Muad’Dib’s / John Anthony Hill’s (JAH) trial has now concluded.

[vResistance]

Nope and the Yorkshire post have got their facts wrong in that bit you selectively quote.

 

The story clearly says;

 

"But the 63-year-old was found not guilty of two counts of attempting to pervert the course of justice by posting six copies of the DVD to the foreman of the jury and one to the judge presiding over a 2008 trial at Kingston Crown Court linked to the suicide bombings."

 

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/man_cleared_over_7_7_bombers_are_innocent_dvd_1_3379216

 

 

Hardly an open attack and a lie.

 

The first paragraph is there to poison the mind,simple psychology.

[Longcol]

The first paragraph is there to poison the mind,simple psychology.

 

More likely an error from an overworked sub. If you're so concerned write to the Press Complaints Commission.

 

http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html

[RoryRD]

So what if some Business Studies lecturer at Sheffield Poly has written something in the style of an academic paper about 7/7. I bet his employers don't support his conclusions or methodology.

 

Searching the net finds posts written by Ridley-Duff supporting John Hill, or as he calls him MaudDib. It suggests to me that Ridley-Duff is an acolyte of Hill, and quite possibly one of the 'truthers' on SF.

 

I don't know what SF is, so I can't be one of them. (Is it Sheffield Forum?) I had to register to contribute to this thread so that is evidence enough to counter the above claim.

 

The article mentioned is used as teaching materials in the research training for doctoral researchers so there is confidence in its methodology. It is challenging for students (which is why we use it). The paper is known to my employer, and many researchers have read it. None have objected to it, but there is always a diversity of opinion about its conclusions. Nobody has ever questioned the integrity of the methodology.

 

The value of the paper (to the students) is that they learn how difficult it is to establish the truth. Even if my 'employer' disagreed with the conclusions, it does not alter the value of the paper in showing how different approaches to research reveal different things about the claims surrounding events at Canary Wharf on 7/7.

 

As I play a leading role in research training at the highest level, it would be fair to say my employer does have confidence in my ability to design research, and I have received bursaries for Research Excellence every year I've been at the university. I also won a national competition for a PhD bursary in 2002.

 

This paper was written only for student consumption. I cannot help that many people have taken it from my website and circulated it (and uploaded it) to many other websites. It has become a much talked about paper (much more so that all my other papers - of which there are now about 40). However, I am happy to add a sane voice to the hysteria surrounding 7/7.

 

To correct some misconceptions:

 

1. The article refers to "John Hill" throughout, whilst acknowledging at one point that he calls himself Muad'Dib.

 

2. I do not believe you will find statements anywhere on the internet that I support John Hill (in the sense that you imply), but I do engage in debate about the quality of the evidence in his documentary, and the attempt by the BBC to challenge it. I support pursuit of the truth, not John Hill. If John Hill's work takes us closer to the truth, I support his work, not him.

 

3. I utterly reject the idea that I am doing anything other than exercising my own judgement in a case where a person has been prosecuted for nothing more than trying to see justice done (as they see it). I have never met John Hill, and did not correspond with him until he contacted me to clarify issues in the first draft of the paper. I corresponded also with the BBC and J7 to clarify issues in the paper. He's not been favoured, or excluded, from discussions to improve the paper. Both he, and the BBC, are challenged in the paper over their political motives.

 

This said, I have no problem supporting any person who intelligently follows the evidence available and draws credible conclusions from it. If that means I 'support John Hill' then so be it.

 

Rory Ridley-Duff

Sheffield Hallam University

[RoryRD]

Nope and the Yorkshire post have got their facts wrong in that bit you selectively quote.

 

The story clearly says;

 

"But the 63-year-old was found not guilty of two counts of attempting to pervert the course of justice by posting six copies of the DVD to the foreman of the jury and one to the judge presiding over a 2008 trial at Kingston Crown Court linked to the suicide bombings."

 

Hardly an open attack and a lie.

 

The opening sentence refers to 'suicide bombings'. Given what the trial was all about, and the conclusion it came to, how can this be anything other than biased reporting?

 

Rory

[Digsy]

So what if some Business Studies lecturer at Sheffield Poly has written something in the style of an academic paper about 7/7. I bet his employers don't support his conclusions or methodology.

 

Searching the net finds posts written by Ridley-Duff supporting John Hill, or as he calls him MaudDib. It suggests to me that Ridley-Duff is an acolyte of Hill, and quite possibly one of the 'truthers' on SF.

 

You mean the Conspiracy Theorists are conspiring, woah a whole new level to conspiracy theory.

 

Does that make you a conspiracy theorists conspiracy theorist...........

[RootsBooster]

 

 

 

Don't forget and spread the word- '7/7 was an inside job'.

It is plain to see with recent events the war machine will do anything and lie through their teeth to get what THEY* want.

 

*The Hierarchy Enslaving You.

 

Peace.

 

Would you mind showing us your proof?

 

He wants the truth to come out,the families have been lied to.

 

Would you mind showing us your proof?

 

 

Are you trying to get this discussion closed ?

 

Might as well if it's going to be another pointless rant with no proof.

[vResistance]

I don't know what SF is, so I can't be one of them. (Is it Sheffield Forum?) I had to register to contribute to this thread so that is evidence enough to counter the above claim.

 

The article mentioned is used as teaching materials in the research training for doctoral researchers so there is confidence in its methodology. It is challenging for students (which is why we use it). The paper is known to my employer, and many researchers have read it. None have objected to it, but there is always a diversity of opinion about its conclusions. Nobody has ever questioned the integrity of the methodology.

 

The value of the paper (to the students) is that they learn how difficult it is to establish the truth. Even if my 'employer' disagreed with the conclusions, it does not alter the value of the paper in showing how different approaches to research reveal different things about the claims surrounding events at Canary Wharf on 7/7.

 

As I play a leading role in research training at the highest level, it would be fair to say my employer does have confidence in my ability to design research, and I have received bursaries for Research Excellence every year I've been at the university. I also won a national competition for a PhD bursary in 2002.

 

This paper was written only for student consumption. I cannot help that many people have taken it from my website and circulated it (and uploaded it) to many other websites. It has become a much talked about paper (much more so that all my other papers - of which there are now about 40). However, I am happy to add a sane voice to the hysteria surrounding 7/7.

 

To correct some misconceptions:

 

1. The article refers to "John Hill" throughout, whilst acknowledging at one point that he calls himself Muad'Dib.

 

2. I do not believe you will find statements anywhere on the internet that I support John Hill (in the sense that you imply), but I do engage in debate about the quality of the evidence in his documentary, and the attempt by the BBC to challenge it. I support pursuit of the truth, not John Hill. If John Hill's work takes us closer to the truth, I support his work, not him.

 

3. I utterly reject the idea that I am doing anything other than exercising my own judgement in a case where a person has been prosecuted for nothing more than trying to see justice done (as they see it). I have never met John Hill, and did not correspond with him until he contacted me to clarify issues in the first draft of the paper. I corresponded also with the BBC and J7 to clarify issues in the paper. He's not been favoured, or excluded, from discussions to improve the paper. Both he, and the BBC, are challenged in the paper over their political motives.

 

This said, I have no problem supporting any person who intelligently follows the evidence available and draws credible conclusions from it. If that means I 'support John Hill' then so be it.

 

Rory Ridley-Duff

Sheffield Hallam University

 

The opening sentence refers to 'suicide bombings'. Given what the trial was all about, and the conclusion it came to, how can this be anything other than biased reporting?

 

Rory

 

Thank-you Sir for your input ,it is a great honour to have you here.

 

I recently started a thread about your findings but it was deleted within minutes.

 

Would you mind showing us your proof?

 

Would you mind showing us your proof?

Might as well if it's going to be another pointless rant with no proof.

 

Have a good read of the closed thread (the only one that hasn't been deleted),do some research,wake up.

[RootsBooster]

 

Have a good read of the closed thread (the only one that hasn't been deleted),do some research,wake up.

 

Can you not just show me the proof?

 

I mean, it's in my nature to go with things that are proven, I would gladly join your cause... if you just show me the proof.

 

You (and the other conspiracy fans) are asked time and time again to just give us the proof of your claims, but all we ever get is diversions and links to home-made sites and videos, most of which use clips/text edited out of context / have no credible source or are just outright made up.

 

Here you are telling me to go and read through an entire thread for which you give no title name. Hardly the best method of recruitment for your crusade.

 

Can't you just show me? I really would like to "wake up" if I'm a victim of some big conspiracy.

[esme]

Mod Note

 

As this thread has degenerated into insults rather than discussion the thread has been closed.

 

If anyone has any valid or pressing reason that it should be reopened please contact the Helpdesk to discuss the matter.