“I do accept that people want to know exactly what happened, and we will make sure that they do.... We will bring together all the evidence that we have and publish it, so that people —the victims and others— can see exactly what happened..... we will publish a full account of all the information that we have.”
On 11th May 2006, the Home Office published an anonymously penned document entitled, "Report of the Official Account of the Bombings London on 7th July 2005" which, apparently, was the Government's publication of "all the evidence" so "that people-the victims and others- can see exactly what happened". In other words, "a full account of all the information" the government had.
Within two months the report was discredited as a flawed and inaccurate version of events as the Home Secretary was forced to stand before Parliament and say:
“The official account that we provided to the House states that the train on which the bombers travelled left Luton station at 7.40 am. The police have now told us that that is incorrect—the train in fact left Luton station at 7.25 am. It did, however, arrive at Kings Cross at 8.23 am, as recorded in the official account. Although that does not appear to affect anything else in the official account, it is nevertheless an error, which is why I report it to the House. I can understand why this may be of concern to some. I have asked the police, as Members would expect, for a full report on how that discrepancy came about. I will ensure that the official account is amended and will write to the survivors and to the families of the victims on this matter.”
The information about the 7.40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train having been cancelled on 7th July 2005 was put into the public domain by J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign in August 2005. Now, over a year on from the publication of the flawed Home Office narrative and the official account is yet to be amended.
By the end of August 2006, after having already acknowledged one major error in the Home Office account of the events, John Reid was forced to write to those directly affected by the events of 7/7 acknowledging another equally egregious error:
Those who attended the Edgware Road meeting believed that there was a possibility of a second error in the Official Account. They said that Mohammed Sidique Khan was by the second set of double doors in the tube carriage at the time of the attack, whereas the Official Account states that Khan was ''most likely near the standing area by the first set of double doors.''
My officials have made enquiries of the Metropolitan Police. The police have confirmed that the wording of the Official Account accurately reflects their initial conclusions following statements they took from witnesses and their early examination of the scene. This shows that the bomb probably exploded near to the first set of doors. But where exactly the bomb exploded has yet to be established. The police are currently awaiting the final report from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory. This will be vital in determining the precise location of the bomb at the time of its detonation.
The wording in the Official Account therefore accurately reflects the police's understanding of the initial examination of the scene. The preface of the Official Account makes it clear that ''the evidence is not yet the full picture'' because it was known at the time of writing that more evidence might emerge from the ongoing police investigation. To date, none of the forensic evidence suggests that the Official Account is incorrect in stating where Khan was ''most likely'' to have been located prior to the explosion. Should the police revise their initial conclusions in the light of further information, an update will be issued.
If it's "probably" indefinite articles you want, the "not fit for purpose" Home Office are "most likely" the people to call.
Needless to say, no further information appears to have come to light. Not about the location of the blast, nor the nature of the explosives used in the attack which to date have not been identified, nor have the explosives allegedly found in the cars at Luton about which the Home Office report states, "One car contained explosive devices of a different and smaller kind from those in the rucksacks." In total, that's two lots of explosives that the official conspiracy theory has thus far failed to identify, the train the accused are alleged to have caught, and the precise location of at least one of the blasts, and still the government endeavours to portray the report as a credible document rather than the insult to everyone's intelligence that it is.
In all these cases the required updates to the Official Account have not been made, nor explanations given, and in the interim John Reid has resigned quietly from his position as Home Secretary, just in case the news were to break in more than a local paper that his nephew was convicted of possessing two deadly weapons in public, but not before suggesting once more than human rights were standing in the way of the State doing whatever it pleases.
As the second anniversary of 7/7 fast approaches, the next Home Secretary is also going to have their work cut out in connection with the government's alleged publication of "all the information that [they] have" about the London bombings.
Quoting from the Home Office Report of the Official Account of the London Bombings on 7th July 2005 which now contains at least two officially acknowledged errors:
There was at the time of the attacks, reports of a “5th bomber”. It was thought, because of witness statements and CCTV, that there was a “5th man” with the group travelling down from Luton. Inquiries showed the individual was a regular commuter and he was eliminated from the inquiry. Also in the period immediately following the attacks, one man was arrested in connection with the investigation but he was released without charge. In subsequent weeks, a further man who had claimed to be the “5th bomber” was also arrested and later charged with wasting police time. There is no intelligence to indicate that there was a fifth or further bombers.
According to the government's official conspiracy of how 7/7 came to be there was no "5th bomber", nor a "5th man" involved, save for Naveed Fiaz (the "one man [who] was arrested") who was arrested shortly after 7/7 when his brother, Ejaz Fiaz (the man originally blamed for the Piccadilly Line incident, something we're all meant to have forgotten by now) was nowhere to be found. Naveed Fiaz was subsequently released without charge and remained the only person to be arrested in connection with 7/7 until Thursday 22nd March 2007. Meanwhile, another "5th bomber" who had been foisted upon the world by the self-proclaimed News of the World was charged with wasting police time in much the same way as the News of the World wastes everyone else's time. The resounding message from all of this is clear, there was no "5th bomber".
So, if there was indeed no "5th bomber" or "5th man" as the official conspiracy theory of 7/7 would have us believe, one might then be tempted to ask what the police are doing rounding up Mohammed Sidique Khan's extended and well-respected family almost two years after 7th July 2005 and repeatedly accusing at least one of them of being the "5th bomber".
Today's Guardian has an Ian Cobain interview with Imran Motala who was recently arrested in a blaze of publicity along with Mohammed Sidique Khan's wife and Motala's cousin, Hasina Patel, and her brother Arshad Patel. All three were released without charge after seven days of questioning about 7/7 while the fourth person arrested during the high-profile early morning raids, Khalid Kaliq, remains in custody.
A few quotes from Ian Cobain's Guardian interview with Imran Motala:
"If I had been the 'fifth bomber', I could have set off an explosion in August 2005,"
"They didn't just think I had with-held information about the bombings, they thought I was involved, that I was to have been the fifth bomber," he said. "They asked me: 'Are you the fifth bomber? Were you meant to be the fifth bomber? Did you bottle out in the end?'"
Mr Motala says police also suspect he was the unidentified male who bought the rucksacks which contained the bombs from a Millets store in Leeds six days before the bombings.
While in custody he learned that he had been under surveillance for a year: he and members of his family had been followed, all of his previous employers had been interviewed, and he strongly suspects that his family home in the Lozells area of Birmingham was bugged when West Midlands police raided the property last year, ostensibly looking for firearms. Despite the lengthy surveillance operation, no evidence was found that would justify charges against him.
When asked about 7/7, Motala replied:
"I said it was a cowardly act, that it did nobody any good, that it ruined many people's lives. I said that my way of fighting against the Iraq war was to join the march which was held in London. Suddenly there were a million and one questions about the war and why I opposed it."
Peaceful protest and terrorism, if you thought there was a difference, you were wrong. Hitting the ground running in his new role as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair pointed out to early morning TV viewers on Sunday 6th February 2005 that, "I don't think people should distinguish Crime and Terrorism too easily." If the crime is that of having a conscience, the peaceful protest that ensues from having a conscience and acting upon that conscience becomes both a crime and terrorism in one fell swoop. With the suspension of habeus corpus, the presumption of innocence all but annihilated and replaced with trial-by-media, and the almost complete lack of legal recourse to remedy any of this, the likes of the Queen, Tony Blair and all other representatives of the State, whose existence depends on trivialities and cowardly acts like butchering a million Iraqi civilians, Afghanis, and anyone else who happens to be sitting on some black gold, along with bringing prosecutions in this country that could never have been without the State being complicit in entrapment and torturing false confessions from the defendants, aren't kidding when they proclaim that everyone should know "that they will not change our way of life."
Before long Mr Motala was being given sleeping pills each night
When was mandatory drugging of innocent suspects added to the extensive list of crimes perpetrated by the State against the population of the UK? While Mr Motala was being fed sleeping pills during his extended period of detention and questioning, the public have been doped-up for a far longer time on placebos and some considerably more potent tranquilisers.
Luckily for all of us, the effects of all the sedatives are rapidly and irreversably wearing off and a long dormant public is waking up to the extensive list of deceptions and confidence tricks that have been played upon them, as well as all the legal measures and technologies of political control that the State has been putting in place to save itself from the consequences of its own fascistic actions.
Don't despair, sign the petition and organise!