That's almost two million dollars. I have no problem with their spending money to have people there to monitor what he was saying, but that doesn't seem to be what it was spent for. From the Times Online, with thanks to all who sent this in:
The Metropolitan Police has disclosed, after a successful Freedom of Information Act request by The Times, that the cost of supervising weekly gatherings outside Finsbury Park Mosque, North London, was £874,387. The figure is far in excess of previous estimates for the 22-month police operation....Patrick Mercer, the Conservative frontbench spokesman on homeland security, said the taxpayer was facing a huge bill for allowing an extremist message to be preached on the streets of the capital.
“The effect of the police action was to make it easier for poison and subversion to be preached openly on our streets,” Mr Mercer said.
The open-air meetings began in January 2003 after the mosque, where Hamza had been the imam, was closed. The Egyptian-born cleric gave his sermons in St Thomas’s Road, close to Highbury stadium.
Initially large numbers of officers were involved in policing the events at which Hamza, 47, would deliver lectures in Arabic and English.
Tarpaulins were spread on the road, on which his congregation, often numbering 150 or more, would pray before listening to Hamza speak.
Between 12 and 18 uniformed officers were deployed to the site of the meetings for up to two hours each week. More police were required when counter-demonstrators threatened to disrupt an event.
In the meantime, many British World War II veterans who paid a steep price to defend their country are barely scraping by.
Blair should be keelhauled.
Putting a slug in that hook handed, obese, greasy rat would've been so much more economical.
I was reading the Times this morning and this article just screamed at me. Can anyone explain what's going on in the UK to allow this sort of thing to happen? Blair has spent an enourmous amount of political (and financial) capital by sending troops alongside the US marines in Iraq. Why, would he take such a high political gamble in Iraq and not apply the same principles in the UK, where presumably it's not that difficult to arrest such a person. The politcal will to destroy these people just doesn't appear to be there. Hamza's residency visa is on very shaky grounds, he illegally claims state benefits while he can easily be working at McDonalds who are hiring at the Finchly branch. He has been filmed preaching universal jihad and worst af all he refuses to appear in court because he stubbed his toe in the prison cell. It makes no sense at all to me. Eventually Al Capone was arrested for tax evasion. All it required was political will. Hell you can arrest anyone, we all have something that requires 'further enquiries', even if it's an unpaid parking ticket. Surely the same principle can apply to Hooky Hamza.
Well MI5 and MI6 probably have their own secret program when it comes to guys like this. I reckon that they are hustling the jihadists by pretending they are not interested in their daily calls for a global caliphate. And then when these jihadists get a false sense of overconfidence, suddenly the police, the army and the secret services will swoop down and get rid of them all in one go. After all they are starting to get very cocky and the English love to take cocky guys down a peg or two.
Only one problem though with this analysis? I think the time to swoop has passed and there is no hint of any kind of swooping or sweeping away of this jihadist nonsense.
One positive note. At least the UK has a robust printed media. This got a whole page in the Times and is there to shame the government and anger the reader. Good luck in trying to read something like this in France.
OT but has anyone read this article in the washington post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A29400-2005Jan22?language=printer
Found it on LGF sorry if link was already posted somewhere here, I was sure the first time I read it it came from a satire site...but nope this one comes from the WP
Perhaps he could open his own fish and chips joint. Captain Hooks?
One has to say the following again and again: a significant Muslim presence in any Infidel country ineluctably causes a much less pleasant, more troubled, more expensive, and more dangerous enivronment for the indigenous Infidels. Islam is a permanent threat to their poltical and social arrangements; believers in the Shari'a are permanent and total enemies of the American Constitution.
Now is a time to focus on the expense. The amount of British taxpayers' money -- a sum that the government tried to hide -- that was spent to monitor rants against Infidels by a Muslim ranter, should give everyone pause. How much is now being spent to guard airports, train stations, subway stations, nuclear reactors, dams, water sources, natural gas tanks, churches, synagogues, Jewish day schools, Christian day schools, Hindu temples, on-campus Young Republican clubs, and so on, a list that increasses day by day, and is essentially endlessly expansive. How much does it cost to monitor Muslim populations in various parts of the Infidel world? To pay informers, who may or may not be on the level? To monitor Muslim newspapers and translate their contents? To watch, monitor, record everything that Muslims in the West see as subscribers to Al-Jazeera? To Al-Manar? To monitor the movements of the handful of Muslims in the armed services? In the FBI? In teh police, where they need as much watching as those they are supposed to be watching? (Would the Copts in Jersey City confide in the FBI more willingly if they were not so wary of its Arabic-language staff, whom they suspect contain Muslims whom they, the wary Copts (far more wary than the native American FBI agents) simply do not trust?)
One could go on, and on. How many tens of billions of dollars in this country, how many hundreds of billions are spent in France, in England, in Italy, in Spain, in Germany, in Belgium, in Holland, in Scandinavia, in Thailand, in India, in the Philipinnes, indeed around the world, to monitor local Muslm populuations?
In a recent tape Bin Laden boasted of how the war in Iraq was bleeding American economically. He might have also taken grim satisfaction in the cost, to the United States and the entire Western and indeed non-Muslim world, to monitor their domestic Muslim populations, even while tolerating and indeed in some ways promoting their very presence (permitting, for example, Saudi-financed mosques to go up everywhere, instead of banning all foreign-funded mosques, and any reading from the Qur'an that reasonably could be defined as "religiously-based hatred." Not everyone understands the nature of Islam.
But everyone understands the spending of money, and the huge expense that Infidels incur, an expense that can only grow and grow, to monitor those adherents of an ideology that inculcates hatred toward those very Infidels. Does anyone in public life, does anyone in the press, wish to investigate the real costs of Muslim immigrants to this country? Or is this one more topic that will forever remain off-limits, not in good taste, bad form?
They spent nearly 900,000 pounds/ 2 million dollars to ensure that Hamza was able to spew bile and spleen to 150 people?!?
Whatever happened to Speaker's Corner and a soapbox?
The Home Office not only allowed Hamza to continue his jihad preaching at the taxpayers' expense but he was only finally charged by the Crown Prosecution Service within hours of deportation to the US where he would have faced charges on terrorism and possibly, the death penalty. The Blair government saved his irreligious ass.
Why, would he take such a high political gamble in Iraq and not apply the same principles in the UK, where presumably it's not that difficult to arrest such a person?
Blair has been pandering furiously to the Muslim community -- pressuring Bush to pressure Israel, approving sharia-friendly changes to the tax code, and accommodating hook-handed terrorists -- since the end of the Iraq war. An election is coming and Blair wants to cement his constituency.
I've been reading articles about how muslims are treated in Britain for a while now, and it appears to me that the entire British establishment has been turned.
Muslims run, and have been running the show in Britain. And this is when they are only 2.5 percent of the population. What happens when they are 10, 20, or 50 percent of the population?
No, I'll say it in stronger terms. The British government, the British establishment, as well as the police are traitors to the British people.
I don't see the sense in pandering to the 1.5 million or muslims in the UK. At the top of my head I would guess this may translate to 750,000 possible voters in parliamentary seats which I would are probably overwhelmingly supportive of New Labour anyway. If Blair was really interested in in pandering to a minority he might, for example, have pledged his support for gay marriage. After all there must be more than 1.5 million gays in the UK. Or why not lower VAT on live sport tickets? There's a way to win votes with a far larger minority.
Strategically, for Tony Blair as a politician, Eye don't see how it can make sense to let Hamza off the hook. He already has the next election in his pocket and the Conservative party are just hoping not to suffer too embarassing a defeat. It's is a bit of shame for the that the Conservatives haven't turned neocon in order to give the British electorate the some kind of choice in the upcoming spring election.
Is there another programme we are not being told about? Did Britain also sign up to Eurabia? Or is simply stupidity and cowardice that guide our leaders?
USAgirl:
That article and a hilarious parody of it are both posted at LGF. MUST READ ! ! !
Yes, Sebastian, Britain has signed up to Eurabia.
Voltaire. Do you think the ones being watched by the establishment are Jihadwatchers like us?
Good question Sebastian.
I wouldn't be surprised. In fact, I think that there might be a real likelihood of that happening.
Let's start putting the dots together.
British police spend 900,000 pounds on supervising Hamza's sermons. They're so sensitive about it, that they try to prevent the general public from finding out.
They also spend 3 million US dollars on a mosque specially for him when he is in jail.
And he was only charged with terrorism by the Crown within hours of his deportation to the US, where he would have possibly recieved the death penalty.
It's pretty clear that the establishment in Britain are on Hamza's side, but why?
One day, no doubt this will all come out, but in the meantime, I think that we all have to face the fact that the British political establishment is on the side of the terrorists.
And that means that the British public who is opposed to terrorism, is by default, the enemy of the political establishment.
I read the parodies...very hilarious. But this original article is a real article not a parody?
Voltaire in a fit of over analysis, I was thinking the exact same thing. The facts can only lead to the conclusion that the enemy is actually us. This is like a movie where a guy hunting for a murderer finds that the all clues lead to him and he slowly goes mad. This leads us down the path of conspiracy theories that we continually accuse our more liberal minded brethren of believing. You know the usual nonsense such as like the worldwide jewish plot, the US plan to McDonaldise the world, the death of Kennedy and other such crazy ideas.
I agree that all the facts about the Hamza case, or any other number of similar stories could lead us to believe in such fanciful plotting among those who are nominated to govern us.
However, how is the UK cover up of this Hamza nonsense any different from the US not making a big deal about the Coptic family murder in New Jersey. The story could simply demonstrate poor governance where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and each administrative level works for its own agenda. Ultimately, Britain is not a dictatorship any more than France or the USA and it's difficult to filter any policy down the chain unless it is very strongly implemented. Inertia is the biggest force in most people's lives. This is one reason why I don't believe in a big plot.
And another reason is. If there was a plot it would be crime against western civilization. Most crimes have a motive. I see no motive here, just stupidity and cowardice combined with a huge lack of spunk. (Scuse the expression but it fits perfectly here)
The final reason is this. I don't want to believe that the government, media, police, judiciary and civil service is actively trying to dismantle British society to place 750,000 potential muslim voters.
Sebastian:
Blair sucks up to everybody, it's his nature, that's what makes him so dangerous to Britain.
All that Hamza is doing is being truthful to his beliefs. He is waging jihad against the infidel West and Britain in particular. He and his family, has cost the country upwards of a million pounds with no positive benefits to the country. And we have not even started to count the damage that his preachings may have. We will count that cost when when some major event occurs.
All is Jihad - any activity that weakens the infidel state is jihad. Beseige him, beseige his security and police services, his courts and prisons, his social security systems, his hospitals and his maternity wards. Besiege all of them and put then under strain till the system collapses.
Some 3 years ago sheikh Bakri made a prediction that islam would win, so long as the West is faithful to its tolerant principles and muslims are faithful to islamic tenets. So "go on" was the taunt from Bakri, muslims will win if the West continues to be loyal to tolerance as a virtue. And if the West reneges on tolerance, islam will still have won, as it would have shown the shallowness and impermanence of our core values.
There is a way out of this conundrum, but we are not yet ready to adopt such a policy.
Well, so much for separation of church and state in the UK!
What's next for our fellow Brits across the pond? Public beheadings? Or, hey! how about this one-- Replace the Magna Carta with the Qur'an! God save the Queen? or, is it "Al-lah save the Queen?" (Or is it more likely to be something akin to "off with her head!"?).
Blimey!
Sorry to go off the point, but get a load of Mark Steyn in The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/25/do2502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/01/25/ixopinion.html
He rocks!
CAIR draws flies instead of an audience:
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/press_003_05
Hamza is indeed the poster boy for why Islamofascists should be deported and the UK should have thrown him out years ago. In addition to the normal security reasons for deportation, it is bad or the morale of the host country to allow creatues like Hamza to remain in residence.
the incessant obsession of the British GOV with Hamza leads one to suspect that he may be a double agent for the security services.
Pythagoras:
There is not supposed to be a separation of Church and State in the UK. The queen is the head of both here. Take a look at her head on one of our coins, there is an inscription; Elizabeth II DG REG FD which stands for Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor.
Pythagoras:
There is not supposed to be a separation of Church and State in the UK. The queen is the head of both here. Take a look at her head on one of our coins, there is an inscription; Elizabeth II DG REG FD which stands for Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor.
Voltaire
And he was only charged with terrorism by the Crown within hours of his deportation to the US
I'm not fully up to speed on this case but that sounds mighty dodgy. What exactly was he charged with and what was the outcome of the charges against him.
I was just repeating what Charles Martel said.
You'll have to ask him.
Charles Martel
The Home Office not only allowed Hamza to continue his jihad preaching at the taxpayers' expense but he was only finally charged by the Crown Prosecution Service within hours of deportation to the US where he would have faced charges on terrorism and possibly, the death penalty.
I'm not fully up to speed on this case but that sounds mighty dodgy. It clearly seems to indicate that they were saving his sorry ass as you said.....but why? What exactly was he charged with and what was the outcome of the charges against him.
Earthling:
I'm not totally up to speed on the case either, but I remember that the UK government was being pressured by the US to extradite him on extremely serious terrorism charges that could have incurred the death penalty. Rather than extradite him, as it is UK policy (law?) not to extradite supects to death-penalty countries, the UK government decided at the last minute to charge him on whatever evidence THEY had against him, ignoring the much more serious and damning evidence brought forth by the US government, who felt that they could make a strong case. The Brits apparently agreed and decided to charge him with lesser offenses to spare his life.
Some 3 years ago sheikh Bakri made a prediction that islam would win, so long as the West is faithful to its tolerant principles and muslims are faithful to islamic tenets. So "go on" was the taunt from Bakri, muslims will win if the West continues to be loyal to tolerance as a virtue. . .
There is a way out of this conundrum, but we are not yet ready to adopt such a policy.
Posted by: DP111 at January 24, 2005 06:13 PM
DP111, as one adage goes, "The most consistent side wins." And as another adage goes, "Reality always wins in the end."
So, all we have to do is consistently recognize the facts of reality. When we are able to do this, we will drop the version of tolerance that insists that we become sacrificial animals to an enemy that wishes to destroy us, and BOOM! No more conundrum!
"Tolerance" does not include, of necessity, tolerating being killed. It is supposed to refer to beliefs and opinions, but not necessarily tolerance of behaviors.
There is only one thing getting in the way of our acceptance of Islam, per se, as the enemy, and that is the fact that Islam is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
If there were a gang of thugs out there who pursued the same goals as Islam, who followed the same policies as Islam, and who behaved the same way as Islam, but who did not claim that the goals, policies, and behaviors were sanctioned by a deity, we would have no trouble whatsoever in dealing with them.
Unfortunately for us, since Islam claims to be a religion, it gains a level of protection we would never grant the same thoughts and behaviors of any other thugs.
For the time being, Islam cloaks itself in the protective cloth of religion.
The most consistent side wins, and reality always wins in the end. Islam is profoundly anti-reality, and eventually, we will tire of its goals, policies, and behaviors.
Earthling
Here are a couple of stories on the Hamza case:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/16/nhamz16.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3756001.stm
It's possible that the Home Office would have been able to obtain assurances from the US Justice Department that Hamza -- if extradited -- would not face the death penalty, so one has to wonder why the British government was so keen to rescue him. (Note the suggestion in the Telegraph article about Britain not wanting to send people to the US with issues involving Guantanamo.) Further, the Crown will be prosecuting Hamza under "criminal" rather than "terrorism" charges, enabling him to avoid a long prison sentence (and to enjoy the new mosque British taxpayers are building).
Cubed
Unfortunately, there's another principle operating in a complex society: Gresham's Law. In economics, bad money drives the good money out of circulation. Just so, in communities/countries where some people have the intelligence, resources, and initiative to build a better life elsewhere, they will do so -- leaving the rabble, oppression, and filth behind. On its current trajectory, in 30 years time, Europe will consist of a population of 50% Muslims and 50% dhimmi atheists living together in the squalor of a massive welfare state -- a socialist's Shangri-la. China, and perhaps the US -- with courageous leadership -- will be the only islands of civilization in an otherwise backwater, Islamified world.