labour loves muslims, maybe this is why

The Labour Party is at the centre of a new sleaze row after it emerged that a Muslim businessman used a "front" organisation to make secret donations to the party. This is the first sleaze issue to be investigated with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister.

The Electoral Commission is investigating a group known as the "Muslim Friends of Labour", which donated £100,000 each month between April and June this year.

A Glasgow-based man is alleged to have given large sums of money to the Muslim organisation, but his identity was withheld as he was not donating directly to a political party. At one time, the Muslim organisation had given only small amounts to Labour, but now it is the second-biggest donor which is not a union.

The Muslim organisation has a PO Box in South London is classed as an "unincorporated" organisation, which means it can keep the identities of donors secret, but the Electoral Commission is investigating the status of the organisation amid allegations that it is a member’s association, consisting "wholly or largely" of members of a political party.

If this were the case, then it would be flouting the law by not disclosing details of those who donate more than £5,000.

Labour officials have repeatedly condemned other parties for accepting cash from unincorporated associations.

What favours have been promised or returned by Labour to Islamics for the £300,000 generous donation? Let’s trust some investigative journalist out there can provide the answers.

Terror trial hears threat claims

A student who is standing trial on terror charges threatened to "blow up Glasgow", a court has heard.

Mohammed Atif Siddique, from Alva in Clackmannanshire, has denied a total of five offences.

Fellow student Razia Hussain told the High Court in Glasgow she gave her college classmate two nicknames - "Suicide Bomber" and "al-Qaeda".

Ms Hussain also claimed Mr Siddique, 21, only communicated with anyone if it was something to do with Islam.

Ms Hussein, who is now an immigration officer at Glasgow Airport, told the court that Siddique regularly looked at suicide bomb websites.

She said: "He said he was going to blow Glasgow up. As a joke I said please inform me so I can run."

She added that he repeatedly claimed he wanted to be a suicide bomber, said he had met Osama Bin Laden, and had either been on or was going to a "training course" somewhere near Edinburgh or Stirling.

Under cross examination by defence QC Donald Findlay, Ms Hussain acknowledged that she was a Shia Muslim, unlike Siddique who was a Sunni Muslim.

She added that she was not devoutly religious and did not know much about Islam.

'Doing harm'

The court also heard that the religious difference had led to "heated discussion" between the pair.

Mr Findlay said: "Mohammed regarded you as a silly girl who didn't understand religion, who was not interested in religious matters and dressed in a way that he thought was inappropriate.

"What you have done is to take the things that you know about Mohammed and his beliefs and then quite deliberately change them and make it seem as if he was somebody who was interested in doing harm.

"That's a deliberate lie. You are a liar and you are making it up."

Ms Hussain denied being a liar. She added: "I wouldn't lie if someone said to me about being a suicide bomber."

The court had earlier heard that Mr Siddique was caught looking at video clips of "a suicide bomber" and "someone like Osama bin Laden".

Glasgow Metropolitan College communications lecturer Brian Glancey said he found Mr Siddique watching the clips.

Mr Siddique, of Myretoungate, was a student at the college between 2003 and 2005. He was arrested in a police operation in Alva on 13 April, 2006.

Mr Glancey told the court he had found Mr Siddique looking at inappropriate material on the internet on two occasions in 2003.

Switched off

He said: "I think I saw a video of Osama Bin Laden or someone like him.

"There was no sound - the person was speaking, but to who I don't know. I told Siddique to stop it and he switched it off."

Mr Glancey then said that about three weeks later he found the student watching a clip of a "Palestinian suicide bomber" in class.

He said: "This person had a gun, a green bandana and T-shirt and there was Arabic text along the screen. He appeared to be speaking to the camera.

"I told Mohammed that it was against college policy to look at terrorist, violent or pornographic sites and, again, he simply switched it off."

Mr Glancey later said under cross-examination that he could not tell if the footage had come from a news website.

Guerrilla tactics

Mr Siddique faces four charges under the Terrorism Act 2000.

He has been accused of possessing suspicious terrorism-related items including CDs and videos of weapons use, guerrilla tactics and bomb-making.

He has also been accused of collecting terrorist-related information, setting up websites showing how to make and use weapons and explosives, and circulating inflammatory terrorist publications.

A further charge of breach of the peace relates to claims that he showed students at Glasgow Metropolitan College images of suicide bombers and terrorist beheadings.

This charge also includes the allegation that he threatened to become a suicide bomber, and claimed to be a member of al-Qaeda.

The trial continues.

A STUDENT facing terrorism charges spoke of attending “training groups” in Edinburgh, a court heard today.

Mohammed Atif Siddique, 21, also told a fellow student how he wanted to be a suicide bomber, blow up Glasgow and that he had met Osama bin Laden.

He is facing five charges including possessing, collecting and distributing terrorist propaganda and providing instructional material for bomb making.
Siddique, from Alva in Clackmannanshire, denies all the charges.

At the High Court in Glasgow, Razia Hussain said the accused made a series of claims while they were studying computing at Glasgow Metropolitan College.

The 22-year-old told the court that Siddique would access non work related websites in class every time he had an opportunity.

Questioned by Crown counsel Brian McConnachie QC about what the websites displayed, she replied: “People getting blown up, people who were dead, armies and explosions.

“Mohammed used to explain to me about these sites, about people getting blown up.

“How this is right and should be done because we are Muslims.
“Mohammed said that as Muslims we should commit Jihad.”

Asked by Mr McConnachie what Jihad meant she answered: “To go and blow yourself up.”

Ms Hussain told the court that one image showed a dead man with a smile on his face.

She added: “Mohammed said this was because he had committed Jihad and God was going to be happy.

“He said he wanted to be one as well – a suicide bomber.”

“How many times did he say that?” Mr McConnachie asked.
“A few times,” she replied.

Siddique also denies causing a breach of the peace by threatening to become a suicide bomber and saying he was a member of the terror network al Qaida, as well as showing images of suicide bombers and beheadings.

Ms Hussain also told the court that the accused claimed to have met Osama bin Laden and was visiting or planning to visit “training groups” in Edinburgh or Stirling.

More Hate Speech at BBC Message Boards

The BBC is in trouble today for once again allowing ugly antisemitic and anti-Christian slurs to remain posted at the BBC 5 message boards, while instantly deleting any criticism of Islam: BBC forced to removed ‘bastard’ slur about Jesus from its website.

The BBC has been forced to remove statements from its website referring to Jesus as a ‘bastard’.

It is the latest in a string of offensive comments that BBC editors have allowed members of the public to post. The remarks have been allowed to remain for weeks, despite complaints from religious groups.

It has led to claims that the BBC is allowing its output to be hijacked by extremists while censoring anti-Muslim sentiment.

The remarks about Jesus were left as part of a discussion of the death of the Archbishop of Paris. The debate had descended into an argument about the merits of Christians, Jews and Muslims when a writer, known as ‘colonelartist’, posted: “Are you a christian? You do know that jesus had to hide all his short life he lived in those promised land because his tribesmen used to call him fatherless, ridiculed him for being a B-A-S-T-A-R-D...’

He added: ”Jesus...was also persecuted because the jews would never accept as their Messiah a person whose father was missing...’

The comments were allowed to remain for a week despite complaints. But after The Mail on Sunday contacted senior BBC officials, they were deleted.

Colonelartist is a regular contributor to the BBC site. He has also written: “The jews in much remembered concentration camps had even better qualitity of freedom that these palestinians have...”

One website user wanted to see if BBC editors were allowing these offensive remarks to remain while blocking others. He wrote: “No one can surpass the Muslims for denial of their role in Terrorism and Suicide bombing.” The remarks were almost immediately deleted.

For more on this and many other examples of the outrageously open bias and tacit support for hate speech at the BBC 5 board, see TheyMadeItUp.

Fear Rules the BBC

Afraid of “offending Muslims” again, which is code language for “afraid of provoking a violent reaction:” BBC drops fictional terror attack to avoid offending Muslims.

The BBC has dropped plans to show a fictional terror attack in an episode of Casualty to avoid offending Muslims.

The first show of the hospital drama’s new series was to have featured a storyline about an explosion caused by Islamic extremists.

Now the bomb will be set off by animal rights campaigners instead.

A BBC spokesman said: “With any storyline there are lots of ideas that get put forward but don’t make the series.”

Truth is the first Casualty at the BBC

"Good morning, this is the news from the BBC. A group of animal rights activists has hijacked four airliners and flown them into the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington."

I'm sorry, I'll read that again. "Four members of the anti-vivisection movement have blown themselves up on the London Transport network, killing 52 people and injuring hundreds more."

I don't think so. "Two doctors have attempted a suicide car bomb attack on Glasgow airport. The League Against Cruel Sports has claimed responsibility."

As the late Bill Deedes might have said: shurely shome mishtake.

But it all makes about as much sense as the BBC's decision to can an episode of Casualty which starts with a young Muslim blowing himself up in a crowded bus station - and rewrite it so that the bombing is carried out by animal rights extremists.

The Casualty plotline was rejected by the Beeb's "editorial and ethical standards" commissars, who were worried that it was stereotyping young Muslims as terrorists.

The BBC likes to boast about the gritty reality of its dramas. But if that were the case, they'd have stuck with the original script.

In real life, it's Muslims committing all the terrorist atrocities in Britain these days.

That's not to say that all Muslims are terrorists, far from it, but to pretend that the bunny liberation brigade are bombing bus stations is preposterous.

Admittedly, the animal rights movement contains its fair share of violent lunatics. But much as they love beagles and lab rats, there is no recorded incident to my knowledge of any of them being prepared to lay down their own lives for the cause - although I do seem to remember one madwoman threw herself in front of a lorryload of veal calves a few years ago.

Even if we concede that the decision to pull the Casualty episode was taken for the most laudable of reasons, it is yet more evidence of the institutionalised bias, cowardice and cultural cringe which runs through the Corporation like the lettering in a stick of rock.

The simple fact is that the BBC, like the police, like the CPS and so many other of our public institutions, is scared to death of upsetting Muslims.

No such self-censorship applies when it comes to offending other religious groups.

The BBC went to court to defend its right to "free speech" when it was determined to screen the appalling, puerile Jerry Springer: The Opera - which portrayed Christ as an infantilised, nappy-wearing copraphiliac who was "a little bit gay".

The protests of 47,000 devout Christians counted for nothing. But, then, devout Christians are unlikely to storm Broadcasting House demanding the beheading of the director-general.

Let's say someone was daft enough to write a musical which featured the Prophet Mohammed as an incontinent paedophile. Do you think the BBC would move heaven and earth to broadcast it in the name of defending "free speech"?

Precisely.

The BBC groupthink permeates its entire output, from its news bulletins, through drama and even the website.

Take the MI5 series, Spooks. It's good fun and well done, but it's a complete parcel of nonsense designed to peddle the Guardianista worldview.

The last series featured a fundamentalist Christian sect, hellbent on killing Muslims (yeah, right).

Then there was the bombing of an oil depot and a plot to blow up an airliner over London. Jihadists? Nope, rogue elements in the security services and a deranged, Tory-supporting newspaper baron.

And a special two-parter centred on the takeover of the Saudi Embassy by Islamist terrorists demanding the release of al-Qaeda prisoners.

Turns out - you're ahead of me here, aren't you? - that it wasn't Osama's boys after all, it was the evil Izza-ra-ay-lees in disguise, trying to destabilise the Saudis and blame it all on peace-loving Muslim freedom fighters.

So there you have it: the threat to life and limb in Britain today comes from, in no particular order, the provisional wing of Fleet Street; renegade members of MI6; Mossad; and genocidal Christian evangelicals.

I'm only surprised that they didn't rule that the bus station bombing in Casualty should be carried out by "militants" linked to UKIP, demanding a referendum on the European Constitution.

There's a lot going on under the radar, too. The BBC website forums automatically delete any criticism of Islam immediately. Yet a posting which called Christ a 'B-A-S-T-A-R-D' was allowed to remain for a week until the Mail on Sunday got on the case.

This comment came from someone called Colonelartist (not his real name, I suspect) who has also written that the Jews in concentration camps enjoyed better conditions and freedoms than the Palestinians, without incurring the wrath of the editorial and ethical standards watchdogs.

After my recent TV documentary on anti-Semitism, someone called "Iron Naz" posted a comment on the BBC website which perpetrated the old, discredited and utterly false libel that the Talmud legitimises Jewish supremacy over other faiths.

Last time anyone looked, it was still there, despite protests from the Board of Deputies and Jewish community groups.

I'm still not sure why there was a BBC forum devoted to the programme. After all, the Beeb had turned it down flat and it went out on Channel 4.

Anyway, when did it become part of the remit for licence-payers to provide a noticeboard for anonymous anti-Semites?

Meanwhile, the BBC is still refusing to publish a report it commissioned into whether or not there is systematic anti-Israel bias in its news coverage from the Middle East.

So we'll take that as a "yes" then.

I don't like to indulge in gratuitous Beeb-bashing, because there's so much good about the organisation.

But it is too big, too unaccountable and too riddled with an institutionalised mindset which holds that it's fine to heap scorn on Christians and Jews, but cravenly appeases Muslims at every turn.

The BBC is a publicly-funded body which has a duty to be even-handed to all and not pander to the political prejudices of those who work for it.

If it can't manage that, it should be broken up and sold off.

No offence.

Richard Littlejohn

No action against juror over MP3 player

The attorney general decided on Thursday that no action would be taken against a Muslim woman accused of listening to an MP3 music player under her hijab while on jury duty.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was thrown off the jury considering a murder trial when one of her fellow jurors reported seeing headphone wires coming out of her headscarf. Attorney General Baroness Patricia Scotland had "carefully" considered the case and decided not to press criminal charges, saying it would be too difficult to prove if the woman was guilty, a spokeswoman for her office said.

"(She) has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving beyond reasonable doubt any alleged contempt of court," the spokeswoman said.

The suspected incident had occurred during a trial in June at London's Blackfriars Court of a man accused of bludgeoning his wife to death.

The case was briefly halted while the woman, who could have been jailed if found guilty of contempt, was discharged from the jury and arrested.

The Crown Prosecution Service said there had been contempt cases where people had taken pictures using mobile phones in court, but it was believed to be the first of its kind involving a juror suspected of listening to music.

Grooming of white girls for sex is exposed as two Muslim men jailed

A hidden world in which Asian men “groom” young white girls for sex has been exposed with the jailing yesterday of two men for child-abuse offences.

Zulfqar Hussain, 46, and Qaiser Naveed, 32, from east Lancashire, were each jailed for five years and eight months after exploiting two girls aged under 16 by plying them with alcohol and drugs before having sex with them.

Both men pleaded guilty at Preston Crown Court to abduction, sexual activity with a child and the supply of a controlled drug.

Despite being told explicitly by police and social services that both girls were under-age and should be returned to care, the men picked up one girl from a children’s home in Blackburn and then drove on to collect her friend who was living in temporary foster care in North Wales.

The trial came amid growing concern at the attitudes of some Asian men towards white girls which campaigners for women claim few people wish to address.

Parents have complained that in parts of the country with large Asian communities white girls as young as 12 are being targeted for sex by older Asian men yet the authorities are unwilling to act because of fears of being labelled racist.

Ann Cryer, a Labour member of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, has been at the forefront of attempting to tackle the problem after receiving complaints from mothers in her constituency about young Asian men targeting their under-age daughters.

Although campaigners claim that hundreds of young girls are already being passed around men within the Asian community for sex, she said that attempts to raise the problem with community leaders had met with little success, with most of them being in a state of denial about it.

After the case, the mother of one of the girls, who cannot be named for legal reasons, welcomed the jail terms. “This will hopefully act as a warning to others,” the woman said. She had had to leave the court as details of the men’s sexual relations with the teenagers were read out. After the trial, Ms Cryer said that young Asian men were caught between two cultures having been brought up in a Western society in families while retaining the cultural values of the Asian sub-continent.

She said: “The family and cultural norms of their community means they are expected to marry a first cousin or other relative back in a village in Mirapur or wherever the family comes from. Therefore, until that marriage is arranged they look out for sex.

“At the point in their lives when they are ready for this sort of activity, Asians cannot go to Asian girls because it would be a terrible breach of the honour of the community and their family to have sex with an Asian girl before marriage.” She said that the reason Asian men targeted very young white girls was because older white girls knew that a relationship with an Asian youth was unlikely to last as the community would seek an arranged marriage with someone from the Asian sub- continent. Police and groups campaigning to protect women insisted that the grooming of youngsters is not segregated along race lines, though there is concern at the attitudes of some young Asian men towards white girls.

Parents claim that criminal networks are able to prey on young girls because the authorities are reluctant to tackle the issue for fear of upsetting race relations in areas of the North West with large ethnic minority communities.

However, Ms Cryer added: “I think there is a problem with the view Asian men generally have about white women. Their view about white women is generally fairly low. They do not seem to understand that there are white girls as moral and as good as Asian girls.”

My marriage to a 7/7 bomber

A MUSLIM convert yesterday told for the first time of her bizarre eight-day marriage to a 7/7 suicide bomber.

Former Irish Catholic Aoife Nadiyah Molloy, 29, was put in touch with Jermaine Lindsay through a dating service.

She spoke to him on the phone a few times and then — despite never meeting — agreed to wed.

The bizarre marriage ended after he declared he wanted a second wife on their wedding night — and later took a call from hate preacher Abu Hamza.

Aoife, from the village of Kinnity, in Co Offaly, had packed her belongings and told her stunned family she was going to Leeds to marry Lindsay.

She said: “My mother and I had a huge row, but there was no stopping me.”

But she got the shock of her life when she met Lindsay, who would go on to set off a bomb on the Piccadilly Line near King’s Cross. It killed 27, including himself, in the 2005 attacks that left 52 innocents dead.

Aoife said: “I was hysterical — he was so lanky, skinny and young. I thought he had Aids or anorexia. He was wearing an Islamic cap, a white robe and I think he had a leather jacket on.”

She was also stunned by his first words. He asked her: “Have you got any major character flaws?”

She said: “I couldn’t believe it. It’s not the first thing you expect your husband-to-be to say to you. He felt under duress to marry me because I had made the trip from Ireland, but we agreed to go ahead.”

Wife No2 ... Lindsay with Samantha and tot

Lindsay — aged 17 at the time and a Jamaican Muslim convert — gave Aoife a mobile phone, an alarm clock and £45 as a dowry.

She then went through an Al Nikah ceremony at the home of an Imam. They later went to the home of Lindsay’s mother, who was away in America.

She said that soon after she heard Lindsay on the phone talking to Samantha Lewthwaite, who would eventually become his second wife and the mother to his child.

Aoife said: “I was furious that he was talking to another woman on our wedding night, but he said that he was going to marry this woman too and that the Koran said he could.”

Aoife said they spent the next week “mainly praying, talking and sleeping”. But he also continued to tell her about a second wife. She said: “That was abhorrent.”

Finally she made it clear if he did marry she would leave. Lindsay then told her three times “I divorce you” — and under Muslim custom they were no longer wed.

She said: “I walked out of there and never heard from him again.” Lindsay later wed former prom queen Samantha, 24, who he lived with in Aylesbury, Bucks.

But Aoife says despite overhearing the call from hook-handed Abu Hamza, she never suspected his extremist links. Even after the 2005 bombings she did not realise he was involved.

But several months later she saw his name in the press. She said: “My blood ran cold.”

Aoife added: “The people who carried out those atrocities were brainwashed. Jermaine might have grown out of his fanaticism.”

Guantanamo 'Brits' cost £7.5m

FIVE men set to be returned to Britain from Guantanamo Bay will cost a staggering £7.5million a year to monitor, security sources revealed last night.

The bill for the suspects — none of them UK citizens — emerged as the Pentagon accused them of being closely linked to al-Qaeda.

Yet, astonishingly Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants them returned here.

All had either refugee status or were given indefinite leave or exceptional leave to remain in Britain before they were detained by the US and sent to Cuba.

Security sources say the huge cost of checking them — £1.5million each — is necessary because although they are suspected of posing a risk they cannot be locked up. The Pentagon’s Sandra Hodgkinson, boss of US detention policy, has described them as “extremely dangerous”.

Shaker Aamer, 38, a Saudi, is accused of being an interpreter for Osama Bin Laden. Jordanian Jamil el-Banna, 44, is alleged to have known Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was in charge of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Those two, along with three others, have been been held in Cuba since 2002.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: “Given concerns of a potential threat to Britain and our allies it is incumbent upon the Home Secretary to explain precisely how she is going to protect our citizens.” The men’s lawyers deny the accusations made against them.

Five Guantanamo Bay inmates that ministers want to bring to Britain are "extremely dangerous" with close ties to Al Qaeda, the Pentagon has warned.

Schools are run by Islamic group Blair pledged to ban

Members of a radical Muslim group that Tony Blair promised to ban after the July 7 bombings have set up two schools in Britain to educate primary age children.

read more.

UK Police Investigate Journalists, Hate Preachers Get a Pass

British police have decided not to pursue charges against any of the Islamic hate preachers exposed by the Channel 4 documentary “Dispatches: Undercover Mosque.”

Instead, they’re reporting Channel 4 to the media regulatory agency.

Just when you think it can’t get any more insane.

Here’s Channel 4’s report, in two parts. You’re not going to believe the rationale offered for this Orwellian inversion. The Islamist preachers in the film claimed their statements were taken out of context—and the police apparently accepted the claims at face value.

Kids told to write 'Allah is God'

ANGRY parents have blasted a teacher for telling ten-year-olds to copy a Muslim prayer saying “There is no God but Allah”.

Helen Green is said to have picked the Muslim call to prayer as HAND-WRITING practice.

It includes the lines “Allah is the greatest” and “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah”.

Pupil Billy Darbyshire’s stepmum Hayley Clayton said: “The explanation was that the children were learning about Islam in RE.

“But this was like he was taking an oath. A Muslim child would never be asked to write a Bible passage.

“Why didn’t she choose a passage from a normal story book to teach handwriting?”

Hayley, 23, said Mrs Green — deputy head of Newlands Primary School in Wakefield, West Yorks — had acknowledged it was a “sensitive issue” because three of the 7/7 suicide bombers came from Leeds, 15 miles away.

She added: “If it’s sensitive why choose that prayer?”

Billy’s angry dad Martin, 32, said there were no Muslims in the ten-year-old’s class. He added: “I am not religious but it offended me.

“It must have been worse for children whose parents do have different beliefs.”

Wakefield Council officials said they believed the prayer had been written for RE.

Muslim fury as 'Jihad The Musical' comes to the UK

Here we go again. Where is the "Muslim fury" against not "Jihad The Musical," but "Jihad The Bloody Reality"?

International terrorism and the threat to Britain from Al-Qaeda would probably be deemed by most as unlikely subject matter for a musical.

After all, suicide bombing, mass bloodshed and fundamental Islam do not exactly lend themselves to singing and dancing.

But Jihad the Musical by the Silk Circle Production company has forged on regardless and is already being performed on stage at the Edinburgh Festival.

The controversial satire about Islamic terrorism includes such classic tunes as "Building a bomb today, what does the manual say" and "I wanna be like Osama".

Perhaps its creators were inspired by the success of The Producers - a runaway broadway hit which attracted criticism for its camp rendition of Nazi Germany.

Like that production, the terrorism musical - billed as a "madcap gallop through the wacky world of international terrorism" - has already sparked protests.

A petition calling for the Prime Minister to condemn the musical has been launched on his Downing Street website.

It says: "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to condemn the tasteless portrayal of terrorism and its victims in Jihad the Musical."

But producer James Lawler has downplayed the protest, saying: "We have no intention of causing offence or insult with this show, It is simply a musical comedy."

The musical tells the story of a young Afghan peasant Sayid who dreams of making it as a flower farmer selling poppies in the West.

His plans are thwarted by a jihadi cell seeking to blow up Western targets, in particular one in Britain known as the "Unidentified, Very Prestigious Landmark".

Sayid sings to his burkha clad mentor: "I can only see your eyes" and theatre-goers are also treated to a song called "We're going to rock the righteous, to the Jihad jive".

The story comes to a head on the night of the attack when Sayid must decide whose side he is on....

A lot of people are going to have to decide that eventually.

'TERROR LINK' WIVES FIGHT OVER £29,000 IN HANDOUTS

THE wives of three Muslim terror suspects have launched a fresh legal fight to lift strict controls on how they receive and spend up to £29,000 each in state benefits every year.

The women, who are not terror suspects themselves, have to account for how they spend their state handouts because their husbands are believed to be linked to either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The men are on a United Nations security list which means their assets have been frozen and the restrictions on their wives are in place to ensure handouts do not indirectly fund terrorism. The trio, who are on legal aid, have already lost in the High Court and Court of Appeal in hearings that have cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds.

And the bill to the public purse could soar once again after they launched a bid to have their case heard in the House of Lords.

They argue the restrictions are “intrusive and inconvenient” but the legal battle was condemned last night. Blair Gibbs, campaign director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “Inconvenience is a small price to pay for ensuring British taxpayers’ money is not being used to support people who even the UN regards as a terror threat.”

The wives, who cannot be named, receive between £300 and £550 a week each in state benefits for them and their families.

“M” and her husband are Egyptian citizens, both severely disabled. She has leave to remain in the UK. They have five children. Her entitlement is £353 per week.

“A” and her husband are British citizens with seven children, one of whom suffers from Down’s Syndrome and is severely disabled. Benefits total £548 per week.

“MM” is a Bosnian national and her husband is Tunisian. They have four children.

All members of the family have indefinite leave to remain in the UK. The wife receives £313 per week.

At the High Court last year the women complained the restrictions meant they could only spend
their payments on “basic expenses” and they had to account for every penny.

Lawyers for the women, who are from London, Manchester and Birmingham, have said the Treasury “licence” limited them to spending benefits on necessities such as food, rent and medical treatment, but barred paying for a taxi or bus or for paying for their children to go swimming or to the cinema.

All must make an itemised return of their purchases and some can only withdraw £10 at a time.

They lost the High Court case and a subsequent appeal, in which Lord Justice Maurice Kay said the rules were “draconian” but did not take a single penny away from them and said the Treasury was justified in its restrictions.

That decision could now be challenged in the highest court in the land, the House of Lords.

Lords Hope, Walker and Baroness Hale have put the application by the three women on hold and given the Government an opportunity to lodge objections by August 9.

A Treasury spokesman said: “We are still considering our position on whether to object to leave for appeal being granted.” It is understood the Government will fight the case should the Lords decide to hear it.

Scouts banned from eating burgers and bangers - because of religious beliefs

you can't find a singed sausage for love nor money. However, there are veggie burgers aplenty.

One in 11 British Muslims backs suicide bombers, says Brown aide

As many as one in 11 British Muslims agree with and proactively support terrorism, a Government adviser has warned police.

Haras Rafiq also told officers at Scotland Yard that up to 20 per cent of the Muslim population ' sympathise' with militants, while stopping short of being prepared to 'blow themselves up'.

His remarks underline the scale of the task facing Gordon Brown to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, only a week after he promised an extra £70million to councils and community groups to fight extremism.

Mr Rafiq, an adviser to the Government's preventing extremism taskforce, said: "A percentage of people actually agree and support proactively the people that are deciding to blow themselves up.

"It varies, it can be 7 per cent, 5 per cent, 9 per cent."

With 1.6million Muslims living in the UK, nine per cent is the equivalent of 144,000 people supporting terrorism.

'Proactively' supporting terrorism is understood to mean the people are vocal in their support for fanatics, rather than actively helping them to commit atrocities.

Mr Rafiq, filmed by Channel 4's Dispatches, went on: "Next we can have a percentage of people that can actually sympathise.

"These people at this stage ... won't go out and be operational and won't decide to blow themselves up but can sympathise with the people that can blow themselves up.

"Again this can be in double digits. Then we have a percentage of the population that actually empathises with the people that blow themselves up. It could be 15 to 20 per cent.

"It could be somebody who says, 'I don't agree that these guys are blowing themselves up but I can actually understand why'."

Mr Rafiq, a member of the Sufi Muslim Council, made his presentation to Scotland Yard earlier this year, after almost two years of Government attempts to combat extremism in the wake of the July 7 bombings.

Critics argue that working parties and an attempt to persuade Muslim leaders and groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain to speak out against extremism have not had the desired impact.

The documentary reveals that fanatics are continuing to peddle a message of hatred in the UK.

This centres on persuading Muslims that the covenant of security that in return for safety and freedom, Muslims do not attack the nation that is their home - has been broken by draconian anti-terror laws and the war in Iraq.

Dispatches discovered that Abu Mohammed, a fanatical preacher based in Europe, managed to make a series of visits to Britain, lecturing to young Muslims in houses in Luton, before being banned by the Home Office in March this year.

He continues to radicalise followers here via the Internet.

Mohammed is filmed by reporter Phil Rees declaring: "We are in a state of war and no covenant exists...British Muslims should know that the British Government will do everything to frighten them, to make them very uncomfortable and they have to be prepared to pay the price and fight back."

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said yesterday that the Government is changing its approach to dealing with extremism.

She added: "It seems to me that what we should be doing is emphasising the values that we share which are under attack from terrorism-rather than trying to create a battle or war between those who oppose the terror and those who want to carry it out."

She suggested Muslim communities have not been best served by their leaders.

She backed moves, put in place by Ruth Kelly when she was Communities Secretary, to broaden the kinds of groups with which the Government engages.

Miss Smith told New Statesman magazine: "We've got to make serious attempts to go beyond those who have previously been seen as leaders of the community."

• Dispatches: Britain Under Attack, C4, Monday August 6, 8pm.