Video of Joe’s call to Radio Leicester with CCTV of the racial attack in the background. Thank you Radio Leicester for ten minutes of airtime LOL
Click link to watch
Video of Joe’s call to Radio Leicester with CCTV of the racial attack in the background. Thank you Radio Leicester for ten minutes of airtime LOL
Click link to watch
20 April 2012
Updated: 20 April 2012
Five men have today (Friday) been sentenced to a total of over 38 years after subjecting two teenage girls to a harrowing two day ordeal in a house and hotel in Birmingham.
The men were found guilty on 14 March at Birmingham Crown Court of offences linked to child sexual exploitation after the two girls had been brought into Birmingham from Telford and held over a period of nearly two days in a house and hotel in November 2009.
The girls, aged 15 and 16 at the time, were lured to Birmingham from their Telford homes and over the next 36 hours were used for the sexual gratification by Shamrez Rashid, aged 20, and Amar Hussain, aged 22, and then by a steady stream of young men – first in a cramped flat in Highgate Street and then in a nearby hotel.
Rashid and Hussain took advantage of the girls’ ignorance of their surroundings and their lack of resources to effectively detain them. They eventually escaped from the hotel with one of the girls wearing no shoes; they found a payphone and called police.
Shamrez Rashid, from Bordesley Green, was found guilty of child abduction, two rapes, attempted rape and attempted sexual assault. Sentenced to 11 years.
Amar Hussain, from Balsall Heath, was found guilty of child abduction, three rapes and attempt sexual assault. Sentenced to ten years.
Jahbar Rafiq, aged 28 from Aston, was found guilty of rape and sexual assault. Sentenced to eight years.
Adil Saleem, aged 20 from Yardley, was found guilty of rape. Sentenced to eight years.
Amer Islam Choudhrey, aged 20 from Selly Park, was found guilty of child abduction and sexual assault. Sentenced to 15 months.
A 20-year-old man also standing trial was found not guilty of sexual assault.
One of the victims, who cannot be identified, spoke briefly on the affect the ordeal has had on her: “I find it very hard to describe the affect of what happened has had on me… no-one could ever understand how I felt at the time and the shame afterwards.
“It is something that I had learned to cope with myself and deal with alone.”
Detective Inspector Caroline Marsh, from the public protection unit, said: “This has been a protracted and complex investigation since it began in 2009.
“Clearly, dealing with victims who have been subjected to such a horrific and prolonged series of attacks has been extremely difficult. We have supported them every step of the way and hope today helps to bring some sort of closure to them and their families.
“The girls have shown great courage throughout the trial which has obviously been a very difficult experience for them particularly being cross examined at length by so many barristers.
“Their evidence has been crucial to ensuring that this can never happen to another young girl in the future.”
Pictured left to right: Amar Hussain, Adil Saleem, Jahbar Rafiq and Shamrez Rashid.
Click link below to watch video Becki xx
Over 1000 EDL attended todays march and demo and apart from what is happening at the moment, young Muslims (as is usual) running around trying to attack stragglers, there has been no trouble and no arrests. Martin Smith is tweeting some ridiculous bullshit. His crediblity is zero. Even the local biased press said 700 EDL and 200 UAF yet Martin makes it up as he goes along.
Spoke to EDL support team earlier and was informed that a return date to Leicester for a further demo is being discussed at next meeting.
Police and Commie reporters saying 500-700 EDL Suzy and Roxy say well over 1000 possibly around 1200 in total. 50 Casuals refusing to be kettled are roaming unhindered. They say less that 50 on UAF march. Police say 200 unwashed.
Last updated at 10:19 PM on 21st January 2012
A British airline pilot arrested over an alleged terrorist plot is claiming racial and religious discrimination after losing his job.
The pilot, a Muslim, was judged a security risk because of his close links to two alleged extremists suspected of ‘planning to use an aircraft as part of a hostile or terrorist act’.
Because of draconian reporting restrictions imposed last week by an employment tribunal, the man cannot be identified and neither can his employer.
Despite this, a well-known British carrier said in a letter that the pilot was ‘in a position to cause considerable harm’ and added that it was in the ‘national interest’ to ensure he never flew commercial aircraft again.
Concerns about the two suspected extremists – one is a business partner of the pilot’s brother – were first raised when they paid for flying lessons and a light aircraft in cash.
During a raid on the London home of one of the pair, detectives found documents relating to the operation of aircraft, a flight map of the UK and literature from an Islamic extremist group banned in many countries.
The pilot, who lives in South-East England and was based at Heathrow, has known the men for ten years and rented a flat from one of them.
In October 2007 the pilot himself was arrested – and immediately suspended by the airline – but was never charged.
Both his landlord and the other man were prosecuted under the Terrorism Act. Charges against one of the men were later dropped and the other was cleared by a jury.
It was at this point that the airline began an internal investigation into the pilot’s conduct, having been passed information about him by Scotland Yard’s SO15 anti-terrorism command at the time of his arrest.
The investigation heard claims, denied by the pilot, that he had suggested the September 11 attacks were ‘comparable to the United States’ wars in Afghanistan and Iraq’.
On another occasion, while returning to the UK, it was alleged he had read a book on the flight deck which, he explained to the colleague who was captaining the plane, put a ‘different perspective on 9/11’.
The pilot claims the internal investigation found no evidence, however, that he made comments implying support for terrorist acts.
Neither, he says, did it find evidence that he passed documents on operating aircraft to the two terror suspects or was involved with, or supported, Islamic extremists.
But because of his close links with the two men – and ‘secret evidence’ the airline received from other sources – serious doubts were raised about his suitability to operate aircraft and he eventually lost his job in October 2010.
Details of the extraordinary case have never previously been disclosed.
The pilot’s discrimination claim began last week at a tribunal in Havant, Hampshire, where he claimed his employers had effectively ruled that he was ‘guilty by association’.
He told the hearing that it was ‘inconceivable that the treatment that I have received . . . would have happened to a non-Muslim or to someone of a different race’.
Although the pilot’s case is likely to attract the support of human-rights campaigners, there will be considerable sympathy too for the airline, which said yesterday in a statement that ‘the safety and security of our customers, aircraft and employees is always our number one priority and we will never compromise this area of our business’.
The airline added that following information from the police ‘we carried out a thorough investigation and risk analysis and concluded that the claimant was not suitable for work in his role’.
Before the hearing began on Thursday, the pilot’s legal team successfully obtained a temporary restricted reporting order preventing him being identified. The reasons for the order, which is being challenged by lawyers for The Mail on Sunday, were not given, although they are understood to relate to illness.
The hearing was told that the pilot, who describes himself as being of Asian descent and a practising Muslim, joined the airline’s training scheme in the Nineties, later securing a job. He said he had a ‘perfect record at the company’.
But in October 2007 he was suspended and his airside pass withdrawn after his arrest by SO15 detectives investigating the terror plot.
Four months later he was told by police that no further action would be taken against him. ‘I was delighted and believed my name had been cleared,’ he said.
On April 22, 2008, he received a letter from his employer telling him that it would begin an internal investigation into the circumstances surrounding his arrest.
‘I was not overly concerned because I had done no wrong,’ he said.
The pilot was later accused of ‘conduct prejudicial to the safety and to the good name’ of the airline and was interviewed by a senior manager.
The pilot told the tribunal: ‘During one interview . . . I was asked about an alleged conversation that took place in late 2005.
‘It was suggested that I had been reading a book in late 2005 that talked about incidents on 9/11. I was asked whether I had said the attack on the Twin Towers was justified. I never said anything like that.
‘Similarly, I said that I had never said anything to suggest that the attack on the Twin Towers was comparable to the United States’ wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.’
‘I said I read books by Noam Chomsky [the American liberal political activist critical of US foreign policy] but did not make the kind of comments that were being imputed on me.
‘Noam Chomsky is not involved in any terrorism. In fact, he is anti-war.’
During the investigation he was also asked questions relating to the Islamic extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. ‘I was not a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir and never have been,’ he said.
During cross-examination, Ingrid Simler QC, for the airline, said documents relating to the operating of aircraft found at the pilot’s house were identical to some found at the home of one of the two terror suspects, where a number of computer disks were found.
Ms Simler said: ‘One of those contained documents dealing with flight operations of . . . aeroplanes.’
She also said that police found a cheque stub at the pilot’s home for a £10,000 payment to one of the suspects. But the pilot said this was simply a payment for rent.
Ms Simler suggested to the pilot that the suspicion was that the two men ‘were planning to use aeroplanes for a hostile action’.
She said: ‘Two businessmen, who had nothing to do with aeroplanes, nothing to do with flying, could pay cash in advance for all their lessons, pay the deposit on a light aircraft and have material on how to make explosives and you’re saying it’s not possible to have concerns about a terrorist action?’
The pilot replied: ‘That’s unfair. To a suspicious person, it may look suspicious.
‘It’s legal to pay for flying lessons in cash. The only reason they were arrested was because they were Muslim.’
Miss Simler continued: ‘The suspicion that arose came from the flying school, which contacted the police to say that they had paid cash for all their lessons in advance and a cash deposit on an aircraft.’
The pilot replied: ‘Other people paid in cash.’
Outlining concerns over Hizb ut-Tahrir documents found in the home of one of the two men, Ms Simler said: ‘Over the past eight or nine years in this country, there have been calls to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir because of fears it acts as a conveyor belt into terrorist organisations.’
The pilot disputed her claim that the organisation was banned in Germany, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, asking: ‘Where is the evidence for that?’
He said the airline’s internal inquiry was ‘predicated on my race and religion and was being conducted in the manner of a quasi-criminal investigation’.
But Ms Simler said the airline was entitled to investigate concerns about him because of the ‘series of factual links between you and two men’ suspected of ‘planning to use an aircraft as part of a hostile or terrorist act’.
In his witness statement the pilot said that he was disturbed to learn of some of the questions he was due to be asked by his bosses during the investigation.
‘One was: “What is your opinion of acts of terrorism against countries making up the Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?”
‘This was clearly aimed at me due to my religion despite the fact my loyalty to this country has never been doubted.
‘Clearly, the assertion was that I would have supported terrorist attacks.
‘I was also to be asked what my views were regarding the attacks in New York – again the assumption is that I would not see the attacks as criminal.’
The investigation cleared him of misconduct but raised the question of whether he remained a ‘security risk’.
The findings were sent to the airline’s head of security who ruled that was indeed the case.
But the pilot insisted: ‘There was “no case to answer” that I had done anything wrong and yet it was being suggested on the basis of the same materials that I may be unsuitable to fly.’
He said he was shocked by a letter sent by the airline’s head of security to a government agency answerable to MI5 that provides security advice to businesses and organisations.
It asks if it held any information on the pilot, saying it was in the national interest and the company’s interest to ensure that employees, such as the pilot, who were ‘in a position to cause considerable harm, and against whom there are reasonable grounds to doubt their suitability, are not able to fly commercial aircraft’.
The pilot said it was ‘particularly shocking’ that the security boss ‘was suggesting that I might do harm with an aeroplane’.
In the event the director of the agency, the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, wrote back saying that it held no intelligence to suggest that the pilot was involved in Islamic extremism.
In November 2009, the pilot was told to look for a job vacancy elsewhere within the company but that he would not be able to fly or work airside. He applied for three jobs but was rejected without interview.
On March 1, 2010, the pilot was diagnosed as suffering from depression and six months later he applied for an ill-health pension and a ‘loss of licence payment’.
But in October 2010 his contract was terminated and in February last year the Civil Aviation Authority suspended his licence permanently.
The hearing continues.
The English Defence League is heading to Leicester in two weeks’ time to protest against the UK’s “two-tier justice system” which it claims treats Muslim offenders more leniently than others.
If this claim was true it would, of course, be utterly outrageous. Any justice system which operated such double-standards would be manifestly unfair and would quickly lose public trust.
So, what on Earth could the EDL possibly have in the way of evidence to back up such a serious claim?
This week’s Insider seeks to examine that question and to sort out the truth from the hysteria.
The group’s reason for coming to Leicester is the case of Rhea Page, a young woman who was subjected to a horrific attack in the street by four women.
The EDL suggests Rhea’s attackers were dealt with leniently because they were Muslims and that if a white gang had launched an attack on a Muslim girl they would have been dealt with more severely.
There are two things about this case that are used to justify this claim.
The first is a suggestion that the attackers were spared prison because they were Somalian Muslims who were not used to alcohol. The second is that the victim was called a “white bitch” during the assault, but that the perpetrators were not charged with a racially aggravated offence.
Let’s deal with the first point.
At this stage it is important to understand how this story emerged. The Leicester Mercury was the only newspaper which covered the case and we carried a report on the proceedings on November 24.
The observation about the women not being used to alcohol was made by defence lawyer Gary Short. We quoted him on this point towards the end of our article but we did not suggest that this was the reason why the judge spared the attackers an immediate prison sentence.
On the contrary. We gave the actual reason earlier in the report which was that the judge, Robert Brown, said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from the victim’s partner (Rhea says her partner was only trying to protect her).
Since then, I have got hold of a transcript of the sentencing which clearly confirms this was the reason that the judge decided on a suspended sentence rather than sending the attackers to prison.
The fact that your victim used violence is not justification for suspending a sentence and does NOT lessen the offence they committed ie a vicious street attack involving kicks to the head and racial language
However, two weeks after our article, the story emerged in the national newspapers, where the line about the women being Muslims who were not used to alcohol was given much more prominence.
Most of these articles reported that the attackers were freed “after” the judge heard this evidence. Even though they used the word “after” instead of the word “because” these articles clearly implied that the two things were connected.
The Muslims not used to alcohol excuse was used in mitigation and was considered by the Judge (who is a well known left winger so definetely woukld have empathised with these poor ethnics)
This was misleading and created a perception about this case which is at odds with the facts.
Let’s have a look at the second point – the fact that the attackers were not charged with a racially aggravated offence. A video on YouTube promoting the EDL demonstration says: “This is an obvious racist attack on a white English female, yet it was dealt with quietly and as a drunken thuggish gang attack.”
It goes on: “Unfortunately, many believe that it’s not possible to be racist against white people.”
This is what the Crown Prosecution Service says about its decision: “The CPS reviewed all the evidence in this case, including whether a racially aggravated offence should be brought on the basis that the comment ‘white bitch’ was reported to have been heard during the incident.
“However, this racist comment could not be attributed to any particular suspect and was not adopted by the group as a whole. There was therefore no realistic prospect of conviction for a racially aggravated offence.”
So, clearly the CPS does consider that it is possible to be racist against white people. Its reason not to charge anybody with a racially aggravated offence was purely a legal one. It could not be sure of securing a conviction.
Our whole point is that had this attack been the other way around, the politically correct CPS would have charged a racial aggravation. In the Stephen Lawrence case it has been widely accepted as a racist murder, the only evidence of that being one defendant said “nigger”. Only one witness herad that and they dont know which one said it, so how is this case different? One of these girls said “white bitch” but they dont know which one so they dont class it as racist. Can you not see the point we are making? If you cant then its because you are blinkered and you dont want to. The Lawrence killers are classed as “acting in unison” and so should have these girls. Its as simple as that.
The EDL states its central aim is to combat “Islamic extremism”. However, the women involved in this attack were clearly not “Islamic extremists” and the incident has nothing whatsoever to do with that issue.
One can only conclude that the reason the EDL has leapt up on the misunderstandings about this case is because it actually has a much wider agenda. It is seeking to propagate a message that white English people are becoming second-class citizens in their own country and preferential treatment is given to Muslims.
You lefties keep saying “The EDL claims to only combat Islamic Extremism”. The patriot movements in this country, including the EDL are interested in far more than just that. We know we are being treated as second class citizens by the legal system and we arent going to accept it.
That is, of course, deeply divisive and dangerous stuff which breeds resentment between communities. And, as we have seen, its argument crumbles as soon as one carries out a detailed examination of the facts.
Does it? No, you just dont get our point.
At this point, I would add something of a footnote about the Rhea Page case.
Like Rhea, I did not agree with the judge’s decision to suspend the sentences and I felt that the defendants should have been imprisoned.
It was an appalling attack and I think the justice system needs to send out a clear message in such cases that this sort of random, drunken violence will not be tolerated.
However, I have absolutely no doubt that the judge’s decision was based on a proper and legitimate assessment of the case, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the religious persuasion of the defendants and their lack of tolerance to alcohol.
Unfortunately, nothing I have said will dissuade the EDL from carrying out their demonstration.
They will come to Leicester on February 4, in a protest which will cost huge amounts of public money to police and will probably hit trade in the city centre. And all of this disruption and potential discord will have been based on an entirely flawed premise. That’s not fair on any of us, whatever our race or religion.
We told the police, the CPS and the Attorney General that all demos would be called off if they reviewed the case and all of them refused. The EDL demo wont be the only demo in Leicester there are other actions planned against the CPS and the Judge, This may go on for some time.