Okay. Makes sense to me as the pressure group ‘July 7 truth Campaign’ who are very keen to include the new inserts I find most difficult to debate with. Here is how I see it as (a) the original author and (b) someone who has since met Power (who is reluctant to be involved in this matter): 

 The original article and attachments I researched were I hope, accurate and relevant.  Not inspired by any hidden agenda. I was also grateful for a bit of Wikipedia help in the finished work. I also believe anything in this or any Wikipedia article should be not biased or linked to gratuitously antagonistic sources that only want to pursue their own cause.  With these thoughts in mind two questions are now asked: 

 1. Is the final paragraph appropriately sourced?  
 2. Are any/all the external links suitable? 

 The final paragraph is indisputably from an organisation that is pursuing a personal and hostile vendetta against Power. Numerous websites confirm this. Indeed, the author does not hide the fact.  I find it impossible to accept that any paragraph submitted by this group can be unbiased or not linked to antagonistic sources and a hidden agenda. But are these issues alone sufficient to doubt the source and suitability?  

 1. Is the final paragraph appropriately sourced?  I consider the source has to be weighed against the relevance of the paragraph? What was or might have been reported in a provincial newspaper almost a lifetime ago is not in itself an immediate point of challenge, although it could be. The substance however, is even less newsworthy than say someone who is found not guilty of a minor traffic offence. Power in this sense, was never charged, summonsed or even disciplined. I can confirm from the subject of the article that the CPS did indeed decide that no prosecution was required for an internal/administration matter. However, Power was a senior police officer which meant a full enquiry whenever any allegation is made was bound to occur, even though no charges were ever brought. But the local paper thought his rank merited comment. Otherwise, it was not in the least newsworthy.  Within the context of an accurate and relevant article I believe this deliberately selective use of an otherwise distant and pointless news item is intended only to harm Power to suit the organisation that discovered it.  Had they looked further there are other newspaper features over the years that tell of Powers awards for gallantry and leadership, but of course these do not support the reason why the ‘July 7 truth campaign’ want to publish this particular and I believe (at best) irrelevant paragraph.  

 2. Are any/all the external links suitable? Probably the ones that for many months linked to the wider exploits of Power and were not specifically selective, are suitable.  They have never been challenged as they are from various sources without any hidden agenda.  For example, those linked to all the BBC sites who have reported on Power’s previous actions - without bias.  Now suddenly a hostile pressure group with a well known and personal vendetta against Power wants to promote itself by inserting its own external link. I suggest this is neither accurate nor relevant and seeks only to manipulate Wikipedia to promote a single course. 

 Since the eponymously called  ‘July 7 truth Campaign’ has a keen interest in promoting its own view that nothing so far, has been truthfully reported about the tragedy in 2005, can I suggest they consider adding to the already very well covered article on that event, rather than be allowed to conduct a campaign of what appears to be character assignation far removed from anything that is accurate or relevant to the readers of Wikipedia.    It seems from other contributors that I am not alone in this view. 

 I ask that the final paragraph and external link that now exists be removed and we revert to what was previously published.