Khuram Butt worked at various Tube stations. An MI5 officer “said there was no evidence that Butt took the job for ‘nefarious purposes.'”
That means that there was no evidence that Butt plotted a jihad massacre in the Tube. MI5 does not know, however, what he might have intended to do eventually. That is important because there is no doubt whatsoever that Muslims are being hired for the airport and the Tube without ever being questioned or investigated about what they think about jihad. To do so would be “Islamophobic.” How many more risks will MI5 take with the safety of British citizens with its certainty that none of these others are taking such jobs for “nefarious purposes,” either?
“Terrorists can work at airports without MI5 being tipped off,” by John Twomey, Express, June 14, 2019 (thanks to the Geller Report):
TERROR suspects can still land jobs at airports and major railway hubs without police or MI5 being tipped off, a court heard yesterday.
Even potential jihadists seen as “high-risk” and under investigation could slip through the net. Khuram Butt was under investigation by Scotland Yard and the security services when he was recruited by Transport for London in May 2016. The inquest into the London Bridge atrocity heard that Butt, 27, was allowed to work at various Tube stations including Westminster, near Parliament. At the time, he was the target of a joint police/MI5 probe as a “high-risk” terror suspect.
The security loophole emerged as a senior MI5 officer, known as Witness L, gave evidence. The officer agreed when Gareth Patterson, QC, representing the families of six victims, said: “Would you agree that risks are being taken if terror suspects are being permitted to hold down jobs where the transport infrastructure is vulnerable?” Speaking from behind a screen at the Old Bailey, Witness L also accepted Mr Patterson’s question: “Is the position that to this day, people can still be terror suspects and start working at these sorts of locations without you or the counter-terrorism police being notified of it?” The officer said there was no evidence that Butt took the job for “nefarious purposes”….
Antiislamicman says
The government want us dead
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Look inside the head of this judge, see his addled but pious brain, and you see the future. Our future. If there comes the time of crisis that I foresee, there will be widespread disregard for judges. There will be nullification in the streets; we may be fed to an Islamic fate, but as we circle the drain we’ll deal with it without the technical assistance of actual law tool graduates in black robes.
Norger says
“No evidence” that a “high risk” terror suspect who was given a job which would give him greater access to the city of London’s ‘Tube’ in fact took that job for nefarious purposes. Well all right then. It’s not like Islamic terrorists have ever actually carried out terror attacks on London’s transportation system or anything.
Al says
Sure. Could have safely said that in the US also, before 9 /11/2001.
J D S says
How many of these HIGH RISK individuals are working in sensitive positions in the U.D.??? quietly waiting?????
If the GIVEAWAY PARTY aka Dems have thier way there will not be any way to verify these high risk workers or non workers either. The U.S. is daily being overrun by high risk people.and thereabouts isn’t enough law enforcement out there to stop it ..and did you know…..?????…..
The Give Away party wants to put a stop to any military personnel being used on the border…one of the provisions placed in the new Defense budget bill..by the GIVEAWAY PAR TY…WIW!!!!!
Angemon says
Right – and the getaway driver isn’t robbing the bank…
Michael Copeland says
There was no evidence that the 9/11 hijackers were travelling for “nefarious purposes”.
Tricia Stuercke says
Good point, Mike. Of course, if they did report it, there’s no guarantee of follow-up:
If memory serves, the owner of the Flight School DID alert authorities about the group of young Middle Eastern men who were taking lessons in Take Off & Flight Operations, with NO interest in learning to LAND! Bless that poor man; I wonder how he’s processed all of this over these years?
The UK is so far gone… I so pray we’re at least better prepped than we were. 1 thing’s for sure: American Passengers will NEVER let that Cockpit get penetrated again! ??
Elizabeth Schneider says
Amen!
Tom says
So although the suspect is on their radar, MI5 has to be able to read their mind, or read tea leaves to foretell the future, in order to be able to prevent the suspected radical Muslim from getting a job in a secure area.
Even though the potential for a jihad type attack is higher in those who have been identified by MI5 as radical, the reading of the suspects mind for intent become the over riding factor in any preventive measure.
The courts in the UK have become over sensitized to Islam and Muslims and this type of case confirms it. When a suspected radical Muslim cannot be prevented from obtaining a job in an area requiring a security background check it makes any security screening of anyone else a point of discrimination.
I wonder if a member some right wing radical group has been given a similar pass on their security clearance for a job in a secure area without being reported to MI5 or the police.
A_M_Swallow says
Hitler was right wing. Security clearances have been checking for membership of right wing radical groups for decades.
Tom says
Yes I know that. My premise was if they check one group they should check all
Emmie says
Hitler was not right wing, he was a National Socialist.
A_M_Swallow says
Britain’s security systems were set up to fight Germans and communists. Muslims are neither so the checks miss them.
The race relations laws were set up to prevent discrimination against blacks from the Caribbean and Roman Catholics (plus Jews). Consequently British recruitment forms and security vetting forms do not ask your religion or skin colour.
Muslims have been using and abusing these laws. People born after 911 are now entering employment so the laws have to be brought into the 21st century. We are fighting a religious war so vetting needs to investigate a person’s religion.
James says
Probably the most important reform is to limit the mass migration from Muslim countries, because it sets up a hostile culture in a Western one. The individuals who come in my themselves be harmless, but the culture is a pool of future converts to be converted in the future. Just eliminating a few airport workers as security risks is a small part of the problem. Stealth jihadis in the country are working to undermine the democratic laws and protection of Christians and Jews and put sharia above them. Secure airports are of course desirable, but secure countries are more than just that.
Walter Sieruk says
This policy in the United Kingdom ,concerning Airport security , will ,most likely, lead to disaster.
Of course in the United States airport security is no better ,even after 9/11 a number of airport security screeners are Muslims. Even if Muslim airport security personal have no known affiliation with any jihad terror entity, as Al Qaeda or ISIS that person could still be a ” jihadist sleeper operative .
Sadly, the tragic reality in that American airport security is in many way no better than British airport security..
All this is an awful reminder of the “joke” of American Airport security before 9/11 which may not have change that such since 9/11.
Therefore concerning the topic of American Airport Security before September 11, 2001 during the 1990’s which seemed be sadly nothing but a hoax of show for the public. For a year of that decade I had a job as a security screener. As a type of airport security guard all of us, the security personal, had to follow the rules which allowed and non- serrated knifes and box cutter on the airplane as long as the sharp objects where under two inches long .So during a visited from one of the top person of the security company I told her “Those non-serrated knifes and box cutters can still be very dangerous and harmful in the hands of the wrong person.” Her response to me for saying that was only silence and an angry look that gave the message “Don’t you dare ever say such a thing as that again.” As for the security supervisors said to be “In my opinion this is just a set of as a [empty] show for the traveling public to make them feel safe.” One time a man walked through the metal detector and the alarm, buzzer, didn’t go off when he was wearing a rather large metal belt buckle. So he informed me about it. So I replied “Standing over there next to each other is the security manager and security supervisor its best if you inform them about that.” After he informed them they thanked him and said that they would look in that, they didn’t. Other time a supervisor said to me that “This security set up is bull S….” He even berated me for ,a number of times, when I called for bag check saying “Does that look like a test item ?” He really didn’t want to bother to get off his seat for make a bag check. I said to him “ I can’t see through the item maybe something dangerous is hidden being it .” On hearing that and he threw his head back and went through his eye rolling routine as to say “Don’t start getting ridiculous on me, nothing awful will ever happen.”
This is be somewhat related to a news report in the year 2005 about another airport ,the Chicago airport, which the news crew had a hidden counting devise and a hidden camera. They had counted one thousand bags went through the airport security and not even once was a call for a bag check. Went that confronted the security supervisor about that he said “There was nothing suspicious to call a check about” The news crew said “Still after a thousand bags, and not one need for a bag check call” That supervisor just restated “There was not a need for a bag check call.” Of course he wouldn’t change his story. If that airport was like the one of works at the call was not made because the security supervisor would “tell off” that security screener for making a call for a bag check.
Airport security in both the United Kingdom and the United States still have much to do to ensure the safety of the traveling public.
mortimer says
Muslims in positions of high trust should take lie detector tests to find out if they are plotting jihad.
James says
The greatest danger, as Bill Warner and Robert Spencer say is stealth jihad, not violent jihad. They are encroaching constantly on American values with allies in the leftist camp, generally Democrats, every time they get some concession of teaching Islam in schools, or forcing prayer rooms and prayer breaks on employers or every time they impose their clothing regulations on businesses and government or schools. This sort of jihad is probably more extensive and dangerous, but it might not be shown by lie detector tests. And lie detectors are mainly used when someone is suspicious. But civil libertarians claim one should never suspect anyone of the Muslim faith.
J says
Î would guess that there are no background checks or other restrictions on hiring Muslims at the airport in the Twin Cities, but I have not researched this. They have the big Somali community in Cedar Riverside and ilhan Omar as Congresswoman, and the Muslim attorney general of Minnesota, But well, the police in Minneapolis put a Muslim migrant into a police uniform. Within a year or so he killed a woman who had called up for protection from the police. The willingness of the Democrat left to believe in the good intentions of people from dangerous countries is alarming.
OLD GUY says
Another reason I canceled plans for a trip to Europe. Besides there are so many wonderful places to vacation in the USA and you do not need to fly.
gravenimage says
UK: Jihad terrorists can work at airports without MI5 being tipped off
……………..
As Robert Spencer says, what could possibly go wrong?