Tube Employed Terrorist..........

#2
However, it is understood Mostafa's previous convictions were not brought to light during his recruitment. He has since been dismissed.
So is the story he failed the deeper vetting , which proves it works, or he's the son of Hook?
 
#3
And as he left somebody shouted.

"Mind the doors please"
 
#4
And there's nothing wrong with deeper vetting.

My cat will testify to that.

Or would do when its finished licking the wound.
 
#5
PartTimePongo said:
However, it is understood Mostafa's previous convictions were not brought to light during his recruitment. He has since been dismissed.
So is the story he failed the deeper vetting , which proves it works, or he's the son of Hook?
London Underground do not carry out " Developed Vetting" on employees.

Any conviction would have showed up on a standard disclosure.
 
#6
mistersoft said:
And as he left somebody shouted.

"Mind the doors please"
Its not "Mind the doors", its "Step Back From The Doors - Mind The Gap", you muppet.

Probably sounds better coming from Charlotte Church - but that's on another thread.
 
#7
London Underground do not carry out " Developed Vetting" on employees
He worked for a contractor to London Underground.
 
#10
frenchperson said:
Yeah. Inherited infamy. Mark Thatcher must be able to identify with this only too well.
wtf are you wittering on about? He has a conviction in The Yemen for terrorism
 
#11
Sorry. Did I lose you? Mark Thatcher's a villain, with an infamous parent. I wasn't wittering, but drawing a close comparison.


Is this fellow's conviction spent, incidentally?
 
#12
frenchperson said:
Sorry. Did I lose you? Mark Thatcher's a villain, with an infamous parent. I wasn't wittering, but drawing a close comparison.


Is this fellow's conviction spent, incidentally?
How exactly does Mrs Thatcher relate to Abu Hamza as infamous?

And compairing a somewhat twitish son who was duped into sponsoring one of his "school chums" hardly equates with direct terrorist activity.

Once again you head off topic to make a snide, (and I suppose you consider) clever remark.
 
#13
Gremlin said:
frenchperson said:
Sorry. Did I lose you? Mark Thatcher's a villain, with an infamous parent. I wasn't wittering, but drawing a close comparison.


Is this fellow's conviction spent, incidentally?
How exactly does Mrs Thatcher relate to Abu Hamza as infamous?

And compairing a somewhat twitish son who was duped into sponsoring one of his "school chums" hardly equates with direct terrorist activity.

Once again you head off topic to make a snide, (and I suppose you consider) clever remark.
They're both in the box with an 'I' on it. They could, however, be infamous for different reasons.
 
#14
Hooks son was implicated in the murder of British tourists in the Yemen (no suprise there then). Bearing in mind his father was in UK illegally (Dodgy marriage and all that) why was this apprentice terrorist allowed to stay? Additionally given his pedigree and relatively high profile, London Underground seems to have made a little Faux Pax in employing him I suspect.

Quiet clever though, doing his recce AND geting paid for it.
 
#15
sniper_bob said:
mistersoft said:
And as he left somebody shouted.

"Mind the doors please"
Its not "Mind the doors", its "Step Back From The Doors - Mind The Gap", you muppet.

Probably sounds better coming from Charlotte Church - but that's on another thread.
Apologies, the last time I was on the tube, you paid so much attention minding the doors, you just fell down the gap.

It seems they updated the warning, like they should update the vetting procedures.
 
#16
Well at least "Mad-as-a-newt-Ken" has withdrawn his ridiculous statement that - because Son of Hookie didn't commit a crime in the UK - it was ok to employ him!

I'd like to see Gary Glitter use that one, when he applies to run a children’s home on his return from his extended stay in SE Asia!
 
#17
frenchperson said:
Sorry. Did I lose you? Mark Thatcher's a villain, with an infamous parent. I wasn't wittering, but drawing a close comparison.


Is this fellow's conviction spent, incidentally?
He was convicted in 1999 so no it is not spent. As a tube user I really don't care if it is spent or not - he should never have been allowed a job working on terrorist targets. I hope vetting procedures will be tightened up now but won't be holding my breath
 
#18
I've heard from friends that have tried, that getting a job on the tube is notoriously difficult and requires a large dose of nepotism.

If this is true then who helped him get the job, and was this person aware of the terrorist/islamic extremism connections?
 
#19
In my experience, a bad attitude and English as an optional second language is a must to getting a job on the tube. However if he was working down there its not as if he was going to plan to blow it up, its not as if there suicidal is it?
 
#20
hallveg said:
In my experience, a bad attitude and English as an optional second language is a must to getting a job on the tube. However if he was working down there its not as if he was going to plan to blow it up, its not as if there suicidal is it?
I had a massive barney with a tube worker on the Waterloo & City line few years back. He was too lazy to get off his fat arrse and let me through the gate with large travelcase. His customer services was disgusting. I wrote to Transport for London and lodged an official complaint. I received a reply 2 weeks later to say an investigation had been carried out and the member of staff removed from the station to take up duties elsewhere. Sod the station manager if you have a complaint, go direct to the organ grinder for results!.
 

Latest Threads

Top