Conspiracy theory attacked by Polly Toynbee in The Guardian

[xmasdale]

Polly Toynbee in Wednesday's Guardian wrote a column attacking all "conspiracy theory" as crazy and maintaining it is dangerous and should not be tolerated. Entitled "A growing state of mind that needs a firm rebuttal" you can find it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1559593,00.html

I have written a firm rebuttal to letters@guardian.co.uk copied to polly.toynbee@guardian.co.uk and encourage others to do likewise.

Noel

[Guest]

Remember! Never question the official story, you will be wrong a priori.

I seem to remember the UK waging a war based on a "conspiracy theory"...

[Guest]

Sorry! That was me, forgot to sign in.

[brian]

I sent Ms Toynbee Holgrems article below plus made a couple of other points.

Debunking Conspiracy Theorists

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/holmgren01.htm

[Seb]

Nice one, Brian.

[xmasdale]

Yes I'd forgotten about that Holgrem article, and it's a good one, though I doubt if Ms Toynbee will bother to read something which rubbishes her own prejudices, how ever cleverly written.

And who is our mystery guest who apologises for his lack of screen name but explains "It's me"?

[Seb]

That was me, Noel.

I'm not usually able to type a post unless I'm signed in and sometimes I have to sign in twice in a row to be able to post.

Ah well, it's not too much of an inconvenience!

[Garrett Cooke]

For what it is worth this is the letter I have sent to the Guardian regarding the Toynbee piece.

Dear Ms Toynbee,

Your article makes me profoundly sad and expresses a naivety which I find extraordinary in such a seasoned journalist as yourself.

Clearly all theories about what actually happened at events such as the 7th July London bombings (7/7) are by their nature conspiracy theories. The goal of a truth seeker is to determine without prejudice which theory explains the facts in the most credible way. I would suggest that your label of theories as 'conspiracy theories' is intended to be pejorative and to preclude analysis of the facts.

Cui Bono is highly relevant in considering where to point the blame. The party who has been seen to gain most from what occurred is the Government. Blair's leadership was looking vulnerable the anti terror measures were not subject to unanimity even in the Government's own party. Now in the wake of 7/7 it would seem that the raft of appalling measures limiting the hard fought for freedoms of the people of this country will likely be brought in before the end of the year. The so called 'War on Terror' is back on track.

Why would a secret 'al Quaeda' cell expend four 'agents' in a suicide mission when this was not necessary and highly wasteful? Suicide bombers are the tactic of last resort. If such a cell existed and their goal was to cause maximum death and destruction then it would make much more sense to explode bombs remotely and repeatedly and cause far more damage than was in fact caused by the relatively small bombs used in 7/7. It simply makes no sense to suggest that these men were suicide bombers - if indeed they were killed in the bomb explosions at all - have you seen that proof? Besides the above there is considerable evidence that: the bombs were placed underneath the trains; that the explosives were military grade explosives; and also that 3 out of 4 bombs exploded simultaneously implying the use of timers or some other means of simultaneous detonation. Coupled this with the facts that these supposed suicide bombers bought return tickets and 'paid and displayed' their parking and with the fact only one supposed CCTV picture of the bombers has been shown to the public out of the many that should be available. Also consider this fact which has just come to my attention: the 7.40 AM train (from Luton to Kings Cross) was cancelled (and note that the 7.30 AM train that left at 7.42 did not arrive in Kings Cross until 8.39 AM - some 13 minutes after the 'supposed bombers' were supposedly caught on CCTV at Kings Cross at 8.26 AM.)

Following cui bono is profoundly sensible and the most likely way of arriving at the truth of a matter such as 7/7. I suggest that you as a journalist investigate yourself the facts surrounding the London bombings. A good place to start is the web site www.julyseventh.co.uk. I of course don't know what did happen on 7/7 but clearly nor do you and naively accepting the official explanation where this makes no sense and conflicts with the known evidence is ridiculous.

Yours Sincerely,

Garrett Cooke.

[Andrew Johnson]

I got a response from her which just said "Many Thanks" - that's actually the best response I have had from any media person - no one else in the media has ever responded.

[xmasdale]

I didn't even get a thank you. I wrote the following to the editor and copied it to Ms Toynbee:

'Dear Sir/Madam

'Polly Toynbee seems to be arguing that all "conspiracy theories" are crazy and therefore should never be uttered, let alone published.

'Two or more people arranging to commit a crime together constitutes a conspiracy. Anyone investigating such a crime must eventually come up with a theory of how the crime was committed; that constitutes a conspiracy theory. Some conspiracy theories become accepted by police, governments or courts of law. Then for some reason people no longer call them "conspiracy theories". Any contrary theory about the crime, however, then gets dubbed "conspiracy theory" with a strong implication that it must by definition be a crazy idea.

'But the question is not really about what is a conspiracy theory and what not, but for which conspiracy theory about a particular crime we find the evidence most compelling, the official version or an unofficial one.

'I would not insult Guardian readers' intelligence by arguing, as Polly Toynbee apparently does, that all theories which do not agree with the conclusions of police, courts or governments are by definition crazy. Do governments, courts and police never get anything wrong?

'Noel Glynn'

I added my name, postal address and phone number. Experience shows they won't publish unless you do that. They like to check on the phone that you are who you claim to be. They will not publish your address.

Moreover, the shorter the letter, the greater the chance of getting it published. Spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors reduce your chances.

Don't send your letter as an attachment. They won't open them - might contain a virus.

Don't regard a failure to get your letter published as a waste of your time writing. Your letter has demonstrated there is a degree of public concern about an issue. Combined with letters from others it builds up pressures on editors.

Noel