I’m sure our more discerning readers will have had a wry chuckle at the news that Mohammed Hamid (Great name, eh?) – one of the most senior terrorist recruiters in Britain – a man who called himself “Osama bin London” – was himself the subject of a BBC documentary called “Don’t Panic I’m Islamic” broadcast in June 2005.
Hamid was recruited, by the BBC, from his stall on Oxford Street to represent ..ahem…the acceptable face of modern Islam. He was filmed, along with co-accused Mohammed al-Figari and 14 other men at a paintball centre in Tonbridge, Kent where they were seen ducking behind oil barrels and shooting at cut out figures before lining up to pray at the end of the day. The documentary was shot in February 2005 at the Delta Force centre because it was convenient for the TV crew but Hamid’s group returned four days before the July 7 attacks, this time bringing with them Ramzi Mohammed and Hussain Osman, who went on to launch failed attacks on July 21. The producer returned to talk to Hamid as the July 21 gang were on the run and said he admitted knowing them and was “agitated, concerned, and worried”, but the producer claimed her bosses took the decision not to notify the police.
The BBC – literally terrorist enablers?
I posted this on the general thread, but it is more appropriate here.
Interesting reporting comparisons:
The BBC:
’He and Hamid had also worked the same preaching stall in central London in 2004, leading to their arrest after a row with a police officer.
Hamid told the arresting officer he was “Osama bin London” and armed with a bomb.’
The Telegraph
During Hamid’s trial, the court heard how he and Muktar Ibrahim set up a stall selling Islamic literature outside Debenhams department store in Oxford Street and how, in October 2004, both men were arrested following a disturbance at the stall.
Police called to reports of three men blocking the pavement with a trestle table stacked with religious books found they refused to move and started to abuse the black and Asian officers when they were threatened with arrest.
The officers had to call for assistance and as Hamid was handcuffed and dragged to the police van he told the officers: “I’ve got a bomb and I’m going to blow you all up.”
At the police station Hamid gave his name as Osama bin London’
In one paragraph the BBC even managed a bit of conflation.
Perhaps even a halfwit can see the difference. or perhaps it was just a ‘row’ as alleged by the BBC after all and the prosecution got it wrong.
In the same article, the Telegraph also reports the later attempted cover-up by the BBC.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/u…/uk/ 7256859.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/…r526.xml& page=2
Let me redo those links.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7256859.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/26/nterror526.xml&page=2
I just think that certain people within the Beeb (or commissioned by the beeb) take an incredibly naive stance on a range of more-complex-than-they-seem issues. It makes for good “ground breaking” television as they would probably put it. I think they should leave that kind of stuff to Channel 4 and stick to reporting on things like ‘dancing babies’.
Lest we forget, the BBC also “failed to pass on information about the 21/7 bombers to police” according to the Times:
“Nasreen Suleaman, a researcher on the programme, told the court that Mr Hamid, 50, contacted her after the July 2005 attack and told her of his association with the bombers. But she said that she felt no obligation to contact the police with this information. Ms Suleaman said that she informed senior BBC managers but was not told to contact the police.”
BBC ‘took terrorist trainers paintballing’
Lets see if “John Reith” and “Hillhunt” can squirm their way out of this.
WE’RE WAITING YOU ACCOMPLICES TO MURDER
Any further comments Mr Reith.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/patrickcrozier/3721989577720589941/#376975
Where IS an online BBC report on this news?
Has it being covered on the radio or TV today?
Chomping at the bit guys??
The Telegraph report is spot on, the BBC are guilty on this one.
Typhoo:
Chomping at the bit guys??
The Telegraph report is spot on, the BBC are guilty on this one.
Typhoo | Homepage | 26.02.08 – 7:51 pm | #
Absolutely chomping at the bit. The more traitors tried and convicted the better. Let’s hope there’s a full police investigation and that anyone at the BBC who is convicted of conspiring to withold information relating to terrorist activity get their just desserts.
Online report is now on the beeb website, in some detail.
Curiously (sarcasm) it makes no reference to the “Don’t Panic” debacle.
Rees, the producer, was on Channel 4 News – completely unapologetic.
When challenged about the guy who said the 7/7 deaths were “not even breakfast for me” – he said something to the effect you can’t prosecute people for what they say.
Wouldn’t work if you or I called the guy a murderous p*ki b*st*rd though – would it?
We’d be down the nick in a brace of shakes.
So, just to get things clear in my mind… The BBC took the TV Tax, that it forcibly exstracted from the victims of the 7/7 attacks, and spent it on terrorist training sessions and ‘appearance fees’ so that they could pay their fines/buy guns/etc.
Once they found out their ‘error’, they didn’t contact the police to pass on this rather vital information?
With friends like these…
*extracted
Amazing gall on the 6 O’Clock News tonight – the BBC reporter says the police missed vital intelligence but entirely fails to say that the BBC paid for the paintball trip featured in the report etc and that they sat on information.The very least that can be said is that the BBC obstructed the course of justice; more bluntly, that they aided and abetted murder and treason.
john reith spins in his grave
I saw Rees on channel 4 too.
It was like a spoof of an interview between Bird and Fortune on Bremner Bird and Fortune as Rees tried to explain away his ignorance and stupidity.
“you can’t prosecute people for what they say.”
Not unless they happen to belong to the BNP that is.
The very least that can be said is that the BBC obstructed the course of justice; more bluntly, that they aided and abetted murder and treason.
libertus | 26.02.08 – 8:35 pm | #
Absolutely.
I’ve emailed the Met and my MP tonight suggesting there’s a prima facie case that the BBC has actively supported terrorism.
There has got to be, at least, a police investigation.
BBC Editorial Guidelines
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/edguide/war/theterrorismact.shtml
The Terrorism Act 2000
“We have a legal obligation under the Terrorism Act 2000 to disclose to the police, as soon as reasonably practicable, any information which we know or believe might be of material assistance in:
– preventing the commission of an act of terrorism anywhere in the world.
– securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person in the UK, for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
It is a criminal offence not to disclose such information, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Any situation where BBC staff may be in potential breach of the Terrorism Act must be referred to Controller Editorial Policy and Programme Legal Advice.”
Isn’t Inspector Knacker interested in investigating this breach of the law by BBC employees?
I’m sure this issue will be dealt with in the same rational way the BBC is renowned for.
They’ll campaign for a ban on paintballing.
The lack of shame of some people is staggering. The revolting Phil Rees, producer of, ‘Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic ‘, has just appeared on Channel 4 News. Remember, this is the former BBC producer who went looking for a bunch of reasonable moderate Muslims to defuse the all-Muslims-are-terrorists stereotype, and instead found, er… a bunch of Moslem terrorists.
He’s caught out. Bang to rights. Cultural relativist twit. They don’t come much more intellectually confused than Mr Rees.
At a time when someone of such breathtaking stupidity, and obvious lack of common sense, should be keeping their head down, this former BBC (now Al Jazeera) employee was desperate to tell us how he was right all along, and that it was in fact ‘us’ that has got completely the wrong end of the stick, with this case.
All of ‘us’, in this case, being the police, the CPS, the judge, the jury, the justice system and the general public; in short, everyone but him. You see, Phil’s thesis is that Mr Hamid it is — despite all evidence to the contrary — completely innocent. He just has, to quote Mr Rees, “… a bad choice in friends”. And even those friends are definitely not terrorists, according to Mr Rees, they just genuinely like playing paintball. Nice chaps, all of them.
The whole thing is a dreadful miscarriage of justice.
It’s not enough, apparently, for Mr Rees’s to employ the utterly thick and completely morally vacuous Ms Suleiman — a woman who thinks she is under no moral obligation to report information about the 21/7 bombers to the police — this complete idiot has to go on television and leave everyone in absolutely no doubt of the depth of the moral pit at the BBC.
Stuck record I nearly choked on supper watching Phil Rees in that channel 4 news interview, acting as an apologist for the people he tried to put forward as the moderate face of Islam. Jeeeze, if they are moderates, I’d hate to meet an extremist.
I thought Snow gave him too easy a ride.
Does anyone know how to get more detailed information about the court case.
I want to make a complaint, initially, to the BBC. I want to know why they’ve ignored the terrorist act of 2000. Several Moslems have been jailed recently for withholding information in ongoing inquiries: peripheral knowledge of plots, whereabouts of suspects etc.
Ms Suleiman is on very sticky ground indeed. But the producers, and by extension senior management at the BBC are equally culpable.
— this complete idiot has to go on television and leave everyone in absolutely no doubt of the depth of the moral pit at the BBC.
Stuck-Record | 26.02.08 – 8:58 pm | #
I think, in Rees’s case, it’s worse than moral relativism.
Looking at his book, his website and his past work – he has a deep seated attachment to terrorist causes:-
http://philrees.tv/
This book review sums him up:-
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/13495
The fact that the BBC have employed him to make no less than 40 documentaries over the years tell you all you need to know about their political leanings.
Ahh… bless…
Auntie Beeb taking terrorist-militant-fighter-criminal-whatevers for a paintballing session. The social cohesion makes us all want to vomit.
Was Andy “I luv Islam” Marr there?. Was he the squadron commander? Did he get splattered? Did he have his “blow me up Scotty” belt on in case Islam ‘called’ him to to his BBC duty and blow everybody up in case somebody went against his beliefs?
I think not.
The day when a Beeboid gets splattered, will be the day the Beeb realise what this cult called Islam really is… I wish.
(from the Telegraph) “the (BBC) producer claimed her bosses took the decision not to notify the police.”
Very prudent, lest British “islamophobes” draw the wrong conclusions about these “moderates” – the face of modern Islam.
tick…tick…tick…tick…
Re. JR Spins: I’ve emailed the Met and my MP tonight suggesting there’s a prima facie case that the BBC has actively supported terrorism.
Glad to see you are using your time productively. I shan’t hold my breath waiting for the court case.
Its all up to Prince Phillip anyway.
“I’ve emailed the Met and my MP tonight suggesting there’s a prima facie case that the BBC has actively supported terrorism.
There has got to be, at least, a police investigation.
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 26.02.08 – 8:39 pm | #”
Would it be possible for you to post a copy of the text here?
David Vance, I forward a motion that this blog be used to start a letter campaign to MP’s and BBC complaints department. Perhaps an address and a letter template would be a good start?
We must milk this for all it is worth. The BBC must become a pariah. I want questions asked in parliament, I want apoplectic protests, I want grovelling apologies from Al-Beeb. I want (political) blood.
Glad to see you are using your time productively. I shan’t hold my breath waiting for the court case.
Its all up to Prince Phillip anyway.
Joel | Homepage | 26.02.08 – 9:59 pm
As far as I’m concerned it’s a public duty to report a possibly serious crime – maybe you don’t agree.
But, since you work for the beeb and you’re here – do you think Suleaman’s superiors should have told her to report her suspicions to the police or not?
Do tell us.
Woad, what you need, is your head seen to.
WoAD:
“I’ve emailed the Met and my MP tonight suggesting there’s a prima facie case that the BBC has actively supported terrorism.
There has got to be, at least, a police investigation.
John Reith spins in his grave | Homepage | 26.02.08 – 8:39 pm | #”
Would it be possible for you to post a copy of the text here?
Woad, I just said the following, if enough people complain they will have to at least consider an investigation:-
Dear ****
On December 5th last, the “Times” had the following report on a BBC TV programme:-
Nasreen Suleaman, a researcher on the programme, told the court that Mr Hamid, 50, contacted her after the July 2005 attack and told her of his association with the bombers. But she said that she felt no obligation to contact the police with this information. Ms Suleaman said that she informed senior BBC managers but was not told to contact the police.
Now that the individuals concerned have been convicted of serious terrorism offences, it would appear that certain BBC employees may have also committed criminal offences by witholding information.
Could you please ensure that this matter is investigated.
Sincerely etc.
Well, you’re obviously an intellectual Joel, as well as a master of language.
No wonder you got a job at the beeb.
Are you going to answer my question?
BBC Newsnight [deleted] have just done another “could comething have been done earlier about these men?”
WELL YES YOU BBC [deleted]!!! YOU LOT COULD HAVE DOBBED THESE SCUMBAGS INTO THE POLICE YOURSELVES YOU [deleted]!!!!!!
Please moderate your language or future comments may be deleted in their entirety. – Admin.
Edited By Siteowner
Currently watching Newsnight and like Martin I’ve also noticed how the BBC when reporting on Osma bin London while berating Int and squint.with the usual “They could have done better” leave out of the equation how when Osma Bin London allowed them to video tape an away day, the very salient fact that the BBC funded it?
Thanks for that grave spinner. Now all we need is to get David Vance to put up a template, hopefully encouraging dozens of people to fire off angry letters to MP’s and such like. I know I will.
Dont’ know, don’t care.
Template complaints are for sheep.
Joel
So basically, you fail to arrive at a conclusion whether the BBC should have reported the would be terrorists to the police after filming them paint balling.
Can I ask you Joel, if you support terrorists? You seem confused. Did you support the murders of 7/7? It would seem from your refusal to answer the question that maybe you do. A typical Beeboid? I hope not, for their sake.
“Dont’ know, don’t care” is for vegetables.
Beyond the probable breach of the Terrorism Act 2000 mentioned by Ritter | 26.02.08 – 8:43 pm |, it looks like there may be enough to consider a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice in addition to harbouring an offender.
DPP & Treasury Council take your pick.
Irony births poetry.
The blind assistants,
Of murders triumph.
What is the name of Ms Suleamans BBC manager?
Long-time lurker here. I am seriously upset by all this. The BBC must be investigated. Any allegation of crime to the Met has to be investigated (however superficially) and should they ‘bin it’ a reason for the ‘No Crime’ classification has to be shown on the (CRIS) report.
Not one word from any of the usual apologists for the BBC. Is that (another) tacit admission that we are correct, this is BBC bias and literally criminal neglect of duty?
You`re a fiesty lot here!
I haven`t read many blogs that actually miss their trolls.
Maybe they`ve all been recalled to borg central.
The disgraceful BBC is now desperately rolling out a damage limitation effort, leading the news website with criticism of the police from one of the unconvicted paintballers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7264768.stm
In an interview with the BBC, which can be watched in full from this page, Mr Brown said he had been left embittered and angry with the way he had been treated after being arrested in 2006.
Er, no thank you. I would like to see an interview with the commissioner and producer of Don’t Panic explaining why the BBC funded terror activities.
There’s more on the absolutely revolting Phil Rees – terrorist PR man extraordinaire – here, writing, unsurprisingly for al-Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/aug/06/mondaymediasection.politicsandthemedia
Abu Muhammed is a courteous, intelligent man… He offered advice to British Muslims. “They need to arm themselves to prevent the kaffir [non-believer] from coming into their home, terrorising their families, frightening their children and invading their privacy… they have to be prepared to pay the price and fight back.”
Journalism has a duty to reflect and not condemn the views of people such as Abu Muhammed. In denying them a voice, it is contributing to the radicalisation of British Muslims.
Well Rees, we’ve all seen where your documentary reflecting and not condemning the views of neo-fascists, racial supremacists, and religious fundamentalists leads. Your brain dead publicity stunt was followed a few weeks later by the worst terror attack on this island since World War II. Such courteous, intelligent people!
My MP has been e-mailed.
It is disgusting that some of MY money has been used to fund terrorism by the BBC.
An utter disgrace.
Although I agree that there is a prima facie case that (employees of) the BBC aided and abetted terrorism, the police are too busy investigating real crimes like this one. So don’t hold your breath.
I listened to Radio 4 last night (I’m currently in Aberdeen) and they were banging on about a Turkish academic who is reviewing the Hadith – sayings of muhammad about how to interpret the koran. Beeboid says that it is the beginning of a muslim reformation because the most unenlightened sayings are being removed etc. including the one about not allowing a woman to travel without her husband’s premission.
Unfortunately for the BBC’s line, the koran itself states that Jews and Christians are pigs and apes – who should be slaughtered where they are found – and never befriended by believers – and non-believers will burn in hell. Just how does one interpret and reform that if it is the absolute and final word of (the moon-) god?
I link this to the current matter because the BBC is now attempting to whitewash islam as being reformable(?)
The day when a Beeboid gets splattered, will be the day the Beeb realise what this cult called Islam really is… I wish.
Barbarella-Duran | 26.02.08 – 9:38 pm
The BBC probably wont even miss a beat. They’ll put it down to a tiny minority of extremists.
Frank Gardner was shot and almost killed by Islamic terrorists in Saudi Arabia. His reporting from his wheelchair is as pro-Islam as ever.
Umbongo,
That is the Met crawling to its NuLabor masters.Along the lines of,”You won’t have to resign for shooting a Brazilian but we need a favour”.
May even bein a newt lover involved.
Bryan:
“The BBC probably wont even miss a beat. They’ll put it down to a tiny minority of extremists.”
I’ll second that. Al Beeb aren’t just partial converts to the ROP. They are fully signed up members. Anything that happens to themselves or their own at the hands of these murdering Islamic savages will of course be the fault of the white non-Islamic classes.
Take a look at the way Joel responds to anything that attacks his beloved religion. His attitude is typical of the Uni brainwashed elite that are flying the flag for Islam.
Joel, you have blood on your hands just like the rest of your murderous colleagues at the BBC. How do you sleep?
Allan@Oslo: The story is not a BBC invention, you can read about it below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7264903.stm
Posting earlier that I didn’t know and didn’t care about this case involving Nasreen Suleaman probably wasn’t helpful.
Some comments such ‘the BBC aided and abetted terrorism’ or ‘MY money has been used to fund terrorism by the BBC’ are in my opinion, not worthy of responding to.
The reality is that all this has been in the public domain for some time and hasn’t resulted in a prosecution.
The Terrorism Act 2000 is a legal, written document and is therefore open to interpretation but I think not informing the police that you knew an individual who knew the suspects does not constitute an illegal act. I am sure there were lots of people who knew them. I suspect they didnt all ring the police.
As stated in the Editorial Guidlines, she referred the matter to Programme Legal Advice and the lawyers advised it wasn’t necessary.
As stated in the Editorial Guidlines, she referred the matter to Programme Legal Advice and the lawyers advised it wasn’t necessary.
Joel | Homepage | 27.02.08 – 8:14 pm | #
Joel, since you use the BBC homepage and seem to know the jargon – can we take it as official that Suleaman got BBC legal advice?