Undercover Mosque director considers legal action against brainpolice

Who are the brain police? Who is behind the police moving against the whistle blowers? Who are the prosecutors perverting the law to punish those who let the truth out of the bag?


Animal Farm: the swine are in charge

* Add blackmail and intimidation by the prosecutor who alleged the show “distorted” hateful preaching, and possible corruption in the police force who intervened on behalf of the ummah against the people of England to silence anyone from raising awareness by speaking out against the Islamization of Britain and the hate-preachers in the mosques.

Lets take a look at what happened here:

“the broadcaster called the police’s actions “perverse”
It certainly looks that way. Look at the Ofcom report and it includes this statement.:

“the WMP (West Midlands Police) stated that it and the CPS had then considered potential offences that may have been committed by those involved in the production and broadcast of the programme specifically in relation to stirring up racial hatred”

“the broadcaster called the police’s actions “perverse”

Which they are. But there are reasons for this: Muslim infiltration and far left politicians who are supporting this perversion.

* That could be taken to imply that anyone who dares to report the hate-filled speech of mosque preachers may themselves be regarded as a purveyor of hate-speech.

* This action seems so ludicrous that one might suspect they’re involved in some kind covert deals with the mosques – we’ll support you with this if you give us that.

* Ofcom also rejected further compaints regarding this programme which were made by representatives of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

* The police is heavily infiltrated by Muhammedans pushing their own agenda

* The time when the UK police served the people has passed.

* This case should open up a further investigation by the British Parliment.

Because nothing uttered by a Muslim that has later come under scrutiny from non-Muslims has ever been taken in context. An update on this story. Mosque show maker plans legal action,” from The Guardian:

The documentary maker cleared by regulators of misleadingly editing a Channel 4 programme about extreme Islamic preachers is considering legal action.
David Henshaw, the managing director of Hardcash Productions which made the Dispatches film Undercover Mosque , said he was still “very, very angry”.

With the backing of Channel 4 he hoped to launch a libel action against the West Midlands police and a Crown Prosecution Service lawyer who was quoted in a joint press release accusing Hardcash Productions of “completely distorting” what some of the preachers were saying. The media regulator dismissed the complaint saying it was a legitimate investigation.

“Hardcash’s reputation has been severely damaged and it was a good reputation,” Henshaw told the Guardian. “The Ofcom judgment is great. But damage was done that day in August, huge damage.”

The programme, which took nine months to make, went undercover in several mosques in the Midlands and showed examples of preachers calling for homosexuals to be killed, espousing male supremacy, condemning non-Muslims and predicting jihad.

Henshaw said: “A lot of these mosques were apparently committed to inter-faith dialogue. Yet what was going on on a very regular basis was pretty uncompromising, hardline, anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist preaching.”

* And they don’t like the truth from coming out…


* Because the Moslems have two hands: one for eating, and one for wiping; so they have two faces: one for telling the truth, to be used when speaking to fellow-Moslems, and one for telling falsehoods, to be used when speaking to infidels.


Hugh’s comment:

Is the problem of the mosques that present one face or facade to the Infidels, and meanwhile, for Muslims only, present inside the mosque, when Infidels are thought not to be present, quite another, merely a problem in one or two mosques in the Midlands of England? Or is it a problem with mosques all over the Infidel world, and do they all require constant monitoring in order to prevent them from being…true to themselves?



* Links: Channel 4 vindicated over Undercover Mosque

* ‘Dispatches’ on extremists angered Saudis’

* Just to let you know which way the wind blows: Britain’s Sowdi masters are angered about the ‘Undercover Mosque’ report, which let the cat out of the bag and woke up too many sleeping infidels:

The Saudi Arabian government complained directly to the Foreign Office about a Channel 4 documentary on Islamist extremism, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Undercover Mosques
Undercover Mosques exposed Islamist extremism

The ambassador wrote to Margaret Beckett, then the Foreign Secretary, to denounce the programme, Undercover Mosques, and Government officials also met Saudi diplomats to discuss their concerns.

* What’s really irritating is the weasel words and the mealy mouthed way this reporter inserts words like ‘alleged’ and ‘purported to have exposed’ as if he didn’t have the slightest sense of reality and the highest value on earth for him is to remain ‘neutral’ whatever that means….

Undercover Mosques exposed Islamist extremism

Wow! Can’t have that now, can we?

The Dispatches documentary purported to have exposed extremist preaching in several mosques by what were described as Saudi-trained imams.

It alleged how ”a message of hatred and segregation is being spread throughout the UK … influenced by the religious establishment of Saudi Arabia”.

After the programme was aired in January, West Midlands Police carried out a lengthy inquiry into some of the comments made by Muslim preachers.

But in August, the police decided not to prosecute anyone. Instead, backed by the Crown Prosecution Service, they referred the programme-makers to Ofcom, the broadcast industry watchdog, alleging distortion in the way 50 hours of videotape had been edited.

* They were told not to find any hate preachers even if they would bite them in the ass, so who was behind this?

The force recently said it had not received a single formal complaint about the programme to trigger its initial inquiry, which was later revealed to have cost £14,000.


Sir Paul Scott-Lee (AKA ‘Bungle’ to his subordinates) – West Mids Chief Constable

* Read the whole shameful thing to understand how British officials prostrate themselves before their Sowdi masters, its unreal!


2 thoughts on “Undercover Mosque director considers legal action against brainpolice”

  1. Don’t report hateful mosque speeches.
    Don’t report suspicious behavior on planes.
    Do so and you’ll be sued and/or arrested.

    Western governments are turning people from being concerned citizens into sheeple. Looks like they want to make the takeover easier.

  2. Interesting data from: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/25/zubrin_energy_terror_alcohol_plan/

    Saudi Arabia is the primary global financier of the Islamist terror cult. Until the Saudis started racking up billions in inflated oil revenues in the 1970s, the Wahhabi movement was regarded by Muslims the world over as little more than primitive insanity… it is the Saudis’ unlimited funds — over $200 billion in foreign exchange earnings in 2006 — that have allowed them to buy up the faculties of the Islamic world’s leading intellectual centers; to build or take over thousands of mosques; to establish thousands of radical madrassas, pay their instructors, and provide the free daily meals necessary to entice legions of poor village boys to attend. Those boys are indoctrinated with the idea that the way to get into paradise is to murder Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, and Hindus (not to mention moderate Muslims)… We have been subsidizing a war against ourselves.

    Iran is now using its petroleum lucre to fund its nuclear program and to insulate itself from economic sanctions imposed on it… This is one of the gravest threats to international peace and stability — and, again, we are paying for it ourselves with oil revenue.

    Makes sense?

Comments are closed.