Month: July 2025

Today marks a solemn occasion as we commemorate the 20th anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings—an event that remains deeply etched in the memory of our nation. On this day, we pause to remember the 52 innocent lives tragically lost and the many more affected by the devastating attacks that took place on 7 July 2005.

The coordinated suicide bombings targeted London’s public transport system during the morning rush hour, with explosions on three London Underground trains and a double-decker bus. The impact was immediate and far-reaching, leaving communities shaken and families changed forever.

In the years that followed, I must admit with deep regret that I used this horrific event to further an anti-Muslim narrative. Driven by anger and ignorance, I channelled my energy into hatred, not once truly considering the individual stories of those who had suffered, nor the feelings of the victims’ families. I saw the attacks only through a political lens, using them to justify prejudice rather than seeking understanding or empathy.

That changed when I began working with local screenwriter John Hales on a play titled The Response, which was performed at the Seagull Theatre a few years ago. During that project, I had the privilege of meeting Dan Biddle—the most severely injured survivor of the 7/7 bombings. Listening to Dan’s story was a turning point for me. His honesty, his pain, and his strength broke through the barriers I had built. As he spoke, I felt tears in my eyes. For the first time, I truly grasped the human cost of that day—not just the statistics or headlines, but the lifelong impact on real people and their loved ones.

Meeting Dan made me realise just how wrong I had been. My previous rhetoric had not only fuelled division but had also dishonoured the memory and suffering of those affected. I had failed to see the human side of the tragedy until I was faced with it directly.

As we mark this anniversary, I reflect with sorrow on my past mindset, and with gratitude for the opportunity to grow and change. It is a time not only to mourn but also to listen, to learn, and to stand in solidarity with those who continue to live with the consequences of that terrible day.

To the survivors, the bereaved families, and all who carry the pain of 7/7 in their hearts. please know that I now carry your stories with me, with respect and humility. May this anniversary remind us all of the importance of compassion over hatred, of unity over division, and of choosing peace in the face of tragedy.

@Newdaystarts

In recent weeks, two cases have emerged that raise unsettling questions about how the UK handles hate speech, public safety, and the principle of equal treatment under the law.

On one hand, a woman received a 31-month prison sentence for posting a grotesque tweet suggesting that migrant hotels should be set on fire. The court concluded that the message constituted incitement to violence, and the sentence reflected the serious threat such language poses, especially amid an increasingly volatile discourse around immigration.

On the other hand, another individual, a religious figure, delivered a public sermon after the 7 October Hamas attacks that quoted a Hadith calling for the killing of Jews. Despite widespread condemnation and media attention, the most severe consequence to date has been his suspension as a charity director.

This has left many asking: how is it that one form of incitement leads to imprisonment, while another appears to result only in an administrative penalty? And what does this say about our justice system and how it navigates hate speech in a plural, diverse society?

Context Matters, But How Much?

It’s important to acknowledge that UK hate speech laws do not operate in a vacuum. The context, platform, intent, and likelihood of causing harm all weigh heavily on legal outcomes.

In the case of the tweet, the message was unequivocal and public, posted on a platform known for rapid spread. It advocated violence directly and plainly: burn migrant hotels. No ambiguity. The court found that the post was not just tasteless or offensive, it was a clear incitement to commit arson and potentially murder, aimed at a vulnerable population.

By contrast, the sermon, while containing language that many would find vile, was framed as a religious quote, and its speaker claimed to be reflecting scripture rather than directly inciting violence. The legal distinction lies here: quoting a text, even a deeply disturbing one, is not always classified as incitement unless there’s a clear call to action or a realistic prospect of that speech leading to violence.

But critics rightly argue: isn’t there a real-world impact either way?

The Problem of Inconsistency

What makes this discrepancy feel so jarring is the perception of inconsistency. Many in the public see one group harshly punished and another seemingly protected, and that undermines trust in the justice system.

This is especially sensitive in a post-7 October climate, when antisemitic incidents have risen sharply in the UK. To many British Jews, the failure to prosecute a sermon that invokes death feels like a terrifying omission. Meanwhile, others point out that Muslims have often faced disproportionate scrutiny for lesser offences, particularly under terrorism legislation.

Where Should the Line Be?

The right to free expression is foundational in any democracy. But it’s not absolute. In the UK, it is limited by laws that prohibit speech which incites violence, spreads hatred, or endangers public safety.

The difficulty lies in applying these limits evenly, regardless of who is speaking or who the targets are. That means scrutinising not just the content of speech, but its impact, and making sure we’re not selectively enforcing the law based on politics, public mood, or identity.

Holding Institutions Accountable

One thing is clear: greater transparency is needed. The public deserves to understand why one act of hate results in jail time and another in a suspension. It’s not enough to let legal complexity mask real moral questions.

If someone calls for violence against migrants, they should be held accountable. If someone, under the guise of religion calls for the killing of Jews, that too must be addressed with equal seriousness.

Otherwise, we risk eroding the very social cohesion that these laws are designed to protect.

@newdaystarts

When I posted on my personal Facebook profile about watching the new Netflix documentary ‘Attack on London: Hunting the 7/7 bombers’. I received this comment above, After challenging him on the post I noticed comments from my friends Gem and Dan Biddle rightly so because Dan is the most injured survivor from the 7/7 attack.

After thinking for a while, I felt a bit of guilt as a comment on my post has offended good friends of mine, I decided to spend the rest of the day exploring in a bit more detail the comment above.

Debunking the Myths: The 7/7 London Bombings and the “Ripple Effect” Conspiracy.

As the 20th anniversary of the 7th July 2005 London bombings approaches, misinformation and conspiracy theories are once again resurfacing. among them is the video 7/7 Ripple Effect 3, which promotes a narrative claiming that the four suicide bombers were innocent, that they were set up by the British government, and that the attacks were a “false flag” operation.

Claim 1: The four young Muslims were tricked into taking part in a mock exercise and were then killed at Canary Wharf.

There is no credible evidence whatsoever that the bombers, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain, and Germaine Lindsay, were shot dead at Canary Wharf or that they were unaware of their role in the attacks.

The Metropolitan Police, Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), and multiple inquiries, including the 2011 Coroner’s Inquests, concluded they were suicide bombers who deliberately carried out coordinated attacks on three Tube trains and a bus, killing 52 people.

The claim that they were shot at Canary Wharf originated from vague and unverified reports which were later contradicted by physical evidence, such as CCTV footage of the bombers entering Luton station and King’s Cross, eyewitness testimony, and forensic evidence at the bombing sites linking them directly to the explosions.

Claim 2: The bombings happened during a government-run mock drill simulating the same scenario.

Visor Consultants was conducting a private crisis management exercise that day, but this was not a government-run drill. His company was working with a small group of clients on a hypothetical scenario involving bombings which is a routine exercise for risk planning.

Owner Peter Power has stated that the timings and locations in his scenario did not precisely match the actual attacks. The coincidence is striking, but not evidence of complicity. Emergency services regularly plan for terror scenarios and the existence of such drills does not imply foreknowledge or orchestration.

Claim 3: CCTV cameras were not working at the bombing locations.

CCTV footage of the bombers exists and was made very public during official investigations and court proceedings. Footage shows them together at Luton station at 04:56, and at King’s Cross shortly before the attacks.

While not every camera on the Underground was functioning perfectly that day, which apparently is not unusual according to the documentaries I’ve watched, also there is no evidence of a systemic blackout or deliberate camera failure. Some stations affected by the attacks had limited CCTV coverage in underground tunnels, as was typical in 2005.

Claim 4: Tony Blair needed a false-flag attack to distract from the Iraq war and WMD lies.

This claim is speculative and again unsupported by any evidence. The failings of the intelligence used to justify the Iraq War had already been exposed by the time of the July bombings, and Tony Blair was already under immense political pressure.

To suggest a government would orchestrate the killing of its own people to manipulate public opinion is a grave allegation. No whistle-blowers, documents, or forensic evidence have ever surfaced to substantiate this theory, despite the intense media scrutiny over the years.

Claim 5: A BBC ‘Panorama’ episode in 2004 predicted the bombings, proving foreknowledge.

The Panorama programme in question in the comment was a hypothetical exercise exploring how the UK might respond to a terrorist attack on the Underground, a scenario considered likely by intelligence agencies for years, especially after the Madrid train bombings in 2004.

Far from indicating conspiracy, this showed that security analysts were aware of London’s vulnerabilities and that a bombing was widely anticipated. Predictive planning in journalism and policy circles is not evidence of complicity.

Of course it’s natural to question official narratives, especially following catastrophic events, it is also crucial to distinguish between genuine investigation and misinformation dressed up as truth. The 7/7 Ripple Effect videos fail to provide verifiable evidence and instead they promote cherry-picked coincidences and long-debunked claims.

The families of the victims, the survivors, deserve respectful remembrance grounded in facts – not recycled conspiracy theories.

@Newdaystarts


Further reading and viewing for more information,

The 7 July Inquest transcripts and rulings (UK Coroner’s Office)

The ISC Report on the London Terrorist Attacks

BBC and Guardian investigative reports (2005–2011)

Debunking 7/7 conspiracy theories (FullFact.org)

Back from the dead: The untold story of 7/7 – Dan Biddle

Viewing

Netflix – Attack on London: Hunting the 7/7 bombers.

Sky Documentaries – 7/7: Homegrown Terror.