Milan Rai - Convicted and Fined for Illegal[sic] Protest

Oppressed to oppressors?

Milan Rai is touring the country promoting his new 7-7 fiction, sometimes with his well-to-do, arrestling side-kick, Maya Evans, in tow.

Early reports suggest that audiences have been barred from protesting about myths in the book (e.g. Rai claims the bombers travelled from Luton to London on a train that arrived in London AFTER two bombed tube trains had left Kings Cross. His statement also contradicts the police statement which said the bombers travelled on a cancelled train).

Hurray for freedom and democracy!

The above comment is a total smear. Simply not true. Why would someone want to write this, I wonder...

Would appreciate you telling us the source of your information, Cointelpro

Sigh, so anybody who doesn't subscribe to every conspiracy theory going about train times is an agent of the state...

I agree that it is a great shame if conspiracy theorists hijacked the launching of a book that has tried to seriously address the background to 7/7, and tries to be objective but critical.

Milan keeps well clear of conspiracy theories in his book. He sticks to the facts, and the facts are very damning for Tony Blair. Makes me wonder whether some of these "conspiracy theorists" might have been agent provocateurs trying to disrupt the launch of a serious attempt at analysis.

There is no indication in Rachel North's piece that Milan will be trying to censor discussion on anything in his nationwide tour. At best, cointelpro has got the wrong end of the stick.

Justice not Vengeance site now working again:
www.j-n-v.org

One thing is sure. WE NEED A PUBLIC INQUIRY.

The public Inquiry we need is one which either helps scotch the so called conspiracy theories and reassures the Muslim community that they aren't being framed
OR ELSE reveals facts which encourage people to remember that States and intelligence networks and fascist groups sometimes bomb people (se Nato's Secret Armies) and may have done so again in this case.

So a) the Inquiry has to have credibility with the relatives of the 52 and with relatives/friends of the 4; that is my test for genuine independence of composition and would be helped by not just being staffed by Judges and London insiders, rather having a good mix of Inquiry members;

b) it also has to have adequate staff and powers, e.g. to compel evidence under otath and disclosure of papers, records, re-examination of plausibly disputed forensics, etc;

c) it also has to have an appropriate remit:
c1) WHAT happened but this shouldnot be reduced to just or mainly dealing with the responses of the emergency services, treatment of survivors, etc - which the Londond Assembly inquiry covered anyway;
c2)any consideration of WHY it happened (and how repetitions can be stopped) should definitely wait until after the WHAT has been sorted out otherwise the Inquiry just becomes a political football.

If the official story is basically sound, it shouldn't take that long nor that much money, which is in any case very cheap at the price considering the above mentioned policy desiderata and the fact that this was the largest loss of life in London since the Luftwaffe (excluding the big smog).

The Muslim Concil of Britain supports a full inquiry, I understand. However the position of several other bodies is ambiguous.

What position does Blairwatch take I wonder? (if you 'take positions'?!)
and what sort of enquiry does J-n-V take, by the way? And Kings Cross United?

I would broadly agree with your points, but I'm not sure my position counts for too much...

I do think though, the first fight is to get a Public Inquiry agreed, then come the discussion and debate about remit, terms of reference, composition, resources etc

I would support the campaign for the fullest remit, and broadest composition, but without trying to cop out, I think that question comes after we get one, not before.

Cos at the moment, we aint got squat. Conspiracy thorists are going nuts, and the people affected [and the rest of us] don't know how or why we were attacked.
[I can't speak for J-n-V or KCU.]

Very simply, there is no evidence that puts the four alleged bombers in London on that morning, let alone setting off explosives, that would stand up in a court of law for two minutes. Period, end of story. Milan's book doesn't attempt to do this, it just assumes it.

I was wondering if anyone has a link to any statement made by the MPS that these were in fact 'suicide-bombers' or was it just 'assumed' after the Khan video was shown on Al-Jazeera?

I've read that this video has been discreditted by the 'narrative' that will be published soon.

As Cointelpro rightly observes, Rai's book has the 'suicide bombers' get on a train from Luton (at 07.48)which did not arrive at King's Cross until AFTER the two tubes that were bombed, had left: it came in at 08.42. All trains that morning were severely delayed, due to cable problems at Mill Hill. 'Anon' asks for a reference, here it is:

You can have the train times discussion here if you want, but IMHO it is a waste of everyones time, because it is based on what we don't know, not what we do know...

The whole conspiracy thing puzzles me - I keep hearing that the media narrative is either full of lies, mis information or mistakes. Yet most of the conspiracy stuff is based on info taken from the media...

You can't have it both ways. The inconsitencies, confusion or downright lies told about what happened that day are grounds for not accepting the story so far - but they are not grounds for working out what happened...

Mind the gap guys.

[nb - when I use the phrase "conspiracy theory" I am not trying to insult or belittle anyone, just suggesting that when conclusions are drawn from the lack of evidence rather than from the evidence - that is what those conclusions are. When we find out what happened, maybe those I describe as conspiracy theorists will be shown to have been right, but untill then they are just guessing like the rest of us]

When two or more people together plan to commit a crime there exists by definition a conspiracy. Therefore any theory about who did it or how it was done is by definition a "conspiracy theory". The question is then not whether you are a conspiracy theorist or not but for which conspiracy theory you find the evidence most compelling.

In the case of Milan Rai's book he assumes that the conspiracy theory espoused by the government, that three Muslim guys from Leeds and one from Aylesbury were responsible for these bombings, is correct. He makes this assumption, despite the fact there has been no public investigation and no conclusive evidence offered.

Personally I believe in the democratic principle that people should be presumed innocent until their guilt has been proven. Such proof of guilt has not in this case occurred, a fact which has not been lost on the Muslim community of Britain and has therefore led to much anger and fear.

But in the case of Milan Rai's book-launch meetings, those who doubt the offical government/media account of what happened are dubbed "conspiracy theorists" by those who believe in the government and media's conspiracy theory.

No researcher does their reputation any good if they make assumptions which have not been proven. Moreover to manage public meetings in such a way that questions from members of the public who doubt the veracity of the government's line are ruled "out of order" and are therefore not answered, compounds the undermining of that reputation, though the resultant controversy may well increase the sale of books.

People investigating the truth of the July bombings should bear in mind that this government has a proven record of disinformation - WMDs, dodgy dossiers, lies about when the decision to go to war was taken etc and should also remember that successive British governments have been involved in false flag operations in Northern Ireland, in Operation Gladio and others.

Presumption that on this occasion the government are being honest is unwise. I remain open-minded as to whodunnit and believe that an open public inquiry is neccessary, though I doubt we'll get it.

The link I tried to put up was: www.financialoutrage.org.uk/thameslink_database.htm for the train times. What we do know, is that the computer records of train times held at King's Cross and Luton, do not permit a passenger to appear on CCTV at 07.22 at Luton and then at 08.26 King's Cross, that morning. This leaves two options: either acknowledging Milan's story as fiction, because the events could not have happened as described, or abandoning one of the given CCTV-times.
If you want to take the latter course, do bear in mind that the Met. claimed to have had their great eureka moment in identifying the 'four' on the evening of Monday, 11th July, when perusing the King's Cross CCTV images: so they wouldn't have got that wrong, would they?
Mulling over this, it may come to you, why the Met have not as yet made public these King's Cross CCTV images: or why they never can.

Ringverse wrote:

"You can have the train times discussion here if you want, but IMHO it is a waste of everyones time, because it is based on what we don't know, not what we do know..."

The men were shown in a CCTV image taken outside Luton station about to enter it at 7.21:54am. On this basis, they could have taken no earlier train than the 0725, according to the actual timetable that day obtained from Thameslink by astro3.

This train ran with heavy delays and, as is shown on the timetable, did not reach Kings Cross Thameslink until 8.23am. The police stated that they have footage of the men at Kings Cross Mainline station at 8.26am. Anybody who has made the journey between KX Thameslink and the Mainline station will know it would take considerably longer than three minutes to get from one to the other even at a running pace.

It was initially reported that the men took the 0740 train from Luton. As this train did not run, this would obviously be impossible.
However, apparently there is a witness who saw them board this train:

"They spent the night in the Luton area before boarding the 7.40am Thameslink commuter train to London - bizarrely forking out for a pay and display ticket at Luton station.

A woman has told police she saw the men board the train, which made stops at Harpenden and St Albans, arriving at Kings Cross at 8.20am."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=355617&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

It was also reported (by the BBCs 'Horizon' programme among other sources) that the men took the 0748. Again, this would not have got them to London in time to have been captured on CCTV by 8.26am - or indeed enabled them to have taken the tube trains that were bombed.

Again, though, there was a witness who saw them board this train:

"Smartly-dressed and all carrying armystyle rucksacks, the four caught the crowded 07.48 train from Luton to King's Cross Thameslink. A woman told police she saw the four boarding the train, which arrived at King's Cross at about 08.20."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20050713/ai_n14715392

Yes, these witness reports do very much show that information from the media is completely unreliable, and that is why when such information is taken, it is used to illustrate this.
In the case of the train times, as shown here, the information was taken not from the media but from the police and the communications manager at Thameslink.

The issue of the train times is not a conspiracy, it is an inevitable conclusion based on the information and images given by the police investigating this event and also by the company which runs the trains.

The men could not have caught a train from Luton that morning which would have got them to London in time to bomb it. This much, is indeed based on what we do know rather than what we don't.

Ringverse's original post was about Milan's conviction for protesting in the Parliamentary precinct. Comments have been focused on debating trains. Milan's protest was about the dead in Iraq. Shifting the focus onto trains that ran or did not run on 7 July is totally bizarre.

"Shifting the focus onto trains that ran or did not run on 7 July is totally bizarre."

It may seem that way, but I believe it ties in with the ensuing discussion, which incorporated the assertion in Milan Rai's book that the four suspects were guilty when this is by no means proven, and that Milan Rai himself appears extremely reluctant to be challenged on that point.

The issue of the trains is simply one aspect of many which casts doubt onto their guilt. By being explained on here, it hopefully shows that it is a focus worth shifting to as part of discussion in order to dispel the idea myth that it is nothing more than a 'conspiracy theory' - since this is what appears to happen when people challenge Milan Rai's theory in a book which is intended to address the reasons why July 7th happened.

It is also tied up with the need for an independent inquiry, which also formed part of this discussion, so that we can all find out not only who perpretrated the atrocity of July 7th but how and why, and also why there are so many flaws in the narrative that we've already been given.

Sona, some the 7/7 conspiracy lot as a group are as dogmatic and myopic in pushing thir view of 7/7 as the government are.

I don't know anyone who believes the narrative of the events of 7/7 hangs together, but if you don't buy every detail of the conspiracy agenda, you become an agent of the state.

And if you are a victim of the bombing - and don't agree with all the conspiracy theories - then watch out. This isn't directed at individuals commenting here, I don't know who is who, but some treatment survivors recieved on some of the 7/7 conspiracy forums is disgusting.

That's why I have no time for this here. The outstanding questions about the day won't be answered in the comments here, or on the forums.

Back to the call for a full public inquiry...

Yes, Sona, that was exactly my point. The conspiracy theory of 7/7(whichever one we have chosen to believe) is one issue, and the reasons why it took place are quite another.

Maybe if people read the book they will see that it is an attempt to define and analyse what DID happen that day.

READ IT! All Milan is doing with his mostly factual book is painting the scenery. Believers of either conspiracy theory can read it and gain some insight into the backdrop. This will certainly be useful from a historical perspective.

k it makes more sense now. I apologise.

I am an expatriate so can't always follow up on all the details. I noticed only that the comments debated train times and Milan's recent book on the 7 july bombings when the original post was re his conviction for 'illegal' protest.

Official government enquiries are always cover ups and as long as that remains the case, conspiracies will flourish - we have seen this with JFK assasination and again with 9/11. I am not sure why cover ups are such a favourite ploy - a facile answer would be that it allows them to close a case. Blair has steadfastly denied any connection between UK Foreign policy and resultant blowbacks although nobody except Blair & his yesmen ever subscibed to that view.

I have worked in the public service for over 10 years and I know it is impossible to release any report if it disagrees with the PM under the White Hall system. I had assumed hitherto that the enquiry was handled independently of the PM's and Scotland Yard's orbits. Obviously not.

Again I apologise. I am apalled there hasn't been a public enquiry under judicial supervision.

"some the 7/7 conspiracy lot as a group are as dogmatic and myopic in pushing thir view of 7/7 as the government are."

I would agree with that. I would also agree that a survivor who came to a 9/11 truth site and various other blogs and forums was treated by a minority in a way that does no favours for those who have genuine questions about some quite absurd inconsistencies in the hypothesis of how 7/7 was perpetrated.

Branding anybody who feels we should not be asking questions an 'agent of the state', is obviously ridiculous - but again, I have only seen this done by a handful of people - it would be just as unfair and narrow-minded to dismiss everyone who feels we haven't seen the truth yet about 7/7 as a 'conspiracy theorist' as it would be to assume that all those who have no problem with the 'official' version are 'spooks'.

Many of us made repeated attempts to explain why we felt questions should be asked, but an impression seemed to be given that we were trying to 'convert' people to our theory, which is most certainly not so. I do not have a theory about July 7th, I just have a lot of questions which I feel we all deserve the answers to.

I also agree with Ringverse that arguing about this brings us no closer to finding out the truth, but I did feel that it was worth clarifying the issue of the trains, since the author of the original post made reference to it being a conspiracy theory in a comment here.

I found Milan Rai's book to be extremely informative about Iraq, and I would also say that he was balanced in the information he gave about the four men, and did not attempt to slant their characters - like I said in a previous comment, my only problem with the book is that the guilt of these men is presumed when this is by no means a fact.

I've just noticed the typo in my last comment ("in order to dispel the idea myth that it is nothing more than a 'conspiracy theory'"), 'myth' was the term I originally used, but forgot to delete it when I changed it to 'idea', which seemed less arbitrary. Apologies if it made the post seem confusing.

Kier, I'm not trying to dismiss the questions, or the questioners. Just pointing out the 'impression' one gets when trying to wade through much of the stuff on the 7/7 sites, and rather febrile atmosphere one finds on these sites.

The discrepancies are there, but the conclusions drawn from them by many are not supported by what is offered as evidence.

I did try to make clear earlier, I don't have a problem with conspiracy theories, I subscribe to many myself - but I have a bee in my bonnet [as you might have noticed:)] that many of the answers and conclusions offered on the basis of the obvious questions about 7/7, tend to dimminish the questions.

I may have been a presumptuous, or dismissive in my earlier comments on this thread, but when talking aoubut the need for an Inquiry, I get tired of having to preface my arguments with the qualification that I don't think Mossad, MI5/6 the CIA etc did it...

Also, the speed and vitriol with which certain people jump on any related blog post which isn't shouting about train times, which driver was on which train, which train number it was and power surges, winds me up...

Having said all that, I rather suspect we agree on many of the outstanding questions about what happened that day - but if indeed there were 4 suicide bombers, and I believe that is the most likely scenario, then why they did it seems to me to be a more important question than how they did it. The discrepancies in the 'narrative' don't tell me there were not 4 bombers, they tell me the government and media tell lies and make mistakes.

I guess that's my beef... much of which you addressed in your previous comment.

[Just as an aside, I was struck by the lack of moderation of the forums where the survivor concerned was savaged by a few on the forums - there is a difference between censoring opinion and comment, and puting a stop to vicious personal abuse.]

Cheers
ringverse

This is reminiscent of the many conspiracy theories surrounding the the investigation into 9/11 which has failed to satisfy many relatives of victims and surviving firemen.

PNAC 2000 document's reference to 'a Pearl Harbour' to put the grandiose neocon plans into effect, administration leaks concerning Rumsfeld's handwritten annotation to 'sweep it all up' to see if 'SH' could be linked to it three days later, Bush's initial reaction of being more interested in the fate of a 'pet goat' for a full 7 minutes after being informed, lack of attention to warnings from intelligence sources re hijacking of civilian airliners, FBI's failures to track Atta despite his known links to OBL and follow up field officers' reports on Moussaoui's lack of interest in learning to land a plane at flight school, subsequent attempts to 'fix the facts around policy', etc - none of these were particularly helpful. I have no idea if the WTC towers collapsed on account of a controlled implosion or the impact of the fuel laden planes. I am not convinced that the current administration deliberately conspired to murder almost 3,000 of its own citizens in an ideological zeal to shape 'history' or realpolitic. The Congressional investigation did not provide satisfactory answers as to why the Government had been so unprepared for a catastrophe that the intelligence agencies had anticipated from 1998-99.

A public enquiry into the bombings on 7 July can clear up some issues, particularly the identities of the perpetrators. If we accept none of the bombers survived, is it reasonable to expect definitive answers as to why they did it or what motivated them?