Miss Suleaman saw Hamid a few days after July 21, 2005 and he seemed "very shocked that the men he knew were accused of this".

Duncan Penny, prosecuting, said: "Did you tell him to go to the police?"

Ms Suleaman replied: "I don't think I needed to."

I just thought they were over-wieght she said after noting the prosecutions evidence that they were running about with pretend suicide bombs strapped to their abdomens.

"I had no idea that they intended to kill anyone other than kuffars", she said; she said she was somewhat disconcerted when they "started shooting of effigies of George Bush & Tony Blair whilst shouting Alluha Akhbar and whilst other members of the outing were busy sawing the heads off of live cows & sheep".

She thought this was just them "expressing themselves". Similarly when the boys began to explain to her that she should wear a Burqua and be indoctrinated into FMG she just thought this was high spirits inculcated by the fresh air and lack of infidels in the immediate local.

By the beard of the prophet !

Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 27, 2008 11:36 AM

"I don't think..."

Well, there's your problem, right there!

Cheers

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at February 27, 2008 11:49 AM

Duncan Penny, prosecuting, said: "Did you tell him to go to the police?"

Ms Suleaman replied: "I don't think I needed to. Can't you see that I work for the BBC? Whose side do you think we're on here?"

Posted by: Britannia's Lion at February 27, 2008 11:52 AM

Silence = Death

The problem facing "moderate" Muslims - Do they inform the authorities if some of the "brothers" are actually practicing jihad or do they don't think they needed to.

The problem is not simply Radical Extremist Jihadist Islamofacists. It is the "silent majority" of muslims who do nothing in the face of inhuman savagery.

It's okay, the brothers are just plotting to kill kuffars and as the Qur'an says, unbelievers are to be killed, raped or enslaved.

Posted by: tanstaafl at February 27, 2008 11:55 AM

Complicit?

The press doesn't see it that way. They view themselves as above such petty things as nationalism or (gad!) patriotism. They don't see anything wrong with reporting on criminal gangs and then "protecting sources". The "public's right to know" means anything they do to "get the story" is acceptable. They won't get interviews with the terrorist of the moment unless they promise confidentiality. What Western reporter, given the opportunity, would pass up an interview with bin Laden or Zawahiri? I would guess few, if any, would reveal this information to authorities beforehand. Their excuse is "it's not their job" to stop terrorists. Their job is to tell both sides of the story. This BBC reporter fits that profile. Reporters want free and unfettered access. What public official will deny it to them and risk being accused of stifling freedom of the press?

Posted by: PMK at February 27, 2008 12:04 PM

Gitmo. Waterboarding. Public flogging. Unless the Islamaniacs are treated according to their deeds it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 27, 2008 12:37 PM

What does "I don't think I needed to" mean? That Nareen Suleaman had no duty to tell him to give himself up? And didn't she have a duty to go directly to the police herself?

Will Nasrean Suleaman be allowedto keep her job at the BBC, continuing to help in its effort to apologize for Islam on every occasion, and of course to continue to blacken, in every possible way, the perception of the Infidel country that is the chief victims of violent Jihad, Israel, and of the Infidel country that is perceived by Muslims to be the most resolute and powerful leader of the Camp of Infidels, the United States.

Will Nasrean Suleaman avoid being charged by the state with other crimes -- the crime of failing to report what she knew in a case involving terrorist murder and those who trained, those who knew about it?

If she is not so charged, what will that tell the people of Great Britain about those who presume to instruct, and to protect them? How will they react, as they begin to realize that the political and media elites are paralyzed, or impotent, and that right smack in the middle of the BBC is a Muslim producer who feels she has no need to alert the police to possible terrorists.

What effect will that have on political stability? On social cohesion? On the trust people need to have in their own institutions, including the long-discredited BBC?

Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2008 12:46 PM

A revealing glimpse of the sort of vermin that have been infiltrating the media in the western nations over recent decades.

I'll continue getting my news off the internet and now I KNOW not to turn on ANYTHING produced by the 'Beeb'.

Posted by: pythagoras at February 27, 2008 1:27 PM

What effect will that have on political stability? On social cohesion? On the trust people need to have in their own institutions, including the long-discredited BBC?

Hugh,

you tend to be long-winded and somewhat obtruse. I may not have your complete understanding of the situation but I know enough and am not stupid.

This is the key mistake they are making they underestimate how people in a democratic society can suddenly turn.

Thanks to you and many others. Like the opponents we face, we must have some faith that we, as a civilisation can WIN ! We are still in the
majority and the more these morons do the more their own actions will turn against them.

Peace but Jihad to the others

Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 27, 2008 2:09 PM

I don't think you quite see the whole of it. Don't panic I'm Islamic was intended, exactly, to address what the Beeb regarded as the danger that the poor dumb ordinary citizen, always to be instructed and corrected and led by his betters, should, if left to himself, conceive the idea that Muslims were somehow dangerous. The title says it all. At the time, this blog and several others treated it with justified contempt. Now we find that the show's own producer had stumbled upon evidence that disproved her thesis. Well, of course she was going to cover it up, was she not? What would it do to her career if she was to admit, not only to herself, but to her bosses, that she had been working up a lot of propaganda for a dangerous and irresponsible viewpoint? No, no. Better keep the thing shut up.

Posted by: Paolo at February 27, 2008 2:12 PM

Bob Schieffer, of NBC's "Meet the Press", gave an editorial last Sunday about "protecting sources". He started by acknowledging that there is no freedom of speech in Cuba, except for the Castro brothers. Then, he remarked, "the next time you hear of the US government issuing a subpoena, asking a reporter to reveal his sources", remember the First Amendment. Thus, he implicitly compared the Bush Administration with Castro's Cuba. The quote is from memory; I don't have the transcript.

'They don't see anything wrong with reporting on criminal gangs and then "protecting sources".'

Posted by: CTYankee at February 27, 2008 2:18 PM

Where is the UK that I used to read about growing up? Losing her job should be the least that should happen.

Posted by: Silly Allah at February 27, 2008 2:31 PM

What would it do to her career if she was to admit, not only to herself, but to her bosses, that she had been working up a lot of propaganda for a dangerous and irresponsible viewpoint? No, no. Better keep the thing shut up.

She would have been promoted !

Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 27, 2008 2:34 PM

"you tend to be long-winded and somewhat obtruse."
-- from a dissatisfied mental customer above

Well, I don't mind being accused of being "long-winded." But when someone calls me "somewhat obstruse" I am cut to the quick, in ways too deep to delve.

Whatever else I may be, I am not now, and never have been, "obstruse."

Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2008 2:42 PM

This is how the Mohamedans repay their gracious hosts. The bloods of all those victims is on the head of this Mohamedan, as well as on the dhimmi heads of UK's political and media elites. In every terrorist attack there are two participants: the Mohamedan(s) who perpetrate it, and the dhimmi European politicians which allow the Mohamedans to carry out their attacks.

Posted by: US_infidel at February 27, 2008 3:18 PM

The “Beeb” is awash with out-and-out jihad sympathisers, if not, collaborators. This “woman” is one of many within this poor excuse of a news agency: One, which Brits pay a heavy tax to keep afloat.
Imagine if BBC has collaborated and aided and abetted the Nazis during World War Two; undoubtedly heads would have “literally” fallen. The difference today is the entire kingdom is run by nutter leftists of the same treacherous bent as Suleaman.
Nor is it, merely, the Beeb that is infiltrated by jihadist collaborationists or commie-nutters: most of the western media is of a similar toxic, anti-American, anti-Israel and needless to say anti-democracy mindset.
Unconscionable, definitely; however, these traitors profess naïveté or perhaps horror but frankly, do not give a toss. After all, there is a war to be won: Ironically, they, Suleaman, et al, grasp this fact but not our leadership.

Posted by: ballzack at February 27, 2008 3:26 PM

What people seem to overlook is the program in question - "Don't panic, I'm Islamic" was a cynical and hollow PR stunt made by muslims from the heavily muslim infiltrated BBC which backfired miserably.

If Nasreen Suleaman did not know who these people really were or what they was upto, then I'm the President of China.
Having previously worked for the BBC in London myself and resigned, I fear we have worse than this to come from this organisation.

Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at February 27, 2008 4:16 PM

Ms Suleaman replied: "I don't think I needed to."

Tell that to a judge - I would love to hear his answer.

She is obviously loyal to the cause of Islam, aren't they all.

What does BBC stand for anyway? Anyone know? Bogus Broadcasting Center would be my guess.

Posted by: champ at February 27, 2008 5:05 PM

Well it's an own goal for the BBC. They set out to make a programme showing Mulsims as regular, decent folk and they managed to pick a bunch of terrorists as their subject matter. I hope there will be some flak from that.

The BBC's own regulations state that they are legally obliged to report any information relating to terrorism:

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.

Posted by: zaltys at February 27, 2008 5:37 PM

Phil Reese, the programme's producer, who now works for al Jazeera, was completely unapologetic about it. He claimed that Mohammeed Hamid was a completely frank and open guy: he had known many men of violence in his time and he wasn't one of them. His argument was that the man had had the misfortune to acquire some evil friends and that all he had done was express vigorous opinions in response to British foreign policy. I think even he realised he was rather unconvincingly rationalising his own stupidity as he put his case.

'Don't panic. I'm Islamic' played on the fact that Muslims in this country often have regional British accents, like (or claim to like) mushy peas and chips and support teams like Manchester United. There was therefore nothing to worry about as they were as British as everyone else.In this they were playing on the way that the British discuss multiculturalism in terms of what constitutes Britishness. In stead of basic things such as belief in freedom of speech and liberal democracy and a dislike of polygamy and political violence the debate is often centred on things such as which cricket team you support, fondness for beer, belief in fair play etc. It often degenerates into distinguishing the people of the UK from the rest of the EU or even the English from the Scots, Welsh and Irish - on the right - and how we are different from the Americans - on the left. Muslim apologists play on the anti-Americanism as a matter of course, but some websites also take a close interest in nationalist politics in Wales and Scotland - I believe the Welsh nationalist party has a Muslim member on it's ruling committee.
The extent to which the BBC bends over backwards to look after Muslim interests was shown in the recent discussion of Obama dressing as a Muslim while in Kenya: in all their newscasts he was described as wearing traditional African clothes or wearing Somali dress. The M-word was not mentioned once, leaving viewers or listeners wondering what on earth all the fuss was about.

Posted by: wallyUK at February 27, 2008 5:59 PM

Did either the defense or prosecution or judge or bailiff bother to ask (if it's even legally possible) the religion of Ms. Suleaman? Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that they did ask, and that she answered that she is Muslim. Would any of them followup to ask her with whom her loyalty lies, with the citizens of the U.K., or with the ummah?

There are a thousand crimes, moral and legal, that are committed every day by jihadis and their supporters. A thousand crimes, like this one, that go uninvestigated and unpunished.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think the media ought to obstruct investigations into mass murder and hide the identity of those likely to commit further mass murder in the future.

But that's just me. A filthy kufir.

Posted by: special_guest at February 27, 2008 6:04 PM

Please do not objurgate the obtuse for their oblivious obloquy.

Posted by: special_guest at February 27, 2008 6:17 PM

Britain should resurrect it's olde common law statutes for misprision of felony.

Misprision of felony, under English common law, was the crime of failing to report knowledge of a felony to appropriate authorities.

Under the olde common law hierarchy of crimes (treasons, felonies and misdemeanours), misprision of treason was a felony.

Posted by: Terp Mole at February 27, 2008 6:29 PM

Ballzack,

The “Beeb” is awash with out-and-out jihad sympathisers, if not, collaborators. This “woman” is one of many within this poor excuse of a news agency: One, which Brits pay a heavy tax to keep afloat.

How much is the TV licence these days? 150 quid? Or more? I remember paying around 90 pounds in 1993.

Just wondering...Any of our fellow UK brethren can answer.

Posted by: boneshack at February 27, 2008 9:38 PM

"Misprision of felony...."
-- from a posting above

"Nasrean Suleaman's Misprision of Felony" at
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/13239

Posted by: Hugh at February 27, 2008 11:56 PM

Regarding the header...
In a word Robert, yes...

Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at February 28, 2008 1:58 AM