More than two years have passed since a naval architect, working for the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency, first blew the whistle on the pathetic swindle that had been the 2004 Re-opened Formal Investigation into the sinking of the trawler Gaul.

For more than two years the British authorities have systematically failed to openly acknowledge his disclosures and take the steps prescribed by law to protect the public interest in such circumstances, although, behind the scenes, a lot of energy has been spent both in blocking the information and trying to suppress the whistle-blower.

One should wonder why, in a fishing vessel tragedy, of which there have been many, such huge efforts have been spent in controlling the information, while many other transgressions on the part of the government have already been revealed and - although no corrections were ever applied - publicly condemned. To whose benefit it is to obscure the last chapters in the story of the Gaul?

The explanation, we consider, may lie in the fact that, in the Gaul case, things have gone a bit too far – certainly further than many would find it pleasant to think about.
The events that have taken place can show a dangerous pattern in the New Labour government’s conduct and allow links to be made with other more infamous and still unresolved affairs.
It is also feared that the story could somehow cast doubt on the integrity of the ex-Attorney General (Lord Goldsmith), on whose legal advice and authority this country was taken to war.
But most of all, it is feared that, if publicly acknowledged, the Gaul story could spin out of control and lead to direct accusations against the ex-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and his shady network of allies.

As his deputy, John Prescott, oversaw the Gaul Re-opened Formal Investigation and its aftermath, it was only natural that abuses of power should have marked the course of events.
In 2006, John Prescott was still Deputy Prime Minister, his physical presence as second in command was vital to Tony Blair, shielding his shaky premiership from the surging political tempests. A total ban on the disclosures, by any means, was therefore necessary at the time and, surprisingly, all too easily applied.

More outrageous, however, is that, in order to put a lid on the leaks, the Blair government decided to use, not only the state’s repressive machine, but also foreign bodies. These abuses compounded the problem and increased the number of those with a vested interest in concealing the truth.

When Tony Blair finally left office, a short period of uncertainty followed. Soon, however, the new PM, Gordon Brown, appeared to take over from where his predecessor had left off.
The reasons why the present government decided to continue perpetrating the injustice are, to us, still rather unclear.

It may be that, aware of the general political fall out with New Labour, which could ensue, should all the facts come to the surface, the new administration is unwilling to take appropriate action.

It may be that our new PM is bound to protect the future political career of his predecessor.

It may be, moreover, imperative to prevent any related additional disclosures that may touch upon the new EU power structures and those foreign agencies whose acts and identity many do not wish to see revealed.

Meanwhile, in our lawless land, the Gaul culprits continue to spread the blood around, confident in the knowledge that, when too few are left with a clear conscience, their wrongs can no longer be condemned.