Letters to MPs after Crevice

A forum for the publication of independent public research conducted by J7 Independent People's Inquiry Forum Members and J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Activists and Campaigners in the joint quest to get to the truth behind what really happened on July 7th 2005. Post your Freedom of Information requests, the responses, and official communications with other bodies and representatives of state and corporate entities here.

Letters to MPs after Crevice

cmain
Joined: 19 Jan 2006, 21:24

08 May 2007, 16:27 #1

Greg Mulholland
Dear Mr Mulholland,

Following the recent conclusion of the 'R vs Omar Khyam +.' trial, the public, media, survivors of the tragedy and some politicians have been calling for an Independent Inquiry into the events of July 7th 2005. This is misguided and futile because, as Amnesty International and the Law Society of England and Wales have stated, the Inquiries Act of 2005 has made an Independent Inquiry impossible. In the course of the second reading debate upon that Act, it was observed by Tam Dalyell:

"As a Member of Parliament, I gave long evidence to Lord Franks's committee and was very upset at its conclusions, which bore little relation to the guts of the report. Shortly before Lord Franks died, I taxed him with that and he said, tersely, 'You were a Member of Parliament. Why on earth did not the House of Commons do it itself?'"[1]

MPs can, and should (under the power invested in them by their constituents), take responsibility and undertake their own investigations, which we are pleased you did on 17th July 2006.[2]

We wrote to you on 2nd April 2007 and enquired with interest of your written question regarding Mohammad Siddique Khan and a car tracking device, which had connections (although not raised in court) with the Crevice trial.

Now that the trial has concluded (aided in no considerable small part by the enactment of a Lords ruling posited[3] on Day 0 [16/3/07] and passed[4] 2 court days [25/4/07] before the jury ended the record[5] longest period of deliberations in English criminal history, allowing the first ever use of 'phone tap' evidence in an English court), we would expect you to re-submit your written question to the House of Commons, perhaps even expanding upon the aspects of the Crevice/July 7th (connected) matters which troubled you to submit a written question in the first place.

We are drawing near to the first anniversary of the publication of the Home Office narrative of the events of July 7th 2005. Despite the glaring anomalies in that narrative, no MP has tabled a question about it. On 11th July 2006 John Reid admitted[6] one of the factual mistakes in the narrative to parliament, and stated that the official report would be corrected. To this day, the statement that the suspects caught the 07:40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train remains uncorrected, despite Tony McNulty stating in response to a written question[7] from Kate Hoey on 18th December 2006 that the official report would be amended.

The July 7th Truth Campaign is conducting a thorough investigation that has raised many questions. We are working people who do this in our own time and at our own expense, because we are so concerned by the way things are going in this country. As an MP, you have the privilege, which is denied to us, of holding the government accountable by tabling questions in parliament. We urge you to make the fullest use of that privilege to hold the government to account.

Yours sincerely,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Team

http://julyseventh.co.uk/

1. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 315-15.htm
2. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... 7c.81893.h
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/6459479.stm
4. http://www.politics.co.uk/News/bills/or ... 472138.htm
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6591565.stm
6. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?i ... 11a.1306.1
7. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... b.106184.h
Innocent until proven guilty
Reply

cmain
Joined: 19 Jan 2006, 21:24

08 May 2007, 16:29 #2

Ben Wallace
Dear Mr Wallace,

Following the recent conclusion of the 'R vs Omar Khyam +.' trial, the public, media, survivors of the tragedy and some politicians have been calling for an Independent Inquiry into the events of July 7th 2005. This is misguided and futile because, as Amnesty International and the Law Society of England and Wales have stated, the Inquiries Act of 2005 has made an Independent Inquiry impossible. In the course of the second reading debate upon that Act, it was observed by Tam Dalyell:

"As a Member of Parliament, I gave long evidence to Lord Franks's committee and was very upset at its conclusions, which bore little relation to the guts of the report. Shortly before Lord Franks died, I taxed him with that and he said, tersely, 'You were a Member of Parliament. Why on earth did not the House of Commons do it itself?'"[1]

MPs can, and should (under the power invested in them by their constituents), take responsibility and undertake their own investigations, which we are pleased you did on 27th June 2006.[2]

We wrote to you on 2nd April 2007 and enquired with interest of your written question regarding Mohammad Siddique Khan and the United States, which had connections (although not raised in court) with the Crevice trial.

Now that the trial has concluded (aided in no considerable small part by the enactment of a Lords ruling posited[3] on Day 0 [16/3/07] and passed[4] 2 court days [25/4/07] before the jury ended the record[5] longest period of deliberations in English criminal history, allowing the first ever use of 'phone tap' evidence in an English court), we would expect you to re-submit your written question to the House of Commons, perhaps even expanding upon the aspects of the Crevice/July 7th (connected) matters which troubled you to submit a written question in the first place.

We are drawing near to the first anniversary of the publication of the Home Office narrative of the events of July 7th 2005. Despite the glaring anomalies in that narrative, no MP has tabled a question about it. On 11th July 2006 John Reid admitted[6] one of the factual mistakes in the narrative to parliament, and stated that the official report would be corrected. To this day, the statement that the suspects caught the 07:40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train remains uncorrected, despite Tony McNulty stating in response to a written question[7] from Kate Hoey on 18th December 2006 that the official report would be amended.

The July 7th Truth Campaign is conducting a thorough investigation that has raised many questions. We are working people who do this in our own time and at our own expense, because we are so concerned by the way things are going in this country. As an MP, you have the privilege, which is denied to us, of holding the government accountable by tabling questions in parliament. We urge you to make the fullest use of that privilege to hold the government to account.

Yours sincerely,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Team

http://julyseventh.co.uk/

1. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 315-15.htm
2. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... 7b.79817.h
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/6459479.stm
4. http://www.politics.co.uk/News/bills/or ... 472138.htm
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6591565.stm
6. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?i ... 11a.1306.1
7. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... b.106184.h
Innocent until proven guilty
Reply

cmain
Joined: 19 Jan 2006, 21:24

08 May 2007, 16:31 #3

Michael Meacher
Dear Mr Meacher,

Following the recent conclusion of the 'R vs Omar Khyam +.' trial, the public, media, survivors of the tragedy and some politicians have been calling for an Independent Inquiry into the events of July 7th 2005. This is misguided and futile because, as Amnesty International and the Law Society of England and Wales have stated, the Inquiries Act of 2005 has made an Independent Inquiry impossible. In the course of the second reading debate upon that Act, it was observed by Tam Dalyell:

"As a Member of Parliament, I gave long evidence to Lord Franks's committee and was very upset at its conclusions, which bore little relation to the guts of the report. Shortly before Lord Franks died, I taxed him with that and he said, tersely, 'You were a Member of Parliament. Why on earth did not the House of Commons do it itself?'"[1]

MPs can, and should (under the power invested in them by their constituents), take responsibility and undertake their own investigations, which we are pleased you did on 9th February 2006.[2]

We wrote to you on 2nd April 2007 and enquired with interest of your written question regarding prior surveillance of Mohammad Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, which had connections (although not raised in court) with the Crevice trial.

Now that the trial has concluded (aided in no considerable small part by the enactment of a Lords ruling posited[3] on Day 0 [16/3/07] and passed[4] 2 court days [25/4/07] before the jury ended the record[5] longest period of deliberations in English criminal history, allowing the first ever use of 'phone tap' evidence in an English court), we would expect you to re-submit your written question to the House of Commons, perhaps even expanding upon the aspects of the Crevice/July 7th (connected) matters which troubled you to submit a written question in the first place.

We are drawing near to the first anniversary of the publication of the Home Office narrative of the events of July 7th 2005. Despite the glaring anomalies in that narrative, no MP has tabled a question about it. On 11th July 2006 John Reid admitted[6] one of the factual mistakes in the narrative to parliament, and stated that the official report would be corrected. To this day, the statement that the suspects caught the 07:40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train remains uncorrected, despite Tony McNulty stating in response to a written question[7] from Kate Hoey on 18th December 2006 that the official report would be amended.

The July 7th Truth Campaign is conducting a thorough investigation that has raised many questions. We are working people who do this in our own time and at our own expense, because we are so concerned by the way things are going in this country. As an MP, you have the privilege, which is denied to us, of holding the government accountable by tabling questions in parliament. We urge you to make the fullest use of that privilege to hold the government to account.

Yours sincerely,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Team

http://julyseventh.co.uk/

1. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 315-15.htm
2. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... rror9900.h
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/6459479.stm
4. http://www.politics.co.uk/News/bills/or ... 472138.htm
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6591565.stm
6. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?i ... 11a.1306.1
7. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... b.106184.h
Innocent until proven guilty
Reply

cmain
Joined: 19 Jan 2006, 21:24

08 May 2007, 16:32 #4

John McDonnell
Dear Mr McDonnell,

Following the recent conclusion of the 'R vs Omar Khyam +.' trial, the public, media, survivors of the tragedy and some politicians have been calling for an Independent Inquiry into the events of July 7th 2005. This is misguided and futile because, as Amnesty International and the Law Society of England and Wales have stated, the Inquiries Act of 2005 has made an Independent Inquiry impossible. In the course of the second reading debate upon that Act, it was observed by Tam Dalyell:

"As a Member of Parliament, I gave long evidence to Lord Franks's committee and was very upset at its conclusions, which bore little relation to the guts of the report. Shortly before Lord Franks died, I taxed him with that and he said, tersely, 'You were a Member of Parliament. Why on earth did not the House of Commons do it itself?'"[1]

MPs can, and should (under the power invested in them by their constituents), take responsibility and undertake their own investigations.

We wrote to you on 2nd April 2007 and enquired with interest of the written questions asked by your colleagues Mr Mulholland, Mr Wallace and Mr Meacher[2], which had connections (although not raised in court) with the Crevice trial.

Now that the trial has concluded (aided in no considerable small part by the enactment of a Lords ruling posited[3] on Day 0 [16/3/07] and passed[4] 2 court days [25/4/07] before the jury ended the record[5] longest period of deliberations in English criminal history, allowing the first ever use of 'phone tap' evidence in an English court), we would expect them to re-submit their written question to the House of Commons, perhaps even expanding upon the aspects of the Crevice/July 7th (connected) matters which troubled them to submit a written question in the first place.

We are drawing near to the first anniversary of the publication of the Home Office narrative of the events of July 7th 2005. Despite the glaring anomalies in that narrative, no MP has tabled a question about it. On 11th July 2006 John Reid admitted[6] one of the factual mistakes in the narrative to parliament, and stated that the official report would be corrected. To this day, the statement that the suspects caught the 07:40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train remains uncorrected, despite Tony McNulty stating in response to a written question[7] from Kate Hoey on 18th December 2006 that the official report would be amended.

The July 7th Truth Campaign is conducting a thorough investigation that has raised many questions. We are working people who do this in our own time and at our own expense, because we are so concerned by the way things are going in this country. As an MP, you have the privilege, which is denied to us, of holding the government accountable by tabling questions in parliament. We urge you to make the fullest use of that privilege to hold the government to account.

Yours sincerely,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Team

http://julyseventh.co.uk/

1. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 315-15.htm
2. Greg Mulholland http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... 7c.81893.h
Ben Wallace http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... 7b.79817.h
Michael Meacher http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... rror9900.h
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/6459479.stm
4. http://www.politics.co.uk/News/bills/or ... 472138.htm
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6591565.stm
6. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?i ... 11a.1306.1
7. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... b.106184.h
Innocent until proven guilty
Reply

cmain
Joined: 19 Jan 2006, 21:24

08 May 2007, 16:33 #5

Kate Hoey
Dear Ms Hoey,

Following the recent conclusion of the 'R vs Omar Khyam +.' trial, the public, media, survivors of the tragedy and some politicians have been calling for an Independent Inquiry into the events of July 7th 2005. This is misguided and futile because, as Amnesty International and the Law Society of England and Wales have stated, the Inquiries Act of 2005 has made an Independent Inquiry impossible. In the course of the second reading debate upon that Act, it was observed by Tam Dalyell:

"As a Member of Parliament, I gave long evidence to Lord Franks's committee and was very upset at its conclusions, which bore little relation to the guts of the report. Shortly before Lord Franks died, I taxed him with that and he said, tersely, 'You were a Member of Parliament. Why on earth did not the House of Commons do it itself?'"[1]

MPs can, and should (under the power invested in them by their constituents), take responsibility and undertake their own investigations, which we are pleased you did on 18th December 2006, regarding whether a report had been received from the Metropolitan Police regarding the discrepancy[2] of the time of departure of the Luton train on the morning of 7th July 2005.

We wrote to a number of MPs on 2nd April 2007 and enquired with interest in respect of their written questions to the Home Office as follows:

Greg Mulholland - Written Question of 17th July 2006 regarding Mohammed Siddique Khan & a car tracking device)[3]
Ben Wallace - Written Question of 27th June 2006 regarding Mohammed Siddique Khan travel to the United States)[4]
Michael Meacher - Written Question of 9th February 2006 regarding prior surveillance of Mohammed Siddique Khan & Shehzad Tanweer)[5]

It would appear that these questions relate to connections between the recent 'Crevice' trial accused and 'suspects' of the July 7th 2005 events. These questions still remain unanswered.

Now that the 'Crevice' trial has concluded (aided in no considerable small part by the enactment of a Lords ruling posited[6] on Day 0 [16/3/07] and passed[7] 2 court days [25/4/07] before the jury ended the record[8] longest period of deliberations in English criminal history, allowing the first ever use of 'phone tap' evidence in an English court), we would expect you submit further written questions to the Home Office, perhaps even expanding upon the aspects of the Crevice/July 7th (connected) matters which troubled you to submit a written question in the first place.

We are drawing near to the first anniversary of the publication of the Home Office narrative of the events of July 7th 2005. Despite the glaring anomalies in that narrative, no MP has tabled a question about it. On 11th July 2006 John Reid admitted[9] one of the factual mistakes in the narrative to parliament, and stated that the official report would be corrected. To this day, the statement that the suspects caught the 07:40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train remains uncorrected, despite Tony McNulty stating in response to your written question[10] on 18th December 2006 that the official report would be amended.

The July 7th Truth Campaign is conducting a thorough investigation that has raised many questions. We are working people who do this in our own time and at our own expense, because we are so concerned by the way things are going in this country. As an MP, you have the privilege, which is denied to us, of holding the government accountable by tabling questions in parliament. We urge you to make the fullest use of that privilege to hold the government to account.

Yours sincerely,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Team

http://julyseventh.co.uk/

1. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 315-15.htm
2. http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-luton-k ... times.html
3. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... 7c.81893.h
4. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... 7b.79817.h
5. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... rror9900.h
6. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/6459479.stm
7. http://www.politics.co.uk/News/bills/or ... 472138.htm
8. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6591565.stm
9. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?i ... 11a.1306.1
10. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... b.106184.h
Innocent until proven guilty
Reply

cmain
Joined: 19 Jan 2006, 21:24

08 May 2007, 16:34 #6

John Hemming
Dear Mr Hemming,

Following the recent conclusion of the 'R vs Omar Khyam +.' trial, the public, media, survivors of the tragedy and some politicians have been calling for an Independent Inquiry into the events of July 7th 2005. This is misguided and futile because, as Amnesty International and the Law Society of England and Wales have stated, the Inquiries Act of 2005 has made an Independent Inquiry impossible. In the course of the second reading debate upon that Act, it was observed by Tam Dalyell:

"As a Member of Parliament, I gave long evidence to Lord Franks's committee and was very upset at its conclusions, which bore little relation to the guts of the report. Shortly before Lord Franks died, I taxed him with that and he said, tersely, 'You were a Member of Parliament. Why on earth did not the House of Commons do it itself?'"[1]

MPs can, and should (under the power invested in them by their constituents), take responsibility and undertake their own investigations. We are pleased that you take this so seriously that you have taken the goverment to court, though unsuccessfully.

We are drawing near to the first anniversary of the publication of the Home Office narrative of the events of July 7th 2005. Despite the glaring anomalies in that narrative, no MP has tabled a question about it. On 11th July 2006 John Reid admitted[2] one of the factual mistakes in the narrative to parliament, and stated that the official report would be corrected. To this day, the statement that the suspects caught the 07:40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train remains uncorrected, despite Tony McNulty stating in response to a written question[3] from Kate Hoey on 18th December 2006 that the official report would be amended.

The July 7th Truth Campaign is conducting a thorough investigation that has raised many questions. We are working people who do this in our own time and at our own expense, because we are so concerned by the way things are going in this country. As an MP, you have the privilege, which is denied to us, of holding the government accountable by tabling questions in parliament. We urge you to make the fullest use of that privilege to hold the government to account.

Yours sincerely,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Team

http://julyseventh.co.uk/

1. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 315-15.htm
2. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?i ... 11a.1306.1
3. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... b.106184.h
Innocent until proven guilty
Reply

cmain
Joined: 19 Jan 2006, 21:24

08 May 2007, 16:35 #7

Norman Baker
Dear Mr Baker,

Following the recent conclusion of the 'R vs Omar Khyam +.' trial, the public, media, survivors of the tragedy and some politicians have been calling for an Independent Inquiry into the events of July 7th 2005. This is misguided and futile because, as Amnesty International and the Law Society of England and Wales have stated, the Inquiries Act of 2005 has made an Independent Inquiry impossible. In the course of the second reading debate upon that Act, it was observed by Tam Dalyell:

"As a Member of Parliament, I gave long evidence to Lord Franks's committee and was very upset at its conclusions, which bore little relation to the guts of the report. Shortly before Lord Franks died, I taxed him with that and he said, tersely, 'You were a Member of Parliament. Why on earth did not the House of Commons do it itself?'"[1]

MPs can, and should (under the power invested in them by their constituents), take responsibility and undertake their own investigations. We have the greatest respect for your outstanding record of parliamentary questioning, and your investigation into Dr David Kelly.

We are drawing near to the first anniversary of the publication of the Home Office narrative of the events of July 7th 2005. Despite the glaring anomalies in that narrative, no MP has tabled a question about it. On 11th July 2006 John Reid admitted[2] one of the factual mistakes in the narrative to parliament, and stated that the official report would be corrected. To this day, the statement that the suspects caught the 07:40am Luton to King's Cross Thameslink train remains uncorrected, despite Tony McNulty stating in response to a written question[3] from Kate Hoey on 18th December 2006 that the official report would be amended.

The July 7th Truth Campaign is conducting a thorough investigation that has raised many questions. We are working people who do this in our own time and at our own expense, because we are so concerned by the way things are going in this country. As an MP, you have the privilege, which is denied to us, of holding the government accountable by tabling questions in parliament. We urge you to continue to make the fullest use of that privilege to hold the government to account.

Yours sincerely,

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign Team

http://julyseventh.co.uk/

1. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 315-15.htm
2. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?i ... 11a.1306.1
3. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... b.106184.h
Innocent until proven guilty
Reply