The BBC 7/7 and that Ripple Effect Conspiracy Files Show (update)
It appears that the Conspiracy Files programme has form. As a programme it has investigated the conspiracy theories behind the death of Princess Diana, Dr David Kelly and 9/11. More often than not, because of their method of dramatising the evidence against the conspiracy theorists, they have actually given kudos to the theories they hope to destroy.
In the days before Iplayer, these shows were available to stream through real media (use real alternative – it is just better). This is yet another area where BBC Iplayer has actually reduced choice. Many of the shows that used to available for streaming are now gone from their archives.
I have to say, this was a very very poor attempt by the BBC to label all those calling for a public inquiry into 7/7 as nuts. A typical guilt by association tactic more associated with the darker arts of propaganda than journalistic research. Another blog has directly accused the BBC of siding with “spooks” on a show that was nothing more than a whitewash.
My post yesterday predicted that the BBC would fail to provide any reasonable explanation about why 7/7 happened. For a start not questioning even the basic actions of the “bombers” on that day. Buying a parking ticket for the car and return train fares? What were they worried Network rail would chase them for the fines in the afterlife?
They attacked the youtube author for his videos, accusing him of deliberately stirring up Islamic hate of the Police. They do a good enough job of that themselves anyway. The police (and indeed the BBC) have continually demonised Muslims. They continue to do so. The police launch bigger and bigger “terror raids” that result in no prosecutions. The BBC often have cameras there for the raid itself. When these raids fail to turn up any evidence the BBC is then happy to repeat the lie they were not terrorists they were kiddie fiddlers.
(Update – this is the bit I can not get over. Tony Blair said hand on his Zanu Labour v1 battery cell that his Foreign Policy of invading Muslim Countries had nothing whatsoever to do with London getting bombed. However the BBC have the gall to say that the conspiracy theorist may be responsible for any future Islamic extremist terror outrage. Someone please explain how I can make this compute)
Can the BBC seriously say that if Jean Charles De Menezes had have been Muslim the Police and the BBC would not still be claiming that another tube outrage was prevented? Which on the day of the shooting is exactly what they were trying to do.
In fact the BBC made up lies on the behalf of the Police while reporting the shooting. In one of the early articles, the BBC flat out lied.
Home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said officers had challenged a known suspect they had been following.
“He ran, they followed him. They say they gave him a warning, they then shot him.
“They brought in the air ambulance. They did everything they can to revive him. He died at the scene.”
None of that actually happened did it Ms Gilmore?
In fact does this person the BBC “interviewed” really exist?
Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a “bomb belt with wires coming out”.
Or this person?
Londoner Dan Copeland was in the carriage in which the man was shot.
He told BBC News: “We were sitting for a few minutes on the platform, then we heard shouting from the concourse between the two platforms.
“Then the man burst in through the door to my right and grabbed hold of the pole and a person by the glass partition near the door, diagonally opposite me.
“An officer jumped on the door to my left and screamed, ‘Everybody out!’
The fact that the police used illegal hollow point rounds in that shooting was hardly covered at all by the BBC. Yet more crimes carried out by our Government forces in our name.
It is not as thought the police did not try and besmirch his name either, early on claiming he was an illegal over-stayer. Which again the BBC reported.
The BBC do themselves a disservice by completely dismissing Israeli links. Operation Kratos, the illegal and never debated or agreed shoot to kill policy originated in Israel.
The BBC themselves asked very similar questions. The Panorama video is still available to stream. I guess that they are allowed to ask questions because they get their money at the point of a gun. They are after all responsible a large percentage of women prisoners, who were too poor to pay the BBC TV tax. Members of the public who ask questions are just nuts and must be attacked.
Well the BBC have continually stamped on their own legitimacy, they have lied for the Government as demonstrated here and by siding with the Government on this one has to question their legitimacy again. If they were prepared to lie on behalf of the police who murdered an innocent civilian on the streets of London, are they prepared to do so again?
The official version of what is supposed to have happened has never been tested at an inquiry. It is therefore nothing more than a conspiracy theory itself. Which makes their show nothing more than a hit piece.
The facts of 7/7 are very much open to question.
It seems that the BBC, who require us to fund them will now happily belittle those who simply want answers to questions. Well that as the Pet Shop Boys say in their homage to Jean Charles makes us all criminals now.
And if you criminalise a whole Country, well no one does have anything to hide any more except of course – the Government. Iran is beginning to discover the consequences of that.
Leave a reply to thebigotbasher Cancel reply
Recent Comments
 | Anonymous on Big in Japan? Not likely… |
 | Joe Fleming on Sarah Palin’s Second Ame… |
 | fred smith on In reply to Dan Riehl: The Lia… |
| In reply to Dan Rieh… on Hey Megan Fox – take you… | |
 | alhaji ibrahim yeldu on What have the Muslims ever don… |
Google News
- Trump hush money case: Testimony resumes in historic trial - The Associated Press
- Supreme Court confronts the US homelessness crisis - BBC.com
- Columbia, NYU, Yale on the boil over Israel’s war on Gaza: What’s going on? - Al Jazeera English
- ‘Our artillery is starving:’ Ukraine holds its breath as US set to approve $60bn of military aid - CNN
- Musk decries Australian court 'censorship' of X terror posts - Reuters
- U.K. Rwanda deportation plan has passed Parliament - NPR
- Police hunt former cop after two women are found dead and a child is abducted - NBC News
- What to watch for in Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primaries - NBC News
- MISTRIAL: Jury does not reach verdict in George Alan Kelly trial - KGUN 9 Tucson News
- Biden leans on one-time battleground Florida as a cautionary tale - POLITICO
The BigotBasher 
> In fact does this person the BBC “interviewed” really exist?
Probably – and he was probably convinced he saw a bomb belt.
The human mind is crazy and often creates all sorts of images based on information that *must* be true. If the persons memories of the man are vague until the police shot him then probably the mind is covering that vagueness with what *gut* says should be there.
Just basic psychology 🙂
I agree with you, that if this person existed, then psychology explains the filling in of the gaps. However, reporters inventing interviewees is not uncommon.
The whole Charles De Menezes situation can be avoided if we just passed even more laws.
It’s a little piece of legislation I like to call the “Simple Minds act” and it’s basic tenets require:
1) White people should be white. Tanning or fake tanning is not allowed. Punisible by shootieness.
2) Black people must be propper negros, unless they are willing to black up with boot polish if slightly light skinned they will suffer shootieness.
3) All people in between the extremes of black of white will be legally required to either:
a) Do the macarena to prove they are Latino
b) Shout “alaaq barr” every 30 seconds to prove they are Muslim
Anyone outside these restrictions is required to wear a clown costume in order to make 5 (and only 5) simple stereotypes for the simple minded to follow.
Said shootiness will also require bullets to be paid for (even if the bullets used are illegal). These can be invoiced to your family if as a result of shootiness the Government is unable to revive you.
PAY YOUR TV TAX!
Where on earth did the BBC suggest that those calling for a public inquiry were nuts? Rachel North, who appeared on the programme and was treated sympathetically, has consistently called for a public inquiry. What she is interested in is the background behind the attack, whther it could have been prevented, the impact of goivernement foreign policy and the like. What she has not time for at all is the delluded conspiracy theories about who commited the act and the consequent poisoning of relations.
There certainly is a case to be answered over the way that the evidence supporting the Iraq invasion was manipulated by politicians and the role that much of the media had in colluding with it, but there is not mystery about who created those bombs and blew themselves with a large number of innocent passengers in London that day.
I wasn’t in London on 7/7, but I was in an office a few hundred yards from one of the attempted attacks on 21/7. Or are you going to suggest they were some sort of state conspiracy too?
There are, of course, many questions to answer about the Jean Charles De Menezes shooting. The result was a public relations disaster for the police, but I’ve no doubt that the whole thing came down to panicky responses to perceived public danger in the light of these two events. It’s a grave danger under any conditions of public threat (and it is a real public threat) and excuse for governments to enact repressive legislation. But I’ll repeat it again – the threats are real.
As for Blair – well, I have no time for his own self-justification and there clearly is a motiviational link between the Iraq invasion and the London bombers (both th2 7/7 and 21/7 would-be-bombers). But remember, 9/11 and other attacks happened before the current Afghan war, let alone Iraq. I’ve no time for the proto-fascist Al-Qaeda or their supporters. They are an evil, bigotted, repressive organisation who support the subjegatiion of people in the name of their own beliefs (as, does the Taleban). Ironically both Bush and Blair are faith-driven people, certain of their own rightousness. Look for the problem, and you’ll find it in the attitude of these type of politicans, not some ridiculously elaborate theory about 7/7, 9/11, the death of the Princess of Wales or whether NASA really landed anybody on the moon.
Continually through out the show where it seemed to imply that anyone questioning the Government account of events was a nutter. Any decent inquiry should include who, why, what, when and where as basic elements of investigation. The programme accepted a call for an inquiry into whether 7/7 could have been prevented however Londoners deserve more.
I have severe doubts about most conspiracy theories. The primary one being that Government is generally not capable of pulling them off. Parts within it maybe. A giant new world order conspiracy- no. Given the competence of the Labour Government I am even less convinced of their role in pulling of a conspiracy such as this.
Would a Government lie or twist facts to gain from using fear? Absolutely. Would this one? Of any previous Government in the history of the UK – this one more than any other. Has it been done before? At home, yes (45 minutes). Abroad yes (Madrid bombing). Do those who question the Government account deserve to be treated as nutters? Absolutely not. Two individuals were villified by the BBC to create ad-hominem attack points. One guy is a holocaust denier so everything he says must be a lie and the other guy has a document which says he is God. Thus any questioning of the Government account is rendered stupid because you side with nutters. Well, that makes me more suspicious and I doubt that every one who questions this Government is a nutter.
So who did create the bombs? Who obtained the materials? Were they working alone? How were they funded?
Just look at the way the police reacted on the day. From Blair downwards. They claimed that they had stopped a terrorist threat. If he had not been a Latino, can you really say the official story would be different now?
As for eye witnesses, the one who reportedly saw Jean Charles with a bomb wrapped round him ready to detonate, if he existed, was not as such telling lies. He would have been repeating what he thought he saw.
The 9/11 Commission accepted that a contributing factor to the attacks was US Foreign Policy. Although some US politicians want to forget about that.
I think that we can agree on the point about the attitudes of our own self righteous politicians who appear to be deliberately unaware of the consequences of their actions.