/** Tools */

14 June 2007

J7 interviewed on Channel 4 News

"These views can't be dismissed as belonging to a minority fringe of extremists or fantasists."

For those that missed it when it aired, J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign recently featured on Channnel 4 news in a report about a specially commissioned Channel 4 survey which showed that 59% of Muslims don't believe the government has told the whole truth about 7/7. The survey of 500 British Muslims, carried out by GFK NOP, found that nearly a quarter don't believe the four men identified as the London bombers were responsible for the attacks and 52% believe that the British security services have "made up" evidence to convict terrorist suspects.

Note: The CCTV footage shown in the video above, which shows three of the alleged perpetrators of 7/7 outside Luton Station, is in fact taken from 28th June 2005, not from the day of 7/7, as shown by the date-stamp in the top left hand corner of the CCTV footage. This footage has repeatedly and rather disingenuously been used by the media in coverage of stories about 7/7 so, as we approach the second anniversary of 7/7, watch out for this little visual deception in the stories that will no doubt materialise in the forthcoming weeks. No CCTV footage from 7/7 has ever been released, nor have any CCTV images showing all four of the accused actually in London on 7/7. In fact, in the only CCTV image ever released that purports to be from 7/7, three of the faces of the individuals in the CCTV frame are completely unidentifiable. See 7/7: The CCTV 'Evidence' deconstructed for further details.

You can read more about the Terror Exercise that was running on 7/7, as mentioned in the Channel 4 News report, here.

While the Channel 4 News survey focused on beliefs among the Muslim community, the J7 group of independent public researchers is comprised almost entirely of non-Muslims and includes people of all races, colours and creeds indicating that conducting such research among the non-Muslim community would be likely to yield similar results.

Indeed the comments submitted by Channel 4 News viewers who saw the piece would seem to further support this. Darshna Soni’s follow up blog makes the point, “But dozens of you pointed out that it isn’t just British Muslims who question the official narrative.

A few of the non-Muslim commenters who are also sceptical about the official Home Office version of what happened on 7/7 include:
  • "Well done Ch4 and thanks for bringing the survey and a number of important issues to the attention of the British public. Do bear in mind many British non-Muslims also question the official version of 7/7."
  • “I am white and middle class, and I also think that the government has not told us the truth about 7/7.”
  • "Why don't you ask the same question of non-Muslims? i.e. 'do you trust the authorities and the government?' - you might be surprised by the result, as its not only Muslims who no longer believe the Bliar government."
  • “Why only ask Muslims about this? It isn’t only Muslims who believe this.”
  • "I am a white female atheist and I don't believe the government has told us the whole truth about the 7/7 bombings. I don't believe the conspiracy theories either. So, for this survey you could also have asked Muslims, Sikhs, Christians and atheists what they thought. I'd be prepared to bet that the answer to the question 'has the government told the truth about 7/7' would be broadly similar in all of those."
  • “You need to carry out a survey of non-Muslims - you might get a result that is not all that different.”
  • “I think you’ll find the majority of non-Muslims living in Britain would give the same answers.”
  • "The government and security services lied about weapons of mass destruction, they lied about the reason for the war, and after the shooting of an innocent man on the tube, more lies were told. Is it any wonder that many Muslims do not believe the government?! So do many non-Muslims."
  • "I think you have missed the point somewhat, as it is not only a view commonly held among Muslims but also among many English nationals and people around the world."
  • "You will find massive support for the Muslim view, and not just from Muslims."
  • “You don’t need to look only at the Muslims community to find people (a) believing in conspiracy surrounding that particular event or (b) feeling let down, manipulated and betrayed by their own government.”

Also worth looking at is the list of over 1300 signatories of the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition which, once again, seems to indicate quite clearly that it isn’t just Muslims who don’t believe the government has told the whole truth about 7/7. If you haven't yet signed the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE petition, please do so.

In another piece on the Channel 4 web site, Darshna Soni highlights a few of the more egregious errors and inconsistencies in the official Home Office report, something that hasn’t been done since the Guardian article by Mark Honigsbaum which featured J7 (the J7 response to Mark Honigsbaum's article can be read here).

Darshna Soni's original report can be found on the Channel 4 News web site, Survey: 'government hasn't told truth about 7/7' here. Viewer comments on the piece can be read here and Darshna Soni's follow-up blog is here. See also 7/7 The Conspiracy Theories which explains some of the many anomalies in the official story and another Channel 4 News item Conspiracies and Cover-Ups.

Given the historical and widely accepted history of terrorism on the British mainland, particularly with regard to alleged instances of 'Irish terrorism', it would be unwise not to acknowledge the lessons learned from the cases of the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Maguire 7, Danny McNamee and Judith Ward, amongst others. All of these people were convicted of terrorist crimes for politically expedient purposes and served long prison sentences on the basis of State-manufactured evidence and the suppression by the State of evidence that proved their innocence.

The barbaric sentences handed out to five young men in the Crevice trial, based on the evidence of a Supergrass, the likely involvement of at least one intelligence services agent, as well as the use of forced confessions extracted under torture abroad are more recent examples of how similar tactics to those developed in Northern Ireland are now being used against British Muslim subjects, the perceived enemy of the day.

It will be interesting to see if and how Channel 4 follow up the piece.


Stef said...

"These views can't be dismissed as belonging to a minority fringe of extremists and fantasists."

that's not going to stop people trying

it's a funny thing this mental illness of questioning what our government, security forces and newspapers are telling us - it appears to be contagious

The Antagonist said...

Sure it won't stop people trying, but it just makes them appear as mad as a fish.

What's particularly brilliant about such tactics is that they're being played by those who spend all their time criticising the State, government, police and just about anyone else they can find to vent their spleens at yet, as if by magic, these same organisations have acted flawlessly and impeccably with regard to the events of 7/7.

It's doublethink, Jim, but not as we know it.

Anonymous said...

I think it is too easy to throw around the label mentally ill. If someone is mentally ill it is offensive, they won't belive you anyway, if they are delusional. If someone is recovering from mental illness, it can make people lose their self belief to call them mentaly ill and make them fall back into the mental illness, and think they can never recover. And if it is just a term of abuse then it is bigotry like calling someone gay, or whitie, n*****, P*** or Jew boy a racist insult. The term is used too easily as an insult.
It does not help the isse to throw around the term mental illness as an insult. If you think someone is dumb say so, or if you think someone is wrong say so. But to use a serious medical condition as an insult has obvious damage.
I have spotted a website on comedy.
http://www.lonympics.co.uk/Comedy_Soccer/Broox.htm A super comedy site on soccer.

Stef said...



the constant and misplaced reference to mental sickness is bang out of line

but it's easier than addressing what the 'lunatic' is actually saying isn't it? It saves dealing with potentially confusing stuff like facts

Bridget said...

@ anon

I agree - the use of labels serves to rob people of their humanity - like Nazi pink and yellow badges - we don't have to treat people with respect if they are labelled, whether it's 'paranoid' 'deluded' 'fantasist' 'mental' 'nutter' 'benefit scrounger' 'hoodie' 'chav' 'extremist' 'conspiracy theorist' 'refugee' 'immigrant' 'insurgent' 'terrorist' - the list is long and being added to by the day.

What we can do is divest these terms of their power as blacks did with 'niggah' and own them ourselves thus stripping them of negative associations.

Which is why I for one am proud to be a member of the Conspiraloon™ Alliance.

The Antagonist said...

All members of the Conspiraloon™ Alliance are proud and unrepentant members and that is as it should be.

Paranoid shift, anyone?

One of the most amusing accusatory labels that's been flying around of late is 'Narcissistic Personality Disorder',or NPD to true afficionados, which is being tossed around with gay abandon by those who, if banned from using self-referential personal pronouns, would never utter another word again.

It's irony on a base level, but I like it.

Anonymous said...

Damn. I deleted the origional comment becasue I thought the words of Rachel had answered my initial query, but then I read B's comment and it opens up a more serious question. So here's post 2.0....

Yes, RN is writing about you again {See: Wednesday, June 13, 2007, Jon Ronson: R4} having disposed of her first body: fjl.

Northy says she installed "Site Meter" (strangely enough, a form of spyware) and 'found' that she was getting a lot of hits from your site.

But from what B says, this isn't possible as you never knew who she was, and you site linked to the BBC.

This is very interesting. No doubt, just like 7-7 its a logical Grand Canyon that holds no relevance to anything.

P.S. Given the twaddlers on R's post, "conspiraloon" is a badge of honour. Wear it with pride. I wear one quite similiar.

The Antagonist said...

Why break the habit of a lifetime and let facts get in the way of a good yarn?

Stef said...


IMHO whatever an individual's take on the Official Narrative of 7/7 no good will come out of personal mudslinging matches that have no bearing on the events of that day, or the issues associated with this nonsense 'War on Terror'

Let's all try and keep our eye on the ball, whatever the provocations. Only the terrorists, whoever they may be, will benefit from people being sidetracked and distracted

Frank Partisan said...

I don't remember all the details, but a recent poll said more non-Muslims believe it is necesssary to take innocent life than do Muslims.

Anonymous said...

@ stef

I don't want to mudsling. Honestly. Rachel says the same thing, but then, mudlsings-a-go-go. Her mud is particularly insulting.

What can be refered to as the 'direction North takes' is to serious to let go unchallenged.

By letting her get on with it does make pur eyes go off the ball as she wants us to ditch the questions raised by the facts of 7-7.

Stef said...



but the issues would be more muddied if people like The Antagonist and whoever is next on the list rose to the bait

wherever possible it is better that they make their own case on their own terms rather than reacting to what someone else is doing IMHO

I am not casting any aspersions on yourself

Kier said...

the use of labels serves to rob people of their humanity - like Nazi pink and yellow badges - we don't have to treat people with respect if they are labelled, whether it's 'paranoid' 'deluded' 'fantasist' 'mental' 'nutter' 'benefit scrounger' 'hoodie' 'chav' 'extremist' 'conspiracy theorist' 'refugee' 'immigrant' 'insurgent' 'terrorist' - the list is long and being added to by the day.

It's the opposite of how we have a tendency to anthropomorphise things we want to relate to and identify with. If you don't understand or agree with someone, their perceived ideals or what they say, the easiest thing to do is categorise them as something very different to you. In fact, the more different someone seems to how you see yourself, or your model of a 'decent' human being, the less human they become, either through being categorised as inferior like the above labels or by the perception of a mental mutation.

Someone who intentionally kills another human being becomes an 'animal' or a 'monster', which is easier for people to accept than the fact that another human being did something which is universally agreed as an evil act. Probably because then it might make you wonder if you had the same capabilities which isn't a pleasant thought to confront.

It's more or less the way the human brain evolved; to recognise another human as your friend you needed to have a mental simalcrum of them, for instance, which the development of language enabled. It's pretty ironic to think all this probably comes from some millenia-long urge to understand each other better!