7/7 Legal Action Begins Today

[taffboy gwyrdd]

The state has gone to a lot of trouble and expense to clamp down on our rights, using 7/7 victims as their excuse.

So horrific was the incident that it er...needs no public inquirey. The choice of the word "narrative" was unwise - it is synonymous with "story".

Problem is of course that any inquirey can be fixed anyhow.

The abject refusal to hold a public enquirey DOES endanger life because an open accountable examination of any failures renders more chanve of lessons being learned and applied than to do it behind closed doors.

Not that the state gives a flying fuck about our lives. Their 1st duty is the preservation of their power, they are certainly very good at that.

 

[laptop]

But the only other alternative forum, the Inquest, is even today inadequate...

I note that inquests into Iraq deaths have moved from Oxford to Wiltshire. No mention of whether the annoyingly thorough Oxford assistant deputy coroner, Andrew Walker, has had his contract extended...

Of course the means used - flying bodies into Lynham instead of wherever-in-Oxfordshire - is not available in the case of 7/7, unless Russell Square is to be made a detached parish of Loyalshire. But it's still suggestive of parts of the state wanting to subvert coroners' independence.

 

[Steve Booth]

Re: the Article 2 ECHR, the victims' and relatives' lawyers will have an uphill struggle trying to prove it. This all seems to be predicated on an 'if', but how can it be reasonable to assume that the police or security services could have acted differently?

Even despite all the surveillance and intelligence gathering powers the state is not all knowing.

Things like the 7th July bombings happen, and it isn't anybody's fault, apart from the people carrying out the attack.

 

[detective-boy]

Re: the Article 2 ECHR, the victims' and relatives' lawyers will have an uphill struggle trying to prove it. This all seems to be predicated on an 'if', but how can it be reasonable to assume that the police or security services could have acted differently?

The Judicial Review is not concerned with anything more than whether there is a possibility that the State could have done something differently. The victims and relatives do not have to prove the State actually did or did not do anything.

It is concerned with whether or not the arrangements which have already been made (the police and other investigations, the publication of the "narrative" and the inquest process) amount to a competent and impartial investigation of the circumstances.