Your views: July 7 intelligence report

A report by MPs into possible intelligence failures surrounding the bombings in London in July 2005 has said the UK's security service did not have the manpower to do the extra checks on the attackers' ringleader that might have prevented the blasts.

It stressed that while MI5 knew of Mohammad Sidique Khan's terrorist links, there was no evidence to suggest he was a threat to national security.

Two people touched by the events of July 7 2005 share their views of this latest report.

Andrew was on the same train as the Aldgate bomber, sitting just three carriages away from the explosion. He realised later it was a split second decision that made him choose a carriage where he survived.

Kim Howells and Margaret Beckett chaired the committee of MPs, both are Labour MPs with close government connections. Margaret Beckett even began her covering letter to the prime minister last year regarding the report with "Dear Gordon", so this could never be described as an independent report. It was never likely to be critical of a government department. So I am left with severe doubts about the independence of the committee.

If MI5 didn't fail, that's fine. That then raises questions about whether the government failed. The government has consistently blocked a full public inquiry. Now would be the perfect time for such an inquiry, rather than the piecemeal reports we've had so far from people who are too close to the government.

None of the reports looking at the intelligence surrounding the 7th July bombings have satisfied me. There seems to be a patronising and arrogant attitude from ministers who tell us what happened and expect that to be enough. Until we have had a full public inquiry we will always be unsure about what happened at the highest levels of government.

I don't think we should have an American blame culture, but I don't think it's acceptable for the government to tell us what happened and expect that to be enough.

Martyn was on his way to work, taking one of two routes he regularly used. He suddenly heard a loud noise close-by and quickly realised it was the sound of an explosion. On reaching his office he heard about the blast in nearby Russell Square.

But given the events of 2001 this makes me wonder how seriously our government took the threat level, or if they under-estimated it. It's disappointing to realise that national security comes down to a flip of the coin - do we look at this case, or that one?

A lot of innocent people have been affected and may be affected in the future. The report doesn't identify what MI5 would do in the future or whether there are any funding increases. So have we learned our lesson? What can reassure us it won't happen again? There's nothing from the government to say it has learned from its mistakes.

It seems to me there were a number of links in the intelligence that weren't picked up. Certainly after 9/11 everyone assumed security was tightened, so to me the gaps are very worrying.

Whether it's down to funding, manpower or arrogance on behalf of the government, everything leads me to question how much the government has valued what MI5 has done and whether in turn MI5 tells the government it needs more resources. It smacks of a breakdown in communication and for me, the lack of reassurance for the future is the biggest worry.

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version