The GOS doesn't generally take too much notice of conspiracy theories, especially the vociferous campaign by those who believe that 9/11 was a put-up job by the American government. This is mainly because he has been around long enough to know that no government, and especially no American government, could possibly be efficient enough to do it and then get away with it. Let's face it, we're talking about the government that thought it could just walk into Iraq, fire off a few Exocet missiles, depose the dictator, be greeted by cheering crowds and general acclamation, and walk out again feeling all warm and cuddly …
While they don't convince the GOS, he does find some of the facts uncovered by the campaigners very intriguing, and even more so now they've turned their attention to the London bombings of July 2005. A documentary film "Ludicrous Diversion" made, apparently, by The 9/11 British Truth Movement, is well worth half an hour of your time.
In particular it makes some interesting comment on government reaction to the tragedy. Here is The GOS's transcript of that part of the film …
In the wake of the bombs Britain has been left a changed nation. Already the country with the most surveillance in the world, the UK is set to move further towards a literal "Big Brother" society. Tony Blair said at the 2005 Labour party Conference "We know we need strict controls in a changing world."
Really, Tony, we know we need strict controls? Exactly who do you mean by "we"? The British public? The government and police? Or you and your friends? And how exactly are these strict controls going to stop potential terrorists being aggrieved by our foreign policy? And how would these controls have prevented the attacks in London?
We have just been fortunate to see these strict controls in their true light during the latest terrorist threat which played out across the UK like an Orwellian pantomime. On the 10th of August (that was 2006 - GOS) twenty-four supposed terrorists were arrested. They were allegedly just about to blow up 10 planes in mid-air using liquid explosives despite the fact that they had no bombs, no plane tickets, and several didn't even have passports. With the threat apparently foiled, the terrorist alert level immediately went up to "critical", indicating that a terrorist attack was still deemed imminent. In reponse to this insanity the airports immediately introduced an absurd draconian policy regarding carry-on luggage. No liquids could be carried onto the plane, iPods, phones and even books were banned, and mothers were made to taste their baby milk to prove it wasn't explosive. Thankfully our Prime Minister managed to depart for his family holiday in the Caribbean before the airport clamp-down occurred.
As Blair also helpfully explained at the Labour Conference, ID cards, traditionally resisted by the public, would be introduced, again because he says they are necessary in a changing world. But every one of the alleged 7/7 bombers would have legally had one, so what are they hoping to achieve with them? ID cards will have the same effect on preventing terrorism as licence plates have in preventing car crashes. And there's now talk of introducing biometric identification, iris scans and body scanners.
Who is actually being watched here? The so-called terrorists? Or us?
MI5 has boosted its numbers since the attacks by 25%. The Metropolitan Police have requested funding for an additional 1,500 anti-terrorist police, while police powers have risen considerably. These include the right to detention without trial. The UK is currently the only European nation to have suspended Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights which prevents such detention.
How can a supposedly free, moral and rational society allow the imprisonment of human beings without having the evidence to actually charge them with wrongdoing? What happened to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"? When was it decided that this no longer applied to every one of us, irrespective of race or background?
Consider the cases of the following "terrorists": Walter Wolfgang, the 82-year-old pensioner removed from the Labour Party Conference in September 2005 for heckling Jack Straw and then, after he tried to gain re-entry, detained under the Terrorism Act.
80-year-old John Catt, stopped by police for wearing a t-shirt suggesting that Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes, and searched under the Terrorism Act.
Sally Cameron, arrested and held for 4 hours for walking on a cycle path in Dundee under the Terrorism Act.
Isabelle Ellis-Cockcroft, stopped and searched under the Terrorism Act, despite being 11 years old (according to the wording of the Act, "the officer does not have to have reasonable grounds to suspect the individual stopped or searched of carrying instruments or offensive weapons or of involvement in the anticipated violence or terrorism" - GOS).
Ian Blair said in a GMTV interview in February 2005 "I don't think people should distinguish crime and terrorism too easily". Think about those words, coming from a Chief of Police - "I don't think people should distinguish crime and terrorism too easily".
(By January 2006 the police were stopping 100 people a day under the Terrorism Act - GOS).
In the most extraordinary and draconian expansion of their powers ever seen in the UK, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act came into power (sic) in 2005. A provision you may have heard about in the media was Section 132, the restriction to demonstrate within one kilometre of Parliament Square, obviously an essential tool in fighting organised crime. The first conviction under the Act was in December 2005 after Maya Evans was arrested for reading out the names of British soldiers killed in the Iraq War under the Cenotaph without permission. Since when was peaceful protest a serious organised crime? But the more important section of the act, and one that was barely mentioned by the mainstream media, was the changes made to the powers of arrest used by the police. From New Year's Day 2006 the police can now arrest you for any offence at all, including dropping litter or not wearing a seat belt. Indeed, according to the actual wording of the Act, the police can even arrest you (quote) "to enable the name of the person to be ascertained". If you don't think they would actually ever do that, ask yourself why they would include it in the Act at all, if they were never going to use it.
We are constantly told that the terrorists especially the CIA-created (sic) Islamic group Al Qaida are attacking our way of life and our freedom, but these transparently absurd claims are made only by our government, never by the terrorists themselves, who consistently cite very different, and very specific, grievances. And ironically it's not the terrorists attacking our way of life, but our own government. Through the expansion of police powers and the stringent anti-terrorist measures being imposed upon Britain, they are using our fear for our safety to restrict our liberty, and they are using their false promises of security to erode our privacy. This is happening now, and it's happening to every person in the UK. You are not somehow exempt from the regulatory provisions of the new police state being brought into this country. The terrorist cannot take away our freedom or change our way of life. Only our own elected leaders can do that.
And they are.
The GOS says: The film must have been made sometime towards the end of 2006. In the light of recent reports it seems quite likely that destroying our freedom and our way of life is exactly what the terrorists really are trying to do.
But why our government should be trying so hard to help them is a mystery.
P.S. We've received an email from The July 7th Truth Campaign, saying it was they, not the 9/11 Campaign, who made the video in question. Their website is well worth a visit. We don't go along with their campaign for greater transparency in the 7/7 investigation because we believe the more fuss you make about it, the more you glorify the bombers and give credence to their motives when what we should be doing is simply dismissing them for the ignorant, deluded maniacs they are, BUT what the Campaign are saying about the loss of our civil liberties is spot on, and vitally important.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
This site created and maintained by PlainSite