Belgian right-wingers offer 250 euros to anyone who reports veiled woman to police

Ban on burqas first introduced by Belgium’s government last year
Move follows riot sparked by arrest of a woman for wearing the full face covering

Belgian right-wingers have offered to pay a bounty to anyone who reports a veiled woman to police.
The Vlaams Belang political party made the 250 euros (£200) offer today in the wake of face veil riots in Brussels.
Filip Dewinter, a senior figure within the right-wing party, told Reuters the riots had made police apprehensive about enforcing the burqa ban.
He claimed that the payment should put pressure on authorities to further enforce it.
Mr Dewinter said: ‘It’s a textile prison for the women who have to live under it.’
The anti-immigration nationalist party’s stunt follows protesters hurling bins and metal barriers at a Brussels police station last week.
The riot broke out after a Muslim woman was arrested for refusing to remove her face veil, or niqab.
A Brussels police spokesman said he was unaware of the money being offered.
But added that any officer who sees a woman wearing a niqab would issue a penalty.
He said: ‘When someone is breaking the law we always have to intervene, demonstrations or no, the niqab is prohibited.’
Women in Belgium risk a maximum fine of 150 euros (£120) if they wear a full face veil in public.
Mr Dewinter said he was not aware how many people had already responded to the offer of a bounty.
A spokeswoman for Belgium’s federal police said the legality of the bounty was a question for the judiciary, but if someone felt insulted by it they could file a complaint with the police.
Police in Belgium are investigating last week’s riots and arrested 13 members of the Islamist group Sharia4Belgium on Sunday, the police spokesman said.
Sharia4Belgium was not immediately available for comment.
Belgium and France both banned the wearing of full veils in public last year.
Nicolas Sarkozy, who was French president when the ban was brought in, had commented that the outfits oppress women were ‘not welcome’ in France.
Canada announced in December that new citizens had to remove any face coverings, including the niqab and burqa, when they take the oath of citizenship.

More bent coppers stitching people up for crimes they have not committed

More bent coppers stitching people up for crimes they have not committed.

Cardiff Shop-owners sold chocolate cake sprinkled with human faeces

Poisoning food with feces is detailed as a tactic in the Al-Qaeda manual found a few years ago by British intelligence.

“It was not our fault but I don’t want to talk about it,” said Hasmi. Whose fault was it?

“Shop-owners sold chocolate cake sprinkled with human faeces,” from the Daily Mail (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

Two shop-owners were today fined for selling chocolate cake – which had been sprinkled with human faeces.
A horrified customer ate the foul-smelling gateaux but noticed that it didn’t taste or smell “quite right” and handed the cake to public health scientists.

The analysts soon established that the sweet treat was covered in faeces and legal proceedings against the shop owners were started.

Shop owners Saeed Hasmi, 25, and Jan Yadgari, 23, were fined £1,500 for selling food unfit for human consumption.

The pair – who ran the Italiano Pizzeria in Roath, Cardiff – admitted the charge but did not say how the chocolate cake was contaminated.

The takeaway is a favourite with late-night revellers and students living around the takeaway close to Cardiff University. […]

Hasmi and Yadgari at first denied the charge but pleaded guilty at Cardiff magistrates court before the trial.

Hasmi, of Roath, Cardiff, and Yadgari, of Adamsdown, Cardiff, were each fined £1,500 and ordered to pay £200 costs.

After the case Hasmi said: “It was not our fault but I don’t want to talk about it.

“I’m not working in the food industry anymore. I want to do something else.

“We are sorry for the people who ate it,” he said.

JULY 7TH LONDON BOMBING TRIBUTE VIDEO !! WARNING DISTURBING !!

Panorama White Fright Pt. 2

Tell the truth about Islam

Cardiff meeting halted by anti-terror police ‘was study class’.

Taxi passengers ‘should not fear for their safety’

Last week a Newport taxi driver was jailed for 12 years after preying on two vulnerable female passengers.

NATALIE CROCKETT, MICHAEL YONG and AILSA CHALK talked to Gwent taxi firms and police about how to stay safe when using taxis alone.

NEWPORT taxi driver Asif Iqbal, who was branded a “predator” by his victims, pleaded guilty to raping two female passengers he had picked up in the city.

Iqbal, 42, of Alice Street, wept in the dock as he was jailed for 12 years at Cardiff Crown Court by Judge David Wynn Morgan.
Judge Morgan said Iqbal, a licensed taxi driver in the city, abused the trust women place in taxi drivers “for the satisfaction of your sexual gratification”.

Following the sentencing, both of Iqbal’s victims said they were glad the case was over, but wanted to issue a warning to other women not to get into cabs on their own.

Newport Council’s outgoing community safety cabinet member William Routley said the council did background checks on all potential taxi drivers before issuing them licences.

He said: “We have a very good organisation in Newport taxi association and many good independent taxi operators. Look for the signs outside the cab for a licence. Use a regulated taxi firm, and use a licensed hackney cab.
Only use cabs which you can see clearly the Newport city logo on them, which they can understand and recognise.

“There are many ways to stay safe. If you can, travel in pairs.

Newport is not an unsafe place to be and taxis are still the safest way to travel here.

Andrew Barley, operations manager at Dragon Taxis in Newport, said the trade was united in its disbelief and anger at Iqbal’s actions, which had tainted a service the public rely on 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year.
He said the firm had been inundated with calls from regular customers who travel alone at night, worried that drivers were free to do as they please when they pick them up. Mr Barley said: “I would say that the vast majority of taxi drivers are good, honest people who want nothing more than to earn a living.

“The people of Newport and Gwent should not be afraid to get a taxi, but should choose one of the reputable companies and prebook to guarantee that they are getting a service they can rely on and trust.”

Lionel Morris, chairman of Newport Taxi Drivers Association, said the case had damaged the reputation of taxi drivers. He said: “This should not stop people taking taxis. It might plant in their minds the possibility of this happening again, and they have a right to think that way. Newport, in general, is very safe. It has been years since something like this happened. I certainly cannot remember this in my time here.”

Malik Haseeb Ahsan, association secretary of Newport Taxi Drivers Association, said: “I am so ashamed of his (Iqbal’s) actions. As a taxi driver you don’t feel comfortable about it. It could happen anywhere to anyone, and it has damaged our industry.

People still need to use taxis though, but it will affect our business.”

Darren Anderson, manager of ABC taxis, said: “We have two female drivers in fleet. We normally get about five to six requests a month for them, if they personally request for them.

We’ve had no trouble from our drivers. If we have any suspicions with them, they will not be here, they would be out the door. We’re also licensed by the council.”

Alan Lakey, 58, owner of Dial-acar taxis, said: “Every taxi driver is police checked, and if they are doing schools, they have to do an enhanced police check. I think they should all be enhanced checked.

“Usually the drivers we employ are people who we know or somebody else knows. The police are very thorough with their background checks.”

Rachel Kent, 42, proprietor of City Lion taxis, said: “Quite a few women are more cautious now to make sure they are with somebody or get a taxi from a proper operator.

“We do background checks on our drivers, and most of our drivers have been with the company for quite a few years.”

Q&A: Abu Qatada and terrorism deportations

What has the European Court ruled?

Seven judges of the European Court of Human Rights – one of whom is British – have blocked the deportation of cleric Abu Qatada to Jordan. He has been convicted there in his absence of terrorism offences. The UK has been attempting to remove him since 2005. He is currently being held in a special unit at Long Lartin jail in Worcestershire.

Who is Abu Qatada?

His real name is Omar Othman and he is a Palestinian-Jordanian Islamic scholar who was born in Bethlehem. He came to the UK in 1993 and is among a large group of Islamists who fled from the Middle East to London as they faced persecution.

Abu Qatada is an influential supporter of mujahideen causes. He is accused of threatening British national security by supporting terrorism, something he denies. He has never been charged with an offence in the UK, but has been held in detention and had his movements restricted by a control order because he was suspected of playing a key role in radicalisation. The government has been trying to deport him since 2005.

Why did the European court block the deportation?

In their ruling, the judges said that while they were satisfied that the preacher would not face ill-treatment if deported, he could not face a probable retrial in Jordan because the key evidence against him was obtained by torturing others. It said that sending him back to Jordan would legitimise that state’s use of torture.

How important is this case?

This is the first time that the Strasbourg court has ruled that someone cannot be expelled because the torture of others would mean that they would be denied a fair trial.

Why did this case end up at the European Court?

The Court of Appeal in London originally blocked Abu Qatada’s deportation on broadly the same lines as those now used by Europe. But in 2009 the then Law Lords overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and said that the deportation could go ahead.

The lords ruled that Abu Qatada’s rights would be protected if he were deported. Crucially, they ruled that while evidence against him may have been extracted by torture of another suspect, they had to decide whether a trial based on that material could be fair. They concluded there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the Jordanian courts could not offer a fair trial.

Is this decision final?

Not quite. Both sides have three months to appeal against the ruling to the Grand Chamber of the court – its highest decision-making body. If nobody appeals, it then becomes final. The court has made clear that if the UK obtained an assurance from Jordan that evidence obtained by torture would not be used against Abu Qatada at trial, there would be nothing to stop his deportation. British ministers and officials are now trying to strike a new deal with Jordan that would satisfy the court. However, Abu Qatada would still have the legal right to challenge anything new so nobody is quite clear when we will reach a final judgement in the case.

What happens if he can’t be deported?

At present he remains in detention. But if he is not facing a criminal charge, extradition proceedings or an attempt to deport, then he must be released from jail. The likely scenario is that his activities would be restricted by house arrest-style conditions. The alternatie extreme option is for the Home Secretary to ignore the European Court and deport him anyway. Italy has done this before – but opponents of this move say that it would be enormously damaging to the UK’s reputation.

Does this ruling mean the UK cannot deport any foreign terrorism suspects to regimes with questionable human rights records?

The government has signed deportation deals known as Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with four governments – Lebanon, Jordan, Ethiopia and Morocco. There is a further separate agreement with Algeria to look at deportations on a case-by-case basis.

Each of these deals is supposedly a guarantee by the relevant government to protect the human rights of anyone who is deported and some 15 individuals are known to be facing deportation under MOUs.

The European Court has now accepted that the Jordan deal is not only sound but there have been “genuine efforts” to provide detailed assurances that Abu Qatada would not be ill-treated.

“The product of those efforts, the MOU, is superior in both its detail and its formality to any assurances which the Court has previously examined,” said the judgement. “The MOU would also appear to be superior to any assurances examined by the United Nations Committee Against Torture and the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The MOU is specific and comprehensive. It addresses directly the protection of the applicant’s Convention rights in Jordan.”

Hyde Park London Rumanian gypsy site