Showing posts with label Heather Hallett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heather Hallett. Show all posts

Sunday, 7 November 2010

J7 7/7 Inquest Blog: Don't Mention The Fifth (or Sixth?) Man


Originally posted on the J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog.

The Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005, published on 11th May 2006 (hereafter known as The Narrative), made it abundantly clear that the public should consider media reports regarding the so-called “fifth man” groundless. It stated:
“There was at the time of the attacks, reports of a “5th bomber”. It was thought, because of witness statements and CCTV, that there was a “5th man” with the group travelling down from Luton. Inquiries showed the individual was a regular commuter and he was eliminated from the inquiry. Also in the period immediately following the attacks, one man was arrested in connection with the investigation but he was released without charge. In subsequent weeks, a further man who had claimed to be the “5th bomber” was also arrested and later charged with wasting police time. There is no intelligence to indicate that there was a fifth or further bombers.”

In the opening week of the 7 July Inquests, we have heard from the witnesses mentioned above who claim to have seen a fifth (and in some cases a sixth) man - and the Home Office Narrative's claim that the man was a “regular commuter” seem odd at best – and misleading at worst.

The witnesses in question include Sylvia Waugh, who believes she saw the men outside the flat in Alexandra Grove, Leeds where it is claimed the bombs allegedly used on July 7th 2005 were manufactured. There is also Susan Clarke, who believes she saw the men in the car park at Luton Station. Joseph Martoccia was the witness whose statement to the police in July 2005 regarding his believed sighting of the men at King's Cross station was mutated by the media into a CCTV image, so successfully, that even a former newspaper editor appeared to believe he had actually seen such an image. Yet, as detailed in this previous post, no such image ever existed. This however hasn't stopped it being described as "iconic" and even the Press Complaints Commission agreed that an image that doesn't exist and hasn't been seen by anyone is still perfectly entitled to be described as an "iconic image".

Sylvia Waugh, who says she saw the men in the early morning of 7 July 2005 in Leeds, gave four witness statements to the police. Under oath at the Inquest, Mrs Waugh claimed that she regularly saw at least 6 people entering and leaving 18 Alexandra Grove. Significantly, Mrs. Waugh states that she finds it difficult to discern differences between 'coloured people'. Indeed, after stating on four occasions during her testimony that Jermaine Lindsay, who was, according to mobile phone evidence and the official 'narrative', some 160 miles away at the time, this difficulty does seem to be the case. However, despite this, it seems reasonable to assume that Mrs. Waugh is able to count:
Q. You remember a white car. Might that have been car B that you put on the map for the police?
A. It could have been.
Q. What about the other car, what colour was the other car?
A. Like a bluey colour.
Q. There were a group of men. Can you help us as to how
many you think you saw?
A. At least six.

A few moments later, Mrs. Waugh is reminded that she told police she had seen four men getting into what seems to be the Nissan Micra in which Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain travelled to Luton from Leeds. She recalls seeing six men in total, and two cars. The other car, according to Hugo Keith, counsel to the inquest, has never been traced. Mrs. Waugh's testimony is very confused; on more than one occasion she denies what she had said in her police statements and at one point she denies something she was recorded as saying several minutes previously whilst under oath. However, her claim to have seen four men getting in the Micra, and six men in total, is interesting when compared to the statement Susan Clarke gave to the police in July 2005, which was read out in part whilst she was questioned under oath during the inquests:
Q. [Mr Patterson] "One car had one or two males in it. The other, a lilac-coloured Nissan, had four males leaving it, all carrying rucksacks. When asked, she described all the males as not white."
A. [Susan Clarke] He then goes on to say that you handed him the piece of paper that you've told us about.
Q. So pausing there, is that an accurate note of what you told the officer on that Tuesday?
A. As far as I remember, yes.
Q. So although today you've told us that you thought that it was four, possibly five, men associated with those two cars, within days of the incident, the very first time you spoke to the police you were saying that it was two men from one of the cars, four men from the other car, all carrying rucksacks?
A. Yes.

Joseph Martoccia, a commuter who believes he saw the accused at King's Cross mainline station on the morning of 7th July 2005, also said he saw six men:
Q. Have you marked X as the spot where you came across a group of men?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you recall how many there were?
A. Yes. At the time, I said between four and six.
I wasn't entirely certain of the number.

Mr. Martoccia goes on, however, to say that the men caught his attention because they were in a huddle. It was this behaviour that led him to initially deduce they were probably a sports team.

Interestingly, although Mr. Martoccia contacted the police the following day, he was not asked to identify the men from photographs until almost a year later, a somewhat odd approach in what was termed by Sir Ian Blair as "the largest criminal inquiry in English history". When shown a picture of Jermaine Linsday during his testimony to the Inquests, Martoccia stated that he did not remember seeing him. Moreover, Martoccia said that the man he saw heading towards the Piccadilly line – who, one would presume on the basis of the official 'narrative', would be most likely to be Lindsay, who stands accused of causing the explosion on the Piccadilly line train – was instead Hasib Hussain; the man accused of being responsible for the number 30 bus incident.

Detective Inspector Kindness of Scotland Yard's Counter-terrorism Command gave an intriguing response when specifically questioned by Mr. Gareth Patterson, representing four bereaved families, over the number of men witnessed:
Q. You're probably aware, Inspector, of why I'm asking you these questions. Presumably you were told that there's a witness, Susan Clarke, who told the police quite early on that there may have been more than four people in and around those two cars. Were you aware of that? Did you look for the number of people around those cars?
A. Yes, at the time, when we were viewing the CCTV, we were comfortable with the amount of people that were there and that we'd managed to track them to the position where we got decent CCTV images that we could say, yes, there are that number of people.

Shortly after this, Mr. Patterson is interrupted by Hugo Keith QC, who expresses concern over his questions “because they do appear to me to be designed to leave the impression that either there was another person at large or that in some way the investigation has been inadequate or has not properly pursued leads available at the time.” After further admonishment by both Mr. Keith and Lady Justice Hallet, Mr. Patterson is able to continue:
MR PATTERSON: If we pause it now, perhaps. Can we see four figures walking off, Inspector?
A. Yes, we can, yes.
Q. Is there a figure who hovers and lingers between the two cars for a period of time?
A. Yes, there is a person there, yes. I think that's the person that exited that vehicle that just arrived.
Q. Was that something that was investigated and looked into to see where that additional fifth person --
A. The individuals around the car were -- their movements were assessed, yes.
Q. Is that something that you dealt with or that somebody else dealt with?
A. I didn't personally follow this individual away, no.

Later that same session, Ms. Caoilfhionn Gallagher, representing five bereaved families, continues a similar line of questioning:
Q. You said in your evidence earlier: "At the time of viewing the CCTV, we were comfortable with the amount of people that were there." That's for your reference, my Lady, page 180 of the
transcript today, lines 10 to 14. That was referring to that footage of Luton rail station that we've referred to earlier. Can you just go to page 2 of this document, Inspector?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you see the entry at 7.19 about halfway down the page? This is an entry by DC Stephen Bain who was viewing it on 10 or 11 July. Can you see at the end of that entry at 7.19, after he describes four persons at the rear of the vehicle, he says: "Fifth person remains at vehicle, movement between both, fifth person towards Luton station, distant view." Then a little further down the page, 7.23: "Fifth male through ground level barriers from car park", and there's continued references to the fifth male there, so two more entries at 7.23. So did you discuss with DC Stephen Bain the fact that, on viewing the footage, he had originally thought there were five males at the car?
A. I think the footage that you are referring to is what we have just played on the screen. What he has sighted is the fifth man and what he has done, quite rightly, ishe's tracked the movements from small image to Luton where you can get the big image and you can identify the person and the relationship with the other four. So for me, yes, we did discuss it at the time, definitely, because we needed to identify -- when I say that we were happy with four, by the time they got to the station, there was a group of four that we felt were -- we were comfortable that those were the four that were going to be engaged -- that were engaged in the activity. So it's right that he's identified it, because we've
seen when we've viewed it that there is a fifth person that arrives. The officer has noted it in his log and he's tracked him to the station.
Q. But you were satisfied at that time, and you discussed with DC Stephen Bain that, in fact, the fifth person was unconnected to those four males, or is that a view
you've come to subsequently?
A.I can't recall if we discussed it in those terms, but we were certainly looking at the movements around the vehicle and identifying fully how many people of relevance to us were there and, certainly, others who were sighted we were looking to eliminate in terms of movements with the four bombers.

In his opening statement to the inquest, Hugo Keith QC confirmed that a rucksack containing “four further improvised explosive devices” was found in the Nissan Micra, plus eight other devices. Why were devices put into a rucksack if not to be carried by somebody? This question, and the question as to why all three witnesses who claim to have seen the men at various stages en-route to London numbering between four and six men each time, it appears, are not of concern to the counsel to the inquest. Indeed, both Hugo Keith QC and Lady Justice Hallet's attitude to Mr. Patterson's questioning regarding the matter, gave the sense that suggesting that any more than the four men were involved is a subject completely untouchable by the inquest.

The Narrative claimed in 2006 that “there is no evidence of a fifth bomber”. In fact, as shown by the evidence given under oath to the Inquests, there is "evidence of a fifth bomber". But, much like “the war” in Basil Fawlty's hotel, nobody is allowed to mention it.

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.


Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 2 November 2010

J7 7/7 Inquest Blog: A CCTV Fuss About Nothing?


Originally posted on the J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog.

All witnesses to the Inquest take an oath. The oath is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but...

12 July In the early morning, the police search premises in the West Yorkshire area, including the homes of Khan, Tanweer and Hussain and 18 Alexandra Grove.

Report received that 4 people by two vehicles were seen putting on rucksacks at Luton Station car park. One of the vehicles was now missing but one remained in the car park.

By lunchtime, police working on the theory that there is a King’s Cross link to the 3 train bombs, all being broadly equidistant from there at the time of the explosions, identify a CCTV image of 4 men with rucksacks at King’s Cross. They recognise Tanweer first from a DVLA photograph.

The police identify CCTV images of the same 4 at Luton Station. The Micra is found at Luton and examined. 9 controlled explosions were carried out on material found in it. The Brava, which had been towed away because it did not have a parking ticket is later traced to Lindsay. There had been a report on the Police National Computer that the Brava may have been used in an aggravated burglary (see paragraph 69) and Lindsay was named as the registered keeper for the car.
During the morning session of Wednesday 13 October 2010, the Inquest heard from Detective Inspector Kindness of Scotland Yard's Counter-terrorism Command. After being sworn, DI Kindness was questioned by Counsel to the Inquests, Hugo Keith, and stated for the record that the identification of the four accused at King's Cross Thameslink, and thus the link made to the Luton and Bedford areas, occurred on 11 July 2005:
Q. Can you recall on what day you first spotted a number of men walking through the King's Cross area, in particular through the Thameslink station carrying rucksacks?
A. It was on 11 July 2005, sir.
Q. So on the Monday?
A. It was, yes.
Q. Can you recall what it was about the appearance of those men on the CCTV that alerted you to the fact that you might have identified the bombers?
A. My officer, who was engaged in the actual CCTV recovery, was ex-military. He saw the four individuals walking through and they were walking two by two and he felt it was significant. They were carrying large rucksacks and he brought my attention to it. I concurred with him that it was a matter of priority for us.

Under further questioning by Mr Keith, DI Kindness explains the manner in which Luton was discovered as the point at which the four accused met and travelled to London:
Q. Did you then concentrate your examination upon CCTV relating to the railway network to the north of London?
A. Indeed, sir, yes, and we were looking at the route of the -- the Thameslink route up through Bedford and Luton and looking for fast-time CCTV recovery of those stations to see where the bombers had access to rail network.
Q. Were you able to access CCTV relating to, not just the stations, but the car parks at those stations, the entry points and the foyers?
A. Yes, we were, sir.
Q. What did you discover?
A. We were able to identify that the individuals had arrived at Luton underground station earlier that morning and boarded a train to London.
Q. Can you recall when it was that you discovered that they had boarded the railway network at Luton?
A. I think it was on the 12th, sir.
Q. So the Tuesday?
A. Yes.
Q. As a result of that process, how many of the men were you able to identify initially as having used the Luton railway station?
A. We were able to identify all of the men had accessed -- the four men had accessed via Luton railway station.
Q. Were you able to identify the cars that they used at the station?
A. Yes, we were.
Q. So you were able to identify that they had arrived in two cars, a Nissan Micra and a red Fiat Brava?
A. That's correct, sir.

Note that DI Kindness is neither asked for, nor offers, any explanation for why Luton was chosen from at least eight possible stations that the 07.00 Bedford - Brighton Thameslink train would have stopped at on the morning of 7 July. Any investigation looking for potential al Qaeda "suicide bombers" would perhaps concentrate their efforts instead on Luton Parkway station, with its links to Luton Airport, and one stop closer to London than is Luton station. Eight stations would have furnished a lot of CCTV footage to examine within a maximum of 24 hours between the identification of the four men on the 11 July 2005 and the Luton link on the 12 July 2005.

One theory, indeed the one favoured by the Home Office narrative, is that Luton was chosen due to the witness sighting of four men putting on rucksacks at Luton station, as received on the 12 July 2005. This witness, Susan Clarke, gave her evidence to the Inquest during the afternoon session of 13 October 2010. She describes handing a note of the cars she had seen at Luton station on the morning of the 7 July to a British Transport Police officer at St. Pancras station. This note was handed over on Tuesday 12 July 2005. [Transcript, 13 October 2010, afternoon session - page 14, line 14 on]. Officers attended her place of work at 11.45am on 12 July 2005 and Ms Clarke was interviewed for two and a half hours at Holborn police station.

So this would appear to be how the Luton station CCTV came to be favoured and examined over and above seven other possible stations of focus. Or, at least it would be if either the narrative or DI Kindness were actually relating the facts of the matter. Fortunately for the bereaved and the wider public, the carefully plotted course of Mr Keith's questioning was exposed by further questions interjected by Mr Patterson and Ms Gallagher, the counsels for the bereaved. However, nobody would be aware of this through reading any of the press reports covering the inquest proceedings.

A CCTV viewing log was discovered in evidence that had shortly before been posted on the Lextranet system that the Inquests are utilising to share evidence between the counsel and interested persons. Mr Hill, representing the Metropolitan Police Service, attempted an objection to this line of questioning and Judge Hallett compounded the issue by reiterating the evidence so far:
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Strict rules of evidence, you're obviously right, Mr Hill. Do I take it, to try to cut this short, Mr Kindness, that essentially you were responding to somebody -- somebody else has got information and they've said, "All right, Detective Inspector Kindness, off you go, we want you to look at Luton and Bedford", is that really -- or did the information come to you personally?
A [DI Ewan Kindness]. The information -- Luton and Bedford was seized, my Lady, as a result of the sighting at -- as a result of the sighting at King's Cross Thameslink which had been generated by the CCTV viewing by the CCTV team. So it was natural that we would follow the route up the line. It's as simple as that.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I think this is a fuss about nothing, Mr Hill, with respect.

Here's the kicker:
MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's correct, yes.
Q. In that document which I've made reference to, I think you have it before you, my Lady, the Anti-terrorist Branch SO13 record -- do you have that document before you?
A. No, I don't, no.
Q. Is it possible for a copy to be provided?
MR KEITH: You can have my copy. (Handed)
MS GALLAGHER: This is a record of an officer viewing CCTV. It seems to be by a DC Stephen Bain. Was he part of the same team?
A. Yes, he was, yes.
Q. If you just look in the box at the top, it's on the left, five boxes down, "Date viewing commenced: 10 July 2005, 20.00 hours" and "Date viewing ended:11 July 2005, 23.30".
A. Yes.
Q. So is it possible that, in fact, that information was received on 10 July rather than 11 July, Inspector?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th.

This leaves the one crucial and compelling question: Why were the police reviewing CCTV footage from Luton station and car park on 10 July 2005, when the accused apparently weren't identified on King's Cross Thameslink CCTV until a day later, 11 July 2005?

More importantly, why has it been deemed necessary to concoct the story about the discovery of CCTV at Luton on 12 July 2005?

The Inquests now need to scrutinise the actual manner in which the four accused were identified, and re-examine how, when and why the link to Luton station was made and how, when and why the CCTV was recovered, as the evidential log shows, by 10 July 2005.


On the fourth day of the inquests we learn that this one image of the four accused entering the tunnel from King's Cross Thameslink is the only CCTV image captured of the four men together anywhere near King's Cross underground station on 7 July 2005. More to follow...

If you wish to comment on this article, please join the discussion on the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog.

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 16 October 2010

7 July Inquests: It's A Conspiracy, Stupid!

"Although the plotters plainly designed their plot in a way that would add the fuel of worldwide publicity to their aims, these inquests have at their heart, however, the single fact that there was a conspiracy to murder. Each of these 52 inquests is concerned with an act of murder. We have found no evidence to the contrary. It is also clear from the evidence that is available that the four men who detonated the bombs were Mohammed Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Jermaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain. To reflect the reality of the position and to avoid legal sophistry, I intend to call them "the bombers". [page 13, lines 9-20]

...

"But again, I must emphasise it is not a proper function of an inquest to attribute blame or apportion guilt, or a proper function of mine to express opinions on impermissible areas. [page 15, lines 2-7]

...

"Some of the questions may never fully be answered and some may of course also fall outside the scope of these inquests, but what we can say is that a great deal of time, energy and resources has been devoted to finding out what happened to each deceased. Thus it is to be hoped that these inquests, however unpleasant and distressing, as they will be, will assist in answering the families' questions in allaying some of the rumours and suspicion generated by conspiracy theorists." [page 22, lines 8-16]

-- Hugo Keith, Counsel to the 7 July Inquests


It's the end of the first week of the 7 July Inquests process. It's been a long and busy week for the J7 research collective as we endeavour to look beyond the largely throwaway headlines the mainstream media are happy to churn out to fill the spaces between adverts -- as cunningly crafted for them by Counsel to the Inquests, Hugo Keith* -- and examine the minutiae of the proceedings.

Each day the Inquest sits results in approximately 200 pages of transcripts and a varying amount of evidential submissions that need to be diligently worked through and examined in light of the research work that J7 has been conducting during the five years that have passed since the events of 7 July 2005. And, quite frankly, if J7 doesn't perform this function, it's probably not going to happen in any other public forum.

Followers of J7's work -- which, if this week's activities at the inquests are anything to go by, undoubtedly include the counsel to the inquests -- will know that we recently published our submissions to the inquests. Our apparently "voluminous" submissions, as Hugo Keith described them on Day 1 of the inquests proper, outline many of the outstanding discrepancies, anomalies and inconsistencies of the still unproven 7/7 "narrative". The evidence on which this narrative of 7/7 is said to be based has, prior to the inquests, received absolutely no judicial scrutiny in over five years, although it has repeatedly been taken at face value, including in courts of law, and the contents of the "narrative" being taken at face value has been extended by the counsel to the inquests to the actual inquests themselves.

It is perhaps opportune to note at this stage quite what the definition of a "narrative" is:

Narrative; -noun
1. a story or account of events, experiences, or the like, whether true or fictitious.
2. a book, literary work, etc., containing such a story.
3. the art, technique, or process of narrating: Somerset Maugham was a master of narrative.

So, a "narrative" of any sort may, or may not, by its very definition, be true, and is equally as likely to be fictitious. In this particular regard, if no other, the official Home Office report covering the events 7 July 2005 is very clear indeed and openly refers to itself as a "narrative", rather than what many presume or perceive it to be, a factual account of events. As such, the burden of proof lies with the narrative's hitherto anonymous story-tellers to make the case, not with anyone else to prove it to be false, as is commonly argued by the "conspiracy theorists" who champion the conspiracy theory touted by the Home Office.

Judicial Scrutiny?

While the inquests may count, technically, as judicial scrutiny, it is judicial scrutiny that is occurring without the benefit of a jury. This apparent judicial scrutiny is in turn being orchestrated and funded by the State, overtly to appease the concerns of bereaved families who feel they have not yet had the truth regarding the deaths of their loved ones. From the outset, it must be understood that the State cannot in any way find itself to be culpable for anything that would reflect badly upon it, and history is littered with countless examples of the State absolving itself of responsibility, illegality, or immorality in all degrees.

Further, if these concerns aren't by themselves sufficient to sound alarm bells, the Counsel to the Inquests has quite a history of forcefully defending the interests of Queen and State in many instances where these entities have been deemed to be under attack. High profile examples of Keith's work include defending The Queen, no less, at the inquest into the death of Diana; the DPP in the case of a judicial review brought by a member of the family of the mercilessly savaged Jean Charles de Menezes and, more recently, the "merciless savagery" of the Metropolitan Police in relation to the inquest into the murder of the barrister Mark Saunders.

Evidently, Mr Keith has no qualms defending "merciless savagery" when it suits the interests of the highest levels of the State, so one might be prompted to wonder quite why a counsel so wedded to the staunch legal defence of the realm against all-comers might be required for what, superficially at least, is an open inquest into the deaths that occurred on 7 July 2005.

Keith also specialises in extradition and his notable extradition cases include "Abu Hamza, the Natwest 3, David Mills and Silvio Berlusconi in Italian mutual legal assistance proceedings and the Secretary of State in the cases of Ian Norris [PDF] and Gary McKinnon."

The Inquest Process

An intrinsic and vital part of any inquest process is to not prejudge any aspects of the factors leading up to and involved in the cause(s) of death. It would appear, given the contents and areas for further examination listed in the Provisional Index of Factual Issues, that the causes of death have already been pre-judged to be linked in some way to explosions occurring on three underground trains and a bus and, further, that these explosions have been prejudged to have been made to occur by the four accused, Khan, Tanweer, Hussain, and Lindsay. Indeed, over 60 percent of the contents of the Provisional Index of Factual Issues relates to the area of 'Preventability'; that seemingly being the potentiality for the preventability of an attack by four young, British, Muslim men, these specifically being Khan, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay. Therefore, the bulk of the Inquest's Provisional Index of Factual Issues is based around a substantial deviation from the core purpose of the inquest process, seemingly in favour of using the brutal and horrific deaths of 56 people, and the inquest to which they are entitled, as a cynical stick with which to beat the police and security services. While there may well have been significant involvement and failings on the parts of the various organisations, and while some of these areas may well be touched upon as evidence is presented and connections are made during the inquest process, having such activities comprising the bulk of provisional inquest investigation before the inquest has even started seems somewhat counter-intuitive to the notion of not having prejudged any aspects relating to the manner in which the deceased came about their deaths.

With these concerns about the narrative and the structural arrangements of the inquest process recognised and stated, in addition to the overwhelming lack of evidence that has been released and the great many concerns outlined by J7 in the five years since 7/7, it appears that the judicious aspect of judicial scrutiny that passes even the media by, falls to the general public.

Thanks to the Internet the 'ordinary' people of the general public no longer need to rely entirely on sneaking the odd letter past lowly editors into low-circulation newspapers, or the efforts of what were once known, and are now sadly lamented, as investigative journalists. Ordinary people have at their fingertips their own means of production and dissemination of information, along with the ability to produce analysis and content at least on a par with, if not far in excess of, that which the media and all its corporate interests foist upon us. This is what J7 have been doing for over five years now, and we have been doing so with sufficient vigour, transparency and credibility that the Counsel to the Inquests feels the need to make repeated, if indirect, references to the research we have conducted and the information we have published.

And so the next phase of this process, the J7: 7/7 Inquests blog, has been born, following on from the J7 web site, blog, petition, Facebook campaign, and research forum, established specifically to provide coverage and examination of the inquest proceedings, along with analysis of the evidence that is being released as part of the inquest process.

Contributions to the blog will be made by various members of the core J7 research team and the blog will be updated as regularly as possible during the duration of the inquests. As always, we welcome contributions from non-J7 affiliated parties who are taking the time and making the effort to follow the inquest proceedings.


Inquest Resources

* "Merciless savagery" is one of Keith's descriptions of the events of 7/7 that springs immediately to the fore, and one which received a great deal of coverage after the first day's proceedings. Without doubt all acts of premeditated murder are acts of "merciless savagery" and this applies equally to the victims of 7/7 as it does to any other murdered human beings. However, when the words are uttered by someone who has repeatedly and steadfastly defended for personal profit the actions and the interests of a Monarchy and State that is itself responsible, in just the last decade alone, for in excess of a million acts of "merciless savagery", orders of magnitude greater in number than those that occurred on 7/7, it could reasonably be argued that Keith's words are bereft of meaning.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)