True, but he is using it with his students, so it's not like you'd be dobbing him in for extra-curricular activities. His Dean/departmental head may or may not consider the paper to be an appropriate teaching tool.
Dear all,
I have had further time to check some of the comments made earlier in this blog. The paper is not fabricating Peter Power's views. The transcript of the relevant extract of his radio interview with the BBC on 7th July 2005 is reproduced below. If anyone wants to hear the audio clip on which this is based, it is available at multiple locations on the internet. I can e-mail the clip to anyone who cannot find it themselves.
BBC Interview - 7th July 2005
"POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.
HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?
POWER: Precisely... etc."
So, for all those people who claim that the locations in Peter Power's exercise are not the same as the actual bombings, you have to answer why he changed his story from "bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning" to something else later on.
I've now studied the map in the early part of the blog provided by Info Analyst. Based on that - and I haven't been able to find the source of the information for the 'precise' alternative locations - it must be noted that the differences claimed by 'Information Analyst' and the actual locations and so small as to make no difference in two of the four cases (barely 30 - 60 seconds travelling time), but they are notably different in the two other cases. However, without credible information on where Peter Power makes these alternative claims, there is insufficient reason to change the paper from the claim Peter Power made on the day of the attacks. Even if other sources are located, it creates a problems for Peter Power's account - why does it change
after the event? In the original radio interview, Peter Power puts considerable emphasis on the word 'precisely'. The question, for me and you, is "how would he know this at the time"? And if he could not know this, why would he claim it?
My paper, therefore, is not distorting what Peter Power claimed on the day of the attack. It is not unreasonable to state that the locations were the same as this is precisely the claim made by Peter Power himself, even if he subsequently retracted the claim.
Best wishes
Rory
