Comment at end
25th February, 2010
Apparently, this is how it goes …
7/7 BOMBERS c/w…
… THEN PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR
The “APPARENTLY” GUILTY c/w …
THE UNCHARGED, UNTRIED, UNCONVICTED
BUT NONETHELESS GUILTY
Puzzled at this comparison? It’s worth making. Just so you know YOUR Britain today.
IN TODAY’S BRITAIN, MANY IN THE PRESS, THE LEGAL PROFESSION, THE INTELLIGENTSIA, AND EVEN IN POLITICS (where they should know better) use this kind of accusation and certainty of language about Tony Blair. Meanwhile they dodge around using it towards the men who bombed London killing 52 and injuring hundreds on 7/7/2005.
As a consequence of this skewed thinking we have sites like this (Arrest Blair) and this (Tony Blair, War Criminal) and this (Could Tony Blair be tried for war crimes?) and this (in the same vein). And if you think they’re kind of heavy-handed with the fiction writing, you should see their foul-mouthed, rancid commenters.
When historians look back at this phase of British politics they are going to wonder what happened to common sense. The reason so many in the British press and “intelligentsia” have pre-decided that an untried leader of this country is beyond doubt and – do me a favour mate – do you think I was born yesterday? – a ‘war criminal’ and no better than the WW2 Nazis, Pol-Pot and yes, Saddam Hussein are many and invariably fanciful.
Chiefly though, the reason is that their brains have been washed, PC-ed and conspiracy-theoried beyond anything recognisable as balanced.
Today it is reported that families of those who died in the 7/7 bombing are angry at the legal niceties centring around the lawyerly use at the 7/7 inquest of the apparent use of “apparent”.
When it comes to Tony Blair the general and everyday misappropriation (aka they never mention it) of the “innocent until proven guilty” nicety slips past most of their judgemental eyes, even the co-called legal eyes.
But this is Britain for you today – politically INcorrect, as usual.
While these words were misused today at the Inquest, so are these, daily – “Tony Blair the war criminal”. Yet how many people are up in arms about this? In the press, very few. With the notable exception of John Rentoul few ever draw our attention to that misuse of descriptive and incriminatory language.
Blair has already been found guilty by press and thus public opinion, even though he has not been tried for anything. Not for ‘lies, deception, war crimes, being Bush’s best buddy, distrusting Saddam, starting a Faith Foundation, or a Sports Foundation, helping African countries’ governance, working at Yale, being promoted in his Middle East job, being newly kind of wealthy’ – not for any of these misdemeanours has he been or is he on trial.
Ah but wait, he is on trial, isn’t he? The Iraq Inquiry. Isn’t that a trial… in all but name?
Quite. You got it. If it were a REAL trial he’ d be instantly demoted, for legal reasons, you understand.
He’d only be an “alleged war criminal”.
Sorry. I got sidetracked. Just joining the links… continuing the narrative… building the defence case for a fictional dismissal of fictional proceedings on account of the fictional defendant’s inability to receive a fair fictional trial…
Back to the story –
But bereaved relations took offence when Hugo Keith QC used the phrase “apparent” to describe the attackers. He later apologised for the distress.
Ernest Adams, whose son was killed, said it was “upsetting and insulting”.
James Adams, 32, a mortgage broker from Cambridgeshire, was among 26 killed by Jermaine Lindsay, 19, on a Tube between King’s Cross and Russell Square.
‘Apparent bombers’ just does not rest easily with me
Hazel Webb, bereaved mother
His father Mr Adams, 72, stood up in court and said: “For more than four-and-a-half years, the whole world has known that four sick and evil men killed 52 innocent people.
“And yet now lawyers are talking and writing about ‘apparent bombers’.”
“Your inquest is not going to be about 52 apparent deaths, it will be about 52 real deaths caused by four real bombers.
“I find it very upsetting and insulting to use the word ‘apparent’.”
Hazel Webb, whose 29-year-old daughter Laura, of Islington, north London, was one of six people killed at Edgware Road, agreed.
Apologies for distress
She said: “‘Apparent bombers’ just does not rest easily with me.”
Apologising, Mr Keith said: “I must balance that which may seem to be obvious with not wishing to pre-judge the issues.
“We are acutely aware that this raises terrible issues for the bereaved families.”
The coroner, Lady Justice Hallett, repeated the apology and said they would come up with another term that would not cause distress.
Suicide bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Jermaine Lindsay detonated the bombs on three Tube trains and a bus during the morning rush-hour on 7 July 2005, killing 52 people and injuring more than 700.
Inquest hearings have not taken place yet because criminal proceedings relating to the attacks have taken years.
Inquest ruling due
Thursday’s hearing was told that if full inquests into the deaths are held they are expected to take place in the autumn.
A further three-day hearing, scheduled to begin on 26 April, will decide if full inquests are needed and what their remit should be.
The coroner will then rule whether to split the inquests into the victims’ deaths and those of the bombers.
Imran Khan, representing the families of Mohammad Sidique Khan and Hasib Hussain, said: “Whatever involvement my clients have in these proceedings, we will try our utmost to ensure that it is done with sensitivity and deference to the wishes of the bereaved families.”
It is thought none of the families of the suicide bombers have applied for legal aid.
Tags: 7/7 inquest, apparent bombers, Ernest Adams, Hasib Hussain, Hazel Webb, Hugo Keith QC, Imran Khan, innocent until proven guilty, James Adams, Jermaine Lindsay, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Royal Courts of Justice, Shehzad Tanweer, Tony Blair, war criminal