0746 when the Official Narrative states between 0850 and 0855:

The Official Narrative cites witnesses who saw two of the men fiddling with their rucksacks (presumably Richard Jones and Danny Biddle), but these witnesses were not called upon to give evidence upon oath at the trial of those accused of helping the suspects.

J7 has published an update to its petition to acknowledge that there is now more evidence in the public domain (as a result of this trial). Because the evidence released is still far from sufficient to prove the Official Report beyond reasonable doubt, we are renewing our call upon the British Government to RELEASE THE EVIDENCE.

Saturday 5 July 2008

The Miracle of Carriage 346

On Monday, the third anniversary of the July 7th attacks in London, Channel 4 will be broadcasting a documentary titled "The Miracle of Carriage 346".

There are indeed some miraculous stories contained within the film, and there can be no denigration of the trauma suffered by those involved and the fortitude that so many have displayed – particularly Gill Hicks, whose courage and inspirational strength of character can only engender admiration.

However, one of biggest 'miracles' of this documentary, which will no doubt not feature in the programme, is that the programme researchers have managed to create a film about a carriage which was not only not bombed on July 7th 2005 but was not part of any affected train at all.

The number 346 seems to have originated with a 2005 article by Mark Townsend for the Guardian, the headline of which was, "Blue Watch relive the bomb hell inside carriage 346A"

A response to an FOI request by J7 to Transport For London, however, stated that "There is not a carriage 346A."

Clive Feather wrote,
"The Piccadilly Line train consisted of the following vehicles:


Car 166 was the one holding the bomb
Carriage 346A is, in fact, an impossible carriage:
"A note on Piccadilly Line 1973 Tube Stock car numbering.

Each car has four axles labelled A, B, C, D. Each car has an A end and a D end. The couplings at the A end are different from the couplings at the D end. Cars can only couple A to D. Three cars couple to form a half train.

For example, 146-546-346. 146 is the A car of the half train. 346 is the D car.

A full train would be: 146-546-346-4xx-6xx-2xx where xx is odd.

346 would be the third or fourth carriage from the front, depending on which way the train was going.

The consist of train 331 was 166-566-366-417-617-217.

417 is an A car and 217 is a D car. It is the other way round for odd numbers.

The Tubeprune informs me that:

"Unit 166-566-366 was severly damaged, 366 is probably the only possible survivor but it has no other cars to work with at this time."

Car 346 is still tootling up and down the Piccadilly line
346 without the attached ‘A’ conceivably exists and indeed is probably still now employed on a train on the Piccadilly Line.

To frame an entire documentary around a carriage number which is not the correct one is sloppy journalism at best. Channel 4 have clearly realised their error, for they have since placed a disclaimer on the documentary page:
"It was reported that it was Carriage 346 at the time. However, there has been some dispute in some circles as to the actual number of the carriage when the bombing took place."

Source: Channel 4
To amend their originally published article to add that there is "some dispute in some circles as to the actual number of the carriage" is a somewhat disingenuous and misleading angle. Any dispute of the carriage number originates not in "some circles" on a whim but with the facts of the matter such as they have been confirmed to be with Transport for London, the body responsible for the running of the tube.

When making a factual film about an actual event into which there has never been a cohesive, coherent independent inquiry, an event which caused loss of life in London on a scale not seen since the Luftwaffe Raids and from which the survivors and bereaved are still having to fight for compensation three years later, establishing the rudimentary facts first is the barest minimum that the victims, the injured and bereaved, and the programme's audience deserve.
  • Where did the non-existent carriage number 346a originate?
  • Who gave Mark Townsend this information that no journalist thereafter apparently bothered to double-check?
  • Why is the myth of Piccadilly Line carriage 346a still perpetuated despite confirmation from Transport for London that "There is not a carriage 346A."?

Friday 6 June 2008

Secret Inquests and Inquiries - The proposed Counter-Terrorism Bill

The Counter–Terrorism Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on the 24 January 2008 and contains a number of provisions which the Government claim are designed to enhance counter-terrorism powers.

Secret Inquests and inquiries

Recent headlines have abounded with regard to the 42 day pre-charge detention proposals, however there has been scant coverage of other specific proposals contained within part 6 of the proposed Bill (Clauses 64 to 67) dealing with (secret) inquests and inquiries.

Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary explained, in a letter dated 21 January 2008, why the changes to the coroners’ inquest system in England and Wales were required: in order to comply with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The incompatibility of the present coroners' inquest system with Article 2 of the ECHR arose when Oxford Coroner Andrew Walker stated that, in the inquest into the murder of Azelle Rodney, he could not properly discharge his duties and that consequently his ruling would not comply with the obligations enshrined in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Azelle Rodney

Azelle Rodney was shot dead in 'an operation' by the Metropolitan Police on 30 April 2005, less than 3 months before the deaths of the July 7th victims and the extra-judicial State execution Jean Charles de Menezes.

The proposals within this new legislation include the following changes to the current system of inquests and inquiries:

Inquests without a jury &/or family members
Inquest without jury

Clause 64 would insert a new section 8A into the Coroners Act 1988 and would enable the Secretary of State to certify, in relation to an inquest, that in her opinion, the inquest would involve the consideration of material that should not be made public:

in the interests of national security
• in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country or
• otherwise in the public interest.

The certification could be made in respect of an inquest which had not yet started or at any time before an inquest was concluded. The effect of such a certificate would be that the inquest would be held without a jury (and any jury already summoned would be discharged). The Secretary of State would have power to revoke a certificate at any time before the conclusion of the inquest.

Inquests led by a government selected coroner
Specially appointed coroners

Clause 65 would insert new sections 18A to 18C into the Coroners Act 1988 and would enable the Secretary of State to appoint a “specially appointed coroner” to hold an inquest which is the subject of a certificate under section 8A, instead of the coroner who would otherwise have jurisdiction.

The use of intercept evidence
Intercept evidence
a. Inquiries

Clause 66 would amend section 18(7)© of RIPA [Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000] to allow disclosure of intercept material to a person appointed as counsel to an inquiry held under the Inquiries Act 2005, in addition to the panel of an inquiry.

b. Inquests

Clause 67 would also further amend section 18(7)© of RIPA, in this case to allow disclosure of intercept material to a coroner or to a person appointed as counsel to an inquest...
The cross-party UK Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (on page 8 of their report of 30th January 2008) described the above proposals as "an astonishing provision with the most serious implications for the UK’s ability to comply with the positive obligation in Article 2 ECHR to provide an adequate and effective investigation where an individual has been killed as a result of the use of force, particularly where the death is the result of the use of force by state agents.

Readers are reminded that, nearly three years on, all the inquests relating to the victims of the events of July 7th 2005 have yet to take place.

Comments are welcomed as to why an inquest into a 7/7 victim should be subject to unwarranted State interference. Why and how would 'National Security' be compromised in such an inquest? At least one reason might be that the government July 7th narrative would not then stand up to the scrutiny it so richly deserves.

Is the government legislating itself the right to indulge in further malfeasance?

Further background information and research on this subject by the J7 collective is here.

Tuesday 22 April 2008

Mind (Plug?) the Gaps

Following the selection of the jury of 12 from 150 potential jurors, and some technical hitches the trial of R v Waheed Ali (aka Shipon Ullah), Sadeer Saleem & Mohammed Shakil at Kingston Crown Court began. The three men are accused of one charge of conspiring with the four bombers and others unknown to cause explosions between Nov 17, 2004 and July 8, 2005.

Reports emerged (BBC & Telegraph) at lunchtime on 10th April 2008 of CCTV footage from the 7th July 2005 being shown in court. The Guardian report of 10th April failed to mention CCTV, however as noted here, the fullest account of the CCTV shown in court was provided by Rachel "North" in her blog post on the evening of 10th April.

The next morning J7 submitted a FOI request to the Metropolitan Police to determine if the CCTV evidence material shown in court would be made available for public scrutiny. After all there is, to date, no CCTV or photographic evidence in the public domain showing the 4 accused in London on 7th July 2005.

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:42 AM
From J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign
To Neil Smith
Subject Release of 7/7 CCTV footage under FOI

Dear Mr Smith

Now that the CCTV footage from 7th July 2005 has been shown during the current trial in Kingston Crown Court can we be assured that this footage will now be released and made available to the public?

As you are undoubtedly aware, the July 7th Truth Campaign has been very concerned over the lack of evidence in the public domain since the events in London on 7/7.


J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

Ten days later we received a response (emphasis added):
21st April 2008

Dear J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign

As you know the 7/7 trial is ongoing. It would be premature for me to release further footage under FOIA at this stage, but I feel sure that more material will become available once the trial is over.

We understand your organisation's concerns as to the lack of evidence in the public domain pre-trial. The UK judicial system demands that all accused receive a fair trial. If evidence was to be published pre-trial, potential jurors would form a pre-conception as to verdict based upon published 'evidence'. At trial, that 'evidence' may or may not be established. All the authorities, including the Police, are bound to respect the needs of the Court, therefore release of evidence pre-trial has to be subject to strict limitations. In due time I hope we will be in a position where all the public, and especially the families of those killed or injured, are fully appraised of what happened on the 7th July 2005.

Whilst we have not communicated for some time, I express the thanks of the CT Command for drawing attention to some issues in the official account that required clarification. Whilst is might not always be apparent from our replies, your scrutiny is seen as helpful rather than inconvenient.


Neil Smith
Detective Inspector
SO15 (Counter Terrorism Command)

While the response did not directly answer the question we submitted, whether the footage shown in court will be released and made available to the public, we have been told that [possibly] more material will become available once the trial is over. (Off the shelf Panorama programmes at the ready?)

Regarding the statement that 'If evidence was to be published pre-trial, potential jurors would form a pre-conception as to verdict based upon published 'evidence' - is that not what has happened in court, directed by the prosecution, without the scrutiny of the media/public at large?

Whether any media organisations are interested enough to demand the release of any of the CCTV evidence shown in court, remains to be seen. On 9th April, the Metropolitan Police released a statement to the media:
'During the trial the media may apply for material which has been relied upon by the Crown as part of its prosecution. The request will be considered by prosecuting Counsel, Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police Service.

Defence counsel will be advised of the request and will have the opportunity to raise any issues with the judge, who will make a final decision on whether the material can be released.

Whether any applications have been made and/or refused remains to be seen, however to date no CCTV footage has been released to the general public, nor have any additional still photos been publicly released.

Note the acknowledgement from Detective Inspector Neil Smith of Counter Terrorism Command that J7's scrutiny of the official account, and our ongoing Freedom of Information requests endeavouring to establish the facts about what happened on 7th July 2005, are "drawing attention to some issues in the official account which require clarification" and such queries are "seen as helpful rather than inconvenient".

To date J7 have submitted many FOI requests to the Metropolitan Police with limited success in terms of requests that have resulted in the disclosure of useful information. It would be infinitely more helpful if requests for information were met with the release of the information being requested.

We would like to see the Crown Prosecution Service, the Metropolitan Police Service and the Judge/judicial system being 'helpful' to the British Public by releasing the CCTV evidence.

J7 looks forward to the release of the CCTV footage shown during the trial, and to any other evidence material, in order that further scrutiny can be carried out and the facts about what happened on 7th July 2005 can be coherently established.

Monday 14 April 2008

Latest J7 article published - Human Rights Abuses & The Demonisation of 'The Enemy' in Secret Britain

Capitalising on Terror: Human Rights Abuses & The Demonisation of 'The Enemy' in Secret Britain

Imagine a day in your life – of no particular value purely due to its sheer availability and mass quantity. Then imagine it was the last day you knew freedom.....

Imagine how it feels to stumble blindly through a closed 'court' process, unable to speak to the person who has the luxury of knowing what you don't; the grounds on which you've been taken away from everything that you knew, whilst the judge sits sighing, having the privilege of knowing exactly what the outcome will be. Imagine being arrested and thrown into jail in one country because another country has demanded your presence, conferring 'suspect' status upon you immediately. Imagine how it would feel to sit alone in a small cell day after day and year after year, knowing that you don't even have the option or means to prove your innocence beyond doubt because there is “insufficient evidence” to charge you with a crime – and because of this, knowing that the general assumption is likely to be that 'there's no smoke without fire'. Especially when there's a 'war on terror' to win.

This is the reality facing hundreds of innocent Muslims in the UK; a reality constantly ignored by the British media, especially in the current season of terror.
"The most elementary requirement of legal certainty demands that you know the case against you. And yet considerable numbers of young men, and some women, are being held in our prisons without any idea of why they are there. They are detained under yet more provisions, for the present deemed lawful, which either forbid or demand no meaningful explanation being given to the accused. The concept of secret evidence and accusations so vague and undefined as to be meaningless has now bedded down in our system of justice."

Gareth Peirce, human rights lawyer, December 2007
In September 2006, Tony Blair described the “global struggle against terrorism” as being “without mercy or limit”......to see how merciless and limitless government oppression against Muslims - and potentially any of us - can be, read the latest J7 article here.

Monday 31 March 2008

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign March 2008 Update

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign have issued their March 2008 update.

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign March 2008 Update

Greetings from J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign,

In the slightly tardy J7 March 2008 update: Details of two new articles on the J7 site covering the results of the 7/7 investigation, including details of the recent conviction of Khalid Khaliq and the launch of the FREE KHALID KHALIQ campaign; the overturning of the ‘Bradford 5’ convictions; a J7 petition update; and further expressions of J7 support and solidarity with other campaigns and activist groups.

J7 are pleased to announce the publication of two new articles covering the results of nearly three years of the police 7/7 investigation, the arrests made and the charges brought. The official Home Office narrative claimed that the four alleged suicide bombers acted alone in the financing and execution of the attacks, yet seven people have been arrested in connection with the events of 7/7. Of these, charges have been brought against three people. With the trials starting in early April of the alleged 7/7 co-conspirators that the Home Office report claims didn’t exist, now is the time to get informed:



In July 2005 Khalid Khaliq came forward to voluntarily to assist with the 7/7 investigation. Nearly three years later, on Tuesday March 11th 2008 Khaliq, 34, was sentenced to sixteen months in prison for possession of information that is freely available from an American website set up by the US Ministry of Justice. Khaliq stated in court that the disc "had been brought to his home by "others", whom he refused to identify." Furthermore, it appears Khaliq had not even viewed the material on the disc. The court heard how the CD had originally been produced in the Iqra learning centre and it is common knowledge that CD and DVD production, along with other IT issues at the Iqra, were undertaken not by a Muslim but instead by a jobbing former Hells Angel and "IT man", Martin Gilbertson. Full details in another new article, Justice Defiled - the conviction of Khalid Khaliq, on the J7 blog:


The convictions of four Bradford University students, Awaab Iqbal, Aitzaz Zafar, Usman Ahmed Malik, and Akbar Butt and a London schoolboy, Mohammed Irfan Raja have been overturned in a landmark appeal court ruling. The accused, described ‘impartially’ by the judge as "intoxicated" by radical Islamist propaganda originally received sentences ranging from 27 months to three years for what lawyer Imran Khan called "thought crime". Within weeks this ruling was overturned and the accused were freed. The Crown Prosecution Service is not challenging the appeal court actions of the Lord Chief Justice claiming it did "not see any necessity to clarify a point of law". For further details please see the J7 People’s Inquiry Forum thread:


The J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition has raced past 2,000 signature mark, exceeding signatories to the official Downing Street web site petition for a Public Inquiry by a factor of four. The petition has already been signed by some notable individuals and organisations including the Patrick Finucane Centre and representatives from the Omagh Support & Self Help Group. If you’ve already signed the J7 Petition, thank you. If you haven’t signed the J7 Petition yet please do so here:


J7 expresses support for and solidarity with the Patrick Finucane Centre and the Omagh Support & Self Help Group. J7 also supports the Truth and Justice for Richard Chang Campaign.


Here ends the J7 update for March 2008. We’ll be in touch again soon.

In solidarity, for truth and justice,
J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Team
Web: http://julyseventh.co.uk/
Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth
Forum: http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh
MySpace: http://myspace.com/j7truth
Email: julyseventh@fastmail.net

Wednesday 12 March 2008

Justice Defiled - the conviction of Khalid Khaliq

Despite reports that Khalid Khaliq denied the three charges which had been laid against him in May 2007, and had not entered a formal plea at his court appearance in August 2007, on the 10th of March 2008, Khalid Khaliq pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a document or record containing information likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. This was the possession of a CD containing an ‘al-Qa’ida training manual’, which was reportedly found in his "family home" in July 2005. The further charge of possession of information likely to be useful for terrorism - a book entitled "Zaad-e-Mujahid" ("Essential Provision of the Mujahid"), which had reportedly been found in the raid on Khaliq’s property in May 2007 was ordered to be laid on file and the judge ordered that Khaliq be found not guilty of the third charge; possessing a book entitled "The Absent Obligation -- and Expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula".

On Tuesday March 11th 2008 Khaliq, 34, was sentenced to sixteen months in prison.

Prosecutor David Farrell QC told the court the al-Qaeda training manual included a declaration of Jihad, an interview with Osama bin Laden and information about weapons and how to deal with being interviewed by police.

Source: BBC News

A report in the Yorkshire Evening Post also described the contents of the manual, which differ slightly from the above:

Khalid Khaliq, 34, admitted owning a CD containing techniques on assassination, espionage, torture and interrogation after it was found at his home in Tempest Road, Beeston, Leeds.

The court heard how the CD had originally been in Iqra learning centre and bookshop on Bude Terrace, of which Khaliq was a trustee, but was moved from there to his home nearby after the attack. The court also heard how material on the disc had been downloaded from an American website set up by the US Ministry of Justice following a trial in 2002.

Judge James Stewart criticised the decision to put the material on the internet. He said: "It is like putting pornography on a website when a man is accused of possessing or creating it."

Although Khaliq was in possession of the disc he had never actually downloaded the information onto his home computer. Khaliq claimed he didn't know its content.

Source: Yorkshire Evening Post

Who moved the CD from the Iqra to Khaliq’s house? According to a Daily Mail report, Khaliq had stated that the disc "had been brought to his home by "others", whom he refused to identify."

With regard to the unidentified "others" to whom Khaliq refers, it is common knowledge that CD and DVD production, along with other IT issues at the Iqra bookshop, were undertaken not by a Muslim but instead by a former Hells Angel and " IT man", Martin Gilbertson (pictured left). In interviews given to the media Gilbertson speaks of "the amount of time I spent editing" what newspapers described as "horror DVDs" between 2001 and 2004. Gilbertson happened to be working alongside a former elite Special Boat Service "anti-terrorist" operative, one Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid (pictured right) who, for some reason, "asked for high-security encryption for their computer systems so it would be hard even for government agencies to access e-mails." Quite why an ex-SBS operative might want to hide data from government agencies has never been revealed.

The Mail also reported how the judge, James Stewart, had said it was "extraordinary" that the American Department of Justice had seen fit to publish the terrorist booklet on the internet:

Officials took the precaution of removing a section on "bomb-making" but they allowed chapters on espionage, assassinations, torture and interrogation to remain, Leeds Crown Court was told.

The manual had been published on the U.S. site as part of the transcript of a 2001 terror trial under a freedom of information policy.

Source: Daily Mail

The irony of material on the CD being uploaded to the internet by the US government under the terms of 'freedom of information' and then deemed illegal to possess in this country is self-evident. It is also worth noting that in a 2005 article by Duncan Campbell; ‘The Ricin Ring That Never Was’ describes how an attempt was made to introduce an ‘al-Qa’ida training manual’ into the case:

The most ironic twist was an attempt to introduce an "al-Qaida manual" into the case. The manual - called the Manual of the Afghan Jihad - had been found on a raid in Manchester in 2000. It was given to the FBI to produce in the 2001 New York trial for the first attack on the World Trade Centre. But it wasn't an al-Qaida manual. The name was invented by the US department of justice in 2001, and the contents were rushed on to the net to aid a presentation to the Senate by the then attorney general, John Ashcroft, supporting the US Patriot Act.

Source: The Guardian

Additionally, oddly enough, the CIA produced 'Freedom Fighter’s Manual', which includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination and the CIA produced 'Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual' which teaches how to torture people are both perfectly legal to download, possess and distribute. Are we to conclude that manuals teaching torture, assassination and interrogation are only acceptable when produced by the US, and only 'useful to terrorists' when in the possession of Muslims?

Worth factoring into the consideration are the words of the Assistant Professor of Political Economy at the University of Washington, Guido Giacomo Preparata, who, on page 21 of his book Conjuring Hitler - How Britain and America made the Third Reich writes of "the recent lurking 'threat' of Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda - a true 'Godsend' for America's imperial establishment", further noting, "As known, the evanescent Bin Laden and his lieutenants are from the start an invention of the CIA."

Moreover, less than a month prior to this trial, on February 13th 2008, five young men were freed on appeal having been convicted of very similar charges, including charges of possessing information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. When quashing the convictions, the Lord Chief Justice said there was no proof of terrorist intent:

Lord Phillips said that while the men had downloaded such material, he doubted if there was evidence this was in relation to planning terrorist acts.

He said the prosecution had attempted to use the law for a purpose for which it was not intended.

Source: BBC News

FREE KHALID KHALIQKhalid Khaliq had come forward voluntarily to assist with the 7/7 investigation in Beeston in July 2005. This act of social responsibility is presumably how his property came to be searched in the first place. Despite his statement to the police that he did not support al-Qaida and was "shocked by the actions of the 7/7 bombers", despite character witnesses confirming that Khaliq was a "devoted, caring and loving" parent, who had given up work to be the sole carer of his children and did not advocate terrorism, the judge decided that Khaliq was a threat to society and merited a custodial sentence. Yet where is the evidence that Khaliq had the intent or means to commit an act of terrorism. Astonishingly, the judge even used the fact that Khaliq possessed a copy of the Terrorism Act as some kind of additional indictment against him - since when does the possession of government legislation equate to terrorist intent?

On February 13th 2008, Imran Khan; a lawyer for one of the freed Muslim students at the Court of Appeal said that the ruling would have a "significant impact":

He told BBC News: "Young Muslim men before this judgement could have been prosecuted simply for simply looking at any material on the basis that it might be connected in some way to terrorist purposes."

He said section 57 of the 2000 Terrorism Act had been written in such wide terms that "effectively, anybody could have been caught in it" but prosecutors would now have to prove such material was intended for terrorist purposes.

Source: BBC News

Evidently, the case has not had anything like the kind of impact that it should have; the conviction of Khalid Khaliq -- father and sole carer of three children, two girls aged 11 and eight and a five-year-old son, who has learning difficulties -- for possessing what seems, in actuality, to be mainly US and UK government information, is testament to that.

For further details on the 7/7 "investigation", the seven arrests and the three charges brought please see:

Thursday 7 February 2008

J7 EXCLUSIVE: Peter Power Dorset Police Suspension & the DPP File

On July 7th 2005, Peter Power was running a terror exercise which, in his own words that evening, was "based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!". He has since refused to give a more detailed account of his activities that day, for some reason believing that the commercial interests of his client, which require confidentiality, are more important than the public interest in incidents which resulted in many deaths and injuries. Disappointingly, the media appears to share that belief as it has not insisted on him making a credible full disclosure. Instead, it continues to present him with regular opportunities to propagate his views on such matters as the necessity of a 90 day detention period.

J7 has discovered, though, that Peter Power was once the subject of a file passed to the Director of Public Prosecution as a result of an investigation by Dorset Police. This is all the more remarkable because, at the time, Peter Power was a Superintendent in the Dorset Police Force! Read the full story here. He retired from Dorset Police, which had suspended him on full pay, on the grounds of ill health before any decision was taken by the DPP on whether to act upon the file.

This information dates from 1993, before the Internet was as commonplace as it is today. It is not online, so J7 is grateful for the services provided by public libraries and archives. It is a salient reminder of the importance of these services, which are increasingly under attack.

One argument used by the BBC Conspiracy Files to persuade J7 to participate in its programme (J7 refused) was that it was the same team as produced Panorama. This argument is substantially weakened by the failure of the Panorama team to investigate Peter Power's credentials. For its "London Under Attack" programme it provided the following incorrect biography:

Crisis management specialist & government adviser
Visor consulting 1995- present
Director BET Group Security 1992-1994
Senior Officer Metropolitan Police 1971-1992

Peter Power was in fact working for Dorset Police 1990-1993.

J7 asks:

  • What is the explanation for the incorrect biographical information supplied for the Panorama programme "London Under Attack"?
  • Is there evidence for the claims made by Peter Power about his involvement in the Brixton riots, the Libyan embassy siege, the Oxford Circus fire and the Kings Cross fire?
  • Was Peter Power prosecuted as a result of the Dorset Police investigation?
  • Is Peter Power still receiving an ill health pension from Dorset Police, at the same time as he is very actively pursuing a consultancy career?
  • Why, in view of his apparently glittering career and obvious appetite for self publicity, with every prospect of attaining one of the top positions in the Met, did Peter Power transfer to Dorset?

Not forgetting:

  • What precisely was the exercise undertaken on 7th July 2005, and which organisations were involved?

Monday 14 January 2008

Ludicrous Diversion - LD refuse BBC Conspiracy Files offer

This is Ludicrous Diversion, a 28 minute film released in September 2006 that remains the single most concise summary of the many issues surrounding 7/7:

Further to J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign's refusal to participate in an episode of the BBC's Conspiracy Files series. the independent film-makers behind Ludicrous Diversion (J7 interview here) have also refused to participate in no uncertain terms and once again call into question the integrity, honesty and remit of the BBC. Below is a copy of the Ludicrous Diversion team's response to the Conspiracy Files offer:

Dear Susan

Thanks for your invitation to come and discuss the 'conspiracy' issues surrounding 7/7. Unfortunately we must decline. The BBC's credibility amongst so-called 'conspiracy folk' is so non-existent that it's laughable. If you don't know why this is, check out youtube regarding the BBC and 911.

So you intend to find the definitive account of 7/7 – why wait until now? The BBC not only never questioned a single fact within the 'Official Story', but was itself responsible for disseminating the information without giving most of it even the most cursory investigative glance.

We draw your attention, for example, to the issue of what train the supposed bombers took into London. For well over a year the BBC continued to publish on its website the time given by the police and offered in the official investigation – despite the fact that particular train was cancelled - and this fact was widely available across the internet. The BBC only changed its story when the official story was itself changed and the train time altered. Worth thinking about. . .

In fact, in matters such as 7/7, i.e. matters of crucial importance to the British public, the evidence strongly indicates that the BBC is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the British government and intelligence agencies, relying on its historical reputation to create in the public mind exactly the picture that these bodies would like the public to see.

You, no doubt, will claim that you are coming at it afresh, with independent eyes. In that case, (after suggesting you wake up and smell the coffee) we think you should really dedicate the entire program not to the validity of the 7/7 `conspiracy theories`, but to an proper examination of the central conspiracy - how a web of lies was presented by the government, police and intelligence agencies and then disseminated without question by the mainstream media, your good selves at the BBC included.

The idea of the BBC presenting any sort of unbiased presentation would be comedic if it was not so tragically absurd. Their 'conspiracy series analysis of 911 was criminally negligent in its presentation of the facts and lapdog acceptance of the official story and will be correctly adjudged so in time. Your latest hitpiece on 7/7 'conspiracies' will sadly, but inevitably, be cut from the same branch.

You will 'consider' a few of the enormous number of lines of investigation, a blend of the most easily dismissed and the most obviously insane. You will do exactly no independent investigation of any kind. And your conclusion will be that most of the questions being posed by 'conspiracy theorists' regarding 7/7 are without any real basis, but some questions do need asking about the role of the intelligence agencies in following the four men before the event. How do we know this will be your conclusion? Because that is the official line. Feel free to prove us wrong.

If you think this is unfair, here is a list of the essential questions to consider – and to use your BBC-backed weight to obtain answers. We'll take a little wager that not one of these issues is seriously and sensibly addressed in the course of your film.

Why did the mainstream media including the BBC, choose not to question a single police report, political statement or any part of the official report? Is this now outside your remit? Is the BBC somehow under the impression that the police, the government and the intelligence agencies with their anonymous leaks are infallible and more importantly trustworthy? Given a verifiable history of deceit by all three, why would the BBC simply report as fact what these organisations claim?

Why won't the police release the enormous number of images and moving footage of the four bombers in London that they have claim to have and which must exist? Surely, with this much time passed, and in a serious documentary by the BBC there can be no harm in showing the moving CCTV footage of these four bombers - the footage which has condemned them, despite having never been seen by the british public?

How is that the police, intelligence agencies and media all falsely reported the time of the train the bombers took into London for over a year, given that the police has by its own statements, actual CCTV footage of the four bombers getting on this non-existent train?

Here`s a suggestion for a very interesting and enlightening sequence for your film.

Take a camera to Luton station, film the entire journey from there to the underground platforms that the bombers departed from (we were denied permission to do this, but we have a feeling the Beeb will be allowed) – time the journey and count the number of CCTV cameras that filmed the four alleged bombers along the way. Then calculate how many hours of footage of these men must exist if the official story of the mens journey to Kings Cross and onwards is true. Then reveal, perhaps with a crescendo of music – that not one single second of this footage has been presented. In fact, other than a still photo of Hussain outside boots, there is not one single frame of the four men in London. Does it exist? It must, if the official story is true. What possible reason could there be for not showing it?

What a scoop for the BBC it would be if they actually got this footage that has been denied from the British public! What a triumph to force the police into releasing the hours of moving images of the four suspects! And if they don't give you this footage straight away, what a wonderful opportunity to try and uncover why they won't! Exciting journalistic opportunities await, if you want to take the leap. Sadly, this won't happen, but again please – feel free to prove us wrong.

Yours sincerely


    -----Original Message-----
    Subject: BBC Documentary
    Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:19:19 +0000
    From: susan.prichard@bbc.co.uk
    To: ludicrousdiversion@hotmail.com

    Dear Ludicrous Diversion

    BBC 2 Current Affairs is making a documentary about the 7th July bombings. The programme is for the BBC 2 documentary series "The Conspiracy Files".

    The programme will analyse what happened on 7th July 2005, and aims to provide a definitive account of events on that day.

    We are interested in talking to people who have raised questions about the official account and who are campaigning for further information to be released. We've watched your film and we would be keen to meet you to discuss the issues it raises in more detail.

    Many thanks,

    Susan Prichard
    Assistant Producer,
    BBC Current Affairs

    Monday 7 January 2008

    J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign January 2008 Update

    J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign have issued their January 2008 update.

    J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign January 2008 Update

    Greetings from J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign,

    It’s the start of the New Year and time for a long overdue J7 update. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your continued support and to wish all J7 supporters a very happy Gregorian Calendar New Year and all the best for 2008.

    In the J7 New Year round-up: J7 turns down the offer of a BBC ‘documentary’; Gordon Brown again refuses a public inquiry into 7/7; Peter Power breaks his silence; J7 reject and dismiss a new 7/7 film by someone who claims to be the new messiah; a review of Daniel Oba Chike’s book and J7 launch an updated and redesigned flyer.

    Shortly after the second anniversary of 7/7, the July 7th Truth Campaign was approached by representatives of the BBC and asked to participate in a forthcoming 7/7 documentary. Nearly six months later, the BBC revealed that the ‘documentary’ in question was an episode of the BBC’s risible Conspiracy Files series. Having seen each of the previous four episodes of the formulaic Conspiracy Files, J7ers were unanimously against participating in the show. J7 put together a detailed response to the BBC declining to participate in the programme and explaining our reasons why. Much of the response, while specifically addressed to the BBC, is equally applicable to all broadcast and print media. Read the full J7 response to the BBC here:


    A year long petition on the Downing Street web site calling for a 7/7 Public Inquiry has closed and received a response from the government that has, once again, refused an inquiry. J7 has always stated that any public inquiry must be held outside of the Inquiries Act 2005 and, despite the inquiry petition making no mention of the Inquiries Act, the demands of the petition were, unsurprisingly, still refused. The inquiry petition was widely publicised online and in various mainstream media outlets, yet was only signed by a paltry 525 people, clearly demonstrating the British public’s complete lack of faith in a state-run public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.

    The now-closed inquiry petition can be viewed here:

    The government’s response to the petition is here:
    http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page14132.asp [archive.org copy]

    Meanwhile, the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE petition continues to go from strength to strength and has been signed by almost 1900 people. If you haven’t signed the J7 petition yet, please do so here:


    For only the second time in two and half a years the Managing Director of Visor Consultants, Peter Power, has broken his silence about the exercise he was running the day of 7th July 2005. The latest comment comes after Peter Power was briefly confronted in a hotel lobby by a group called We Are Change and, for some hitherto unknown reason, rather than contacting We Are Change directly, Peter Power chose instead to leave a comment on the J7 web site. You can read the updated Terror Rehearsal article, which includes a link to the We Are Change video and Peter Power’s latest comment here:


    A video was released on 5th November 2007 entitled '7/7 Ripple Effect' which appeared via a website called JforJustice. Both the video and website are authored by Muad'Dib (the name of a fictional character from Frank Herbert's Dune) who believes he is the Sheffield-born messiah and demands 'that he be acknowledged as the Rightful British-Israel King.' He also appears to hold rather offensive, anti-Muslim views and the film is littered with unsubstantiated speculation in a manner not entirely dissimilar to the official Home Office narrative. Find out more:


    A number of books have been released by people connected, or claiming to be connected with the events of 7/7, and J7 will be reviewing as many of these as possible. The first review has gone live on the main J7 web site and is a review of Daniel Oba Chike’s book, The 4th Bomb. Read the review here:


    The July 7th Truth Campaign flyer has been updated, redesigned (by a proper designer!) and re-published and printed copies are available on request for anyone that wishes to distribute them at meetings, protests and gatherings. As ever, copies of the new flyer can be viewed online and print-quality PDFs can also be downloaded.

    View the flyer online:

    Download Black & White PDF:

    Download Red & Black PDF:

    Today, 7th January 2007, would have been the 30th birthday of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was extra-judicially executed by two unnamed State marksmen in July 2005. Our thoughts are with the de Menezes family and J7 supports the quest for justice of the Jean Charles de Menezes family campaign (http://justice4jean.com). J7 also supports the cause of the National Campaign Against Anti Terror Powers.

    That’s about all for now. J7 will be in touch again soon and, if all goes according to plan, 2008 will be the year that sees the start of more regular updates from the J7 team.

    In solidarity, for truth and justice,
    J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Team
    Web: http://julyseventh.co.uk/
    Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/j7truth
    Forum: http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh
    MySpace: http://myspace.com/j7truth
    Email: julyseventh@fastmail.net

    Friday 4 January 2008

    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:

    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.

    J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign