7/7 scepticism hits the mainstream - kind of

There’s an interesting piece in the Guardian today about scepticism over the ‘official account’ of the bombings in London last July. It focuses in particular on the work of Bridget Dunne and the other folks behind the July 7th Truth Campaign.

Bridget and the people behind July 7th Truth are understandably well-pleased that some of the causes for their scepticism have finally received an airing in the mainstream media.

Personally, I’m a little less comfortable with the content and the tone of the article.

Some key questions are mentioned, sure enough, but they are seamlessly mixed-in with ‘straw man’ arguments and vague implications of insanity and malice on the part of those who doubt.

This comment towards the end of the article pretty much gives away the objective of the piece…

‘Indeed, it is natural after an event as cataclysmic and unexpected as 7/7 to want to interrogate what happened. But interrogation is not the same as understanding, and after a certain point you must move on.’

Tell you what Mr Journalist. No. Go fuck yourself. I for one won’t move on. Not until the events of that day are subject to a proper and transparent public investigation.

It may have escaped the attention of the writer of that piece but 7/7 has been used, and continues to be used, to justify a whole raft of new ‘security’ measures and laws. So much for 'moving on'. And if there’s one thing that events like the de Menezes and Forest Gate shootings demonstrate it is that the people currently at the top of our police force have absolutely no compunction about lying - either directly or through unattributable leaks to the press. So, why should anyone assume that official accounts of 7/7 are any different – particularly considering the conspicuous lack of hard evidence from that day?

The anniversary of 7/7 is not far off now and I’m not relishing the prospect of the inevitable, stomach churning, media-manipulated events and speeches designed to promote our Government’s agenda under a veneer of giving a shit about the people who died.

And to anyone who thinks that the people behind and working for New Labour aren't that callously manipulative I've got just two words - 'Jo' and 'Moore'

We are talking about proven liars and spinners here. So, when a journalist writes a piece which implies that people who doubt what the police and government are saying about 7/7 are a little touched in the head I’m inclined to think that he’s a bit of a twat – or, possibly, writing a piece that can be sneaked past an editor who is a bit of a twat.

The good news about today’s Guardian piece is that, thanks in no small part to the efforts of the people at July 7th Truth, it seems that doubts about 7/7 are now so widespread that simply ignoring them doesn’t seem to be working any more.

And it’s not just an Internet thing. Many Londoners I know or have met over the last 12 months, not just Internet junkies, suspect that something isn’t quite right about 7/7 and have told me little anecdotes about things that happened that day. We’re not talking fully-fledged conspiracy theories here, just a nagging suspicion that we are not being told everything about the truth of what really happened last year.

Parallels can be drawn with the ‘9/11 Truth’ movement. First, the media tried to ignore it. Then, once it had grown to a level that couldn’t be ignored, the story was managed through a series of hit pieces that concentrated on the crankiest of theories, presented sceptics as being, at best, ‘eccentric’ or directed readers down blind alleys.

So, even though I think today’s Guardian article was a classic ‘hit piece’ I do take comfort from the fact that it was published at all.

It’s a sign of progress.

Congratulations to the people who made it happen.