An imam was involved. Why didn't he instruct the plotters about the true, peaceful Islam? "Taliban target Britain on 'orders' from al-Qaeda," by Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph,
A Taliban-trained terrorist was part of a cell sent to bomb Britain as revenge for their presence in Afghanistan, it has emerged.
The terrorist informant has told prosecutors he was trained by Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistan Taliban, and was planning a series of suicide attacks with 11 other men.
The informant, known as "Ahmed", told investigators the bombers were to work in pairs using a "device carried in a backpack with a third person to detonate a remote control" in order to ensure the bombers went through with their mission....
It is claimed the attacks were to begin on the Barcelona underground system and then spread to the other European countries with a presence in Afghanistan, thought to include Britain, according to new documents.
The information echoed claims made by British security services that a terrorist cell was sent to Manchester from the Taliban heartland in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas.
British investigators believe that the cell, which was allegedly planning attacks on the Trafford and Arndale shopping centres over the Easter holidays, had connections with al-Qaeda, and Spanish prosecutors say their cell may also have had links with al-Qaeda....
The 10 men arrested in the north west are fighting deportation on national security grounds after Government lawyers accused them of being members of a "UK-based network linked to al-Qaeda involved in attack planning".
Spanish police found chemicals including nitrocellulose and potassium perchlorate along with batteries, timers and cables in the raids.
They also found "materials for indoctrination" relating to attacks against Nato forces in Afghanistan and books and DVDs.
Spanish prosecutors submitted documents laying out their case earlier this month and Dolores Delgado Garcia, a prosecutor at Spain's National Court, told the Daily Telegraph she believed the Barcelona cell was inspired by speeches by Osama bin Laden about the "loss of Andalucia" once part of the Muslim Ottoman empire.
"Al-Qaeda has been targeting Spain because of its historic associations with Andalucia," she said. "But other cities in Europe where countries have troops in Afghanistan were also targets."...
They have named Maroof Ahmed Mirza, 40, an imam at a mosque in Raval, as the leader of the cell along with Elia Mohammad Ayud Bibi, 64, while three others, Afees Ahmed, Qadeer Malik and Iqbal Sabih, were allegedly the bomb-makers.
The suicide bombers are said to have included Mohammed Shoaib, Mehmooh Khalid, Imran Cheema and ur-Rehman Aqeel Khalid.
Their other targets are said to have included Germany, France and Portugal.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Book to be published about Islamic oppression of women -- fear of Muslim outrage
There is no Muslim outrage about this book yet, but the fear of it is palpable enough for the Sunday Times to write an article about it. And if that outrage does indeed materialize, this will be yet another case, as here and here and here, of Muslims becoming outraged over accurate representations of Islamic texts and teachings. "Fears of Muslim anger over religious book," by Christine Toomey in The Sunday Times,
An academic book about religious attitudes to women is to be published this week despite concerns it could cause a backlash among Muslims because it criticises the prophet Muhammad for taking a nine-year-old girl as his third wife.
Why is there no Muslim backlash against the Bukhari hadith collection (the collection of Islamic tradition that Muslims consider most reliable), which reports the same thing in no less than five places? Find it at 5.58.234; 5.58.236; 7.62.64; 7.62.65; and 7.62.88.
The book, entitled Does God Hate Women?, suggests that Muhammad's marriage to a child called Aisha is "not entirely compatible with the idea that he had the best interests of women at heart".
Not entirely, indeed. And the response Muslim women deserve is not outrage at the book, but reform where child marriage is rampant, and reform of other elements of Islam that oppress women. But nothing seems much less likely.
It also says that Cherie Blair, wife of the former prime minister, was "incorrect" when she defended Islam in a lecture by claiming "it is not laid down in the Koran that women can be beaten by their husbands and their evidence should be devalued as it is in some Islamic courts"....
Indeed, she was wrong. Wife-beating is in Qur'an 4:34 and the devaluing of testimony is in Qur'an 2:282. So now there will be a "backlash" because truth rather than falsehood is revealed?
Continuum's book may cause a backlash because it sets out to be a factual examination of religious attitudes to women. British writer Jeremy Stangroom and his American co-author Ophelia Benson, whose previous books on philosophy and science have received favourable reviews, cite ancient Islamic scholars to support their case. They roundly attack previous attempts to "soft-soap" the controversial episode in Muhammad's life. In the aftermath of 9/11, the authors argue, a wave of political correctness aimed at building bridges with the Muslim world has meant accusations of "Islamophobia" have been used to silence debate about the morality of social conduct, past and present....
Quite so. Read it all.
An academic book about religious attitudes to women is to be published this week despite concerns it could cause a backlash among Muslims because it criticises the prophet Muhammad for taking a nine-year-old girl as his third wife.
Why is there no Muslim backlash against the Bukhari hadith collection (the collection of Islamic tradition that Muslims consider most reliable), which reports the same thing in no less than five places? Find it at 5.58.234; 5.58.236; 7.62.64; 7.62.65; and 7.62.88.
The book, entitled Does God Hate Women?, suggests that Muhammad's marriage to a child called Aisha is "not entirely compatible with the idea that he had the best interests of women at heart".
Not entirely, indeed. And the response Muslim women deserve is not outrage at the book, but reform where child marriage is rampant, and reform of other elements of Islam that oppress women. But nothing seems much less likely.
It also says that Cherie Blair, wife of the former prime minister, was "incorrect" when she defended Islam in a lecture by claiming "it is not laid down in the Koran that women can be beaten by their husbands and their evidence should be devalued as it is in some Islamic courts"....
Indeed, she was wrong. Wife-beating is in Qur'an 4:34 and the devaluing of testimony is in Qur'an 2:282. So now there will be a "backlash" because truth rather than falsehood is revealed?
Continuum's book may cause a backlash because it sets out to be a factual examination of religious attitudes to women. British writer Jeremy Stangroom and his American co-author Ophelia Benson, whose previous books on philosophy and science have received favourable reviews, cite ancient Islamic scholars to support their case. They roundly attack previous attempts to "soft-soap" the controversial episode in Muhammad's life. In the aftermath of 9/11, the authors argue, a wave of political correctness aimed at building bridges with the Muslim world has meant accusations of "Islamophobia" have been used to silence debate about the morality of social conduct, past and present....
Quite so. Read it all.
BBC Set Muslim TV Character Up for 'Gay Finale'...
EastEnders newcomer Marc Elliott is to star in a controversial storyline which sees his Muslim character Syed Masood kiss another man.
Syed, the oldest Masood child, will kiss openly homosexual character Christian Clarke (John Partridge) in a new plot, which starts next month.
After the BBC confirmed the new storyline this week, some Muslim bodies have already criticised the plot.
Warwickshire-born actor Elliott, who joined EastEnders as the Masood's mysterious long-lost son in April, has praised the soap's writers for tackling a sensitive subject.
He said: 'I think EastEnders would be doing the programme a disservice if they didn't give a voice to various communities.
'I think that's really important because I think London is a very ethnically diverse multicultural place, and EastEnders has a job to reflect that in the storylines it gives people and the characters they have on board.'
Asghar Bokhari from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said: 'The Muslim community deserves a character that represents them to the wider public because Islamophobia is so great right now.
'There's a lack of understanding of Muslims already and I think EastEnders really lost an opportunity to present a normal friendly Muslim character to the British public.'
The soap's executive producer Diedrick Santer, said he believes the controversial issue needs to be highlighted, despite risk of offending some religious viewers.
Upset: Muslim couple Masood Ahmed (Nitin Ganatra) and Zainab Masood (Nina Wadia) are likely to disapprove of their son's sexuality
He said: 'Sometimes there's a danger of being too careful with black or Asian characters that we might go into territories that might offend.
'But it seems to me if we steer away from any controversy, they don't stand a chance of being a great EastEnders family - they'll just be in their kitchen unit making curries for years and years and that's not going to be very interesting.
'This isn't a moral tale of right or wrong; it's very much a human interest story where a young man struggles with the conflict between his faith and his feelings.
'This is not a story about Syed and Christian's physical relationship - we don't see anything beyond one kiss.
'It's more about the inner turmoil and conflict Syed endures trying to remain true to his faith while questioning his sexuality.'
Syed, the oldest Masood child, will kiss openly homosexual character Christian Clarke (John Partridge) in a new plot, which starts next month.
After the BBC confirmed the new storyline this week, some Muslim bodies have already criticised the plot.
Warwickshire-born actor Elliott, who joined EastEnders as the Masood's mysterious long-lost son in April, has praised the soap's writers for tackling a sensitive subject.
He said: 'I think EastEnders would be doing the programme a disservice if they didn't give a voice to various communities.
'I think that's really important because I think London is a very ethnically diverse multicultural place, and EastEnders has a job to reflect that in the storylines it gives people and the characters they have on board.'
Asghar Bokhari from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee said: 'The Muslim community deserves a character that represents them to the wider public because Islamophobia is so great right now.
'There's a lack of understanding of Muslims already and I think EastEnders really lost an opportunity to present a normal friendly Muslim character to the British public.'
The soap's executive producer Diedrick Santer, said he believes the controversial issue needs to be highlighted, despite risk of offending some religious viewers.
Upset: Muslim couple Masood Ahmed (Nitin Ganatra) and Zainab Masood (Nina Wadia) are likely to disapprove of their son's sexuality
He said: 'Sometimes there's a danger of being too careful with black or Asian characters that we might go into territories that might offend.
'But it seems to me if we steer away from any controversy, they don't stand a chance of being a great EastEnders family - they'll just be in their kitchen unit making curries for years and years and that's not going to be very interesting.
'This isn't a moral tale of right or wrong; it's very much a human interest story where a young man struggles with the conflict between his faith and his feelings.
'This is not a story about Syed and Christian's physical relationship - we don't see anything beyond one kiss.
'It's more about the inner turmoil and conflict Syed endures trying to remain true to his faith while questioning his sexuality.'
(Ireland) Muslim Uses Laser to Disorient Pilots During Landing...
Hossein Hosseiny briefly illuminated the cockpit of the Dublin to Cardiff aircraft which was carrying 52 people on board on the evening of March 8.
The pilot said the actions of the 21-year-old father-to-be from the Countisbury Avenue area of Llanrumney, Cardiff, caused a "momentary loss of concentration" during his approach to the runway due to a "dazzling green light".
The incident was reported immediately by the pilot to air traffic control and Hosseiny, a failed asylum seeker from Afghanistan, was arrested soon after in the nearby Porthkerry Park area of Barry.
Prosecutor David Thomas told Cardiff Crown Court that, during a search, officers found Hosseiny in a car intoxicated with a friend. Cannabis was also found in the vehicle which Hosseiny later admitted supplying to his friend.
In interview, the defendant told the police he had taken to selling cannabis as a means of funding his own habit.
At a previous court hearing, Hosseiny pleaded guilty to endangering the safety of an aircraft and supplying drugs.
Jeremy Jenkins, defending, said Hosseiny entered the UK in December 2002 at the age of 15 and became an asylum seeker.
The following year his application for asylum was refused after which he was granted exceptional leave to remain in the UK.
He has since been served with a deportation notice.
Mr Jenkins said his client initially found work in Swindon before settling in the south Wales area where he now has a heavily pregnant girlfriend.
"His future is uncertain," said Mr Jenkins. "He has had a very difficult upbringing and hasn't seen what remains of his family for seven years.
"He believes his mother is alive but he does not know her whereabouts."
Mr Jenkins said Hosseiny was fully aware a custodial sentence was inevitable.
Referring to the laser, the barrister added: "It didn't follow the aircraft; it was as if it (the plane) passed in and out of the beam."
Judge Eleri Rees said: "On March 8, intoxicated with alcohol and drugs, you pointed a green laser pen in various directions when an aircraft was approaching Cardiff airport.
"The pilot said you shone it into the cockpit, albeit for a few seconds, and it caused a loss of concentration.
"The consequences of such an action could have been catastrophic. Fortunately there was no catastrophe and the aircraft landed safely."
She added: "Those who deliberately aim such pens into the cockpit of an aircraft or helicopter should expect a custodial sentence."
For supplying drugs, Hosseiny was given a six month jail sentence. He was given a consecutive sentence of four months imprisonment for endangering the safety of an aircraft.
Judge Rees said she would not make an order to deport the defendant.
"I will leave it to the authorities to determine whether you are deported or not," she said.
She also ordered that the 79 days Hosseiny has spent on remand since his arrest will be deducted from his sentence.
The pilot said the actions of the 21-year-old father-to-be from the Countisbury Avenue area of Llanrumney, Cardiff, caused a "momentary loss of concentration" during his approach to the runway due to a "dazzling green light".
The incident was reported immediately by the pilot to air traffic control and Hosseiny, a failed asylum seeker from Afghanistan, was arrested soon after in the nearby Porthkerry Park area of Barry.
Prosecutor David Thomas told Cardiff Crown Court that, during a search, officers found Hosseiny in a car intoxicated with a friend. Cannabis was also found in the vehicle which Hosseiny later admitted supplying to his friend.
In interview, the defendant told the police he had taken to selling cannabis as a means of funding his own habit.
At a previous court hearing, Hosseiny pleaded guilty to endangering the safety of an aircraft and supplying drugs.
Jeremy Jenkins, defending, said Hosseiny entered the UK in December 2002 at the age of 15 and became an asylum seeker.
The following year his application for asylum was refused after which he was granted exceptional leave to remain in the UK.
He has since been served with a deportation notice.
Mr Jenkins said his client initially found work in Swindon before settling in the south Wales area where he now has a heavily pregnant girlfriend.
"His future is uncertain," said Mr Jenkins. "He has had a very difficult upbringing and hasn't seen what remains of his family for seven years.
"He believes his mother is alive but he does not know her whereabouts."
Mr Jenkins said Hosseiny was fully aware a custodial sentence was inevitable.
Referring to the laser, the barrister added: "It didn't follow the aircraft; it was as if it (the plane) passed in and out of the beam."
Judge Eleri Rees said: "On March 8, intoxicated with alcohol and drugs, you pointed a green laser pen in various directions when an aircraft was approaching Cardiff airport.
"The pilot said you shone it into the cockpit, albeit for a few seconds, and it caused a loss of concentration.
"The consequences of such an action could have been catastrophic. Fortunately there was no catastrophe and the aircraft landed safely."
She added: "Those who deliberately aim such pens into the cockpit of an aircraft or helicopter should expect a custodial sentence."
For supplying drugs, Hosseiny was given a six month jail sentence. He was given a consecutive sentence of four months imprisonment for endangering the safety of an aircraft.
Judge Rees said she would not make an order to deport the defendant.
"I will leave it to the authorities to determine whether you are deported or not," she said.
She also ordered that the 79 days Hosseiny has spent on remand since his arrest will be deducted from his sentence.
BBC Knuckles Under to Muslim Council...
The BBC has offered to pay £30,000 and apologise to the Muslim Council of Britain after airing claims that it encourages the killing of British troops.
The Corporation caved in after a panellist on the Question Time TV programme accused the country's most influential Muslim organisation of failing to condemn attacks on soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The broadcaster was threatened with legal action over comments by former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore during a debate about Islamic protests which marred a soldiers' homecoming parade in Luton.
Mr Moore blamed the MCB's leadership for its apparent reluctance to condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers overseas. He went on to claim that it thought it was a 'good thing' to kill troops.
Faced with the threat of a writ, the BBC made an offer of 'amends' and an apology on the Question Time website. But this has been rejected and the MCB is demanding an apology on air.
The Corporation's decision to pay out will raise eyebrows in Whitehall, where ministers have refused to settle a similar defamation claim over a letter written by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears.
A BBC insider said the move has also angered Mr Moore, who was not consulted over the legal response to the complaint or even informed that an offer to settle had been made.
Question Time is recorded an hour before broadcast specifically so that legal advisers can check its content for possible libels.
No legal worries were expressed over Mr Moore's remarks, which were seen as provocative but not defamatory.
Apology for one and not the other: Charles Moore's words compared to Hazel Blears's letter
The row dates back to March 12 when Mr Moore appeared on the BBC1 show.
The panel was debating protests by a group of Islamic extremists during a homecoming parade by the Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton two days earlier.
Muslim extremists heckled the troops and waved placards which read 'Butchers of Basra' and 'British Government: Terrorist Government'.
All the panellists condemned the protesters, but political biographer Mr Moore took the opportunity to attack the MCB.
He said: 'The Muslim Council of Britain, which is the umbrella organisation for all Muslim groups in this country, I've gone to them many times, and I said will you condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they won't.
'But there is a bigger, another step that they take, they say it is actually a good thing, even an Islamic thing, to kill or kidnap British soldiers.'
The MCB's leadership described Mr Moore's claims as a 'total lie'.
Last night secretary general Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari said: 'These kinds of statements are very damaging, and we received many complaints from our Muslim supporters who said they were extremely offended by the comments.
'In fact when a British man called Ken Bigley was kidnapped in Iraq, we sent envoys there to plead for his release. This is accusing us of encouraging terrorism abroad.'
The MCB engaged costly libel lawyers Carter-Ruck, who wrote a formal letter of complaint.
Question Time, chaired by David Dimbleby (above), is recorded an hour before broadcast so that legal advisers can check its content for possible libels
Last night it emerged that the BBC decided to offer to settle amid fears that the Corporation had libelled Dr Abdul Bari even though he was not mentioned by name.
A BBC spokesman said: 'Question Time always has lively and wide-ranging debate. On occasion this results in unfairness to individuals who aren't there to put their point of view and this is one of those occasions.'
The separate row between the MCB's deputy secretary general Dr Daud Abdullah and Miss Blears centres on a document relating to the recent conflict in Gaza which was signed by Dr Abdullah.
In March, Miss Blears interpreted the document as justifying attacks on the Royal Navy and wrote to The Guardian to explain her concerns.
A solicitor's letter was sent on behalf of Dr Daud Abdullah demanding she pay £75,000 by last month or face full legal proceedings. But she refused to do so and no further correspondence has been received.
The Corporation caved in after a panellist on the Question Time TV programme accused the country's most influential Muslim organisation of failing to condemn attacks on soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The broadcaster was threatened with legal action over comments by former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore during a debate about Islamic protests which marred a soldiers' homecoming parade in Luton.
Mr Moore blamed the MCB's leadership for its apparent reluctance to condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers overseas. He went on to claim that it thought it was a 'good thing' to kill troops.
Faced with the threat of a writ, the BBC made an offer of 'amends' and an apology on the Question Time website. But this has been rejected and the MCB is demanding an apology on air.
The Corporation's decision to pay out will raise eyebrows in Whitehall, where ministers have refused to settle a similar defamation claim over a letter written by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears.
A BBC insider said the move has also angered Mr Moore, who was not consulted over the legal response to the complaint or even informed that an offer to settle had been made.
Question Time is recorded an hour before broadcast specifically so that legal advisers can check its content for possible libels.
No legal worries were expressed over Mr Moore's remarks, which were seen as provocative but not defamatory.
Apology for one and not the other: Charles Moore's words compared to Hazel Blears's letter
The row dates back to March 12 when Mr Moore appeared on the BBC1 show.
The panel was debating protests by a group of Islamic extremists during a homecoming parade by the Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton two days earlier.
Muslim extremists heckled the troops and waved placards which read 'Butchers of Basra' and 'British Government: Terrorist Government'.
All the panellists condemned the protesters, but political biographer Mr Moore took the opportunity to attack the MCB.
He said: 'The Muslim Council of Britain, which is the umbrella organisation for all Muslim groups in this country, I've gone to them many times, and I said will you condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they won't.
'But there is a bigger, another step that they take, they say it is actually a good thing, even an Islamic thing, to kill or kidnap British soldiers.'
The MCB's leadership described Mr Moore's claims as a 'total lie'.
Last night secretary general Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari said: 'These kinds of statements are very damaging, and we received many complaints from our Muslim supporters who said they were extremely offended by the comments.
'In fact when a British man called Ken Bigley was kidnapped in Iraq, we sent envoys there to plead for his release. This is accusing us of encouraging terrorism abroad.'
The MCB engaged costly libel lawyers Carter-Ruck, who wrote a formal letter of complaint.
Question Time, chaired by David Dimbleby (above), is recorded an hour before broadcast so that legal advisers can check its content for possible libels
Last night it emerged that the BBC decided to offer to settle amid fears that the Corporation had libelled Dr Abdul Bari even though he was not mentioned by name.
A BBC spokesman said: 'Question Time always has lively and wide-ranging debate. On occasion this results in unfairness to individuals who aren't there to put their point of view and this is one of those occasions.'
The separate row between the MCB's deputy secretary general Dr Daud Abdullah and Miss Blears centres on a document relating to the recent conflict in Gaza which was signed by Dr Abdullah.
In March, Miss Blears interpreted the document as justifying attacks on the Royal Navy and wrote to The Guardian to explain her concerns.
A solicitor's letter was sent on behalf of Dr Daud Abdullah demanding she pay £75,000 by last month or face full legal proceedings. But she refused to do so and no further correspondence has been received.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Mother Forces Teen Daughters to Marry Cousins...
A 'wicked and cruel' mother has been jailed for three years after forcing her two young daughters to marry their cousins in Pakistan.
The Muslim woman hoodwinked the pair, aged 14 and 15, into thinking they were going on a family holiday.
But when the schoolgirls arrived they discovered preparations were being made for them to marry their first cousins in a joint ceremony.
Yesterday, in what is being seen as a landmark case, a judge condemned the mother's actions and claimed she had been 'wholly misguided'.
She was convicted of child sex offences and attempting to pervert the course of justice as there is no current law which bans forced marriage.
Judge Clement Goldstone QC told the woman: 'Everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs and is to be encouraged to practise in accordance with those beliefs and to live a life which embraces the culture of those beliefs.
'But those who choose to live in this country and who, like you, are British subjects, must not abandon our laws in the practice of those beliefs and that culture.
'If they do, they will face the consequences.'
Manchester Crown Court heard the two sisters were forced to marry their cousins in July 2007.
After the ceremony the 39-year-old mother told her elder daughter that unless she consumated the marriage, she would 'tie her to the bed, blindfold her and strip her' and watch to make sure she had sex with her new husband.
She was arrested when her daughters confided in their teachers in February last year, after returning to the UK. Both sisters were taken into care. None of those involved in the case can be identified.
The court heard the defendant had acted to protect her family's reputation in the Muslim community after the elder girl became pregnant and had an abortion following a relationship with an older man.
Judge Goldstone told the woman: 'It seems to be the case that you did not realise that what you did was wicked.
'You probably thought then and you continue to think now that even forced marriage was in the best interests of your daughters - one of whom in any case was a handful and who was not toeing the traditional line. That is a wholly misguided view.
'Forced marriage is cruel. It deprives children, your children, of their basic human rights.
\
'It must be and will be distinguished by the courts from arranged marriage, which is conventional in many cultures, and in which these basic rights are preserved.'
Plans to make forced marriage a specific criminal offence were proposed in 2004 but were dropped by ministers after a backlash.
The Muslim Council of Britain opposed the plan, claiming it could lead to the Muslim community being further 'stigmatised'.
Ministers admitted they feared a new law would be 'resented as an intrusion into minority cultures and religions'.
Currently police take action against individuals for the crimes they commit when forcing someone into marriage, such as assault, kidnap, abduction or sexual offences.
A victim, friend or police can also apply for a Forced Marriage Protection Order which forbids families from taking anyone abroad for marriage, seizing passports or intimidating victims.
Penalties for breaching an order include up to two years' imprisonment.
The Muslim woman hoodwinked the pair, aged 14 and 15, into thinking they were going on a family holiday.
But when the schoolgirls arrived they discovered preparations were being made for them to marry their first cousins in a joint ceremony.
Yesterday, in what is being seen as a landmark case, a judge condemned the mother's actions and claimed she had been 'wholly misguided'.
She was convicted of child sex offences and attempting to pervert the course of justice as there is no current law which bans forced marriage.
Judge Clement Goldstone QC told the woman: 'Everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs and is to be encouraged to practise in accordance with those beliefs and to live a life which embraces the culture of those beliefs.
'But those who choose to live in this country and who, like you, are British subjects, must not abandon our laws in the practice of those beliefs and that culture.
'If they do, they will face the consequences.'
Manchester Crown Court heard the two sisters were forced to marry their cousins in July 2007.
After the ceremony the 39-year-old mother told her elder daughter that unless she consumated the marriage, she would 'tie her to the bed, blindfold her and strip her' and watch to make sure she had sex with her new husband.
She was arrested when her daughters confided in their teachers in February last year, after returning to the UK. Both sisters were taken into care. None of those involved in the case can be identified.
The court heard the defendant had acted to protect her family's reputation in the Muslim community after the elder girl became pregnant and had an abortion following a relationship with an older man.
Judge Goldstone told the woman: 'It seems to be the case that you did not realise that what you did was wicked.
'You probably thought then and you continue to think now that even forced marriage was in the best interests of your daughters - one of whom in any case was a handful and who was not toeing the traditional line. That is a wholly misguided view.
'Forced marriage is cruel. It deprives children, your children, of their basic human rights.
\
'It must be and will be distinguished by the courts from arranged marriage, which is conventional in many cultures, and in which these basic rights are preserved.'
Plans to make forced marriage a specific criminal offence were proposed in 2004 but were dropped by ministers after a backlash.
The Muslim Council of Britain opposed the plan, claiming it could lead to the Muslim community being further 'stigmatised'.
Ministers admitted they feared a new law would be 'resented as an intrusion into minority cultures and religions'.
Currently police take action against individuals for the crimes they commit when forcing someone into marriage, such as assault, kidnap, abduction or sexual offences.
A victim, friend or police can also apply for a Forced Marriage Protection Order which forbids families from taking anyone abroad for marriage, seizing passports or intimidating victims.
Penalties for breaching an order include up to two years' imprisonment.
Police chief Ali Dizaei charged with perverting course of justice over restaurant arrest
One of Britain's most senior ethnic minority police officers is to face a second trial for alleged corruption.
Commander Ali Dizaei - who has had a controversial history in the Metropolitan Police - was yesterday charged with misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice.
The charges, which carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, were announced by the Crown Prosecution Service six years after the £90,000-a-year officer was cleared of similar offences at the Old Bailey.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, was consulted over the case and, according to colleagues, 'fully supports' the decision to put the Iranian-born officer on trial again.
Commander Ali Dizaei was cleared on similar charges six years ago
The decision is a major embarrassment to the Metropolitan Police Authority, which promoted Dizaei to commander only 14 months ago.
Three-times-married Dizaei, 47, who as president of the National Black Police Association has been an outspoken critic of alleged racism at Scotland Yard, was suspended on full pay last September when three separate inquiries were launched into his conduct.
The other probes concern his use of a force credit card and his relationship with a defence solicitor.
The criminal charges follow an investigation by officials at the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
The claims are linked to an incident outside the Middle Eastern Yas restaurant in Kensington, West London, in July last year.
Dizaei, who was wearing his police uniform, arrested a young businessman after a row in which he claimed he was poked with the mouthpiece of a hookah water pipe.
The businessman disputed Dizaei's account of the arrest and was not charged with any offence.
As part of the criminal inquiry into Dizaei, investigators examined CCTV footage from the scene.
Solicitor Gaon Hart, of the CPS special crime division, said: 'These charges relate to an incident in which Mr Dizaei arrested a man on allegations including assault. A decision not to charge that individual was made by the CPS in August 2008.
'Following an investigation by the IPCC, a file was submitted to me in November 2008. I asked the IPCC to undertake further inquiries and I received the results of those inquiries this month.'
It is thought the trial will take place early next year but battle lines were being drawn within hours of the CPS announcement yesterday.
Dizaei's close friend Alfred John, the chairman of the Metropolitan Black Police Association, said the allegations were 'outrageous'.
The former electrician - who is a civilian worker, not a police officer - said his friend and colleague was 'fully vindicated' in 2003.
He questioned the motives of his accusers and highlighted the cost to the taxpayer.
Mr John said: 'We will call to account those who use the public purse and the law to settle their personal vendettas.'
Dizaei is being represented by Left-wing barrister Michael Mansfield QC, who is returning to the criminal courts from retirement. His solicitor is Imran Khan, best known for his work with the family of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.
Mr Khan said: 'Commander Dizaei is naturally disappointed with the Crown Prosecution Service's decision.
'He strenuously denies the allegations against him but is confident his name will be cleared.'
Dizaei stood trial at the Old Bailey in 2003 after being accused of perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. It was claimed he lied about vandalism to his car. He was cleared on both counts.
The case was brought in the wake of a massive multi-million-pound secret undercover operation known as Operation Helios. Dizaei was awarded £60,000 in compensation and reinstated to the force.
Two years ago he published a book, titled Not One of Us, which went into great detail about Operation Helios, causing further ill-feeling against him inside the force.
Last December, Dizaei launched a race claim of his own against Scotland Yard, claiming 'systematic' discrimination.
Dizaei was formally charged with offences of misconduct in a public office and doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice after attending Bishopsgate police station in the City of London yesterday afternoon.
He is due to appear before City of Westminster magistrates on June 3.
Commander Ali Dizaei - who has had a controversial history in the Metropolitan Police - was yesterday charged with misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice.
The charges, which carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, were announced by the Crown Prosecution Service six years after the £90,000-a-year officer was cleared of similar offences at the Old Bailey.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, was consulted over the case and, according to colleagues, 'fully supports' the decision to put the Iranian-born officer on trial again.
Commander Ali Dizaei was cleared on similar charges six years ago
The decision is a major embarrassment to the Metropolitan Police Authority, which promoted Dizaei to commander only 14 months ago.
Three-times-married Dizaei, 47, who as president of the National Black Police Association has been an outspoken critic of alleged racism at Scotland Yard, was suspended on full pay last September when three separate inquiries were launched into his conduct.
The other probes concern his use of a force credit card and his relationship with a defence solicitor.
The criminal charges follow an investigation by officials at the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
The claims are linked to an incident outside the Middle Eastern Yas restaurant in Kensington, West London, in July last year.
Dizaei, who was wearing his police uniform, arrested a young businessman after a row in which he claimed he was poked with the mouthpiece of a hookah water pipe.
The businessman disputed Dizaei's account of the arrest and was not charged with any offence.
As part of the criminal inquiry into Dizaei, investigators examined CCTV footage from the scene.
Solicitor Gaon Hart, of the CPS special crime division, said: 'These charges relate to an incident in which Mr Dizaei arrested a man on allegations including assault. A decision not to charge that individual was made by the CPS in August 2008.
'Following an investigation by the IPCC, a file was submitted to me in November 2008. I asked the IPCC to undertake further inquiries and I received the results of those inquiries this month.'
It is thought the trial will take place early next year but battle lines were being drawn within hours of the CPS announcement yesterday.
Dizaei's close friend Alfred John, the chairman of the Metropolitan Black Police Association, said the allegations were 'outrageous'.
The former electrician - who is a civilian worker, not a police officer - said his friend and colleague was 'fully vindicated' in 2003.
He questioned the motives of his accusers and highlighted the cost to the taxpayer.
Mr John said: 'We will call to account those who use the public purse and the law to settle their personal vendettas.'
Dizaei is being represented by Left-wing barrister Michael Mansfield QC, who is returning to the criminal courts from retirement. His solicitor is Imran Khan, best known for his work with the family of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.
Mr Khan said: 'Commander Dizaei is naturally disappointed with the Crown Prosecution Service's decision.
'He strenuously denies the allegations against him but is confident his name will be cleared.'
Dizaei stood trial at the Old Bailey in 2003 after being accused of perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. It was claimed he lied about vandalism to his car. He was cleared on both counts.
The case was brought in the wake of a massive multi-million-pound secret undercover operation known as Operation Helios. Dizaei was awarded £60,000 in compensation and reinstated to the force.
Two years ago he published a book, titled Not One of Us, which went into great detail about Operation Helios, causing further ill-feeling against him inside the force.
Last December, Dizaei launched a race claim of his own against Scotland Yard, claiming 'systematic' discrimination.
Dizaei was formally charged with offences of misconduct in a public office and doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice after attending Bishopsgate police station in the City of London yesterday afternoon.
He is due to appear before City of Westminster magistrates on June 3.
Man guilty of murdering sisters
A man who repeatedly stabbed two sisters in their Birmingham flat has been found guilty of their murders.
Mohammed Ali, 29, of Old Snow Hill, used three knives to inflict a total of 37 wounds on Yasmine, 22, and Sabrina Larbi-Cherif, 19, last September.
Birmingham Crown Court heard he had been in a relationship with Yasmine.
Ali, whose own barrister described him as a hateful individual, had admitted manslaughter but denied murder. He will be sentenced at a later date.
The sisters' bodies were found with multiple stab wounds on 14 September 2008.
The detective in charge of the case, Det Ch Insp Joanne Clews, described Ali as an "evil monster", while defence barrister Michael Bromley-Martin QC told the jury the 29-year-old was perhaps the most "hateful individual" they would come across.
'Swathe' of blood
The court heard that Yasmine, a salsa dancer originally from Algeria, met Ali in 2006 and became pregnant by him twice, resulting in two terminations.
She had also accused him of rape, but later withdrew the charge.
Prosecutor David Crigman QC said their relationship had been "foundering" before the killings.
The trial was told that Ali used three knives to stab Yasmine twice and inflict 35 separate knife wounds on her sister, who was due to start at university, leaving behind a scene of carnage.
Prosecutor David Crigman QC had told the trial that Ali stabbed both women in the lounge before dragging their bodies into a bedroom, leaving a "swathe" of blood on the floor.
He said Ali knew exactly what he was doing and added: "Even if there was an element of provocation from either of the girls... no reasonable man would have reacted in the way that this man did."
He added that Ali had twice gone to the kitchen to rearm himself after breaking two of the knives he was using.
"He had left behind a scene of carnage," he said.
'Barbaric' killer
Yasmine had also undergone "a beating", Mr Crigman said, suffering wounds to her arm and wrist and an 8in (20cm) stab wound to her back which entered her heart.
He said Sabrina's wounds were mostly inflicted with precision, rather than anger, leading to the loss of all of her blood.
Ali was arrested in Dover, Kent, on 16 September, two days after the sisters' bodies were found partially naked in their flat at the Jupiter apartments.
They were last seen alive at 2200 BST on 13 September.
Their bodies were found after relatives became concerned that they had not been in touch.
CCTV images seen by the jury showed Ali leaving the apartment with a carrier bag - thought to contain his bloodstained clothes - at about 1300 BST on Sunday 14 September.
Mr Crigman added that the sisters' mother had found the trial so distressing she had returned to the family home in London and was not in court when Ali was found guilty.
The prosecutor asked for time for the family to "consider the position" and to prepare victim statements for the judge before sentencing.
A statement issued by the family said the verdict would not bring back their "angels" but would ensure their "barbaric" killer would stay behind bars for a long time.
Ali had claimed in court that he had been provoked, but a jury took three hours and 20 minutes to convict him of murder.
Mohammed Ali, 29, of Old Snow Hill, used three knives to inflict a total of 37 wounds on Yasmine, 22, and Sabrina Larbi-Cherif, 19, last September.
Birmingham Crown Court heard he had been in a relationship with Yasmine.
Ali, whose own barrister described him as a hateful individual, had admitted manslaughter but denied murder. He will be sentenced at a later date.
The sisters' bodies were found with multiple stab wounds on 14 September 2008.
The detective in charge of the case, Det Ch Insp Joanne Clews, described Ali as an "evil monster", while defence barrister Michael Bromley-Martin QC told the jury the 29-year-old was perhaps the most "hateful individual" they would come across.
'Swathe' of blood
The court heard that Yasmine, a salsa dancer originally from Algeria, met Ali in 2006 and became pregnant by him twice, resulting in two terminations.
She had also accused him of rape, but later withdrew the charge.
Prosecutor David Crigman QC said their relationship had been "foundering" before the killings.
The trial was told that Ali used three knives to stab Yasmine twice and inflict 35 separate knife wounds on her sister, who was due to start at university, leaving behind a scene of carnage.
Prosecutor David Crigman QC had told the trial that Ali stabbed both women in the lounge before dragging their bodies into a bedroom, leaving a "swathe" of blood on the floor.
He said Ali knew exactly what he was doing and added: "Even if there was an element of provocation from either of the girls... no reasonable man would have reacted in the way that this man did."
He added that Ali had twice gone to the kitchen to rearm himself after breaking two of the knives he was using.
"He had left behind a scene of carnage," he said.
'Barbaric' killer
Yasmine had also undergone "a beating", Mr Crigman said, suffering wounds to her arm and wrist and an 8in (20cm) stab wound to her back which entered her heart.
He said Sabrina's wounds were mostly inflicted with precision, rather than anger, leading to the loss of all of her blood.
Ali was arrested in Dover, Kent, on 16 September, two days after the sisters' bodies were found partially naked in their flat at the Jupiter apartments.
They were last seen alive at 2200 BST on 13 September.
Their bodies were found after relatives became concerned that they had not been in touch.
CCTV images seen by the jury showed Ali leaving the apartment with a carrier bag - thought to contain his bloodstained clothes - at about 1300 BST on Sunday 14 September.
Mr Crigman added that the sisters' mother had found the trial so distressing she had returned to the family home in London and was not in court when Ali was found guilty.
The prosecutor asked for time for the family to "consider the position" and to prepare victim statements for the judge before sentencing.
A statement issued by the family said the verdict would not bring back their "angels" but would ensure their "barbaric" killer would stay behind bars for a long time.
Ali had claimed in court that he had been provoked, but a jury took three hours and 20 minutes to convict him of murder.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
12-Year-Old Boy Gropes Kafir Women on His Way to Mosque...
A 12-year-old schoolboy who sexually assaulted two women in their early 20s was caught when they recognised his uniform.
The boy, now aged 13, approached the women and said things like “you are cute” and “can I have a hug?” before grabbing their breasts and running away.
At St Albans Magistrates Court, sitting as a juvenile court on Wednesday, the boy admitted committing two sexual assaults in Hatfield Road, near the junction with Sandfield Road on Monday, July 7, and Wednesday, July 16.
The boy denied assaulting another woman, and the matter was not proceeded with by the prosecution in light of the two guilty pleas.
When police interviewed the boy, who was identified by the women, he initially denied the allegations, saying he was on the way to the mosque at the time.
Dan Green, for the defence, said the boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was capable of knowing what he did was wrong, but had difficulty suppressing his sexual urges.
Mr Green said: “He is able to understand what he has done, but his biological urges are more advanced than he has the mental capacity to deal with. But when he is told he has done wrong he knows that he has.”
District Judge Alison adjourned the case for sentence until Thursday, July 9, to enable the boy to be interviewed by the youth offending team (YOT).
She said: “There are only one or two options available. There are certain measures in place with the school at the moment, but whether they are sufficient or not to satisfy the court needs to be fully documented by a report from the youth offending team.”
The boy, now aged 13, approached the women and said things like “you are cute” and “can I have a hug?” before grabbing their breasts and running away.
At St Albans Magistrates Court, sitting as a juvenile court on Wednesday, the boy admitted committing two sexual assaults in Hatfield Road, near the junction with Sandfield Road on Monday, July 7, and Wednesday, July 16.
The boy denied assaulting another woman, and the matter was not proceeded with by the prosecution in light of the two guilty pleas.
When police interviewed the boy, who was identified by the women, he initially denied the allegations, saying he was on the way to the mosque at the time.
Dan Green, for the defence, said the boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was capable of knowing what he did was wrong, but had difficulty suppressing his sexual urges.
Mr Green said: “He is able to understand what he has done, but his biological urges are more advanced than he has the mental capacity to deal with. But when he is told he has done wrong he knows that he has.”
District Judge Alison adjourned the case for sentence until Thursday, July 9, to enable the boy to be interviewed by the youth offending team (YOT).
She said: “There are only one or two options available. There are certain measures in place with the school at the moment, but whether they are sufficient or not to satisfy the court needs to be fully documented by a report from the youth offending team.”
Monday, May 18, 2009
'I was groomed for jihad in Britain'
A Muslim teenager in London gives the first inside account of how extremists are luring recruits
A TEENAGER has revealed how he was recruited by Al-Qaeda-inspired extremists and groomed to carry out suicide attacks in Britain.
In the first insider account of how radicals are preying on vulnerable Muslim youths, the teenager describes being approached by Islamists at a mosque in south London that was used by the failed 21/7 bombers, and indoctrinated at a secret network of squats.
Aged 15, he was the youngest of about 50 recruits who were shown “martyrdom” videos and encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive terrorist training.
The youth, who is called Adam, told The Sunday Times: “They showed us a jihadist video with the martyrdom flags behind the guy speaking, and the message I got was that I should prepare myself for martyrdom.
“I know a few of the others accepted that they would go [for training in Pakistan]. Some of the young people said, ‘I’m going to go’. That was the ultimate purpose of what these men were doing: what they were doing was training people up to carry out operations in the UK.”
Adam, who is now 18, quit the group after a year. The whereabouts of most of the other recruits is unknown.
“It was quite shocking to me,” he said. “I started to think, ‘Well, hold on a second, I don’t want to kill anybody. Yeah, I’ve got anger inside me, but this isn’t the right way to deal with this’.”
Adam, whose real name is being withheld to protect his safety, is now enrolled in a rehabilitation programme for would-be terrorists.
The scheme is a blueprint for a nationwide “detoxification” programme backed by the Home Office and police chiefs to which 200 people — some as young 13 — have been referred.
When Adam fell under the spell of extremists at the Stockwell mosque in Lambeth in 2005, he was floundering at school, had few friends and was desperately in need of some direction.
He was the eldest of seven children whose Algerian father had died when he was just eight, and his new friends’ talk of Muslim brotherhood seemed to offer the stability he craved.
“A lot of people think that terrorists are recruited in special recruiting grounds, but the truth is that it actually goes on in mosques a lot of the time,” said the gangly south London teenager.
“You’ll go to pray and there’ll be small groups of people just away from the main group in the mosque having their own discussion, talking about jihad and all these types of things.
“They started talking to me about what’s going on in Iraq and about how all the people are dying and then they started inviting me to religious talks.”
The Stockwell mosque had previously been attended by Muktar Ibrahim and Hussain Osman, two of the four men who failed in their attempt to carry out suicide bombings on London’s transport network on July 21, 2005 — two weeks after the 7/7 attacks which killed 52 commuters.
Adam’s new mentors were Mohammed Hamid, a preacher with links to the 21/7 bombers who called himself Osama Bin London, and Atilla Ahmet, a former aide to Abu Hamza, the hook-handed cleric of Finsbury Park mosque in north London.
After police closed down Hamza’s power base in 2004, Hamid and Ahmet moved to take control of Stockwell mosque.
A month after Adam was approached at the mosque, he was invited to the first of many meetings at a rundown squat in south London. It was here — and in similar buildings — that the real process of indoctrination went on, with exposure to violent videos, including footage of beheadings.
“They would show us videos of people bragging about 7/7 and 9/11 and they made it clear that they approved of it,” said Adam, who was one of two 15-year-old recruits, the youngest out of a group of 15-20 men.
“They weren’t as blunt as to say, ‘Yes, we did this’ or ‘We did that’. They were more aware than anyone that there’s a chance that someone in that room could be recording them.”
Adam was told that more advanced recruits had been sent on training exercises to the Lake District and the New Forest in Hampshire, as well as paintballing sessions in the home counties.
At Ibrahim’s trial it emerged that several of these training camps were the subject of police surveillance.
Adam said Ahmet and Hamid, who helped to radicalise some of the 21/7 bombers at his east London home, often distorted quotes from the Koran to back their arguments.
“For example, the Koran says killing innocents is one of the biggest sins, but they would say that the innocents were just collateral damage and it was therefore okay,” said Adam.
Unlike Ibrahim, Adam never travelled to Pakistan. Hamid and Ahmet were arrested in a south London restaurant in September 2006 with seven other followers. The pair were jailed for terrorism offences last year.
Adam and about 45 other young men are now being rehabilitated through a training programme run by an education centre attached to Stockwell mosque. Designed and run by Toaha Qureshi, a mosque trustee, the programme’s intensive courses combine religious and social mentoring with sports activities and business training.
One former would-be suicide bomber has recently set up his own car-washing business with the Stockwell centre’s help.
“We have another young man who has been with us for almost nine months,” said Qureshi. “He spent time in prison on terrorism charges, but now works here, as well as completing his foundation course in business.
“We are working here to protect the community by re-engaging these young men into productive activity.”
In 2003, when Qureshi first complained about extremists “inciting racial and religious hatred” at Stockwell mosque, police took little action. Now the authorities are showing a keen interest in the success of his “detox” programme. Indeed, it is virtually a blueprint for a controversial national rehabilitation scheme called the Channel Project.
Set up by the Home Office in 2007 with pilot schemes in Lambeth and Lancashire, the project has since been expanded to 11 sites across the UK, and there are plans for a further 15.
More than 200 people — including two 13-year-olds and some individuals as old as 50 — have been identified as “vulnerable” to radicalisation and offered support via the Channel Project.
The programme relies on teachers, parents and other community figures to be vigilant for signs indicating an attraction to extremist views.
Commander Craig Denholm, the police officer responsible for overseeing Channel, denied that it amounted to “spying” on the Muslim community.
Reflecting on his indoctrination and the prospect of becoming a suicide bomber, Adam admitted last week: “I feel very grateful that I didn’t go down that road. Now I want an office job.”
A TEENAGER has revealed how he was recruited by Al-Qaeda-inspired extremists and groomed to carry out suicide attacks in Britain.
In the first insider account of how radicals are preying on vulnerable Muslim youths, the teenager describes being approached by Islamists at a mosque in south London that was used by the failed 21/7 bombers, and indoctrinated at a secret network of squats.
Aged 15, he was the youngest of about 50 recruits who were shown “martyrdom” videos and encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive terrorist training.
The youth, who is called Adam, told The Sunday Times: “They showed us a jihadist video with the martyrdom flags behind the guy speaking, and the message I got was that I should prepare myself for martyrdom.
“I know a few of the others accepted that they would go [for training in Pakistan]. Some of the young people said, ‘I’m going to go’. That was the ultimate purpose of what these men were doing: what they were doing was training people up to carry out operations in the UK.”
Adam, who is now 18, quit the group after a year. The whereabouts of most of the other recruits is unknown.
“It was quite shocking to me,” he said. “I started to think, ‘Well, hold on a second, I don’t want to kill anybody. Yeah, I’ve got anger inside me, but this isn’t the right way to deal with this’.”
Adam, whose real name is being withheld to protect his safety, is now enrolled in a rehabilitation programme for would-be terrorists.
The scheme is a blueprint for a nationwide “detoxification” programme backed by the Home Office and police chiefs to which 200 people — some as young 13 — have been referred.
When Adam fell under the spell of extremists at the Stockwell mosque in Lambeth in 2005, he was floundering at school, had few friends and was desperately in need of some direction.
He was the eldest of seven children whose Algerian father had died when he was just eight, and his new friends’ talk of Muslim brotherhood seemed to offer the stability he craved.
“A lot of people think that terrorists are recruited in special recruiting grounds, but the truth is that it actually goes on in mosques a lot of the time,” said the gangly south London teenager.
“You’ll go to pray and there’ll be small groups of people just away from the main group in the mosque having their own discussion, talking about jihad and all these types of things.
“They started talking to me about what’s going on in Iraq and about how all the people are dying and then they started inviting me to religious talks.”
The Stockwell mosque had previously been attended by Muktar Ibrahim and Hussain Osman, two of the four men who failed in their attempt to carry out suicide bombings on London’s transport network on July 21, 2005 — two weeks after the 7/7 attacks which killed 52 commuters.
Adam’s new mentors were Mohammed Hamid, a preacher with links to the 21/7 bombers who called himself Osama Bin London, and Atilla Ahmet, a former aide to Abu Hamza, the hook-handed cleric of Finsbury Park mosque in north London.
After police closed down Hamza’s power base in 2004, Hamid and Ahmet moved to take control of Stockwell mosque.
A month after Adam was approached at the mosque, he was invited to the first of many meetings at a rundown squat in south London. It was here — and in similar buildings — that the real process of indoctrination went on, with exposure to violent videos, including footage of beheadings.
“They would show us videos of people bragging about 7/7 and 9/11 and they made it clear that they approved of it,” said Adam, who was one of two 15-year-old recruits, the youngest out of a group of 15-20 men.
“They weren’t as blunt as to say, ‘Yes, we did this’ or ‘We did that’. They were more aware than anyone that there’s a chance that someone in that room could be recording them.”
Adam was told that more advanced recruits had been sent on training exercises to the Lake District and the New Forest in Hampshire, as well as paintballing sessions in the home counties.
At Ibrahim’s trial it emerged that several of these training camps were the subject of police surveillance.
Adam said Ahmet and Hamid, who helped to radicalise some of the 21/7 bombers at his east London home, often distorted quotes from the Koran to back their arguments.
“For example, the Koran says killing innocents is one of the biggest sins, but they would say that the innocents were just collateral damage and it was therefore okay,” said Adam.
Unlike Ibrahim, Adam never travelled to Pakistan. Hamid and Ahmet were arrested in a south London restaurant in September 2006 with seven other followers. The pair were jailed for terrorism offences last year.
Adam and about 45 other young men are now being rehabilitated through a training programme run by an education centre attached to Stockwell mosque. Designed and run by Toaha Qureshi, a mosque trustee, the programme’s intensive courses combine religious and social mentoring with sports activities and business training.
One former would-be suicide bomber has recently set up his own car-washing business with the Stockwell centre’s help.
“We have another young man who has been with us for almost nine months,” said Qureshi. “He spent time in prison on terrorism charges, but now works here, as well as completing his foundation course in business.
“We are working here to protect the community by re-engaging these young men into productive activity.”
In 2003, when Qureshi first complained about extremists “inciting racial and religious hatred” at Stockwell mosque, police took little action. Now the authorities are showing a keen interest in the success of his “detox” programme. Indeed, it is virtually a blueprint for a controversial national rehabilitation scheme called the Channel Project.
Set up by the Home Office in 2007 with pilot schemes in Lambeth and Lancashire, the project has since been expanded to 11 sites across the UK, and there are plans for a further 15.
More than 200 people — including two 13-year-olds and some individuals as old as 50 — have been identified as “vulnerable” to radicalisation and offered support via the Channel Project.
The programme relies on teachers, parents and other community figures to be vigilant for signs indicating an attraction to extremist views.
Commander Craig Denholm, the police officer responsible for overseeing Channel, denied that it amounted to “spying” on the Muslim community.
Reflecting on his indoctrination and the prospect of becoming a suicide bomber, Adam admitted last week: “I feel very grateful that I didn’t go down that road. Now I want an office job.”
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Justice Minister Shahid Malik quits over expenses row
Shahid Malik, the Pakistani-origin Justice Minister was on Friday forced to quit the Gordon Brown Cabinet pending the outcome of an inquiry into his parliamentary expenses claims.
Mr. Malik, the first Muslim minister in UK government, is the first government member to be forced to quit over the expenses row, which has rocked all three main parties over the last week.
His decision to step down came just two hours after the Justice Minister stunned Westminster with a strong defence of his 66,000 pounds claims.
He dismissed revelations that he splurged taxpayers' money on a home cinema and massage chair as a "non story".
In a TV interview, Mr. Malik said he could "sleep easy" after "legitimate" spending on a 2,100 pounds TV and other luxuries.
But barely two hours later, Downing Street announced the first major scalp of the expenses scandal.
Mr. Brown's spokesman told PTI "the minister is being suspended over the alleged benefit of subsidised rent."
Mr. Brown has asked the independent adviser on ministerial interests Sir Philip Mawer to investigate whether Mr. Malik's alleged benefit of a subsidised rent breached the ministerial code.
Mr. Brown's spokesman said: "There have been accusations made in the past 24 hours against Shahid Mr. Malik, in particular that he received preferential rent on his main residence.
Mr. Malik, the first Muslim minister in UK government, is the first government member to be forced to quit over the expenses row, which has rocked all three main parties over the last week.
His decision to step down came just two hours after the Justice Minister stunned Westminster with a strong defence of his 66,000 pounds claims.
He dismissed revelations that he splurged taxpayers' money on a home cinema and massage chair as a "non story".
In a TV interview, Mr. Malik said he could "sleep easy" after "legitimate" spending on a 2,100 pounds TV and other luxuries.
But barely two hours later, Downing Street announced the first major scalp of the expenses scandal.
Mr. Brown's spokesman told PTI "the minister is being suspended over the alleged benefit of subsidised rent."
Mr. Brown has asked the independent adviser on ministerial interests Sir Philip Mawer to investigate whether Mr. Malik's alleged benefit of a subsidised rent breached the ministerial code.
Mr. Brown's spokesman said: "There have been accusations made in the past 24 hours against Shahid Mr. Malik, in particular that he received preferential rent on his main residence.
"Radical Muslims guilty of firebomb plot on publisher of Mohammed book,"
A radical Muslim who dressed his baby daughter in a hat with “I love al-Qaeda” on it tried to firebomb the home of the publisher of a controversial novel about Mohammed.
He waved banners vowing to “Massacre those who insult Islam” and promising “Europe, your 9/11 will come!”
They then drove to their target at 2am.
Ali Beheshti, 40, along with Abrar Mirza, 22, have admitted conspiracy to recklessly damage property and endanger life after they poured diesel through the letterbox of a publishing house in Islington, North London.
Abbas Taj, 30, a mini-cab driver, was found guilty at Croydon Crown court of conspiracy to firebomb the home of Martin Rynja, the publisher of The Jewel Of Medina.
He was to be the getaway driver, but was stopped in his car and arrested by armed police near Angel Tube station in the early hours in September last year, just after they had set fire to the premises...
Beheshti’s 20-month-old daughter, Farisa, was pictured wearing the hat when he took her along to a protest against Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed and proudly called her “the youngest member of al-Qaeda”.
He waved banners vowing to “Massacre those who insult Islam” and promising “Europe, your 9/11 will come!”
During the protests in 2006 he called himself Abu Jihad — meaning holy war.
The three men began their attack when publisher Mr Rynja was preparing to release The Jewel Of Medina, a novel about Mohammed and the life of his child bride, Aisha.
The trio were planning to spend the night at Regent’s Park Mosque, in North London, as part of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, but shortly after arrival they set out with “fire-making equipment” for the home of Mr Rynja.
Diesel bought by Beheshti, from Ilford, East London, stored in a green container inside a white plastic bag, was transferred to the boot of Taj’s Honda Accord at around 10.30pm, the evening before the arson attack.
Taj and Beheshti then drove to pick up Mirza, a mobile phone salesman, from near the Queen’s Road Mosque in Walthamstow, northeast London.
They then drove to their target at 2am.
But while Taj claimed to have “no idea” about the plot and said that he was simply “giving a lift” to the two men, a jury of eight women and four men found otherwise.
On the way to the publisher’s home, Beheshti, a former member of the banned al-Muhajiroun, rallied the spirits of his fellows with the inspiring words,'You know what we gotta do, anyway, innit?'
An old hand in the art of holy war, Beheshti had been involved in the Motoon protests in 2006 when he burned himself attempting to set fire to a picture of George Bush.
This may explain why they decided to use diesel in the Gibson Square operation - they might have hurt themselves if they had used petrol.
According to this BBC video report, The Jewel of Medina will be published in October. Doh!
Muslim doctor says she was fired for attending Friday prayers
Here again we see the same phenomenon playing out that we have seen many, many times over the last few years: a Muslim demands that a workplace change its practices to allow for Islamic observance, rather than dealing with the parameters of the job as it is. Every one of these incidents is a test case in the question of which will prevail: Islamic law or Western practice and custom. Will Muslims be established as a privileged class in Western countries, with rights that others don't have, or will equality of rights and equality of treatment be maintained?
A Muslim doctor who was dismissed from her job claims she was discriminated against on religious grounds because she wanted to attend a mosque for prayers every Friday, a tribunal heard yesterday.
Dr Musarrat Syed-Shah, 31, is alleging religious discrimination and victimisation against four partners from the North Leeds Medical Practice after her partnership agreement was terminated on August 8 last year.
The employment tribunal in Leeds heard that Dr Syed-Shah claims the other doctors were "unhappy" about her attending the weekly prayers.
Michael McDonough, for Dr Syed-Shah, told the tribunal: "They were unhappy with her attending the mosque for Friday prayers and they applied a condition to her which was not applied to anyone else by saying they were not allowed to leave the surgery between sessions."
Mr McDonough continued: "Following the notice of termination on August 8, she was expressly forbidden from going to the mosque from August 8 till the end of her contract."...
Dr Syed-Shah described herself in her evidence as a "devout" Muslim who had been on a pilgrimage to Mecca before taking up the post at the practice and prayed five times a day.
She had attended mosques on Fridays throughout her adult life.
On being given the job, Dr Syed-Shah said she requested Fridays off but was told it was not convenient.
However, she believed her sessions could be arranged to allow time in between to visit the mosque for Friday prayers, and said the practice manager, Sharon James, and one of the other partners, Dr Manjit Purewal, agreed there would be no problem with this.
When Dr Purewal later asked her to take on an extra shift on Fridays, meaning she would have to work for more than nine hours without a break and miss prayers, she objected and was accused of not pulling her weight. Dr Syed-Shah said: "I felt that this was an attack on me by Dr Purewal. He knew that I could not take up an extra surgery on that day."
At a meeting of the partners on August 4, one partner, Dr Marcus Julier, said: "Nobody should have a commitment that is more important than this surgery on any day that they are working at this practice."
Dr Syed-Shah said she was told the next day by partner Dr Elizabeth Martin that she would be "out of a job" if she continued going to Friday prayers. She said: "I felt bullied and victimised."...
Describing the occasion when she refused to take on another GP's patients as well as her own, Dr Syed-Shah said in her evidence that she did not consider it to be "clinically safe" to see a patient every five minutes.The doctor said she became concerned about her health after two of her fingers swelled up and her hand and arm became painful following four-hour "telephone triage" sessions, which saw her "continually using" a computer and telephone.
Dr Syed-Shah said that despite repeated complaints to the other partners about her health problems no-one suggested she should be excused from these sessions and "ignored their obligations to safeguard my health".Dr Syed-Shah was given one month's notice on August 8 in a letter which said the reason for the termination was that "arrangements are unfortunately... not working".
A Muslim doctor who was dismissed from her job claims she was discriminated against on religious grounds because she wanted to attend a mosque for prayers every Friday, a tribunal heard yesterday.
Dr Musarrat Syed-Shah, 31, is alleging religious discrimination and victimisation against four partners from the North Leeds Medical Practice after her partnership agreement was terminated on August 8 last year.
The employment tribunal in Leeds heard that Dr Syed-Shah claims the other doctors were "unhappy" about her attending the weekly prayers.
Michael McDonough, for Dr Syed-Shah, told the tribunal: "They were unhappy with her attending the mosque for Friday prayers and they applied a condition to her which was not applied to anyone else by saying they were not allowed to leave the surgery between sessions."
Mr McDonough continued: "Following the notice of termination on August 8, she was expressly forbidden from going to the mosque from August 8 till the end of her contract."...
Dr Syed-Shah described herself in her evidence as a "devout" Muslim who had been on a pilgrimage to Mecca before taking up the post at the practice and prayed five times a day.
She had attended mosques on Fridays throughout her adult life.
On being given the job, Dr Syed-Shah said she requested Fridays off but was told it was not convenient.
However, she believed her sessions could be arranged to allow time in between to visit the mosque for Friday prayers, and said the practice manager, Sharon James, and one of the other partners, Dr Manjit Purewal, agreed there would be no problem with this.
When Dr Purewal later asked her to take on an extra shift on Fridays, meaning she would have to work for more than nine hours without a break and miss prayers, she objected and was accused of not pulling her weight. Dr Syed-Shah said: "I felt that this was an attack on me by Dr Purewal. He knew that I could not take up an extra surgery on that day."
At a meeting of the partners on August 4, one partner, Dr Marcus Julier, said: "Nobody should have a commitment that is more important than this surgery on any day that they are working at this practice."
Dr Syed-Shah said she was told the next day by partner Dr Elizabeth Martin that she would be "out of a job" if she continued going to Friday prayers. She said: "I felt bullied and victimised."...
Describing the occasion when she refused to take on another GP's patients as well as her own, Dr Syed-Shah said in her evidence that she did not consider it to be "clinically safe" to see a patient every five minutes.The doctor said she became concerned about her health after two of her fingers swelled up and her hand and arm became painful following four-hour "telephone triage" sessions, which saw her "continually using" a computer and telephone.
Dr Syed-Shah said that despite repeated complaints to the other partners about her health problems no-one suggested she should be excused from these sessions and "ignored their obligations to safeguard my health".Dr Syed-Shah was given one month's notice on August 8 in a letter which said the reason for the termination was that "arrangements are unfortunately... not working".
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
12-Year-Old Girl Flees Would-Be Rapist...
A MAN threatened to rape a young girl in Gorton.
At about 9.50pm on Saturday 9 May 2009, a 12-year-old girl was near to the Mecca Bingo on Hyde Road when she was approached from behind.
The offender told the victim he would rape her if she didn't go with him.
The victim ran off to find her friends and the offender also ran off.
He is described as a light skinned Asian man wearing a black hooded jacket with shiny stripes and a balaclava.
Detective Constable Chris Prince, from Longsight CID, said: "The victim is understandably deeply upset by what has happened but thankfully she managed to run off before this man was able to carry out his disturbing threat.
"The girl was on her way home from the fair on Crowcroft Park and so I would appeal to others who may have been there or who might have seen a man acting suspiciously in the area to call police."
Anyone with information is asked to call Longsight CID on 0161 856 4335 or the independent charity Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111.
At about 9.50pm on Saturday 9 May 2009, a 12-year-old girl was near to the Mecca Bingo on Hyde Road when she was approached from behind.
The offender told the victim he would rape her if she didn't go with him.
The victim ran off to find her friends and the offender also ran off.
He is described as a light skinned Asian man wearing a black hooded jacket with shiny stripes and a balaclava.
Detective Constable Chris Prince, from Longsight CID, said: "The victim is understandably deeply upset by what has happened but thankfully she managed to run off before this man was able to carry out his disturbing threat.
"The girl was on her way home from the fair on Crowcroft Park and so I would appeal to others who may have been there or who might have seen a man acting suspiciously in the area to call police."
Anyone with information is asked to call Longsight CID on 0161 856 4335 or the independent charity Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111.
BBC appoints Muslim to top religious post in controversial first
The BBC has appointed a Muslim as its head of religious programming in a radical departure from broadcasting tradition. The post - considered one of the most influential religious roles in the country - has gone to Aaqil Ahmed, who has been working as an executive at Channel 4.
The appointment will cause dismay among the Christian churches.
Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams raised concerns over the prospect of a Muslim head of religious broadcasting during a meeting with the corporation's director general Mark Thompson in March.
It comes at a time of deepening worries among Christian leaders that their faith is being sidelined and downgraded by authorities.
Both Dr Williams and Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu have made repeated public complaints over the indifference and occasional hostility to Christianity shown in Whitehall and from other authorities.
Last year the BBC gave the job of producing its most popular and longrunning religious programme, Songs of Praise, to a Sikh, Tommy Nagra.
The Church of England points out that 70 per cent of the population of Britain professes to be Christian, but only 3 per cent are Muslims.
An official spokesman for the CofE said: 'We will judge the new man by his output rather than his label.'
Christina Rees, a member of the Church's 'Cabinet', the Archbishops' Council, said: 'Aaqil Ahmed is a respected professional who has an established record of producing programmes on religion and ethics.
'It is important that the Christian faith continues to receive coverage that accurately reflects its significance in the lives of most people who live in Britain, the overwhelming majority of whom regard themselves as Christian.'
More...
Newsnight accused of 'dumbing down' with a talent contest for immigrants
Muslim chef 'refused to cook sausages and bacon for police breakfasts'
The choice of Mr Ahmed was made by George Entwistle, who is in charge of factual programming.
A BBC spokesman declined to say whether Mr Thompson - a practising Roman Catholic - was consulted on the appointment.
But one corporation insider suggested the BBC would have been in breach of employment law if it had failed to give the job to Mr Ahmed.
He was the best-qualified for the post, they said, and a decision to turn him down would have amounted to discrimination.
Mr Ahmed is currently Channel 4's senior executive for religious programmes. He has commissioned series on the history of Christianity and the Koran.
His critics accuse him of dumbing down religion, for example in one programme by presenting an assessment of the state of Christianity by Cherie Blair.
Mr Ahmed is a trustee of the Runnymede Trust, a body that has championed the ideology of multiculturalism.
He has also taken part in campaigns for a greater Muslim presence in the media.
In the past the post of head of religion at the BBC has been considered a job for a senior and respected cleric or lay churchgoer.
The Church of England's place as the established Church has usually been influential in the choice of postholders.
There were deep reservations among church leaders eight years ago when for the first time the corporation appointed an atheist to the role.
Mr Ahmed's appointment follows a re- organisation of the BBC religious broadcasting department and his title will be Head of Religion and Ethics and Commissioning Editor for Religion TV.
The former head of religious programmes, Methodist preacher Michael Wakelin, failed to land the new post.
Church leaders have become increasing disillusioned with the BBC in recent years. There have been a number of complaints that the corporation has shifted religious broadcasting out of prime time and cut down on the amount of time it gets.
The BBC's TV religious programming is much reduced from the days when there were only terrestrial channels, which were required to set aside an hour on Sunday evening as a 'God Slot'.
The remaining religious flagship is Songs of Praise, which has been running since 1961 and which can still command audiences of four million. Last Sunday it ran at close to peak time, at 5.55pm.
Otherwise the only Sunday TV religious programme is The Big Question, broadcast at 10am and intended to represent different faiths and beliefs.
Last Sunday, BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4 offered no religious programmes. BBC3, however, did broadcast Kirsten's Topless Ambition, about a TV presenter considering going topless for a photo shoot, and two episodes of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps.
The BBC has recently announced a six-part documentary on the history of Christianity, to be presented by the highly-respected historian Diarmaid McCulloch.
The BBC has made a second senior religious appointment, making Christine Morgan, a longstanding producer who has been responsible for Radio 4's Thought for the Day, Head of Religion Radio.
One of Radio 2's most popular religious presenters has launched a stinging attack on the BBC suggesting the broadcaster is biased against Christianity.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Adult asylum seeker 'raped girl,13, after he lied about age and was placed in children's home
The Afghan presented himself to Birmingham Social Services and claimed he was a 13 year-old minor, but staff suspected he was really over 18.
He was placed at the council-run children's home after producing medical evidence at an immigration hearing which seemingly backed his claims of being a child.
But the Afghan was later arrested following the suspected rape of a 13-year-old girl from the care home and police found an immigration card which appeared to confirm that he was really 19.
Social services have now begun an investigation after the asylum-seeker was quizzed about the suspected sex attack, a case which has seen another adult charged with rape.
'The Afghan presented himself some time ago as a minor, seeking asylum,' said a source. 'He claimed to be 13 years old but from the outset social services had doubts.
'Yet if someone's an asylum-seeker and a minor then social services are duty bound to look after them.
'Birmingham social services' experts were involved in challenging his claim that he was 13 at two immigration hearings and at one hearing he was legally declared an adult.
'But at an appeal he produced a letter from a doctor claiming he had some characteristics of a child, so the court had to accept he was a child.'
The asylum-seeker is currently on police bail after being arrested on suspicion of the rape, which is alleged to have occurred in Birmingham last month.
Two youths in their late teens were also detained by police. One was later charged with rape and remanded in custody after appearing before Midland magistrates, while the other has also been released on police bail.
The Afghan has now been moved to a 'specialist placement' while police inquiries continue into the alleged rape, as well as his true age.
'The truth is we just don't know how old he is for sure,' said one source. 'Most think he is an adult over the age of 18. It's proving it that has been the problem.'
A Birmingham City Council spokesman said: 'We are cooperating with police investigations in relation to a young person and these investigations are ongoing.
'People referred without documents to support their age present difficulties to all local authorities.
'The Local Authority seeks to verify information through medical and social work assessments and in the interim makes appropriate arrangements for the young people concerned.'
He was placed at the council-run children's home after producing medical evidence at an immigration hearing which seemingly backed his claims of being a child.
But the Afghan was later arrested following the suspected rape of a 13-year-old girl from the care home and police found an immigration card which appeared to confirm that he was really 19.
Social services have now begun an investigation after the asylum-seeker was quizzed about the suspected sex attack, a case which has seen another adult charged with rape.
'The Afghan presented himself some time ago as a minor, seeking asylum,' said a source. 'He claimed to be 13 years old but from the outset social services had doubts.
'Yet if someone's an asylum-seeker and a minor then social services are duty bound to look after them.
'Birmingham social services' experts were involved in challenging his claim that he was 13 at two immigration hearings and at one hearing he was legally declared an adult.
'But at an appeal he produced a letter from a doctor claiming he had some characteristics of a child, so the court had to accept he was a child.'
The asylum-seeker is currently on police bail after being arrested on suspicion of the rape, which is alleged to have occurred in Birmingham last month.
Two youths in their late teens were also detained by police. One was later charged with rape and remanded in custody after appearing before Midland magistrates, while the other has also been released on police bail.
The Afghan has now been moved to a 'specialist placement' while police inquiries continue into the alleged rape, as well as his true age.
'The truth is we just don't know how old he is for sure,' said one source. 'Most think he is an adult over the age of 18. It's proving it that has been the problem.'
A Birmingham City Council spokesman said: 'We are cooperating with police investigations in relation to a young person and these investigations are ongoing.
'People referred without documents to support their age present difficulties to all local authorities.
'The Local Authority seeks to verify information through medical and social work assessments and in the interim makes appropriate arrangements for the young people concerned.'
Jihad terror suspects under house arrest get job benefits
TERROR suspects under house arrest are claiming up to £60.50 a week in Jobseeker’s Allowance.
In the latest example of soft-touch Britain, 22 out of 23 extremists who applied for the state benefit received it.
Yet none of them is available for work. Severe restrictions are placed on their movement because they are deemed a risk to national security.
The taxpayer-funded handouts last night sparked outrage among politicians and campaign groups who said it was yet another reminder of why extremists hellbent on destroying Western civilisation make a beeline for Britain.
Tory MP Patrick Mercer, a former Army officer and chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism subcommittee, said: “Surely this is nonsense. If they are under control orders they will not be seeking jobs.
“All we are doing is pouring more taxpayers’ money into a bottomless pit. In times of economic crisis, this will infuriate hard-pressed people.”...
The Home Office admits all but one of 23 suspects who claimed the benefit were successful. In a case that calls into question whether Government departments talk to each other, the Department for Work and Pensions says that people can only receive Jobseeker’s Allowance if they show they are “capable of working, available for work and actively seeking work”.
Suspects’ families often also get financial help from charities such as Helping Households Under Great Stress, an Islamic group supporting families affected by terror arrests....
Pamela also points out an extremely interesting parallel in policies that are about to be implemented in the United States.
In the latest example of soft-touch Britain, 22 out of 23 extremists who applied for the state benefit received it.
Yet none of them is available for work. Severe restrictions are placed on their movement because they are deemed a risk to national security.
The taxpayer-funded handouts last night sparked outrage among politicians and campaign groups who said it was yet another reminder of why extremists hellbent on destroying Western civilisation make a beeline for Britain.
Tory MP Patrick Mercer, a former Army officer and chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism subcommittee, said: “Surely this is nonsense. If they are under control orders they will not be seeking jobs.
“All we are doing is pouring more taxpayers’ money into a bottomless pit. In times of economic crisis, this will infuriate hard-pressed people.”...
The Home Office admits all but one of 23 suspects who claimed the benefit were successful. In a case that calls into question whether Government departments talk to each other, the Department for Work and Pensions says that people can only receive Jobseeker’s Allowance if they show they are “capable of working, available for work and actively seeking work”.
Suspects’ families often also get financial help from charities such as Helping Households Under Great Stress, an Islamic group supporting families affected by terror arrests....
Pamela also points out an extremely interesting parallel in policies that are about to be implemented in the United States.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
British taxpayers pay a million dollars in legal fees for al-Qaeda suspects
The British tax payer has met legal aid fees of nearly £600,000 for three al-Qaeda suspects who have fought a ten-year battle to avoid extradition to the US.
Lawyers for Khalid al-Fawwaz, a Saudi citizen who alleged[ly] acted as Osama bin Laden's public relations representative in London, received £250,000 in legal fees from the Legal Services Commission according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Al-Fawwaz, is wanted in connection with the bomb attacks on two US embassies in East Africa in August 1998.
The attacks in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania killed 223 people and injured more than 4,000.
British taxpayers also covered nearly £110,000 in legal bills for al-Fawwaz's co-defendant, Adel Abdel Bary, an Egyptian who was allegedly close to Ayman al-Zawahiri, the deputy leader of al-Qaeda.
Nearly £215,000 was paid in legal costs for a second associate, Ibrahim Eidarous who died of leukaemia in July while under house arrest in London.
Most of the fees were paid in the first three years of their battle, legal sources said yesterday, and most of the costs went to barristers in the case.
The legal battle was lengthened by a six-year wait for a response from the Home Office after the Government lost a case in the House of Lords in December 2001.
The Daily Telegraph reported earlier this year that al-Fawwaz and Bary have now launched a new appeal in the High Court that is likely to prolong the case for several more years.
The total cost, including detaining the men in maximum security prisons, is estimated to have exceeded £1m.
But the attempt to have them extradited has provoked derision across the Atlantic.
The Washington Post reported last week that British justice was working at a "glacial pace" and added: "The cases have plodded through the British bureaucracy with no end in sight, undermining transatlantic cooperation on counter-terrorism and highlighting how easy it can be for international terrorism suspects to elude the reach of US prosecutors.
"Critics say the combination of free lawyers and a Byzantine legal system enables al-Qaeda sympathizers in Britain to file frivolous appeals and avoid deportation or extradition."
Britain passed a new "fast track" extradition law in 2003 but only one terrorism suspect has been sent to the US since September 2001, Syed Hashmi, a US citizen charged with supplying military equipment to al-Qaeda training camps in Pakistan.
The issue was raised last week at a meeting in London between Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, and Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, who praised the new system.
But he was referring to extraditions for fraud and other cases which have been made under the laws, rather than terrorist offences for which it was designed.
Daniel Coleman, a retired FBI agent who investigated the embassy bombings, accused the British last year of "trying to thumb their nose at us" and added: "They view us as the Belgian Congo. It's insulting to the United Sates. Our justice system is better than theirs."
The Home Office attributed a six-year delay between December 2001 and March 2008 to "a range of matters," including allegations from defence lawyers that the US government might subject their clients to the death penalty, torture, military tribunals or criminal trials that would be inherently unfair.
In his latest appeal, Fawwaz claimed his human rights would be breached if he were sent to an American "supermax" prison and that evidence in US courts was reliant on deals struck with informers.
The case is likely to go back to the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights, which has already been considering another terrorism case, that of Babar Ahmad, accused of running al-Qaeda websites, for two years.
The radical preacher Abu Hamza and his alleged associate Haroon Aswat are also fighting their extradition.
Lawyers for Khalid al-Fawwaz, a Saudi citizen who alleged[ly] acted as Osama bin Laden's public relations representative in London, received £250,000 in legal fees from the Legal Services Commission according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Al-Fawwaz, is wanted in connection with the bomb attacks on two US embassies in East Africa in August 1998.
The attacks in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania killed 223 people and injured more than 4,000.
British taxpayers also covered nearly £110,000 in legal bills for al-Fawwaz's co-defendant, Adel Abdel Bary, an Egyptian who was allegedly close to Ayman al-Zawahiri, the deputy leader of al-Qaeda.
Nearly £215,000 was paid in legal costs for a second associate, Ibrahim Eidarous who died of leukaemia in July while under house arrest in London.
Most of the fees were paid in the first three years of their battle, legal sources said yesterday, and most of the costs went to barristers in the case.
The legal battle was lengthened by a six-year wait for a response from the Home Office after the Government lost a case in the House of Lords in December 2001.
The Daily Telegraph reported earlier this year that al-Fawwaz and Bary have now launched a new appeal in the High Court that is likely to prolong the case for several more years.
The total cost, including detaining the men in maximum security prisons, is estimated to have exceeded £1m.
But the attempt to have them extradited has provoked derision across the Atlantic.
The Washington Post reported last week that British justice was working at a "glacial pace" and added: "The cases have plodded through the British bureaucracy with no end in sight, undermining transatlantic cooperation on counter-terrorism and highlighting how easy it can be for international terrorism suspects to elude the reach of US prosecutors.
"Critics say the combination of free lawyers and a Byzantine legal system enables al-Qaeda sympathizers in Britain to file frivolous appeals and avoid deportation or extradition."
Britain passed a new "fast track" extradition law in 2003 but only one terrorism suspect has been sent to the US since September 2001, Syed Hashmi, a US citizen charged with supplying military equipment to al-Qaeda training camps in Pakistan.
The issue was raised last week at a meeting in London between Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, and Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, who praised the new system.
But he was referring to extraditions for fraud and other cases which have been made under the laws, rather than terrorist offences for which it was designed.
Daniel Coleman, a retired FBI agent who investigated the embassy bombings, accused the British last year of "trying to thumb their nose at us" and added: "They view us as the Belgian Congo. It's insulting to the United Sates. Our justice system is better than theirs."
The Home Office attributed a six-year delay between December 2001 and March 2008 to "a range of matters," including allegations from defence lawyers that the US government might subject their clients to the death penalty, torture, military tribunals or criminal trials that would be inherently unfair.
In his latest appeal, Fawwaz claimed his human rights would be breached if he were sent to an American "supermax" prison and that evidence in US courts was reliant on deals struck with informers.
The case is likely to go back to the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights, which has already been considering another terrorism case, that of Babar Ahmad, accused of running al-Qaeda websites, for two years.
The radical preacher Abu Hamza and his alleged associate Haroon Aswat are also fighting their extradition.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Queen's medal of honour scrapped... because it's too Christian for Muslims and Hindus
A medal established by the Queen is being withdrawn after it was declared unlawful and offensive to Muslims and Hindus.
The cross-shaped honour - The Trinity Cross of the Order of Trinity - has been handed to distinguished members of the former colony of Trinidad and Tobago.
Cricketers Brian Lara and Garfield Sobers are among those who have received the medal along with diplomats and politicians.
The old Trinity Cross is replaced with the Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, which has removed any Christian symbols
The Christian name and cross are now being replaced with the Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago - a circular medal featuring a sun, stars, water and a map of the islands.
The Privy Council, made up of 12 law lords, ruled the merit decoration was unlawful because it discriminates against non-Christians.
Now other honours are being reviewed over their references to Christian Saints or symbols.
The Queen established the Trinity Cross in 1969 and it took precedence over all other decorations except for the Victoria Cross and George Cross.
But questions at the time of its creation were raised over the Christian nature of the words 'Trinity' and 'Cross'. Some of those nominated for the award have refused to accept it.
After the Law Lords decision, the Maha Saba attorney Anand Ramlogan told local newspaper Newsday: 'It’s a vindication of the 40 years of disquiet and unease silently suffered by the Muslim and Hindu communities whose legitimate grievance with the Trinity Cross was flippantly dismissed by successive governments.'
The Maha Sabha, the Hindu organisation, and the Islamic Relief Centre Ltd have been fighting to get a new non-religious order of merit since 2004.
The High Court in Trinidad and Tobago ruled the decoration discriminated against non Christians but said it did not have the power to invalidate the royal order.
Judge Jamadar said: 'The Trinity Cross - the nation’s highest award - is strictly a Christian symbol, and as a result, it discriminates in a multi-religious society.'
The islands' government last year announced a new award the Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.
Trinidad and Tobago, which gained independence in 1962, is a multi-religious nation with large groups of Catholics and Hindus. Around 24 per cent of the populartion is Hindu, and five per cent is Muslim.
The Queen is expected to visit in November when the islands host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
A review of the British honours system by the Commons Public Administration Select Committee in 2004 recommended reducing the number of decorations from twelve to four, with the new proposed titles having no reference to the Cross or Christian saints.
The cross-shaped honour - The Trinity Cross of the Order of Trinity - has been handed to distinguished members of the former colony of Trinidad and Tobago.
Cricketers Brian Lara and Garfield Sobers are among those who have received the medal along with diplomats and politicians.
The old Trinity Cross is replaced with the Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, which has removed any Christian symbols
The Christian name and cross are now being replaced with the Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago - a circular medal featuring a sun, stars, water and a map of the islands.
The Privy Council, made up of 12 law lords, ruled the merit decoration was unlawful because it discriminates against non-Christians.
Now other honours are being reviewed over their references to Christian Saints or symbols.
The Queen established the Trinity Cross in 1969 and it took precedence over all other decorations except for the Victoria Cross and George Cross.
But questions at the time of its creation were raised over the Christian nature of the words 'Trinity' and 'Cross'. Some of those nominated for the award have refused to accept it.
After the Law Lords decision, the Maha Saba attorney Anand Ramlogan told local newspaper Newsday: 'It’s a vindication of the 40 years of disquiet and unease silently suffered by the Muslim and Hindu communities whose legitimate grievance with the Trinity Cross was flippantly dismissed by successive governments.'
The Maha Sabha, the Hindu organisation, and the Islamic Relief Centre Ltd have been fighting to get a new non-religious order of merit since 2004.
The High Court in Trinidad and Tobago ruled the decoration discriminated against non Christians but said it did not have the power to invalidate the royal order.
Judge Jamadar said: 'The Trinity Cross - the nation’s highest award - is strictly a Christian symbol, and as a result, it discriminates in a multi-religious society.'
The islands' government last year announced a new award the Order of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.
Trinidad and Tobago, which gained independence in 1962, is a multi-religious nation with large groups of Catholics and Hindus. Around 24 per cent of the populartion is Hindu, and five per cent is Muslim.
The Queen is expected to visit in November when the islands host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.
A review of the British honours system by the Commons Public Administration Select Committee in 2004 recommended reducing the number of decorations from twelve to four, with the new proposed titles having no reference to the Cross or Christian saints.
Officers stripped of stop and search terror powers over fears of angering Muslims
Scotland Yard is scaling down its use of controversial powers which allow officers to stop and search people without reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Stung by criticism that the practice has alienated ethnic minorities, the Metropolitan Police is changing its policy on when Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 can be employed.
In future its use will be restricted to policing 'iconic' or strategically important sites, such as Buckingham Palace and Parliament, and to specific operations.
In other cases officers will be told to use Section 43 of the Act, which requires them to have reasonable suspicion that the person they are stopping is a terrorist.
The Met increased its use of the Section 44 powers following the car bomb attacks on a nightclub in Haymarket, Central London, and Glasgow Airport in June 2007.
Since October of that year the force has carried out 154,293 stop and searches.
But Government figures released last week showed that black and Asian people were targeted disproportionately.
Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who took over as the force's anti-terror chief last month, highlighted the concerns in a recent report to the Met Police Authority.
He wrote: 'The power is seen as controversial and has the potential to have a negative impact, particularly on minority communities.'
Stung by criticism that the practice has alienated ethnic minorities, the Metropolitan Police is changing its policy on when Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 can be employed.
In future its use will be restricted to policing 'iconic' or strategically important sites, such as Buckingham Palace and Parliament, and to specific operations.
In other cases officers will be told to use Section 43 of the Act, which requires them to have reasonable suspicion that the person they are stopping is a terrorist.
The Met increased its use of the Section 44 powers following the car bomb attacks on a nightclub in Haymarket, Central London, and Glasgow Airport in June 2007.
Since October of that year the force has carried out 154,293 stop and searches.
But Government figures released last week showed that black and Asian people were targeted disproportionately.
Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who took over as the force's anti-terror chief last month, highlighted the concerns in a recent report to the Met Police Authority.
He wrote: 'The power is seen as controversial and has the potential to have a negative impact, particularly on minority communities.'
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Muslim dentist 'refused to treat female patients unless they wore Islamic dress' again
A Muslim dentist refused to treat patients unless they wore traditional Islamic dress, it was alleged today. Omer Butt, 32, ordered women to put on head scarves or he would not register them or their families at his NHS-funded clinic, it was claimed.
At least two patients were left in pain after they declined to follow his self-imposed rules, the General Dental Council heard.
It is the second time that the dentist - who is the brother of a former spokesman of the radical Islamic group al-Muhajiroun - has appeared before the council's disciplinary panel on similar allegations.
Two years ago he was reprimanded for telling an Asian mother-of-two he would not register her unless she wore the Muslim hijab.
The GDC heard how Butt believed it was his duty to stop Muslim patients committing what he believed was Al-Kaba'ir, a religious sin.
He even put a laminated sign on the wall of his waiting room telling patients they would have to adhere to his strict dress code or find another dentist.
John Snell, for the GDC, said: 'He sought to impose a dress code on patients attending his practice.
'He required that women cover their hair with a head scarf, or hijab, and that male patients remove any gold jewellery.
'If he had simply expressed a preference, without imposing any compulsion to adhere to this dress code, there may be no cause for complaint.
'However, he insisted - and those who did not comply were refused treatment.
'He made compliance with Islamic dress code a condition of treatment, which is entirely inappropriate under the auspices of the National Health Service.
'Patients should have access to NHS treatment regardless of their religious observance, or otherwise.'
One patient, referred to only as Mrs F, told how she went with her husband and three children to register as patients at the Unsworth Smile Clinic, in Bury, Lancashire, in 2006.
While they were waiting to be seen, Butt called her husband into an office and told him he would have to tell his wife to wear a head scarf or the family would not be seen.They promptly left and made a formal complaint to the NHS.
Mrs F told the panel: 'I was extremely annoyed. It's my choice if I wear a Hijab or not. But he told my husband he wouldn't treat any of us until I did.
'He even offered to provide one for me to use, but I didn't want to wear it. I shouldn't have to wear it to get treatment.
'I had great pain in my tooth at the time, but I wasn't going to stand for that so we left.'
Another patient and her family had to leave the clinic in June 2007 because she would not wear the religious headdress after spending a year looking for a dentist in the area, the hearing was told.
The woman's husband, known as Mr C, was also called into a private room at the surgery where Butt asked him to impose a dress code on his wife.
His wife said: 'My husband came out and he looked quite angry and his face was red. He said 'let's go'.
'He shouldn't say to me that he can't treat me unless I wear the hijab. He said he could provide one for us, but I didn't want to wear one. I was in pain that day.'
Butt, of Prestwich, Manchester, denies charges of misconduct for his treatment of two patients at the clinic.
If found guilty he faces being removed the dental register.
In September 2007 Butt was formally reprimanded by the GDC for similar behaviour and found guilty of serious professional misconduct.
The hearing, being held in London, continues.
Preacher of hate who heckled John Reid is freed early from jail
One of Britain's most notorious preachers of hate is back on the streets after being freed early from jail.Abu Izzadeen, who publicly confronted John Reid when he was Home Secretary, had his jail term reduced by the Appeal Court - along with four other extremists convicted of supporting terror.
The ruling meant the ranting fanatic and a number of his fellow hardliners could immediately walk free because they had already done half of their reduced prison terms.
Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said the men were a danger to society.
'Abu Izzadeen and his organisation publicly call for attacks against those whom they see as enemies of Islam,' he said.
'Their ideology not only glorifies violent jihad but teaches their followers that taking part in suicide bombings is their duty as Muslims.
'The early release of a hate preacher like Abu Izzadeen demonstrates that the British courts are still far away from understanding the very clear and present danger that this country is facing from militant Islamists.'
Izzadeen - who was born a Christian with the name Omar Brooks, later changing his first name to Trevor - was jailed for four and a half years last April for inciting and raising funds for terrorism.
More...
Talk-show host to sue Home Office over link to neo-Nazis and Muslim preachers of hate in list of 22 banned from Britain
He and fellow British-born Muslim convert Simon Keeler were handed the same jail term after making a series of rabble-rousing speeches at a central London mosque. Four fellow fanatics were also jailed.
The defendants were all members of an extreme Islamist group known as Al-Muhajiroun, which has been banned only to allegedly regroup under a different name.
They made speeches in November 2004 outside the Regent's Park Mosque in London - at the same time as U.S. and British soldiers were fighting fierce battles against insurgents in Fallujah, Iraq.
The court heard the men urged their audience to join the fight against coalition forces and to donate money to insurgent groups. Izzadeen was also recorded voicing his support for Osama Bin Laden.
Izzadeen, who lives in East London, walked free on Saturday. His release has been celebrated on extremist Islamic websites.
Three other defendants also had their sentences reduced.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: 'All offenders subject to probation supervision on release from prison have to adhere to a set of strict conditions.'
Mosque teacher fails to have child abuse jail sentence cut
A MOSQUE teacher who molested two young girls during Koran lessons has failed in a bid to have his prison sentence cut.
Mahmood Qadri, 60, subjected the children to abuse at Polwarth Mosque in Edinburgh during the 1990s.He was jailed for seven years last December after being found guilty of lewd, indecent and libidinous behaviour at the High Court in Glasgow.
His victims told the court he kissed them and carried out sex acts in a bedroom at the mosque.
The trial judge John Morris QC ordered that Qadri should be kept under supervision for a further two years after his release.Yesterday, Qadri, who maintains he is innocent of the crimes, took his case to the appeal court, claiming the sentence was too long and the supervision order unnecessary.
Rejecting both aspects of the appeal, judge Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord McEwan, said: "The conduct in this case was at the higher end of the scale of lewd, indecent and libidinous practices."Qadri was placed on the sex offenders' register for life after the trial and will never be allowed to teach children again.
Mahmood Qadri, 60, subjected the children to abuse at Polwarth Mosque in Edinburgh during the 1990s.He was jailed for seven years last December after being found guilty of lewd, indecent and libidinous behaviour at the High Court in Glasgow.
His victims told the court he kissed them and carried out sex acts in a bedroom at the mosque.
The trial judge John Morris QC ordered that Qadri should be kept under supervision for a further two years after his release.Yesterday, Qadri, who maintains he is innocent of the crimes, took his case to the appeal court, claiming the sentence was too long and the supervision order unnecessary.
Rejecting both aspects of the appeal, judge Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord McEwan, said: "The conduct in this case was at the higher end of the scale of lewd, indecent and libidinous practices."Qadri was placed on the sex offenders' register for life after the trial and will never be allowed to teach children again.
Hospital Bans Paintings of Churches...
It was supposed to be a kind gesture to brighten up a hospital for patients.
But a council managed to enrage local artists when it asked them to contribute their paintings to hang in wards.
In an unsolicited letter, Havering council in East London made it clear it would accept pictures of any subject - except churches.
St Paul's Cathedral: Images of this iconic London church would not have been permitted at the Queen's Hospital at Romford
The explanation given was that the hospital had to be 'mindful of all religious denominations'.
Many artists could not understand why images of Christian buildings were banned, but those of other religions were welcome.
Jo Delaney, the council's arts development officer wrote to art groups in Havering about hanging paintings in Queen's Hospital, Romford.
She wrote: 'Whilst the building is spacious, it has many plain black walls which are crying out to be brightened up!
'The matron of patient environment is keen for local artists to use the space as a gallery.
'The hospital has asked artists not to submit paintings of churches as they have to be mindful of all religious denominations.'
Artist Roy Storey said that when he phoned the council to complain he was told it was the matron's decision if she did not want pictures of churches.
Local painter Beryl O'Brien, 71, said: 'There are so many religious beliefs, why would they pick on churches?
'What about synagogues? A painting is a good picture because it is a good composition, not because of the religion.
'It seems ridiculous to try to be so inclusive, and by doing that exclude people who are tolerant to some extent.'
Mrs O'Brien said the hospital had tainted what was a 'lovely idea'. She did not know anyone who had submitted a painting yet.
A Havering council spokesman said the terms of the initiative were set by the hospital and the council had only been asked to pass on the information.
A spokesman for Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS trust said its director of nursing had no knowledge of the letter's content and therefore it had no comment.
But a council managed to enrage local artists when it asked them to contribute their paintings to hang in wards.
In an unsolicited letter, Havering council in East London made it clear it would accept pictures of any subject - except churches.
St Paul's Cathedral: Images of this iconic London church would not have been permitted at the Queen's Hospital at Romford
The explanation given was that the hospital had to be 'mindful of all religious denominations'.
Many artists could not understand why images of Christian buildings were banned, but those of other religions were welcome.
Jo Delaney, the council's arts development officer wrote to art groups in Havering about hanging paintings in Queen's Hospital, Romford.
She wrote: 'Whilst the building is spacious, it has many plain black walls which are crying out to be brightened up!
'The matron of patient environment is keen for local artists to use the space as a gallery.
'The hospital has asked artists not to submit paintings of churches as they have to be mindful of all religious denominations.'
Artist Roy Storey said that when he phoned the council to complain he was told it was the matron's decision if she did not want pictures of churches.
Local painter Beryl O'Brien, 71, said: 'There are so many religious beliefs, why would they pick on churches?
'What about synagogues? A painting is a good picture because it is a good composition, not because of the religion.
'It seems ridiculous to try to be so inclusive, and by doing that exclude people who are tolerant to some extent.'
Mrs O'Brien said the hospital had tainted what was a 'lovely idea'. She did not know anyone who had submitted a painting yet.
A Havering council spokesman said the terms of the initiative were set by the hospital and the council had only been asked to pass on the information.
A spokesman for Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS trust said its director of nursing had no knowledge of the letter's content and therefore it had no comment.
'Sexual Motive' Alleged in Brutal Stabbing Death of Sisters...
A man murdered his on-off girlfriend and her sister in a "brutal and depraved" attack, stabbing one of them more than 30 times, a court has heard.
Mohammed Ali, 29, of Old Snow Hill, Birmingham, had been in a relationship with Yasmine Larbi-Cherif, 22.
He denies murdering Ms Larbi-Cherif and her 19-year-old sister Sabrina, who were found at their flat near Birmingham city centre in September.
The prosecution said there was a "sexual motive" for the killings.
David Crigman QC told the jury at Birmingham Crown Court that Mr
Ali had admitted the manslaughter of the sisters on the grounds of provocation.
Mr Crigman said Mr Ali stabbed the sisters before dragging their bodies into a bedroom and had twice had to rearm himself after knives he had used to stab the sisters broke.
After showing the jury CCTV footage of Mr Ali leaving the women's apartment he said: "[Mr Ali] had left behind a scene of carnage.
"He had used violence of the most brutal and depraved kind and he had killed two young girls."
He said the accused was arrested in Dover two days after leaving the fourth-floor flat.
He added: "In this case, it's likely that there will be overlapping motives - anger, control, base male brutality and a significant sexual dimension."
“ You hurt me with your words. You cannot respect a woman can you? ” Yasmine Larbi-Cherif's text message
The court heard Yasmine Larbi-Cherif met Mr Ali in 2006 and became pregnant by him twice, resulting in two terminations. Mr Crigman said the couple's relationship was "foundering" prior to the killings.
In a text message to Mr Ali a few days before her death, she wrote: "Actually let's call it a day like you mentioned. I am disappointed you think I am a slut.
"I am not willing to have you in my life if you do not respect who I am."
The jury was told that in another text, the 22-year-old wrote: "You hurt me with your words. You cannot respect a woman can you?"
The trial was adjourned until Friday.
Mohammed Ali, 29, of Old Snow Hill, Birmingham, had been in a relationship with Yasmine Larbi-Cherif, 22.
He denies murdering Ms Larbi-Cherif and her 19-year-old sister Sabrina, who were found at their flat near Birmingham city centre in September.
The prosecution said there was a "sexual motive" for the killings.
David Crigman QC told the jury at Birmingham Crown Court that Mr
Ali had admitted the manslaughter of the sisters on the grounds of provocation.
Mr Crigman said Mr Ali stabbed the sisters before dragging their bodies into a bedroom and had twice had to rearm himself after knives he had used to stab the sisters broke.
After showing the jury CCTV footage of Mr Ali leaving the women's apartment he said: "[Mr Ali] had left behind a scene of carnage.
"He had used violence of the most brutal and depraved kind and he had killed two young girls."
He said the accused was arrested in Dover two days after leaving the fourth-floor flat.
He added: "In this case, it's likely that there will be overlapping motives - anger, control, base male brutality and a significant sexual dimension."
“ You hurt me with your words. You cannot respect a woman can you? ” Yasmine Larbi-Cherif's text message
The court heard Yasmine Larbi-Cherif met Mr Ali in 2006 and became pregnant by him twice, resulting in two terminations. Mr Crigman said the couple's relationship was "foundering" prior to the killings.
In a text message to Mr Ali a few days before her death, she wrote: "Actually let's call it a day like you mentioned. I am disappointed you think I am a slut.
"I am not willing to have you in my life if you do not respect who I am."
The jury was told that in another text, the 22-year-old wrote: "You hurt me with your words. You cannot respect a woman can you?"
The trial was adjourned until Friday.
Fast food chain KFC converts eight London restaurants to halal-only menu
Fast food giant Kentucky Fried Chicken is to launch a halal-only menu in eight of its London stores in a move which could be extended to other areas of the UK.
The menu, which will form part of a trial, will see the stores selling chicken products which have been fully approved by the Halal Food Authority for the first time.
KFC has 720 stores across the UK, and bosses said the move was designed to ensure the company was catering to a broader range of customers, following a growing demand for halal products.
It is the latest fast food chain to introduce a halal-only menu after Domino's launched one at a Birmingham store in February.
From this week, KFC bargain buckets, crispy strips and family feasts bought in certain outlets serving high Muslim populations will all have the halal-approved stamp.
The fast-food chain has so far converted eight of its London restaurants to sell the meat, in areas including Forest Gate, West Ham, Tottenham and Bethnal Green.
The chosen branches, which also include those in Beckton, Leyton, Edmonton and Hounslow, will have a logo on the door telling visitors that all food served has been fully approved by the Halal Food Authority (HFA).
As Muslims cannot eat pork, the Halal branches have removed the Big Daddy burger from the menu as it contains bacon.
KFC's scheme will be trialled over the summer, but if it proves a success dozens more branches across the country are expected to follow suit and become halal-only.
The company said halal menus could be launched in other stores where large numbers of Muslim customers are based and 'where there is demand'.
Over the next few months it will closely monitor customer feedback in the chosen outlets and if it is good they will be permanently converted to 100 per cent halal.
The move follows a similar decision made by Dominos Pizza, which launched a halal only menu at its Hall Green store in Birmingham earlier this year amid a storm of controversy.
Domino's said the change has improved business despite an initial backlash from non-halal customers who complained they were not able to order pizzas such as the Meteor which contains pepperoni, sausage, meatballs and bacon.
But KFC insists that the taste of its chicken will remain 'finger-lickin good' and that it has only converted branches where there are other non-halal ones within a two-mile radius.
KFC vice-president of marketing Jennelle Tilling said: 'We want to see how customers respond to the trial, to see if this is something that allows us to make our great tasting food available to a broader range of customers.'
A spokesman for KFC said the food would still taste the same as it ever had and that the fast food giant will use existing suppliers to provide the stores with halal meat.
'This is taking place in areas where there is a high demand for halal and where they is another KFC outlet within two miles for those who do not want it,' he said.
'It is just a chance for us to see if it is something our customers really want or not.'
Halal means any item on the menu which may contain bacon, ham or pork must be removed and all the chicken must by halal-approved.
Under the rules, the animal should be killed by having its throat cut by a Muslim and any flowing blood of the carcass should be completely drained.
Animals cannot be eaten if they have died of natural causes and have to have been killed.
The chain has also moved to assure customers that its halal certified chicken would meet the rigorous animal welfare standards used across the UK.
Masood Khawaja, President of the Halal Food Authority, welcomed the trial and said it was good news for the Muslim community.
'Having worked with KFC closely, Halal Food Authority is delighted to accredit the usage of the HFA logo and symbol of approval on endorsed products,' Mr Khawaja said.
'The Muslim community can now enjoy all the products in this trial in eight participating halal-approved restaurants, as these have been procured with full adherence to both Islamic dietary rules and relevant EU hygiene, food safety and animal welfare regulations.'
The menu, which will form part of a trial, will see the stores selling chicken products which have been fully approved by the Halal Food Authority for the first time.
KFC has 720 stores across the UK, and bosses said the move was designed to ensure the company was catering to a broader range of customers, following a growing demand for halal products.
It is the latest fast food chain to introduce a halal-only menu after Domino's launched one at a Birmingham store in February.
From this week, KFC bargain buckets, crispy strips and family feasts bought in certain outlets serving high Muslim populations will all have the halal-approved stamp.
The fast-food chain has so far converted eight of its London restaurants to sell the meat, in areas including Forest Gate, West Ham, Tottenham and Bethnal Green.
The chosen branches, which also include those in Beckton, Leyton, Edmonton and Hounslow, will have a logo on the door telling visitors that all food served has been fully approved by the Halal Food Authority (HFA).
As Muslims cannot eat pork, the Halal branches have removed the Big Daddy burger from the menu as it contains bacon.
KFC's scheme will be trialled over the summer, but if it proves a success dozens more branches across the country are expected to follow suit and become halal-only.
The company said halal menus could be launched in other stores where large numbers of Muslim customers are based and 'where there is demand'.
Over the next few months it will closely monitor customer feedback in the chosen outlets and if it is good they will be permanently converted to 100 per cent halal.
The move follows a similar decision made by Dominos Pizza, which launched a halal only menu at its Hall Green store in Birmingham earlier this year amid a storm of controversy.
Domino's said the change has improved business despite an initial backlash from non-halal customers who complained they were not able to order pizzas such as the Meteor which contains pepperoni, sausage, meatballs and bacon.
But KFC insists that the taste of its chicken will remain 'finger-lickin good' and that it has only converted branches where there are other non-halal ones within a two-mile radius.
KFC vice-president of marketing Jennelle Tilling said: 'We want to see how customers respond to the trial, to see if this is something that allows us to make our great tasting food available to a broader range of customers.'
A spokesman for KFC said the food would still taste the same as it ever had and that the fast food giant will use existing suppliers to provide the stores with halal meat.
'This is taking place in areas where there is a high demand for halal and where they is another KFC outlet within two miles for those who do not want it,' he said.
'It is just a chance for us to see if it is something our customers really want or not.'
Halal means any item on the menu which may contain bacon, ham or pork must be removed and all the chicken must by halal-approved.
Under the rules, the animal should be killed by having its throat cut by a Muslim and any flowing blood of the carcass should be completely drained.
Animals cannot be eaten if they have died of natural causes and have to have been killed.
The chain has also moved to assure customers that its halal certified chicken would meet the rigorous animal welfare standards used across the UK.
Masood Khawaja, President of the Halal Food Authority, welcomed the trial and said it was good news for the Muslim community.
'Having worked with KFC closely, Halal Food Authority is delighted to accredit the usage of the HFA logo and symbol of approval on endorsed products,' Mr Khawaja said.
'The Muslim community can now enjoy all the products in this trial in eight participating halal-approved restaurants, as these have been procured with full adherence to both Islamic dietary rules and relevant EU hygiene, food safety and animal welfare regulations.'
Hate Cleric To Open Jihad Summer School - in London
RANTING preacher Anjem Choudary is planning to peddle his hate to teenagers at a “jihad” summer school.
The vile extremist has appointed himself principal lecturer of a 20-week course in his twisted version of Islam. Now fears are being raised Choudary and his followers will indoctrinate a new generation of Muslim fanatics. The minimum age advertised is 15, but his School of Shari’ah has promised to consider even younger students.
They will learn about the Islamic “struggle” and how to enter the “Gardens of Paradise”. Last night disgusted Tory MP Philip Davies, 37, said: “This is appalling. We know what this character is like and the kinds of things he will be saying. We need summer schools to encourage people to integrate into British society.
"The last thing we need is individuals like this spreading their poison and indoctrinating more people into their cause.” Choudary, 41, has joined fellow fanatics to set up the School of Shari’ah, based in east London. A police source said: “Choudary is well on the radar and is considered safe because he is so high profile.”
English Democrats chairman Robin Tilbrook criticised Choudary’s right to preach hate while also raking in handouts. He said: “Not only is he spreading his warped view of Islam, but he’s flaunting it in our face by doing it with our cash.”Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: “Anjem Choudary is not regarded as a qualified Islamic scholar by mainstream UK Muslims.“That said, however, he is free to promote his own views and teachings in the UK as long as he acts within the law. “We live in a country that is proud of its tradition of free speech after all.”
The vile extremist has appointed himself principal lecturer of a 20-week course in his twisted version of Islam. Now fears are being raised Choudary and his followers will indoctrinate a new generation of Muslim fanatics. The minimum age advertised is 15, but his School of Shari’ah has promised to consider even younger students.
They will learn about the Islamic “struggle” and how to enter the “Gardens of Paradise”. Last night disgusted Tory MP Philip Davies, 37, said: “This is appalling. We know what this character is like and the kinds of things he will be saying. We need summer schools to encourage people to integrate into British society.
"The last thing we need is individuals like this spreading their poison and indoctrinating more people into their cause.” Choudary, 41, has joined fellow fanatics to set up the School of Shari’ah, based in east London. A police source said: “Choudary is well on the radar and is considered safe because he is so high profile.”
English Democrats chairman Robin Tilbrook criticised Choudary’s right to preach hate while also raking in handouts. He said: “Not only is he spreading his warped view of Islam, but he’s flaunting it in our face by doing it with our cash.”Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: “Anjem Choudary is not regarded as a qualified Islamic scholar by mainstream UK Muslims.“That said, however, he is free to promote his own views and teachings in the UK as long as he acts within the law. “We live in a country that is proud of its tradition of free speech after all.”
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Labour peer who 'claimed £100,000 on empty flat' is a social housing tenant
The Labour peer accused of claiming £100,000 in parliamentary allowances on a vacant flat is a social housing tenant, it has been revealed. Baroness Uddin, Britain's first female Muslim peer, faces a possible police investigation for fraud over allegations she claimed the money by saying the flat was her 'main home'.
Five neighbours have said that bedrooms in the property in Maidstone, Kent, were unfurnished and they had never seen anyone living there since it was bought in 2005.
The Baroness's main home, where she is registered to vote and where she has been registered as a company director, is a housing association property, the Evening Standard reported today.
Peter Golds, Tory opposition leader in Tower Hamlets where the baroness lives, said: 'This borough has some of the most desperate housing need in Britain.
'I think the 20,000 people on the council's waiting list would be interested to know what a prosperous Labour peer who can afford a property in Kent is doing in social housing.'
The three-bedroom house, built in the early 1990s, is in Wapping. A plaque on the side of a neighbouring property says it and Lady Uddin's house belong to Spitalfields Housing Assocation.
The association received a public subsidy of £37.8million last year and charges £104 rent a week on an average property.
Despite her allowances from the Lords, Baroness Uddin, 49, is comfortably above the income bracket to qualify for social housing.
She has held several directorships at major companies, including former ITV producer Carlton Television, and was a senior employee and parliamentary consultant for the Excelcare nursing home group.
Currently she holds two jobs, one at the Home Office and the other with the philanthropic wing of insurance giant Zurich.
Lady Uddin, who claimed £29,675 for accommodation last year, lives in social housing in Wapping, above
Because Lady Uddin claims her main residence is outside London, she is entitled to collect up to £174 in accommodation costs for every day she attends the House of Lords.
The amount is paid to peers without the need to produce receipts and many claim the maximum every day they attend.
Baroness Uddin claimed £29,675 for accommodation in 2007/8, a claim of 179 days at the maximum daily rate of £165 a day - more days than the Lords actually sat that year.
It is unknown how much she pays in rent on her Wapping property.
Mr Golds added: 'Whatever rent Lady Uddin pays, she is depriving a low-income family of a home which was built for the needy at public expense.
'She has a great deal of explaining to do.'
Baroness Uddin was today unavailable for comment.
On Friday, she issued a statement through solicitors saying: 'The Wapping house is rented, while I own the property in Maidstone.
'I do not believe that I have done anything wrong or breached any House of Lords rules.
'Should the relevant House of Lords authorities wish to investigate the matter I will, of course, co-operate fully.'
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Woman Kills Her Babies - Blames Allah...
Bristol mother arrested on suspicion of child destruction following the stillbirth of her twins told police that God killed them, when her story that a midwife was to blame was questioned.
Bristol Crown Court has heard claims that mother-of-five Faiso Sahil had injected herself in Southmead Hospital, hoping to speed up the births.
But a jury has been told she used a drug actually designed to help expel the placenta after birth, which killed the babies by reducing their blood and oxygen supply – then accused her midwife of injecting her.
Sahil, 35, of Ullswater Road, Southmead, who is not present for her trial, denies perverting the course of justice.
The jury heard yesterday that Sahil told police: "I don't blame anybody. Allah gave me the twins and Allah killed them. That's what I told everyone in my house."
In an interview with Detective Constable Sarah Benfield, of the Bristol-based Child Abuse Investigation Team, Sahil said: "I didn't kill my children. I want them and I love them...
"I didn't inject myself. I wanted the babies to be born because I was in pain all that month."
The court has heard Sahil was admitted to Southmead Hospital in April 2007, when she was 37 weeks pregnant.
Though she complained of abdominal pain and contractions, nursing staff, who kept close scrutiny on her, did not believe that she was going into labour. On April 11, a doctor confirmed the babies had died overnight.
Sahil admitted to having midwifery experience in her native Somalia, where the drug Oxytocin was used to speed up labour. The jury has been told Sahil had access to the drug Syntometrine on a trolley in her delivery room, and the word "Oxytocin" was written on the box.
After the unborn twins died, Sahil claimed it was midwife Caroline Randall who gave her an injection via an intravenous cannula in her left hand to speed up labour.
She told police she thought one ampoule of the drug was used – as opposed to telling Dr Simon Grant, of Southmead Hospital, that two were used.
Sahil admitted that she had tried to withdraw her allegation concerning Miss Randall, but said that was due to pressure from her family in order for the twins not to have a post mortem and be buried within 24 hours according to her Muslim faith.
In interview, she said: "She (the midwife) gave it to me and I don't know how I can prove it, because I was alone in that room."
The jury has heard no fingerprints or DNA was recovered from drugs or syringes recovered from Sahil's hospital room.
Barristers for Sahil will make a closing speech today before Judge Mark Horton sums the case up and the jury retires to consider its verdict.
The case continues at Bristol Crown Court.
Bristol Crown Court has heard claims that mother-of-five Faiso Sahil had injected herself in Southmead Hospital, hoping to speed up the births.
But a jury has been told she used a drug actually designed to help expel the placenta after birth, which killed the babies by reducing their blood and oxygen supply – then accused her midwife of injecting her.
Sahil, 35, of Ullswater Road, Southmead, who is not present for her trial, denies perverting the course of justice.
The jury heard yesterday that Sahil told police: "I don't blame anybody. Allah gave me the twins and Allah killed them. That's what I told everyone in my house."
In an interview with Detective Constable Sarah Benfield, of the Bristol-based Child Abuse Investigation Team, Sahil said: "I didn't kill my children. I want them and I love them...
"I didn't inject myself. I wanted the babies to be born because I was in pain all that month."
The court has heard Sahil was admitted to Southmead Hospital in April 2007, when she was 37 weeks pregnant.
Though she complained of abdominal pain and contractions, nursing staff, who kept close scrutiny on her, did not believe that she was going into labour. On April 11, a doctor confirmed the babies had died overnight.
Sahil admitted to having midwifery experience in her native Somalia, where the drug Oxytocin was used to speed up labour. The jury has been told Sahil had access to the drug Syntometrine on a trolley in her delivery room, and the word "Oxytocin" was written on the box.
After the unborn twins died, Sahil claimed it was midwife Caroline Randall who gave her an injection via an intravenous cannula in her left hand to speed up labour.
She told police she thought one ampoule of the drug was used – as opposed to telling Dr Simon Grant, of Southmead Hospital, that two were used.
Sahil admitted that she had tried to withdraw her allegation concerning Miss Randall, but said that was due to pressure from her family in order for the twins not to have a post mortem and be buried within 24 hours according to her Muslim faith.
In interview, she said: "She (the midwife) gave it to me and I don't know how I can prove it, because I was alone in that room."
The jury has heard no fingerprints or DNA was recovered from drugs or syringes recovered from Sahil's hospital room.
Barristers for Sahil will make a closing speech today before Judge Mark Horton sums the case up and the jury retires to consider its verdict.
The case continues at Bristol Crown Court.
'Mr. Omar' and 'Mr. Sheikh' Rape a 17-Year-Old Girl...
Two men have been charged with rape by police investigating attacks on girls in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire.
Omar Omar, 38, of Conniburrow Boulevard, Milton Keynes, was charged with one offence in August 2007 and one in May 2008.
Abdi Sheikh, 45, of Herrick Road, Birmingham, was also charged with three counts of rape relating to the alleged offence in August 2007.
They were remanded in custody to appear at Huntingdon Crown Court on 6 May.
The charges against Mr Omar and Mr Sheikh relate to an incident on 31 August 2007 when a 17-year-old girl was raped at a house in Stacey Bushes, Milton Keynes.
Mr Omar was also charged in relation to an incident on 3 May 2008 when another 17-year-old girl reported that she had been raped at a house in Fishermead.
Omar Omar, 38, of Conniburrow Boulevard, Milton Keynes, was charged with one offence in August 2007 and one in May 2008.
Abdi Sheikh, 45, of Herrick Road, Birmingham, was also charged with three counts of rape relating to the alleged offence in August 2007.
They were remanded in custody to appear at Huntingdon Crown Court on 6 May.
The charges against Mr Omar and Mr Sheikh relate to an incident on 31 August 2007 when a 17-year-old girl was raped at a house in Stacey Bushes, Milton Keynes.
Mr Omar was also charged in relation to an incident on 3 May 2008 when another 17-year-old girl reported that she had been raped at a house in Fishermead.
Directors Used College as Heroin Smuggling Front...
Directors of a Bradford college were involved in a conspiracy to import heroin valued at more than £500,000, a court heard.
Husband and wife Mohammed Faisal and Patricia Malicka, who were said to be managing director and administration director of the Yorkshire College Ltd in Manningham Lane, Manningham, and Roohul Amin, listed as finance director, are accused of drug smuggling and money laundering.
Also accused are Faisal’s younger brother, Mohammed Alamgir, and Ali Iftikhar.
Prosecutor Peter Moulson told Bradford Crown Court some of the people involved with Yorkshire College were concerned in the importation of heroin from Pakistan.
The college was set up in November 2004 with the purpose appearing to be to assist overseas students to gain qualifications and college placements in England. Amin leased the Manningham Lane premises.
Mr Moulson said: “While some of that business may have been genuine, some of the people involved in it were responsible for the importation of heroin.”
He said almost 13kg of heroin, with a street value of nearly £650,000, was seized by the authorities.
He said the defendants, to a greater or lesser degree, ran facilities to try to ensure the safe receipt of heroin into the UK.
Addresses, and/or people were made available so the drug, secreted in parcels of clothing from Pakistan, could be received.
The enterprise ran from 2006 until the defendants’ arrest in June 2008, he told the jury.
He said parcels containing heroin from Pakistan were seized by British authorities at a Revenue and Customs and Parcel force depot in Coventry.
The drugs were removed and replaced with flour and water. Undercover police, posing as Parcelforce workers, then delivered some of the packages to relevant addresses in Bradford.
Faisal, 31, Malicka, 30, Alamgir, 25, all of Tyne Street, Wapping, Bradford, Amin, 35, of Raglan Terrace, Thornbury, Bradford, and Iftikhar, 39, of Thornbury Crescent, Thornbury, all plead not guilty to both charges.
The trial, expected to last four to five weeks, continues.
Husband and wife Mohammed Faisal and Patricia Malicka, who were said to be managing director and administration director of the Yorkshire College Ltd in Manningham Lane, Manningham, and Roohul Amin, listed as finance director, are accused of drug smuggling and money laundering.
Also accused are Faisal’s younger brother, Mohammed Alamgir, and Ali Iftikhar.
Prosecutor Peter Moulson told Bradford Crown Court some of the people involved with Yorkshire College were concerned in the importation of heroin from Pakistan.
The college was set up in November 2004 with the purpose appearing to be to assist overseas students to gain qualifications and college placements in England. Amin leased the Manningham Lane premises.
Mr Moulson said: “While some of that business may have been genuine, some of the people involved in it were responsible for the importation of heroin.”
He said almost 13kg of heroin, with a street value of nearly £650,000, was seized by the authorities.
He said the defendants, to a greater or lesser degree, ran facilities to try to ensure the safe receipt of heroin into the UK.
Addresses, and/or people were made available so the drug, secreted in parcels of clothing from Pakistan, could be received.
The enterprise ran from 2006 until the defendants’ arrest in June 2008, he told the jury.
He said parcels containing heroin from Pakistan were seized by British authorities at a Revenue and Customs and Parcel force depot in Coventry.
The drugs were removed and replaced with flour and water. Undercover police, posing as Parcelforce workers, then delivered some of the packages to relevant addresses in Bradford.
Faisal, 31, Malicka, 30, Alamgir, 25, all of Tyne Street, Wapping, Bradford, Amin, 35, of Raglan Terrace, Thornbury, Bradford, and Iftikhar, 39, of Thornbury Crescent, Thornbury, all plead not guilty to both charges.
The trial, expected to last four to five weeks, continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)