A man who was sent a "call to arms" text message prompting him to join in an attack that left a teenager dead has been convicted of manslaughter.
Nabeer Bakurally, 19, from Forest Gate, east London, was stabbed and assaulted in Ilford last November.
Kalam Kazi, 23, punched and kicked the teenager to the ground before Abdul Siddique, who has admitted murder, repeatedly stabbed the boy.
Kazi, of east London, was cleared of murder by an Old Bailey jury.
A third man, Pradip Mistry, 23, was cleared of all charges in connection with the attack.
Sentencing has been adjourned to Thursday.
Earlier in the trial, Aftab Jafferjee QC said the attack may have resulted from a case of mistaken identity.
He said Mr Bakurally and a friend were on their way home after a night in Ilford town centre.
"They were of no trouble to anyone, just the two of them hanging around," Mr Jafferjee said.
He said the accomplices had received a text message from Siddique, also of east London, which was effectively "a call to arms".
The court heard how one of the messages sent to Kazi read, "I'm a one man soldier from beginning to the end".
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Breast-Grabber Forces British Woman from Neighborhood...
A 20-year-old man who grabbed women’s breasts in the street near Tooting Bec tube station has pleaded guilty to sexual assault at Kingston Crown Court.
Wajahat Zubair, from Walworth, attacked four women last year - including an Australian woman whom he targeted five times.
The woman, who cannot be named, has now moved out of the area and claims she is on the verge of moving back home because of her ordeal.
Crown prosecutor Jane Carpenter said: “She was extremely shocked and upset about what happened.”
Zubair targeted victims walking to and from Tooting Bec tube station between March and May last year.
As he continued his attacks, he got more confident and even pounced on a woman during rush hour on a busy street.
Ms Carpenter said of that attack: “She described the defendant as caressing her left breast.
“She felt he’d done it before.”
He was finally arrested on June 19, and although two victims later picked him out in an identity parade he denied any involvement.
On May 11 this year, facing a lengthy trial, he eventually pleaded guilty to eight sexual assaults at the last minute.
Zubair came to the country in November 2007 to be with his mother, who has a study visa.
The Wandsworth Guardian was prevented from reporting the case until now because of a gagging order made by the courts.
Our reporter succeeded in overturning the order, as the judge agreed it had been imposed incorrectly.
Zubair will be sentenced by Judge Matthews on Monday, August 10 at the same court.
Wajahat Zubair, from Walworth, attacked four women last year - including an Australian woman whom he targeted five times.
The woman, who cannot be named, has now moved out of the area and claims she is on the verge of moving back home because of her ordeal.
Crown prosecutor Jane Carpenter said: “She was extremely shocked and upset about what happened.”
Zubair targeted victims walking to and from Tooting Bec tube station between March and May last year.
As he continued his attacks, he got more confident and even pounced on a woman during rush hour on a busy street.
Ms Carpenter said of that attack: “She described the defendant as caressing her left breast.
“She felt he’d done it before.”
He was finally arrested on June 19, and although two victims later picked him out in an identity parade he denied any involvement.
On May 11 this year, facing a lengthy trial, he eventually pleaded guilty to eight sexual assaults at the last minute.
Zubair came to the country in November 2007 to be with his mother, who has a study visa.
The Wandsworth Guardian was prevented from reporting the case until now because of a gagging order made by the courts.
Our reporter succeeded in overturning the order, as the judge agreed it had been imposed incorrectly.
Zubair will be sentenced by Judge Matthews on Monday, August 10 at the same court.
It wouldn't happen to the Koran: Pope attacks Glasgow art gallery's invitation to vandalise a Bible
The Pope has condemned a ' disgusting' taxpayer-funded exhibition in which visitors are urged to deface the Bible.
Visitors were offered pens by gallery bosses so they could scrawl comments on the text - leading to a host of puerile and obscene remarks.
Pope Benedict XVI believes the stunt would not have been contemplated with a copy of the Koran.
His anger over the show, organised by council-funded arts body Culture and Sport Glasgow, was expressed by a senior Vatican priest.
The adviser to the Pope said: 'It is disgusting and offensive. They would not think of doing it to the Koran.'
Public complaints about the exhibit at the prestigious Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow have forced organisers to put the vandalised Bible on show in a locked case, while still allowing visitors to write comments on blank sheets of paper.
The Made In God's Image exhibit is the work of Glasgow artist Anthony Schrag. He wanted gays and transsexuals who felt left out of religion to 'write their way back in' to the holy text.
Mr Schrag worked with members of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) in Edinburgh on the project. But MCC minister Jane Clarke said: 'I had hoped people would show respect for the Bible.
I am saddened some have chosen to write offensive messages.'
Visitors were offered pens by gallery bosses so they could scrawl comments on the text - leading to a host of puerile and obscene remarks.
Pope Benedict XVI believes the stunt would not have been contemplated with a copy of the Koran.
His anger over the show, organised by council-funded arts body Culture and Sport Glasgow, was expressed by a senior Vatican priest.
The adviser to the Pope said: 'It is disgusting and offensive. They would not think of doing it to the Koran.'
Public complaints about the exhibit at the prestigious Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow have forced organisers to put the vandalised Bible on show in a locked case, while still allowing visitors to write comments on blank sheets of paper.
The Made In God's Image exhibit is the work of Glasgow artist Anthony Schrag. He wanted gays and transsexuals who felt left out of religion to 'write their way back in' to the holy text.
Mr Schrag worked with members of the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) in Edinburgh on the project. But MCC minister Jane Clarke said: 'I had hoped people would show respect for the Bible.
I am saddened some have chosen to write offensive messages.'
British Muslim lawyer makes 4.5 million pounds defending terrorists
A controversial woman attorney has earned 4.5 million pounds from British taxpayers by defending terrorists, a Freedom of Information request has revealed.The payout to Mercedes -driving Mudassar Arani, 45, - who represented three of the 21/7 bomb plotters - billed taxpayers almost one million pounds in the last year alone,
The sums - equivalent to nearly 20,000-pounds a week - put her on the same pay as a Premier League footballer.The lawyer, boss of Arani and Co in Southall, West London, has also represented hook-handed hate preacher Abu Hamza and "dirty bomb" plotter Dhiren Barot.
Ugandan-origin Arani was booted out of her home country in 1972 by tyrant Idi Amin. Her home is now a smart West London semi.Her firm's legal aid fees of 4,445,533 pounds have been racked up over the past eight years.The Legal Services Commission, which is responsible for funding legal aid, said: "Arani and Co will have to pay wages for solicitors, case workers, support staff and overheads, such as offices costs.
"Six years ago in a lecture at a South London mosque her advice was: "The rule of thumb on a terrorist case is do not answer any questions." During the trial of the 21/7 bombers she was accused by a QC of attempting to bribe another solicitor's client.
No action was taken by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Non-Muslim female police officers will wear headscarves when entering mosques
Women police officers are being issued with headscarves to wear when they visit a mosque. They are expected to put the scarfs on shortly before they enter the mosque, in keeping with Islamic custom.
There are two versions - one matches the black of a police officer's uniform, while another goes with the blue uniforms worn by community support officers.
The headscarves are being given out by Avon and Somerset Police, and have the force's emblem sewn on.
They have already been given to seven officers, including Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Roberts, and eight community support officers who work with Muslim groups in the area.
Mrs Roberts said: 'It recognises and respects the cultural and religious practices of our communities. This is a very positive addition to the uniform and one which I'm sure will be a welcome item for many of our officers.'
The force said the scarves, which cost £13, can be used in other religious settings as a mark of respect - for instance to cover the shoulders of a non-uniformed officer in a church.
Islamic custom expects women to cover their head inside a place of worship.
During an official visit last year, the Queen wore a headscarf to tour the crypt and caverns of an historic Islamic shrine in Turkey.
Rashad Azami, Imam and director of the Bath Islamic Society, said: 'It is highly pleasing to see that Avon and Somerset Constabulary is introducing specially designed head coverings for female officers.
There are two versions of the head covering - to match the black of a police officer's uniform and the blue of the police community support officer's uniform
'This will go a long way in encouraging a trustful relationship between the police and the Muslim community. The police have been working closely with the Muslim community for the last few years.
'We hope this step will further strengthen the mutual relationship.'
Avon and Somerset Police caused a race row two years ago when it rejected 186 white job applicants at the first stage of selection.
The force received 800 applications for 180 jobs and 'deselected' white males to increase ethnic diversity. Chief Constable Colin Port apologised.
This year, the fire service unveiled full-length skirts, hijab headscarves and long- sleeved shirts for Muslim women recruits to wear in fire stations and for events such as school trips.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1202540/Very-PC-police-force-issues-WPCs-Muslim-headscarves-complete-badge.html#ixzz0MaHmfkRB
Just the other day I posted that Muslims in the UK might get their own police division.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Taxi Driver Convicted of Raping Two 13-Year-Olds...
A MAN has been convicted of raping two 13-year-old girls in the back of his car.
Munshar Ali, 22, of Bennett Street, Hyde, attacked the girls after picking them up on Old Road in the town, Manchester Crown Court heard
Ali denied raping one girl twice and the other once. But it was the girls’ version of events the jury accepted.
Nicola Gatto, prosecuting, said Ali, who works for a Stockport debt recovery agency, stopped the girls in his brother’s Ford Fiesta on 8 November and asked if they knew the way to Birmingham.
He offered them a lift and later stopped at a garage on Stockport Road, Guide Bridge, to withdraw £10 from a cashpoint and bought a bottle of vodka — which the girls sipped — and two cans of Fanta from a nearby shop. Afterwards Ali asked if they wanted to come back to his ‘nice big bed’, before dropping them near home.
He had the car valeted the next day. Both girls were medically examined but a doctor could not determine if a bruise and abrasion had been due to rape.
But Ali tried to convince the jury he had been the victim of a sexual assault. He said he had to perform an emergency stop after they ‘leapt’ in front of the car and asked for a lift to Denton as they were lost. On the way he said they kissed and hugged in the back seat, and, when he stopped the car, that they attempted to have sex with him.
But prosecutor Ms Gatto dubbed his account a ‘complete tissue of lies.’
Ali told the court the case had put his life on ‘standstill’ and jeopardised his arranged marriage. And the chairman of Hyde’s Jamia Mosque, in a reference read out by defence lawyer Mike Leeming, said Ali — of Bangladeshi descent — had done voluntary work with children, describing him as ‘honest, reliable and conscientious.’
Mr Leeming suggested the girls — who he said had drunk almost two bottles of wine between them shortly before the incident — fabricated the story to get the attention of a boyfriend one had recently split from. "He was the second person she texted that night to say she had been raped."
His Honour, Judge Peter Lakin, remanded Ali — who has a conviction for threatening behaviour from 2007 — in custody until sentencing on 28 August.
Munshar Ali, 22, of Bennett Street, Hyde, attacked the girls after picking them up on Old Road in the town, Manchester Crown Court heard
Ali denied raping one girl twice and the other once. But it was the girls’ version of events the jury accepted.
Nicola Gatto, prosecuting, said Ali, who works for a Stockport debt recovery agency, stopped the girls in his brother’s Ford Fiesta on 8 November and asked if they knew the way to Birmingham.
He offered them a lift and later stopped at a garage on Stockport Road, Guide Bridge, to withdraw £10 from a cashpoint and bought a bottle of vodka — which the girls sipped — and two cans of Fanta from a nearby shop. Afterwards Ali asked if they wanted to come back to his ‘nice big bed’, before dropping them near home.
He had the car valeted the next day. Both girls were medically examined but a doctor could not determine if a bruise and abrasion had been due to rape.
But Ali tried to convince the jury he had been the victim of a sexual assault. He said he had to perform an emergency stop after they ‘leapt’ in front of the car and asked for a lift to Denton as they were lost. On the way he said they kissed and hugged in the back seat, and, when he stopped the car, that they attempted to have sex with him.
But prosecutor Ms Gatto dubbed his account a ‘complete tissue of lies.’
Ali told the court the case had put his life on ‘standstill’ and jeopardised his arranged marriage. And the chairman of Hyde’s Jamia Mosque, in a reference read out by defence lawyer Mike Leeming, said Ali — of Bangladeshi descent — had done voluntary work with children, describing him as ‘honest, reliable and conscientious.’
Mr Leeming suggested the girls — who he said had drunk almost two bottles of wine between them shortly before the incident — fabricated the story to get the attention of a boyfriend one had recently split from. "He was the second person she texted that night to say she had been raped."
His Honour, Judge Peter Lakin, remanded Ali — who has a conviction for threatening behaviour from 2007 — in custody until sentencing on 28 August.
Muslims could get their own police force!
As Britain races headlong toward its own destruction, the latest from Absurd Britannia is the idea that one may only be arrested by members of one's own religion. The possibility that a Muslim police officer might cover for a Muslim criminal, in line with the Islamic teaching that one's loyalty to Islam trumps all other loyalties, does not enter into the considerations of the British authorities who are mulling this over. It is too politically incorrect an idea for them to contemplate.
by Katherine Fenech for the Daily Express,
MUSLIM crime victims could gain the right to have their cases overseen by police from their own religion, it emerged last night.
Police in London already give victims the right to ask for a Sikh officer to be involved in an investigation but the scheme could be introduced for other religions elsewhere.
Chief Supt Joanna Young, from the Met’s Criminal Justice Policy Unit, said: “If it’s a success, I would encourage the other (police) associations to do likewise.”
The project is intended to help investigate “honour” killings and forced marriages but Metropolitan Police Federation chairman Peter Smyth said: “We’re stretched thin enough already. Are Sikh officers going to have their rotas changed so there’s always one on duty?
“It’s political correctness gone mad. We talking about the creation of a separate force within a force.”...
Indeed it is political correctness gone mad.
by Katherine Fenech for the Daily Express,
MUSLIM crime victims could gain the right to have their cases overseen by police from their own religion, it emerged last night.
Police in London already give victims the right to ask for a Sikh officer to be involved in an investigation but the scheme could be introduced for other religions elsewhere.
Chief Supt Joanna Young, from the Met’s Criminal Justice Policy Unit, said: “If it’s a success, I would encourage the other (police) associations to do likewise.”
The project is intended to help investigate “honour” killings and forced marriages but Metropolitan Police Federation chairman Peter Smyth said: “We’re stretched thin enough already. Are Sikh officers going to have their rotas changed so there’s always one on duty?
“It’s political correctness gone mad. We talking about the creation of a separate force within a force.”...
Indeed it is political correctness gone mad.
Muslims unveil "Jesus was a Muslim" banner at UK shopping center, row ensues
"These people were slagging off Britain and trying to convert people to Islam. They were quite confrontational." They were "aiming to give them a taste of a Britain under Shari'ah Islamic law" -- including Islam's little-noted appropriation of other religious traditions and claim to represent their true embodiment. "Police called to religion row," from the Hornsey and Crouch End Journal,
RELIGIOUS tensions were raised in the centre of Wood Green at the weekend as Islamic activists set about trying to convince shoppers that "Jesus was a Muslim".
Police stepped in to calm the situation as bystanders were confronted with up to 70 activists aiming to give them a taste of a Britain under Shari'ah Islamic law.
The activists, who have held similar "roadshows" in south, east and west London, set up outside fashion chain H&M in Wood Green High Road on Saturday afternoon, but tensions were soon strained.
One onlooker said: "They unfurled this huge banner proclaiming that Jesus was a Muslim, which understandably raised some people's heckles [sic].
"These people were slagging off Britain and trying to convert people to Islam. They were quite confrontational.
"The police moved in twice while I was there. They didn't take people away but they stepped in to calm them down."...
The activists intended to show how Shari'ah law would combat "gang crime, poverty and promiscuity" in the borough....
Inspector Eric Monk, of Haringey's Community Engagement Team, said: "This is a diverse borough and I doubt that this activity will have any significant impact on the strong, positive inter-faith relationships that exist in Haringey.
Of course not, Monk. Everybody knows there is no problem. Move along. Get back to sleep.
RELIGIOUS tensions were raised in the centre of Wood Green at the weekend as Islamic activists set about trying to convince shoppers that "Jesus was a Muslim".
Police stepped in to calm the situation as bystanders were confronted with up to 70 activists aiming to give them a taste of a Britain under Shari'ah Islamic law.
The activists, who have held similar "roadshows" in south, east and west London, set up outside fashion chain H&M in Wood Green High Road on Saturday afternoon, but tensions were soon strained.
One onlooker said: "They unfurled this huge banner proclaiming that Jesus was a Muslim, which understandably raised some people's heckles [sic].
"These people were slagging off Britain and trying to convert people to Islam. They were quite confrontational.
"The police moved in twice while I was there. They didn't take people away but they stepped in to calm them down."...
The activists intended to show how Shari'ah law would combat "gang crime, poverty and promiscuity" in the borough....
Inspector Eric Monk, of Haringey's Community Engagement Team, said: "This is a diverse borough and I doubt that this activity will have any significant impact on the strong, positive inter-faith relationships that exist in Haringey.
Of course not, Monk. Everybody knows there is no problem. Move along. Get back to sleep.
London: Five-storey mosque with 120-foot high minaret given go-ahead
This mosque makes a statement, and is intended to make a statement, about the Muslim presence in Britain -- its permanence, its influence, and its relationship to the non-Muslim community. And is anyone going to be working to ensure that jihad and Islamic supremacism aren't preached there? Don't be Islamophobic!
"Huge mosque build given go-ahead," from Construction News,
Plans for the construction of a five-storey building which will be one of London’s biggest mosques have been given the go-ahead.
Harrow Central Mosque will serve Muslim worshippers from across north London when it is built on Station Road. The designs include a 40m-high minaret, a gym, a crèche and a café within the 5,745 square metre development.
A crèche in the UK is a day-care center.
"Huge mosque build given go-ahead," from Construction News,
Plans for the construction of a five-storey building which will be one of London’s biggest mosques have been given the go-ahead.
Harrow Central Mosque will serve Muslim worshippers from across north London when it is built on Station Road. The designs include a 40m-high minaret, a gym, a crèche and a café within the 5,745 square metre development.
A crèche in the UK is a day-care center.
Muslim medical personnel refuse to use alcohol-based hand cleanser
It would be refreshing if British authorities treated this as a public health issue rather than one of multiculturalism, but at this point one can expect nothing. "Muslims refuse to use alcohol-based hand gels over religious beliefs," from the Daily Mail,
Some Muslims have refused to use alcohol-based hand gels to combat the spread of swine flu because they claim it is against their religion.
Some of those employed by St Albans Council in Hertfordshire have complained about the antibacterial lotion, which is considered a key strategy in containing the virus.
Officials were concerned because the Koran bans Muslims from consuming alcohol, so council chiefs issued them with non-alcohol hand gels, which studies have shown to be less effective in killing bugs.
But Muslim leaders criticised the council’s decision to change the gel, pointing out that Islamic teachings allow Muslims to use alcohol for medicinal purposes.
The Muslim Council of Britain said: ‘We would advise people to follow the medical advice so we would, of course, encourage people to use hand gel. ‘People need to find ways to accommodate their beliefs.’...
Thus those who refuse are simply once again trying to reinforce the proposition that Islamic norms and practices must always and everywhere triumph over Infidel ones. This is a declaration of supremacism, not piety.
Some Muslims have refused to use alcohol-based hand gels to combat the spread of swine flu because they claim it is against their religion.
Some of those employed by St Albans Council in Hertfordshire have complained about the antibacterial lotion, which is considered a key strategy in containing the virus.
Officials were concerned because the Koran bans Muslims from consuming alcohol, so council chiefs issued them with non-alcohol hand gels, which studies have shown to be less effective in killing bugs.
But Muslim leaders criticised the council’s decision to change the gel, pointing out that Islamic teachings allow Muslims to use alcohol for medicinal purposes.
The Muslim Council of Britain said: ‘We would advise people to follow the medical advice so we would, of course, encourage people to use hand gel. ‘People need to find ways to accommodate their beliefs.’...
Thus those who refuse are simply once again trying to reinforce the proposition that Islamic norms and practices must always and everywhere triumph over Infidel ones. This is a declaration of supremacism, not piety.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Hindus Denied Access to 'Multi-Faith Center' (London)...
As part of their “Sewa Week” (a week for which the National Hindu Students Forum holds various service based activities, the QMW Hindu Society organized to use the University’s Multi-Faith Centre every day from 6pm-8.30pm for one week, to recite the Hanuman Chalisa.
The Multi-Faith Centre is also booked by Islamic Students Society from 12pm to 6pm for the entire year. After 6pm the Islamic Students Society had another room allocated to them which they could use until late.
From the outset of the week, the Hindu students were prevented from being able to access the Multi-Faith Centre by the Islamic students who refused to vacate the centre.
To justify not being willing to share the centre with other faith groups they said that there is no demand for the use of the Multi-Faith Centre by other faith communities and they cannot therefore allow Hindus to use the premises even though they have a valid booking for its use.
An article written several months before the incident shows that the Islamic Students Society dissaproved of other faiths sharing the premises (click here).
The Hindu society committee sent letters to the Principal, Chancellor and the Students’ Union (SU) of the university. The Students’ Union sent letters to the Islamic students asking them to respect bookings made my other students.
On Thursday, after three days of being prevented from entering the Multi-Faith Centre, security guards accompanied the Hindu students to ensure that the rooms were vacated as scheduled. Far from gaining entry to the Centre, they were verbally threatened by a group of Muslim students who far outnumbered them.
Rather than tackle this unacceptable behaviour resolutely, the security guards and Students Union suggested that the Hindu students should use an alternative room to conduct their prayers and forget about the booking. The Hindu students society rightfully rejected this offer as a wholly unsatisfactory solution to a serious breach of their rights.
The QMW Hindu Society together with the NHSF contacted and got the support of various other students at QMW and other Hindu groups, who turned out together in larger numbers on Friday.
On Friday, once again, the QMW Islamic Students Society refused to vacate the Multi-Faith Centre at 6pm, and placed a group near the door to prevent anyone from entering. The QMW Hindu Society and other supporters, including non-Hindu students, decided to start their program outside the doors of the centre and sang the Hanuman Chalisa loud and proud.
Gradually the Islamic Society members emptied out of the Centre over a long period, and the Hindu Students Society moved into the Centre for the first time in next week.
The Multi-Faith Centre is also booked by Islamic Students Society from 12pm to 6pm for the entire year. After 6pm the Islamic Students Society had another room allocated to them which they could use until late.
From the outset of the week, the Hindu students were prevented from being able to access the Multi-Faith Centre by the Islamic students who refused to vacate the centre.
To justify not being willing to share the centre with other faith groups they said that there is no demand for the use of the Multi-Faith Centre by other faith communities and they cannot therefore allow Hindus to use the premises even though they have a valid booking for its use.
An article written several months before the incident shows that the Islamic Students Society dissaproved of other faiths sharing the premises (click here).
The Hindu society committee sent letters to the Principal, Chancellor and the Students’ Union (SU) of the university. The Students’ Union sent letters to the Islamic students asking them to respect bookings made my other students.
On Thursday, after three days of being prevented from entering the Multi-Faith Centre, security guards accompanied the Hindu students to ensure that the rooms were vacated as scheduled. Far from gaining entry to the Centre, they were verbally threatened by a group of Muslim students who far outnumbered them.
Rather than tackle this unacceptable behaviour resolutely, the security guards and Students Union suggested that the Hindu students should use an alternative room to conduct their prayers and forget about the booking. The Hindu students society rightfully rejected this offer as a wholly unsatisfactory solution to a serious breach of their rights.
The QMW Hindu Society together with the NHSF contacted and got the support of various other students at QMW and other Hindu groups, who turned out together in larger numbers on Friday.
On Friday, once again, the QMW Islamic Students Society refused to vacate the Multi-Faith Centre at 6pm, and placed a group near the door to prevent anyone from entering. The QMW Hindu Society and other supporters, including non-Hindu students, decided to start their program outside the doors of the centre and sang the Hanuman Chalisa loud and proud.
Gradually the Islamic Society members emptied out of the Centre over a long period, and the Hindu Students Society moved into the Centre for the first time in next week.
Huge Muslim Drug Ring Smashed in Britain...
Three Rochdale men who masterminded a huge drug dealing network have been jailed for a total of 16 years.Imran Hussain, 27, of Cutgate Road, and Zahied Aslam, 26, of Bury Road, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.
Anjum Farooq 28, of Crown Street, Turf Hill, pleaded guilty to possession of Class A drugs with intent to supply at earlier hearings.
All three were sentenced today (Thursday 23 July) at Bolton Crown Court.
Hussain was sentenced to six-and-a-half years in prison, Aslam to six years in prison, Farooq to four years in prison.
A complicated and protracted investigation stretching back to March 2004 revealed mobile phones had been used to arrange the sale of drugs.
The hub of the network was one telephone number in operation since March 2004, which could be called by anyone wanting to buy drugs.
Anyone wanting drugs would call the number, which is not attached to a particular phone but redirects any call made to it to another number of the owner's choosing. It is thought that between March 2004 and October 2008 this number was called more than 97,000 times and calls diverted to 26 different numbers.
The vast majority of calls were diverted to phones linked to Hussain and Aslam.
Farooq was employed as Hussain's drug-runner.
A number of the telephones were registered to Shaffi, who was in a relationship with Hussain throughout the conspiracy. The couple⿿s home and cars showed they lived a lavish lifestyle and enjoyed spending cash.
Detective Inspector Stephen Earnshaw said: "In my mind, Hussain was the main man and the hub of this conspiracy.
"Together with his cohorts he set up a drug-trafficking network and would take calls from those wanting to buy heroin and crack cocaine, arranging for the drugs to be delivered and pocketing serious sums of money.
"The fact that Hussain and Shaffi led a lifestyle far beyond their visible means of income shows how they profited from this criminal enterprise, feeding other people's drug habits to satisfy their own greed. The fact they have children did not seem to prick their conscience enough to disband their operation.
"While the quartet had varying degrees of involvement in this operation, its very existence had to be smashed by our officers and after a lot of hard work and manpower, I am delighted we succeeded in dismantling their operation.
"People who profit by manipulating and feeding the addictions of drug users do not care about the damage they are inflicting, they do not care that drug users frequently turn to a life of crime to pay for their habits and in doing so create fear among their victims, all they care about is lining their own pockets.
"We have sent a powerful message that we will monitor and disrupt this sort of criminal behaviour, no matter how long it takes, and I hope it both serves as a warning to other dealers and also as reassurance to the community that we will not allow criminals to profit at the expense of others."
Muslim woman in hiding after friend forced to drink acid in 'honour attack'
A young Muslim woman has been warned by police that her life is in danger after a male friend was allegedly forced to drink acid and stabbed twice in the back in an apparent ‘honour attack’.
The Danish Asian man is in a serious but stable condition in hospital after he an incident in Leytonstone, east London three weeks ago. Sulphuric acid is said to have been forced down his throat.
The 24-year-old, being treated in a specialist unit in Essex, is now blind, his tongue has been destroyed and he suffered 90% burns.
Both the woman, who claims the relationship is an innocent friendship, and the man live in the Asian community of East London, where their relationship is said to have upset her family for bringing dishonour on them.
Scotland Yard have issued what is known as an ‘Osman warning’ - telling the lady that there is a threat to her life.
A police source told The Times that she had not been moved into a safe house but police were in daily contact with her.
Detectives believe that the man and woman were not in a sexual relationship but were just friends.
Two men, aged 19 and 25, are due to appear before Waltham Forest Magistrates today, charged with the attempted murder of the 24-year old-man on 2 July 2009.
Both men are said to be related to the woman, one is understood to be her brother.
Five men have been arrested and bailed “pending further inquiries” by police.
At the time of the attack a police source said: “It looks like this gang set out to deliberately target this man. They were dressed in masks and gloves so none of the acid would get on them.”An Osman warning system follows a legal ruling directing that police have a “duty of care" to issue alerts, not only to civilians but also to known criminals.
It was introduced after a high-profile failure by officers to protect several individuals from Paul Paget-Lewis, a teacher suffering from psychotic tendencies. In 1988 Paget-Lewis wounded a former pupil, Ahmet Osman, to whom he had formed a disturbing attachment, and killed his father, Ali, as well as two others.
Many people warned by police seek alternative accommodation with relatives or move abroad, while others can be taken into the witness protection programme. Some decide to take matters into their own hands, forcing police to take further action to disrupt the actions of both suspected assassin and victim.
The Danish Asian man is in a serious but stable condition in hospital after he an incident in Leytonstone, east London three weeks ago. Sulphuric acid is said to have been forced down his throat.
The 24-year-old, being treated in a specialist unit in Essex, is now blind, his tongue has been destroyed and he suffered 90% burns.
Both the woman, who claims the relationship is an innocent friendship, and the man live in the Asian community of East London, where their relationship is said to have upset her family for bringing dishonour on them.
Scotland Yard have issued what is known as an ‘Osman warning’ - telling the lady that there is a threat to her life.
A police source told The Times that she had not been moved into a safe house but police were in daily contact with her.
Detectives believe that the man and woman were not in a sexual relationship but were just friends.
Two men, aged 19 and 25, are due to appear before Waltham Forest Magistrates today, charged with the attempted murder of the 24-year old-man on 2 July 2009.
Both men are said to be related to the woman, one is understood to be her brother.
Five men have been arrested and bailed “pending further inquiries” by police.
At the time of the attack a police source said: “It looks like this gang set out to deliberately target this man. They were dressed in masks and gloves so none of the acid would get on them.”An Osman warning system follows a legal ruling directing that police have a “duty of care" to issue alerts, not only to civilians but also to known criminals.
It was introduced after a high-profile failure by officers to protect several individuals from Paul Paget-Lewis, a teacher suffering from psychotic tendencies. In 1988 Paget-Lewis wounded a former pupil, Ahmet Osman, to whom he had formed a disturbing attachment, and killed his father, Ali, as well as two others.
Many people warned by police seek alternative accommodation with relatives or move abroad, while others can be taken into the witness protection programme. Some decide to take matters into their own hands, forcing police to take further action to disrupt the actions of both suspected assassin and victim.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Adulterous Saudi princess gets asylum in Britain
Because if she returns to Saudi Arabia, she faces death by stoning. The fact that some Muslims in Britain want to see such punishments brought there will create an interesting situation in such cases in the future.
A Saudi princess who fell pregnant during an affair with a British man has been granted asylum in the UK after she claimed she could face the death penalty if she went home.
A British court granted refugee status to the young woman, who is married to a member of the Saudi royal family, after she told the judge her adultery made her liable to death by stoning in Saudi Arabia, The Independent newspaper said.
A spokeswoman for the Home Office in London refused to confirm the report, saying it did not comment on individual cases.
According to the newspaper, the princess - who was granted anonymity by the court - is one of a small number of citizens of Saudi Arabia who claim asylum in Britain but whose cases are not openly acknowledged by either government.
Recognition by the British government would be viewed as criticism of human rights in Saudi Arabia, which would embarrass both sides, it said....
Dhimmis!
Since then her family has broken off contact with her, and she persuaded a court that if she returned home then both she and her child would be subject to capital punishment under Sharia law, namely flogging and stoning to death.
A Saudi princess who fell pregnant during an affair with a British man has been granted asylum in the UK after she claimed she could face the death penalty if she went home.
A British court granted refugee status to the young woman, who is married to a member of the Saudi royal family, after she told the judge her adultery made her liable to death by stoning in Saudi Arabia, The Independent newspaper said.
A spokeswoman for the Home Office in London refused to confirm the report, saying it did not comment on individual cases.
According to the newspaper, the princess - who was granted anonymity by the court - is one of a small number of citizens of Saudi Arabia who claim asylum in Britain but whose cases are not openly acknowledged by either government.
Recognition by the British government would be viewed as criticism of human rights in Saudi Arabia, which would embarrass both sides, it said....
Dhimmis!
Since then her family has broken off contact with her, and she persuaded a court that if she returned home then both she and her child would be subject to capital punishment under Sharia law, namely flogging and stoning to death.
Muslim sheikh says that Sharia penal codes would benefit Britain
Hardline Islamic penal codes, such as the amputation of limbs as punishment for theft, would make Britain a safer and better place, the founder of the country’s oldest sharia court has told The Times.
Sheikh Suhaib Hasan, the secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council, said that the enforcement of such laws was “something to bring you more peace and security”.
This is the conformity of fear, not the actual cultivation of virtue.
Dr Hasan, who presides over a sharia court in East London that rules on civil matters such as divorce, emphasised that he neither sought nor expected the implementation of the criminal penal code in Britain because it was not a Muslim country.
He said, however, that problems such as knife crime would be better resolved if harsher punishments were meted out because they worked as a deterrent.
Acknowledging the controversy surrounding any notion of support for hardline Islamic law in Britain, he said that he was merely expressing his point of view as a devout Muslim....
Of course!
“We don’t want to be in conflict with the British legal system at all; we are not interfering with it. We are only concerned here with the religious aspect, no more than that,” he added.
The problem with this, as Dr. Hasan well knows, is that Sharia makes no such distinction. If it is to be made at all, it will have to be imposed artificially, and that in itself will create conflict.
Sheikh Suhaib Hasan, the secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council, said that the enforcement of such laws was “something to bring you more peace and security”.
This is the conformity of fear, not the actual cultivation of virtue.
Dr Hasan, who presides over a sharia court in East London that rules on civil matters such as divorce, emphasised that he neither sought nor expected the implementation of the criminal penal code in Britain because it was not a Muslim country.
He said, however, that problems such as knife crime would be better resolved if harsher punishments were meted out because they worked as a deterrent.
Acknowledging the controversy surrounding any notion of support for hardline Islamic law in Britain, he said that he was merely expressing his point of view as a devout Muslim....
Of course!
“We don’t want to be in conflict with the British legal system at all; we are not interfering with it. We are only concerned here with the religious aspect, no more than that,” he added.
The problem with this, as Dr. Hasan well knows, is that Sharia makes no such distinction. If it is to be made at all, it will have to be imposed artificially, and that in itself will create conflict.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Anjem Choudary continues his "Islamic roadshows" while receiving government benefits
Choudary's recruits are told that it is their Muslim duty to claim benefits, ensuring that they make no contribution to the 'enemy' British state."
"The Jihad fanatic peddling a message of hate to 11-year-old Londoners (funded by the taxpayer)," from the Daily Mail,
On a hot summer afternoon, a man with a microphone stands on a busy London street. He is a tubby figure and sports a black, bushy beard, flecked with grey. He is shrieking at passing shoppers, insisting they follow him - and save their souls.
Teams of young, tough-looking men - all clearly devoted to their leader - dart through the crowds, handing out leaflets and haranguing anyone who questions their message.
From the other side of the street, you could be forgiven for thinking this is a harmless, if colourful, example of citizens making full use of Britain's ancient tradition of free speech.
But there is nothing harmless about what is really going on here. For the man with the microphone is Anjem Choudary, branded the most dangerous man in Britain.
An extremist who believes his sole-calling is to wage holy war against Britain and her 'infidel' allies, he is trying - and succeeding - to prepare the ground for his global Islamic jihad.
Funded by the taxpayer - he claims benefits so that he has plenty of free time to spread his message - Choudary is openly staging these 'Islamic roadshows' across Britain. And their aim is to recruit young British men prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for his chilling cause.
Exhorting Britain's 1.8 million Muslims to follow his example, Choudary dreams of seeing the black crescent flag, which is the symbol of his organisation, flying over Downing Street, and a draconian form of sharia law imposed across the UK.
He wants alcohol banned, amputations for thieves, and adulterers to be stoned to death.
'People are living in anarchy,' he says. 'There is a rape every minute. Islam has the answer to everything.
'It is a deterrent. If you steal, you know you will face having your hands and feet cut off. Why should I not invite the British people to embrace Islam and save themselves from punishment in the hereafter?'
In the last six weeks, Choudary has staged six 'roadshows' around Britain. He rose to particular prominence when he posted a video on his website of an unidentified 11-year-old white youth called 'Sean' being converted to Islam during a show in Birmingham last month.
None of those I speak to let real work get in the way of their holy war; Choudary's recruits are told that it is their Muslim duty to claim benefits, ensuring that they make no contribution to the 'enemy' British state.
Choudary leads by example. Now separated from his wife and three children, for years he has received more than £1,700 a month in benefits from the British taxpayer.
So why is he allowed to preach hate on Britain's streets? Many anti-terror experts believe Britain's tolerant policy towards Islamic radicals is dangerously misguided. Quoting Churchill's famous views on appeasement, one told me it was like 'feeding a crocodile, hoping it will eat you last'.
Tory MP Patrick Mercer, chairman of Parliament's counter terrorism committee, certainly believes that there should be an urgent police investigation into Choudary's activities.
'He is subverting and suborning vulnerable youngsters with a view to turning them into mujahedin,' he says.
'We should focus attention on banning organisations which poison the minds of young Muslims and are conveyor belts to terrorism.'
But back at the Algerian cafe, Choudary again tries to persuade me to convert to Islam.
'We'd have to give you a new name - how about Osama?' he smirks.
Then he gets to his feet; the interview is over. With his four minders - burly men in Islamic garb - he strolls out into the London streets.
As they leave, they all snigger at a private gag. Even wearing smirks, they look dangerous. The joke, it seems, is on us.
Read it all. The article is long, but summarizes many aspects of the state of affairs concerning Islam in the U.K.
"The Jihad fanatic peddling a message of hate to 11-year-old Londoners (funded by the taxpayer)," from the Daily Mail,
On a hot summer afternoon, a man with a microphone stands on a busy London street. He is a tubby figure and sports a black, bushy beard, flecked with grey. He is shrieking at passing shoppers, insisting they follow him - and save their souls.
Teams of young, tough-looking men - all clearly devoted to their leader - dart through the crowds, handing out leaflets and haranguing anyone who questions their message.
From the other side of the street, you could be forgiven for thinking this is a harmless, if colourful, example of citizens making full use of Britain's ancient tradition of free speech.
But there is nothing harmless about what is really going on here. For the man with the microphone is Anjem Choudary, branded the most dangerous man in Britain.
An extremist who believes his sole-calling is to wage holy war against Britain and her 'infidel' allies, he is trying - and succeeding - to prepare the ground for his global Islamic jihad.
Funded by the taxpayer - he claims benefits so that he has plenty of free time to spread his message - Choudary is openly staging these 'Islamic roadshows' across Britain. And their aim is to recruit young British men prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for his chilling cause.
Exhorting Britain's 1.8 million Muslims to follow his example, Choudary dreams of seeing the black crescent flag, which is the symbol of his organisation, flying over Downing Street, and a draconian form of sharia law imposed across the UK.
He wants alcohol banned, amputations for thieves, and adulterers to be stoned to death.
'People are living in anarchy,' he says. 'There is a rape every minute. Islam has the answer to everything.
'It is a deterrent. If you steal, you know you will face having your hands and feet cut off. Why should I not invite the British people to embrace Islam and save themselves from punishment in the hereafter?'
In the last six weeks, Choudary has staged six 'roadshows' around Britain. He rose to particular prominence when he posted a video on his website of an unidentified 11-year-old white youth called 'Sean' being converted to Islam during a show in Birmingham last month.
None of those I speak to let real work get in the way of their holy war; Choudary's recruits are told that it is their Muslim duty to claim benefits, ensuring that they make no contribution to the 'enemy' British state.
Choudary leads by example. Now separated from his wife and three children, for years he has received more than £1,700 a month in benefits from the British taxpayer.
So why is he allowed to preach hate on Britain's streets? Many anti-terror experts believe Britain's tolerant policy towards Islamic radicals is dangerously misguided. Quoting Churchill's famous views on appeasement, one told me it was like 'feeding a crocodile, hoping it will eat you last'.
Tory MP Patrick Mercer, chairman of Parliament's counter terrorism committee, certainly believes that there should be an urgent police investigation into Choudary's activities.
'He is subverting and suborning vulnerable youngsters with a view to turning them into mujahedin,' he says.
'We should focus attention on banning organisations which poison the minds of young Muslims and are conveyor belts to terrorism.'
But back at the Algerian cafe, Choudary again tries to persuade me to convert to Islam.
'We'd have to give you a new name - how about Osama?' he smirks.
Then he gets to his feet; the interview is over. With his four minders - burly men in Islamic garb - he strolls out into the London streets.
As they leave, they all snigger at a private gag. Even wearing smirks, they look dangerous. The joke, it seems, is on us.
Read it all. The article is long, but summarizes many aspects of the state of affairs concerning Islam in the U.K.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Robber Uses Hijab to Hide Identity...
A ROBBER dressed in a woman's Islamic headdress and open-toed sandals stole cash from a post office in Sheffield.
The weapon-wielding raider threatened the sub-postmaster at Tinsley Post Office and forced him to hand over money before running off on Sheffield Road.Post Office Ltd are offering up to £5,000 for information leading to a successful prosecution.
Police said the male suspect, who was Asian, burst into the shop at 5.30pm on Tuesday.He was slim, 5ft 9ins tall and wore dark glasses, a knee-length, dark hijab and a dress with a light pattern. He carried a Burberry-style rucksack.
First I want to note the irritating, obfuscating and bordering on pathological use of the term "Asian" - by British newspapers in lieu of the more accurate muslim. Honest journalism has succumbed to dhimmitude and political correctness. I wondered - Do muslims refer to themselves as "Asian"?
So I thought I'd check a few muslim online publications to see what people they consider to be "Asian":
Al Arabya News Channel - Gulf Daily News - The Voice of Bahrain - Kuwait Arab Times -Crime - The Muslim News
In reviewing the above searches you will find that the vast majority - if not 100% - use the word 'Asian' in regards to China, Japan, Malaysia, etc. The same countries and people that we all think of when reading the word 'Asian'. So clearly muslims do not refer to themselves as 'Asian'.
Isn't it time that British newspapers stop treating their readers like a bunch of dopes?
The weapon-wielding raider threatened the sub-postmaster at Tinsley Post Office and forced him to hand over money before running off on Sheffield Road.Post Office Ltd are offering up to £5,000 for information leading to a successful prosecution.
Police said the male suspect, who was Asian, burst into the shop at 5.30pm on Tuesday.He was slim, 5ft 9ins tall and wore dark glasses, a knee-length, dark hijab and a dress with a light pattern. He carried a Burberry-style rucksack.
First I want to note the irritating, obfuscating and bordering on pathological use of the term "Asian" - by British newspapers in lieu of the more accurate muslim. Honest journalism has succumbed to dhimmitude and political correctness. I wondered - Do muslims refer to themselves as "Asian"?
So I thought I'd check a few muslim online publications to see what people they consider to be "Asian":
Al Arabya News Channel - Gulf Daily News - The Voice of Bahrain - Kuwait Arab Times -Crime - The Muslim News
In reviewing the above searches you will find that the vast majority - if not 100% - use the word 'Asian' in regards to China, Japan, Malaysia, etc. The same countries and people that we all think of when reading the word 'Asian'. So clearly muslims do not refer to themselves as 'Asian'.
Isn't it time that British newspapers stop treating their readers like a bunch of dopes?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Failed Asylum Seeker Kicks Sales Assistant to Death...
A FAILED asylum seeker has been found guilty of kicking a sales assistant to death.
Mossab Belhocine, 19, of Forest Road, Walthamstow, kicked and beat 28-year-old David Cooper to death in November last year.
The Algerian national kicked his victim so hard an imprint of his trainer was left on Mr Cooper’s face.
During the eight-day Old Bailey trial the court heard how Belhocine, also known as Adam Saidi, met Mr Cooper in Soho before the pair travelled to the victim's flat in Calderwood Street, Woolwich.
The killer says he punched and kicked the sales assistant to stop him from raping him, but the court was told the Algerian had been planning a robbery.
Belhocine, from Walthamstow, ransacked the flat for valuables while Mr Cooper lay dying on the floor.
He stole a silver bracelet, a DVD player, a computer console, a television, a laptop and an Oyster card before stuffing the items in two bags and leaving the flat.
Police traced the killer on Mr Cooper's Oyster card and arrested him shortly afterwards.
Belhocine, who denied murder, had claimed he was sexually abused as a child and believed this memory may have triggered his anger on the night of Mr Cooper's death.
The failed asylum seeker came to the UK on a visitor's visa in 2007.
The court heard he was part of a network of Algerian pickpockets operating in the Finsbury Park area, which he denied.
Mossab Belhocine, 19, of Forest Road, Walthamstow, kicked and beat 28-year-old David Cooper to death in November last year.
The Algerian national kicked his victim so hard an imprint of his trainer was left on Mr Cooper’s face.
During the eight-day Old Bailey trial the court heard how Belhocine, also known as Adam Saidi, met Mr Cooper in Soho before the pair travelled to the victim's flat in Calderwood Street, Woolwich.
The killer says he punched and kicked the sales assistant to stop him from raping him, but the court was told the Algerian had been planning a robbery.
Belhocine, from Walthamstow, ransacked the flat for valuables while Mr Cooper lay dying on the floor.
He stole a silver bracelet, a DVD player, a computer console, a television, a laptop and an Oyster card before stuffing the items in two bags and leaving the flat.
Police traced the killer on Mr Cooper's Oyster card and arrested him shortly afterwards.
Belhocine, who denied murder, had claimed he was sexually abused as a child and believed this memory may have triggered his anger on the night of Mr Cooper's death.
The failed asylum seeker came to the UK on a visitor's visa in 2007.
The court heard he was part of a network of Algerian pickpockets operating in the Finsbury Park area, which he denied.
ITV embroiled in race row after suspended news presenter Lisa Aziz sues for discrimination
ITV is facing a huge payout today as it emerged that one of its most experienced newsreaders is suing the broadcaster for religious discrimination, ageism and sexism.West Country Tonight presenter Lisa Aziz has been suspended for allegedly fiddling her expenses.
One of the seven claims was apparently a £5.75 bill for dry cleaning a child's top.
The 47-year-old presenter has not been seen hosting nightly news programme West Country Tonight for the past month.
Sources close to Ms Aziz today told the London Evening Standard that the presenter is claiming that senior managers at ITV West 'ambushed' her as part of a campaign of bullying and harassment in order to force her out the organisation.
They also say that the £200,000-a-year presenter has been 'overwhelmed with stress' and has been prescribed anti-depressants.
Ms Aziz alleges that her Muslim religion was used against her by bosses who told her to 'use her terror contacts' when investigating a story into Bristol terrorism suspect Andrew Ibrahim.
A source said that Ms Aziz 'hit the roof' when the younger employee made the remark.
The row is believed to have triggered the showdown with management with whom she has been at loggerheads for months after a merger between two ITV regions.
It is also thought that ITV may have breached its own procedures by suspending her. Although she has not been officially dismissed she could seek compensation 'rising into the millions'.
ITV West's head of news Liz Hannam and head of human resources Richard Thurston are both named in the official grievance documents issued to ITV.
A friend of Ms Aziz said: 'Lisa is overwhelmed with stress over how she has been treated. She never had her expenses claims questioned before and if they had a problem with any receipts she would have paid it back in a second. Instead they ambushed her with a few claims amounting to less than £200.
'She feels as if she has faced a campaign to be forced out. She has a good relationship with the local Muslim community as that was where she began her career but for a news editor to imply that she had "terror contacts" made her furious.
'It wouldn't happen to a white colleague or a male colleague, so there is an ageism and sexism issue as well as the racism. She has been off air for a month and ITV has replaced her with two blonde, blue-eyed presenters in their thirties. That says it all.'
Ms Aziz's place on the nightly news programme, which is broadcast across an area stretching from Gloucestershire to Cornwall, has been taken by two younger presenters, Claire Manning and Ellie Barker.
ITV sources said that Ms Aziz is well-regarded by senior figures at the channel in London.
Ms Aziz previously worked for Sky News and was the first Asian and first Muslim news presenter on mainstream TV.
ITV declined to comment on the allegations facing Ms Aziz.
An ITV spokesman said: “ITV never comments on ongoing investigations and follows established and recognised employment procedures.
'We vehemently deny any allegations relating to discrimination and will vigorously defend our position in this regard.'
Migrants’ £1m pad is raided
A £1.2MILLION mansion a migrant Afghan mum shares with her seven kids has been raided by customs officers.
A dozen officials took documents and suitcases from 36-year-old Toorpakai Saindi’s seven-bedroom pad in the early-morning raid.
HM Revenue and Customs refused to discuss the raid in Acton, West London because of “taxpayer confidentiality”.
The Sun told last year how Ms Saindi rakes in an estimated £170,000 a year, including £12,000 a month rent paid for by the local council.
Three cars, including two BMWs, were parked outside the home yesterday.
A man in his 20s at the property told our reporter: “No one wants to speak to you. Leave the street.”
A dozen officials took documents and suitcases from 36-year-old Toorpakai Saindi’s seven-bedroom pad in the early-morning raid.
HM Revenue and Customs refused to discuss the raid in Acton, West London because of “taxpayer confidentiality”.
The Sun told last year how Ms Saindi rakes in an estimated £170,000 a year, including £12,000 a month rent paid for by the local council.
Three cars, including two BMWs, were parked outside the home yesterday.
A man in his 20s at the property told our reporter: “No one wants to speak to you. Leave the street.”
President of Civil Service Islamic Society back on the job after suspension for endorsing the killing of British, U.S. soldiers
A Muslim civil servant suspended amid claims that he used his personal website to justify the killing of British troops in Iraq has returned to work at the Treasury.
Azad Ali, an IT worker and president of the Civil Service Islamic Society, was suspended on full pay for six months following comments on his blog.
In one post Mr Ali quoted an interview with an Islamic militant who said: ‘If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation.
'If I found the same soldier in Jordan I wouldn’t touch him. In Iraq he is a fighter and an occupier, here he is not. I respect this as the main instruction in my religion for jihad.’
Sir Gus O’Donnell, Britain’s most senior civil servant and patron of the Civil Service Islamic Society, ordered that Mr Ali be suspended while an investigation was carried out.
It is understood there were concerns that Mr Ali may have breached the Whitehall code of practice that restricts civil servants from political activities.
The investigation has now finished and Mr Ali has returned to his job.
A Treasury spokesman said last night: ‘Azad Ali is back at work. The Treasury has dealt with the matter in accordance with our disciplinary procedures. We will not comment on individual cases.’
Mr Ali refused to comment.
Azad Ali, an IT worker and president of the Civil Service Islamic Society, was suspended on full pay for six months following comments on his blog.
In one post Mr Ali quoted an interview with an Islamic militant who said: ‘If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation.
'If I found the same soldier in Jordan I wouldn’t touch him. In Iraq he is a fighter and an occupier, here he is not. I respect this as the main instruction in my religion for jihad.’
Sir Gus O’Donnell, Britain’s most senior civil servant and patron of the Civil Service Islamic Society, ordered that Mr Ali be suspended while an investigation was carried out.
It is understood there were concerns that Mr Ali may have breached the Whitehall code of practice that restricts civil servants from political activities.
The investigation has now finished and Mr Ali has returned to his job.
A Treasury spokesman said last night: ‘Azad Ali is back at work. The Treasury has dealt with the matter in accordance with our disciplinary procedures. We will not comment on individual cases.’
Mr Ali refused to comment.
Police told not to charge Muslim "extremists" in some hate crime cases for fear of "radicalizing" them even more
In part, they don't want to subject Muslims to prison dawah by incarcerating them. Essentially, they are creating a new problem in order to sidestep the one they already created by allowing the prisons to become conduits for jihadist indoctrination -- a move also influenced by a politically correct fear of the consequences of causing offense.
"Take it easy on Muslim extremists, police told," by Macer Hall for the Daily Express, July 11:
Police will be ordered not to charge Muslim extremists in many hate crime cases – to stop them becoming more militant.
Guidelines will tell forces to press for conviction only in cases of clear-cut criminal acts.
Officers will be advised not to proceed when evidence of lawbreaking is “borderline”.
Examples of crimes to which a blind eye may be turned include incitement to religious hatred or viewing extremist material on the internet.
Last night critics warned that the move could mean Islamic radicals being give the freedom to encourage violence.
Some saw the move as a politically correct attempt to appease extremists who hate Britain.
It could even mean officers tolerating many activities of Muslim preachers of hate like the hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza.
Tory MP David Davies said: “This sounds like abject surrender. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.
“It doesn’t matter whether someone is suspected of incitement to hatred or shoplifting – they should all face the same risk of prosecution.
“There should be no special favours or treatment for any section of the community.”
Officials insist there is no suggestion that people who have clearly committed offences will avoid prosecution.
Then, why did officials initiate this discussion? Are Muslims to be treated equally under the law with the majority population, or, per Orwell's coinage, "more equal than others?"
Instead, they want to avoid alienating Muslims on the fringes of extremism by dragging them to court over petty allegations unlikely to result in conviction.
One fear is that some young Muslims are falling under the influence of extremist preachers while serving prison sentences or on remand awaiting trial....
"Take it easy on Muslim extremists, police told," by Macer Hall for the Daily Express, July 11:
Police will be ordered not to charge Muslim extremists in many hate crime cases – to stop them becoming more militant.
Guidelines will tell forces to press for conviction only in cases of clear-cut criminal acts.
Examples of crimes to which a blind eye may be turned include incitement to religious hatred or viewing extremist material on the internet.
Last night critics warned that the move could mean Islamic radicals being give the freedom to encourage violence.
Some saw the move as a politically correct attempt to appease extremists who hate Britain.
It could even mean officers tolerating many activities of Muslim preachers of hate like the hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza.
Tory MP David Davies said: “This sounds like abject surrender. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.
“It doesn’t matter whether someone is suspected of incitement to hatred or shoplifting – they should all face the same risk of prosecution.
“There should be no special favours or treatment for any section of the community.”
Officials insist there is no suggestion that people who have clearly committed offences will avoid prosecution.
Then, why did officials initiate this discussion? Are Muslims to be treated equally under the law with the majority population, or, per Orwell's coinage, "more equal than others?"
Instead, they want to avoid alienating Muslims on the fringes of extremism by dragging them to court over petty allegations unlikely to result in conviction.
One fear is that some young Muslims are falling under the influence of extremist preachers while serving prison sentences or on remand awaiting trial....
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Mother jailed for stabbing her baby after arranged-marriage husband tried to force her to leave Britain
A mother who tried to kill her own baby was jailed for just five years today after a judge said she had felt 'powerless' in an arranged marriage.
The desperate woman stabbed her eight-month-old daughter with a kitchen knife after her husband told her to leave Britain but said she could not take the child with her.
He gave his Bangladesh-born bride a one-way ticket out of Britain and took out a court injunction, banning her from taking their child out of the country.
A 25-year-old woman was sentenced to five years in prison for attempting to stab her eight-month old child to death to prevent them being separated
The 25-year-old told relatives she would kill the baby and then commit suicide herself rather be separated from her child, saying: 'If I can't have her then no-one will.'
The Old Bailey heard she had plunged the kitchen knife into her tiny daughter's stomach, causing a 1.6 inch wound which almost killed the child.
One of the baby's ribs stopped the blade and she underwent emergency surgery to save her from the stabbing.
Her mother, who cannot be named to protect the child's identity, collapsed sobbing in the dock as she was jailed for five years and had to be dragged from the court.
Dressed in a purple robe which covered her head and body, she wailed hysterically: 'Please forgive me, my child, I love her.'
The Old Bailey heard that the woman's family had arranged a marriage between her and her cousin in 2003, when she was still a teenager, and the pair wed in 2006.
She had never been to Britain and spoke no English, but came to live with him and his family in a three-bedroom maisonette in Tower Hamlets, East London, in 2007.
She was not allowed outside alone and was totally reliant on her husband's family, and repeatedly asked to be allowed to return home to Bangladesh with her baby daughter, who was born in June last year.
In February this year the couple rowed again and on March 2 the husband, a 26-year-old, booked her a one-way ticket to Bangladesh for the next day, and took out the interim court injunction.
He went home, presented his wife with the airline ticket and her luggage, and later that night a solicitor arrived at the family's house to explain the injunction to her.
The distraught woman first claimed her husband had assaulted her, but then appeared to calm down and asked her husband to make some food for the baby, the court heard.
When he returned from the kitchen he saw his wife standing over their baby, and thought she was adjusting the child's clothing.
Prosecutor Heather Norton said: 'He then realised that in fact she had a knife in her hand that she was trying to conceal.
'He ran to the child and saw the defendant push the knife into her stomach, skewering the blade through her belly button.
'He grabbed the baby, pressing his hand against the wound and carrying her upstairs followed by the defendant, still with knife in hand. His brother grabbed the defendant, disarmed her, and restrained her.'
The court heard that the woman asked her husband: 'Why couldn't you come in later? Then I could have finished her off?'
The woman pleaded guilty to a single charge of attempted murder. Before she was sentenced, she begged the judge to return her daughter to her.
Speaking through a Bengali interpreter, she said: 'I don't want to go back home without my child. I am sorry for what I have done. I beg your pardon... Don't deprive me of my child please.
'They have not treated me as a human being. Please give my baby back to me, I have been tortured.'
Her husband was in court for the sentencing, but sat behind a curtain out of view of the dock.
Judge Brian Barker said he believed the mother had suffered 'huge emotional turmoil' and said that before the stabbing both parents had tried to do their best by the child.
'To say this was a tragic case would be an understatement,' he said. 'This was an awful act and very difficult for any outsider to understand.'
He told the mother: 'You felt you were powerless in the situation that you found yourself in. The mercy is that your daughter has made a complete recovery.
'The child will stay with her father's family and it is most unlikely that you will see your daughter again.'
As she was about to be led to the cells, the mother pressed her face against the dock and addressed the judge again in broken English.
She said: 'I stay in this country, I see my daughter. Please forgive me, I dare not go back home.'
The desperate woman stabbed her eight-month-old daughter with a kitchen knife after her husband told her to leave Britain but said she could not take the child with her.
He gave his Bangladesh-born bride a one-way ticket out of Britain and took out a court injunction, banning her from taking their child out of the country.
A 25-year-old woman was sentenced to five years in prison for attempting to stab her eight-month old child to death to prevent them being separated
The 25-year-old told relatives she would kill the baby and then commit suicide herself rather be separated from her child, saying: 'If I can't have her then no-one will.'
The Old Bailey heard she had plunged the kitchen knife into her tiny daughter's stomach, causing a 1.6 inch wound which almost killed the child.
One of the baby's ribs stopped the blade and she underwent emergency surgery to save her from the stabbing.
Her mother, who cannot be named to protect the child's identity, collapsed sobbing in the dock as she was jailed for five years and had to be dragged from the court.
Dressed in a purple robe which covered her head and body, she wailed hysterically: 'Please forgive me, my child, I love her.'
The Old Bailey heard that the woman's family had arranged a marriage between her and her cousin in 2003, when she was still a teenager, and the pair wed in 2006.
She had never been to Britain and spoke no English, but came to live with him and his family in a three-bedroom maisonette in Tower Hamlets, East London, in 2007.
She was not allowed outside alone and was totally reliant on her husband's family, and repeatedly asked to be allowed to return home to Bangladesh with her baby daughter, who was born in June last year.
In February this year the couple rowed again and on March 2 the husband, a 26-year-old, booked her a one-way ticket to Bangladesh for the next day, and took out the interim court injunction.
He went home, presented his wife with the airline ticket and her luggage, and later that night a solicitor arrived at the family's house to explain the injunction to her.
The distraught woman first claimed her husband had assaulted her, but then appeared to calm down and asked her husband to make some food for the baby, the court heard.
When he returned from the kitchen he saw his wife standing over their baby, and thought she was adjusting the child's clothing.
Prosecutor Heather Norton said: 'He then realised that in fact she had a knife in her hand that she was trying to conceal.
'He ran to the child and saw the defendant push the knife into her stomach, skewering the blade through her belly button.
'He grabbed the baby, pressing his hand against the wound and carrying her upstairs followed by the defendant, still with knife in hand. His brother grabbed the defendant, disarmed her, and restrained her.'
The court heard that the woman asked her husband: 'Why couldn't you come in later? Then I could have finished her off?'
The woman pleaded guilty to a single charge of attempted murder. Before she was sentenced, she begged the judge to return her daughter to her.
Speaking through a Bengali interpreter, she said: 'I don't want to go back home without my child. I am sorry for what I have done. I beg your pardon... Don't deprive me of my child please.
'They have not treated me as a human being. Please give my baby back to me, I have been tortured.'
Her husband was in court for the sentencing, but sat behind a curtain out of view of the dock.
Judge Brian Barker said he believed the mother had suffered 'huge emotional turmoil' and said that before the stabbing both parents had tried to do their best by the child.
'To say this was a tragic case would be an understatement,' he said. 'This was an awful act and very difficult for any outsider to understand.'
He told the mother: 'You felt you were powerless in the situation that you found yourself in. The mercy is that your daughter has made a complete recovery.
'The child will stay with her father's family and it is most unlikely that you will see your daughter again.'
As she was about to be led to the cells, the mother pressed her face against the dock and addressed the judge again in broken English.
She said: 'I stay in this country, I see my daughter. Please forgive me, I dare not go back home.'
"If you choose to live in this country, you live by its rules"
A fanatic who once paraded his baby in an 'I love al-Quaeda' hat was today jailed for firebombing the home of the publisher of a novel about Mohammed.Ali Beheshti, 41, a follower of hate cleric Abu Hamza, poured diesel through the letterbox of the £2.5million house and set it alight to 'punish' owner Martin Rynja.
The attack came weeks before Mr Rynja's publishing company was due to release The Jewel of Medina, a fictional account of the Prophet's child bride.
Today a judge told the extremist and his two accomplices as she sentenced them each to four-and-a-half years: 'If you choose to live in this country, you live by its rules.'
Beheshti first made international headlines three years ago after he was photographed with his 18-month-old daughter, Farisa, who he had dressed in a pink bonnet celebrating al-Quaeda during a protest against Danish cartoons of Mohammed.
He also proudly described her to reporters as the youngest member of the terror network as he waved banners vowing to 'Massacre those who insult Islam' and promising 'Europe, your 9/11 will come!'...
Sunday, July 05, 2009
79-Year-Old Woman Sexually Assaulted by 'Asian'...
A 79-year-old woman has been left too "scared" to leave her home after she was sexually assaulted in a city street.
The elderly victim was approached by a man in Upper Tichborne Street, Highfields, Leicester, before he tried to grab her.
After the victim told the man that she was going to call the police he ran off into the nearby Warrington Court flats.
The incident happened between 2.30pm and 3pm on Monday, June 29.
The man is described as Asian, about 50, of a medium build, clean shaven and had short, red hair that was combed back.
Pc Sophie MacMahon, the officer investigating the incident, said: "This incident has left the victim feeling upset and scared to leave her house and we are hoping that by releasing this appeal someone will come forward with vital information."
She appealed for anyone who had seen the suspect in the area before or after the assault or anyone who may have been a victim themselves to come forward.
People are asked to contact PC MacMahon on 0116 222 2222.
Alternatively call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.
First I want to note the irritating, obfuscating and bordering on pathological use of the term "Asian" - by British newspapers in lieu of the more accurate muslim.
Honest journalism has succumbed to dhimmitude and political correctness. I wondered - Do muslims refer to themselves as "Asian"? So I thought I'd check a few muslim online publications to see what people they consider to be "Asian":Al Arabya News Channel - Gulf Daily News - The Voice of Bahrain - Kuwait Arab Times -Crime - The Muslim News
In reviewing the above searches you will find that the vast majority - if not 100% - use the word 'Asian' in regards to China, Japan, Malaysia, etc. The same countries and people that we all think of when reading the word 'Asian'. So clearly muslims do not refer to themselves as 'Asian'.Isn't it time that British newspapers stop treating their readers like a bunch of dopes?
The elderly victim was approached by a man in Upper Tichborne Street, Highfields, Leicester, before he tried to grab her.
After the victim told the man that she was going to call the police he ran off into the nearby Warrington Court flats.
The incident happened between 2.30pm and 3pm on Monday, June 29.
The man is described as Asian, about 50, of a medium build, clean shaven and had short, red hair that was combed back.
Pc Sophie MacMahon, the officer investigating the incident, said: "This incident has left the victim feeling upset and scared to leave her house and we are hoping that by releasing this appeal someone will come forward with vital information."
She appealed for anyone who had seen the suspect in the area before or after the assault or anyone who may have been a victim themselves to come forward.
People are asked to contact PC MacMahon on 0116 222 2222.
Alternatively call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.
First I want to note the irritating, obfuscating and bordering on pathological use of the term "Asian" - by British newspapers in lieu of the more accurate muslim.
Honest journalism has succumbed to dhimmitude and political correctness. I wondered - Do muslims refer to themselves as "Asian"? So I thought I'd check a few muslim online publications to see what people they consider to be "Asian":Al Arabya News Channel - Gulf Daily News - The Voice of Bahrain - Kuwait Arab Times -Crime - The Muslim News
In reviewing the above searches you will find that the vast majority - if not 100% - use the word 'Asian' in regards to China, Japan, Malaysia, etc. The same countries and people that we all think of when reading the word 'Asian'. So clearly muslims do not refer to themselves as 'Asian'.Isn't it time that British newspapers stop treating their readers like a bunch of dopes?
UK Mosque Leader Pushes 7/7 Government Conspiracy Lies...
A LEADING Muslim MP has called for the chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque to resign after the cleric suggested the July 7 London bombings were a Government conspiracy.
Dr Mohammed Naseem’s inflammatory views were exposed after he distributed thousands of copies of the conspiracy film 7/7 Ripple Effect to worshippers at the Mosque.
Birmingham MP Khalid Mahmood last night insisted that Naseem should quit his high-profile role for insulting the memory of the 52 people who died in terror attacks on the capital’s transport network four years ago.
The 7/7 Ripple Effect film argues that the Government planned the suicide bombings to incite hatred against British Muslims.
The film was produced by John Hill, a conspiracy theorist from Sheffield, who now lives in Ireland.
Hill, who believes he is the second coming of Christ, is now facing extradition to the UK on a charge of perverting the course of justice for sending the DVD to the judge in a trial linked to the attacks.
When confronted by the Sunday Mercury, Dr Naseem initially denied he believed in the conspiracy, and said that a documentary about the “Ripple Effect” theory aired last week had misrepresented him.
But when pressed, the 83-year-old told our reporter that he DOES think the Government has something to hide.
“I’ve never said it was a Government conspiracy – it astounds me that people think that,” Dr Naseem said. “But I do believe the Government’s response to the bombings was flawed and does not make sense.
“The police and the politicians are not to be trusted so I believe that the conspiracy could be true.
“People have lost trust in the Government – just look at the expenses scandal.
“I believe we need to open an inquiry into the bombings in the same way that the Iraq inquiry has been set up.
“I do not believe the Government’s version of events.
“The intelligence service only provides one source of information when everybody knows that you have to corroborate it with a second source, which they did not.
“The Government got their facts wrong as well. They said the bombers got on a train which they did not, because it was cancelled.
“Anybody can prove anything they want with footage these days. They can add computer-generated effects – so we cannot trust any CCTV. I am not alone in this and I think 90 per cent of Muslims in Birmingham agree with me.
“I would say to the Government if they don’t have anything to hide, then hold a public inquiry.
“If they don’t have anything to hide, then they will do it.
“We don’t care if we are offending people.
“We think that people are being hyper-sensitive about this issue and do not think that people are willing to listen to us.”
The Sunday Mercury can also reveal that Dr Naseem’s Mosque received a portion of a £2.4 million grant as part of the Government’s Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Fund (PVE) project.
Birmingham City Council has been at the forefront of PVE trials after intelligence sources claimed that the city was a major recruiting base for al-Qaida.
Dr Naseem’s comments come just two days before the fourth anniversary of the July 7 atrocity, which was carried out by British-born suicide bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan, aged 30, Shehzad Tanweer, aged 22, Germaine Lindsay, aged 19, and Hasib Mir Hussain, aged 18.
Last night Dr Naseem’s remarks were met with disgust by Muslim community leaders, including Mr Mahmood and Respect party leader and Birmingham City councillor Salma Yaqoob.
Mr Mahmood, MP for Perry Barr, said: “This conspiracy is just complete and utter nonsense.
“If anyone had any facts to prove it I would be the first one to take them to Parliament.
“But they don’t, because it isn’t true.
“Dr Naseem has peddled preposterous nonsense like this time and time again, and this time he has gone too far.
“All he is doing is inciting hatred among the community and bringing the Muslims of Birmingham into disrepute. A person in his position should think twice before coming out with such disgraceful lies.
“I think it is time for him to resign.
“The trustees of Birmingham Central Mosque should take action immediately if they want to be taken seriously in the future.
“His outrageous comments couldn’t have come at a more sensitive time and are sure to be incredibly hurtful to the relatives of the victims.”
Coun Yaqoob added: “We do not need conspiracy theories to understand the 7/7 bombings.
“Two of the bombers left video messages explaining exactly why they carried out this terrible atrocity.
“The Government may be in denial about the fact that its war in Iraq encouraged terrorism at home but we have to face facts.
“Four young men, angry at our Government’s foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, lost any sense of humanity and inflicted terrible suffering on innocent people.
“We have to confront and challenge those who justify and encourage these crimes, and we have to put an end to the injustice caused by our foreign policy that creates such a well of bitterness and hatred.”
This is no surprise: again and again we have seen Muslim spokesmen disclaim responsibility for any wrongdoing of any kind.
This isn't even anything new. Right after the 7/7 bombings, jihadist Omar Bakri said that there was no proof that the bombers were Muslim, and his partner in crime Anjem Chaudary said that Britain was behind the bombings.
Conspiracy Paranoia Alert:
Today almost four years on, the images of that dreadful morning are etched into our minds: the woman in the haunting white burns mask being helped to safety; the shell-shocked businessman in a suit with his hair and shirt matted with blood; the crippled No 30 bus with its roof blown off; the mangled wreckage of smouldering Tube trains.
The country's worst-ever terrorist atrocity during London's morning rush hour on July 7, 2005, shattered for ever the heady euphoria in which the capital was basking the morning after winning the bid for the 2012 Olympics.
That afternoon, Tony Blair - who was hosting the G8 summit on global poverty in Gleneagles, Scotland - returned to Downing Street to pronounce that the attack was an act in the 'name of Islam'.
Later, at a meeting of the Government's national emergency committee COBRA, London's anti-terror police chief Andy Hayman told senior ministers that he suspected suicide bombers.
And so the story of 7/7 that we have come to accept was pieced together: four British Muslims - Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, Jermaine Lindsay, 19, and Hasib Hussain, 18 - blew themselves up using home-made explosives, killing 56 and injuring 700 on three Tube trains and a double-decker bus.
They had travelled on a mainline train from Luton into King's Cross Thameslink Station in London, each carrying a heavy rucksack of explosives.
It is a version of events that has been endorsed by a high-level Parliamentary inquiry and a government report, both published in May 2006 ten months after the event, based on 12,500 statements, a police examination of 142 computers and 6,000 hours of CCTV footage.
The report insisted that the bombers acted on their own, constructing explosives from chapatti flour and hair bleach mixed in the bath at a flat in Leeds, Yorkshire, where all four had family and friends.
It concluded that the Muslim bombers were not controlled by a terrorist mastermind, but inspired by Al Qaeda ideology picked up on extremist websites.
But families of the dead victims and an increasing number of 7/7 survivors claim there are inconsistencies and basic mistakes in the official accounts that need explanation.
And they are demanding a full public inquiry to answer key questions about what the Intelligence Services and the police did and did not know before the bombings.
Meanwhile, the Government's determined refusal to meet their demands is having a very dangerous side-effect - fuelling myriad conspiracy theories about 7/7. Books, blogs and several video documentaries point to oddities in the official accounts.
Alarmingly, some of the conspiracy videos are being hawked around mosques throughout the country to whip up anti-British sentiment.
For the most outlandish and offensive of them suggest that the attacks were not the work of Muslim terrorists at all, but were carried out by the Government to boost support for the Iraq war....
And there are apparent inconsistencies in the official account. And you know what that means: the Jews did it!
And it is such inconsistencies that are fuelling the deepening concerns. This week, a television documentary on BBC2 called Conspiracy Files 7/7 revealed the existence of a conspiracy theorist's 56-minute video called Ripple Effect.
It accuses Tony Blair, the Government, the police, and the British and Israeli Secret Services of murdering the innocent people who died that day to stir up anti-Islamic fervour and create public support for the 'war on terror'.
This is hardly plausible, given the fact that even though Blair did say that the attacks were done in the name of Islam, he took pains to distinguish peaceful Muslims from those who carried out the bombings: "This is a small group of extremists. Not one who can be ignored, but neither should it define Muslims in Britain who are overwhelmingly law-abiding, decent members of our society." He asserted that the "vast majority" of Muslims in Britain opposed terrorism.
Above all, he attached a disclaimer even when he said that the bombers acted in Islam's name: "We know that these people act in the name of Islam but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do."
Only by relying on the passage of time and the faultiness of memory could anyone avoid being laughed out of the room when asserting that the British government was ever trying to stir up "anti-Islamic fervour."
It alleges that the four British Muslims were tricked by the authorities into taking part in what they were told would be a mock anti-terror training exercise. What they weren't told, the video alleges, was that the Government was going to blow them up, along with other passengers, then pretend the four were suicide bombers.
Without any evidence, the Ripple Effect video accuses government agents of setting off pre-planted explosives under the three Tube trains and on the bus.
It suggests that the four Muslims were not, in fact, on any of the Tube trains, claiming that they missed them altogether because of the train delays on the Luton to London line.
It adds, astonishingly, that because the four did not get onto the Tube on time, three of them were murdered by police at Canary Wharf later that morning and the fourth - the bus bomber - ran off.
Outrageous though these claims are, the video has become an internet hit. More worryingly, it is playing on the fears of Britain's Muslim community.
Even some senior Islamists believe the events of 7/7 were fabricated. As Dr Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of Birmingham's Central Mosque, says in the BBC2 documentary: 'We do not accept the government version of July 7, 2005. The Ripple Effect video is more convincing than the official statements.'
Mr Naseem, a well-educated man, had made 2,000 copies of Ripple Effect for members of his mosque. Research has revealed that even before the contentious video came out, one in four British Muslims thought the Government or the Secret Services were responsible for the 7/7 atrocities. Now the number of doubters is growing.
At Friday prayers recently, Dr Naseem asked the congregation to raise their hands if they did not accept the government version of events. Nearly the entire gathering of 150 men and boys did so. He then urged his audience to collect free copies of Ripple Effect at the back of the mosque....
Dr Mohammed Naseem’s inflammatory views were exposed after he distributed thousands of copies of the conspiracy film 7/7 Ripple Effect to worshippers at the Mosque.
Birmingham MP Khalid Mahmood last night insisted that Naseem should quit his high-profile role for insulting the memory of the 52 people who died in terror attacks on the capital’s transport network four years ago.
The 7/7 Ripple Effect film argues that the Government planned the suicide bombings to incite hatred against British Muslims.
The film was produced by John Hill, a conspiracy theorist from Sheffield, who now lives in Ireland.
Hill, who believes he is the second coming of Christ, is now facing extradition to the UK on a charge of perverting the course of justice for sending the DVD to the judge in a trial linked to the attacks.
When confronted by the Sunday Mercury, Dr Naseem initially denied he believed in the conspiracy, and said that a documentary about the “Ripple Effect” theory aired last week had misrepresented him.
But when pressed, the 83-year-old told our reporter that he DOES think the Government has something to hide.
“I’ve never said it was a Government conspiracy – it astounds me that people think that,” Dr Naseem said. “But I do believe the Government’s response to the bombings was flawed and does not make sense.
“The police and the politicians are not to be trusted so I believe that the conspiracy could be true.
“People have lost trust in the Government – just look at the expenses scandal.
“I believe we need to open an inquiry into the bombings in the same way that the Iraq inquiry has been set up.
“I do not believe the Government’s version of events.
“The intelligence service only provides one source of information when everybody knows that you have to corroborate it with a second source, which they did not.
“The Government got their facts wrong as well. They said the bombers got on a train which they did not, because it was cancelled.
“Anybody can prove anything they want with footage these days. They can add computer-generated effects – so we cannot trust any CCTV. I am not alone in this and I think 90 per cent of Muslims in Birmingham agree with me.
“I would say to the Government if they don’t have anything to hide, then hold a public inquiry.
“If they don’t have anything to hide, then they will do it.
“We don’t care if we are offending people.
“We think that people are being hyper-sensitive about this issue and do not think that people are willing to listen to us.”
The Sunday Mercury can also reveal that Dr Naseem’s Mosque received a portion of a £2.4 million grant as part of the Government’s Preventing Violent Extremism Pathfinder Fund (PVE) project.
Birmingham City Council has been at the forefront of PVE trials after intelligence sources claimed that the city was a major recruiting base for al-Qaida.
Dr Naseem’s comments come just two days before the fourth anniversary of the July 7 atrocity, which was carried out by British-born suicide bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan, aged 30, Shehzad Tanweer, aged 22, Germaine Lindsay, aged 19, and Hasib Mir Hussain, aged 18.
Last night Dr Naseem’s remarks were met with disgust by Muslim community leaders, including Mr Mahmood and Respect party leader and Birmingham City councillor Salma Yaqoob.
Mr Mahmood, MP for Perry Barr, said: “This conspiracy is just complete and utter nonsense.
“If anyone had any facts to prove it I would be the first one to take them to Parliament.
“But they don’t, because it isn’t true.
“Dr Naseem has peddled preposterous nonsense like this time and time again, and this time he has gone too far.
“All he is doing is inciting hatred among the community and bringing the Muslims of Birmingham into disrepute. A person in his position should think twice before coming out with such disgraceful lies.
“I think it is time for him to resign.
“The trustees of Birmingham Central Mosque should take action immediately if they want to be taken seriously in the future.
“His outrageous comments couldn’t have come at a more sensitive time and are sure to be incredibly hurtful to the relatives of the victims.”
Coun Yaqoob added: “We do not need conspiracy theories to understand the 7/7 bombings.
“Two of the bombers left video messages explaining exactly why they carried out this terrible atrocity.
“The Government may be in denial about the fact that its war in Iraq encouraged terrorism at home but we have to face facts.
“Four young men, angry at our Government’s foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, lost any sense of humanity and inflicted terrible suffering on innocent people.
“We have to confront and challenge those who justify and encourage these crimes, and we have to put an end to the injustice caused by our foreign policy that creates such a well of bitterness and hatred.”
This is no surprise: again and again we have seen Muslim spokesmen disclaim responsibility for any wrongdoing of any kind.
This isn't even anything new. Right after the 7/7 bombings, jihadist Omar Bakri said that there was no proof that the bombers were Muslim, and his partner in crime Anjem Chaudary said that Britain was behind the bombings.
Conspiracy Paranoia Alert:
Today almost four years on, the images of that dreadful morning are etched into our minds: the woman in the haunting white burns mask being helped to safety; the shell-shocked businessman in a suit with his hair and shirt matted with blood; the crippled No 30 bus with its roof blown off; the mangled wreckage of smouldering Tube trains.
The country's worst-ever terrorist atrocity during London's morning rush hour on July 7, 2005, shattered for ever the heady euphoria in which the capital was basking the morning after winning the bid for the 2012 Olympics.
That afternoon, Tony Blair - who was hosting the G8 summit on global poverty in Gleneagles, Scotland - returned to Downing Street to pronounce that the attack was an act in the 'name of Islam'.
Later, at a meeting of the Government's national emergency committee COBRA, London's anti-terror police chief Andy Hayman told senior ministers that he suspected suicide bombers.
And so the story of 7/7 that we have come to accept was pieced together: four British Muslims - Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, Jermaine Lindsay, 19, and Hasib Hussain, 18 - blew themselves up using home-made explosives, killing 56 and injuring 700 on three Tube trains and a double-decker bus.
They had travelled on a mainline train from Luton into King's Cross Thameslink Station in London, each carrying a heavy rucksack of explosives.
It is a version of events that has been endorsed by a high-level Parliamentary inquiry and a government report, both published in May 2006 ten months after the event, based on 12,500 statements, a police examination of 142 computers and 6,000 hours of CCTV footage.
The report insisted that the bombers acted on their own, constructing explosives from chapatti flour and hair bleach mixed in the bath at a flat in Leeds, Yorkshire, where all four had family and friends.
It concluded that the Muslim bombers were not controlled by a terrorist mastermind, but inspired by Al Qaeda ideology picked up on extremist websites.
But families of the dead victims and an increasing number of 7/7 survivors claim there are inconsistencies and basic mistakes in the official accounts that need explanation.
And they are demanding a full public inquiry to answer key questions about what the Intelligence Services and the police did and did not know before the bombings.
Meanwhile, the Government's determined refusal to meet their demands is having a very dangerous side-effect - fuelling myriad conspiracy theories about 7/7. Books, blogs and several video documentaries point to oddities in the official accounts.
Alarmingly, some of the conspiracy videos are being hawked around mosques throughout the country to whip up anti-British sentiment.
For the most outlandish and offensive of them suggest that the attacks were not the work of Muslim terrorists at all, but were carried out by the Government to boost support for the Iraq war....
And there are apparent inconsistencies in the official account. And you know what that means: the Jews did it!
And it is such inconsistencies that are fuelling the deepening concerns. This week, a television documentary on BBC2 called Conspiracy Files 7/7 revealed the existence of a conspiracy theorist's 56-minute video called Ripple Effect.
It accuses Tony Blair, the Government, the police, and the British and Israeli Secret Services of murdering the innocent people who died that day to stir up anti-Islamic fervour and create public support for the 'war on terror'.
This is hardly plausible, given the fact that even though Blair did say that the attacks were done in the name of Islam, he took pains to distinguish peaceful Muslims from those who carried out the bombings: "This is a small group of extremists. Not one who can be ignored, but neither should it define Muslims in Britain who are overwhelmingly law-abiding, decent members of our society." He asserted that the "vast majority" of Muslims in Britain opposed terrorism.
Above all, he attached a disclaimer even when he said that the bombers acted in Islam's name: "We know that these people act in the name of Islam but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do."
Only by relying on the passage of time and the faultiness of memory could anyone avoid being laughed out of the room when asserting that the British government was ever trying to stir up "anti-Islamic fervour."
It alleges that the four British Muslims were tricked by the authorities into taking part in what they were told would be a mock anti-terror training exercise. What they weren't told, the video alleges, was that the Government was going to blow them up, along with other passengers, then pretend the four were suicide bombers.
Without any evidence, the Ripple Effect video accuses government agents of setting off pre-planted explosives under the three Tube trains and on the bus.
It suggests that the four Muslims were not, in fact, on any of the Tube trains, claiming that they missed them altogether because of the train delays on the Luton to London line.
It adds, astonishingly, that because the four did not get onto the Tube on time, three of them were murdered by police at Canary Wharf later that morning and the fourth - the bus bomber - ran off.
Outrageous though these claims are, the video has become an internet hit. More worryingly, it is playing on the fears of Britain's Muslim community.
Even some senior Islamists believe the events of 7/7 were fabricated. As Dr Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of Birmingham's Central Mosque, says in the BBC2 documentary: 'We do not accept the government version of July 7, 2005. The Ripple Effect video is more convincing than the official statements.'
Mr Naseem, a well-educated man, had made 2,000 copies of Ripple Effect for members of his mosque. Research has revealed that even before the contentious video came out, one in four British Muslims thought the Government or the Secret Services were responsible for the 7/7 atrocities. Now the number of doubters is growing.
At Friday prayers recently, Dr Naseem asked the congregation to raise their hands if they did not accept the government version of events. Nearly the entire gathering of 150 men and boys did so. He then urged his audience to collect free copies of Ripple Effect at the back of the mosque....
Friday, July 03, 2009
Dress code dentist can practise AGAIN
A dentist has been allowed to continue practising - despite telling Muslim patients he would only treat them if they wore Islamic dress.Dr Omer Butt, of Prestwich, Greater Manchester, ordered two women to wear a head scarf before he treated them.
The General Dental Council (GDC) said the events took place "a considerable time ago".
He made the requests between 2005 and 2007 while working at the Unsworth Smile Clinic.
Although Dr Butt was before the GDC for making a similar demand to patients in September 2007, the professional conduct committee of the General Dental Council (GDC) found the requests were made before this date.
“ If the committee had heard these matters in 2007 it is likely that it would have found your fitness to practise to be impaired ” Members of the General Dental Council
The GDC found that Dr Butt had "discriminated" against people on the basis he "disapproved of their attitude to the requirements of Islam" and "did not act in the best interests of his patients".
It was "in no doubt that it amounted to misconduct" but found his fitness to practise was not impaired because he had not repeated the conduct since September 2007.
In addition, the committee accepted he had changed his approach as a result of the action taken against him.
The GDC added: "If the committee had heard these matters in 2007 it is likely that it would have found your fitness to practise to be impaired.
"However, it has taken account of the passage of time and all the matters set out above.
"It has concluded that your conduct is remediable and has been remedied. Further, it is not likely that you will repeat it.
"Accordingly the committee has concluded that your fitness to practise is not impaired."
Cultural abdication. Absurd Britannia Alert, and an update on this story:
A DENTIST from Greater Manchester who refused to treat a Muslim patient unless she wore a headscarf drove a car at a policewoman after a parking row, a court has heard.
U.K. warns that summer is top season for forced marriages
"It is estimated that between 5,000 and 8,000 cases of forced marriage occurred in Britain last year, according to the Department for Children, Schools, and Families."
Forced marriage is one of the most effective means of resisting integration. It serves to reconstitute an un-British mini-society on the household level by keeping women tethered to domineering husbands and in-laws determined to preserve a social order foreign to Western values. Their children grow up believing the environment is "normal," growing accustomed to the treatment of women as inferiors and possessions (see Qur'an 4:34), and the cycle repeats itself until someone has the wherewithal to rebel. by Aidan Jones for the Christian Science Monitor,
The first time Shazia Qayum met her husband was on their wedding day.
Duped by her parents into visiting the poor, pious, hilly district of Mirpur in Pakistani-administered Kashmir, she arrived to a village abuzz with preparations for her wedding – a ceremony she knew nothing about.
Seventeen years old, she had already refused to marry her first cousin two years earlier – an act of defiance that resulted in her being withdrawn from school by her parents.
"I couldn't believe they had brought me from Birmingham to Pakistan on such a huge lie," she says. "It crushed me."
That was more than decade ago, but government figures released today suggest the true scale of Britain's forced-marriage problem is only now beginning to emerge. It is estimated that between 5,000 and 8,000 cases of forced marriage occurred in Britain last year, according to the Department for Children, Schools, and Families. [...]
"Nobody should be forced into marriage against their will or without their free and open consent," says Chris Bryant, a minister for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. "There is no culture in which this is acceptable in the modern world, and we are determined to do everything we can to put a stop to it."
The report is accompanied by new guidelines issued to police, teachers, and family doctors on recognizing the warning signs of a forced marriage.
The guidelines were released ahead of the school summer holidays – a period when hundreds of children are known to be taken abroad and married off, some never to return to Britain.
Advocates say it is effectively child abuse, and the real figures are much higher, but unreported.
Ms. Qayum says the issue turns on misplaced notions of honor among some South Asian communities.
"Refusing to marry the person they have chosen is perhaps the worst you can do in the eyes of the community," she says. "I was left with the choice of living out a lie for my parents' sake or leaving, starting with nothing, and losing my family. I choose to leave."
She hasn't seen her family since.
Part of a Western European push back?
Several hotlines across the country field calls from people fearing they will be married against their will. A number staffed by Britain's Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) has received 770 calls so far this year. The FMU is a team run jointly by the Foreign and Home offices.
"We took a call from a women in the toilet at Heathrow Airport," says Sarah Russell, head of the unit. "We managed to get the police to her before she was flown out of the country, but there are many others out of our reach." [...]
Nazir Afzal, the lead lawyer for London's CPS, says the issue boils down to the power relations within male-dominated societies.
"It is not just the elders who may believe women are inferior," he says.
"I met a 21-year-old Muslim boy, who told me 'man is a piece of gold, women are silver. If you drop gold in mud it can be cleaned; drop silver and it is worthless.'
Peter Abbott of Great Britain's Forced Marriage Unit tells host Peggy Wehmeyer that youngsters being forced into marriage often undergo emotional and physical pressure. Usually, they are taken overseas where the marriage is to be performed. But the Forced Marriage Unit can step in to stop the ceremony, rescue the young victim, and return them to Britain.
Forced marriage is one of the most effective means of resisting integration. It serves to reconstitute an un-British mini-society on the household level by keeping women tethered to domineering husbands and in-laws determined to preserve a social order foreign to Western values. Their children grow up believing the environment is "normal," growing accustomed to the treatment of women as inferiors and possessions (see Qur'an 4:34), and the cycle repeats itself until someone has the wherewithal to rebel. by Aidan Jones for the Christian Science Monitor,
The first time Shazia Qayum met her husband was on their wedding day.
Duped by her parents into visiting the poor, pious, hilly district of Mirpur in Pakistani-administered Kashmir, she arrived to a village abuzz with preparations for her wedding – a ceremony she knew nothing about.
Seventeen years old, she had already refused to marry her first cousin two years earlier – an act of defiance that resulted in her being withdrawn from school by her parents.
"I couldn't believe they had brought me from Birmingham to Pakistan on such a huge lie," she says. "It crushed me."
That was more than decade ago, but government figures released today suggest the true scale of Britain's forced-marriage problem is only now beginning to emerge. It is estimated that between 5,000 and 8,000 cases of forced marriage occurred in Britain last year, according to the Department for Children, Schools, and Families. [...]
"Nobody should be forced into marriage against their will or without their free and open consent," says Chris Bryant, a minister for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. "There is no culture in which this is acceptable in the modern world, and we are determined to do everything we can to put a stop to it."
The report is accompanied by new guidelines issued to police, teachers, and family doctors on recognizing the warning signs of a forced marriage.
The guidelines were released ahead of the school summer holidays – a period when hundreds of children are known to be taken abroad and married off, some never to return to Britain.
Advocates say it is effectively child abuse, and the real figures are much higher, but unreported.
Ms. Qayum says the issue turns on misplaced notions of honor among some South Asian communities.
"Refusing to marry the person they have chosen is perhaps the worst you can do in the eyes of the community," she says. "I was left with the choice of living out a lie for my parents' sake or leaving, starting with nothing, and losing my family. I choose to leave."
She hasn't seen her family since.
Part of a Western European push back?
Several hotlines across the country field calls from people fearing they will be married against their will. A number staffed by Britain's Forced Marriage Unit (FMU) has received 770 calls so far this year. The FMU is a team run jointly by the Foreign and Home offices.
"We took a call from a women in the toilet at Heathrow Airport," says Sarah Russell, head of the unit. "We managed to get the police to her before she was flown out of the country, but there are many others out of our reach." [...]
Nazir Afzal, the lead lawyer for London's CPS, says the issue boils down to the power relations within male-dominated societies.
"It is not just the elders who may believe women are inferior," he says.
"I met a 21-year-old Muslim boy, who told me 'man is a piece of gold, women are silver. If you drop gold in mud it can be cleaned; drop silver and it is worthless.'
Peter Abbott of Great Britain's Forced Marriage Unit tells host Peggy Wehmeyer that youngsters being forced into marriage often undergo emotional and physical pressure. Usually, they are taken overseas where the marriage is to be performed. But the Forced Marriage Unit can step in to stop the ceremony, rescue the young victim, and return them to Britain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)