... I know I said "Enough was enough" but, as Mark points
out, there could be serious implications, and this serves as a
warning to anyone who starts promoting the "Charles Seven" fantasy:
That assessment by Mark Windows says it all.
If the UK Column ever became a 'real threat' ... to the
'establishment', then they could be sued, and I can't see a leg they
would have to stand on.
Now "Enough is really enough". Suffice to say, the story that
"Charles Seven" pushes - as the reason for the killing of Jean
Charles de Menezes - is completely refuted by the report created by
a retired Detective Sergeant, using his inside knowledge of Police
Procedures, combined with information freely-available online, in
respect of that event.
His report is entitled "Stockwell", which I've read.
It explains everything to me.
There was a massive cock-up, which is explained in his report.
It was a cock-up that should not have happened. It was cock-up due
to some UTTERLY slipshod "policing". And that's why it was covered
up in the Main Stream Media, and elsewhere.
Even the delays in providing information to the media are explained,
as the times when - having realised the cock-up fairly early on -
they were desperate to work out some kind of cover story to explain
what they did - and not make them look so bad.
Right. That really is it. Mark had already gone where I hadn't ...
although I did have what he's said in the back of my mind when I
wrote my castigating e-mail about Gerrish & Icke, etc. And (of
course) I also had the Stockwell report in my mind. Knowing
that Stockwell had been presented it to the UK Column, and
they had made a complete hash of it.
And ... please let me assure you ... there's a whole lot more ...
there are more instances of the kind of slipshod reporting that Mark
describes, in this one particular instance. It's a long, long, way
from the only instance.
My original e-mail was, fundamentally, due to "A final straw
breaking a camel's back"