/** Tools */

29 November 2006

Ludicrous Diversion - J7 does LD

Back in September 2006 an anonymously produced video documentary dealing with the events of 7th July 2005 was released via Google video. Since its release the film, Ludicrous Diversion, has been watched over 80,000 times and attracted a lot of high praise from most of the people who bothered to leave comments. There have also been one or two disparaging comments, but these stick out like the sorest of all thumbs and their presence in the comments thread defines the word 'dissonant'.

Alongside the Ludicrous Diversion video upon its release was a brief introduction to its contents:
On the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions. You probably think you know what happened that day. But you don’t.

The police have, from the onset of their investigation, chosen to withhold from the public almost every bit of evidence they claim to have and have provably lied about several aspects of the London Bombings.

The mainstream news has wilfully spread false, unsubstantiated and unverifiable information, while choosing to completely ignore the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official story.

The government has finally, after a year, presented us with their official ‘narrative’ concerning the event. Within hours it was shown to contain numerous errors, a fact since admitted by the Home Secretary John Reid. They have continuously rejected calls for a full, independent public inquiry. Tony Blair himself described such an inquiry as a ‘ludicrous diversion’. What don’t they want us to find out? Contact ludicrousdiversion@hotmail.com

If you haven't read the official Home Office report into the events of 7th July 2005 referred to above, you should, and can do so by clicking here. It takes minutes to read and you won't learn anything from it about the events of 7th July 2005 because, as the Home Secretary has graciously addressed on more than one occasion, it is full of errors.

What you might learn from the Home Office report, however, is the sub-text behind where State policy and policing in the UK has been headed for long enough to get even the right-wing libertarians a little hot under the collar. Essentially the UK policy of the State Vs. the people (yes, that means you, dear reader) in recent times boils down to:

  • No protests, unless you've got express permission from the people against whom you're protesting;
  • No flag burning, because flags are symbols of States and people might think that both the symbols and the states they represent are worthy of such treatment;
  • No headgear - not a hoodie, nor baseball cap, nor niqab, nor jilbab, nor facial covering of any sort because every working-class person -- now affectionately known as 'criminals', 'terrorists' (there is little, if any, distinction, as Sir Ian Blair told us) and occasionally, still, the 'underclass' -- must now be identifiable and trackable at all times so the large gangs of real, provable, organised criminals, terrorists and the 'overclass' can go about their daily criminal business of being responsible and unaccountable for the greatest crimes against humanity the world has seen for generations, and terrorism that kills innocent lives through the perpetration of 'mass murder on an unimaginable scale' ((c) Herr Doktor John Reid, President Minister Blair, et al), except we don't have to imagine the terror of these criminal gangs for it is very real and it happens every day of the year, not just days with catchy, memorable dates that rhyme like 9/11, 3/11, or even 7/7;
  • No chanting - thanks to the ingenuously clever trick of making the most fascistic of all police officers a man of Asian descent, Tariq Ghaffur, the cops' new and vocal mouthpiece, there must definitely be no chanting of chants at the protests you're not allowed to have.

    Especially not allowed would be chants from the days when working class people could still afford to go and watch 11 local lads play football against 11 local lads from somewhere else and have a sing-song at the same time in honour of working class heroes such as Harry Roberts.
Reference (to the tune of London Bridge is Falling Down):
Harry Roberts is our friend
Is our friend, is our friend
Harry Roberts is our friend
He kills coppers

Shoots the bastards with a gun
With a gun, with a gun
Shoots the bastards with a gun
Harry Roberts

Shoots the bastards two by two
Two by two, two by two
Shoots the bastards two by two
He kills coppers

Harry Roberts is our friend
Is our friend, is our friend
Harry Roberts is our friend
He kills coppers

Let him out to kill some more
Kill some more, kill some more
Harry Roberts

More of Harry's story later as, even though Harry Roberts' story is over 40 years old and still ongoing, it is perhaps more relevant now than at any point in its 40 year history. However, The Antagonist digresses, albeit not in a ludicrously diversionary sort of way, from the original point - the film, Ludicrous Diversion....

If you haven't seen Ludicrous Diversion yet, you should, and can watch it on Google Video, in three parts on YouTube, via SmallFish Online, or using the video window below.

As a consequence of its anonymous release, Ludicrous Diversion has raised a lot of questions from a lot of people about who is behind the film's production, their motivations for making the film, and what they were endeavouring to achieve by doing so. It is perhaps interesting that the same people weren't asking the same questions about the provenance of the anonymously penned Home Office account of the events of 7th July 2005 which, despite it being the official version of events that took ten months to produce, contained far more verifiable errors than an anonymously produced documentary on the Internet.

In order to try and tackle some of the questions about the film, the July 7th Truth Campaign, never being a group to be hindered by the lack of information about something in the public domain, took it upon themselves to find out more about the film, its producers and their intentions.

You can read the results of the exclusive J7 interview with the makers of Ludicrous Diversion here on the July 7th Truth Campaign web site.


Julaybib said...

I am not jumping up and down shouting, "Ooo! It's a conspiracy to bring about a police state!" But it begs sufficient questions to demand an independent investigation.

Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work!

Stef said...

Hands up, I was one of the people who grumbled about Ludicrous Diversion - not so muc because it was anonymous (so what?) or because it was relatively well made (ditto) but because the mixed message at the end could be understood as saying there is nothing ordinary people can do about 7/7

That grumble has been addressed face-on in the subsequent interview and I hope that the makers at least think about that, if and when they make LD2 - and I hope that they do make LD2

If you look at the history of the 9/11 Truth Movement in the States it seems quite probable that it has been subject to deliberate subversion. The techniques employed have included...

- Luring researchers into formulating and subsequently squabbling over alternative accounts of the day
- Guilt by association; either with crackpot individuals or whacky and irrelevant theories about other events
- Planting and promotion of false clues
- Infiltration or creation of fake grass roots movements
- And, if all else fails, promoting material designed to engender despair and apathy

The July 7th website has done a stand-up job of avoiding these pitfalls but if, as I believe, more people start to have issues with the official account of 7/7 you can bet your last fiver that fresh efforts will be made to screw things up

The trick is, I think, to be watchful and critical of any new material that comes to light but without tearing into the efforts of genuinely decent people who are trying to do the right thing

And most people are decent, otherwise the minority would put so much effort into misleading us all on a regular basis

Stef said...

of course, what I meant to say at the end was...

And most people are decent, otherwise the minority would not put so much effort into misleading us all on a regular basis

The Antagonist said...

Julaybib: Glad the film raised sufficient questions to demand some sort of further scrutiny. There's also the far from minor issue of the Inquiries Act 2005 and the untenable restrictions it places on the power of any inquiry. There's additional information regarding this on the July 7th Truth Campaign web site and do please sign the RELEASE THE EVIDENCE petition if you feel so inclined.

Mr Papps: Thank you. Onwards and upwards and thanks for penning one of the few blogs that still manages to raise a smile or two. Hope the Motorhead manbag thing is working out for you.

Stef: Not like you to grumble now, is it? Although I'm very glad that you do. And with such regularity.

All well observed and fair points regarding the 11/9 truthlings and they do seem to spend rather a lot of time arguing the toss about minutiae rather than getting on with the business of organising and doing something other than banner waving.

Still, as with the UK, there's hope yet because there exist a wealth of other provable crimes against humanity for which the guilty have already judged themselves through their words and deeds:

The Indictment
United States v. George W. Bush et al.
By Elizabeth de la Vega

The Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

16. Beginning on or about a date unknown, but no later than August of 2002, and continuing to the present, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,


and others known and unknown, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to defraud the United States by using deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, false and fraudulent representations, including ones made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, and omitting to state material facts necessary to make their representations truthful, fair and accurate, while knowing and intending that their false and fraudulent representations would influence the public and the deliberations of Congress with regard to authorization of a preventive war against Iraq, thereby defeating, obstructing, impairing, and interfering with Congress' lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations.

How long before some enterprising person with a firm grasp of International legalese and a wider interest than just the United Mistakes of America broadens the scope of the indictment to include a few more of the world's top crooks, known and unknown, and their crimes?

Feel free to submit your entries here.