Friday, April 07, 2006

Meeting the Home Secretary

And so, the meeting between the Home Secretary, my father, and me.

My father and I arrived early, at 9.45am, and we sat in our suits outside Mr Clarke's offices, which were on the top floor of a former Church building in Norwich city centre. I had expected something grander, but there was the Home Secretary, the M.P of Norwich South, at his desk, in a small office, clearly visible through a glass front. Mr Clarke looked up and saw us, and got up from his desk and stepped outside his office, and greeted us, shaking our hands, and saying 'Oh, so you are here already, do come in'. His handshake was warm. He did not ask me for proof of identification.

And he led us inside. We sat at a small table facing him, and Mr Clarke requested that a constituency secretary be able to attend the meeting too. We agreed and we thanked Mr. Clarke for his time, and especially for seeing me, which was unusual, as was his personal office's response to me answering my questions raised on my blog.

(Nobody took notes in the meeting, which was scheduled for 10 minutes but went on for 25. I made notes as soon as I came out from which this post is drawn).

Mr. Clarke sat opposite me, with his arms crossed over his chest, resting his forearms on his tummy, (which is exactly what I do, when I am thinking what to say and how I feel about saying it.) He said that he wanted to say a few things first: to express his personal sympathy for what had happened to me and my family, to agree that water had passed under the bridge with regard to the cathedral altercation, ('though I still don't accept the version that was published about it'), to point out that he would always meet his constituents, to stress that he had given a very great deal of time and consideration to the matter of a public enquiry, and that he had spoken to many different people and departments during the course of the decision-making process, 'including families, whom I met after the November 1st service, and Muslims'.

I explained that I felt that I pretty much knew WHAT happened on 7th July, ( 'though I'm sure the narrative will have some interesting nuggets'), but what I was interested in was WHY July 7th happened 'because if we can understand that, we can have a dialogue and then there are seeds of hope for the future'. I thanked him for his letter explaining the points that I'd raised on my blog, and I said I understood its confirmation that there were a number of internal inquiries going on behind closed doors, with police, intelligence services, politicians, 'but this debate is not just for police and politicians to have. It affects all of us, the whole country - and it is ordinary people like me who take the tubes and buses, not politicians'. And that was why I supported a public inquiry.

He asked about Kings Cross United. I explained that it was a group of over 100 survivors. I explained that the group was non-political, comprised of people of all ages and backgrounds with different opinions, yet we had all found a sense of unity and support in talking together. And that I had been struck that there seemed to be a common desire amongst the survivors I had met to understand the reasons for July 7th, and to get something positive out of the experience, some learnings. I explained that I and some other survivors had recently had a letter from Tessa Jowell eight months on expressing sympathy and offering a meeting, and that this had arrived after survivors had given evidence in public at the London Assembly. The London Assembly was the first time that we had been asked for our testimony or feedback as far as I knew.

Mr. Clarke listened carefully as I spoke, and rocked backwards and forwards slowly ( something I do when I am listening but also thinking what to say, and a little uncomfortable.) He replied that he understood, and that he had survivors of dreadful tragedies come to see him before, and it was notable how people 'usually want two things, to understand why it happened and to get something positive out of it. And, we're not set up very well in this country for that to happen, for various reasons, usually legal ones, and insurance ones.' He looked thoughtful. He explained that there was a great deal of desire to learn lessons from July 7th, and that he was sorry that the letter from the DCMS took so long to arrive, and that there had been a division of responsibilities early on, with care of the victims, organising the Memorial Service, being done by the Department of Media Culture and Sport, and the Home Office managing other areas.

I said there was a sense of frustration when you felt you had useful things to contribute but were not able to. And that though I was not part of a political group, but just a random group of people who were on a tube train, I suppose the questions I was asking were 'political'. But I also thought this was above politics and not about blame. I said I 'd consider personally moving from a public to an independent enquiry 'if things like Crevice and defence of the realm stuff meant that some parts could not be shared with the public'. But I didn't see why we shouldn't be learning all we can, and discussing it together, publicly.

Mr Clarke looked thoughtful again. And then he offered to meet Kings Cross United, personally, and to come to one of our meetings, so he could listen to people's concerns and we could ask questions of him. He mentioned the media. I said KCU meetings were private and no media had ever been allowed access. And I thanked him, and said I would discuss it with the group but I personally thought that would be fantastic.

And I do. I think it is a great result.

My father talked of how there was a lack of trust between people and authorities including the Government, how he had been reading Exodus in the morning's service and spoke of people's anger and alientation from Government and power, then and now. He said for a moment, in the Cathedral, he had felt something of the rage and impotence of the young men, not being listened to. There was a brief moment of discomfort when Mr. Clarke quickly said that he didn't want to go over 'the incident' again. But then Mr. Clarke said he agreed that there was a lack of trust between people and Government. He began to speak almost wistfully about meetings he had attended ten years ago, set up by the Labour Lord Mayor of Norwich, Harry Watson. These meetings were an open forum when local politicians and the Bishop and local priests talked together two or three times a year, about the issues of the day.

This was ten years ago, it must have been in the early days of the Blair administration. My father said he remembered the meetings, and he offered to talk to the Bishop about setting them up again, and Mr. Clarke agreed. Or maybe he even suggested it, I can't remember.

He asked us if we had any more that we wanted to say, and I said, would he like a Kings Cross United badge? I gave him the badge, and he thanked me, and said that he could wear it if he met Kings Cross United. AndI thanked him, and so did Dad, and the meeting was over. Dad and I had coffee in another converted church ( Medieval-wool-boom-town Norwich is stuffed full of medieval church buildings now used for other purposes, like Puppet Theatres and cafes). Then we walked home.

I emailed Kings Cross United to let them know about the Home Secretary's offer to meet up with survivors. I phoned J, and then three friends from KCU.

And then I got out of my suit and into something more comfortable and chilled out on my parent's sofa with a cup of tea and some cheese & biscuits.

Later: I think it is good that Mr. Clarke offered to meet some survivors, but the point of yesterday for me was to say that it wasn't really behind-closed-doors private meetings and narratives that were appropriate, it is about asking and answering people's questions in public. If we get the Kings Cross United meeting with Mr. Clarke in the diary, that is what I will say to him: this is about more than the people who were on the train, we're just a random section of the public, this is about everybody. The questions and the answers and the debate should be opened up to all of us.


Blogger Davide Simonetti said...

That was a very interesting read. I'm glad the meeting was civil and that Charles Clarke is willing to attend KCU meetings and listen to other survivors. I wonder if you got the impression that he might be willing to change his position on a public/independent inquiry once the 'narrative' is out and its findings have been digested. From the little preview we have seen so far it does seem to be more informative than I first suspected, but I still think we need a public inquiry.

April 08, 2006 5:19 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

Thanks D. I think we need to share as much as we can in public, and genuinely defence of the realm/sub judice stuff we should do behind closed doors. I think an independent full enqury post the narrative,not internal enquiries behind closed doors - but as the narrative is out shortly I will wait to see what it says. I think the narrative will be a 'police report' type of statement, and may well ask as many questions as it answers. But, we have it, the London Assembly report, to ITC report coming up in the next 6 weeks, and then the anniversary of July 7th. After the anniversary the story may die down and it may be hoped that an enqury into July 7th will fade away.

But it won't. As we are so often told that we are at risk, and that life and laws and liberties must be changed to reflect the rising risk, the 'new threat' with its 'new rules', then let July 7th not be forgotten until the lessons have been learned. Publicly discussed and shared If there is one good thing to come out of the worst terrorist attack in peacetime, let it be this: that we learn from it, that we spare suffering and save lives.

April 08, 2006 5:58 pm  
Blogger Postman said...

Many thanks for your notes of the meeting ... maybe there was no noite taker but you can be certain there is a recording of the meeting.

An inquiry in oublic shoul dbe mandatory not subject to the w him of the Minister however many people he spoke to. remeber, Mr Howard EX Conservative Leader sat on David Frost's sofa on Sunday mornign on TV in front of millions DEMANDING a public inquiry into the 7/7 bombings. The following day TB in the HOC curtly dismissed an inquiry without any discussion.

Why did Michael Howard remain silent. Had they had a meeting under Chatham House rules, Privy Council type discussion? You bet... sweep it all under the carpet.

Trust your health improves. It won't if you chase the gee gees too often, especially not Irish trained horses that seem to pop up with remarkable results unexpectedly !

April 08, 2006 7:45 pm  
Blogger TheTruthMan said...


this proposed meeting with KCU is a good sign that perhaps there is a human heart beating within Charles Clarke's considerable body.

But you want to know WHY 7/7 happened? You don't need an inquiry for that. I'll tell you.

A British agent called Hempher created Wahhabism, deemed the strain of Islam which has led to terrorism. Blair fingered Wahhabism in one of his warmongering speeches a few weeks ago, but did not mention Hempher.

In the same speech Blair also fingered The Muslim Brotherhood. This is a Masonic organization, and is also controlled from Britain.

For years London has been known as Londonistan, and has had a reputation for keeping terrorists safe.

It would look a bit suspicious if there were terrorist attacks going on all over the world, except Britain, when we have been assisting the USA and creating and fostering terrorism for centuries. A terrorist attack had to be run on British soil sometime to deflect these accusations AND to enable the Police State.

You don't need some upper class twit of a Mason in charge of an 'independent' inquiry to tell you that. In fact he/she will NEVER tell you that.

Go google "Hempher Wahhabi" and you'll see what I'm saying.

Also check out Bernard Lewis at Princeton Uni. He's a British agent, mentor of Kissinger, and the source of the 'Clash of Civilizations' theory which is being realized as you read this.

Have you checked out what Seymour Hersh is reporting in The New Yorker Mag? Nukes on Iran!

The 'narrative' is apparently going to concede that Iraq played a significant part in 7/7. This is so obvious it is a waste of ink to print it. But what would result from a nuke strike on Iran? That's right. A clash of civilizations.

If you're looking to understand why 7/7 happened, and only 7/7, then seeking a public inquiry would be personally worthwhile. But what would you learn? It would be run by a Masonic/Establishment figure with a predetermined outcome, and by the time it reports we'll be in a global war. Yes, you may get some sense of closure from it. But anyone with half a brain knows what the inquiry would say. I'd advise you to educate yourself instead on what Britain has done to create and foster/nurture the global terrorism we now face in the wake of any nuke strike on Iran by the USA.

And in answer to Postman, Michael Howard is a Kissinger/Murdoch man, founder of the Atlantic Partnership with Henry Kissinger as Patron, and is also a trustee of AP with General Brent Scowcroft, who is also a Kissinger man. Howard was given the Tory leadership after claims of IDS's embezzling and nepotism, which were alleged by BBC uberjournalist Micheal Crick, just when Blair was under attack from Labour backbenchers for Iraq. The sight of Howard, the ghost of Thatcher govts past, as Tory leader galvanized the Labour backbench into rallying around Blair and saved his PMship. IDS was then found innocent of all charges. Crick is still a BBC uberjournalist. You go figure (remembering that the BBC showed Powell's speech at the UN in Feb 2003 and Powell is also a patron of the Atlantic Partnership).

April 09, 2006 8:54 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

Freemasons...false flags..clash of civilisations...can I have New World Order, Bohemian Grove and Zionism to have a full house? :-)

April 09, 2006 9:20 am  
Blogger TheTruthMan said...


my point is this: try as hard as you may to get an inquiry into 7/7, and I sincerely wish you the best in that (I would love to see what BS they come up with), and you get one, and it publishes its report, what then?

Is 7/7 your only concern?

If you are interested in ALL Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism then instead of mocking me (again) read Hempher's memoirs.

Further research will show;
9/11 was run by elements within UK/US/Israeli security forces.
Madrid was run by elements within Spanish security forces.

And I'll leave you with one question about who allowed 7/7 to occur: Kahn was under surveillance and bugged talking of joining Jihad. Shortly before 7/7 the Saudis tell MI5 that Kahn is linked to an al-Qaeda bomb plot on the London Underground. Why did MI5 not pick Kahn up? Was the officer in charge of Kahn's case the same 'Steve' we know was the MI5 agent running the mole inside Finsbury Park Mosque?

Walter Wolfgang heckles Jack Straw and he is arrested under anti-terrorism laws. Why not Kahn?

April 09, 2006 12:00 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

*tsk, those pesky lizard overlords again*

April 09, 2006 12:05 pm  
Anonymous Mike said...

The truthman goes a bit overboard, perhaps, but his basic point is sound, and your reaction to it is, unfortunately, typical. There appears to be, among the population at large, an unwillingness to consider the possibility that those in power conspire to ensure that they remain in power.

Try reading this essay, which sets forth the proposition that, while some conspiracy theories are fantasy, many conspiracies are perfectly real, and are hidden in plain sight:


April 09, 2006 12:36 pm  
Blogger TheTruthMan said...



call me a loon and then have me shipped off to a remote desert island!!

This is the classic reaction from non-conspiraloons (and others) faced with damning evidence. Rachel wanted to understand where the terrorism that nearly killed her came from, and I am giving her evidence it comes from just down the road in Whitehall. Why else is there no inquiry? We have inquiries into everything else.

BTW I do not believe in "the lizards" and AFAIK I have not been banned. I do however believe that there is something sick and vile/evil controlling the major events of world history, and that that something has an operational centre in London. Wether Blair knows it, and Straw knows it, and Clarke knows it, and Reid knows it, I don't know. Perhaps they know and are afraid of it. Perhaps they're just after the cushy banking/consulting position after office. I don't know. But whenever you look into the major events of world history you always find the same names cropping up; Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan. They are involved because it is people like them who have given themselves the power to create as much paper and electronic money as they want in order to finance the events! It really is that simple. We all work ourselves to death, while they simply create money/credit with a stroke of a pen to finance wars, dictators, revolutions and terrorism.

Anyway, I'm off. I don't want this to descend into some childish name-calling session. Check out Hempher and Bernard Lewis. Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism should come with a stamp "Made In Britain".


April 09, 2006 3:41 pm  
Anonymous Chuck Unsworth said...


Well it's very pleasing that your (and your father's) persistence and courage have been rewarded to a small extent. Sadly, I fear that Clarke's agreement to meet with you is a reflection of his personal fears of bad publicity rather than a desire to rectify a profoudly bad judgement on his part. Nonetheless, congratulations and well done.

Let's hope that your continued dialogue and pressure will serve to help you and your colleagues in the very near future. In the meantime - fight on!

April 09, 2006 7:52 pm  
Blogger Oscar Wildebeest said...

Only just read about the altercation between your father and the Safety Elephant. Not surprising, really. I read that he had treated a barrister with similar contempt at a House of Commons event last year. Will post a link if I can find it.

Good luck with getting him to come to that KCU meeting, and keep the pressure up.

April 09, 2006 9:20 pm  
Blogger Oscar Wildebeest said...

Found it. Third paragraph.

April 09, 2006 9:23 pm  
Blogger Larry Teabag said...

Well I'm slightly disappointed that you didn't fly into a rage and try and scratch his eyes out of his stupid fat face, but perhaps behaving with decorum and getting him to attend one of your KCU meetings is, on balance, a better result.

(Poor you having these conspiracy nutjobs snapping at your heels the whole time.)

April 10, 2006 10:42 am  
Blogger Rachel said...

Thankyou for the link Oscar. Larry, I think if I hit him with my handbag I would lose the argument.Anyway, the press & blogosphere hit him with handbags already. And there is more moral force in him meeting a bunch of voters who happened to be on a train together when it exploded, rather than just me and my dad; that is democracy in action. And hopefully people can ask whatever they want and thus pressure may build for this debate to be opened up between people and Government, and we might all be able to discuss July 7 and after in a grown-up constructive manner, rather than panic and flap about and use it as an excuse to pass cilvil-liberties trashing legislation.

April 10, 2006 11:20 am  
Blogger The Moai said...


I'm really pleased you got to meet him. Let's hope he actually does meet with KCU. You & your dad have the patience of saints.


April 10, 2006 2:44 pm  
Blogger The Moai said...

All (especially Rachel)

I've had a quick look at TruthMan's blog. This is a good sample post.


April 10, 2006 2:54 pm  
Blogger TheTruthMan said...

The Maoi

So you've had "a quick look" at my posts? How many have you taken "a quick look" at? Or did you just pick out the one that looked/sounded like it could be a little bit whacky?

Yeah, I'll admit, and I do so, that the ideas in that post are a bit out there. But it is just a piece of research. What you have to realize is that in 2001 occured the moment which changed many people's lives. That was 9/11. Do you not find it a little bit curious that the film that ran away with the oscars that year, "Traffic", contained two scenes which were dominated by several boxes all with 911 stamped on them? "Pearl Harbour" was the blockbuster costing millions and millions of dollars. Could there be a hint in that too? I've asked the USAF and US Navy for details of ships, planes and numbers. When I receive replies and if I think there is nothing in these thoughts then I'll say so. But if there is...

Why do you think films are made? Are they just to entertain, or do they change society? If they change society then is someone trying to change society? Why was "Pearl Harbour" released that year, 2001? Was it preparing America for 9/11? I think so. If it was preparing America could there be hints/warnings contained within?

These are perfectly valid questions, and I am not afraid to ask them and seek answers to them.

So why don't you comment on one of my other posts? Such as this

And tell us, have you read "The Memoirs of Mr Hempher"?

If you have can you confirm that Hempher was a British agent and created Wahhabism?

If not, will you read it and then confirm that Hempher was a British agent and created Wahhabism?

I'm outta here! Everyone is very welcome to read and comment on my posts at my blogspot and not Rachel's (OK TM?)

April 10, 2006 5:17 pm  
Blogger Rachel said...

I have said it before and I will say it again: PLEASE CAN YOU STAY ON TOPIC?

This is a personal 7/7 survivor blog not a 9/11 conspiracy theory blog and I get pissed off when people come on here with madcap theories. I have asked conspiracy theorists/independent researchers/whatever you call yourselves NOT to come and post their theories here because they are NOT welcome: you have plenty of places for all that stuff and this is not one of them. Ok?

Thank you.

Any more 9/11 speculation in inappropriate places - I will delete it. You have been warned

April 10, 2006 5:39 pm  
Blogger TheTruthMan said...


I well understand your frustration and annoyance. But who brought that post to this forum? The Moai. Not me. I had actually said "Byee!" and was not going to post anymore. I had made my point that Madrid, 9/11 and 7/7 cannot be considered independently because the original source of those events was due to a British agent called Hempher and his manipulations 200 YEARS AGO. What manipulations by Britain have occured since then, and are occuring this very moment? Are you all aware that during the Bolshevik Revolution Lenin was being manipulated by a British agent called Bruce Lockhart? Read Lockhart's memoirs.

I also wonder why The Moai, who must know that pure 9/11 posts irk you, decided to bring that particular post to your special attention, without even commenting on the post in question on my blog?!

And also, am I not permitted to defend myself in this blatant provocation? You have defended yourself on several other blogs, the difference here being that the comments from which you were defending yourself were made by the person on that blog. Here the moai is using your blog to make a snide attack on me. Can you not see it?

Now, in my reply to the moai I suggested that he/she comment on MY posts on MY blog, not yours. I reserve the right to defend myself on other blogs, including yours, if I find that someone is trying to mock one particular post, or any post for that matter, of mine without commenting on that post on my blog.

Now, I'll say byeee again, and expect that if anyone is prepared to mock my posts that they have the guts to post on my blog and not anyone else's.

so here goes. let's try again...


April 11, 2006 7:11 am  
Blogger TheTruthMan said...


That is quite a colourful post, trying to paint a picture of me with images of a down-and-out with clothes tied together with string on a tube crying for sanity in an insane world.

First, how do you know what sex I am? You say you work with facts and yet you have assumed I am a man.

And as for not bringing any insight, I have given you all here pointers to two men, both British agents, who were and are engaged in a very British plan for world war.

Had you heard of Hempher or Bernard Lewis before I mentioned them? Is that not bringing insight to the discussion, one which Rachel openly calls for?

If you want a fuller reply to this provocation then please post this on YOUR blog where I can express myself. Entitle the post, "Discussions with a conspiraloon" or similar, and I'll answer you there. OK?

But what I want folks to see here is that I have been called a conspiraloon, and a self-sacrificial conspiraloon at that, an opportunist and a blog-pest by FJL, who has used Rachel's blog, not her own, to do so, and has not commented on Hempher or Bernard Lewis.

Yes, I took the opportunity to bring Hempher to the conciousness of readers. You won't find Hempher mentioned in The Guardian or The Sunday Times because of what he did. What did he do? He manipulated a young, angry Muslim into creating a destructive brand of Islam called Wahhabism which has brought Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism to the world, which has also been protected in London for decades. What's the point of bringing Hempher into a discussion on DIY?

So fact-loving FJL are you going to post your last colourful rant on YOUR blog where we can argue it out there? (please say yes)

April 13, 2006 10:30 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home