J7 EXCLUSIVE: J7 Interviews the Ludicrous Diversion Team
On 15th September 2006, a new and anonymously produced video documentary about the London bombings of 7th July 2005 was released via Google Video. Alongside the video was a brief introduction to its contents:
On the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions. You probably think you know what happened that day. But you don’t.
The police have, from the onset of their investigation, chosen to withhold from the public almost every bit of evidence they claim to have and have provably lied about several aspects of the London Bombings.
The mainstream news has wilfully spread false, unsubstantiated and unverifiable information, while choosing to completely ignore the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official story.
The government has finally, after a year, presented us with their official ‘narrative’ concerning the event. Within hours it was shown to contain numerous errors, a fact since admitted by the Home Secretary John Reid. They have continuously rejected calls for a full, independent public inquiry. Tony Blair himself described such an inquiry as a ‘ludicrous diversion’. What don’t they want us to find out? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
If you haven't read the official Home Office report into the events of 7th July 2005, we suggest that you take the time to do so by clicking here. If you haven't seen the Ludicrous Diversion film yet, you can watch it on Google Video, in three parts on YouTube, or using the video window below.
Since its September release Ludicrous Diversion has been watched over 80,000 times, despite the counter being reset at least once in the film's online history. The film has attracted a wide range of comments from viewers, the vast majority of which are in praise of the efforts of the Ludicrous Diversion team, the occasional review and, given the film's anonymous release, a good number of justified questions about the film's provenance.
So, in true independent public research fashion, J7 interviewed the producers of Ludicrous Diversion and asked them some of the questions to which we and members of the J7 research forum wanted answers.
Hi LD, thanks for agreeing to the interview. Anyone with an interest in the events of 7th July 2005, and their aftermath, will be only too familiar with the expression 'ludicrous diversion' as it was the description used by British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, when denying a full and independent public inquiry into the biggest loss of life in London since the Luftwaffe bombings of the Second World War. You were obviously taken with the phrase, but what motivated you to make the documentary?
Our motivation for making Ludicrous Diversion is very much what you might assume from watching the film.
We think there are major and profound problems with the official story of the London Bombings on 7/7. As we state in Ludicrous Diversion there are contradictions, discrepancies and downright errors in the narrative – a scandalously ill-presented document. Not only have these not been addressed by the media, government and police, but many of them have stemmed directly from those three entities.
We believe that there should be a full, independent, public investigation into the London bombings. Note – we do not say inquiry. As we attempted to point out in Ludicrous Diversion, an inquiry will achieve exactly nothing – it would in fact be potentially damaging to the truth movement because some part of the British public would accept the inquiry as valid and consider the case closed. That is why we also believe there will probably be an inquiry announced at some point in the future, most likely sometime after Mr Blair has ceased to be the Prime Minister.
We were disturbed by the fact that the real evidence the public has actually been presented is not sufficient to conclude that the bombings occurred as described, or that the alleged bombers were necessarily responsible. If anyone thinks this assertion is ridiculous we implore them to do research of their own, both into the bombings and the so-called war on terrorism instigated by 911.
We are deeply disconcerted at the pace at which the UK is moving into a police state. We do not use that term lightly, but anyone who thinks it is too extreme a description is not reading the news. It would be hard to argue against the suggestion that as a country we are in fact already there, and all that we are now witnessing is the implementation of that state.
Without casting aspersions we were dissatisfied by much of the information being put out even by elements of the alternative media about the London Bombings – a percentage of it is clearly deliberate disinformation.
In your first email contact with J7, the opening line read, "Love your site and work. Great stuff", so we have to ask: How was the content of Ludicrous Diversion influenced by the work of the J7 Truth Campaign?
The content was directly influenced by the J7 Truth Campaign and in fact the film’s creation was initially prompted by the work of the few independent, exclusively internet-based researchers, including Bridget Dunne herself. Almost nothing we presented in the film was discovered or unearthed by us – we only pulled together a few (a very few) of the issues regarding 7/7 and decided to present them in a form that might appeal to the unconverted who otherwise would be blithely accepting of the official story. We were saddened to see how few people had even bothered to sign the online petition calling for an inquiry. And we strongly believe - and this is a crucial point – that even if the J7 Truth Campaign is wrong and misguided in every single statement it makes and questions it asks (which we do not by any stretch of the imagination think it is) it is still entitled to call for - and receive -answers to those questions. That is, if we still live in a free society.
Why have you decided to release Ludicrous Diversion anonymously and, with hindsight, do you think this has helped or hindered the film?
We are a group from many different professions and walks of life with none of us seeking financial reward or recognition from the project. The decision to remain anonymous was not taken to help the project in any way, although incidentally it has resulted in healthy debate – and more discussions could be seen to be a help!
To a great degree, by releasing the film anonymously it has to be judged on the merits of its content and intent, rather than who made the film. This avoids the usual 'ad hominem' attacks that are generally levelled against anyone that questions anything, but it also raises questions about who might produce such a film. Do the Ludicrous Diversion team have any plans to reveal who you are at some point in the future?
No, we haven’t thought about it.
The film is a very professional piece of work, did it cost a lot to make and who funded the project?
Ludicrous Diversion cost less than fifty pounds to make. We funded it ourselves. We wrote, shot and edited the film ourselves. Equipment we didn’t have, we borrowed. Skills we didn’t have, we learnt. This is the digital age, it is now possible (thankfully) to make and distribute a documentary for almost no money. We encourage others to do the same.
What sort of feedback have you received?
We’ve been pleased by the feedback - it has been almost entirely positive.
Are there plans for a LD II?
Ludicrous Diversion mentions that Jean Charles de Menezes was killed instead of another intended innocent person. This seems to me like a hint at a follow-up. Does the LD team intend to address Jean Charles' killing? Do you know who that intended other person is, and if so, how?
This is a slight misunderstanding that we apologise for if it was widespread – we were simply referring to the supposed target of the operation – allegedly Hussain Osman, who had actually already fled to France. Our point was that if it had been Osman, not de Menezes, who had left his house wearing a light jacket, been followed by police onto a bus and then onto a train, where he was apprehended and grappled to the ground, he also should not have then been killed execution style with seven bullets in the head. Unarmed people should not be killed ‘just in case’ - whoever they are, irrespective of guilt. This is supposed to be England we live in, not Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or indeed Saddam’s Iraq.
Are there any particular aspects of 7th July 2005 with which the J7 researchers might be able to assist by investigating further?
Thank you for your offer. It is one we will certainly consider. We will also converse with this forum before making any future film about the London bombings – there is a wealth of knowledge, information and insight held by the members of the Truth campaign that we (or any other people planning relevant documentaries) would be foolish to ignore.
Have you approached, or been approached, by any mainstream media channels with regard to transmission of Ludicrous Diversion on mainstream TV?
No, unsurprisingly given what we say about them in the film, the MSM have not come knocking at our doors. As we tried to make clear in Ludicrous Diversion, we believe the complete lack of investigation by the mainstream media of 7/7, given that this terrible attack on the British populace killed 56 people, should be of deep concern to us all. Their unquestioning acceptance of the government and police line and endless quasi-fictional reporting of ‘anonymous intelligence sources’ has been negligent to a level that can only rationally be regarded as deliberate. 7/7, perhaps more than any other event in the last decade, highlights a vast gulf between most people’s perception of the mainstream media, and the reality of their role in society today.
Do the Ludicrous Diversion team have pointers to where more information, connections, or drawing together of data, is required?
As above – in the event we make LD2, we will certainly be asking J7 Truth campaign what they think should be included. We don’t, of course, promise to include it, but there is no question that the information about 7/7 that’s mentioned in Ludicrous Diversion barely scratches the surface.
Thinking about the bigger picture into which 7th July 2005 fits and possible connections to Operation Crevice, or the facilities provided by Finsbury Park Mosque, characters such as Haroon Rashid Aswat, the anomalous events of 21st July 05. I know this is widening the subject somewhat, but I believe there are connections throughout. Do you have anything to say about 7th July in context.
All of these events are indisputably connected, though in complicated ways which are very tricky to assess without proper access to the requisite information - which we do not have and probably never will have.
The story of Aswat as reported in the media makes very little sense if he is MI5, and even less sense if he isn’t – this problem lies with the reporting, not Aswat. He is what he is, and be assured, a lot of people know exactly what he is. But they’re not telling us.
The events of the 21st July remain perhaps the single most bizarre issue – not least the question of how these four men who were supposedly filmed letting off bombs on London public transport have not yet appeared in court – almost 18 months after the event. How long can it possibly take to gather the evidence together? If they are guilty, then try them and convict them. If they are innocent then what are they being held for? There is a lot more to this story than meets the eye.
Is there a danger that the response to the film will be a fatalistic "we can't do anything about it?" Were the LD team aiming for any particular response(s)?
We understand such comments. But in fact we do not suggest ‘we can’t do anything about it’. What we do suggest (and believe) is that nothing will be achieved by attempting to gain ground through the standard channels of civil complaint and response.
It is transparently clear that the mainstream media are not going to help the J7 truth movement. It is even clearer that the police and government, for whatever reasons, have done their best to hinder the movement, short of coming into your homes and shutting you down. Relying on any of these three bodies to assist you is not going to yield results – this is what we were attempting to get across.
But why consider these the only options? There are solutions - there are ways to spread the truth, to ask questions, to prompt intelligent debate and ignite a demand for answers in the British population – but they will not come about by complaining to the media, police or government.
We left this issue hanging, quite deliberately, because what is now required from the J7 truth movement – and indeed the populations of every country in western society experiencing massive and dramatic changes to their lives – is, in one word, imagination. We must think outside the box, we must derive new methods of information sourcing and dispersal, we must discover new ways to influence those in charge who theoretically answer to us, but who have chosen to completely reject the input and opinions of those who have given them that charge. There are profound alterations being made to the structure of our society – it is impossible to counter these alterations using the meager tools the authorities have left us with. New angles must be sought.
If we want to be a civilized, rational and moral nation we must have a media that watches the government and holds it accountable and we must have a government that watches the police force and holds it accountable and we must have a police force that views its primary role as protecting the people, not protecting the system. We must consider our freedom and privacy as things to treasure and protect, not weaken and erode in the name of an entirely false, contrived security. There is no easy solution, but if we refuse to drive our imagination and intelligence to find one, or if we truly believe there is no solution, then sadly, we are finished as a legitimate free and progressive society.
You raise some very pertinent points about the events of 7th July, the geopolitical context into which they fit, and the fundamental and fast--paced structural changes to 'democracy' that are happening in Britain in the form of unchecked increases in State and Police powers, at the hands of which ordinary people now face increased governance, monitoring and, ultimately, chastisement by the State in all its forms. So, finally, how do you envisage the campaign for the truth about the events of 7th July 2005 proceeding in such a climate?
That is a very difficult issue. The public has already, for the most part, put the bombings behind them. The media obstinately refuse to reopen or requestion the London bombings. The British army is still entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the powers of the police are seemingly extended every week – most recently with the announcement of fingerprint scans by traffic police, the installation of iris scans at several UK airports, and the absurd ID card scheme which is little more than an appalling theft of huge amounts of tax payers money at a time when hospitals and schools are closing all across the UK.
We believe it is essential for us all to accept now that the absolute truth of the London bombings will never be revealed beyond reasonable doubt. The important thing is to make people understand that what can be revealed is still worth revealing, not least the completely illegitimate role of the media in creating the official story, the mindset of the police that the public are not entitled to see the evidence, but should accept what they are told on trust, and the obstinate refusal of the government to present even a pretence of a proper investigation into the worst attack on British soil since the second world war.
Practically speaking we suggest two courses of action.
The first is to do what we say in Ludicrous Diversion. Flood the police with Freedom of Information requests. Demand apologies from the media about the mistakes they made in their reporting. And ask your government through your MP for answers to your questions. Do not do these things in the hope they will respond favourably. They won’t. Do these things to gather concrete proof of the obstruction of truth. If the media are widely perceived as refusing to acknowledge their mistakes then people might start to consider the possibility that the mistakes were deliberate. If the government and your MP continue to ignore the questions about 7/7 then people might start to consider the possibility that the government does not want the questions answered, or indeed even asked. And if the police are perceived as refusing to release any of the mass of evidence they claim to have, then people might start to consider the possibility that the evidence does not actually exist. And of course if the media apologises and the government does respond and the police do present the evidence and it is compelling and convincing then we can all accept it, openly admit we were wrong for doubting them (but not unjustified in doing so) and get on with our lives. Fair’s fair.
The second course of action is then to use the credence gained from the awareness of a deliberate obstruction of truth to launch a nationwide appeal for private, unconditional funding for a full, publicly held investigation. This should aim at garnering public attention and forming a short list of issues that the investigation, representing the British public, demands closure on from its elected officials. As well as the necessary funding for such an investigation, efforts must be made to find respected persons outside the government, mainstream media, police and judiciary to represent and head the investigation. The model for such a course of action should be the investigation held in the UK and headed by Bertrand Russell that questioned the assassination of JFK. This will not be easy, but it is a question of momentum, of reaching a critical mass of public support whereby media and government refusal to acknowledge its existence would be perceived as suspicious in the extreme.
Continue the good work. There is light at the end of the tunnel. But it is a long tunnel.
The J7 team would like to thank the makers of Ludicrous Diversion for taking the time to respond to our questions and the questions of others that have arisen since the release of the film.
Ludicrous Diversion may be viewed, downloaded, distributed and screened freely.
The J7 interview with the Ludicrous Diversion team may be reproduced freely as long as the interview, or parts thereof, are fully attributed to the July 7th Truth Campaign and a link is included to http://julyseventh.co.uk.