Below is a transcript of Imran Khan's statement on behalf of the 5 (of 7) patsies men convicted in the Crevice trial:

"I'm giving this statement on behalf of those defendants convicted today, that is Omar Khyam, Anthony Garcia, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar, and Salahuddin Amin. These are their words that they wish me to read out:

In the name of Allah the merciful, the compassionate, we bear witness there is nothing worthy of worship except Allah, and Mohammed as his messenger.

This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.

There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.

This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case.

This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.

Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.

These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.

It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims.

Allah says in the Qur'an, "Oh mankind, worship your Lord who created you, and those before you, that you may become righteous."


And that's the end of the statement. Thank you."


An MP3 of Imran Khan's statement can be found here:  http://julyseventh.co.uk/media/Imran_Khan_statement-30-04-07.mp3

Following is the full text of the letter asking the home secretary, John Reid, for an independent inquiry into the July 7 2005 bombings. It is written by Oury Clark Solicitors.

We act on behalf of Rachel North, Paul Mitchell, Janine Mitchell, Jacqui Putnam, Ros Morley, Tim Coulson, Elizabeth Kenworthy, Susan Maxwell, David Gould, Graham Foulkes, Nader Mozakka, Brian Morley, Lesley Ratcliff, Angela Ioannou, Robert Webb, Saba Mozakka, Sandra Brewster, Joe Kerr and others who were materially affected by events that took place in London on 7th July 2005.

Background:

As you are more than aware, during the morning rush hour of 7th July 2005, a series of coordinated terrorist bomb blasts hit the London public transport system.

Three bombs exploded on London Underground trains, respectively on an eastbound Circle line train, on a westbound Circle line train and on a westbound Piccadilly line train. A fourth bomb exploded on a double-decker bus approximately one hour later at Tavistock Square.

Fifty-six people, including the four perpetrators, were killed in the attacks and about 700 were injured.

Nature and purpose of inquiry sought:

Our clients seek an independent and impartial public inquiry into events that took place on 7th July 2005 with a view to the production of a publicly available report containing appropriate recommendations.

One of the key purposes of the inquiry would be to examine issues aimed at saving lives, minimising suffering and improving the response of government agencies to the continuing threat of terrorist attacks in the UK and abroad and in the event of any similar attack in the future.

Issues to be examined by the independent public inquiry:

Whilst this is not an exhaustive list of issues, our clients seek the production of a comprehensive, accurate and definitive factual account of how the bombings occurred culminating in the attacks themselves, the police investigation and the emergency response to the bombings.

Our clients are prepared to accept that the inquiry should not prejudice any ongoing investigation, but will expect you to account for what investigations are ongoing and how they may be prejudiced.

The inquiry should also focus upon communication as between the government, the police, the bereaved and survivors, government agencies charged with preventing terrorism investigating attacks and responding to the needs of the bereaved, the injured and any other survivors, and as between the emergency services internally within each service and with each other in the aftermath of an attack.

Additionally, our clients consider that the independent public inquiry should address the issue of safety on public transport, coordinated care for the bereaved, injured and other survivors as well as a focus upon the adequacies of existing compensatory mechanisms to include the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

Powers of the inquiry:

Our clients request an effective inquiry, being one which has the appropriate powers to require witness and documentary evidence and to invite relevant contributions from all stakeholders indirectly and directly affected by the incidences.

We note that to date no such independent and impartial public inquiry has been established and it is believed by our clients that such an inquiry is necessary to demonstrate effective due diligence in seeking to minimise death and suffering in the event of future attacks as well as demonstrating a step which will assist public confidence with the perception of being seen to take all appropriate steps as a responsible government to ensure independence in the process of protecting life.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the content of this letter in company of our clients but in the first instance invite your written response to our clients' formal request that you order an inquiry into the London bombings on 7th July 2005 as set out in this letter.

Yours faithfully Oury Clark Solicitors

5/5 Next?
__
patsy

noun

1. A person who is easily deceived or victimized: butt, dupe, fool, gull, lamb, pushover, victim. Informal sucker. Slang fall guy, gudgeon, mark, monkey, pigeon, sap. Chiefly British mug. See wise/foolish.
2. One who is made an object of blame: goat, scapegoat, whipping boy. Slang fall guy. See praise/blame.


So, these guys were set up? They thought they were at Butlins when in fact they were in an al Qaeda training camp- easy mistake from what I have heard about Butlins. They bought the tonne bag of nitrate fertiliser thinking it was going to be used for non-organic farming? And the aluminium oxide powder was for a little DIY fireworks demonstration they were organising in praise of Tony Blair- or some glaringly obvious household use for such a violent substance I have overlooked?

Was Abu Hamza a patsy too? Did he really lose that hand saving a kitten from a tree? I suppose MI5 never got the Home Office to provide al Qaeda recruiters with visas either? And no-one was ever indoctrinated in Finsbury Park? And all those Bin Laden stickers and posters we used to see about 5 square miles around N4 in the late 90s also never existed? No-one was ever trained for Jihad in British camps right under the security services' noses?

I suppose the footage & audio was all craftily fabricated by people at GCHQ using technology that isn't even to be found in research papers. Perhaps Mossad gave them a hand on this one too?

Fair enough the Home Office have cooked up some pretty flimsy stories like the non-existent Wood Green Ricin Factory, Forest Gate, the Brazilian suicide bomber and the Airport Liquid Bombers who couldn't put together flat-pack furniture let alone a terrorist cell.

But, I am most intrigued (in a morbidly amused sort of way) how you have so quickly arrived at the "patsy" cliche on this one?

Oh, the solicitors' statement? Do you think that they are going to or are even legally able to say "it's a fair cop, the boys are as bad as month old eggs" if there is a chance of an appeal? If they got away with the legal ramifications they would still never get another client in their lives.

Perhaps, I'm just a sucker for Leo Strauss's false reality of the Noble Lie? Perhaps Pravda was right all long and there was no war in Chechnya.

Anyway, on a serious note: let's hope that the calls for total public disclosure regard Crevice sets the ball in motion for a thorough investigation into what the fuck the UK (and US) were doing working with al Qaeda in the first place, and bringing them to the UK to recruit mujahadin, and perhaps then we'll gain a realistic picture of what could have been prevented and why 7/7 wasn't (able to be?) prevented. Were the victims just acceptable collateral damage compared to the whole geopolitical strategy they had their hearts set on? What sort of risk assessment was made regarding the potential for "blowback"?

In an ideal world, we'd probably be looking at many senior officials/politicians facing very serious charges like funding/supporting terrorism, corporate manslaughter & criminal negligence (at best). With lower ranks giving testimony against under protection from career repercussions.

Fat chance. I reckon the paper shredder was worked into an early grave just after 7/7, given that this could easily become the largest scandal Western "democracy" has seen inflicted on a "winning side".

"It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims"

is this some sort of advance apology for Killing innocent people?

Islamist terrorism is proof of islamist arrogance and vile hatred towards the rest of the world. They are a backward strain of one of the worlds great religions, and sooner or later their views need to be eliminated from the human gene-pool, for the good of all. This overpopulated planet needs justice and many things, it most certainly does not need those who incite religeous hatred.

Further to above, parts of the media are attempting to 'blame' MI5 for 7/7. This is a joke. The perversion of Islam that is Islamic extremism/terrorism is to blame for 7/7. The bereaved should seek answers from the Mosque, and ask why believers of 'the religion of peace' should want to kill innocent people, including those of their own faith.

Well, unfortunately the West has a lot of guilt in cultivating these people to be used for our own strategic ends!

Militant Islamism is not very representative of Islam as a whole. But The War on Terror also is not very representative of how the West interacts with militant Islamism. There is a long history of collusion between the West and the Jihadists and the Qutbist terrorists and the many serious criminals that thrive on their networks.

Don't forget that Al Zawahiri had to quit Egypt and go into business with Bin Laden because his Qutbist, Islamist attempt at provoking civil war failed miserably. There was no popular support for extremist Islamism, not even down a barrel of a gun.

The subtext of the constant War on Terror propaganda is that Islam equals terrorism. This simply isn't any more true than Christianity equalling terrorism. Perhaps even less so.

It is however just as foolish to assume that because we are being bombarded by lies that Islamist terrorism is also a fabrication. It's not. But that doesn't mean it is as big a threat as we are told it is. The world isn't on a knife edge in fear of mad Jihadis with radioactive suitcases and oceans of exotic poisons.

The fact of the matter is we have the Sword of Global Warming hanging over our heads.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zawahiri

Spare the all-too-familiar Islam-bashing.

We still don't know what happened, or more importantly, who was responsible.

The Bliar Regime was caught in too many LIES in the weeks following these False Flags to be taken seriously. Only a real and international investigation can say for certain.

either youre thick or confused or want to pander to the sensitivities of insane fanatics, because everyone else knows what happened - 4 men blew themselves and dozens others into molecules.

responsibility - now thats difficult.

No "Freddie", the evidence doesn't prove this, and the people telling us this were caught in several lies regarding their version of events, in the weeks immediately following.

Why should we take on faith the unsupported Conspiracy Theory of proven LIARS, whose interests seem to be the only ones served by this interpretation?
Blair rejects 7/7 inquiry calls

Tony Blair has again rejected calls for a fresh inquiry into the 7/7 attacks, saying it would undermine the security services.
The prime minister repeatedly dismissed Tory leader David Cameron's demands for a "proper independent inquiry".

He also told MPs at Commons question time that it would divert resources from the fight against terrorism.

Survivors of the 2005 attack renewed their calls for an inquiry on Monday after the fertiliser bomb plot trial.

It emerged at the end of the year-long court case that MI5 had watched and followed two of the 7 July bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, a year before the attacks as part of their surveillance of the fertiliser bomb plotters.

Calls for a fresh inquiry into the 7/7 attacks grew after it emerged that MPs and peers on the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) were not shown photographs linking Khan to known militants.

Security sources say MI5 said it did not reveal the images to the parliamentary committee because they were taken by police officers not MI5 operatives.

EVIDENCE SINCE TRIAL
Khan followed Feb 2004
Photographed with extremists
Recorded talking with plot ringleader
Home address seen
Car ownership and surname known June 04
When and where plotters met 7 July bombers
Pictures of bombers

Mr Blair has asked the ISC to consider why the 7 July bombers were not picked up.

Fighting terrorism

In the Commons, Mr Cameron dismissed the ISC inquiry, saying a full independent inquiry was needed because the committee had limited powers of investigation.


He said people wanted such an inquiry because of "the scale" of what happened in London on July 7 when 52 people were killed.


"The reason people want a full inquiry is to get to the truth," said Mr Cameron.

The ISC cannot possibly carry out an effective, independent or impartial 're-inquiry' - it now has a position to defend

Jacqui Putnam

But Mr Blair said that although the ISC's first inquiry received the "vast bulk" of the information and went into "immense detail", it had to be "cryptic" because the fertiliser bomb trial had not been concluded.

The prime minister said the new ISC inquiry was "perfectly entitled to call for anything else" it needed.

He told MPs: "I don't think it would be responsible for us...to have a full, independent, further inquiry, which would simply have the security service and the police and others diverted from the task of fighting terrorism."

The committee is expected to examine claims that West Yorkshire Police special branch was not told about the MI5 surveillance operation.

However, ISC chairman Paul Murphy MP had previously indicated that police were informed.

Some of those affected by the 2005 attacks delivered a letter to the Home Office on Tuesday requesting an "impartial public inquiry".

They said the government's latest comments reinforced their belief that the ISC was not the appropriate body to conduct an inquiry.

Jacqui Putnam, who survived the Edgware Road bomb, said: "I am left wondering what else MI5 failed to tell the ISC...the committee cannot possibly carry out an effective, independent or impartial 're-inquiry' - it now has a position to defend."

Janine Mitchell, whose husband Paul was seriously injured in the attacks, added: "We have already had an ISC inquiry and it produced a report containing inaccurate and misleading information, based on evidence which was incomplete and as a consequence both the inquiry and its report were fundamentally flawed."


By June 2004 MI5 had part of Khan's name on file twice, a family address and various pictures of him.

The ISC committee investigating 7/7 only ever saw one MI5 photograph of Khan. It did not see other photographs obtained by the BBC. A senior Whitehall source has told the BBC that the committee were aware other pictures existed and could have seen them if they had been requested.

On Monday, five men were given life sentences for a foiled plot to build a huge fertiliser bomb for a UK attack.


 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6615387.stm

Read Ahmed's book. It seems wholly likely that the accused did it. The ties between them are too numerous to be anything but a group. Therefore, it was no false flag. It is also clear the that the Met and Downing Street have lied heavily about the groups ties to al Qaeda.

What the big question is, is why the group managed to successfully carry out their mission considering they were known to MI5. The next question is why their cell leaders have never been prosecuted under terrorism charges.

There is no big Scooby Doo moment to be had. What remains to be done is to expose officially and publicly and with a credible independent inquiry that the UK has been harbouring, protecting and materially supporting terrorists.

The only shady characters that need to be brought to light are those in the government, police and security services that are responsible for these highly illegal and dangerous activities.

Sorry, to disappoint you the Jews didn't do it. It wasn't carried out by MI5 to rob us all of our civil liberties- as if the government needs bombs to pul that off. The only patsies were MI5 and Blair.

They got into bed with the Devil and we got fucked.

Now you can go chasing fantasies or you can go after the real bad guys.

"Wholly Likely", because of some book written by a pundit is not the same as proven through examination of the evidence.

Like I said, we still don't know what happened, or who was responsible, but we do know there was a Govenrment cover-up, and that their Conspiracy Theory was refuted as soon as they disseminated it.

It's more likely that this was a Flase Flag attacks, carried out by the covert services of the neo-Fascist countries making war.

It's more likely you read too many nutty websites run by holocaust deniers.

Let's see:

A cell headed up by al Qaeda recruiters in the UK with open links to Algeria, Afghanistan and the Balkans who seem to have been visited rather a lot by MI5/Special Branch and not getting arrested for a long, long time; who also mysteriously have valid UK visas.

The highly possible use of military grade explosives, likely to be snuggled into the UK using an al Qaeda supply route, most likely to be known to MI5/6.

The explosions took place the day the cell leader was appearing in court.

Well if that's a false flag, it was planned and executed by total masochists or imbeciles since it has ended up coming dangerously close to revealing the MI5/6 relationship with the people being accused for the attack.

"Yeah, let's carry out a false flag that will make MI5 initially look stupid and then when the facts start to hemorrhage will reveal that the UK has been harbouring, supporting and collaborating with the very terrorists we are supposedly waging a war on." "Yeah, sounds great! How soon can we start"

False Flag my arse. I know the UK is the home of shoddy public services but no fool would use military explosives in such an operation. You may as well just leave a big placard saying "MI5 was here planting bombs!" Or better still use some MoD C4 with a nice and obvious chemical signature. That'll fool people...

I suppose the French, German and Spanish spooks were all in on it too. The did a sterling job by warning the UK in the run up to 7/7 that an al Qaeda attack was imminent. I suppose that was some elaborate double bluff by creating ficticious terrorists for them to follow for years... wow, a cunning mixture of guile and incompetence.

Who project managed this "false flag" the Keystone Kops on glue? Because I think even the Swiss Army Reserves could have done a better job on orders to fuck it up.

Well no rest till Mossad are finally nailed eh?

You sound just like the paid hacks on Usenet - never listen, never read, just churn out any old argument or ad hominem attacks to cover the asses of those spooks who f*ck up (as if they could do otherwise - it's the nature of the game). Start with Imran Khan's statement above then...

Go and do some homework, if MI6 hasn't totally brainwashed you:-

Key words for your edification:-

Peter Power - Visor Consultants - BBC5 Live on the morning of 7/7

Netanyahu - in London metres away from the bus bomb

Opening day of G8 - great way to start the day for an elite with a very unpalatable message to get over, hmm?

Patsies - see Webster Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism for excruciating details of modus operandi, despite his possible links to the most likely true culprits - themselves Masters of Deception, in their own words.

Charles de Menezes - what did he witness that he should be rubbed out so disgustingly?

Finally, how about making the links between this outrage and all the others throughout the western world since U$ went down the Shock, Awe and Hypocrisy route (back in '48 just after the Gehlen Organisation got comfortable in Virginia)?

Time you were demoted until you get up to speed, IMO

Spooks always mess up - fact of life.

I can read better than I can write- I'm a better musician/artist than both. But being dyslexic that isn't much of a boast. But hey, I've got a high IQ so I'm not fussed.

I can read your list of events and see no material connection being offered. Is the list really meant to be self-evident?

Research requires a little more than trotting off a series of "conspiracy facts".

I'd like to see some evidence that Peter Power/VISOR had anything to do with the bombs. At least one whistleblower and a bit of circumstantial corroboration would do to get people listening. The same goes for Jean Charles. What evidence is there that is was other than a total fuck up? If there is any I'd be all ears- thus far all I have heard is baseless speculation. I'd like to see some evidence that it was ONLY the Israelis that got a warning, and I'd like to see exactly what the warning was. Can you do that for me?

Well judging how Crevice ran, I would almost quite believe that MI6 were paying people to post on some site, which no-one of any significance reads, to post allegations that MI5/6 should be investigated and mostly likely convicted for harbouring, protecting and colluding with terrorists. Sounds like another Keystone Kops project.

Oh, I get it. Just because I don't endorse the nutcase ramblings on www.dial-a-false-flag-loon.com, I MUST be a spook.

Very good. Another stunning conspiracy theory.

I'm a bit perplexed to say the least that I seem to be the only person on this thread that has read anything by the author of the blog that someone reposted above.

For an insight into Britain and the US's shady ties to rent-a-terrorist (al Qaeda) please check this out:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/368971.html

Chris has posted other good stuff on this very subject elsewhere. If anyone has the links handy?

Also interesting:

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1862515.stm

 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby/article649692.ece

 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/kosovo1/ksv17.htm

 http://www.jihadunspun.com/newsarchive/article_internal.php?article=104908&list=/newsarchive/index.php&

 http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/KLA-drugs.html

 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060220&articleId=2014