London bombings inquiry ruled out

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,17565679%255E401,00.html

NO public inquiry would be held into the July 7 attacks in London, which left 56 people dead, including four apparent suicide bombers, the Home Office said.

Instead, she said, Home Secretary Charles Clarke was looking at what evidence could be made available to investigations conducted by members of parliament into the worst terrorist attack on British soil.

Patrick Mercer, homeland affairs spokesman for the main opposition Conservative Party, said: "I don't think a straight narrative is exactly what we want."

"We need to know what the links were with the various different individuals, whether they had links abroad - and also, why the Government reduced the level of warning a mere five weeks before the attack."

Where have we heard THIS story?

Peace.

and it's all 2 hand and third had reporting, I call BS.

http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5085417,00.jpg

Have a second source?

<http://www.news.com.au/>

http://www.heraldonline.com/24hour/world/story/2976890p-11655056c.html

LONDON (AP) - The British government said Tuesday it was considering publishing some of the intelligence findings about the July 7 London transit bombings.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke is considering whether an account of the bombings - including intelligence and police findings - could be prepared "without the risk of compromising intelligence sources or prejudicing any possible prosecutions," said a Home Office spokesman who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is a civil servant and not authorized to speak publicly.

The government says it has no plans for a public inquiry into the attacks, but it has acknowledged that relatives of the victims and many others seek an account of the attackers' motivation and preparation.

Patrick Mercer, home-affairs spokesman for the opposition Conservative Party, said only an independent inquiry would answer questions about the attacks, including "links between homegrown and international terrorists."

"From correspondents in London" with a misleading headline, we gotta stay away from that sort of thing.

(And according to Google the News.com.au version was posted 12 hours ago Link below, plus this story did not come through my RSS from AFP, so I doubt that sourcing too)

July 7 public inquiry ruled out

Last Modified: 13 Dec 2005
Source: ITN

The Home Office has ruled out a public inquiry into the July 7 terrorist atrocities in London. Home Secretary Charles Clarke will instead publish a detailed "narrative of events", written by a senior civil servant which will include information from police and intelligence reports.

MI5 is understood to have compiled a detailed picture of the influences thought to have been exerted on the bombers, and their motivations. The security services have also tracked the group's overseas travel in minute detail, particularly their trips to Pakistan between 2003 and the bombings in July this year.

The Home Secretary is understood to have consulted Scotland Yard on the implications of issuing the file to the public, possibly in an edited form.


Any report published by the Home Office would be the first official overview of the atrocities, which killed 52 innocent people on Tubes at Aldgate, Edgware Road and Russell Square, and on a bus at Tavistock Square.

(more at link above)
<http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=1813590>


<http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17565677-23109,00.html>

"July 7 inquiry ruled out" v. "London bombings inquiry ruled out"? How is that less twisted? Yet you claimed the "London bombings" headline was "misleading". Surely that means you find the ITN headline misleading too? Neither story names its correspondents, but you only call AFP on it. That's a fine double standard you've got there.

"NO public inquiry would be held into the July 7 attacks in London..."

and

"The Home Office has ruled out a public inquiry into the July 7 terrorist atrocities in London...."

I can't help you. :eyes:

And if you can't see any difference in the credibility of a London Television channel/ITN affiliate and one of Rupert Murdock's Australian Tabloid/Scandal rags, then you are far worst off than I thought.

It's not always what is said in an article, it's what is later edited out that is usually the problem.

And as far as AFP goes, The reason I ask for it to come from the AFP website is because they never have the authors name on the story, something I plan to write to them again about, so I ONLY fully trust an AFP story when it comes from the AFP website. I almost always seek a second (non-AFP) source for anything labeled AFP, if it tells a different story, I look for a third.

Also, I have an RSS feed from AFP to my computer. Every news story they publish is sent to my computer when it's published, and I keep them for one month, so if AFP had published a story about Prince Charles getting interviewed about conspiracy theories, I would have had it in my RSS Reader on my computer, I didn't because they didn't. The fact that Google News or YahooNews had it on their website means nothing, except it just further lowers my view of the people who run those sites.

As I said, it's not what is there, but it's what was edited out that I have a problem with. The lack of the authors "by line" is only the first tip off for further research, then I look for the basics of good journalism. Does it answer the basic journalistic questions? What? Where? When? Why? and How? Most of the edited, 2nd hand and 3rd hand reports do not answer all those question and do not belong in "Latest Breking News."

That's all the time I'm going to waste trying to explain Journalistic ethics to you, if you don't see why these things are important, well then it's your loss.

Read a good book on the subject.

Good Bye

"NO public inquiry would be held ... the Home Office said" and "The Home Office has ruled out a public inquiry ..." (remembering the capitalised 'NO' started off the whole story, and so has no special meaning). Up2Late thinks there is a difference, but seems unwilling to point out to me what it is. I genuinely can't see a difference in meaning, let alone one that means one of the stories is 'twisted' while the other isn't.

Up2Late, though you're not going to reply, what makes you think the AFP puts all their stories on their RSS feed? Do you really think that a highly visible, and sueable, company like Yahoo would make up a story, and then put it on their highly visible website as if written by AFP?

That would just be plain silly!

Not to mention the fact that all the unanswered questions might cause undo cognitive dissonance!

You are getting sleepy.

You are getting sleepy.

When I click my fingers, you'll forget that you ever had any thoughts about 7.7 other than "Britain good, Islam bad."