Newly Released UK Documents Reveal Labour Party (Commies) Decided Not to Hold Public Inquiry Into Murder of 52 Innocent Men, Women, and Children by Muslims
Let’s hope the UK’s newly empowered Conservative party isn’t so suicidally dhimmitarded:
Civil servants feared inquiry into 7/7 bombings would focus negatively on Muslims
Senior civil servants warned ministers that if they ordered a public inquiry into the July 7 suicide bombings it could “focus negatively” on Britain’s Muslim community, it can be revealed.
The warning was delivered in a briefing paper to Charles Clarke, the then-home secretary, as he considered whether or not to launch an inquiry into the 2005 bombings, in which 52 innocent people were killed.
In the paper, Sir John Gieve, the Home Office permanent secretary, said that upsetting Muslims would be a “potential cost” of ministers agreeing to demands for a full inquiry.
After receiving Sir John’s paper, Mr Clarke decided not to order a public inquiry – a decision which infuriated many survivors and relatives of those killed.
One survivor said last night that she was “outraged” by the revelation.
Inquest hearings into the 7/7 deaths are expected to start this autumn.
As an alternative to a public inquiry the Home Office published, a year after the bombings, a “narrative” drafted by its own officials which merely set out the events leading up to the bombings, with little analysis of underlying causes.
Sir John’s note, written four months after the bombings but newly-released under Freedom of Information laws, outlines the determination of senior civil servants to ensure that any inquiries into the atrocity were “low key”.
It warned of “potential community tension in the event that any inquiry came to be perceived as an exercise in special pleading by one community, or alternatively if it was believed that it focused negatively on the Muslim community”.
Many survivors and relatives of those murdered by the four bombers – Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Germaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain – have consistently maintained that an independent public inquiry is the only way to learn fully how to avoid a repeat of the terror attack.
In his paper Sir John concluded that there was, overall, a case for holding a public inquiry – but of a kind which would have been limited in scope and would not have satisfied all of the campaigners” demands.
In a section of his paper about the scope of any inquiry, Sir John proposed it could take a “narrow” or a “broad” format. He wrote: “In my view the case is strongest for a narrow inquiry ie simply telling the story of 7/7 and what led up to it.
“It seems to me we want something low key and probably non-statutory.”
He also suggested appointing someone to hold a “short narrow inquiry” likely to take three months, with full access to the police.
Sir John’s note to the Home Secretary added that there was “strong pressure from Muslim communities” for an inquiry, but went on to say that this was driven in part by a desire in sections of the Islamic community to establish that the attacks had not, after all, been carried out by members of their faith.
An email discussion between three senior Home Office officials in October 2005, also released by the department, shows how civil servants decided that they should advise against a public inquiry.
Mark Neale, in charge of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, wrote to an unnamed colleague on October 19, 2005: “Precisely because of the sub judice difficulties, I would (have) thought our approach ought to be low key.”
He added: “We could announce that we had commissioned an authoritative account of what happened and indicate that we would publish as much of that account as did not fall foul of sub judice rules by whatever date we nominate and the full account as soon as the sub judice concerns were disposed of.
“Would this not be a better way of proceeding?”
William Nye, then the newly-appointed director of the Home Office’s Counter-terrorism and Intelligence Directorate, was copied in on the discussion, along with an unnamed member of the Home Office cohesion and faiths unit.
The same afternoon, Mr Nye replied: “I very much agree with Mark on this – while there is a case for an authoritative account, I don’t think we need go down the inquiry route at all.”
Last night the Home Office declined to comment on the content of the released documents.Explore posts in the same categories: Abuse of Power, dhimmitude, Leftists, Liberals, United Kingdom