No July 7 Inquiry – Hazel Blears’ explanation
On March 18 this year I wrote to my MP asking for a full public inquiry into the July 7 London Bombings and listing the reasons why I thought a ‘narrative’ of the atrocity and a parliamentary inquiry would not provide a sufficient explanation as to what happened and why. In the light of recent revelations about MI5 failing to disclose to the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ICS) the fact that they had recorded Mohammad Sidique Khan, the gang leader, talking about how to build a bomb and planning Jihad, those concerns I listed have been proved broadly correct. You can see the letter I wrote over at The Nether-World.
Exactly two months after writing my letter (May 18), I received a note from my MP with an attached letter from Hazel Blears. It is dated 13 April when she was still a Home Office minister and Charles Clarke was still Home Secretary.
Before making his decision not to hold a public inquiry, the Home Secretary very carefully considered the views of those who were calling for the Government to establish a full public inquiry. While entirely understanding the reasons why people wanted such an inquiry, he genuinely did not believe that it would add to our understanding of the causes of the atrocities, particularly when Parliamentary and other inquiries were underway into these and other events. Nor did he want to divert the attention of our police and security services during a time when they were (and still are) actively engaged in the investigation into the events of 7th and 21st July and the detection and prevention of further atrocities.
However, the Home Secretary believed it was important to set out clearly an authoritative account of what happened before and around 7th July. The Home Office has therefore been working on such an account, drawing together the information held across Government and from the police and security services. We intend that this should be published. In making final decisions on the content of the account to be published, we shall, of course, have due regard to the need not to compromise intelligence sources or put at risk possible prosecutions.
Mr Simonetti is concerned that the account will not fully deal with the more sensitive issues, involving intelligence and security. I agree that these are very important issues, which have been covered as part of the inquiry by the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (who provide oversight of the intelligence agencies and who have been investigating intelligence matters relating to the July attacks). The report will be published in due course, subject to the exclusion of any sensitive material that might prejudice the interests of national security.
HAZEL BLEARS MP
So there it is. Obviously this letter tells us nothing new, I only posted here to further illustrate the flawed reasoning behind the Government’s refusal to hold a public inquiry and how nothing has changed after the Cabinet reshuffle. Hazel says that Charles Clarke “genuinely did not believe that it would add to our understanding of the causes of the atrocities, particularly when Parliamentary and other inquiries were underway into these and other eventsâ€Â. Well, now that both the ‘narrative’ and ISC report have been published, what have we got that adds to our understanding of the causes for the atrocity? Very little, and so no lessons can be said to have been learned. In the last sentence of her letter, Hazel says that the publication of sensitive material might be prejudicial to the interests of national security. I would argue that not giving the country a complete investigation into the causes is far more dangerous to national security. If, as the reports seem to indicate, the bombers acted alone, then what is there to hinder a public inquiry? I do not believe that the intelligence agencies would be compromised by having an inquiry. If that was the case there would never be public inquiries into serious crimes. One of the reasons we need a public inquiry is to highlight the failings of the intelligence services and improve their performance.
I wasn’t expecting a very illuminating explanation from the Home Office and I didn’t get one, but I would still urge others to write to their MPs because it will keep up the growing pressure for a public inquiry. And, of course, there is still a petition to be signed. Knowing what the bombers were wearing isn’t going to help prevent another atrocity. Knowing why they did what they did might.
John Reid as Home Secretary is now dishing out the same rubbish about how a rich country like Britain cannot afford the resources to have an inquiry into such a major atrocity and keep us safe at the same time. The way the Home Office seems to function these days suggests that it is not resources that are the problem, its incompetence.
Davide,
Davide,
What are you expecting to get from a public inquiry? Do you think the MI5 Officers who allegedly lied to the Parliamentary inquiry are going to suddenly have a Damascus like conversion and start grassing up their buddies because the public are in the room?
Don't get all defensive on me because I'm honestly not trying to be aggressive, but I honestly cannot see why people put so much faith in this sort of thing. After the Bloody Sunday murders in 1972 the Widgery Judicial Enquiry backed the good guys, whitewashed the murderers and swept it all under the carpet. When the Blair Government came to power they convened the Saville Inquiry. A full public inquiry. It has cost tens of millions of pounds. Eight years on, it is no nearer a conclusion. It is a good money spinning ruse for the lawyers, but that's about it.
I don't buy into all this hogwash of "diverting our troops" etc, but it seems to me to be fairly clear. The security forces cocked-up big style by not following-up intelligence, but they will (rightly or wrongly) claim 'understaffing' and get even more public money to waste on spooks... errm, that's it! If when the IRA were about, infiltrated up to the hilt by British agents, they could still blow up the Prime Minister at Party Conference and mortar bomb Downing Street, how or why is anyone surprised that 4 kids from Leeds slip through the security net. We can either spend zillions on security forces, ID cards, surveillance... or accept that sometimes they will 'get lucky' as the Provos used to say.
Bob,
Bob,
What I would expect from a public inquiry is a more frank look into the causes of the atrocity, something that was only touched on by the ISC report and ignored totally by the 'narrative'. The MI5 officers did not lie to the Parliamentary inquiry, as I understand it; they omitted to supply important information and were not pressed further by the MPs as they should have been. I realise that may sound like hair-splitting, but I used that episode to highlight the need for a public inquiry because only a proper inquiry can call witnesses and cross-examine them, and it can call the security services to disclose secret information. Instead we have been fobbed off with this limited, one-sided view of something that needs a much deeper examination if we are to learn any lessons from the tragedy.
I have said in previous posts that I didn't expect any inquiry to give us all the answers we want, that would be impossible. It is also ridiculous to assume that an inquiry would put a stop to terrorism, no one is claiming that. But holding one would lay to rest some of the more outlandish conspiracy theories that are taking root and more importantly show a degree of respect to the victims of July 7 who want to at least see that their leaders are trying to address their questions. Also a public inquiry can make recommendations that would be have to be taken more seriously by the Government.
There were very obvious security failings leading up to this attack as you rightly say, and yet, unsurprisingly, according to the ISC, "there were no culpable failures by the security and intelligence Agencies", and therefore no one held to account. This inevitably brings up accusations of there having been a whitewash.
I take your points about the IRA, but that situation eased when our leaders realised they had to examine the causes of the terror campaign and talk to the IRA (please don't misinterpret this as a call for talks with Al Qaeda who were not involved in this attack apparently). I also take your point about the possibility of an inquiry costing a fortune and still not getting us anywhere. It is a risk, I admit, but I think that risk would be outweighed by the possibility of genuine grievances being addressed and changes being made which might make us a bit safer (hopefully without removing any more of our civil liberties). I would rather that the fortune being spent on ID cards was used to examine the causes of the disenfranchisement of such a significant part of the population.
The elephant in the room is obviously, Britain’s foreign policy which both reports stayed well clear of. I would have thought a more independent investigation might actually look at this thorny issue and drive home to the Prime Minister that his actions abroad can have serious consequences at home.
Finally Bob, I always welcome debate with you. I think we agree on far more things than we disagree on. Debate forces us to examine our arguments more thoroughly which is always a good thing.
Davide,
Davide,
I admire your optimism. In a way, if Blair wanted to be totally cynical, he would go along with the call for a public enquiry. It is more often than not a way of burying an issue for years. Rail enquiries, for instance. By the time they have reported and reached the conclusion that some jobber on the railways didn't do his job right, the public have forgotten which bloody cock-up they were talking about in the first place. I honestly believe a public enquiry into the 7/7 issue would spend years deciding that we need more security services, that the four people acted alone, that the emergency services need to review there procedures, that the four people were influenced by British foreign policy, not just on Iraq, but also Palestine. But who would be surprised by that?
We all know those things now. The security services will use 7/7 as a way of squeezing even more money for oppressive surveillance out of Government without a public hearing to do so... and you and me would both oppose that anyway I suspect. I don't believe there is anyone in the country who doesn't believe the 7/7 suicide bombers were not influenced by British and Us foreign policy. But, what does that tell us? That we should tailor our foreign policy to suit the aspirations of psychopathic terrorists? I hope not.
I agree with you. We do need an ethical foreign policy... but the eyhics of that are not going to change because some independent panel sit in a five star hotel in London for six years taking evidence from everybody and anybody who has something to say about the 7th July.... only to reach a conclusion that I strongly suspect the world and it's dog already knows... with the exception of a few dotty conspiracy nuts.
Dear Bob,
Dear Bob,
I agree with your view on having a public inquiry. A waste of time and money especially if it will undoubtedly uncover little we dont already know and if it does silence the conspiracy nuts they will just dive onto another event. However, i'm not sure i agree with you on the subject of "spooks" and our inteligence services. It is possible to waste public money on our security services, it is possible to waste money on anything, NHS, schools ect. I would rather have a very well developed intelligence service that can identify and act on information, than a brigade of tanks or a useless inquiry. In our bureacratic society errors and miscomunication will result in mistakes, but i'd like to think that our security services do more good than harm and money spent on them is not a waste. James Bond himself has saved the world countless times and his is just one of the many men and women that serve and protect this country!
Ahhh, anonymous, if only
Ahhh, anonymous, if only they were all like James Bond, eh? What a safer place the world would be. Unfortunately, real life tales seem to give us a slightly different picture. Lazy-arsed public schoolboy civil servant types, who's get up and go has usually got up and gone years ago, filing reports about reports and prying into the innocent domestic affairs of overweight Deputy Prime Ministers having a bit on the side. That's what they're usually up to, I suspect.
Bob,
Bob,
I agree with most of what you say. However, the comment about tailoring our foreign policy to suit the aspirations of terrorists is a bit off. I think better would be to tailor out foreign policy so as not to create people who are prepared to resort to acts of terrorism. The vast majority of terrorism has been US and UK backed and led; what we call 'terrorists' are often the weak, besieged and disenfranchised fighting back in the only way they can.
Bob,
Bob,
I have only touched on a few reasons why we need a public inquiry. There are other reasons as well. For example, it took two hours for the ambulances to arrive despite them being near by. Rescuers had inadequate communications equipment which meant they had to rely on mobile phones which stopped working once the network was overloaded. These issues too need to be addressed. Yes, it will be expensive, and it might take a while too but I think it would be months rather than years.
Public inquiries in the past haven’t always been useless whitewashes that tell us things we already know. Sometimes they are a force for positive change. Remember the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence that found the police force to be “institutionally racist� We all knew that that there was an element of racism in the police force but a public inquiry brought it out into the open and changes were made. I think that was worth the expense.
There was also the Scarman inquiry into the 1981 Brixton riots, or the inquiry into the Kings Cross underground fire in 1987. These inquiries brought important changes. I’m sure you can think of more examples. Now, the London bombings was the deadliest terrorist attack on the British mainland since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, and the first suicide bombings in Western Europe. This needs an inquiry. The fact that we all know that our foreign policy was a major factor in the disater is not enough. As with criminal trials, a judge or law lord stating the findings plainly has to have more effect than our beliefs.
There is also the issue of perception of justice. It has to be seen to be done as well as actually be done. Imagine if the country was asked if it wanted an inquiry into 7/7, what do you think the answer would be? I believe it would be a resounding “yes†and that, in a democracy, has got to be taken into account. By coincidence, while I was writing this I was also reading Rachel’s latest post and as always she makes the case far better than I can:
This is a debate that affects all of us, isn't it? It shouldn't happen behind closed doors. It shouldn't be internal departments meeting secretly and in isolation. It doesn't just affect politicians and those directly impacted by July 7th. It's a debate about who we are and where we are going, together.
It's a debate that should be had by the public, about the public, for the public. Only then can we ALL move on. And then we might all have more understanding, and more confidence, and more hope about where we are all going together.
I just cannot understand why we cannot have an independent public enquiry. And that is what I will be saying tonight. And if we have to wait for a certain two trials to be over, so be it. And if we have to have certain bits of it behind closed doors, for defence of the realm reasons, so be it. But defeating terrorism involves learning, and analysing, and debating, and understanding, doesn't it? It involves all of us, doesn't it? So not to look at the day British people suicide-bombed British people in full, and in front of the British people makes no sense to me.
Read the whole piece, I agree with it entirely.
Badger, I wouldn't disagree
Badger, I wouldn't disagree with your general point about state terrorism and its consequences. However, I don't perceive those who carried out the suicide bombing in London as... 'weak, besieged or disenfranchised'.
dear Bob,
dear Bob,
I appreciate i was a bit frivolous bringing up 007, but the point i was making is that we need intelligence services. The role they play is important and stereotyping them as public school has beens seems a little harsh. Its just as easy to say all journalists are chain smoking drunks, the police are a lazy bunch of incompetents and politians are all corrupt.
I dont think we need a secret police, scrutinising joe bloggs telephone calls to his mom, but the fact that they can keep tabs on the people in power may act as a deterent for these folks to behave.
Mistakes are made throughout the whole civil service and there will always be a bad apple that'll spoil it for everyone else.
We always seem to just hear the errors and mistakes these fellows make, not the benefits. The fact that they could record the terrorist plans i take as a positive thing, we have some of the best anti terorist intelegence services in Europe. That no action was taken on this intelegence is, in my mind, criminal and responsibilty for this inaction should be claimed.
In my haste I seem to have
In my haste I seem to have messed up the link to Rachel's post in my last comment. Here it is again.
Patrick Mercer (Newark,
Patrick Mercer (Newark, Conservative) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is CCTV footage from King's Cross Station of the London bombers on the morning of 7 July 2005.
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office) Hansard source
On 12 July 2005, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke said that the Metropolitan Police Service had identified CCTV footage from the morning of 7 July at King's Cross station showing the four men believed to have been responsible for the explosions on that date. Due to the ongoing police investigation, this footage has not been released to the public except for a still image of the man believed to be responsible for the explosion on the bus.
www.theyworkforyou.com
you guys are doing great
you guys are doing great job of perpetuating a myth.
with the exception of a few
with the exception of a few dotty conspiracy nuts.
agree with you. We do need an ethical foreign policy... but the eyhics of that are not going to change because some independent panel sit in a five star hotel in London for six years taking evidence from everybody and anybody who has something to say about the 7th July.... only to reach a conclusion that I strongly suspect the world and it's dog already knows... with the exception of a few dotty conspiracy nuts.
so your calling me a conspiracy nut smart arse?
i fear this comments section is infiltrated by disinfo merchants.
Sigh, after a week off
Sigh, after a week off teh'interweb, I was enjoying reading these comments without the de rigeur conspiracy theory/nut/disinfo discussion...
Once again, we are back to the suggestion that anyone who disputes the theory that the CIA/Mossad/MI6/Blair are responsible for 7/7 is a disinfo merchant or agent of the state etc etc etc...
They said:
They said:
The report will be published in due course, subject to the exclusion of any sensitive material that might prejudice the interests of national security.
You said:
I would argue that not giving the country a complete investigation into the causes is far more dangerous to national security.
[...]
One of the reasons we need a public inquiry is to highlight the failings of the intelligence services...
Ah, but that is the crux of the problem. The primary "interest of national security" is maintaining the illusion that the security forces are effective. Given the choice between trying to maintain that illusion and trying to actually improve effectiveness, the New Labour way is obviously to choose the former (actually, it's probably unfair to associate that with New Labour, it's endemic). Appearance is more important than reality to these people. Heck, they think appearance is reality as far as I can tell.
ahh! a man who trusts his
ahh! a man who trusts his government!
I note that the posts with " i do not believe the government threads are the most read,come on ringverse!do you believe Tony B Liars 7/7 explanation??
a man of your obvious intelligence must be just a wee bit sceptical??
understand I hold no grudges at all.
I´m just a curious type.
it was a convenient event designed to drive forward pre planned policies
"Appearance is more
"Appearance is more important than reality to these people. Heck, they think appearance is reality as far as I can tell."
Gregorach: I think you tell it right ... I think Bliar is now so deluded that he believes his words define reality - spin it and it will be so.
Im not getting into this
Im not getting into this again. See the comments on this post if you are interested in my view.
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/983
You know fine well, that I don't trust my government, and am skeptical about the 7/7 narrative.
I don't understand how you can claim to be "just a curious type", and from that curiosity, draw the conclusion that
"it was a convenient event designed to drive forward pre planned policies".
I don't think that's curiosity, I think that's dogmatism.
The debate here was about how effective a public enquiry would be at uncovering the evidence. You appear to be three steps ahead, having already decided what the evidence we haven't seen will tell you.
ringverse,
ringverse,
Public inquiry??
waste of time mate.The people who hold power will never let it happen.
A public inquiry would reveal zilch mate.nichts, zero, maafish!
Anyways all the lies and deceptions are for the greater good.sacrifices have to be made you know!
Todays democracy is based much like an ant colony.Workers, soldiers and Kings and queens.No disorder whatsoever will be tolerated.