Wednesday, July 20, 2005
I'd like to say that I have confidence in the Prime Minister, his Cabinet, MI5, the Metropolitan police and all the rest who are telling us about evil ideologies and saying that now is not the time for an inquiry but rather for a decision on what legal steps are needed against terror.
I'd like to.
It would indeed be a triumph of officialdom if it could legislate against fear.
Why is it that I feel such unease about the official line taken on the London Bombs? Why is that when Mr Blair and Mr Straw talk about "evil ideologies" I feel the hairs rise on the back of my neck and know that nothing to do with Islam is the cause but rather an instinct, a nose for a bad smell? Am I just a born-again dissenter - or is there really something rather strange going on here when the official line is contradictory and unclear?
Some points raised that question the official line on the London Bombings include:
Early reports said the explosives had been of military origin and that the bombers must have had "someone on the inside who enabled them to get out of the military establishment." Independent Why were the early reports wrong - if they were?
But where is the truth? Were they there or were they not?
On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants said: "At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now." audio The same stations?
Charles Clarke vehemently denied that anyone connected to the bombing was investigated last year by MI5 when M. Sarkozy said last Wednesday in Brussels that this was so. Indeed, Mr Clarke sounded incandescent. But the BBC said otherwise. The Independent today (Wednesday) reports that the Intelligence and Security Committee will question Sir John Scarlett and other intelligence chiefs about ".. the lessons to be learnt." (A phrase we have heard before and one that hardly fills one with confidence.)
The official line has been questioned by the London Mirror and the Independent among others - reports can be seen here.
I'll add to them - or refute them - when I can.
I would much rather not be looking at these questions. But can one really trust the official line? The Jonathan Freedland Guardian article Yes, they did lie to us continues to haunt me.
Dammit. How much more comfortable to pull the covers over one's head.