/** Tools */

31 August 2005

London 7/7: What Time Did the Trains Leave Kings Cross

A fairly simple question and one for which the answer is proving to be a little difficult to track down.

To further simplify and clarify the nature of the question regarding 7 July and quoting from the newly formed blog of Bridget Dunne, The Mysterious Case Of The Non-Existent Train Time:

"Simply, what times did the trains leave Kings Cross that morning?

You might think this was too obvious a question and that the answer would be easily available. But, no! It would appear to be totally absent from any newspaper or website, including that of the Metropolitan Police."

In fact, it's not just the Metropolitan Police, who don't display the times that the trains left Kings Cross, nor do the British Transport Police, TFL, Metronet or any of the media organisations 'responsible' for reporting such things.

Furthermore, any requests directed to the authorities charged with running trains or buses on the day, or those tasked with investigating what occurred since, seem to meet with curious placatory rebuttals along with diversionary pointers to published timetables.

Responses from various organisations regarding train times have been brought to the attention of The Antagonist, all of which rather defy The Antagonist's sense of reason for the for the way in which they dismiss perhaps the single most important fact of the day, the times that each of the blast trains left Kings Cross.

The Metropolitan Police response to a request for the times that the trains left Kings Cross on 7 July stated:
Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS to locate information relevant to your request.


The information requested falls under a MPS 'normal business process' and is therefore unavailable under the Act.


Section 21 of the Act provides:

(1) Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information.

The information you have requested is 'reasonably accessible' elsewhere on Transport for London Site.

What great detective work by the Metropolitan Police! We can all rest assured that our tax money isn't going to waste and that truth and justice is what we're paying for. But that's not quite the whole story.

The Metropolitan Police state the times that the trains left Kings Cross on 7 July are available from the TFL web site. In fact, that statement is not true which, perhaps, would make it a lie in the eyes of some, especially given that anyone can scour the TFL web site for the times at which the trains left Kings Cross on 7 July and turn up precisely nothing in the way of an answer.

You can find the scheduled train times on the TFL web site (all commuters know trains stick rigidly to these timetables every day, never mind when bombs are going off) but, as has become very apparent since the events of 7/7, the scheduled train times are of little or no significance owing to the fact that the Underground was suffering from many delays that morning, some of which were significantly in advance of any bombs going off, and all of which provide numerous avenues for further independent investigation in and of themselves.

So, the scheduled timetables are of no use to anyone at all whether they be the police, eye-witnesses, or anyone with an interest in understanding quite what occurred that fateful day, yet the Metropolitan Police is expecting to get away with referring any queries about 7/7 train departure times to timetables we know to be utterly useless.

How great is Freedom of Information Act? The Antagonist believes that this act might be more appropriately named the Freedom of Useless Information Act if the MPS' interpretation of Freedom of Information is any indication of its outstanding benefit to society.

Seven weeks after 7/7 and the times at which the trains left Kings Cross station are apparently a very closely guarded secret.

Why won't the Metropolitan Police Service, or the British Transport Police or TFL or MetroNet disclose the times that the trains left Kings Cross station on 7 July? Perhaps the stories that have been conconcted about events of the day would fall apart if we were privy to the times that the trains left Kings Cross? Or, perhaps they wouldn't.

Either way, the times at which the trains left Kings Cross is a vital bit of information in understanding what happened. The ongoing secrecy surrounding the times that the trains left Kings Cross by all parties involved - some seven weeks after 7/7 - should act as significant warning to everyone that the London bombings of 7 July 2005 are most definitely not quite as they were reported to be.

Keep up with the quest for the answer to the question that is proving to be the 7/7 Holy Grail over at The Mysterious Case Of The Non-Existent Train Time.

Bullets in the Head - The MO of Whom?

Shooting people in the head is becoming an altogether far too common thing.

Perhaps those that dictate and those that follow the orders to execute innocent people with shots to the head are, in combination, trying to send us all a message, especially now journalists are in the firing line as well.

U.S. occupation forces in Iraq have killed a Reuters man and have provided clear evidence of a link between events in London during July and the invasion and occupation of Iraq with an MO that the self-appointed overseers worldwide deploy and which tells many tales.
U.S. sniper kills Reuters man in Iraq
8/29/2005 5:00:00 AM GMT

U.S. occupation forces in Iraq shot dead a Reuters television soundman and wounded a cameraman, Iraqi police said on Sunday.

"American soldiers opened fire on the team, killing the soundman and wounding the cameraman before detaining him," the police said.

A U.S. sniper opened fire on Waleed Khaled while he was on his way to check a report of an incident involving the killing of two policemen in the western Hay al-Adil district.

"A team from Reuters news agency was on assignment to cover the killing of two policemen in Hay al-Adil; U.S. forces opened fire on the team from Reuters and killed Waleed Khaled, who was shot in the head, and wounded Haider Kadhem," an Interior Ministry official quoted the police incident report as saying.

"I heard shooting, looked up and saw an American sniper on the roof of the shopping center."

Asked about the incident at a news conference marking the signing of Iraq constitution, U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said the incident was unfortunate but stopped short of apologizing.

"This is unfortunate... but sometimes mistakes are made. We don't target civilians," he said.

"Military operations unfortunately are not a perfect science... Sometimes mistakes happen, and when they are made we investigate," he added.

Reuters said that Waleed Khaled, 35, was shot in the head and took at least four bullets to the chest, while cameraman Haidar Kadhem, 24, was wounded in the back.

Two of Waleed’s colleagues who arrived at the scene minutes after he was killed, were briefly detained and released, Reuters said.

"They treated us like dogs. They made us ... including Haider who was wounded and asking for water, sit in the sun on the road," one said. They said that Khaled was still alive when they reached him, and that US troops refused to give him water despite the blazing sun.

Source: Al Jazeera

Shots to the head and chest and some in the back for good measure, this time to a group of international journalists.

Sounds like a very similar modus operandi to the operation in London on 22 July, 2005 when innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes was summarily executed with seven bullets in the back of the head in circumstances that seem to involve at least three different groups of covert operatives, at least one of which was so horrifically out of control that Hotel 3, the police surveillance officer who grabbed and pushed de Menezes back into his seat on the train that morning, made the following statement outlined in a rather good Times article:
“I then pushed him [de Menezes] back onto the seat where he had previously been sitting with right-hand side of my head pressed against the right-hand side of his torso.”

“At this stage his body seemed straight and he was not in a natural sitting position, I then heard a gunshot very close to my ear and was dragged away onto the floor of the carriage. I shouted ‘police’ and held up my hands.

I was then dragged out of the carriage by an armed officer who appeared to be carrying a long-barrelled weapon. I heard several gunshots as I was being dragged out of the carriage.”

Source: Times Online
The right side of Hotel Three's head was pressed against de Menezes torso meaning that the gunshot must have been 'very close' to his left ear. This suggests that whomever shot de Menezes with a long-barrelled weapon fired over the top of Hotel Three's head and left side, and that the shots came from someone who entered the train via the double doors in the middle of the carriage immediately before Hotel three was dragged out as the shooters executed both their orders and de Menezes in one fell swoop.

What was going on on the Underground train that morning that Hotel Three was forced to throw his hands above his head and identify himself as a policeman to someone he can only identify as 'an armed officer who appeared to be carrying a long-barrelled weapon'?

Earlier in his statement, Hotel Three identifies CO19 officers approaching from the outside of the train but there is no mention of CO19 in reference to the 'armed officer... carrying a long-barrelled weapon.' Why not? To which group operating that morning did the long-barrelled weapon-bearer belong?

Hotel Three tells us that an armed officer with a long-barelled weapon was responsible for murdering de Menezes. Hotel Three also tells that he was dragged off the train by an an armed officer carrying a long-barrelled weapon but not that either of them were CO19 officers. He also says that several additional shots were fired as he was being dragged off the train indicating that the shooters obviously didn't want de Menezes to make it out alive as they threw Hotel 3, by now probably fearing for his own life in the face of out of control shooters, to the floor and dragged him off of the train.

The absence of attribution by Hotel 3 to a specific set of individuals for the execution of de Menezes, the same people who then dragged him off the train in this manner, is of some significance. It certainly doesn't sound like a very well coordinated operation if officers involved can't identify each other.

What does this tell us about those wielding the long-barrelled weapons? That Hotel 3 didn't want to pin the shooting on a particular group or, infinitely more likely given the way in which de Menezes was executed and Hotel Three was dragged off the train, that they were a group unknown to Hotel Three and identifiable only by the presence of their long-barrelled guns?

If the shooters with long-barrelled weapons weren't police surveillance officers, and if they weren't part of the CO19 team clearly identified by Hotel Three, who the hell were they?

London 7/7: Metropolitan Police Timestamp Discrepancies

Anyone know anything about the science of forensics and the importance of correctly timestamping evidence and data?

It seems like the Metropolitan Police aren't too hot on this sort of thing as couple of screenshots from the Metropolitan Police web site 7/7 Archive show.

Notice in the first screenshot the date and time of the top link 'Police investigation continues into the 7/7 bombings (16/07/05)'.

However, the timestamp on the article page is not 16/07/05 but instead 18 July 2005.

What did the original 16 July article say? What changed in the two days between the published archive date of 16 July and the date on the article of 18 July? Might the original article have contained information about the ever-so-elusive times that the trains left Kings Cross on the morning of 7 July, 2005?

Anyone have an archived copy of the original statement?

George Bush is an Islamic Fundamentalist, Obviously

As much as The Antagonist would love to lay claim to the notion of George Bush being an Islamic fundamentalist intent on uniting the world against the USA, credit must be given to The Rub, as featured on a mix CD by Cassetteboy & DJ Rubbish, for doing so in an amusing little ditty, the lyrics of which are reproduced below.

'the rub', featuring bill clinton on sax
'george bush is an islamic fundamentalist'

(This is for all the folk... For all the simple folk... for all the good old down home folk.)

A'ight? Straight out of London town.

(It's for you folk.)

Here's an interesting bit of conspiracy theory for you...

George Bush is an Islamic fundamentalist, obviously
Trained by Al Qaeda in the heart of Texas to fight for the faithful army
He's now in the process of uniting the rest of the world against the good old U S of A
The land of the free will come crashing down if he has his way

It's the only explanation, old Bushy boy is an Islamic Fundamentalist
He's three quarters the way through his plan already and no-one's even noticed
That must be a damn-fine Al Qaeda training camp they've got down there in Texas (Yee ha!)
Getting him to pretend he's as thick as pig-shit was a stroke of pure bloody genius

Yeah, George Bush is an Islamic fundamentalist, obviously
Trained by Al Qaeda in the heart of Texas to fight for the faithful army
He's now in the process of uniting the rest of the world against the good old U S of A
The land of the free will come crashing down if he has his way, trust me

He's presided over and has been involved with one of the worst financial disasters of a generation
Every move he makes seems to be directly against the interests of his nation, haven't you noticed?
He's used the media to increase the social insulation of an already fairly bland population, since the McCarthy days
And now he's declared war on Islam just to increase the consternation

As far as I can see there's only one explanation
George Bush is an Islamic fundamentalist, obviously

These days on the street you hear all kind of interesting conspiracy theories cos no-one knows what the fuck's going on, we're all looking for explanations
The most interesting one I heard the other day was that the West was controlled by genuine democracies that actually represent the will of their populations
Only the one about the aliens, the anti-Christ and the Freemasons is more laughable. Ha ha ha ha.

I think my theory is much more plasible, let me tell you about it, it goes like this,
George Bush is an Islamic fundamentalist, obviously
It really is the only explanation I can see
For his truly anti-American foreign policy.

Now, at this point, I would ask you all to sing along with the chorus, normally. If it wasn't for the fact that there are cameras on the premises and the CIA might be requisitioning the tapes at any time. So I recommend that at under all circumstances, catchy though this numbers is, you do not sing along, you do not even smile. I recommend the most you do is tap your feet. But you do that at your own risk.

George Bush is an Islamic fundamentalist, obviously
Trained by Al Qaeda in the heart of Texas to fight for the faithful army
George Bush is an Islamic fundamentalist, obviously
George Bush is an Islamic fundamentalist, obviously

George Bush is an Islamic fundamentalist, fundamentalist, fundamentalist, fundamentalist, mentalist, mentalist, mentalist. George, George, George.

25 August 2005

The Power of Three

Two images from, and a timely pointer to, the rather interesting writings at Rigorous Intuition.

Of the images below, the first is a drawing by eight-year old Sarah Payne who was snatched from a quiet street in West Sussex on July 1, 2000. Her body was found 16 days later, ten miles away. Paedophile Roy Whiting was convicted of her abduction and murder, and sentenced to life in prison:

Investigator Ellis Taylor asks:
"Where do we find black and white checkerboard floors, the number 13 and two columns... Who would wear an item of clothing with the right sleeve missing...wear aprons and revere the number 33?"

Perhaps some of the answers may be found in this image of the inside of a Masonic Lodge, coupled with one of a Masonic initiate:

As to why we might never ever be privy to the whole truth behind the horrific abductions and murders of young children, one need only use a little more Rigorous Intuition to observe and understand the meaning of symbolism that a thousand words could never convey quite as succinctly.

20 August 2005

Inquiry into Police Murder Bad, Inquiry into Leak Good

Or so the increasingly furtive actions of Ian Blair would continue to suggest:

"On Wednesday Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, privately asked Nick Hardwick, head of the IPCC, to call in an outside police force to investigate the leaking of papers which revealed a series of “catastrophic blunders” over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes." [The Times]

Interesting change of tack for Ian Blair to take as it is diametrically opposed to the very definite position he assumed in relation to the inquiry into the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Note: The above quote isn't linked to the original Times Online source as that no longer appears to be available. If anyone knows where the article on the Times web site, as shown listed at number one in the Google search results below, The Antagonist would love to know.

What the hell is going on?

Until the answer to that question appears The Times article is reproduced in full here, courtesy of the Google cache, until such time as it is possible to link to the original source that dropped offline:
Police complaints official is suspended over inquiry leak
By Stewart Tendler and Richard Ford, The Times

A CLERK at the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was suspended last night for allegedly leaking secret documents about the Stockwell Underground shooting of an innocent man to a television station.

The suspension will come as a severe blow to the credibility of the commission, which is handling its first big inquiry since it was opened 18 months ago to replace investigations by police themselves.

The clerk, who could face serious charges, is alleged to have links with ITV news staff.

On Wednesday Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, privately asked Nick Hardwick, head of the IPCC, to call in an outside police force to investigate the leaking of papers which revealed a series of “catastrophic blunders” over the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Sir Ian yesterday rejected demands for him to resign. He said: “I’m not going to resign — I have a job to do.”

The suspension comes amid a growing dispute between the IPCC and Sir Ian, who is understood to want a “Hutton style” judicial inquiry into the case, like that conducted into the death of Dr David Kelly, the government scientist.

The leaked papers include statements from officers, a pathology report and photographs. No one had seen the material outside the IPCC and yesterday John Cummins, the senior investigator, was forced to brief lawyers for the family about the investigation.

The Yard is also at odds over claims that police tried to delay the IPCC taking over the case after Mr de Menezes died at Stockwell Underground station on July 22.

Yesterday the IPCC added further fuel to the row when John Wadham, the deputy head of the commission, said that police “initially resisted us taking on the investigation but we overcame that. This dispute has caused delay in us taking over the investigation but we have worked hard to recover the lost ground”.

Sir Ian replied that he raised the role of the IPCC because it would have to disclose information to the families of those affected and he questioned how this would work during a counter-terrorism operation.

Last night the Brazilian Government said that it would be conducting an inquiry into the shooting after news of blunders and erroneous reports deepened its anger. A Brazilian mission will visit Britain next week.

Kate Hoey, Mr de Menezes’s local Labour MP in Vauxhall, called on Sir Ian to make public what he knew about the shooting and when he knew it. “We need real answers and as quickly as possible,” she said. Gareth Peirce, one of the solicitors representing the family of Mr de Menezes, supported the idea of an inquiry. She said: “A public inquiry is the only kind of inquiry that can deal effectively with the big policy issues brought up in this case.”

19 August 2005

de Menezes Inquiry to go International

The Antagonist has just heard that the de Menezes family have declared they no longer have faith in the integrity of the British justice system to conduct an impartial inquiry into the police killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Ian Blair is still in hiding. The leaks are looking more and more damning for everyone, from the shooters and surveillance teams on the day right up to the very top of the chain of command, and the IPCC are expressing their disapproval at the actions of the Metropolitan Police at every opportunity.

The possibility of an international inquiry takes this story into a whole other dimension.

More to follow....

Vigil for Jean Charles de Menezes

A spokesperson for the family of de Menezes announced from their press conference this morning that there will be vigil held for Jean Charles de Menezes outside Downing Street at 6pm on Monday, 22 August.

More details as they make themselves available.

Yasmin Khan, from the Jean Charles de Menezes' Family Campaign, said the family had witnessed a "Laurel and Hardy police operation" in recent weeks.

She said there were three issues to consider, the first being the "shoot-to-kill policy", and the second the "incompetence of the police on the day".

"Thirdly the attempted cover-up and misleading by Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police and with government officials colluding with this," she said.

She urged supporters to attend a vigil to be held outside 10 Downing Street at 1800 BST (1700 GMT) on Monday. [BBC]

The Antagonist also urges anyone with a conscience, a sense of justice, and the desire to know the truth behind the brutal slaying of an innocent man to attend.

That the BBC felt the need to include two different start times for the event would perhaps suggest that they might be trying to confuse readers as to when they are expected to turn up in order to pay their respects to Jean Charles de Menezes and show their support for their family and their quest for justice.

The two differing start times are reproduced above as a shining example of very subtle tactics deployed to interfere with the right of people to organise and seek justice by those who have other interests at heart.

Since the London blasts of 7 July, the BBC have really allowed their true colours to show.

In order to ensure that there is no element of doubt about the start time of the vigil for Jean Charles de Menezes on Monday 22 August outside Downing Street, The Antagonist would like to confirm that the start time is 6pm.

18 August 2005

Mark Whitby - A Bit of Background

"Mark Whitby, a journalist who was present at the London subway that morning, gave chilling witness to what transpired. According to what he said, when he felt cornered, Jean Charles screamed — “he looked like a cornered rabbit,” said Whitby — shortly before receiving several bullets to the face."

Source: Worldpress

Another journalist telling more stories which, again, turn out to be lies of extreme proportions.

The BBC hasn't ever reported anything by Mark Whitby if a search of their news web site is anything to go by, not even the full eye witness report of Mark Whitby, suggesting a new search engine might be in order.

Luckily, Google is slightly more useful.

The Metropolitan Police pitched against the IPCC, mixed with the world's media, all involved in a battle where integrity was nowhere to be seen until the IPCC inquiry information started leaking.

Gareth Peirce and Harriet Wistrich, The Antagonist wishes you all the very best in your quest for truth and justice.

de Menezes: Police Removed CCTV Disks

The BBC has just floated the notion that the lack of CCTV footage from 22 July appears to be due to police removing the CCTV camera disks the day before Jean Charles de Menezes was summarily executed.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

The truth is far stranger than any fiction.

For all those that will come saying, "They were investigating 21 July and had to remove the disks," the deal is, you replace the disks with new ones otherwise there is no point in having CCTV at all. Which, as they've proved yet again, there isn't.

Moving swiftly along

An Open Letter to the British Media

The Antagonist has received a copy of an email sent today by Bridget Dunne to the editors of numerous media organisations in the UK including the BBC, Guardian, Independent and others.

The Antagonist is republishing the letter here, in full, for anyone else that also wishes to take the editors of the media institutions that have allowed the lies surrounding the murder of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes to continue, without question, until the timely leak of documents that exposed the lies for what they were.

If readers feel motivated enough to contact the media institutions for themselves, please feel free to post the responses and findings of your efforts in the comments to this post.

There is much unrest in the den of snakes. The time is now.

Bridget's open letter to the media, in full:

Now that some of the facts are emerging into the events that led to the assassination of Jean Charles de Menezes, we can start to ask similar questions about the events in London on the 7th and 21st July.

The paucity of evidence from 7th July, one CCTV image from Luton station and supposed discovery of personal documents at all of the sites, has been allowed to go unchallenged by the main stream media.

I have had a fruitless search for any further evidence, such as, what times did these trains leave Kings Cross? One small simple fact that would have aided in any genuine investigation and appeal for witnesses.

Was it just a coincidence that Peter Power of Visor Consultants conducted a security drill using those exact locations on the morning of 7th July (Radio 5 live). I have seen no interviews asking him about this, yet he has appeared at least twice on BBC's Newsnight to offer up his opinion on locking up suspects without charge for up to 3 months. Why?

If lies have been told about one event why should we believe anything else that we have been told? Just to remind those in power, you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

We need to start asking these questions,

Yours Faithfully

Ms Bridget Dunne

17 August 2005

Antagonist Aside

Jeffrey Feldman, Frameshop.

Cindy Sheehan has done much more than galvanize the anti-war movement; she signals a political tidal wave soon to crash down on the President's foreign policy.

Source: Alternet

Antagonist Aside: If Cindy Sheehan, and other Grieving Moms of her ilk, had the foresight to persuade their offspring that there were better options than signing-up, there would be no war. No political tidal wave required.

Snowmail - The Good Bits

Channel 4 newsreaders are exhibiting a degree of being imbued with the power of accurate observation:
Death of an innocent man

More leads today on the leaked information suggesting the Metropolitan Police bungling the operation which resulted in the shooting dead of an innocent man suspected of being a tube bomber.

Jean Charles de Menezes was repeatedly shot through the head at point blank range whilst being held down by another undercover officer. It looks like a very deep mess for police and has sparked calls for Commissioner Sir Ian Blair to resign.

We have asked for an interview but unsurprisingly, the Scotland Yard press office is declining all bids just now.

Further, the Yard has admitted in a statement that they wanted the Police Complaints investigation to be delayed into this shooting, but that had been overruled by Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary. We'll have more as we get it.

Nice to know AT's not surprised that no interviews are forthcoming from the people that shouted 'Yay! We shot a terrorist!' minutes after de Menezes murder and who now hide behind unaccountable silences, non-appearances and placatory press releases.

Like a phoenix from a fire the signal has, to some degree, appeared in among the noise surrounding the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes.

They shot an innocent man and then tried to delay the IPCC investigation.

Clarke, for once, did something right.

Interesting also to note how news stories are saying that Ian Blair was 'wrong' in his statements when, in fact, he lied.

Jean Charles de Menezes - Murder, Lies & A Massive Cover-up

Update April 2006: Did Ian Blair know an innocent man had been killed? See Ian Blair 'clear' (aka 'Liar'). See also, "de Menezes Murder: IPCC report leaks more evidence of a cover up" and "de Menezes Murder: IPCC Investigation Number 2".

Jean Charles de Menezes - Murder, Lies & A Massive Cover-up

A cascade of blatant lies from the very top down -- from Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair to the trigger-happy plain-clothes CO19/SO19 officers -- have now been exposed as a cover-up of an horrific catalogue of failures that led to the police-murder of an innocent Brazilian man at Stockwell Underground station.

Damning witness reports, police statements, and photographs of the aftermath of the murder of innocent Jean Charles de Menezes on 22 July have been leaked from the IPCC investigation into the incident, finally exposing the lies designed to cover up a series of catastrophic failings in police procedure, intelligence and basic common sense.

The de Menezes Murder - The Facts

The facts about the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes such as they slowly and disparately appeared in various news reports since 22 July have now flooded into the public domain, courtesy of ITV News, with full confirmation of the extent of the incompetence demonstrated at every level of the police, security and intelligence services.

Here are a few of the initial stories (read: blatant lies) that were spun and which had already been proven to be false:

  • de Menezes was not an illegal immigrant, or an illegal electrician.

  • de Menezes did not vault over ticket barriers.

  • de Menezes was not carrying a bag, or wearing a rucksack.

  • de Menezes, horrifically, was not challenged by police.

  • de Menezes did not run from the police that did not challenge him.

  • de Menezes was not wearing a padded jacket that concealed a bomb, but instead a denim jacket that concealed nothing.

  • de Menezes was not wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out of it" as described by Anthony Larkin, a possible Metropolitan Police Forensic scientist who, coincidentally, gave the only statement that would provide, albeit tenuously, some justification for the shooting.

Some more facts that have emerged with the leaked documents:

  • de Menezes was not positively identified at any point during the surveillance operation, save for a last-minute and totally incorrect 'positive ID' that resulted in his murder by two plain-clothes police officers.

  • de Menezes flat was staked out by a surveillance team, complete with an armed response unit, all with orders to not allow de Menezes to enter the Underground system.

  • Channel 4 News said that Flat 21 was under surveillance. de Menezes lived in Flat 17.

  • de Menezes did not know he was under surveillance by armed police.

  • The officer charged with operating the camera trained on the front door of the flats was preoccupied with relieving himself so no positive identification was made.

  • de Menezes was allowed to board a Number 2 bus to Stockwell station. Odd considering the instructions were to stop him as soon as possible. That the surveillance and armed units outside the block of flats in which de Menezes lived did not stop him when he exited the block flats, nor before he boarded the bus, much less entering the Underground system, raises far more questions than it answers.

  • de Menezes entered the Underground system using his Oyster Card, not by leaping over ticket barriers.

  • de Menezes was not in a hurry and was walking at a normal pace.

  • de Menezes descended to the train platform in a perfectly normal manner, stopping along the way to pick up a free newspaper.

  • At no point did the plain clothes and armed officers identify themselves to de Menezes.

  • de Menezes boarded a train and found a seat before he was bundled and bear-hugged by one officer, reported as being a lone surveillance officer, as others launched a barrage of bullets at the innocent man. Who was the lone surveillance officer?

  • A total of 10 shots were fired by two officers.

  • Of the 10 shots that were fired, 7 were fired by one shooter and 3 by another.

  • 8 of the bullets hit the innocent target, 7 in the head and one in the shoulder.

  • 'Mongolian eyes' made de Menezes a target in the absence of a positive ID.

A Catastrophic Collection of Failures At All Levels

The surveillance operation which involved various police and intelligence services, including the Special Reconnaissance Regiment which was only set-up in April of this year, and their involvement in the killing of de Menezes provides us with some testament as to quite how 'special' their 'reconnaissance' abilities are and how well the intelligence and security services work when required.

A senior police source last night told the Guardian that the leaked documents and statements gave an accurate picture of what was known so far about the shooting.

The IPCC stated: "Our priority is to disclose any findings direct to the family, who will clearly be distressed that they have received information on television concerning his death."

Perhaps they should have been a bit quicker off the mark as the de Menezes family have already announced their complete loss of confidence in the police investigation. It wasn't enough to take from them a beloved family member, now the authorities are adding further insult to injury.

As every single authority that has been indicted by these leaked documents declines to comment on their damning indictment, the evidence for abandoning the recently implemented shoot-to-kill policy, disarming the police further, and removing the powers that allow them to shoot innocent people is now stronger than ever.

Update: Channel 4 News report from last night is online and downloadable for offline viewing [Windows Media File].

Update April 2006: Did Ian Blair know an innocent man had been killed? See Ian Blair 'clear' (aka 'Liar'). See also, "de Menezes Murder: IPCC report leaks more evidence of a cover up" and "de Menezes Murder: IPCC Investigation Number 2".

16 August 2005

Charles Clarke on the Today Programme

Charles Clarke was once again made to face John Humphries on the Radio 4 Today Programme this morning. The BBC report of the interview between a great mind and a cabinet weasel has been written up for the BBC News web site, except the BBC write-up isn't quite the full story.

In fact, from the off, it tells precious little about the nature of the interview in which Humphreys had Clarke on the run from the off.

According to BBC News headline, "Clarke believes bombings linked".

Is that what he said? Well, no, of course it's not otherwise it wouldn't be 'news'.

What he actually said, and in response to whether or not evidence to support a link was available:
"Evidence in the judicial sense? No, we don't, er....

[Interjection from Humphreys: Do you believe they were linked in any way?]

I think it would be very, very surprising if they weren't linked in some way, but, er, the word that we used earlier, 'evidence' is... is an issue.

There is not a direct linkage yet formally established to be able to make that assertion, er, directly"

This doesn't mean that Clarke believes there is a link, just that he would be surprised if there wasn't one. End of story.

Mr Clarke, Mr Clarke, if there ain't no, er, that word we used earlier, er, evidence, there ain't no link.

Wouldn't it be reassuring to think that members of the cabinet at least had the common decency to keep with one of the precious few facts of 7 and 21 July as reported by at least one broadsheet in the last few days?

The interview concluded with Humphreys looking to gauge Clarke's position on free speech - as if any government elected by only 20% of the voting public would support any form of free speech - and Clarke delivered the goods:

"Of course [everybody's free speech is the same], er, er, and er, the, and that's an absolute issue.

But I also think speech has implications and that's what has to be examined and that's how we deal with it."

And with those words journalists, editors, bloggers and anyone else that has the ability to speak is tipped off as to what is already happening with regard to how we will all be 'dealt with' in future in the allegedly free and democratic UK.

15 August 2005

The Antagonist's Neo-Con Comment

Via MediaPost:
"The U.S. Army has reissued request for proposals for its ad contract, estimated at $200 million."

The Antagonist's Neo-Con comment:
"Fuck that! Re-introduce conscription and spend $200 million more on bombs, there's a whole world out here to annihilate!"

London Blasts: A fact emerges

In a slightly misleading headline that purported to bring readers of the Independent the truth about events of 7 and 21 July, Saturday's Independent ran with the following headline and story:

London bombings: the truth emerges
By Jason Bennetto and Ian Herbert
Published: 13 August 2005

The suicide cell that killed 52 people on 7 July is not linked to those alleged to be behind the second London attacks on 21 July, according to the initial findings of the biggest anti-terrorist investigation held in Britain.

An investigation into the four suicide bombers from the first attacks and the people alleged to be behind the July 21 plot has found no evidence of any al-Qa'ida "mastermind" or senior organiser. The inquiry involved MI5, MI6, the listening centre at GCHQ, and the police.

Source: Independent

To presume that an 800 word article could even begin to explain the truth behind events in London during the month of July 2005 - despite the overtly sensationalist headline - is to insult further the memories of all those who died on 7 July.

In fact, what the headline probably meant to say was, "London bombings: a fact emerges."

The only bit of information that the Independent article offers in the form of any sort of 'truth' is the categorical statement of a total absence of any links between the the events of 7 July, which killed 56 people, and the events of 21 July, when no bombs went off and nobody died but which has since become the focus of attention for reasons that are somewhat difficult to fathom.

No Link Between 7/7 and 21/7

That there is no link between the events of 7/7 and 21/7 will come as no surprise to regular readers of The Antagonist who will be only too aware that the survivor and eye-witness accounts from the day of 7/7 support heartily MetroNet Rail's original explanation of power surges for the disasters on the Underground, as reported to all passengers on the Underground and the world's media at the time of the events.

"But wait", The Antagonist can hear you cry, "What about the Number 30 bus that exploded?"

What a very good question! And one to which you'll find the answer, and much more, in The Antagonist's round-up of the events of 7/7.

14 August 2005

It is not only Iraq that is occupied. America is too

On Friday the Guardian re-printed an article from Le Monde Diplomatique by Howard Zinn, an American professor emeritus of political science at Boston University, in which he stated:
"My country is in the grip of a president surrounded by thugs in suits"

Putting aside for a moment the questionable term of 'president', The Antagonist believes this statement needs a little embellishment for the Guardian's predominantly UK audience:
"America is in the grip of a thug surrounded by thugs in suits in just the same way the UK is in the vice-like grip of a lackey-thug surrounded by thugs in suits."

What goes around, comes around.

For the approximately 80% of the UK that didn't vote for Tony Blair in the May elections of this year, Zinn offers pointers to the only way forward:
"Our faith is that human beings only support violence and terror when they have been lied to. And when they learn the truth, as happened in the course of the Vietnam war, they will turn against the government. We have the support of the rest of the world. The US cannot indefinitely ignore the 10 million people who protested around the world on February 15 2003.

There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress."

13 August 2005

Just when you thought it was safe...

Everything you think you know is a lie. So is all the evidence that supports what you think you know. So is all the evidence that counters what you think you know.

Confused? Good! A position of inherent confusion about everything is the only sensible place from which to start asking questions.

The Antagonist has been hanging fire on posting anything about this story for a while but, seeing as breakfornews.com has been offline for a good few hours today, now is the time publish and be damned.

BreakForNews and WagNews recently ran a story, The CIA's Internet Fakes, leveling accusations at a really long list of 'alternative' 'news' 'sources' for being the result of the same government conspiracies of control and misinformation that lead the conventional media to be full of nonsense also.

Breakfornews.com's Fintan Dunne explains the results of his investigation into the sources of information that contradict, or give lie to, whatever the dominant media paradigm might be. E.g. the sources of the sort of information that isn't in full support of government and corporate agendas and that might cause you to question stories and events as reported through the mainstream news channels. These sources of information, he claims are, at least in part, as redundant as the official stories of events because the information sources are the same as the official sources, only covert, and presented with an 'alternative' and truth-seeking spin.

The concept is a very interesting one and one that needed attention drawn to it publicly before anyone becomes a little too reliant on any single source of information - mainstream, alternative, or otherwise.

The Antagonist has no idea of the specifics of the research, explained further at WagNews, but the tactics which underlie the theory of floating contrary mis-information balloons and seeing how that information spreads, and to whom, is perfectly and totally sound. When these mis-information balloons are floated via 'alternative' Internet media sources, say in relation to NY 9/11 or London 7/7, their purpose is solely to divert from the actual truth while seemingly questioning the official version of events and purporting to offer some sort of greater truth than that which was previously available.

Tracking how these bits of mis-information then spread across the Internet is a fairly trivial task, especially if you understand anything about the nature of international gateways and innocuous-looking sniffer boxes strategically located across the world's Internet infrastructure. This information tracking and profiling process can then be used to flag up the ever increasing number of people who aren't buying the official stories while simultaneously serving the original purpose of leading the questioners down paths that avoid the truth.

To quote Fintan Dunne:

Here's a quote from a recent article on the UK Guardian:

"The Chinese government, employs an estimated 30,000 internet police, as part of a long-standing policy to control the web so that it can be used by businesses but not by political opponents."

Think the ideology and practice of the USA would be any different? Of course not. Just well cloaked under a veneer of free expression.

The logic behind the misinformation and profiling techniques is flawless.

With BreakForNews' public breaking of the story that there exists evidence to support the deployment of this misinformation technique via alternative news sources to further mislead an already misled public, the time for everyone to believe nothing and question everything has finally arrived.

9/11 Footage, Audio & Documents Ready to Roll a Few Myths

The New York Times has successfully used America's Freedom of Information laws to obtain the release of a wealth of documents in relation to the events of New York, 11 September 2001. Quite why it takes such a gargantuan effort for people to obtain any information about such public events in supposedly free and democratic countries is beyond the scope of this post but is worth a mention all the same.

The task of sifting through the data released now begins in earnest for the survivors, the families of those that died on the day - many of whom have vocally protested their disbelief at the official version of events - and anyone else who believes that there is a little more to the 9/11 story than meets the eye.

The Antagonist
hasn't had a chance to sift through all the documents and audio but will be reporting back anything of note as and when it crops up.

What are the chances of them having released the interview with the New York Fire Chief on the day of 9/11 where he announced that he lost his fire crews to secondary explosions inside the towers that were entirely unrelated to the planes that had crashed into the upper floors?

A string of recent events; the launch of Tim Ireland's Political Weblog Project, the release of documents about the IndyMedia server seizures, and the NY Times FOI release of the 9/11 documents has set The Antagonist thinking about a number of things, of which, much more later.

12 August 2005

Blair Snubs Cook's Funeral

From Krishnan's Snowmail of today:
Robin Cook's funeral was a stunning occasion. A wonderfully crafted eulogy by Gordon Brown, beautiful music, humorous speeches and 'car crash' moment of controversy as racing pundit John McCririck laid into Tony Blair for not breaking his holiday and attending the funeral. Some outside burst into applause, others have condemned the outburst as totally inappropriate. We will bring you the high points of the day from Edinburgh - and Mr McCririck will join us to answer whether it was the right time and place for such a speech.

The Antagonist is still applauding McCririck for saying what needed to be said and lauds Channel 4 news for also giving the eccentric racing pundit a forum to rightly condemn Blair's malicious no-show today.

Then again, would you want Blair at your funeral?

The Political Weblog Project

The tireless Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads yesterday launched the Political Weblog Project in a drive to drag a few more MPs into the information age.

They work for you, write to them and point them in the right direction.

11 August 2005

Ask the questions and you shall find the answers...

In response to the question posed on this very blog just a few hours ago:
"How much more evidence supporting the original MetroNet power surge story of 7 July does anyone need before anyone dares to investigate it further?"

The answer has come - rather more quickly than anticipated and courtesy, once again, of the inspiring Bridget Dunne - in the form of an article on the Press Gazette web site, reproduced here in case it disappears:

TMS sends journalists home on biggest news day of year

Published: Thursday, July 14, 2005
By Alyson Fixter

Journalists at more than 60 weekly newspapers were banned from going out to report on the London bombings last Thursday amid fears for their safety – even though some were as far away as Kent and Buckinghamshire.

Staff at Trinity Mirror Southern titles – including the South London Press, The Wharf, the Croydon Advertiser, the Reading Chronicle and even the Whitstable & Herne Bay Times series – received an order to come back to the office or go straight home on Thursday afternoon.

A member of staff who contacted Press Gazette said the decision "went down like a lead balloon" in newsrooms as even journalists who were on jobs unrelated to the bombing, miles from London, were recalled.

The email, which was sent to all TMS newsdesk staff at 12.22pm by edi- torial director Marc Reeves, said: "Staff safety is the NUMBER ONE priority at this time.

"Please call back into the office anyone out in the field whether on bombrelated stories or not. Alternatively, send them home if they are closer.

"For staff in the office, take a view based on local police advice whether and when to send them home.

"You must account for every member of staff under your care today."

A reporter at one of the weekly papers, who asked not to be named, said: "Even reporters covering village fetes out in the middle of nowhere had to go home.

"With some of the orders we get, it has long been believed that Trinity Mirror head honchos forget that we actually work hard to produce local newspapers, and this one just about summed it up.

"During the biggest story of the year,London TMS reporters and photographers were recalled to their offices and then sent home as their offices were shut."

A spokesman for Trinity Mirror Southern said: "Every TMS title is a weekly, and the deadlines for all but three had passed. Those that hadn't gone to press already had extensive coverage of the morning's events filed.

"Therefore, after consulting with senior editors from across TMS, the managing director and editorial director took the view that there was no immediate need for employees to be out on the streets.

"They decided the responsible course of action was to recall all field staff to their offices or to send them home."

Journalists told to refrain from covering the story, eye-witnesses and survivors prevented by police from giving television and radio interviews just moments before they were due to go on air, and still there are people who don't smell a rat.

Breaking News: British Airways Heathrow Chaos

In a beautiful demonstration of people power in the face of corporations and governments that don't give a shit about anything other than profit and control, BA workers at Heathrow have walked out in support of the 500 sacked Gate Gourmet staff.

When everyone has walked out and stopped supporting the unjust practices of those we have no power over individually, only then will change occur. Long may it continue.

The Antagonist wishes all those at Gate Gourmet who were sacked, along with all those at BA staff that walked out in sympathy, the very best of British luck.

Update: 20:20 The BBC News web site has finally caught up with The Antagonist and published further details of the workers' struggle at Heathrow.

Another 7/7 Survivor Supports MetroNet Power Surge Story

Quoting from The Antagonist's own LiveBlog of the events of 7 July 2005, and picking up on something that escaped even The Antagonist's watchful eye for rather longer than it should have done, the survivor account of Justin at pfff.co.uk:
18:47: Another eye-witness account of the Edgware Road incident citing electrical malfunction as the source of the explosions (via Nosemonkey):
The train left the tracks and started to rumble down the tunnel. It was incapable of stopping and just rolled on. A series of explosions followed as if tube electric motor after motor was exploding.

Each explosion shook the train in the air and seems to make it land at a lower point.

I fell to the ground like most people, scrunched up in a ball in minimize injury. At this point I wondered if the train would ever stop, I thought "please make it stop", but it kept going. In the end I just wished that it didn't hit something and crush. It didn't.

When the train came to a standstill people were screaming, but mainly due to panic as the carriage was rapidly filling with smoke and the smell of burning motors was giving clear clues of fire.

1. What was the train doing leaving the tracks before a series of explosions occurred? Of course, we all know it's not the first time MetroNet have derailed tube trains, so it is interesting that the train is reported as being off the rails before any explosions were heard.

2. "A series of explosions followed [the train leaving the tracks] as if tube electric motor after motor was exploding". Which is a pretty accurate description of what might occur based on MetroNet's original story of power surges.

3. "The smell of burning motors." Yet again supporting MetroNet's original power surge that the world now finds so difficult to believe.

How much more evidence supporting the original MetroNet power surge story of 7 July does anyone need before anyone dares to investigate it further?

A number of mainstream media sources are regular readers of The Antagonist's blog, yet despite the huge volume of evidence that gives lie to the notion of a terrorist attack on London, no mainstream media source has yet dared even hint that the power surge story might be true.

The Antagonist has a sneaking suspicion that the recalcitrance of the mainstream media to pick up on the original, and admittedly rather less exciting, story of yet another fatal accident on the Underground so far down the line would be to admit to the world that, for over a month now, they have done nothing other than spin lies, rumour, speculation and conjecture to create a world of hysteria into which far too many people have been led.

Then factor in to the equation that if the media did decide to pursue the incredulous notion that MetroNet were telling the truth when they announced to passengers, and the world, that there had been power surges on the Underground, not only do the media destroy their own already tarnished and practically worthless reputations, but they also take with them the rapidly diminishing credibility and reputations of the Metropolitan Police and the government that hides behind them.

It'll be a cold day in hell before that happens. Luckily, all the evidence is out there for the rest of us to decide for ourselves that something just isn't it right with the 'official' media version of events on 7 July.

Climate warning as Siberia melts

"THE world's largest frozen peat bog is melting. An area stretching for a million square kilometres across the permafrost of western Siberia is turning into a mass of shallow lakes as the ground melts, according to Russian researchers just back from the region.

The sudden melting of a bog the size of France and Germany combined could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere."

Now that the Space Shuttle Discovery has anded safely at Edwards Air Force base, who else noticed the brilliant irony of America declaring their own mini-version of the Kyoto Protocol, along with five other APAC countries, on exactly the same day as another troubled space shuttle launch forced them to realise nobody is living anywhere other than this blue-green planet of ours for a little while yet?

Gate Gourmet sacks 500 workers

Workers at Gate Gourmet, a struggling international airline catering company were having a few issues with workers getting ideas above their station and demanding that they have some sort of employment rights.

Gate Gourmet cleverly hired 130 'seasonal workers' (read: 'cheap labour to whom there are no contractual obligations') at a time when permanent staff had been facing the prospect of redundancy for some months. Understandably miffed about being told there were no jobs for them at the same time as casual labour was being hired, about 350 workers walked out in an impromptu strike.

Gate gourmet sacked them all.

Then, when the afternoon shift turned up for work unaware of what had happened that morning, they too were also sacked in the confusion. The Antagonist would like to report that the managers then sacked themselves and committed Hari Kari but, as yet, that hasn't happened.

In the resulting chaos, passengers on 40 long-haul British Airways flights on the day were forced to fly without in-flight meals. Poor dears. 500 ex-Gate Gourmet workers and their families may have to sit at home without in-house meals but that's obviously not the issue when the comfort of airline passengers is at stake. That most of these passengers were attempting to escape for one or two of the three or four weeks they work 11 months of the year to be allowed to have to themselves is generally not a factor for consideration in these situations but The Antagonist is partial to mentioning the unmentionable every now and then.

The Gate Gourmet web site, proudly proclaims, "Welcome Onboard - Above the Wing and Around the World!" The Antagonist can only presume that Gate Gourmet management have been far too busy sacking people to worry about changing this to, "Bye Bye - Below the Belt and Bowing to Bankruptcy!"

How does this mass-sacking of staff get reported in the media? Let's take a look at a few of the world's headlines:

Eight stories about poor passengers with no in-flight meals, and no mention of the sacking of 500 employees in any of the headlines. Bringing up the rear, we have:

500 people sacked and only two stories out of ten search results which contain any reference to the mass-sacking in their headlines, thereby making the details about the sacking 'visible' only to anyone vacuous enough to care about whether BA passengers are fed an in-flight meal or not.

This technique of using headlines that focus on side-issues, rather than the issue at the heart of the matter, is used to great effect to hide the real issues, shape public opinion and then the nature of acceptable public debate that ensues.

Watch out for it, it's everywhere.

10 August 2005

Bush Signs $286.4-Billion Highway Bill

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, please be seated. (Applause.)

Thanks. Thanks for the warm welcome. It's such an honor to be here at Caterpillar. I want to thank the men and women who build the machinery here. I want to thank you for your hard work. I want to thank you for your -- for putting out a great product.

And I'm here to sign the highway bill because I believe by signing this bill, when it's fully implemented, there's going to be more demand for the machines you make here. (Applause.)

Source: Whitehouse

In other words, "Hey guys, we've secured continuity of oil supply, Iran's up next, now let's build some more of those lovely roads."

Pass the sick bag.

Channel 4 News, Wednesday, 10 August

A couple of excerpts from today's Snowmail in relation to items scheduled to appear Channel 4 news tonight:
Going to extremes

We have a revealing investigation into one of the July 7th suicide bombers. Jamal Lindsay is the one who came from Jamaica, grew up in Huddersfield and blew himself up in the attack between Russell Square and Kings Cross stations. Twenty six other people were killed. Dozens more were injured.

Our reporter John Sparks has gained some valuable insights into how Lindsay's extremism developed. Won't say too much more now - partly because I haven't seen it myself yet. But from what I hear it sounds good.

The Antagonist will be keeping a close eye on this one.

Also on tonight's Channel 4 News:
Targeting the City

I've also been talking to the Commissioner of the City of London Police James Hart on why he thinks an attack on the financial heartland of Britain is only a matter of time. Is this based on specific intelligence? What attacks have they thwarted to date? What should the City be doing about it?

Hart appeared on Radio 4 earlier today and admitted his claims were based on no intelligence at all, demonstrating that his scaremongering tactics are designed to achieve nothing more than kick-starting an overly lax British industry into a unified mass of disaster recovery plans and associated spending to jump-start a flagging economy.


How the world works

William Shakespeare is often quoted as having written,
"All the world is a stage."

Someone once asked,
"If the world is a stage, where does the audience sit?"

The Antagonist says,
"There is no audience, just a stage."

If you understand that, you understand how the world works.

The full Shakespeare quote is:
"All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and entrances; each man in his time plays many parts."
William Shakespeare

If you understand how the full quote was bastardised into the innocuous phrase,'The world is a stage", you have even further insight into the way the world works.

London 7/7: Lest we forget

Update: For detailed and in depth analysis of the events that occurred in London on 7th July 2005, please see the web site of J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign. Please also sign the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition which calls on the British government to release the evidence that will conclusively prove or disprove, beyond reasonable doubt, the official story of what happened on 7/7.

For a full analysis of the simultaneous anti-terror rehearsal drill referred to in this post, the drill that was being conducted by Peter Power and Visor Consultants on 7/7 please see here.
"there could have been had [sic] a power surge which could have had quite catastrophic casualty levels.
We have always been aware of that on the Underground."

: Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone
March 1st 2006 [PDF source]

The Antagonist has written extensively since the events of London 7/7 in relation to what occurred that day and in so doing has documented an alarming number of discrepancies between the 'official' story of multiple terrorist bombs going off in London and what actually appears to have happened.

On the day of 7/7, The Antagonist was intrigued by how the original story of two devastating power surges on the London Underground turned after a number of hours into one of international terrorism and set about investigating further.

The results of this investigation seem to directly contradict the 'official' stories of events and are based on nothing other than publicly available and verifiable sources of information. So, without further ado, The Antagonist presents links to the manifold 7/7-inspired musings on Anything that defies my sense of reason....

As ever, comments, constructive criticism and additional information welcome. In reverse-chronological order of posting:

  • London 7/7: How to Be Good - Part 1
  • - If you only read one article on this blog about the events of July 7th then, for now, make it this one. A study of the generally accepted narrative of events, the evidence to support that narrative, along with the facts about the movements of the trains on July 7th - as confirmed by independent public researchers - and how these facts relate to the generally accepted narrative.

  • London 7/7: TFL, Clarke Says No to Public Inquiry
  • - The call for a people's inquiry into July 7th. With the government's renewed confirmation that there will be no public inquiry into 7 July comes the overpowering message to the British people, clearer than ever before - if you want any sort of inquiry, any semblance of truth and, ultimately, any justice for what happened in London on 7 July, you're going to have to do it yourself.

  • London 7/7: TFL, TrackerNet Images & Evidence Removal
  • - Transport for London published TrackerNet schematic images that showed the movements of the bombed trains on the morning of 7 July. These images have since disappeared from the TFL image gallery even though the TFL press release which announced the publication of the images still references them. Why?

  • The Dummy Dummy-Run
  • - CCTV footage of the alleged bombers was released and reported as being a rehearsal for the events of 7/7. Only three of alleged turned up that morning and the rest of their journey has no correlation with that reported for 7 July so what exactly were these guys rehearsing?

  • London 7/7: Number 30 Bus Explosion in Tavistock Square - Photos & Questions
  • - The number 30 bus that exploded some 60 or so minutes after the incidents on the trains is being used to tie the whole notion of a co-ordinated terrorist attack on London. Was the exploded bus lifted from the 1,000 man anti-terrorist rehearsal operation that Peter Power admitted to organising in a Radio 5 interview on the evening of the Underground incidents?

  • Another 7/7 Survivor Supports MetroNet Power Surge Story
  • - The Edgware Road underground train left the tracks before any bangs were heard indicating that something other than bombs caused the train to derail. And, if there were bombs on the trains, why is the description of the bangs that followed the derailing described as 'A series of explosions || as if tube electric motor after motor was exploding'?

  • The 7 July Trinity Mirror Media Blackout
  • - 7 July, 2005 - The Biggest newsday of the year in the UK. So, why were "Journalists at more than 60 Staff at Trinity Mirror Southern weekly newspapers || banned from going out to report on the London bombings || even though some were as far away as Kent and Buckinghamshire"? Which other organisations were ordered to stay away?

  • Blair Rejected Inquiry into 7/7
  • - Just days after the events of 7/7 and before the media circus had run entirely out of control, Blair had already refused a government inquiry into the deaths of 56 people. Why and how can this be possible given that we are being told that events of the day were the work of terrorists?

  • The Number 30 Bus explosion - The Kicker
  • - A summary of the considerable number of anomalies about the Number 30 bus which was diverted into Tavistock Square and then exploded leaving rather too many people left standing on the top deck looking otherwise unharmed by a blast powerful enough to lift the roof clean off the bus.

  • Anthony Larkin: Rentaquote & London Terror
  • - Was the only person to report Jean Charles de Menezes as wearing a 'bomb belt with wires coming out' in the employ of the Metropolitan Police?

  • In Response to Bridget Dunne
  • - An article outlining the events of the day based solely on the facts such as they were immediately after the Number 30 bus exploded in Tavistock Square, explaining the origins of the exploded bus that ties together the whole notion of a terror attack on London.

  • Peter Power Responds, So Does The Antagonist
  • - Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants issued a statement about the 1,000 man security rehearsal operation that he was responsible for organising on the day of 7/7 and from which it would appear that the exploded bus was lifted in order to create a story of terrorism instead of one of corporate manslaughter on the Underground.

  • Three Tube Trains & One London Bus - Part Deux
  • - 21 July, 2005. The day when no bombs went off on any trains or buses in London and nobody was killed. The same day that is now the focus of media coverage instead of 7/7 when 56 people died.

  • Visor Consultants, Fortress GB & ICTS (UK) Ltd
  • - Details of the transport security companies that may have been responsible for commissioning Peter Power's Visor Consultants to conduct the 1,000 person security rehearsal operation in Central London that may have occurred outside their offices in Tavistock Square, right next door to the headquarters of the British Transport Police.

  • Ian Blair: "I'm not saying there are four bombers"
  • - Metropolitan Police Commissioner retracts a statement containing the word 'bombers', presumably because there was no evidence to support him stating that there were any bombers. And, if there was evidence to support the notion of bombers, why would he retract the statement?

  • London Blasts, A Possible Explanation
  • - The Antagonist's original article outlining how the train incidents and the bus were always two entirely separate stories.

  • London Underground Bombing 'Exercises' Took Place at Same Time as Real Attack
  • - Ex-Scotland Yard Anti-Terror operative, Peter Power, reveals details of his crisis management firm's 1,000 person anti-terrorist rehearsal scenario organised for Central London on the morning of 7/7. Incudes links to the audio downloads of Power's Radio 5 Live interview.

  • Blast Survivor Discrepancies
  • - MetroNet originally reported that the problems on the Underground were as a result of two power surges. The eye-witness accounts of survivors of these incidents support perfectly the notion of power surges.

  • London Comments - The Antagonist responds
  • - They were sent in their droves in an attempt to debunk The Antagonist's theory of events on 7/7. Read how they failed miserably in their efforts.

  • 7/7 - Original LiveBlog Coverage
  • - The Antagonist's original LiveBlog of 7/7 as it happened.

08 August 2005

No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority

More arrests took place outside Parliament yesterday as about 100 people gathered to protest against the Serious Organised Crime And Police Act (or, SOCrAP Act - does nobody ever take into account the creative acronym-antagonism potential of these silly acts when naming them, or is the notion of Thoughtcrime not that refined yet?)

Parts of the act came into force last month and ban demonstrations within a half-mile radius of Parliament unless prior permission is obtained from police a week in advance.

The arrests yesterday were in addition to those that occurred last Monday during the Stop The War Coalition's defence of the freedom to assemble which others joined in opposition of SOCrAP [BBC | Guardian | Bloggerheads].

As with Monday's protest, the police were once again acting as their own propaganda machine, the BBC noting, "officers had been handing out leaflets warning demonstrators that they were in violation of the law." Apart from loving the inherent ambiguity of the BBC's observation, The Antagonist can only wonder if these were copies of the same law-breaking leaflets that the police had been handing out at Monday's demonstration.

Speaking yesterday about the protests, long time protestor Brian Haw, whose four-year Parliament vigil predates the SOCrAP Act that was, at least in part, designed to oust Mr Haw's presence from outside Parliament, said:
I'm the last of the Mohicans, I'm the last of the Great British.

My fellow compatriots have been denied a voice. I'm outraged by this, I'm outraged that the police are busy chasing old ladies with peace signs down Whitehall when there are bombs going off in London.

Under the terms of the act, assembling within the designated protest zone is now a criminal offence and must first be sanctioned by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at least six days in advance of the protest or, if not "reasonably practicable", 24 hours in advance. Failure to do so will result in any 'unauthorised' people assembling in the protest zone facing the prospect of removal, arrest or a fine of £1,000, none which are vaguely free at all.

The Parliamentary Beef

Armed only with little more information than outlined above, The Antagonist set about investigating further the nature and implications of SOCrAP, using as a basis for proceeding only the assertion of the European Court for Human Rights that 'freedom of assembly' is a:
fundamental right in a democracy and || is one of the foundations of such a society

Facts are always a good starting point, as keen readers of The Antagonist will have noted, so first up was a glance at a copy of the act (just 225 pages long) in conjunction with a burning desire to help the rest of us think a little more rationally about the country and the world which a largely unaccountable handful of people are creating around us without appropriate consultation or redress.

That doing so might also antagonise those who think nothing of removing our fundamental liberties is merely an added bonus.

The front page of the SOCrAP Act proudly proclaims:

Mr Secretary Blunkett has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
"In my view the provisions of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."

Immediately, SOCrAP is nonsense. As far as a blind man can see, SOCrAP and human rights are compatible. Little more really needs to be said but The Antagonist will continue undeterred.

Immediately, we have the opinion of one person - deficient to the tune of at least 20% in the human sense stakes - versus the opinion of at least several hundred people over the last week and many millions more if you account for other high profile events such as the march in opposition to the Iraq war.

That there already exist several million people in direct opposition to one who is meant to represent the views of those people seems a tad undemocratic. That this opposition of millions was known to exist way in advance of SOCRaP makes the imposition of these laws so undemocratic that it makes a mockery of the notion of democracy.

And we haven't even got past the front page of the SOCrAP Act yet!

A cursory glance at the contents and opening definitions of terms and criteria and the immediate conclusion is, "They can really fuck you up!" Further study does nothing to dispel this sentiment.

Section 123 (all together now, "One, two, three - we reclaim our liberty!"), and it's accompaniment, Section 124 ("One, two, four - is that Special Branch at the door?") of the SOCrAP Act are the ones that pertain to the eradication of civil liberties in the vicinity of the people's Parliament, and rather further too which, cunningly, includes arbitrarily sized and defined areas, created by the Home Secretary, outside of SOCrAP, at a whim.

We know Mr ex-Secretary Blunkett can't see us, but with the acute sense of hearing that develops with the loss of other senses, he must be able to hear us. At the very least the SOCrAP Act means we're all going to have to shout a little louder than before to make ourselves heard.

So be it.

Manipulating the Bounds of Acceptable Public Debate

Already there exist two distinct sides to the debate that will be allowed to perpetuate themselves in the media via sensationalist tabloid headlines, letters pages of the broadsheets and, of course, bloggers everywhere who, in the humble opinion of The Antagonist - barring very few notable exceptions - do little more than regurgitate the same myths as the 'old media' from which they source their information. While this debate goes some way to raising awareness, irrespective of people's opinions, none of it un-legislates the laws that have been passed, nor does it affect any new laws which are in the pipeline and integral to, but entirely external from, SOCrAP's scope.

The self-defeating nature of the ongoing diatribes that arise from maintaining two distinct sides of permanently contradictory debate, which apparently form the consensus of public opinion and which do nothing to change anything very much, is precisely why we're still allowed to have these debates.

On one side of the argument are the government who will claim, "we haven't removed the right to assemble, you just have to have permission to be, er, free to assemble", and on the other side are the people - over 99% of the country, lest we forget the staggering percentage of the population we comprise, most of whom aren't criminals or terrorists - upon whom the government has introduced additional legal impositions that further restrict the foundations of democracy.

It is worth remembering that the scope of SOCRaP is far greater than that of merely removing the right to assemble outside Parliament and, as such, loss of the rights to assemble must be understood within the context of a considerably larger, far more restrictive and invasive framework than the current noise in relation to milling about outside Parliament implies.

So what are the people to do about a demonstrably out-of-control British government, headed by a compulsive, evasive liar, that is rabidly and rapidly instituting laws that have already torn our essential liberties from us and which lay the foundations for police-state enforcement of laws against a public that is almost entirely innocent?

The Legitimisation of Creative Dissent

The Antagonist has long been of the belief that the ultimate winning move in any game situation is to not play the game. In this manner the framework of rules that dictate the way in which 'the game' is played are then rendered null and void because 'the game' is deficient in the required participants for it to function by its own rules.

The introduction of SOCRaP is perfectly in keeping with other governments around the world whose actions - both domestic and international - are dictated by the ongoing imposition of the new rules of law that underlie what some call a New World Order. These new rules of the game cleverly outline how none of us has any rights left to fight for the rights that those same rules remove.

Through the imposition of the SOCrAP, the government have shown their hand and stated categorically that the choice for the British Public, whether they are yet aware of it or not, is now one between that of 'choosing' to blindly follow imposed rules and regulations under the ever-increasingly watchful eyes of government, or that of 'choosing' to give up even more essential liberties than the rules, its watchers and its enforcers have already removed. That you might be one of 60 million or so who might have some objection to the subjective, totalitarian imposition of such rules in the name of 'democracy' is of no consequence to the rule makers.

This, you understand, is one of the rules of the game of law.

The game of law is fundamentally no different to any other game that we might choose to play only, somewhere along the line, we have forgotten that we have a choice over which games we play. What distinguishes the game of law from other games we might actively choose to participate in is the unnatural right assumed by those who dictate the rules that non-participation in the game is an offence punishable by the further removal of liberty and life. Whether or not the imposed rules are just, humane, or in the best interests of the general public is of no consequence to the rule makers.

This, you understand, is another of the rules of the game of law.

Understand too that it is a game. The law is nothing more than the power-play of the few in a bid to ensure the continued control of the many. At every turn, the rules of law are dictated by whatever lowest common denominator threat can be easily projected as the greatest challenge to established bases of power, control and the illusion of security. These lowest common denominators by which we all allow ourselves to be ruled are the very things from which practically 100% of us are so far removed that we assume the restrictions imposed by law on the entire population of the country somehow exclude us. If these mistaken beliefs are allowed to continue, one day it will be too late for anyone to do anything about it.

The government has brought the battle for freedom to all of us - live, direct, in full Technicolor multimedia - all backed by a soon to be armed police force whose mission is to ensure we all play by their rules whether we agree with them or not. The stakes in this game are higher than ever and opposition to these new rules could get you killed. At the very least it will result in the removal of considerably greater portions of your liberty than before. Jean Charles de Menezes would probably explain further the finer details of these new stakes but British government enforcers removed his life and his ability to do so from him, and the rest of us, on the morning of 22 July.

de Menezes life was taken with full backing of Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair, Prime Minister Tony Blair, the cabinet, and every politician in the house of democratically elected 'representatives' who didn't dare to voice any opposition to the act prior to its legislation. That de Menezes life was taken in the heat of a moment by plain-clothes, armed enforcers with full government complicity, in full compliance and accordance with the new rules of the police state that were laid down in SOCrAP, should serve as warning to us all.

The government and their new rules, along with the implicit dictats that the-few have issued to the increasingly militarised and armed forces that once served to protect the general population, and who are now armed against us, have affirmed clearly the government commitment to the oppression of every single one of us, irrespective of race, colour or creed and whether we know it, feel it, or not.

In time, and without considerable change, we will all come to know and all feel this oppression far sooner than we might imagine. 'We' includes you, dear reader, if you happen to be resident in the UK and are not exempt from the imposed laws of the land in which you live. If you happen to have sufficient conscience that you have felt moved in the past to voice your opinion on matters of politics, you have just lost the right to exercise that conscience without the approval of the state.

The war on almost mythical terror, led with no sense of irony, by those responsible for the greatest acts of actual terror the world has ever seen serves no greater purpose than to reinforce the power of nightmares in all of us. The basis for these nightmares is little more than the terror we have inflicted on others but it serves the purpose of allowing the authorities to impose new laws on an almost entirely innocent population. Better still, it then allows quick and easy suppression of any internal dissent that the new laws might have caused.

As with all nightmares, the dreamers eventually wake up to the fact that the hideous realities which occupied their minds as they slept were nothing more than a bad dream. The increased availability of information, knowledge and wisdom about the way in which the world is run is causing more and more people to wake up to their nightmares. Understand that it is this process of awakening, not the perceived threat of terrorists, that is driving the imposition of ever more restrictive laws.

No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority

Lysander Spooner wrote in his treatise, "No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority":
Whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.:
  1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a "government" (so called) puts into its hands a sword which will be used against himself, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will.

  2. That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future.

  3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a man's money without his consent, for any such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so?

  4. If a man wants "protection," he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to "protect" him against his will.

  5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury.

  6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support.

Lysander Spooner
No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority

Six simple rules by which you can then go on to understand any action taken by any government. Written at the tail end of the 1860s, Spooner outlined what governments throughout history have continued to demonstrate, that once responsibility and funds are placed into the hands of government, no second thought is given to placing swords to be used against the people into those hands.

Recently we also learned that the most deadly of these swords - that of the legislated right to take life - will be used if they don't think we are following their rules sufficiently well. It matters not if we are innocent for we might after all have been - as they will repeatedly tell us in their indefensible-defense of murder - some sort of terrorist.

The murder by the British authorities of an innocent Brazilian who had the misfortune to be going about his daily business in the eye of a storm of political agendas so confused that - superficially at least - nobody had any idea what was going on serves as testament to the verity of Spooner's words and confirmation to the rest of us that the relationship between the people and government has only changed in 150 years with respect of the increased number and efficiency of the manifold swords deployed by governments against the people they claim to serve.

Jean Charles de Menezes was given no choice about whether he played by the new rules of the game in the split second of misguided judgements on all fronts that he was not allowed to survive. Is this the sort of country in which you want to live?

The general public have a choice about whether or not they participate in this game of law that men with guns will seek to enforce in a crazy world of fear and terror that most of us would rather not live in. The enforcers may have the weapons backed by laws that give them permission to use those weapons against us at will, but we have the critical mass of people without which no government can exist.

The implied threat of further loss of liberty issued by those that have already legislated against any rights to that liberty is just that, an implied threat; you cannot lose again that which has already been lost. Of course, the government can lock-up a few dissenters but when sufficient numbers of people have opted out of rules with which they don't agree, either through choice, or further government sanctioned restrictions, the very governments whose first mistake was to assume this unnatural order of control cease to exist also.

Safe in this knowledge, and until you are faced with law enforcement officials pointing guns at your head and shouting, "Here are the new rules, breach them or die!", rest assured that there is always a choice.

If not you, who? If not now, when?

When they tell you we must fight a war against terror, ask them which war has ever been fought without the use of terror.

When they you tell you it is the terrorists taking away our freedoms, ask them who passes the laws that remove our freedoms.

When they tell you it is about defending our fundamental liberties, ask them to meet you outside Parliament.