two wives, and by those wives, a total of 16 children -- every single one of them on the French dole.

Meanwhile, here are some details about Captain Hook, late of the Finsbury Park mosque (not Finsbury Mosque), from The Real (Y)UK.

Abu Hamza’s family are raking in benefits worth £1,000 A WEEK. His wife and eight children live free in a £550,000 five-bedroom house. And they are soaking up a fortune in taxpayers’ cash, even though Hamza’s own £200 weekly benefits have been axed. Preacher of hate Hamza, 45, had his cash stopped to prevent him funding terrorist followers of his hero Osama Bin Laden. But he claims to live apart from his wife Nagat Mostafa and she has continued to cash in on handouts. Housing benefit pays THE RENT for Mrs Mostafa’s spacious council house in Shepherd’s Bush, West London which would cost around £600 a week on the open market. COUNCIL TAX of £34.39 a week is covered by another allowance. Mrs Mostafa gets INCOME SUPPORT of £290.45 a week and £80.55 CHILD BENEFIT.

Her children, who are 16, 15, 13, 10, eight, seven and four, go to state-funded SCHOOLS and NURSERIES. Hamza’s son by a previous marriage, Mohammed Kamel recently released from jail in Yemen after plotting sabotage, also stays at the house and is believed to be on income support of around £40 a week. The family are entitled to free school meals, NHS treatment, travel to and from medical appointments, milk for pregnant mums and children under five, eye tests, NHS dentistry and one-off social fund allowances. Hamza is appealing against deportation in a legal fight which could last seven years and cost the taxpayer another £2million.

Still, mustn't grumble.

Posted by: Interested at November 11, 2005 10:52 AM

I wonder if anyone realises that I actually lived, and still do live on the street where hamza used to live. He would march round my area with about 10 cronies preaching hatred. I remember a friend of mine (12 years old, i was 15) being beaten up by the cowardly scum after a prank phone call. The men responsible never even got fined. More proof of the weak minded people that run my country, who still havenent deported the bast**d

Posted by: The Englishman at November 11, 2005 11:06 AM

Englishman, Granny, freddie, Albion and other Brit posters:

What's the public mood regarding the defeat of the bill to keep terror suspects locked up for an extra 60 days?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 11, 2005 11:16 AM

What's the public mood regarding the defeat of the bill to keep terror suspects locked up for an extra 60 days?

Melanie Phillips calls it Britain's moral imbecility.

Normally I'm against extending the powers of the Police, and the State in general, but with Islamic terrorists it is necessary. Hard cases make bad law, and Islam is one hard case.

Posted by: Interested at November 11, 2005 11:24 AM

Everyone I know is for it. The genral view is that if it can prevent the terroists from blowing themselves up then the law should have been passed. I reckon it was just Blair trying to get a get out of jail free card myself.

Posted by: The Englishman at November 11, 2005 11:30 AM

Interested

I have to say holding them for 90 days instead of 30 is hardly locking the door and throwing away the key. Do you think the public will remember 7/7 and this parliamentary act of idiocy come the next election?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 11, 2005 11:47 AM

Greetings waterdragon52

Where to begin.

Princess Blair has been very clever.

The opposition, & his own awkward squad, have just given him a get out of jail free card for when the next atrocity happens.

I can see him now, all statesman like with his serious face on, slightly sweaty & pained, standing at the despatch box just after the next suicide bombing in London pointing at his opponents on all sides around the chamber stating "you did this".

That will happen, I am sure.

There has to be a reason why he deliberately took this to Parliament in full knowledge he was going to lose for the first time ever.

The Tories have come out of this very badly. They look like the small time opportunists that they are.

Howard is determined to have some sort of victory over Blair before he shuffles off centre stage - & forcing Blair to quit before him would do it. They have not measured the situation fully. They did not look at Blairs record in the House & look seriously at why he took everyone one knowing he was going to lose.

AlBBCeera of course wants Blair gone. Hutton is still in their minds & will be until the BBC is cleansed of the left wing infestation (NO! I am not looking for a left wing right wing argument, but it is a statement of fact that the BBC has a left wing bias & agenda)

As for the normal folks, the little people, well we are subdued & resigned to the next bang. 71% of the UK public wanted this - when the most senior anti terror Policemen tell us that they need something to protect us, they usually get it. It is a shame that political vindictiveness & payback has aparently got in the way.

My money is on Blair being cleverer than his opponents give him credit for.

He still insists he will serve a full term - he certainly will if he can convince everyone after the next blast that he was right & they were wrong.

Cheers

Posted by: albion at November 11, 2005 11:48 AM

damnable european countries need to revamp your welfare system--Welfare for a little while,(while you look for work), then it gets cut off, no matter what.Also, welfare for no more than 3 children. These muslims have to learn fiscal responsibility. Socialist states are such a failure.

Posted by: capner at November 11, 2005 1:25 PM

Albion:

I'm only observing from the other side of the Atlantic, but with 70% of the public in favour, perhaps Tony thought MPs on both sides of the House would be a little more concerned about holding their seats in the next election than they seem to be.

Noting some of the decisions coming out of the high courts these days, I'd say that Lord Carlisle's "compromise" providing for weekly judicial review of such detentions would have quickly rendered the extended detention provisions a factual nullity, so I don't blame Blair for not accepting it.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 11, 2005 1:41 PM

capner wrote:
Also, welfare for no more than 3 children.

I get your point, but stuff like this will hurt everyone, not just muslims. Muslim extremists should really just be deported, welfare or no

Posted by: The Englishman at November 11, 2005 2:52 PM

Let's not jump to conclusions -- The European Elites know what's best, despite what all the unwashed masses might think...

Posted by: jsla at November 11, 2005 4:00 PM

Take notice of the latest political developments in the Netherlands; the sacking of Marco Pastors from the executive of Rotterdam City

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=25177&name=Rotterdam+coalition+crisis+ends+

"Pastors was in charge of the city's infrastructure policy and is a leading light in Leefbaar Rotterdam, the party led by populist Pim Fortuyn until he was murdered in May 2002. Pastors has been described as the new Fortuyn."

The no- confidence motion was submitted by the green-left Groenlinks after Pastors said in an interview that Muslims who commit crime often use their religion to excuse their behaviour, and as a reason for rejecting the society in which they live.

Pastors has made several controversial statements while on the executive. These include complaining about high minarets on mosques and warning about the potential introduction of Sharia Law in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Rotterdam.

LR is by far the biggest party in Rotterdam and rules in coalition with the Christian Democrats (CDA) and the Liberal Party (VVD). The CDA backed a motion of no confidence that forced Pastors out of his job on the executive on Tuesday. "An unreliable coalition partner," Pastors said after the vote. "I would prefer to throw them out the window."

Posted by: wally klomp at November 11, 2005 4:12 PM

Take notice of the latest political developments in the Netherlands; the sacking of Marco Pastors from the executive of Rotterdam City

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=25177&name=Rotterdam+coalition+crisis+ends+

"Pastors was in charge of the city's infrastructure policy and is a leading light in Leefbaar Rotterdam, the party led by populist Pim Fortuyn until he was murdered in May 2002. Pastors has been described as the new Fortuyn."

The no- confidence motion was submitted by the green-left Groenlinks after Pastors said in an interview that Muslims who commit crime often use their religion to excuse their behaviour, and as a reason for rejecting the society in which they live.

Pastors has made several controversial statements while on the executive. These include complaining about high minarets on mosques and warning about the potential introduction of Sharia Law in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Rotterdam.

LR is by far the biggest party in Rotterdam and rules in coalition with the Christian Democrats (CDA) and the Liberal Party (VVD). The CDA backed a motion of no confidence that forced Pastors out of his job on the executive on Tuesday. "An unreliable coalition partner," Pastors said after the vote. "I would prefer to throw them out the window."

Posted by: wally klomp at November 11, 2005 4:14 PM

wally,

How does the Liberal Party (VVD) feel about the sacking of Pastors?

Nariz,

"The no- confidence motion was submitted by the green-left Groenlinks after Pastors said in an interview that Muslims who commit crime often use their religion to excuse their behaviour, and as a reason for rejecting the society in which they live."

See what Leftists are doing?

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 11, 2005 4:40 PM

They didn't back the motion. But remained quiet like anyone else.

Posted by: wally klomp at November 11, 2005 4:48 PM

Hugh said...Oh, and is Turkey still a member of NATO? Well if that inhibits discussion, then form a new group.

Why not? Isn't that what the OIC is, and all those myriad of fraternal organizations (ISNA, MYA, MSA, WML, and on and on), an organization of Islamic states to assure the da'wa and world submission to Islam.

Turkey did have the cajones when it pulled that "Christian Club" card before getting that ascension agreement. If they did this, you can bet it will be played again.

Posted by: John Sobieski at November 11, 2005 5:05 PM

"capner wrote:
Also, welfare for no more than 3 children.

I get your point, but stuff like this will hurt everyone, not just muslims. Muslim extremists should really just be deported, welfare or no"

Englishman,
From where I sit, the European 'welfare for practically everyone' system appears mainly destructive. Here in the U.S., people attend 12 step meetings in order to overcome such counter-productive enabling behaviors.

I'm not commenting specifically on the "no more than 3 children" suggestion (or, for that matter, on the deportation of Muslim notion, both of which might be helpful solutions ) but more in general on the Welfare system. Frankly, it seems socially unhealthy and codependent to me.

I hope you do care to comment. It could be helpful.

Posted by: Daisytoo at November 11, 2005 6:21 PM

Daisytoo, you are right in one way, but changing the basic ideas of the welfare system is hugely unpopular in Britain. Untill the 1950s, the state offered no benefits at all to ordinary people. Heres an example. In the 1st ww, when G prisoners were taken, the british were astonished at how tall they were. Under welfare, the Gs got fresh milk etc, and as a result the average G soildier was about 6f. The average B soildier was about 4f11. No lie. (of course we still beat them, but thats not really the point)

Anyway, changing the welfare system in Britain has always been a huge taboo, and right or not, no British pm will ever change it. More realistically, is that we cut benefits for Muslim extremists, and the child bearing drones they call 'wives', which are basically more tools of Islamisization.

Posted by: The Englishman at November 11, 2005 8:56 PM

Englishman,
Thanks for taking the time to offer an explanation. Sounds like the welfare deal is an important part of the culture. As an American, it's difficult for me to see how that kind of system could not lead to resentment on the part of working people and a disincentive to do one's personal best.

At the same time, I can understand that a society can be motivated by what works for the greatest collective good. But even the most altruistic must gag on paying for food and housing, schooling and medical care for people who despise those who are paying.

The Islamists sourly leeching off England's resources will not be the first in history to learn that the famous English reserve is not to be mistaken for lack of determination. You have the element of sudden surprise on your side Englishman. The arrogance of their resentment will be their undoing.

Posted by: Daisytoo at November 11, 2005 9:47 PM

I have to agree with a lot of what you say there Daisy. About 6 years ago, I was still at school, and one of my friends, who was a indoneisian immigrant's family reaped in huge amount of money from the benefit system. Now, this was not necesarily the problem, but if you take into account that this guy spent literaly thousands of pounds on drugs, alchohol etc. Looking back, this really pissed me off. Unsurprisingly, the guy claimed to be a 'communist'.

I have nothing against immigrants, i am certainly no racist, as many of my friends are black, but there are a great many immigrants, Islamists in particular, who live like parasites on the backs of the hardworkers. On the other hand though, there are people who are generally in need of benefits.

Posted by: The Englishman at November 11, 2005 9:59 PM

I have to agree with a lot of what you say there Daisy. About 6 years ago, I was still at school, and one of my friends, who was a indoneisian immigrant's family reaped in huge amount of money from the benefit system. Now, this was not necesarily the problem, but if you take into account that this guy spent literaly thousands of pounds on drugs, alchohol etc. Looking back, this really pissed me off. Unsurprisingly, the guy claimed to be a 'communist'.

I have nothing against immigrants, i am certainly no racist, as many of my friends are black, but there are a great many immigrants, Islamists in particular, who live like parasites on the backs of the hardworkers. On the other hand though, there are people who are generally in need of benefits.

Posted by: The Englishman at November 11, 2005 10:00 PM

Here's some background on Abu Hamza:

Interviewed by CBC's Terence McKenna (2001, post 9/11)

Excepts from the CBC site (see link below):

Introduction

Outside the Regent Park mosque in London on every Friday, the Muslim holy day, Islamic radicals gather to scream out their support for Osama bin Laden and express their hatred for the West, especially the United States and Britain.

The police keep watch but take no action. If no crimes have been committed on British soil, there is nothing the police can do.

However, authorities believe there is more going on at the mosque than peaceful protest. They believe these rallies are where new mujahedeen, soldiers for Jihad (Islamic holy war), are recruited.

Islamic clerics such as Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza are accused of being key recruiters for al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States. Both Qatada and Hamza are open about their moral support for the attacks but they say they have no connection with any group, that they are just religious leaders.

Abu Hamza

Abu Hamza is the religious leader in charge of the Finsbury Park mosque in London, which is alleged to be a key recruiting ground for terrorists.

In London in 1999, there was a remarkable public meeting of Britain's radical Islamic community. At this meeting, there were demands to take revenge against the U.S. and Britain for their air attacks against Iraq. Abu Hamza unveiled a complicated proposal to attack civil aviation. It seemed farfetched at the time but not now, in light of the World Trade Center attack.

Excerpts from the interview.

CBC: "Two years ago [i.e., in 1999], you were filmed in London speaking about attacking airplanes, making the sky a high risk for anyone who flies. Why would you want to do that?"

Hamza: "Because you are using God's gift for flying to oppress nations and kill them and maim them and you just give them a title just to justify their killing. You can see what you are doing with God's gift for flying, so it's either for everybody or nobody."

CBC: "So you wanted to use airplanes to attack, to attack the West?"

Hamza: "No, I wanted to use any means to stop the West aggressions for God's gift, flying to kill people and not allow other people to defend themselves. What do you call this, when you go and bombard people and you kill them by thousands just because you have the ability to fly higher? Is that anything to do with mankind and civilization or is it just terrorism?"

CBC:
When you talked about bringing your battle to the airwaves, to, you know, into the skies against airplanes, were you then happy when you saw, the planes hit the World Trade Center?

Abu Hamza:
Everybody was happy when the planes hit the World Trade Center. Anybody who tells you that they are not happy they are hypocrites on the Muslim nation, I am telling you, everybody.

CBC:
Why?

Abu Hamza:
Because it's, this is what you teach your people in cowboy films when you see the aggressor doing bad things and then the hero comes and gives him a couple of punches in his face and everybody shakes his hand. That is exactly like it is. I would be a hypocrite if I tell you no. All Muslims are happy, even non-Muslims are happy.
Don't forget, you humiliate a nation so expect many punches, many people to rejoice. Never out focus that because this is your action and you get used to it and you are going more and more for it. So it's nothing strange.

CBC:
So the World Trade Center was a legitimate target?

Abu Hamza:
Well the World Trade Center is doing globalization and making other countries poor, everybody will tell you that. It's the centre of evil, political and financial for the whole world, and nobody listens. You don't listen to the people who object of all this evil globalization and all these kind of things so again civilian is not the person who is wearing the military clothes. He is the person who stays aside from evil work.

http://www.cbc.ca/national/news/recruiters/hamza.html

Posted by: Archimedes at November 12, 2005 3:50 AM

Archimedes -- The CBC and BBC serve some interesting purposes -- not least of which is the tendency for Muslims to really "speak" their minds freely when interviewed by these multicultural megaphones...

Also, Hamza's attitude sheds some light on something I have so often wondered about -- I am dumbfounded that Muslims aren't filled with a self loathing and an Islam-shattering-shame at their legendary failures and cultural and religious decrepitude... I marvel at the oft seen Muslim's arrogance towards his betters -- My jaw drops listening to these primitive ignoramouses lecturing with that famous stabbing index finger flailing in the air -- lecturing Americans about "tolerance" and "plurality" and the proper way to treat minorities and ALL such Islamic drivel...

But when Hamza describes the MAN MADE WESTERN INVENTION of flying as "God's gift of flying" it suddenly made something very clear to me... The Muslim shrugs off his failure simply and quite completely if he views everything through the lens of his omnipotent Allah-- The vaccine isn't seen as an invention of human ingenuity, or the result of years of hard work, dedication, and capital investment -- it is a "gift" -- something from bestowed arbitrarily by ALLAH -- the "infidel" inventor is no doubt considered a cog -- a functionary of Allah's mystical machinations -- As such, no credit need be ceded to the true inventor, to the true benevolent who created such a thing -- It is really quite amazing -- and it accomplishes many important things simultaneously for the pious Muslim to maintain his belief in Islam... This adherence also helps him maintain his delusion of his own superiority, and reinforce his belief in his omnipotent God, even in the face of his God's utter and innumerable failures... It is quite pervers, and incomprehensible, but Hamza's comment help to clarify their denial mechanisms very transparently...!

In this fevered distorted mindset, the Muslim can magically accomplish all of the following:

Muslims can dismiss their own utter failures to contribute inventions and intellectual property to mankind... These are all simply byproducts of "Allah's gifts" ...

Muslims can simply bypass the truth that "infidel" inventions are the byproduct of hard work, human intellect, and capital, and deflect any notion that the invention or the sharing of the invention has any value as a human contribution... The inventor is turned into a witless vehicle -- delivering booty to the Muslim world, and deserving of contempt in return...

This is no doubt how Muslims feel about many or most of the contributions of the West to planet earth -- as well as the accidents of oil which have been developed by Western discoveries and exploited by the application of Western technologies... Western capital paying for these resources are also, no doubt, seen as more "gifts from Allah" for them to continue waging their Jihad against all non-Muslims... Handy little tricks indeed...!

They are absolved of feeling any gratitude or thankfulness that "infidels" deliver these things unto Muslims... If infidels are simply seen as the UPS delivery system for Allah's gifts -- this makes it easier to understand how little consideration we receive when we shed our blood to help them, or spend billions to aid them, or ship our technology to them -- never imagining they will employ all of these things to further their hatred of us, and their determination to destroy us. If these are Allah's gifts to them, then why not turn them around into weapons with which to destroy Allah's enemies -- the non-Muslims... Schizo thinking, but Hamza's comments help to shed light on the pathology of Islam...

Posted by: jsla at November 12, 2005 1:51 PM

The posting immediately above about the Finsbury Mosque imam calls to mind Servier's book "The Psychology of the Musulman." It is a topic that does not receive enough treatment. For the problem of Islam and of Muslims is not limited to the hair-raising passages in the Qur'an, the disturbing Hadith, and the deeply disturbing tale of Muhammad, the Sira. Not only what is in those texts, but the attitudes that Muslim societies create and naturally foster, and what the mere consciousness of being a Muslim, even without much knowledge of what that might mean, but then is endowed with a meaning that, however aggressive or even murderous, is apparently naturally accepted by so many, almost all, of those born into Islam because they are told, and they tell themselves, that "I am a Muslim" and therefore must do and think what Muslims are supposed to do and think, and if it turns out that in the Qur'an and the Sunnah one is inculcated with hatred of Infidels -- well, a member of the umma has to do what he has to do.

One must not only read the texts, but think for a long time about why Muslims behave as they do, speak as they do, view the world as they do, are so credulous, so easily believing what we non-Muslims instantly see as absurd fabrications. Non-Muslims have to understand the unusual and disturbing manner in which many Muslims attempt to deal, or explain away, the obvious failures of their own peoples and polities, because the correct explanation would necessarily require blaming Islam itself for those failures, and they just can't face it. It is too upsetting -- except for those who have jettisoned Islam altogether. And they see things perfectly -- just the way we do.

Posted by: Hugh at November 13, 2005 1:06 AM

Hugh, what I understand not is the New York Times.

First it, THE paper of record, was solidly supporting the build up to and invasion of Iraq, including buying into all of the cooked "intelligence" that justified that lamentable and forgone affair. All in all the NYT has been four square behind the RNC and the agenda of the neo cons (must have something to do with profits and advertising I conjecture).

Springs to mind the "Forelorn Hope" that group of footsoldiers which was always chosen to plunge bayonet first into the breach in the walls of a fort, (the casualty rate of the "hope" was, as is expected, exceedingly high nigh onto all).

Second, I don't know what to make of a newspaper of record which is owned by a foremost, wealthy and influential Jewish family, when it glosses over and ignores the threat of Islam, not only to the west but to Israel itself. In the immortal words of the Spanish ¿Que va?

Finally

the quasi-apologist Olivier Roy (or in the latter case, perhaps he is simply stupid).

The angst and anger towards certain non Muslim academics, journalists and pundits is understandable, but Tzun Tzu would caution "hold the tongue", appeal to the higher instincts, reach out and warmly educate them that knowledge and illumination is in their own best interests and those of their heirs, to fling brickbats, epithets and words of war is counterproductive..doing so one might as well set up a recruiting stall for the Jihad itself.

Make allies for the west, not allies for the east.
Name calling, accusations, threats, demonizing serves not our purpose but only that of the Islamists.

My two cents worth.

Posted by: Nariz at November 13, 2005 9:06 PM

Name calling, accusations, threats, demonizing serves not our purpose but only that of the Islamists~ Nariz

A fairly good example of how you address anyone who holds claim to Any belief in a higher authority. How odd.

Posted by: Gary at November 13, 2005 9:12 PM

Posted by: Nariz at November 13, 2005 09:06 PM
Name calling, accusations, threats, demonizing serves not our purpose but only that of the Islamists~ Nariz

Mmm, so demonising the British born bombers who wasted 52 of our (their) own is going to make things worse for us?

I see.

Posted by: albion at November 14, 2005 6:49 AM