I uploaded a YouTube video: On December 5th last, the "Times" had the following report on a BBC TV programme entitled "Don't Panic I'm Islamic":-
"Nasreen Suleaman, a researcher on the programme, told the court that Mr Hamid, 50, contacted her after the July 2005 attack and told her of his association with the bombers. But she said that she felt no obligation to contact the police with this information. Ms Suleaman said that she informed senior BBC managers but was not told to contact the police." (Note: The attack in question is the failed "21/7" attack.)
Mr Hamid, as you probably now know, has been found guilty of organising terrorist training camps, one of which was featured in the aforementioned programme "Don't Panic I'm Islamic." Now that Hamid and his associates (among whom we can include the "21/7" attackers) have been convicted of serious terrorism offences, it would appear that certain BBC employees have also committed criminal offences by withholding information. The editorial guidelines of the BBC clearly state:-
"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."
Ms Suleaman met Mr Hamid after the July attack and noted that he was "agitated." She said: "I think he was worried that perhaps the men [the "21/7" terrorists] might call him because they were on the run at the time. I think he was very, very shocked about the fact that the men he knew were accused of this." The straightforward implication here is clear. The conversation took place at a time when the 21/7 attackers were on the run. She says this. She uses the phrase "on the run." This whole thing would hardly be an issue otherwise. She then informs the editorial board of this and they tell her she no had no obligation to contact the police. It is reasonable to presume that the editorial board also felt no reason to contact the police. Why? Because the BBC now no longer give moral support to mass murderers, they actively assist them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAJnKgKiuFU
"
"Nasreen Suleaman, a researcher on the programme, told the court that Mr Hamid, 50, contacted her after the July 2005 attack and told her of his association with the bombers. But she said that she felt no obligation to contact the police with this information. Ms Suleaman said that she informed senior BBC managers but was not told to contact the police." (Note: The attack in question is the failed "21/7" attack.)
Mr Hamid, as you probably now know, has been found guilty of organising terrorist training camps, one of which was featured in the aforementioned programme "Don't Panic I'm Islamic." Now that Hamid and his associates (among whom we can include the "21/7" attackers) have been convicted of serious terrorism offences, it would appear that certain BBC employees have also committed criminal offences by withholding information. The editorial guidelines of the BBC clearly state:-
"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."
Ms Suleaman met Mr Hamid after the July attack and noted that he was "agitated." She said: "I think he was worried that perhaps the men [the "21/7" terrorists] might call him because they were on the run at the time. I think he was very, very shocked about the fact that the men he knew were accused of this." The straightforward implication here is clear. The conversation took place at a time when the 21/7 attackers were on the run. She says this. She uses the phrase "on the run." This whole thing would hardly be an issue otherwise. She then informs the editorial board of this and they tell her she no had no obligation to contact the police. It is reasonable to presume that the editorial board also felt no reason to contact the police. Why? Because the BBC now no longer give moral support to mass murderers, they actively assist them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAJnKgKiuFU
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment