islamic eid , wallpapers of eid
Friday, February 4, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Migrants 'must teach their children English', demands David Cameron
Migrant families have an obligation to teach their children English before they start school, David Cameron has said.
And the Prime Minister pledged that he would bring forward tougher rules to ensure those arriving in the UK had a reasonable standard of English.
One in six children do not speak English as their first language.
Ministers believe that children brought up here stand a better chance of succeeding if their parents have a good grasp of the language.
Mr Cameron spoke out after a Commons exchange with Yorkshire Tory MP Kris Hopkins, who said: ‘Sadly in Keighley, too many children start school and don’t speak English.’
He then asked Mr Cameron: ‘Do you agree with me that there is a responsibility and an obligation upon parents to make sure their children speak English?’
Mr Cameron replied: ‘I completely agree with you. The fact is, in too many cases this isn’t happening.
‘The last government did make some progress on making sure people learned English when they came to our country.
I think we need to go further. If you look at the figures for the number of people who are brought over as husbands and wives, particularly from the Indian sub-continent,
we should be putting in place – and we will be putting in place – tougher rules to make sure they do learn English so when they come, if they come, they can be more integrated into our country.’
A recent study by MigrationWatch found that children who speak English as their first language are in a minority in some inner-city London schools.
Birmingham, Bradford and Leicester all have more than 40 per cent of pupils in primary schools who do not have English as a first language.
To date, the Government’s policies have focused upon marriage visas.
Since September, those coming to Britain to marry UK citizens have been forced to sit pre-entry tests proving a basic level of English.
Lawyers argue that the tests, which apply only to those from non-English-speaking countries, are discriminatory, and breach human rights law.
But Immigration Minister Damian Green argued that the English language requirement would allow for a ‘more cohesive society’.
And the Prime Minister pledged that he would bring forward tougher rules to ensure those arriving in the UK had a reasonable standard of English.
One in six children do not speak English as their first language.
Ministers believe that children brought up here stand a better chance of succeeding if their parents have a good grasp of the language.
Mr Cameron spoke out after a Commons exchange with Yorkshire Tory MP Kris Hopkins, who said: ‘Sadly in Keighley, too many children start school and don’t speak English.’
He then asked Mr Cameron: ‘Do you agree with me that there is a responsibility and an obligation upon parents to make sure their children speak English?’
Mr Cameron replied: ‘I completely agree with you. The fact is, in too many cases this isn’t happening.
‘The last government did make some progress on making sure people learned English when they came to our country.
I think we need to go further. If you look at the figures for the number of people who are brought over as husbands and wives, particularly from the Indian sub-continent,
we should be putting in place – and we will be putting in place – tougher rules to make sure they do learn English so when they come, if they come, they can be more integrated into our country.’
A recent study by MigrationWatch found that children who speak English as their first language are in a minority in some inner-city London schools.
Birmingham, Bradford and Leicester all have more than 40 per cent of pupils in primary schools who do not have English as a first language.
To date, the Government’s policies have focused upon marriage visas.
Since September, those coming to Britain to marry UK citizens have been forced to sit pre-entry tests proving a basic level of English.
Lawyers argue that the tests, which apply only to those from non-English-speaking countries, are discriminatory, and breach human rights law.
But Immigration Minister Damian Green argued that the English language requirement would allow for a ‘more cohesive society’.
Human rights makes UK a 'safe haven' for suspected terrorists, warns Government's anti-terror law watchdog
Human rights rulings make the UK a 'safe haven' for suspected foreign terrorists, the independent reviewer of anti-terror laws warned today.
Lord Carlile said the dismissal of the Government's argument that the risk of ill treatment on deportation for foreign nationals had to be balanced against the threat they posed when they are allowed to stay in Britain caused problems.
'The effect is to make the UK a safe haven for some individuals whose determination is to damage the UK and its citizens - hardly a satisfactory situation save for the purist,' he said.
In his annual review of counter-terror legislation published today, Lord Carlile backed the Government's attempts to deport suspected foreign terrorists with assurances over their treatment once returned home.
But he warned that it was a 'time-consuming process, requiring assurances that are public, credible and reliable'.
Even once agreed, 'there is no guarantee that the courts will accept them, given the relatively low legal threshold required for an individual to avoid deportation', he said.
The Government has argued that, where a person seeks to resist removal on the grounds of the risk of ill-treatment in their home country, this may be balanced against the threat they pose to national security if they remain.
It also argued that, if the person poses a risk to national security, this should affect the standard to which he must establish the risk of ill-treatment.
But both arguments were rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, Lord Carlile said.
'This leaves the UK reliant on DWA (deportation with assurances) arrangements.'
Arrangements currently exist with Algeria, Jordan, Ethiopia, Libya and Lebanon, although the latter may need to be renegotiated 'in the light of political developments there', he said.
Home Secretary Theresa May last week outlined plans for a stronger effort to deport foreign nationals involved in terrorist activity.
On control orders, Lord Carlile said the proposed replacement - terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or Tpims - 'shares several characteristics with control orders (and would provide commensurate protection)'.
'There is an acceptable balance of risk against other considerations,' he said. 'It should be seen as adopting a new approach to public protection against terrorism.'
Lord Carlile went on: 'In stark terms, the potential cost of losing control orders now is that the UK would be more vulnerable to a successful terrorist attack.'
But he added that, in future, at least two members of the Opposition should undergo developed vetting and should be given 'detailed knowledge of the evidence base for control orders, generally and in relation to individuals'.
'The purpose of this would be that, whilst respecting confidentiality and national security, they should be able to give informed advice to their shadow colleagues on the merits of the legislation,' he said.
He added that control orders, or their replacement, should only be used when prosecution was not possible and added that it was 'unlikely' that the use of intercept evidence in court would have led to the prosecution of any controlees since control orders were introduced in 2005
Lord Carlile said the dismissal of the Government's argument that the risk of ill treatment on deportation for foreign nationals had to be balanced against the threat they posed when they are allowed to stay in Britain caused problems.
'The effect is to make the UK a safe haven for some individuals whose determination is to damage the UK and its citizens - hardly a satisfactory situation save for the purist,' he said.
In his annual review of counter-terror legislation published today, Lord Carlile backed the Government's attempts to deport suspected foreign terrorists with assurances over their treatment once returned home.
But he warned that it was a 'time-consuming process, requiring assurances that are public, credible and reliable'.
Even once agreed, 'there is no guarantee that the courts will accept them, given the relatively low legal threshold required for an individual to avoid deportation', he said.
The Government has argued that, where a person seeks to resist removal on the grounds of the risk of ill-treatment in their home country, this may be balanced against the threat they pose to national security if they remain.
It also argued that, if the person poses a risk to national security, this should affect the standard to which he must establish the risk of ill-treatment.
But both arguments were rejected by the European Court of Human Rights, Lord Carlile said.
'This leaves the UK reliant on DWA (deportation with assurances) arrangements.'
Arrangements currently exist with Algeria, Jordan, Ethiopia, Libya and Lebanon, although the latter may need to be renegotiated 'in the light of political developments there', he said.
Home Secretary Theresa May last week outlined plans for a stronger effort to deport foreign nationals involved in terrorist activity.
On control orders, Lord Carlile said the proposed replacement - terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or Tpims - 'shares several characteristics with control orders (and would provide commensurate protection)'.
'There is an acceptable balance of risk against other considerations,' he said. 'It should be seen as adopting a new approach to public protection against terrorism.'
Lord Carlile went on: 'In stark terms, the potential cost of losing control orders now is that the UK would be more vulnerable to a successful terrorist attack.'
But he added that, in future, at least two members of the Opposition should undergo developed vetting and should be given 'detailed knowledge of the evidence base for control orders, generally and in relation to individuals'.
'The purpose of this would be that, whilst respecting confidentiality and national security, they should be able to give informed advice to their shadow colleagues on the merits of the legislation,' he said.
He added that control orders, or their replacement, should only be used when prosecution was not possible and added that it was 'unlikely' that the use of intercept evidence in court would have led to the prosecution of any controlees since control orders were introduced in 2005
Fury after two Muslim councillors refuse to take part in standing ovation for Marine who won George Cross
Salma Yaqoob and Mohammed Ishtiaq remained seated during a ceremony for Lance Corporal Matthew Croucher.The 26-year-old was awarded the George Cross after he flung himself onto a Taliban hand grenade to save his comrades during an ambush in Helmand Province in 2008.
He was serving with 40 Commando when his patrol came under fire but he miraculously survived because his backpack took the force of the blast.
L/Cpl Croucher became the most highly-decorated serving Marine when he received the George Cross for ‘outstanding bravery not involving direct contact with the enemy’.
More than 100 councillors at Birmingham City Council attended a meeting on Tuesday night to honour L/Cpl Croucher, who was there as guest of honour.
But when the councillors stood to give him a standing ovation Cllrs Yaqoob and Ishtiaq, who are both members of the Respect party, refused to get to their feet.
Fellow councillors today reacted with fury at the snub and branded the pair 'shameful'.
Conservative Cllr John Lines said: 'They should be ashamed of themselves.
'This was not the time or place to stage an anti-war protest - this man risked his life for his comrades.
'I was happy to give this hero a standing ovation and I have invited him to be guest of honour when we open new houses for ex-military personnel later this year.'
Conservative Cllr Peter Douglas Osborn added: 'As far as I am concerned it is no longer the Respect Party, but the disrespect party.'
L/Cpl Croucher, from Solihull, West Midlands., who now runs a security firm, was at the meeting to highlight his work with the Royal British Legion.
He said: 'Obviously not everyone is behind the work we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan and they have their point of view.
'On the other hand, it was nice to be shown respect for the job we do by the overwhelming majority of councillors.'
Yaqoob and Ishtiaq yesterday remained defiant about their decision to snub L/Cpl Croucher, branding the gesture 'false patriotism'.
Cllr Yaqoob, Respect Party leader and head of Birmingham’s Stop the War Coalition, said: 'It was more about the politicians feeling good about themselves for sending our young men to fight for reasons that have proved to be false.
'I have every sympathy for our soldiers on a human level, they are only doing their jobs.
'But this ovation was just a big public show, it was false patriotism.
'Wrapping coffins in the flag and awarding medals does not make it right.'
Cllr Ishtiaq added: 'At the end of the day, if these so-called politicians want to give a standing ovation, why don’t they go and fight themselves?
'What we did was out of principle.'
The mother of L/Cpl Croucher expressed shock that two Muslim councillors snubbed her son.
Margaret Croucher said: '
It is a surprising thing to have happened. I don't think Matt expected to be caught in the middle of a row.
'I am disappointed but like Matt said after it happened, everyone is entitled to their opinion whatever it may be.'
Cllr Salma Yaqoob, 38, a married mother-of-three, was elected to Birmingham City Council in 2006 and represents the Sparkbrook ward.
She received nearly 50 per cent of the vote which is one of the highest majorities of any councillor.
Cllr Mohammed Ishtiaq, 35, is a married father-of-one, was elected to the council in 2007 and also represents the Sparkbrook ward.
Today he defended the decision to snub L/Cpl Croucher's standing ovation.
He said: 'We had no idea that there would be a standing ovation. It was announced at the start of the meeting.
'We were caught unawares but we decided we did not wish to take part.
'We acknowledged Matt Croucher by nodding and smiling in his direction which I think he appreciated.
'We were protesting against the other politicians not against Matt.
'He is a hero for what he did but he, like many other young men and women, are in a war which is based on a pack of lies.'
A Birmingham City Council spokesman said the councillors had not breached any rules and would not comment on political matters.
Is The Respect Party an Al Qaeda propaganda unit ?
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Islamic extremist landed job with British Airways 'in terror plot to blow up a flight to the U.S.'
An Islamic extremist landed a job as a British Airways computer expert with the aim of blowing up a plane bound for America, a court heard.
Rajib Karim, 31, is accused of plotting with terror mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki to commit a ‘spectacular’ atrocity that would lead to ‘widespread loss of life’.
Desperate for martyrdom, the Bangladesh-born fanatic volunteered to train as cabin crew in the hope of blowing up aircraft, it was alleged.
The software engineer is also said to have planned to hijack BA computer systems to ground flights, causing chaos for millions of passengers.
Karim had already begun to build a terror cell in Britain, recruiting a baggage handler from Heathrow Airport and a security guard, it was claimed.
Woolwich Crown Court heard that in the final encrypted email he sent to al-Awlaki before his arrest last February, Karim said he would speak to his brothers ‘to find out the possibilities of shipping a package to a U.S.-bound plane’.
the jury was told that Karim acted as a terrorist mole for American-born al-Awlaki – the commander of the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula – passing him crucial information on the airline’s computer and security systems and even cabin crew names and addresses.
The zealot came to Britain in December 2006 with his British wife, Zijarin Raja, to seek cancer treatment on the NHS for his baby son, now five. It later transpired the boy did not have the disease and he has now recovered.
But Jonathan Laidlaw QC, prosecuting, said that from his arrival Karim was ‘entirely committed to an extreme Jihadist and religious cause’.
‘Karim believes that terrorism, including the murder of civilians, is permissible to establish, as he views it, a true Islamic state'
‘He believes that terrorism, including the murder of civilians, is permissible to establish, as he views it, a true Islamic state,’ Mr Laidlaw said. ‘Karim was anxious to carry out such an act and he was determined to seek martyrdom.’
Karim had been given indefinite leave to remain in the UK in January 2009, and just a month before had completed an application form for naturalisation as a British citizen.
But the court heard that when he first travelled from Bangladesh to the UK it was to see if the country ‘could be exploited for terrorist purposes’.
In one email, recovered by police, he said: ‘From the moment I entered this country my niyah (purpose) was to do something for the deen (faith), it was not to make a living here and start enjoying life.’
However, he settled in at work and bided his time, Mr Laidlaw told the court, joining a gym and playing football. ‘It was as far as anybody could tell a perfectly ordinary life he was living,’ he said.
Karim, already a fund-raiser for the Al Qaeda-linked terror organisation Jamaat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), began plotting with al-Awlaki after being introduced by his younger brother, Tehzeeb, also a member of the JMB.
The father of one signed up to BA’s graduate training programme in Newcastle in 2007,
becoming a software engineer in ‘as good a job as could be obtained’ for terrorist purposes,
His pass gave him ‘unsupervised access’ to BA computers running its website, email, crew roster, engineering systems, HR and finances.
His pass gave him ‘unsupervised access’ to BA computers running its website, email, crew roster, engineering systems, HR and finances.
In late 2009, Karim became depressed that he had failed to achieve an attack and offered to wage war in Afghanistan.
But al-Awlaki said he should remain in position, from where he ‘might be able to provide us with critical information’.
Karim responded saying he had ‘knowledge of key people in BA’ as well as key computer hardware locations.
Following strike action by cabin crew in 2009, BA sought volunteers from its ground staff to train as cabin crew.
Karim completed an application form for a customer support role – he did not have enough service for cabin crew duty – two weeks before his arrest.
He has admitted several charges including fund-raising for terrorism, but denies four counts of engaging in the preparation of terrorist acts.
The trial continues.
Muslim imam, given award by Princess Anne, facing jail for raping boy, 12, at mosque
A Muslim cleric, once decorated by Buckingham Palace, is facing jail after being convicted of 'preying on' and 'abusing' two boys at his mosque.
Mohammed Hanif Khan, 42, one of Britain's most influential imams, became the first ever full-time Islamic minister in the history of the British prison service in 2001.
Highly respected, in 2004 he visited the Palace to receive a Butlers' Trust Award from Princess Anne for his work in diversity.
Under his grand title of Sheik Mohammed Hanif Haqqani Kareemi he led prayers and gave Islamic education to boys.
But a two-week long trial at Nottingham Crown Court heard Hanif Khan used his position of power at the mosque in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs, to terrify, intimidate and abuse the two young boys in 2009 - then aged 12 and 15.
After three days of deliberation a jury found him guilty of two counts of rape and one count of sexual activity with a child. He was remanded in custody for sentencing at a later date.
Mohammed Hanif Khan in the Stoke-on-Trent mosque where he worked as Imam. He was found guilty of raping a 12-year-old boy and sexually assaulting a 15-year-old
During the trial - which has prompted high emotion in the local community - prosecutor Tariq Shakor Khan explained how both boys kept their abuse secret from one another, each believing they were the Imam's only victims.
Mr Khan said the youngest boy was raped outside the mosque by some bins after being asked to take the rubbish out.
The boy told officers that at first the imam was stern like a schoolteacher, but gradually he began talking to him 'nicely'.
But play fights soon turned sexual and Hanif Khan allegedly raped the boy repeatedly over a two-month period in one of the mosque's room.
He said the sex attacks happened after formal prayers with others from the congregation when Hanif Khan would ask the boy to go into the private committee room and lay out his prayer mat.
After the last attack in October 2009 the youngest boy claimed Hanif Khan told him he was going to take him somewhere else and 'do it to him specially'. The following day he told a friend and was advised to inform his parents.
The respected cleric, once decorated at Buckingham Palace, was remanded in custody ahead of his sentencing after a jury convicted him of two counts of rape and one of sexual activity with a child
Afterwards the boy's 15 year-old cousin was asked if anything had happened to him when he had once stayed at Hanif Khan's home overnight, at which point he too claimed he had been assaulted.
The teenager alleged Hanif Khan lay on his bed and asked if the teen could massage his neck, but when he complained he was not doing it correctly he said he would show him how it was done.
The 15 year old told detectives Hanif Khan began touching his genitals and then attempted to rape him.
The following morning Hanif Khan dropped him back at home with a warning that: 'Whatever happened in the house, stays in the house.'
The imam was arrested in October 2009 after he had been the victim of an assault by members of the youngsters' families after the allegations first coming to light.
Hanif Khan told detectives there was absolutely no truth in the allegations and that he had acted properly 'both inside and outside the mosque'.
Prosecutor Tariq Shakor Khan added: 'He said that as part of his pastoral duties he had sought to correct the boys' behaviour in areas where they had gone wrong.'
As soon the allegations were known in the community there was an immediate revenge attack on Hanif Khan - as three men held him down and shaved off his beard to humiliate him.
Last October North Staffordshire Magistrates' Court heard that Mohammed Jameel, 31, Mohammed Nadeem, 28, and Mohammed Safir, 32, held him down as he was shaved with electric clippers.
Jameel and Mohammed Safir were sentenced to a total of 26 weeks in prison while Nadeem escaped jail, after the court heard he reluctantly took part in the attack.
DI Tim Martin, from Staffordshire Police, said: 'We welcome today's verdict.
'This has been a thorough and sensitive inquiry, and we realise that the case has been cause for some understandable concern in the community.
'I would like to thank the victims and their families for their bravery in coming forward and reporting the offences to us.
'After the offences were reported to us in 2009 a detailed investigation was immediately undertaken by detectives, who have worked closely with colleagues at the Crown Prosecution Service.
'Khan protested his innocence throughout the investigation, and during the court proceedings, but the jury did not believe his account of events and recognised he had abused his position of trust.'
Don Knapper, District Crown Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in Staffordshire, said: 'This is a case of abuse on young boys by a man whom they and their families trusted.
'Khan was in a position of trust and exploited the access he was afforded as their teacher to abuse the boys.
'Khan protested his innocence throughout the court proceedings; however the jury disbelieved this and accepted the prosecution case.
Mohammed Hanif Khan, 42, one of Britain's most influential imams, became the first ever full-time Islamic minister in the history of the British prison service in 2001.
Highly respected, in 2004 he visited the Palace to receive a Butlers' Trust Award from Princess Anne for his work in diversity.
Under his grand title of Sheik Mohammed Hanif Haqqani Kareemi he led prayers and gave Islamic education to boys.
But a two-week long trial at Nottingham Crown Court heard Hanif Khan used his position of power at the mosque in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs, to terrify, intimidate and abuse the two young boys in 2009 - then aged 12 and 15.
After three days of deliberation a jury found him guilty of two counts of rape and one count of sexual activity with a child. He was remanded in custody for sentencing at a later date.
Mohammed Hanif Khan in the Stoke-on-Trent mosque where he worked as Imam. He was found guilty of raping a 12-year-old boy and sexually assaulting a 15-year-old
During the trial - which has prompted high emotion in the local community - prosecutor Tariq Shakor Khan explained how both boys kept their abuse secret from one another, each believing they were the Imam's only victims.
Mr Khan said the youngest boy was raped outside the mosque by some bins after being asked to take the rubbish out.
The boy told officers that at first the imam was stern like a schoolteacher, but gradually he began talking to him 'nicely'.
But play fights soon turned sexual and Hanif Khan allegedly raped the boy repeatedly over a two-month period in one of the mosque's room.
He said the sex attacks happened after formal prayers with others from the congregation when Hanif Khan would ask the boy to go into the private committee room and lay out his prayer mat.
After the last attack in October 2009 the youngest boy claimed Hanif Khan told him he was going to take him somewhere else and 'do it to him specially'. The following day he told a friend and was advised to inform his parents.
The respected cleric, once decorated at Buckingham Palace, was remanded in custody ahead of his sentencing after a jury convicted him of two counts of rape and one of sexual activity with a child
Afterwards the boy's 15 year-old cousin was asked if anything had happened to him when he had once stayed at Hanif Khan's home overnight, at which point he too claimed he had been assaulted.
The teenager alleged Hanif Khan lay on his bed and asked if the teen could massage his neck, but when he complained he was not doing it correctly he said he would show him how it was done.
The 15 year old told detectives Hanif Khan began touching his genitals and then attempted to rape him.
The following morning Hanif Khan dropped him back at home with a warning that: 'Whatever happened in the house, stays in the house.'
The imam was arrested in October 2009 after he had been the victim of an assault by members of the youngsters' families after the allegations first coming to light.
Hanif Khan told detectives there was absolutely no truth in the allegations and that he had acted properly 'both inside and outside the mosque'.
Prosecutor Tariq Shakor Khan added: 'He said that as part of his pastoral duties he had sought to correct the boys' behaviour in areas where they had gone wrong.'
As soon the allegations were known in the community there was an immediate revenge attack on Hanif Khan - as three men held him down and shaved off his beard to humiliate him.
Last October North Staffordshire Magistrates' Court heard that Mohammed Jameel, 31, Mohammed Nadeem, 28, and Mohammed Safir, 32, held him down as he was shaved with electric clippers.
Jameel and Mohammed Safir were sentenced to a total of 26 weeks in prison while Nadeem escaped jail, after the court heard he reluctantly took part in the attack.
DI Tim Martin, from Staffordshire Police, said: 'We welcome today's verdict.
'This has been a thorough and sensitive inquiry, and we realise that the case has been cause for some understandable concern in the community.
'I would like to thank the victims and their families for their bravery in coming forward and reporting the offences to us.
'After the offences were reported to us in 2009 a detailed investigation was immediately undertaken by detectives, who have worked closely with colleagues at the Crown Prosecution Service.
'Khan protested his innocence throughout the investigation, and during the court proceedings, but the jury did not believe his account of events and recognised he had abused his position of trust.'
Don Knapper, District Crown Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in Staffordshire, said: 'This is a case of abuse on young boys by a man whom they and their families trusted.
'Khan was in a position of trust and exploited the access he was afforded as their teacher to abuse the boys.
'Khan protested his innocence throughout the court proceedings; however the jury disbelieved this and accepted the prosecution case.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
