| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
astro3,
That's Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer Guiliani, I presume.
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| astro3 wrote: | Staraker, you ask concerning the fire at Caledonian Road that morning -
| Quote: | | So you have people tampering with trains in the depot, and others arranging a fire alert at Caledonian Road. The latter involved someone telling the driver they had smelt burning in one car, the driver investigating, other LU engineering staff confirming a brake defect, etc… Is that what you're saying? |
Sure. The suspension of nine Piccadilly line stations immediately preceding King’s Cross over the key half-hour, prior to fated train going through, was assuredly a prepared event. It was part of the Plan and no coincidence. But I don’t have any details of what happened there, do you? |
There are details of the circumstances of the fire alert. Like Stelios, for someone who claims to live in London, you seem remarkably clueless about the sort of problems which regularly befall the Underground. If fire alerts were once in a blue moon events, you might have a circumstantial point, but they're not, so you don't.
| Quote: | Certain things were pre-arranged for that day. For example, the London Resilience Mortuary which took the dead on July 7th, was made ready, together with the crisis plans for taping off areas, etc, merely days before July 7th:
| Quote: | | The London Mass Fatality Plan had only just been circulated when the bombings took place. This involved guidelines, about cordoning off areas etc. As part of the Mass Fatality Plan, these were only issued to responders days before July 7th (J7). ThisPlan had been prepared over a number of years under the aegis of a multi-agency planning group which included representatives of all the key relevant agencies. It was approved by the Forum in March 2005 and formally circulated to all stakeholders at the end of June, just days before the bombings. London Regional Resilience forum |
That was a planned synchrony, which enabled the coroners, police, local authorities, pathologists and the London Resilience Team to deliver a ‘Resilience Mortuary,’ ready to receive the deceased victims in 24 hours.
Another example: nurses were meeting in Tavistock Square to discuss how they would respond to a crisis if terror struck London, when it did:
London Ambulance Service was meeting at their headquarters to discuss a previously held simulation of "four terrorist bombs going off at once across London." | Quote: | | 9.10 am - Julia Dent, chief executive of the South West Strategic Health Authority, was in charge of the response of the National Health Service to any major disaster. By an extraordinary coincidence, all the experts who formulate such plans are together in a meeting at the headquarters of the London Ambulance Service - and they are discussing an exercise they ran three months ago that involved simulating four terrorist bombs going off at once across London. Source: The Independent 10 July 2005 |
That was likewise part of the plan, and naturally they were using Peter Powers’s terror-drill scenario. |
Inadvertently, you have highlighted the absurdity of what you're suggesting, i.e.: "all the experts who formulate such plans are together in a meeting at the headquarters of the London Ambulance Service - and they are discussing an exercise they ran three months ago..." No doubt if the bombs had gone off three months previously, you would be pointing to the "suspiscious" proximity of it to the exercise. The reality is that at any given point of any year, people are going to be able to cherry-pick such "coincidences" if they look hard enough, because stuff like this - meetings, planning, drills, reports - is going on all the time. If something had happened immediately after the Bank station drill in June 2003 (or the release of the report about it the following October, for that matter), or the distribution of the preposterous Preparing for Emergencies booklet, or the House of Lords ditching certain more outlandish aspects of the Terrorism Bill in January 2006, no doubt people would be drawing the same comparisons, but they didn't, so they can't. Ultimately, it means little more than could be read into someone buying a new box of plasters and them then accidentally cutting themselves on the way home.
| Quote: | Some things are ‘mere’ coincidence, but the time-adjustment of that Piccadily line train was not. The swiftly-arriving fire engines outside Caledonian Road station were pure theatre. Eight stops away, the notice went up at Arnos Grove about ‘due to fire’ – there was no real fire, was there?
07.57 The Piccadilly Line was "suspended between King's Cross St Pancras and Arnos Grove from 07:57 to 08:28 due to a defective train at Caledonian Road." Reports of a fire at the station exist and fire engines were reported outside Caledonian Road station.
08.25 A fire engine parks outside Caledonian Road station.
08.30 A notice at Arnos Grove Underground states, "Due to fire, Piccadilly Line suspended between Arnos Grove and Kings Cross".
08.48 The Westbound Piccadilly Line train No. 331 leaves King's Cross |
Again, I'm staggered by your apparent ignorance. As has been pointed out, since the King's Cross Fire, these things have been taken absolutely serious by London Underground. Anything that suggests there might just possibly be a fire is treated as if there is, but then that's exactly what pretty much any large organisation does, right down to expecting staf to behave during fire drills as if is the real thing. Saying "there was no real fire" and therefore suggesting that it needn't have been taken seriously is stupid beyond belief. In addition, it again suggests that you favour a ludicrously-complex "operation" involving scores if not hundreds of people.
| Quote: | Concerning the way the blasted carriage was disposed of without anyone being allowed to see it - I’m sure Rudolf Giuliani would agree with your views! But seriously I suggest you go back to the very beginning of this thread, and note how, when the police had to move the location of where the blast had happened from the first to the second double doors, due to Rachel North writing to them and protesting, there is no hint that anyone is able to have a look and see where a huge hole in the floor is located. Your statement concerning this acrriage that the Met | Quote: | | reached a point at which no further forensic examination was deemed necessary |
needs to be translated as, they hid away the central evidence of the crime so that nobody, NOBODY, was allowed to see it. Likewise with the Edgware Road Circle line train there is a persistent ambiguity as to whether it was the first or second set of double doors where the blast happened. |
Ah, another selective-quoter. I actually said: "I would imagine that the Met view is that they reached a point at which no further forensic examination was deemed necessary." Not quite sure how you "read" it the way you do. It means what it says, i.e. that the police had probably done all the forensic work they needed to, and someone took the decision taht nothing more could be gleaned from it. How you equate this with "nobody, NOBODY, was allowed to see it" is mystifying. It's not like the police were inviting the press into Fred West or Ian Huntley's houses, or the gym at Dunblane Primary School at the first possible opportunity, is it? Clearly it in retrospect it would have been better to at least retain the damaged cars until after the inquests, but for this to be classed as significant in the way you want it to be, you have to be able to demonstrate that what was done was contrary to usual police practice. Certainly, while it wouldn't specifically cover it, many forces seem to take the view that vehicles involved in crimes should be returned to their owners as quickly as possible, with no comprehensive lists of exclusions under which this should not happen.
| Quote: | | Actually you already had quite a good reply to this from Stelios, with his analogy concerning the disposal of the Diana crash Mercedes. |
You mean that car that was wrecked in a foreign country, where rules of evidence may be different? That car owned by the Ritz, owned by al Fayed, who has every interest in not having it destroyed? That's about as comparable as chalk and a mahogany grand piano.
| Quote: | | As for your claim that an explosion from a floor-level rucksack would ‘"channel" a lateral force’ that would blow off feet and lower limbs, but not arms etc, that sounds like bad science to me. But I guess neither of us knows enough about this subject argue it further. I'd say your case here is a conjecture - not a ‘fact’ which ‘remains.’ |
Okay, you show us evidence that a explosive force can punch a hole through the metal floor and then turn 30-45 degrees to affect the legs of anyone standing more than a few feet away. Blast moves in a straight line away from its point of origin until it hits something it can rebound off, it cannot turn round corners, as per figure 9 here:
http://www.wbdg.org/design/env_blast.php
The reverse is also true. Why do you think soldiers did foxholes to seek cover in? It's because the blast from an explosion at ground level nearby cannot travel horizontally and then downwards.
Still don't understand? Well, if you spray water through a hole in a wall, it's not going to make anyone wet if they're standing against the wall, either side of that hole, is it?
Last edited by Nick Cooper on Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:51 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is more likely the bomb was in one of the panels that are under the seats which can be removed easily by using an allen key.
The Mercedes has not been handed back to the Ritz nor has it been given to mercedes benz for analysis.
Three tube carriages which can easily be stored in a depot until a trial or an inquest have been destroyed expeditiously. That is unheard of that evidence like this can be destroyed. Only the simple minded would not find it strange.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: |
Three tube carriages which can easily be stored in a depot until a trial or an inquest have been destroyed expeditiously. That is unheard of that evidence like this can be destroyed. Only the simple minded would not find it strange. |
Or those who have an agenda to prove all is what it seems.
Destroying evidence prior to a court case is considered a criminal act.
If the state is doing it on behalf of those who have persecuted an illegal war then there is an agenda.
I spoke to my friend again about 7/7. He was outside Kings Cross station between 8.30 to 9.00 waiting to get on but it was cordoned off. It might have been a little earlier around 8.20. It was a long time ago. He just pointed out that the police were on the scene cordoning off the area and THEN the explosions happened.
How can that be explained logically? Who called them and why?
The same happened with me as I was outside Finsbury Park at around 8.45 and it was closed by the police. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numeral
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Dec 2005
Posts: 500
Location: South London
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | | stelios wrote: |
Three tube carriages which can easily be stored in a depot until a trial or an inquest have been destroyed expeditiously. That is unheard of that evidence like this can be destroyed. Only the simple minded would not find it strange. |
Or those who have an agenda to prove all is what it seems.
Destroying evidence prior to a court case is considered a criminal act.
If the state is doing it on behalf of those who have persecuted an illegal war then there is an agenda.
I spoke to my friend again about 7/7. He was outside Kings Cross station between 8.30 to 9.00 waiting to get on but it was cordoned off. It might have been a little earlier around 8.20. It was a long time ago. He just pointed out that the police were on the scene cordoning off the area and THEN the explosions happened.
How can that be explained logically? Who called them and why?
The same happened with me as I was outside Finsbury Park at around 8.45 and it was closed by the police. |
CA, have you got a more detailed account of yourself at Finsbury Park? Also I would like to hear a full account from your friend.
_________________
Follow the numbers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: | | It is more likely the bomb was in one of the panels that are under the seats which can be removed easily by using an allen key. |
Yes, this would fit the reported wound profile - and would be easier and less obvious - than someone messing about under the cars. You're starting to think logically. However, a key piece of evidence for whatever the devices were in or wherever they were placed would be exactly what ended up being embedded in the victims as shrapnel.
| Quote: | | The Mercedes has not been handed back to the Ritz nor has it been given to mercedes benz for analysis. |
As I said, "in a foreign country, where rules of evidence may be different..."
| Quote: | | Three tube carriages which can easily be stored in a depot until a trial or an inquest have been destroyed expeditiously. That is unheard of that evidence like this can be destroyed. Only the simple minded would not find it strange. |
Stelios, I'm not going to say that I think they should have been destroyed, because I don't. However, that is not the same as pointing out that the routine procedures followed by the police may not necessarily demand or even allow them to hang onto evidence indefinitely. Looking at police documents like those I highlighted on Saturday shows that a number of forces - not just the Met - do not specify a requirement to retain evidence indefinitely, or even only until after legal procedings have been completed.
Section 19 of PACE covers seizures and Section 22 covers retention. It does not appear to set a minimum period of retention, only that it should be:
| Quote: | | "retained so long as is necessary in all the circumstances." |
It also notes:
| Quote: | anything seized for the purposes of a criminal investigation may be retained, except as provided by subsection (4) below—
(i) for use as evidence at a trial for an offence; or
(ii) for forensic examination or for investigation in connection with an offence; |
Subsection (4) qualifies:
| Quote: | | "Nothing may be retained for either of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above if a photograph or copy would be sufficient for that purpose." |
OK, I'm not a lawyer (and I suspect neither are you), but that clearly shows that the Met returning the damaged cars to London Underground was quite legal within the bounds of PACE, i.e. if they have taken photographs deemed to be sufficient. With that "loophole" in mind, I suspect that your claim that it is, "unheard of that evidence like this can be destroyed," is unsupportable.
Ultimately, if you, I, or anybody else want to claim that something is "suspiscious" or "unusual" or even "illegal," we have to be able to demonstrate that it is with reference to similar situations and the law. We have to be able to show that either it was unique - or near-unique - or that it was contrary to the law governing the matter in question. It seems specifically on the latter point, in relation to the damaged cars, we can't.
Last edited by Nick Cooper on Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: |
Destroying evidence prior to a court case is considered a criminal act. |
Please cite the appropriate law that would be applicable in these particular circumstances that says so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Moving on, they claim that under PACE they are allowed to take pictures and hand back the evidence to it's owner.
So are these pictures available under FOI request?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: | | Moving on, they claim that under PACE they are allowed to take pictures and hand back the evidence to it's owner. |
Well, we don't know if that's what they'll say, as it seems nobody has asked them directly, but it seems that PACE allows them to do that (i.e. take photographs sufficient for evidence).
| Quote: | | So are these pictures available under FOI request? |
Anyone can try, but I'm sure the Met would weasel out of it, as they usually do. An instance is documented of one train survivor requesting to see the photos relating to where they were, but it seems that while the Met eventually let him see some, they clearly weren't all that one would expect to have been taken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prole
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: | Moving on, they claim that under PACE they are allowed to take pictures and hand back the evidence to it's owner.
So are these pictures available under FOI request? |
The BBC (not the press which I originally posted) were allowed close to the Aldgate/Liverpool Street train on the 7th July but not Edgware Road, presumably King's Cross would have been too difficult to access.
The only 3 images of the insides of the trains which have been released came via US Intelligence and shown on ABC news, to the displeasure of Ian Blair. Presumably if these 3 pictures hadn't been released, we wouldn't have seen any.
Always worth submitting FOI requests IMO - although no doubt you'll be told that they will not be released due to ongoing investigation and future court proceedings.
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Last edited by Prole on Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry to appear lazy but you have alot more experience of this than me. perhaps you could submit the relevant requests?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prole
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: | | Sorry to appear lazy but you have alot more experience of this than me. perhaps you could submit the relevant requests? |
'Appear lazy'? No stelios you appear to want to make the arguments but aren't bothered to try and and access the evidence or sources.
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Staraker wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: |
Destroying evidence prior to a court case is considered a criminal act. |
Please cite the appropriate law that would be applicable in these particular circumstances that says so. |
For a successful prosecution to occur in any criminal case if evidence has been collected it has to be kept intact and in the same condition.
If it has been tampered with in any way then it will be considered tainted.
The 4 alleged bombers were implicated for the crime without a single piece of evidence other than a video AFTER they had allegedly died.
Their bodies weren't allowed to be examined, there is no CCTV of them being anywhere in London on that day either on the Underground, or on the Buses or on any London streets or in any main Railway stations or in any motorway routes.
The knows cases of evidence being tampered with is almost usually by the police either through ineptitude or because they want to get someone off.
By characterising certain events as being terrorist (though this has not been proved in a court of law) the new terrorist acts dispenses with the need to maintain and keep evidence intact and in the same condition.
This is all about bypassing the normal judicial proceedings, circumventing the law and blaming victims for their crimes in the so-called 'war on terror'.
Heres how they analyse digital evidence which is based of course on other types of evidence- same method of collection and keeping
http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.7372 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | | Staraker wrote: | | conspiracy analyst wrote: |
Destroying evidence prior to a court case is considered a criminal act. |
Please cite the appropriate law that would be applicable in these particular circumstances that says so. |
For a successful prosecution to occur in any criminal case if evidence has been collected it has to be kept intact and in the same condition.
If it has been tampered with in any way then it will be considered tainted. |
Maybe so, but it seems that PACE allows the police to return seized items - i.e. evidence - to its owners, if photographs are judged sufficient. There is no stipulation in the legislation that such original evidence must to be kept within any specific timescale, or until after legal proceedings have been completed. Destroying something that is deemed to have evidential value is not the same is disposing of something that it not deemed to have such value, no matter how much we may disagree with the latter in this particular or any other case.
| Quote: | The 4 alleged bombers were implicated for the crime without a single piece of evidence other than a video AFTER they had allegedly died.
Their bodies weren't allowed to be examined, |
Are you claiming there were no post-mortems carried out?
| Quote: | | there is no CCTV of them being anywhere in London on that day either on the Underground, or on the Buses or on any London streets or in any main Railway stations or in any motorway routes. |
There is no CCTV of them that has been released into the public domain, yet. We cannot automatically equate non-disclosure with non-existence, as the release this week of the footage which shows clearly how Jean Charles de Menezes and his pursuers entered Stockwell station has shown.
| Quote: | | The knows cases of evidence being tampered with is almost usually by the police either through ineptitude or because they want to get someone off. |
True, but then this is a perenial problem if those doing the investigation - either as individuals or as part of an organisation - have a vested interest in doing that. Clearly it has been a problem in certain cases, and yet there never seems to have been any significant demands for the retention of evidence to be handled by an independent body.
| Quote: | | By characterising certain events as being terrorist (though this has not been proved in a court of law) the new terrorist acts dispenses with the need to maintain and keep evidence intact and in the same condition. |
Could you cite the appropriate text of the legislation that says that? I ask because it seems clear that returning seized items of evidence to their rightful owners pre-dates recent legislation by a very wide margin. While these events have been used to justify some very pernicious new legislation, this particular issue appears to be quite unrelated.
| Quote: | This is all about bypassing the normal judicial proceedings, circumventing the law and blaming victims for their crimes in the so-called 'war on terror'.
Heres how they analyse digital evidence which is based of course on other types of evidence- same method of collection and keeping
http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.7372 |
Why do you think this is relevent as regards the specific issue of the destroyed Tube cars? The latter - coupled with the tunnels where they were at the time of the explosions - constitute the crime scenes, and it is not usual practice to seal and leave untouched such scenes for any appreciable length of time, even if it practical to do so. If we take the case of Ian Untley, it was annouced within two months of him being found guilty that his house was to be demolished and landscaped, and note what was specifically said about allowing this to happen:
| Quote: | "Legal formalities had prevented Soham Village College governors from making a decision about the building's future.
They have now been told the house will not be required as evidence in any possible appeal by Huntley who was sentenced to two life terms."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/3461541.stm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the trains were evidence then clearly they had to be disposed of.
At the time of 7/7 the French got into a massive bust up with Blair over this topic asserting in public that the British government knew the alleged bombers. Blair refused to admit as such. One wonder why?
If the train carriages were destroyed there is logic to the decision. Forensics would find exactly where the bomb was and what type it was. If it was military they could trace the source. Then they would have to concoct a story on how it was stolen from military facilities.
So destroying the evidence isn't normal if we are trying to prove the biggest single terrorist atrocity in Britain. It becomes normal if they knew the bombers beforehand and wanted to cover something up. You have argued that keeping evidence for a trial isn't normal procedure but abnormal. Well if a car was blown up with a passenger in it, parts of it would be kept to show what bomb was used where the residue was found etc.
In the case of the murder of the BBC journalist Jill Dando the only piece of evidence was one small DNA sample from a hair which could have been planted. This is what was used to implicate the person on trial.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/jilldandotrial/story/0,,755723,00.html
This overturned years of work whereby one piece of evidence is never enough simply to convict someone. With the train carriages where most of the evidence was and as such was a crime scene you purport to argue its like a picture. You can take it home with you!! Or more importantly they weren't important. The same happened with 9/11. Lorries carted off the remains of the Twin Towers. In order to cover up the military grade detonation and bomb residue used to bring them down.
If you read the Anti-Terrorist Acts you will see once a crime scene is deemed to be classified as 'terrorist' all normal proceedings are overridden. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Anti-Terrorist Acts are all about giving power to sections of the Government which override local forces.
This is what happened under Hitler's Germany.
Asking to hold people without trial for 90days is part and parcel of overturning 400 odd years of British history in one stroke.
Not guilty until charged has become Guilty before Charged.
Who decides whether an area or event is deemed to be terrorist?
The government. Where has the evidence been presented in a court of law with a judge and jury?
No where. Now if the print bogus CCTV's 2.5 years after the event which show nothing like the latest version of the De Menezes case Staraker will argue this is normal operating procedure. What does the latest video show? Nothing. A man walking on a tube platform. Cant tell which one or which day/date.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_10#pt10-pb3-l1g 98
| Quote: | MoD and transport police
98 Jurisdiction of MoD police
(1) Section 2 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 (c. 4) (jurisdiction of members of the Ministry of Defence Police) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (places where members of Ministry of Defence Police have powers and privileges of constables), omit paragraph (d) (which is superseded by the amendment made by subsection (4) of this section).
(3) In subsection (3) (circumstances in which members of Ministry of Defence Police have powers and privileges of constables in places in United Kingdom not mentioned in subsection (2)), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) in connection with offences against persons within paragraph (b) above, with the incitement of such persons to commit offences and with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916 in relation to such persons;”.
(4) After that subsection insert—
“(3A) Where a member of the Ministry of Defence Police has been requested by a constable of—
(a) the police force for any police area;
(b) the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
(c) the British Transport Police Force; or
(d) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary,
to assist him in the execution of his duties in relation to a particular incident, investigation or operation, members of the Ministry of Defence Police shall have the powers and privileges of constables for the purposes of that incident, investigation or operation but subject to subsection (3B) below.
(3B) Members of the Ministry of Defence Police have the powers and privileges of constables for the purposes of an incident, investigation or operation by virtue of subsection (3A) above—
(a) if the request was made under paragraph (a) of that subsection by a constable of the police force for a police area, only in that police area;
(b) if it was made under paragraph (b) of that subsection, only in Northern Ireland;
(c) if it was made under paragraph (c) of that subsection, only to the extent that those powers and privileges would in the circumstances be exercisable for those purposes by a constable of the British Transport Police Force by virtue of subsection (1A) or, in Scotland, subsection (4) of section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix); or
(d) if it was made under paragraph (d) of that subsection, only to the extent that those powers and privileges would in the circumstances be exercisable for those purposes by a constable of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary.
(3C) Members of the Ministry of Defence Police shall have in any police area the same powers and privileges as constables of the police force for that police area, and in Northern Ireland the same powers and privileges as constables of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,—
(a) in relation to persons whom they suspect on reasonable grounds of having committed, being in the course of committing or being about to commit an offence; or
(b) if they believe on reasonable grounds that they need those powers and privileges in order to save life or to prevent or minimise personal injury.
(3D) But members of the Ministry of Defence Police have powers and privileges by virtue of subsection (3C) above only if—
(a) they are in uniform or have with them documentary evidence that they are members of the Ministry of Defence Police; and
(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that a power of a constable which they would not have apart from that subsection ought to be exercised and that, if it cannot be exercised until they secure the attendance of or a request under subsection (3A) above by a constable who has it, the purpose for which they believe it ought to be exercised will be frustrated or seriously prejudiced.”
(5) In subsection (4) (territorial waters)—
(a) for “to (3)” substitute “to (3D)”, and
(b) for “subsections (1) and (3)” substitute “those subsections”.
(6) In subsection (5)—
(a) after the definition of “appropriate Gazette” insert—
““British Transport Police Force” means the constables appointed under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix);”, and
(b) after the definition of “service authorities” insert—
““United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary” means the special constables appointed under section 3 of the Special Constables Act 1923 (c. 11) on the nomination of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority;”. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Prole wrote: | | stelios wrote: | | Sorry to appear lazy but you have alot more experience of this than me. perhaps you could submit the relevant requests? |
'Appear lazy'? No stelios you appear to want to make the arguments but aren't bothered to try and and access the evidence or sources. |
So hold on i was being polite. What i should have said was you are the
7/7 investigators and you should have already fired off FOI requests. I would even go further and say you should have served an injunction on them preventing distruction of the carraiges which would have cost nothing but would have brought the matter into the public domain.
If all you guys are doing is collate press cuttings and stuff you find on tinternet then you are correct maybe i should file FOI requests and look into things myself. But as i am an individual with no particular axe to grind why would they provide me with any information. I have filed FOI requests before and i can tell you NHS trusts ALWAYS supply you with information, Councils NEVER supply anything. I have once filed a request with the police and was rewrded with a meeting with the Superintendant who fobbed me off with zilch.
I really would have thought that rather than telling me on a public forum, both of us using disguised names, that i should be doing my own research is to be frank very disappointing.
There are people like David Aaronovitch appearing on tv telling the world "we know who did it because we saw them confess it on video" other than which there is no evidence in the public domain.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | If the trains were evidence then clearly they had to be disposed of.
At the time of 7/7 the French got into a massive bust up with Blair over this topic asserting in public that the British government knew the alleged bombers. Blair refused to admit as such. One wonder why?
If the train carriages were destroyed there is logic to the decision. |
Only if there is no logic to their disposal, as established by the relevent laws, published policies of practice, and precendents.
| Quote: | | Forensics would find exactly where the bomb was and what type it was. If it was military they could trace the source. Then they would have to concoct a story on how it was stolen from military facilities. |
Are you therefore claiming that there was no forensic examination of the Tube cars? If you are, where is your proof that there wasn't?
| Quote: | | So destroying the evidence isn't normal if we are trying to prove the biggest single terrorist atrocity in Britain. It becomes normal if they knew the bombers beforehand and wanted to cover something up. You have argued that keeping evidence for a trial isn't normal procedure but abnormal. Well if a car was blown up with a passenger in it, parts of it would be kept to show what bomb was used where the residue was found etc. |
You seem to be ingnoring the fact that PACE clearly states: "Nothing may be retained for either of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above if a photograph or copy would be sufficient for that purpose." Furthermore, in relation the retention of evidence, PACE is couched in terms that it "may" be retained, not "must." This may well be seen as a loophole if the police themselves are considered to be complicit, but please don't try to pretend that in this particular case the police have somehow done something they're not allowed to in general.
| Quote: | In the case of the murder of the BBC journalist Jill Dando the only piece of evidence was one small DNA sample from a hair which could have been planted. This is what was used to implicate the person on trial.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/jilldandotrial/story/0,,755723,00.html
This overturned years of work whereby one piece of evidence is never enough simply to convict someone. With the train carriages where most of the evidence was and as such was a crime scene you purport to argue its like a picture. You can take it home with you!! Or more importantly they weren't important. |
Ah, another mind-reader. I never said they were "weren't important," I have just pointed out that contrary to various people's claims, there does not appear to be a legal requirement for the police to retain any item of evidence, especially if a photograph (or photographs) "would be sufficient." Since the forensic reports on the Tube bombings are not in the public domain, none of us are in a position to say if those examinations were sufficient to a degree that the retention of the damaged cars as evidence was any longer warranted.
| Quote: | | The same happened with 9/11. Lorries carted off the remains of the Twin Towers. In order to cover up the military grade detonation and bomb residue used to bring them down. |
Three people were killed by a bomb in the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho in 30 April 1999. The pub - i.e. the crime scene in this case - was refurbished and reopened on 2 July that year. The perpetrator, David Copeland, was not convicted until June the following year. That's a fairly clear-cut example of a crime scene being "given up" by the police long before trial of the person responsible.
| Quote: | | If you read the Anti-Terrorist Acts you will see once a crime scene is deemed to be classified as 'terrorist' all normal proceedings are overridden. |
Where exactly does it say that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: | The Anti-Terrorist Acts are all about giving power to sections of the Government which override local forces.
This is what happened under Hitler's Germany.
Asking to hold people without trial for 90days is part and parcel of overturning 400 odd years of British history in one stroke.
Not guilty until charged has become Guilty before Charged.
Who decides whether an area or event is deemed to be terrorist?
The government. Where has the evidence been presented in a court of law with a judge and jury? |
Oh, you mean like the police have to present all evidence to a judge and jury to decide whether something is murder before they investigate it as murder?
| Quote: | | No where. Now if the print bogus CCTV's 2.5 years after the event which show nothing like the latest version of the De Menezes case Staraker will argue this is normal operating procedure. |
I'm not sure I'd bother arguing anything against something as incomprehensible as you have managed to type.
| Quote: | | What does the latest video show? Nothing. A man walking on a tube platform. Cant tell which one or which day/date. |
Which particular piece of video would that be? Are you suggesting it is faked? If not, what exactly are you suggesting it does or doesn't show? What exactly can't you "tell which one"? The man or the platform?
| Quote: | http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_10#pt10-pb3-l1g 98
| Quote: | MoD and transport police
98 Jurisdiction of MoD police
(1) Section 2 of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 (c. 4) (jurisdiction of members of the Ministry of Defence Police) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) (places where members of Ministry of Defence Police have powers and privileges of constables), omit paragraph (d) (which is superseded by the amendment made by subsection (4) of this section).
(3) In subsection (3) (circumstances in which members of Ministry of Defence Police have powers and privileges of constables in places in United Kingdom not mentioned in subsection (2)), after paragraph (b) insert—
“(ba) in connection with offences against persons within paragraph (b) above, with the incitement of such persons to commit offences and with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916 in relation to such persons;”.
(4) After that subsection insert—
“(3A) Where a member of the Ministry of Defence Police has been requested by a constable of—
(a) the police force for any police area;
(b) the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
(c) the British Transport Police Force; or
(d) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary,
to assist him in the execution of his duties in relation to a particular incident, investigation or operation, members of the Ministry of Defence Police shall have the powers and privileges of constables for the purposes of that incident, investigation or operation but subject to subsection (3B) below.
(3B) Members of the Ministry of Defence Police have the powers and privileges of constables for the purposes of an incident, investigation or operation by virtue of subsection (3A) above—
(a) if the request was made under paragraph (a) of that subsection by a constable of the police force for a police area, only in that police area;
(b) if it was made under paragraph (b) of that subsection, only in Northern Ireland;
(c) if it was made under paragraph (c) of that subsection, only to the extent that those powers and privileges would in the circumstances be exercisable for those purposes by a constable of the British Transport Police Force by virtue of subsection (1A) or, in Scotland, subsection (4) of section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix); or
(d) if it was made under paragraph (d) of that subsection, only to the extent that those powers and privileges would in the circumstances be exercisable for those purposes by a constable of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary.
(3C) Members of the Ministry of Defence Police shall have in any police area the same powers and privileges as constables of the police force for that police area, and in Northern Ireland the same powers and privileges as constables of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,—
(a) in relation to persons whom they suspect on reasonable grounds of having committed, being in the course of committing or being about to commit an offence; or
(b) if they believe on reasonable grounds that they need those powers and privileges in order to save life or to prevent or minimise personal injury.
(3D) But members of the Ministry of Defence Police have powers and privileges by virtue of subsection (3C) above only if—
(a) they are in uniform or have with them documentary evidence that they are members of the Ministry of Defence Police; and
(b) they believe on reasonable grounds that a power of a constable which they would not have apart from that subsection ought to be exercised and that, if it cannot be exercised until they secure the attendance of or a request under subsection (3A) above by a constable who has it, the purpose for which they believe it ought to be exercised will be frustrated or seriously prejudiced.”
(5) In subsection (4) (territorial waters)—
(a) for “to (3)” substitute “to (3D)”, and
(b) for “subsections (1) and (3)” substitute “those subsections”.
(6) In subsection (5)—
(a) after the definition of “appropriate Gazette” insert—
““British Transport Police Force” means the constables appointed under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix);”, and
(b) after the definition of “service authorities” insert—
““United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary” means the special constables appointed under section 3 of the Special Constables Act 1923 (c. 11) on the nomination of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority;”. |
|
Your point being? The above covers the reciprocal agreements between non-territorial and local forces. It does not claim that one particular non-territorial forces has jurisdiction that over-rides another (either territorial or non-territorial) in the manner you suggest. E.g., Section 100/(1)-(4) is essentially identical as Section 98/(3A-3D) is essentially identical, except that it substitutes BTP for MoDP and vice versa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prole
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: | | Prole wrote: | | stelios wrote: | | Sorry to appear lazy but you have alot more experience of this than me. perhaps you could submit the relevant requests? |
'Appear lazy'? No stelios you appear to want to make the arguments but aren't bothered to try and and access the evidence or sources. |
So hold on i was being polite. What i should have said was you are the
7/7 investigators and you should have already fired off FOI requests. I would even go further and say you should have served an injunction on them preventing distruction of the carraiges which would have cost nothing but would have brought the matter into the public domain.
If all you guys are doing is collate press cuttings and stuff you find on tinternet then you are correct maybe i should file FOI requests and look into things myself. But as i am an individual with no particular axe to grind why would they provide me with any information. I have filed FOI requests before and i can tell you NHS trusts ALWAYS supply you with information, Councils NEVER supply anything. I have once filed a request with the police and was rewrded with a meeting with the Superintendant who fobbed me off with zilch.
I really would have thought that rather than telling me on a public forum, both of us using disguised names, that i should be doing my own research is to be frank very disappointing.
There are people like David Aaronovitch appearing on tv telling the world "we know who did it because we saw them confess it on video" other than which there is no evidence in the public domain. |
Stelios, I'd pack it all in before I'd take advice from you about how to run a campaign. Whatever happened to your claim that this website & forum was now known as the 9/11 and 7/7 Truth Campaign?
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Prole wrote: |
Stelios, I'd pack it all in before I'd take advice from you about how to run a campaign. Whatever happened to your claim that this website & forum was now known as the 9/11 and 7/7 Truth Campaign? |
This forum is one of the very few places that discusses 911 and 7/7 and other truth issues. I am neither the owner nor the spokesman for a public forum which is uncensored. I must say that is a silly answer to my legitimate questions.
But again why are you trying to score points against me, i am a nobody, what you should be saying is reasons why you have not requested the photos from the police nor have you explained what steps were taken by groups such as yours to prevent the destruction of the tube carriages. Your anger should logically be directed at the police for destroying key evidence. Now instead of getting annoyed with me what can i do to apply for access to the photos and under what grounds would they grant me this access?
What i am saying is correct. The police may have followed PACE in destroying the evidence but it could have and should have been challenged. Now that it is too late, access to the photos must be secured.
Many people have made suggestions to me that your group already has answers to many questions but for some reason are keeping a lid on it. I dont share that view but just as there are gaps in the official version of events there are also gaps in the 7/7 truth campaign strategy.
Please dont waste your time arguing with me, better concentrate your efforts on getting answers to the questions.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prole
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: | | Please dont waste your time arguing with me, better concentrate your efforts on getting answers to the questions. |
I suggest you take your own advice.
_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
astro3
Suspended
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 274
Location: North West London
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Coming back to the two testimonies of Gracia Hormugos and Eamon Spelman: here is the Muslim News reporting them both, under the 'King's Cross' heading (quoting from the Scottish Sunday Herald 10th July):
| Quote: | | AFTER the huge bang and flash of light there was a deadly silence and then people in the carriage started panicking and I heard a lot of screaming. People got their hankies out and covered their mouths so the dust would not affect them. Lots of people were crying and the lady next to me kept talking about her two children. Some people were trying to break the windows to get out. I was trying to calm them down and told them not to because there was thick, grey-black smoke outside and I thought the line might still be live. The overcrowding in the carriage may have saved everyone because nobody could fall over.” |
Eamon Spelman, 47, a carpet dealer, was a passenger on the King’s Cross train. | Quote: | | “MY whole body was shaking. I felt like I was being electrocuted. The guy next to me lost his leg. I could see the bone. I was trying to help him, trying to keep him awake. Another guy opposite was slumped over someone else. He was dead.” |
Gracia Hormigos, 58, a housekeeper from Tottenham was on her way to work. So we surmise that Ms Hormigos was in the first carriage.
The two are discussed on the J7 forum http://s13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/ar/t1787.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Staraker"]
The Copeland case has been seen by many to be dubious as to whether he is the real perpetrator. Notes From the Borderland has done some extensive research on that one. This case has more to do with introducing legislation which defends the right of homosexuality and in many situations first something terrible happens and it then is used as pretext to pass new laws. The issue is whether the events were orchestrated or just happned.
You now assert they did forensics on the train carriages. Funny no ones seen it. I wonder why. You seem to be arguing that 10 years after an event they will release evidence as in the Diana case and this will be taken to be a serious attitude by the law enforcement bodies. All you argue is that the police should retain whatever evidence they see fit for as long as they see fit to keep it. If the normal judicial proceedings were allowed and they weren't, as most of the relatives were carted off to be kept by MI5 and undue pressure was placed on the families to accept the police version of 7/7, a lawyer would ask for the families representatives for evidence to be shown and evidence to be retained to clear their names. But most of the families are selected by police psychologists beforehand.
If you read todays serialisation of Norman Bakers seminal study on the death of Dr. Kelly he states quite clearly that the police namely Thames Valley police knew beforehand what was going to happen. So did our police with 7/7. You can't carry out such an operation without elements of the police force being involved as they were in New York on 9/11.
Destroying a crime scene or removing a crime scene before independent forensic investigation may not be a crime in and of itself but it is shoddy police work. Whether its organised or not is beside the point. The biggest single terrorist atrocity on British soil ever and the train carriages are removed and destroyed and the only thing we have so far presented to us is from the US media (how did they get hold of it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2277
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Staraker"]
Police powers have been greatly enhanced because of Anti-Terrorist legislation
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_5#pt2-pb2-l1g30
These Acts undermine the very basis of the British judicial system which is based on not-guilty until proven innocent.
By handing powers to the Secretary of State it is removed from the judges.
Everybody knows this.
Are you implying the evidence made available in the aftermath of 7/7 did not come under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorist Acts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="conspiracy analyst"] | Staraker wrote: |
The Copeland case has been seen by many to be dubious as to whether he is the real perpetrator. |
What a surprise.
| Quote: | | Notes From the Borderland has done some extensive research on that one. This case has more to do with introducing legislation which defends the right of homosexuality and in many situations first something terrible happens and it then is used as pretext to pass new laws. The issue is whether the events were orchestrated or just happned. |
So somebody blew up a gay bar to further gay rights...? Yeah. Sure.
| Quote: | | You now assert they did forensics on the train carriages. |
So presumably you think they didn't? Is that actually credible? It could hardly escape the notice of everyone in that field if nobody was working on that particular case, don't you think. Are we expected to believe that they're all being universally silent?
| Quote: | | Funny no ones seen it. I wonder why. |
Because we generally don't, regardless of whatever the crime is, except during legal proceedings.
| Quote: | | You seem to be arguing that 10 years after an event they will release evidence as in the Diana case and this will be taken to be a serious attitude by the law enforcement bodies. |
Where exactly did I say that?
| Quote: | | All you argue is that the police should retain whatever evidence they see fit for as long as they see fit to keep it. |
I suggest you re-read what I've actually said, not what you'd like to believe I said, which is pointing out the legal framework (i.e. PACE) within which the police retain, return or dispose of sized items (i.e. evidence).
| Quote: | | If the normal judicial proceedings were allowed and they weren't, |
Which proceedings, exactly? If you mean the inquests, although the time elapse may seem excessive to some, it's not so anomalous compared to other cases, many of them purely criminal which I think even you couldn't suggest otherwise.
| Quote: | | as most of the relatives were carted off to be kept by MI5 and undue pressure was placed on the families to accept the police version of 7/7, a lawyer would ask for the families representatives for evidence to be shown and evidence to be retained to clear their names. |
Proof?
| Quote: | | But most of the families are selected by police psychologists beforehand. |
Selected for what?
| Quote: | | If you read todays serialisation of Norman Bakers seminal study on the death of Dr. Kelly he states quite clearly that the police namely Thames Valley police knew beforehand what was going to happen. |
Yes I did read it. Baker suggests that TVP knew of a threat to Kelly a few hours before it happened, but hints heavily that the killing was down to Iraqi elements.
| Quote: | | So did our police with 7/7. You can't carry out such an operation without elements of the police force being involved as they were in New York on 9/11. |
More people involved.... more people who aren't talking...
| Quote: | | Destroying a crime scene or removing a crime scene before independent forensic investigation may not be a crime in and of itself but it is shoddy police work. Whether its organised or not is beside the point. The biggest single terrorist atrocity on British soil ever and the train carriages are removed and destroyed and the only thing we have so far presented to us is from the US media (how did they get hold of it). |
You seem to be doggedly maintaining that non-disclosure equal non-existance about something that we would not normally expect disclosure of in the first place. Perhaps you would like to cite examples of legally unresolved cases where the sort of forensic material you think doesn't exist for 7/7 have been reported to the level of detail you think should be reported for 7/7?
Last edited by Nick Cooper on Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy analyst wrote: |
Are you implying the evidence made available in the aftermath of 7/7 did not come under the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorist Acts? |
No, I'm asking you to demonstrate that it does.
I also note your abject failure to reply to almost all of the direct questions I have put to you over the last couple of days. Perhaps you would like to go back to my earlier posts and do so? Otherwise people may choose to think that you either cannot or do not wish to answer them. They're very obvious, as the sentences invariably end with a question mark (i.e. "?"). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
As Astro says there are a number of newspaper reports from survivors. But these dont explain the route taken. The housekeeper from tottenham could not have changed at Finsbury Park because the southbound picadilly line was closed.
I have looked at 118118.com and other phone listings and can find no carpet dealer or resident with a phone called Eamon Spelman or Gracia Hormigos.
Gracia Hormigos sounds like a Philipino name and i asked some Philipinos that i know who have a place in Blackstock Road but this person is not known to them.
A carpet dealer with a Jewish Irish name should be easy to locate but like all the other 7/7 witnesses appears to keep a low profile.
What is it about these 7/7 witnesses that nome is traceable, they dont have home phones, they dont advertise for customers, they never joined friends reunited, etc
What are the odds that not one of them is traceable simply quoted as names in newspapers never to be seen or heard from again?
I also point out that the spooks must be having a good old laugh at us 2 years down the line we are all, myself included 'quoting' what these made up eye witnesses have said. Unless and until we can actually confirm that even one of these eye witnesses actually is a real person i think we must disregard EVERYTHING that any of them has perported to have said.
Lets only use what actual known persons have said, people we know exist
I know staraker is going to say its just a coincidence but surely it is not. Some people must be easy to trace. Everyone is traceable unless you were involved with 7/7 it seems.
Why can that be so?
I suggest it is because the vast bulk of these so called witnesses only exist as figments of a desk officers imagination. You see a name like Gracia is not a common name it literally means thanks. It is a real name just not very common. It is clear they did not want to use names like John Smith or Juanita Gomez.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: | | As Astro says there are a number of newspaper reports from survivors. But these dont explain the route taken. The housekeeper from tottenham could not have changed at Finsbury Park because the southbound picadilly line was closed. |
Sigh! The Piccadilly line reopened at 08:28. Finsbury Park is less than ten minutes away. In any case, depending on exactly which bit of Tottenham she's from, she wouldn't necessarily be changing at Finsbury Park in the first place. If someone is close enough to Tottenham Hale or Seven Sisters, they're more likely to use the Victoria line all the way to King's Cross and then change there, as Finsbury Park-King's Cross is quicker on that line than the Piccadilly.
| Quote: | | I have looked at 118118.com and other phone listings and can find no carpet dealer or resident with a phone called Eamon Spelman or Gracia Hormigos. |
As I have already pointed out to you, half the landlines in the country are ex-directory. If your "gold standard" of investigation is "(looking) at 118118.com and other phone listings," then at lot more than half the country doesn't exist.
| Quote: | | Gracia Hormigos sounds like a Philipino name and i asked some Philipinos that i know who have a place in Blackstock Road but this person is not known to them. |
Try Googling "Hormigos". See all the .es domains and Spanish websites? "Philipino," you say?
| Quote: | | A carpet dealer with a Jewish Irish name should be easy to locate but like all the other 7/7 witnesses appears to keep a low profile. |
Hard to find like this, you mean:
| Quote: | "LONDON-The department that ABC Carpet & Home leases at Harrods here has been so successful it has been moved to a more central location on the third floor of the department store. "It's a partnership," said Eamon Spellman, the carpet buyer at Harrods. "Harrods pays all the expenses and then charges it back to ABC."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4360/is_200105/ai_n15218614 |
What? You didn't try all the possible alternative spellings of "Spelman"? But then, you are the person who steadfastly tried to maintain that "Richard Jones" could not possible be more usually known as "Dick Jones." Oh, and obviously if he's still at Harrods, he would be taking the Piccadilly line to Knightsbridge.
| Quote: | What is it about these 7/7 witnesses that nome is traceable, they dont have home phones, they dont advertise for customers, they never joined friends reunited, etc
What are the odds that not one of them is traceable simply quoted as names in newspapers never to be seen or heard from again? |
By certain standards of "investigation," it's hardly surprising.
| Quote: | | I also point out that the spooks must be having a good old laugh at us 2 years down the line we are all, myself included 'quoting' what these made up eye witnesses have said. |
If they're "watching," I'm sure they are, but then so I am, since never having tried to find anything about "Spelman" previously, I pinned him down in just five minutes.
| Quote: | | Unless and until we can actually confirm that even one of these eye witnesses actually is a real person i think we must disregard EVERYTHING that any of them has perported to have said. |
Including Bruce Lait and Daniel Obachike?
| Quote: | Lets only use what actual known persons have said, people we know exist
I know staraker is going to say its just a coincidence but surely it is not. |
No, I'd say that some people haven't got a clue about finding other people, even using perfectly legal and relatively easy methods.
| Quote: | Some people must be easy to trace. Everyone is traceable unless you were involved with 7/7 it seems.
Why can that be so?
I suggest it is because the vast bulk of these so called witnesses only exist as figments of a desk officers imagination. You see a name like Gracia is not a common name it literally means thanks. It is a real name just not very common. It is clear they did not want to use names like John Smith or Juanita Gomez. |
How many people do you know who you can say the same thing about? Think of their names and use the tools you claim to have used and see how many of them you can "confirm" exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lets get in touch with Eamon Spelman at Harrods then, lets phone up Harrods on Monday and speak to him and listen to his story.
Agreed?
Because dont forget your 'Dick' Jones turned out to be a dead end.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
