I have been hesitating whether to write this or not, but having gained a bit more of an insight into your perspective over the past couple of days I think it might be constructive. If there's any part of this which appears as if I'm judging you: I'm not, and I apologise if it appears that way.

Some years ago I was caught up in a violent terrorist incident (the specifics of which are unimportant here). The first thing I learned about dealing with it is that injury does not have to occur to oneself in order to be defined as "trauma". I was unharmed, those I saw were not.

The second lesson was that everyone manages and deals with such an experience in different ways. I decided to take as many positives from it as possible. A man I met felt that this would never be possible for him. Everyone is different.

Because everyone is different, I decided after a period of time (i.e.: years) to stop marking the anniversary and move on. I could do that and it has proven to be a very positive decision for my quality of life. Others haven't or, more likely, couldn't. Often, but not always, this seems to be based on the severity of the trauma they experienced. The point is that sadly sometimes time heals, but leaves scars. One cannot judge a person based on how long they take to recover.

Anyway, my apologies if I'm preaching to the converted. You may understand all of this perfectly well.

Because the event in which I was involved was so public, the subsequent investigations were almost inevitably blighted by conspiracy theorists and lunatics who were never involved or had any connection at all. I've found my name on a conspiracy website, selectively quoting an interview I gave to a major news organisation to give the impression that that for which the event was known, never happened. It's immensely frustrating and, for the survivors of severe injuries or the families of the bereaved, very disturbing.

Now, clearly this doesn't apply to you. You were there, involved, very much a part of it. As I said earlier, I'm trying hard not to judge or equally give the impression of judging your experiences, or your reaction to them.

However, it is entirely because you were involved and because you have a valid insight into the whole affair that distancing yourself from such conspiracy theorists becomes so very important. Reading your posts on this thread, and on the Facebook page, I feel a sense of desperation. A real and urgent desire to gain acknowledgement by the government and put some demons to bed. To put right some wrongs.

Unfortunately, that desperation is all to easily confused with the same language used by the conspiracy theorists, and that - I think - is why sympathy might be a little lacking. Peppering posts with unsubstantiated facts (whether you know them to be true or not) is not just unhelpful, it's self-defeating. Seeking "The Truth" is also a guaranteed way to have your cause mentally categorised by the reader alongside 9-11 / 7-7 / JFK / Princess Diana and other events known for attracting such talk.

By way of example, it's perfectly valid to question why the French courts have awarded damages when the British courts have not, because this is a fact. However, suggesting that the purpose of a D-notice is simply to protect Tory ministers is not, because it is opinion. If there's one thing I've learned from reading the conspiracy websites is that one genuine, verifiable fact is worth more than 100 shaky ones; all someone has to do is disprove a handful of badly-presented suggestions and the presumption is that the rest are dubious too.

In short: my respectful advice to you if you want your cause to succeed is to do that which is probably most difficult. Remove all emotion from your argument. Governments, media and other people will easily dismiss a cause with any hint of it. Logic and reason are somewhat harder to ignore.

Good luck.