Since I pitched this story as my student project, I've always felt that it was to make any

difference what you need is proof.

Incontrovertible, unassailable, beyond a doubt proof of who ordered the Trojan Horse Latter

and we didn't have it.

Brian I had a lot of compelling circumstantial evidence of who might ever end the letter

and a sound theory of why it might have been written, but that wasn't going to be enough.

The Trojan Horse affair means something to powerful people in my country, to its political

and media class, to our decision makers and moodsers.

When they're looking to justify policies or general political support, it's part of

the infrastructure that allows them to shorthand that Muslims are dangerous.

When others have pushed back against the Trojan Horse narrative, they've done it by calling

at the Islamophobia and racism that drove the affair, focused on the damages done to Muslims

and Birmingham and Britain.

And none of that's really worked.

And I think it's because that approach requires people to care about Islamophobia, to care

about Muslims.

A way long way from that.

That's why I'd focused on the letter.

I believed exposing the author of Operation Trojan Horse would give us an agnostic fact,

which I said the need for people to care and would force everyone to acknowledge what

really happened here, even if it's through great teeth.

And that's also why we're headed to Perth, Australia.

...