No, I haven't mis-typed the quote, the third paragraph in the letter is almost identical to the first sentence of the second paragraph.Dear _MP_,
Thank you for your letter of 18th May 2006 addressed to the Home Secretary, enclosing correspondence from _cmain_. In his letter he identifies a number of areas which he believes are inaccurate or incomplete in the official report on 7th July last year.
The Account draws together the information across Government and from the police and intelligence agencies in order to establish clearly the events leading up the (sic) 7 July bombings. It is intended to reflect what is known about the persons responsible for carrying out the attacks and how and why they came to do what they did.
The narrative draws together the information across Government and from the police and intelligence agencies in order to clearly establish what we know about the events leading up the (sic) 7 July bombings.
Please pass on to _cmain_ that his concerns have been noted.
BUILDING A SAFE, JUST AND TOLERANT SOCIETY
The two particular examples I mentioned in my original letter were that no train left Luton for Kings Cross at 0740 (contrary to both the narrative and the Home Secretary's statement to the House of Commons), and that the 0721 CCTV photograph contradicts the statement that the men passed through the ticket barriers at 0715. Contrary to Mr McNulty's letter, these are not merely my personal beliefs but publicly documented facts (Thameslink for the train times, Met Police for the 0721 timestamp and Hansard for the Home Secretary's statement).
As you can imagine, I find this letter totally unsatisfactory, and I will pursue the matter further, particularly emphasising that the Home Secretary has misled Parliament in his statement.
My MP's comment on the letter was:
I persist in my view that there is no substitute for a full public inquiry and that is what my colleagues and I [ie the Conservatives] will continue to press for.