Ian Blair: We’ve got to get the numbers right. We’ve got to pretend that this is a terrrist attack instead of just another dust explosion on the tube. We’ve got to do it for my master Tonee (If you search you will find that I adore Tony and consider it my duty to perform ‘the intimate cleansing’).
We’ll do that Oh it’s so awfull down there BS and just keep underisables to die – int. revos, human rights lawyer, Beer, Brewer, etc
Ian Blair: You can’t come down here yet, they’re still not dead. It’s all those lefties and gays and that. Stay out for a few days until they’re dead. FM, that human rights lawyer is still breathing, give me a day or two.
IB: I’m only getting away with this because of Tonee and those other Neo-Con Labour Party Fascists – John Reid, that fat two-arsed Cunt. Anyone should know that we can clear the tube in no time – but we’ve said it’s terrrrrrist and we’ve got to leave all them to die to make up the nummbers. The numbers are important – better the Devil you know! We’ve got to leave those who we’ve decided to die to die. Better really, they don’t agree with us.
Were there problems with getting down to tube explosions before? No, there was no problems.
Tony Blair & Ian Blair
Labour Party: This was your shit Ian Blair being Tonee’s butler
ed: There have been many explosions on the London tube. They are dust explosions. I think that I am correct in saying that there was never a fatality. It’s clear that this incident was manipulated for political purposes – by those shits Ian Blain and Tony Blair. They let people die and they decided who should die
for political purposes
Don’t be stupid ignorant. You’re identified by your mobile phone.
Ian Blair and Tonee decided who were going to die. By the numbers.
By the numbers …
for JcM
sorry,
J d M
The Labour Party,
So what are you going to do to make it right?
Are you going to hold people to account?
Most likely no
Then, I am your enemy because you can be such evil bs and not have any regard that this poor guy was killed for your BS
It could be easy EdMb: You do IB and TB when you’re elected. They’re gone all of a sudden. Isn’t that fair? A deal with someone-or-other. Taking me to the pub would be a start. You’ve got to clean the s**t. Didn’t they teach you at PPE?. I have no concerns when I go sailing.
Is not necessary to go to the pub. Until I get a commitment …
ed: Look the point is that tube stations are really close to each other and the tube only travels about 4 or 5 miles an hour. Have you researched the tube cleaning train? It was a vacuum cleaning train that was discontinued – so more dust
[1/10/14 There are claims that the underground travels at about 20 mph average including stops. I think that is hugely exaggerated. ]
ed: Tube stations might be only a mile or two from each other -is no problem for rescue services firemen
Let’s get back to Ian Blair and Tony Blair. Can they be suicided please?
or other, I don’t care
Is it too much to ask that their families are also suicided?
Yes it probably is
These cnuts like John Reid, Charles Clarke, Jack Straw. Isn’t it shit when they call for someone to be killed while they’re hiding. I’m not hiding. Don’t they deserve it?
later edit: I forgot the blind cnut. Him too.
[The Labour Clarke, not the Tory]
I think that it’s fair, when these cnuts had power …
They did it, I do it back
Like I said, I have a mirror
C’mon Jonothan, I want to move on. I wanna go sailing and earn my earrings
1/10/14 There’s a section missing from this post. I’m sure that I mentioned the bus, about BMA doctors being able to recognise dead people.
About the number 30 bus on 7/7/2005 7/7/7 . The point about the bus is how were there 2 dead on the bus on 7 July and 13 dead on the bus on 8 July? That’s a difficult one to answer unless of course having a major incident like 7/7 provides the perfect excuse to go out and murder a few people. It’s then easier to put them on the bus than to take them down to the carriages.
I’ve been wondering what it takes to start an investigation by the police into a crime. I would expect that it would just be reasonableness that a crime has been committed. I wouldn’t expect much interest in trivial crimes like shoplifting or minor criminal damage but I would expect more interest in more serious issues like murder, incitement to murder, terrorism, etc.
and the problem is that it’s not normal criminals that are doing this. Instead it’s governments, police chiefs and international criminals protected by privy council above-governmental dictat according to some above-law divine protocol.
Don’t look at this the protocol says … this is above justice …
Instead the privy council dictat says everyone invited to G8 2005 are above UK laws. They can’t even be arrested or questioned. They are above the law. These Neo-Con cnuts can do what they like without any legal recourse …
They can’t even be arrested or questioned
They can commit murder or mass-murder without even being arrested or questioned
If these b’stards did the 7 July 2005 bombings they could not be arrested or even questioned because of a privy council dictat made by Tony Blair
Later edit: I’m very pleased that at least some journalists are better informed now. I’m not really sure that that makes any difference since I’ve been warned of journalists being carp.
I wonder if journalists were so carp that they weren’t even aware of this coded bs
Some of you – a select few – will be aware that I have very recently made some good progress researching the events of London during the early reign of the Blairs – Tonee and Ian that is. I’m making progress on the unofficial narrative of events.
I want to get it correct and well documented so it will likely take some months. In the process, I’m also addressing the causes of some other issues like rambling nonsense postings and changing tack.
Looking at Ian Blair as boss of the Metropolitan Police provides a very informative alternative narrative on events of the Tony Blair years.
Tony Blair was and is in every way a fraudulent man presenting an image that was very far from reality. He was definitely never a socialist or democrat and should never have been leader of the Labour party. He never had an understanding of democracy and I suspect that he never actually had a democratic mandate.
Never had a democratic mandate? How can I claim that? In the same way that Dubya Bush never had a democratic mandate. His first election was stolen and subsequent elections were shall we say managed. It’s not democracy to be elected on the basis of mass deception. In Blair’s case it would entail [edit: would have entailed] huge electoral fraud at his first election to get the numbers.
It is in this context that Ian Blair should be regarded as the servant to his master Tony Blair – a fraudulent actor serving a fraudulent actor (serving a fraudulent actor).
The present deputy-commissioner of the Met Police, Ian Blair, was already on scene as a detective inspector.
We knew each other very well and he turned to me and said, “Peter, I think we’ve had a bomb explosion here.”
I asked him why and he said, “At least one of the casualties has metal deep inside him… but we’re not going to go public on it.”
There is a further wider issue in considering Ian Blair in the Tony Blair era. Tony Blair was a dictatorial leader unencumbered by his cabinet. In his huge – and often demonstrated – sycophancy for Tony Blair Ian Blair provided the police element of the Fascist state. It is very fortunate that both of them have passed. Perhaps ‘we’ should be particularly grateful to those that participated in their departure.
All articles in this Ian Blair series are subject to revision.
9/7/13 9.30am
I have done some research on Ian Blair but don’t have it all: no doubt I will realise more in the course of this series. I’ll be looking at Ian Blair’s tenure as boss of the Metropolitan Police chronologically. It will therefore include attacks on the Libertines, comments on Cocaine made very early on in his tenure, the London explosions, the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, Forest Gate, etc. Remember that it provides an alternative narrative.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary reports on the many instances that the police refused to pursue allegations against Jimmy Savile due to his status and affiliation(s?). Savile was effectively above the law because it was not applied to hime
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, the watchdog that looks at how the police function, looked for evidence of reports, complaints and intelligence that had been gathered on Savile down the years.
They didn’t find a great deal – just seven potentially actionable complaints which emerged during a series of incidents. The inspectorate lists a further series of incidents in which people tried to report Savile and, in effect, failed to get the police to record what they were being told. …
I want it on record that I have experienced the same in trying to get the police to investigate allegations of very serious crimes against former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Ian Blair. I have made serious allegations to the police which are simply ignored. This is exactly the same as with Savile – he’s protected through the police’s refusal to record or take action on any credible allegations against him. Similarly, again it is because of his status and affiliation(s?) although I’m sure that Blair can’t now have any friends and must be universally hated for the useless little shit that he is and has been.
Which brings us to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Why are police treated so differently when they are accused and investigated? Shouldn’t they simply be investigated like any other criminals? Why are they told of accusations against them?
On Christmas Eve, I claimed to have discovered a nasty spook. A spook is a term for a spy – somebody who presents a fake image for unsavoury purposes, usually to deceive.
I had had a few drinks so I could be mistaken … but it was wierd. We had been talking only briefly when I realised that I recognised him but I was unsure from where. I told him that I recognised him and then I realised from where. He presents himself totally differently elsewhere with totally different clothing and even a different nationality of accent.
As I say, I suppose that I could be mistaken but when you know somebody visually well, you can recognise them. I hadn’t seen this person for four months or so but I do believe that I recognised him and he didn’t deny it.
I know that this is one of spooks’ techniques because I’ve seen it before. At the bus bombing of 7 July, 2005 there is a white haired man with a strong Blackcountry accent giving statements to television reporters. I recognised him as a spook because he was one of UK’s biggest spooks, working for UK defence company Quinetic at the time. I know he’s a spook because we followed the same course at University.
It was a fake accent but he was exactly where one of UK’s highest spooks would be expected on 7 July, 2005. Spooks must practice the accents. His surname was correct while his first name was not. I’ve published his name elsewhere.
later edit: You may as well have the name. The name is Bryan/Brian Jones.
29/12/12: To be entirely correct: I am aware that he worked for Quinetic 1999-2000.
Since the last UK politics news review the main issue is that the official narrative of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster has been proved to be totally fabricated. Feckin wake up will you? Terrrists that hate our freedoms brought down two skyscrapers, Suicide bombers in London, JCD was not murdered by Zionist scum? Come on.
I’m sorry to admit that I actually voted(1) Liberal-Democrat at the last general election. I could never vote Tory and I couldn’t bring myself to vote Labour even though it was no longer hijacked by Blair & Co. I’m going to have real problems ever voting Labour. They willingly allowed themselves to be hijacked by a Fascist, psychopathic nutter totally divorced from reality and any concept of truth who quite clearly pursued an alien agenda for so many years. Unison and Unite were so supportive of Him. Is it so important to remain in power that you prostitute all your values? Today, the Liberal Democrats may be following the same path.
Back to voting Liberal-Democat at the last general election. It was a tactical vote but I’m pleased to say that it had no effect since my constituency is certain to return a Labour MP.
As I’m sure that you’re aware – while there was no overall winning party at the General Election the Conservatives and the Liberal-Democrats formed a coalition government, the ConDems. I was pleased that New Labour was eventually defeated and out of power and initially hoped that the Liberal-Democrats would restrain the Tories. No such luck. It turns out that Clegg is a Tory in everything except political party. A European Tory, immensely rich and privilleged and – although exactly the type that are repeatedly appointed – entirely the wrong person to hold any political office. Why oh why did they listen to the press and dump Campbell?
The ConDem coalition – essentially a Tory government – shit on the electorate. Tuition fees, the Education Maintenance Allowance that was so important to poor families and now the NHS. “No top down reorganisation”. What a Blair-faced lie that one was. “We’re not privatisng the NHS”. Well, you’re not selling shares but in every other sense the NHS is getting privatised. Foreign and UK companies running hospitals, the profitable bits getting cherry-picked and a cash-starved shell of an NHS having to pick up the pieces. Health insurance, pay or go without – isn’t that privatisation?. Opposed by all major healthcare associations and yet they continue in destroying the NHS.
“No top-down reorganisation”. There is quite obviously no mandate for change.
The Lib-Dems will and are getting blamed for this. Without them it would not be happening. The toxic comments they get on newspaper articles are instructive. Will it be fatal for them? I expect to be campaigning against the Lib-Dems with anti-Blair vigour unless they change their ways pretty quickly.
(1) To be continued.
19/9/11
DRAFT: to be expanded – particularly murders by police, the role of ACPO.
There are many issues.
I am regarded by oppressive state authorities as an anarchist and potential violent terrorist. This is really quite strange since I consider it important to vote and participate in the democratic process. There is something quite clearly wrong here.
It is clear that I regularly vote as some simple searches will demonstrate. Why then am I regarded as an anarchist? How can the official assessment be so absurdly wrong? Similarly, it is clear that I participate in the democratic process and that I have always participated within the discourse of politics. Why then am I regarded as a potential terrorist – a potential violent extremist? Again, how can the official assessment be so absurdly wrong?
I consider that a huge proportion of it is to do with my perspective and activity. As somebody who rejects fake, manufactured terrorism I have been cast as the enemy. As somebody who recognises and is able to identify the real terrorists, I am the enemy of those terrorists.
Accusations of terrorism used to involve issues such as making bombs and using bombs and the threats of such things. We have seen – particularly over the last decade – that terrorism is used by strong vested interests to promote and pursue a particular agenda. Accusations of terrorism are now cheapened and directed at those that oppose such strong vested interests.
Oppressive state authorities promote the official ideology of fake, manufactured terrorism while the true anti-terrorist is cast as the terrorist. Accusations of terrorism have come to be directed at percieved opponents of some powerful interest group.
The official assessment is so absurdly wrong because the world has been turned on its head. Those that should be concerned with fighting terrorism are the terrorists and those that are accused of being terrorists are the anti-terrorists.
20/9/11 Still in Draft: may be altered and to be expanded
The question remains: Why is the official police assessment of me so absurdly wrong despite clear and obvious evidence to the contrary?
While it is accepted that the police are capable of staggering incompetence, there is more than that. I think that the answer is harassment – it is obvious that suspected terrorists can be violently killed by police with complete impunity at any time. This is a continuation of the harassment I endured from Ian Blair and John Reid. The same bullshit is involved – homegrown terrorists, liquid explosives, etc.
I think that many murders by police that are similar to me are intended to reinforce this point i.e. we can kill people similar to you so we can kill you. The police involved and their superiors are responsible for these murders by police and they are likely to continue until they are held to account.
Thursday, December 18, 2008 – Danger of dust explosions on the London Underground
This blog was mysteriously deleted in early December 2005. [edit: 2006] Here is a posting from the deleted previous content. [19/8/11 It was actually mysteriously deleted in early December 2008]
� January 10, 2006 – Danger of dust explosions on the London Underground
Danger of dust explosions on the London Underground
This article argues that the danger of dust explosions from combustible tunnel dust on the London underground has not been properly recognised and addressed. It suggests that the RMT union urgently investigates the dangers of dust explosions on the tube so that it is able to ensure the safety of its members and the public.
In the last 20 years industrial dust explosions have accounted for several hundred deaths and hundreds of millions of dollars of insurance money and yet they are one of the least recognised of industrial fire hazards. They can occur within any process where a combustible dust is produced, and can be triggered by any energy source, including static sparks, friction and incandecent material.
There are a few basic rules to observe to see whether a dust is capable of causing a dust explosion:
The dust must be combustible.
The dust must be capable of becoming airborne.
The dust must have a size distribution capable of flame propagation.
The dust concentration must be within the explosible range.
An ignition source must be present.
The atmosphere must contain sufficient oxygen to support and sustain combustion.
London Underground does not recognise tunnel dust as a potential fire and explosive hazard.
Mike Strzelecki, LUL: It’s dust, it’s caked on dust, it’s a mixture of iron from the action of the rail on the wheel and vice versa, it’s human dust in terms of skin and hair particles which we all shed routinely, and it’s quartz from the brake locks on trains. Now, a lot of research has been done into this over the years, including very recently, indeed we had an Institute examine all the research that’s been done to determine whether this stuff is dangerous to people’s health or not, and the answer is that there is no evidence that it is, and the most sort of compelling evidence that it isn’t, is that the staff who work on the underground who are obviously are in the underground environment much longer than customers, there is no evidence of any medical problems occurring from long hours and many years of exposure, working in the underground.
Eric Ollerenshaw: Is there a fire risk?
Mike Strzelecki, LUL: No, it doesn’t burn.
Having reviewed available evidence – concentrating particularly on incidents in 2003 – this article calls for an urgent investigation into the fire and explosive dangers of tunnel dust on the London Underground.
Is tube tunnel dust dangerous?
London Underground have conducted inquiries into the possible dangers of breathing tunnel dust. These inquiries provide an insight into the composition of tunnel dust. Care should be taken in evaluating the findings since the studies concentrate on suspended dust in stations and drivers’ cabs. It is likely that the dust actually inside the tunnels is different since it is a different environment. There is little movement of air, tube trains travel along sections between platforms and dust probably accumulates in the deeper parts of tunnels. Tunnel dust may have a higher iron content from wear of the rails and wheels and less organic content from passangers clothes, etc.
Studies into London tube tunnel-dust reveal that it is composed of iron, silica and organic products. Different studies have arrived at different ratios of these constitiuents with London Underground finding a roughly 50% iron content and a study conducted by IOM finding a 90% iron content.
It is generally accepted that dust must be smaller than 0.1mm in diamater to pose an explosive hazard, with smaller particles being more explosive. The dust inhalation studies on the London tube have been concerned with much smaller particles than this.
[PM10s are particles with a diamater less than 10 micrometres, PM2.5 have a diamater less that 2.5 micrometre. 1 micrometre = 1 millionth of a metre, 1×10-9m]
Institute of Occupationa Medicine report ‘Study of tunnel dust in the London Underground’
Composition of tunnel dust: Samples from station platforms showed that almost all (typically, about 90%) of the dust in the PM 2.5 samples was analysed as iron. There were trace amounts of chromium (0.1 ? 0.2%), manganese (0.6 ? 1%) and copper (0.1 ? 1.5%). No zinc was detected on any of the samples (<0.1%). Quartz, analysed in respirable dust, accounted for only 1-2%; these measurements were approximate, being close to the analytical detection limit.
…
The distributions from the three stations are remarkably similar, with the data from Hampstead being slightly finer. The median diameter for the dust from Oxford Circus and Holland Park is 0.4µm and for Hampstead 0.35µm. In each case about 80% of the particles have a diameter less than 1µm. Again, note that this underestimates the aerodynamic diameter of the denser particles.
[µm is micrometre – one millionth of a metre (1×10-6 m), equivalent to one thousandth of a millimetre.]
Does it burn? is the big question. If it burns, then it is explosive when suspended or thrown into the air.
Tunnel dust silica crystals have a coating of iron on their surface, which makes them less likely to cause fibrotic lung disease.
Since the silica is coated with iron, it will burn.
Have there been dust explosions on the tube?
Eyewitness accounts certainly suggest that there have been many dust explosions on the tube. Witnesses often speak of smoke, dust and fires. There have been many trackside fires. If not dust, then what’s burning? It’s almost as if there’s a conspiracy to deny this real danger to tube users.
Passengers involved in a horrific rail crash on London Underground told last night how they escaped death thanks to a miraculous chain of events after a Tube train lost a wheel and hit the tunnel wall.
Yesterday’s crash, which left 30 people injured and prompted fresh questions about under-investment in rail safety, happened shortly after 2pm as the train was travelling from St Paul’s to Chancery Lane.
Witnesses said sparks flew from beneath the train, which was carrying 800 people, before the three rear carriages left the tracks, bouncing from wall to wall and sending passengers flying from their seats. Last night one man was being treated for a suspected broken leg after being smashed into the opposite side of the train.
Amid scenes of panic as the carriages were plunged into darkness and smoke billowed through smashed windows and doors, some passengers helped others out along the track. ‘I was absolutely panicking,’ said Claire Ellis. ‘I was thinking: this is it, this is the day it happens.’
…
The hospital said many passengers had suffered smoke inhalation.
…
Economics student Humaiun Kobir, 25, was on the last carriage. ‘The train was being thrown from side to side, hitting both walls of the tunnel. All the lights went out and thick black smoke was pouring in. I could hear the driver over the radio shouting “Mayday, mayday” then the train stopped.
‘He asked all the passengers to get to the front as quickly as possible. My first thought was that it was some kind of terrorist attack. We were all terrified that another train was going to smash into the back of us. But we knew there was a fire and no one wanted to run into that.’
More than 90 passengers had to be evacuated from a Tube train and walked to safety through the tunnel following a track fire, London Underground (LU) said.
Fire crews were called to a small track-side fire on the Bakerloo Line at Embankment at about 1340 BST, a LU spokeswoman said.
During the incident, one of the trains stalled in the tunnel and 94 passengers were stranded on board for 40 minutes before being walked down to Waterloo station.
The incident was one of three to affect rail and tube networks in London during the day.
The Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) union also claimed a “potentially serious” incident was averted on 11 October when a driver decided to evacuate a train and take it out of service because of a defect.
It said the train had a seized axle which could have resulted in a derailment if it had continued, but LU accused the RMT of exaggerating the incident.
Eyewitness Harry Anscombe, 22, arrived at the station at 1015 BST as emergency services pulled up outside. “There were lots of blackened faces and there was one man with bandages on his face and blood streaming down,” he said.
Mr Anscombe asked one of the passengers what had happened, but the man said he did not know because it was “so black down there”. The passenger said the derailment had caused a huge amount of dust to fly up, making it difficult to see.
Why we need an inquiry
This article raises the issue of the unacknowledged danger of dust explosions on the London tube. There is no indication that London Underground has investigated the danger of dust explosions. On the contrary, evidence is presented that suggests that London Underground has been complacent and negligent in its approach to public safety. The article suggests – through witness accounts – that dust explosions have played a role in tube incidents.
Should it be accepted that dust poses an explosive hazard on the London tube, then safety procedures must change. Maintence needs to be performed flawlessly so that nothing disturbs the dust and that there are no sources of heat to ignite it. Drivers and other staff need to be trained properly so that they can better ensure their own and the public’s safety. Drivers need to know that they should not drive through visible clouds of dust.
Ten minutes later, a driver on a following train reported Bethnal Green and Liverpool Street stations were “really dusty and murky”. The controller reports “there might be a problem with the train in front” and the driver replied “it ain’t half kicking up a lot of dust”. It is suggested that the RMT urgently investigates the dangers of dust explosions on the London tube.
� January 11, 2006 – Fire alert on London tube 11/1/2006
Posted by dizzy
REUTERS reports smoke and fire engines attending 2 tube stations.
Is it fair to assume that smoke is coming from a tunnel?No smoke without fire eh?
LONDON (Reuters) – No one was hurt in an alert that brought fire engines to two London Underground stations on Wednesday, police said.
A spokewoman for London Transport police said firefighters had checked reports of smoke coming from the Bakerloo line, but the incident was not threatening. Fire engines were sent to Oxford Circus and Piccadilly Circus.
� May 3, 2006 – Ignition
Posted by parallax
BBC NEWS – Track power surge releases flare
Last Updated: Saturday, 1 October 2005, 16:08 GMT 17:08 UKTrain passengers fled a platform after a power surge sent a flare 10 foot into the air from the track.
An eye witness described people screaming as the fireball moved along the track at London Bridge station on Saturday afternoon.
Electrician Peter Difolco, 44, was returning from a shopping trip when he said there was a large flash.
“It was like a Roman candle firework, there was lots of smoke and people were screaming and running out the station.”
‘Station evacuated’
Mr Difolco, who was with his wife, said he had an idea it was something electrical.
“I had guessed it was something electrical but there were a lot of frightened people.
“There was a small explosion like a firecracker. It went up quite high and started working its way down the track, it went about 120 foot and it lasted for about a minute.
“There were lots of police sirens and then the station was evacuated and staff were comforting people.”
British Transport Police confirmed there was an incident involving a power line at the station at about 1330 BST.
There seem to be problems with the nature and the location of the explosives. If they were dust cloud explosions, then they would be over a wide area and there would be no explosives to identify.
An article from my previous ‘On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing’ blog which ceased on 31 May 2011. The previous blog was mysteriously deleted in early April 2008.
Thursday, December 18, 2008 – Blair’s government and Metropolitan Police policy dictated by the Jerusalem Post
� April 19, 2006 – Blair’s government and Metropolitan Police policy dictated by the Jerusalem Post
Ian Blair’s letter to the Home Office stating that he is blocking the Independent Police Complaints Commission (incorrectly dated 21 July 2005, correct date 22 July 2005) reveals concern for the tactics and sources used in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes.”There is much concern about revealing either the tactics that we have and/or the sources of information on which we are operating.”Makes you wonder … doesn’t it? Lets review the situation.On 7 July, 2005 a series of at least three explosions occurred on the London tube network followed by an explosion on a London bus approximately an hour later. 56 people were killed and hundreds injured. I have proposed that the tube explosions – but not the bus bombing – were the result of incompetence, negligence or ignorancesince there was an anti-terrorism exercise being carried out at the same time. I have also written about the unacknowledged danger of dust explosions on the London underground. It is worth noting that Peter Power of Visor Consultants that had organised the exercise has stated that the explosions occured at “precisely” where his fictitious explosions were planned and that they had prepared their exercise without external assistance (i.e. without consulting fire safety experts).
“On July 22, an innocent Brazilian citizen was gunned down inside a London Underground train during a bungled police operation which followed the second terrorist attack in London. The Metropolitan Police says the shooting was a “tragic mistake”. But behind the public contrition there lies a web of contradictory statements, deviation from routine procedures, and a mist of confusion that has led to serial calls for the resignation of the Met’s head, Sir Ian Blair. And throughout four weeks of calls for clarity and the truth, has been the odour of a police cover-up that has refused to retreat in its intensity.”
Halevi calls for the “complete destruction” of the enemy. The police shoot to kill.
Dig deeper say the Zionists. “Roots are not superficial, but deep” says Blair.
“Measured, surgical steps” say the Zionists. Jean Charles de Menezes, a ‘surgical strike’.
“Sleeper cells” say the Zionists. Police ‘discover’ a sleeper-cell.
The Zionists say “British security had not been caught sleeping, but rather didn’t root out terror cells with enough resolve.” MI5 not at fault, the police shoot to kill, the roots are deep.
“In the past two years, they have arrested several cells. But this attack shows they didn’t go deep enough and this is mainly due to legal and cultural restrictions. Now they will be much freer to go deeper,” Cristal predicted. The roots are deep, Jean Charles de Menezes murdered, Guardian reports that Blair considers that socialists are terrorists, Blair attempts to introduce 90 days detention for terrorist suspects, other ‘anti-terrorism’ laws introduced.
“It’s about preventing the next attack. The big challenge the Brits are facing now is to use this chance to redefine the balance between human rights and measures against terrorism,” he said. Blair tries to redefine the balance between human rights and measures against terrorism.
