Saudi Arabia focus of terrorist funding report, but Home Office may not publish report due to...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by armchair_jihad, Jun 4, 2017.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. And its a decision not to publish the report.

    Opposition parties have condemned the government for opting not to publish a much-delayed report into the funding and support of extremist groups, saying the decision appeared intended to bury any criticism of Saudi Arabia.

    But the home secretary, Amber Rudd, said the move was based on national security and claimed that the full report contained sensitive and detailed personal information.

    The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said the decision to not publish the report was “utterly shameful”.

    He said: “Instead of supporting the perpetrators of these vile ideologies, the government should be naming and shaming them – including so-called allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar if need be.”


    Rudd's refusal to publish full report into extremist funding 'unacceptable'

    Expect a flood of Directorships, consultancies and no show jobs for Tory and Civil Service types, after a discreet length of time of course.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. I wondered where @jim30 was going.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1

  3. God! I acutely agree with something that lizard has said, I feel soiled.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  4. The relevant bits IMO, first:

    Having taken advice, I have decided against publishing the classified report produced during the review in full. This is because of the volume of personal information it contains and for national security reasons. We will be inviting privy councillors from the opposition parties to the Home Office to have access to classified report on privy council terms.

    Doesn't necessarily imply KSA are behind the national security reasons and the report is available to privy councillors - they can't speak about it of course. Most funding is home based.

    i. The most common source of support for Islamist extremist organisations in the UK is from small, anonymous public donations, with the majority of these donations most likely coming from UK-based individuals. In some cases these organisations receive hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. This is the main source of their income. Those giving may not know or support the organisations’ full agenda.

    And below which does point at KSA, could also be Pakistan.

    v. Overseas support has allowed individuals to study at institutions that teach deeply conservative forms of Islam and provide highly socially conservative literature and preachers to the UK’s Islamic institutions. Some of these individuals have since become of extremist concern.

    Extremism:Written statement - HCWS39
     
    • Informative Informative x 3

  5. I would guess that the bulk of this is the mandatory 'zakat' charity donations that the faithful are required to make that are (with their knowledge or not) being pillaged to support the poor pious jihadi in their time of need.

    More regulation needed of the mosques, their finances, and especially the shady characters who run them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Noticed a charity collection locally some time ago with a catch all 'human relief' title - the noticeable thing being the young collectors. No surprise that it is channelled toward a very specific group of humans.
    I don't doubt its good intentions, and 'human' rather than any particular religion has broader appeal, but maybe charities in general need much more scrutiny. There seems to be a hell of a lot of properties, services and money available before it gets as far as the taxman.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Charities are designed to avoid the Taxman. That's what they are for.
    But because naughty people want to use them, that is why we have charity law.
    Although it is applied to church donations it seems not to be so applied to mosques.
    Simple rule. No charity number, no records, shut it down. It isn't a place of worship, it's an illegal fund raising centre.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  8. Extremism:Written statement - HCWS39

    This is a masterclass in careful writing...

    May I congratulate the Home Office for avoiding any detail.

    Highly qualified, but employing (deliberately?) vague estimative language -

    So small builds up to hundreds of thousands? No other indication of any levels of funding relative to groups or currencies, or even trends of funding - ie, who gets the most monies.

    Most Likely? Not seen that in any yardstick of probability.

    "Those giving may not know or support the organisations full agenda" - but then again, they may well too. What a rather useless sentence.

    Without explanation, this is worthless:

    So, for example: Hizb-ut-tahrir may be one of the numerically small groups for which overseas funding is a significant source of funding. But the majority of UK groups are not funded from outside.

    Problem is, Hizb-ut-tahrir (Party of liberation) is globally more signifcant that the Jund Al-Tottenham rattling the bucket outside the Boots in the High Street...

    This could apply to Saudi, Pakistan - I read somewhere in open press that AQ had recruited from and had support in the Medrassah's of Mauritania (West Africa).

    This confuses Islamic Charity (Zakat, one of the five pillars of the faith), with charity (the individual act of giving) with Charity (as an organisation or a legal entity with responsibilities).

    If charity is being run or purported to be a Charity in order to gain zakat - it has to be regulated, otherwise there are some legal penalties. This is isn't two small boys with a Guy asking for "penny for the guy" outside the Boots in the High Street.

    I mean, even the plot of one of the first episodes of "Spooks" had MI5 posing as charity commission to deal with a troublesome mosque (I don't watch much TV and remember that making me laugh when it was first on in the early 2000's).

    At the risk of undermining what I hope was constructive, can I just say I look forward to being reassured that the Shadow Home Secretary has read the report under Privy Council terms. Give me strength.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Agreed - but I'll bet a lot of registered charities are just as adept at directing their funds (and efforts) towards extremely questionable causes.
    Just thinking of personages and beheaded hostages involved with charity aid to Syria for example.

    @Boumer Share your opinion expressed above and wondered whether to give a 'like' or a bemused 'funny'.
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  10. It is only on the cover up that the Civil Service, Political class and Establishment in general, show a degree of application and competence, this time they are covering up the planned and ongoing destruction of our civilisation.
     
  11. Having been a Civil Serpent for years, I doubt that we have the application or the competence to do that.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  12. I didn't mean you Hector or many in the Civil Service but I trust you get the gist, the deliberate failure to confront an obvious problem for whatever reason, always ends in catastrophe and this time is is everything that has been built over a millennia that is at stake.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  13. These will be voluntary contributions, for Syrian charities and the like, a bit like the chaps rattling the tin for 'the boys' on the blanket. No real mention of the end use.
     
  14. Don't forget that the national security reasons can be for ongoing operations.

    Don't forget that TMPMs HO 'may' have given grants to various organisations for community work and 'may' not have tracked expenditure too well.

    There's other bits which are all out there on the internet but I'll leave it up to individuals. IMO, once again, this is more about the UK than KSA, UAE, or Qatar. It suits the government to let the papers point the finger whilst itself saying nothing.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. No, not at all. No Russians involved in this in any way nor Chinese.