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

    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


    Sabretache said...

    Congratulations on your Refusal to become BBC Patsies.

    But extra-special congratulations on the video itself; It is absolutely superb and spot-on in so many respects. I don't know how I missed it until now (probably because I spend most of my time studying US alternative news sources rather than home-grown one I guess). Your analysis and presentation of the phony 'war on terror' and the burgeoning growth of State surveillance, control and suppression of dissent that it underpins, deserves much MUCH wider circulation.

    Anonymous said...

    Al Beeb would have falsley discredited you in the Public eye afterwards you would have a difficult time keeping public interest.
    Although a public debate would be useful, you would not get this, it would be heavily censored, edited and propagandised.

    The sheer Power of the BBC Propaganda machine means you were right to steer clear of this obvious trap.
    If they want a debate then let it be on your terms so you have some editorial control over what is aired, so that there is no censorship by Omission and any challenges by BBC 'experts' can in turn be challenged themselves.