Ministers reject 7th July inquiry

[karlos]

Ministers reject 7th July inquiry

BBC News


The government has officially confirmed it will not hold a public inquiry into the 7 July London bombings.

Survivors and relatives of those killed have received a letter from government lawyers outlining their position.

The group want an independent review of the way security agencies and others acted in the run-up to the attacks.

They have applied for a judicial review of the government's refusal to launch a full review into the 2005 attacks which killed 56 people and injured about 800.

A Home Office spokesman said: "The home secretary has reiterated her sympathy for the families and survivors of the July 7 attacks.

"The government remains of the opinion that a public inquiry is not necessary.

"We are making no further comment as legal proceedings are ongoing."

'No comfort'

The letter is in response to correspondence received from solicitors acting for the 7 July group, Oury Clark Solicitors.

The group applied at the end of August for a judicial review of the government's continued refusal to launch a full review.

Solicitor James Oury said: "Our clients remain disappointed by this response.

"The government... have refused our clients' request for an independent public inquiry and suggested that our clients should withdraw these proceedings.

"They have also not met our clients' request to engage with them.

"They have given no comfort as to costs and no indication as to when the inquests will take place."

The group says an inquiry is necessary to allow public scrutiny of events and to enable the families of those killed, survivors and other agencies to be involved.

Members of the group argue the government's refusal to hold an inquiry breaches the Human Rights Act because it is failing in its duty to protect life.

The government is against holding such an inquiry saying it would be a drain on resources and tie up key officials and police officers.

[conspiracy analyst]

One wonders why that is?

Cost or Collusion?

The events of Bloody Sunday occurred in 1972.
A full Public Inquiry occurred in 2000 a full 28 years later.

The full report still hasn't come out and so far it has cost allegedly between £200 to £400 million.

So by analogy a Full Public Inquiry may occur some time around 2032.
Its clear that the powers that be dont want to investigate themselves and clearly cant control all the facets of the whitewash. So they believe in postponing it indefinitely.

When they bumped off De Menezes they said it was correct based on the information available. When multiple versions of the way he was killed were recounted it became clear beyond reasonable doubt that the official story didn't fit.

[karlos]

[conspiracy analyst]

[numeral]

[karlos]

These guys have been charged with conspiracy to commit explosions.
Notice they have not been charged with murder. Despite 52 deaths.
It is a very curious omission.

There 21/7 guys were charged with the same offences but they were later aquitted of the conspiracy to commit explosions and convicted of the conspiracy to commit murder.

21/7 guys could not have committed explosions because their bags of flour were proven by expert testimony to be non explosive.

7/7 trials. It may be possible for the accused to demand autopsy and inquest evidence to prove that 52 people are dead and that their plot was the cause of death. Evidence may emerge that military grade explosives of Israeli origin were used in the attacks as was alleged in the Israeli press.
And other lack of evidence such as cctv etc may become apparant. So the choice seems to have been made NOT to charge them with murder rather to charge them with the alternative charge of conspiracy to cause explosions.
We know there were explosions so it can probably be an easy conviction. But it is the tactics that are certainly in question. Many victims families may question why are they not directly charged with murdering their relatives. Murder is a much cleaner word and more acceptable to the victim's families.
Hence the positioning of Rachel North as the unelected leader of the victim's relatives in a position to quosh any dissent from relatives

[conspiracy analyst]

Although Ministers for now reject a 7/7 Inquiry there is a group which will in the end get one.

In the place of the unnoficial J7 Truth campaign which has asked serious questions we will eventually get the stagemanaged one.



http://www.globalcrisis.org.uk/main/PDF/Inside%20the%20Crevice.pdf


Islamic terrorism like Irish terrorism before it without some type of collusion of the British state is unreal.

Only embedded journalists and politicians sell this line.

[numeral]

[karlos]

Yes this was a very interesting story published on the very same day of the attacks. I am inclined to agree that TAPT was not the substance, because it is hard to make and very unstable and the orange glow of the blast as reported by survivors is a fingerprint of high grade military explosives.
The connection with Hammas is not proven, Israel has for several years been trying to destroy the democraticly elected Hammas in favour of it's own proxy militias otherwise known as Fatah.
But there is also the question why would they make this claim the very same day.
Much evidence links Mossad to the London bombings, the fact that they have tried to spin the story into a wider anti British Muslim stance is further proof that the only winner in the whole 7/7 affair was Israel.

[numeral]

[karlos]