« Previous | Main | Next »

The end of the terror plot trial...and the links to July 7th

Eddie Mair | 13:38 UK time, Monday, 30 April 2007

will be our main news tonight. We're busy working on our coverage.

As you'll hear, the end of the trial raises questions about whether the authorities could have done more to prevenet the London bombings on July the 7th.

The BBC's online coverage is here, and as you'll hear on the programme, the security services are going out of their way to explain their view of things on this page and this one.

The Panorama Special is on BBC ONE tonight at 19.00


  1. At 01:55 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:


    Thanks for the links.

    Aye yers,

  2. At 02:01 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    Quite shocking now that we can hear all of the details, I think.

  3. At 02:10 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Gillian wrote:

    Like the Head of MI5 I am a fan of ''Spooks''. Am I being too fanciful in suggesting that we will not be told the whole truth, because the reason for the bombs not exploding was something to do with MI5?

  4. At 02:25 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Gillian wrote:

    Sorry, I don't think my previous posting made sense.... It just occurred to me that my thoughts were racing ahead of me, after having just read through the links.
    I was trying to say that maybe MI5 have more fingers in more pies now, as a result of their previous experiences.

  5. At 02:28 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    The map and the shape of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir says a lot. The long 'panhandle' is the former "Northwest Frontier", an 'outlaw' area for centuries.



  6. At 02:36 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Gillian (3),

    "Spooks" was pretty close to the bone regarding 'third party' intelligence scheming and provokations, e.g. Mo**ad, eh?

  7. At 02:58 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    The only person I know who knows about the reality behind Spooks watches it and howls with laughter, but refuses to explain exactly why. If the head of MI5 is a fan, that might just be for the comedy value.

  8. At 03:14 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Peter Bolt wrote:

    I reckon the explanation is fairly simple, but "It is a truth that dare not speak it`s name".
    MI 5/6 just do not trust the Police not to leak.
    Anyone who has worked in a Police Station will know just how difficult it is to control information of any kind,still less on- going information.
    I cannot think of anyone willing to publicly admit such.

  9. At 04:05 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Simon Worrall wrote:

    Chris G.;
    Laugh. It's probably the idea that MI5 uses the building housing the United Grand Lodge (or national headquarters) of English Freemasons as it's HQ. That's the building that you see in all the external shots in Spooks. Probably because UGLE in Great Queen street is a fairly attractive building and easy to photograph. The real HQ of 'Five' is Thames House on Millbank. Not very photogenic at all.

    Or the poetic liecense taken with the moody lighting. Or the high tech sophisticated equipment that Five *really do* have available to them.


  10. At 05:37 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Aperitif wrote:

    I find 'Spooks' about as likely as 'Judge John Deed'. And both rather amusing if one is in the mood.

  11. At 05:38 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Pamela Dix wrote:

    As the sister of a man killed in the Lockerbie bombing, I am incensed at the emerging news of what was known by the intelligence services prior to the 7 July bombings. There is an appalling sense of having been here before.
    The refusal of government to hold an independent inquiry, as they have also done since 1997 for Lockerbie, is also sickeningly familiar. The argument now presented of a lack of resources to do the job has not been used in the past - the Lockerbie families were fobbed off with other excuses. However, to hear the Conservative party add to the calls for an independent inquiry into 7 July is laughable. They adamently refused to hold such an inquiry into Lockerbie. This is political game playing at its worst.
    I echo the call for an inquiry without delay.
    Pamela Dix

  12. At 06:55 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Rachel wrote:

    Pamela (11): I can sympathise with your wish, as a relative, to have every possible exploration of whether mistakes were made in these cases. But I do wonder how much use an inquiry could really be. The trouble seems to be that a prompt inquiry risks handing valuable information to the terrorists about intelligence methods and networks. Investigations into 7/7 are still underway and, I believe, suspects charged who have not yet been brought to court. There may well be others who are under surveillance or who have not yet been found. In such circumstances, I cannot see how an inquiry would be possible without either prejudicing these investigations or being so bland as to be pointless. Furthermore, the recent record of public inquiries is not good. They last too long, cost too much, blame no-one and produce recommendations that are frequently ignored.

  13. At 09:51 PM on 30 Apr 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    I am with Rachel @ 12 on not really wanting an immediate public inquiry about the events leading up to the 7th July bombings. What is it to be *for*? Anything we need to know we already do: a decision was made that in retrospect turns out to have been the wrong decision.

    I feel rather the same way about the interminable DiPoW inquest fuss. What are we going to learn? That she died because a drunk drove a car in which she was travelling without a seatbelt, into a concrete pillar at high speed. The only person in that car who was wearing a seatbelt survived. I don't see how anybody could be thought to have prevented her from wearing a seatbelt, and I am quite sure that if there had been a plot to kill her a more certain way of doing it would have been chosen: if instead of a pillar the car had gone into the river, that might make sense as a conspiracy, but something so inefficient? Nah. Zillions of pounds wasted on finding out what we already know.

    Has any recent public inquiry been allowed to tell us stuff we didn't know in advance, anyhow?

This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.