July 7 victims launch legal action

[Disco_Destroyer]

July 7 victims launch legal action
http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=6003600

Legal action has been launched against the Government by victims of the July 7 bombings.

A lawyer for bereaved relatives and survivors of the 2005 atrocities said they were "disappointed and saddened" they had felt compelled to go to court in their campaign for an independent public inquiry.

The group has applied for a judicial review of the Government's continued refusal to launch a full review.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair ruled out such a move in May but did ask Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee to review MI5's handling of intelligence about two of the July 7 bombers.

The decision came after it emerged MI5 had observed ringleader Mohammed Sidique Khan and sidekick Shehzad Tanweer while investigating another group of plotters.

James Oury of Oury Clark Solicitors, which represents the victims involved with the action, said: "The Government's position has resulted in a group of still-suffering victims of this public tragedy being manoeuvred into a litigation arena so not to be further disadvantaged.

"Our clients are disappointed and saddened by this. Their obviously preferred position was not to enter into litigation.

"However, they recognise the wider public interest involved and the international importance of finding out the truth of events leading up to these bombings."

He added: "They also feel an inquiry is a matter of essential public interest in order to improve the protection of all individuals whose lives remain at risk as a result of the ongoing threat of terrorism.

"The Home Secretary and the Government could stop the litigation process now by ordering the independent and public inquiry that my clients consider that the victims and the public deserve."

[xmasdale]

Unfortunately if we get an inquiry, it will be another Hutton or Butler type whitewash.

However, the mere fact of litigation will focus attention on the fact that four presumed dead people have, by word of prime minister, been found guilty of mass murder though there has been neither trial, nor inquiry, nor any opportunity for their friends and family to defend their reputation. A travesty of justice!

I wonder how bus bomb victim, Daniel Obachike, will react to this.

[numeral]

[numeral]

[PaulStott]

The launch was very interesting.

Report below:

http://paulstott.typepad.com/i_intend_to_escape_and_co/2007/10/launch- of-insid.html

[ian neal]

Thank you for this Paul

In reference to Rcahel North's comment, I do wonder how Rachel would choose to define 'conspiracy theories'. I wonder for example if reports of MI5 involvement

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/270606londonbomber.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1769381,00.html
http://community.channel4.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/503603557/m/104003708 6

or the unanswered questions over the explosions count as 'conspiracy theories'.

I agree with what she reportedly says

Quote:
the questions that matter must be put in the public domain until the government is forced to act


The difficulty, based on past statements, is that she is unlikely to ask all the most important questions and IMO her previous actions and views mean I don't take her views very seriously and are given far more weight than is deserved by the press. I wonder why that would be. She certainly appears to be playing a gate-keeper role, limiting the extent and nature of any inquiry and people such as yourself should be a little less trusting that she is a legitimate voice of July 7 truth

[conspiracy analyst]

[astro3]

Concerning last night's launch of Ahmed's new 'parliamentary briefing paper' at the CAMPACC meeting ,well reviewed by Paul: it is entitled 'Islamist terror networks and the 7/7 intelligence failure.' Ahmed no longer has any shadow of doubt that the four young Muslims did it, and moreover he is convinved that Khan and Tanweer were shadowed for several years by MI5 because of their involvement in Al-qaeda terror type movements.

Reading his text, one notes the compete absence of any documents, articles, or TV programs, dating from before july 7th 2005, alleging this. Only after his death do all the stories start to proliferate, blackening the name of Mohammed 'Sid' Khan, and Nafeez has decided to believe them all. What a pity.

There is a big deal about the 'Crevice' trial, where persons were arrested in 2004 alleged to be plotting something with some fertiliser they had got hold of - o no, not fertiliser! But, is there anything, any document that can be shown, linking Khan and Tanweer to this group?

It seems to me that the police and MI5 and MI6 have told so many untruths and changed their story so many times, that it is not appropriate to accept their word for these documents which they claim to have in their possesion but cannot show us. It seems to me that Ahmed's entire case is built upon such claims. Or, please correct me if I'm wrong.

The 'locus of terror in Britain' is said to be Luton (p.40). Somehow I need a bit more convincing. 'The Luton cell' ... uh huh.

A big deal is made of Omar Bakri Muhammed who was alleged to be proclaiming the inevitability of an attack upon london in 2004 (p40), but I checked out the article (The Times 17 Jan 2005) and it had Bakri denying that he was calling for violent action but rather saying that Muslims should consider emigrating to their homelands because of the oppression they experienced in tbe UK, as if they were under siege. Well that doesn't sound very much like Islamic terror to me.

I would greatly appreciate any comments upon whether anyone supports Mr Ahmed here.