Comments on: July 7 inquests ‘could be secret’ - BBC News http://innertemplelibrary.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/july-7-inquests-could-be-secret-bbc-news/ from the Inner Temple Library Mon, 12 May 2008 15:56:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Sinclair http://innertemplelibrary.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/july-7-inquests-could-be-secret-bbc-news/#comment-7645 Sinclair Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:03:11 +0000 http://innertemplelibrary.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/july-7-inquests-could-be-secret-bbc-news/#comment-7645 Why would an inquest into a July Seveth victim be a threat to 'National Security'? What aspect of the state machinations would be compromised by an inquest that was truly independent? The legislation changes contained within the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 [specifically the proposed power of the state to a) remove a jury and/or family members from an inquest & b) sack/appoint/replace any particular coroner of their choosing] are extremely worrying. One can explicitly see why the state would want to interfere into the inquest of Jean Charles de Menezes (to protect Operational matters etc.), but why/how would 'National Security' be compromised in an inquest of a July 7th Victim? Is it because the government 'July 7th narrative' would not then stand up to scrutiny? See http://tinyurl.com/34p9z4 Why would an inquest into a July Seveth victim be a threat to ‘National Security’? What aspect of the state machinations would be compromised by an inquest that was truly independent? The legislation changes contained within the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 [specifically the proposed power of the state to a) remove a jury and/or family members from an inquest & b) sack/appoint/replace any particular coroner of their choosing] are extremely worrying.

One can explicitly see why the state would want to interfere into the inquest of Jean Charles de Menezes (to protect Operational matters etc.), but why/how would ‘National Security’ be compromised in an inquest of a July 7th Victim?

Is it because the government ‘July 7th narrative’ would not then stand up to scrutiny?

See http://tinyurl.com/34p9z4

]]>