Gagging Order for 21/7 Plot Trial

[Mark Gobell]

Can anyone help please.

Whilst doing a google search today for : 21/7 bombers trial

I clicked on a Times link about half way down the page:

Times Online - London Bombs... gagging order for 21/7 plot trial, --------------------------------- ... Family of bomber struggles to understand ... Interview with a would-be bomber ...
www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,22989,00.html - Similar pages

The actual link is:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,22989,00.html

I noticed the text against the Times headline:

gagging order for 21/7 plot trial

However I can't find a mention anywhere in that link or the pages linked by that page of the gaggin order.

I went to http://archive.org and typed in the Times URL and this was the result:

Robots.txt Query Exclusion.

We're sorry, access to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,22989,00.html has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.
Read more about robots.txt
See the site's robots.txt file.
Try another request or click here to search for all pages on footballfc.com/section/0,,22989,00.html
See the FAQs for more info and help, or contact us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Home | Help

Internet Archive | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

I looked the Times Robot.txt page by clicking on the link provided by archive.org expecting to find a disallow entry referencing the section in the URL http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,22989,00.html

but cannot find any entry for this page.

Either way The Times is not allowing access to the archived version of this page.

Can anyone help me understand if there is a disallow reference in The Times Robot.txt file (at the bottom of this post) that I cannot easily see ?

Strange that the current page is available with no mention of the "gagging order" anywhere or on any of the links from that page and yet the archived version exists but is blocked.

I then used the Times short result text from my search to do another google search: gagging order for 21/7 plot trial

and found the same Times result here, which we know doesn't contain any reference to a "gagging order":

Times Online - London Bombs... MI6 knew of 21/7 bomb suspect, It was all just part of the job, ... Lawyers seek gagging order for 21/7 plot trial, --------------------------------- ...
www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,22989,00.html - Similar pages

Hmmm.

MI6 knew of 21/7 bomb suspect . . .

Lawyers seek gagging order for 21/7 plot trial,

Searching for :

MI6 knew of 21/7 bomb suspect

produces this Times link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-2060512,00.html

which claims:

"A leaked “top secret” document published in The Sunday Times yesterday indicated that there was intelligence on one of the July 21 suspected bombers"

But no mention of a gagging order at all despite the headline:

MI6 knew of 21/7 bomb suspect

After the leak yesterday of an intelligence document that included comments from the head of MI6 about the July 21 failed attack, security forces were adamant that there had not been “an intelligence failure” before the London incidents. John Scarlett, the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), is quoted in the document as saying that MI5 had asked his agency to check on a suspect known to be visiting Pakistan. The suspect later featured in the investigation begun after the July 21 incident. According to the document it was a “low-level” investigation and nothing came of it.


Is there a gaggin order in force about 21/7 ?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks


#Robots.txt File
#Version: 0.2
#Last updated: 24/01/2005
#Timesonline Newspaper
#Site contents Copyright Times Newspapers Ltd
#Please note our terms and conditions http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,497,00.html
#Spidering is not allowed by our terms and conditions #Authorised spidering is subject to permission
#For authorisation please contact us - see http://www.nisyndication.com/about_us.html

# Globally Disallowed Sections: All Robots
User Agent: *

Disallow: /newspaper/
Disallow: /printFriendly/
Disallow: /feedDisplayPopup/
Disallow: /displayPopup/
Disallow: /TGD
Disallow: /picture/
Disallow: /thumbnail/
Disallow: /images/
Disallow: /genads/
Disallow: /_gatools/
Disallow: /ProgressMessages/
Disallow: /transcgi/
Disallow: /_nipd/

Disallow: /section/0,,252,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,253,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,254,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,5221,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,1321,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,6812,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,7133,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,13449,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,13450,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,18190,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,18189,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,18769,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,18770,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,18771,00.html
Disallow: /section/0,,18772,00.html

#Agent Specific Allowed Section
User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow:
User-agent: Googlebot/1.0
Disallow:
User-agent: Googlebot/2.0
Disallow:
User-agent: Googlebot/2.1
Disallow:
User-agent: Mediapartners-Google
Disallow:
User-agent: FAST-WebCrawler
Disallow:
User-agent: FAST-WebCrawler/2.1
Disallow:
User-agent: FAST-WebCrawler/2.2
Disallow:
User-agent: askjeeves
Disallow:
User-agent: slurp
Disallow:
User-agent: Tehoma
Disallow:
User-agent: ArchitextSpider
Disallow:
User-agent: Lycos_Spider_(T-Rex)
Disallow:
User-agent: Gulliver
Disallow:
User-agent: Gulliver/1.2
Disallow:
User-agent: Gulliver/1.3
Disallow:
User-agent: msnbot
Disallow:
User-agent: YahooSeeker
Disallow:
User-agent: YahooSeeker/1.0
Disallow:
User-agent: YahooSeeker/1.1
Disallow:
User-agent: YahooSeeker/1.2
Disallow:
User-agent: Scooter/3.3Yahoo!
Disallow:
User-agent: yahoo-fetch
Disallow:
User-agent: CrawlConvera0.1
Disallow:
User-agent: InfoSeek Sidewinder
Disallow:
User-agent: Ultraseek
Disallow:


#Agent Specific Disallowed Sections
User-agent: Nutch
Disallow: /
User-agent: Jetbot/1.0
Disallow: /
User-agent: Jetbot
Disallow: /
User-agent: WebVac
Disallow: /
User-agent: naver
Disallow: /
User-agent: dumbot
Disallow: /
User-agent: Hatena Antenna
Disallow: /
User-agent: WebZip
Disallow: /
User-agent: larbin
Disallow: /
User-agent: b2w/0.1
Disallow: /
User-agent: psbot
Disallow: /
User-agent: Python-urllib
Disallow: /
User-agent: Googlebot-Image
Disallow: /
User-agent: NetMechanic
Disallow: /
User-agent: URL_Spider_Pro
Disallow: /
User-agent: CherryPicker
Disallow: /
User-agent: EmailCollector
Disallow: /
User-agent: EmailSiphon
Disallow: /
User-agent: WebBandit
Disallow: /
User-agent: EmailWolf
Disallow: /
User-agent: ExtractorPro
Disallow: /
User-agent: Crescent
Disallow: /
User-agent: SiteSnagger
Disallow: /
User-agent: ProWebWalker
Disallow: /
User-agent: CheeseBot
Disallow: /
User-agent: LNSpiderguy
Disallow: /
User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /
User-agent: ia_archiver/1.6
Disallow: /
User-agent: Alexibot
Disallow: /
User-agent: Teleport
Disallow: /
User-agent: TeleportPro
Disallow: /
User-agent: MIIxpc
Disallow: /
User-agent: Telesoft
Disallow: /
User-agent: Website Quester
Disallow: /
User-agent: moget/2.1
Disallow: /
User-agent: WebZip/4.0
Disallow: /
User-agent: WebStripper
Disallow: /
User-agent: WebSauger
Disallow: /
User-agent: WebCopier
Disallow: /
User-agent: NetAnts
Disallow: /
User-agent: Mister PiX
Disallow: /
User-agent: WebAuto
Disallow: /
User-agent: TheNomad
Disallow: /
User-agent: WWW-Collector-E
Disallow: /
User-agent: RMA
Disallow: /
User-agent: libWeb/clsHTTP
Disallow: /
User-agent: asterias
Disallow: /
User-agent: httplib
Disallow: /
User-agent: turingos
Disallow: /
User-agent: spanner
Disallow: /
User-agent: InfoNaviRobot
Disallow: /
User-agent: Harvest/1.5
Disallow: /
User-agent: Bullseye/1.0
Disallow: /
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; BullsEye; Windows 95)
Disallow: /
User-agent: Crescent Internet ToolPak HTTP OLE Control v.1.0
Disallow: /
User-agent: CherryPickerSE/1.0
Disallow: /
User-agent: CherryPickerElite/1.0
Disallow: /
User-agent: WebBandit/3.50
Disallow: /
User-agent: NICErsPRO
Disallow: /
User-agent: DittoSpyder
Disallow: /
User-agent: Foobot
Disallow: /
User-agent: SpankBot
Disallow: /
User-agent: BotALot
Disallow: /
User-agent: lwp-trivial/1.34
Disallow: /
User-agent: lwp-trivial
Disallow: /
User-agent: BunnySlippers
Disallow: /
User-agent: URLy Warning
Disallow: /
User-agent: Wget/1.6
Disallow: /
User-agent: Wget/1.5.3
Disallow: /
User-agent: Wget
Disallow: /
User-agent: LinkWalker
Disallow: /
User-agent: cosmos
Disallow: /
User-agent: moget
Disallow: /
User-agent: hloader
Disallow: /
User-agent: humanlinks
Disallow: /
User-agent: LinkextractorPro
Disallow: /
User-agent: Offline Explorer
Disallow: /
User-agent: Mata Hari
Disallow: /
User-agent: LexiBot
Disallow: /
User-agent: Web Image Collector
Disallow: /
User-agent: The Intraformant
Disallow: /
User-agent: True_Robot/1.0
Disallow: /
User-agent: True_Robot
Disallow: /
User-agent: BlowFish/1.0
Disallow: /
User-agent: JennyBot
Disallow: /
User-agent: MIIxpc/4.2
Disallow: /
User-agent: BuiltBotTough
Disallow: /
User-agent: ProPowerBot/2.14
Disallow: /
User-agent: BackDoorBot/1.0
Disallow: /
User-agent: toCrawl/UrlDispatcher
Disallow: /
User-agent: WebEnhancer
Disallow: /
User-agent: suzuran
Disallow: /
User-agent: VCI WebViewer VCI WebViewer Win32
Disallow: /
User-agent: VCI
Disallow: /
User-agent: Szukacz/1.4
Disallow: /
User-agent: QueryN Metasearch
Disallow: /
User-agent: Openfind data gathere
Disallow: /
User-agent: Openfind
Disallow: /
User-agent: Xenu's Link Sleuth 1.1c
Disallow: /
User-agent: Xenu's
Disallow: /
User-agent: Zeus
Disallow: /
User-agent: RepoMonkey Bait & Tackle/v1.01
Disallow: /
User-agent: RepoMonkey
Disallow: /
User-agent: Openbot
Disallow: /
User-agent: URL Control
Disallow: /
User-agent: Zeus Link Scout
Disallow: /
User-agent: Zeus 32297 Webster Pro V2.9 Win32
Disallow: /
User-agent: Webster Pro
Disallow: /
User-agent: EroCrawler
Disallow: /
User-agent: LinkScan/8.1a Unix
Disallow: /
User-agent: Keyword Density/0.9
Disallow: /
User-agent: Kenjin Spider
Disallow: /
User-agent: Iron33/1.0.2
Disallow: /
User-agent: GetRight/4.2
Disallow: /
User-agent: FairAd Client
Disallow: /
User-agent: Gaisbot
Disallow: /
User-agent: Aqua_Products
Disallow: /
User-agent: Radiation Retriever 1.1
Disallow: /
User-agent: Flaming AttackBot
Disallow: /
User-agent: Oracle Ultra Search
Disallow: /
User-agent: PerMan
Disallow: /
User-agent: searchpreview
Disallow: /
User-agent: sootle
Disallow: /
User-agent: es
Disallow: /
User-agent: Enterprise_Search/1.0
Disallow: /
User-agent: Enterprise_Search
Disallow: /


User-agent: *
Disallow: /

[Sinclair]

Does anyone with websearch knowledge know about the robot txt thingy?

It would seem that someone is highlighting that THERE IS A GAG ORDER IN PLACE, without actually providing a news link to that fact (they can't 'cos there is a gag order in place!!)

There has been a trial recently of some of the 21/7 'non-bombers'

I checked http://www.met.police.uk/vivace/court.htm for un update & lo & behold, there was a trial hearing on 24th July 2006. Absolutely nothing in the news/web about this.


QUOTE

Operation Vivace
Court proceedings and latest updates
24th July 2006
On Monday 24th July 2006 at Woolwich Crown Court a Plea and Case Management hearing took place in relation to the attempted bombings on the 21st July 2005.

This was in relation to the defendants concerned in Trial 2, shown below.

Trial 2
Yeshiemebet GIRMA
Mulumebet GIRMA
Esayas GIRMA
Omer ALMAGBOUL
Mohammed KABASHI
Shadi ABDELGADIR


Trial 2 is currently listed to commence on 12th February 2007 all the defendants were arraigned with the following offences:

ASSISTING AN OFFENDER, contrary to section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967.
FAILING TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION ABOUT ACTS OF TERRORISM, contrary to section 38B(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
All the defendants in Trial 2 have pleaded not guilty on all counts.
Previous updates
28th April 2006.
26th Jan 2006.


Interestingly, I only found this info because I had the URL bookmarked. If you go to the root URL of http://www.met.police.uk & try & search for Vivace, you get:
Metropolitan Police web search: no matches were found for 'vivace'

Coupled with the fact that you can find NO info on the web of any trial or trial hearing progress news etc. , leads me to suspect that there is gagging order of some sort in place.

Remember folks,



7th July 2005 events 0 Arrests, no trial (or evidence?)
21st July 2005 events 43 arrestd/detained, only 17 scheduled for trial by April 2007

J7 Blog
J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition

[Mark Gobell]

Think this might be it ?

Greeks call for inquiry into 7/7 abduction claims

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1960776,00.html

Thinking about it I don't think this can be it as this relates to a D notice against the press from republishing the name of an MI6 thug involved in the abduction of Greek Pakistani's related to the 7/7 event.

Whereas the Times short text shown as a result of this google search:

gagging order for 21/7 plot trial

shows:

Times Online - London Bombs... MI6 knew of 21/7 bomb suspect, It was all just part of the job, ... Lawyers seek gagging order for 21/7 plot trial, --------------------------------- ...
www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,22989,00.html - Similar pages

Clearly this short text:

Lawyers seek gagging order for 21/7 plot trial,

Means just that.

So is it that another D notice or similar has been applied to prevent reporting of the plot pre-trail do you think ?

Keep on digging . . .

[Mark Gobell]

Nice one Sinclair

That was exactly my reason for my original search.

Trying to find out when are these guys on trial.

Result = zippo.

What is Vivace ?

[Sinclair]

There were 3 Police operations connected with the July 05 events

Operation Vivace
Operation Aethra &
Operation Theseus


Vivace is the Met assigned title for the 21st July 'events' & follow ons etc.

I forget what the other two are.

Any research assistance appreciated

[Sinclair]

Mark,

The textt below was on the page http://www.met.police.uk/vivace/court.htm , previously as the update of 28th April 2006

Operation Vivace
Court proceedings and latest updates
28th April 2006
On Friday 28th April 2006 at the Old Bailey a Plea and case management hearing took place in relation to the attempted bombings on the 21st July 2005.

The defendants have been separated and will be heard in three trials. The following is a breakdown of the defendants and which trial they will be heard at.

Trial 1
Muktar IBRAHIM
Hussein OSMAN
Ramzi MOHAMED
Yasin OMAR
Manfo Kwaku ASIEDU
Adel Yahya AHMED
Trial 2
Yeshiemebet GIRMA
Mulumebet GIRMA
Esayas GIRMA
Omer ALMAGBOUL
Mohammed KABASHI
Shadi ABDELGADIR
Trial 3
Siraj ALI
Abdul SHERIF
Whabi MOHAMED
Muhdein ALI
Ismail ABDURAHMAN


Trial 1 involves the primary defendants responsible for the planning, preparation and the attempted detonations of the devices concerned in the 21st July 2005 attacks. The defendants in trial one, with the exception of Adel Yahya AHMED, have been arraigned with the following offences:

CONSPIRACY TO MURDER, contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
CONSPIRACY TO CAUSE EXPLOSIONS LIKELY TO ENDANGER LIFE OR CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY TO PROPERTY, contrary to Section 3(1)(a) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
POSSESSION OF AN EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT, contrary to Section 3(1)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
ATTEMPTED MURDER, contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. (all except Manfo Kwaku ASIEDU).
Trial 1 is listed to commence on 3rd October 2006.

Trial 2 is currently listed to commence on 12th February 2007, no arraignments were made at this hearing. Further information will be posted here when available.

Trial 3 is currently listed to commence on 16th April 2007. All the defendants were arraigned with the following offences:

ASSISTING AN OFFENDER, contrary to section 4(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967.
FAILING TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION ABOUT ACTS OF TERRORISM, contrary to section 38B(1)(b) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Two counts).
All the defendants in Trials 1 and 3 have pleaded not guilty on all counts.

Previous updates
26th Jan 2006.

[Mooter]

[Mark Gobell]

Hi Mooter

Thanks for the info.

Did my post make sense ?

Would appreciate it if you could try the search and see what you make of it.

[Mooter]

Hi Mark,

Yes your post does make sense, I've just been out for dinner and its been bugging me all the way through it. I will take a look at the search in depth in the morning and let you know what I think. Would do it now but I have some people over - just sneaked away to post this!

Cheers

Mooter

[Mooter]

Hi Mark,

I've had a look through and replicated the searches you did. I believe the article you were looking for is this one:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-2279066,00.html

Which states that a gagging order MAY be imposed but does not confirm that it has.

With regards to the robot.txt file there is something quite interesting here. The copy of robots.txt that you posted is dated 24/01/2005 and right at the end it has the entry:

User Agent: *
Disallow: /

Which basically means that no robots (or spiders as they are called) can access any part of the site, except those specified in the "allow" entries. This is interesting as they have gone to the trouble of specifying individual search engines that then done a blanket statement at the end (note this will not apply to those listed in the allow statements)! However, the latest version of the times robots.txt :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/robots.txt
Updated 07/06/2005 has replaced the last line with:
User Agent: *
Disallow:

Which gives access to all robots/spiders to all directories - except those specified above this line. There is another way to control robots from indexing or archiving site content by use of a META tag within the HTML code. If you right click on the times article and select view source you can see the following line in the HTML code:

[Mooter]

ok being curious I decided to check out other newspapers policies on archiving etc.

Guardian
Allows archiving by any robots/spiders

Independant
Allows archiving by any robot EXCEPT google

Times
No archiving at all

Daily mail
Who really cares....?! (I don't)

[Mark Gobell]

I appreciate your help with this - thanks.

I am a programmer but without any web skills so your reply was well understood.

I've read the Times article now and understand that press restrictions may apply to the 21 July trial and that reporting on another terrorist trial is already in the autumn is already restricted.

I don't understand why though.

What harm can be done to prejudice the trial ? Is it to do with jurors being influenced by the media ?

I was reading an article recently about the media coverage of the recent liquid bomb fiasco where the feeding frenzy was being justified on the grounds of public interest!

So, it is ok to report whatever they like once the suspects have been arrested, thereby subjecting them to trial by media and planting the stories firmly in the minds of potential jurors but not while they are being tried.

The same article claimed that by the time the trial took place the story will have gone from the minds of the public and so would not prejudice the case !