New Page 2

<body><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tr><td> <p align="center"> </p> <p align="center"> </p> </td></tr></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tr><td valign="top" width="1%"> <p> </p> </td><td valign="top" width="24"></td><td valign="top"><p>The day after the shooting: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm">how</a> the BBC reported the mistake. The revisions of history lie side by side on the internet. I have no particular axe to grind with the BBC. I think they're one of the finest things Britain does and it's a disgrace how the government now bullies them, but this is the story they told at the time - and of course the tabloids were far worse. </p> <p>Yes, things are confused after an incident like this. But why do all the mistakes favour the authorities case? Has anyone gone back and found out the source of all these stories that were slavishly reported? "Jean Charles was running into the station." FALSE. "He was wearing bulky clothes." FALSE. "Carrying a rucksack." FALSE. "Vaulted the pay barrier." FALSE. "Ran when police shouted at him." FALSE.</p> <p>By the time they start printing the  <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7034430.stm">truth</a> the mud has stuck and the killers have walked away.</p> <p>Jean Charles was everyman, quietly on his way to work. He could have been you or me. He was murdered by British forces as part of the War on Terror and his death is an acute  warning, a modern-day canary in a mineshaft. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes">details</a> of his killing are horrific and disgrace this country.</p> <p>The diagram at the bottom sums it up. Out of 4 statements only one is true: that's the one which describes where the escalator is.</p> <p> </td></tr></table></body>