mediawatchwatch.org.uk

The National Secular Society has called for a full public inquiry into the role of the West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the Undercover Mosque documentary.

Keith Porteus Wood:

While the Police and CPS have now apologised, they have yet to explain why this apology was not issued in response to the widespread public outcry during 2007 about their targeting of Channel 4 or even to the total rejection by OFCOM of Police/CPS complaints on 19 November 2007. It had to be forced on them by the courts. The intransigence of the Police and CPS has seriously undermined public confidence in both institutions.

“We have written to both the Attorney General and the Shadow Attorney General urging a full public inquiry into how what appear to be systematic policy and procedural failures at the Police and Crown Prosecution Service led to the justice system being brought into disrepute in this way. It is essential that lessons are learned from this failure by both the police and the CPS. The debacle raises worrying questions about the motivation behind the activities apologised for, independence of the CPS, whether all parts of the community are being treated equally and whether sufficient value is being attached to freedom of the press.

The CPS’s function is to provide an essential check and balance, but it has spectacularly failed to do so in this high profile case. Hopefully, this is not part of a pattern, but the question needs to be asked.

“The damage caused by these failures went far beyond damage to the reputation of Channel 4’s courageous ‘Undercover Mosque’ documentary makers. Their investigation should have been the foundation for a very important public discourse, essential to the public interest about the role of religion in society. This public debate was largely derailed by the excessive zeal of the WMP and the CPS whose action appeared to signal no-go areas of inquiry. This ‘shooting of the messenger’ is likely to have further intensified the attacks on freedom of expression as editors and journalists self-censor themselves in matters relating to religion to avoid the risk of prosecution. Evading discussions in this area simply allows the problems to fester and grow, giving succour to both religious and right wing extremists.

Godspeed with that one, NSS.

UPDATE (20 May) David Cameron has added his voice to the call for more police accountability as a result. In a speech in Birmingham yesterday, he said:

What I want to see is an elected police commission. Not elected police chiefs – but commissioners that will ensure with an elected mayor that the police are accountable. We do not know who police authority members are or what they do, so as a result we do not get police forces that are held responsible for their actions.
Many of us who watched the programme (Dispatches) were interested in what it had to say on the very real threat of extremists in our society. It was a worthwhile piece of work. It was something that was worth knowing about.
This issue tells us that the police need to be careful and more considered about things

The Daily Mail is first with the excellent news that Channel 4 and Hardcash Productions have won their court case against the West Midlands Police and the CPS.

The documentary Undercover Mosque showed candid footage of extremist Muslim preachers in the West Midlands calling for homosexuals to be killed, preaching jihad, and spouting demented medieval bullshit. Such preaching is not a crime in itself, but the West Midlands Police decided, in a shameful display of gesture-policing, that reporting on it was – and accused the documentary makers of distortion, undermining “community cohesion” and “feelings of public reassurance”.

The baffled broadcasters were completely exonerated by Ofcom, but as the police left their initial press release up on their website, the producers felt they had no choice but to pursue damages.

They were awarded £100,000 – to be paid to The Rory Peck Trust – and an apology from the police and CPS.

Kevin Sutcliffe, deputy head of current affairs at C4, is pleased:

We are accused of faking by the police and the CPS, which carries an awful lot of weight.

We had to take this course of action to show it is not true. We were completely baffled. What were they trying to achieve?

Why did they go after the programme in such a way? It seems to us a large amount of public money and time spent trying to bring us down.

David Henshaw of Hardcash is similarly relieved:

This was a thorough and detailed one-hour documentary, made over nine months and at personal risk to the undercover reporter.

The abhorrent and extreme comments made by fundamentalist preachers in the film speak for themselves.

They later claimed they had been taken out of context – but no one has explained the correct context for arguing that women are ‘born deficient’, that homosexuals should be thrown off mountains and that ten-year-old girls should be hit if they refuse to wear the hijab.

Just as a reminder of the sort of talk that was going on at Birmingham’s Green Lane mosque, here’s a clip of the dribbling half-wit Abu Usamah in full flow, from the Dispatches in question:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftNxbnr9kiI[/youtube]

UPDATE: The West Midlands Police apology is now online

On 8 August 2007 we published, jointly with the Crown Prosecution Service, a press release relating to the Channel Four Dispatches programme “Undercover Mosque”. This press release alleged that footage of the speakers shown had been so “heavily edited” and taken out of context that it had “completely distorted” their meaning. Reference was made to the CPS having been asked to consider (although against advice) instituting proceedings against those involved in making the programme for inciting racial hatred.

Following an independent investigation by the broadcasting regulator Ofcom, we now accept that we were wrong to make these allegations. We now accept that there was no evidence that the broadcaster or programme makers had misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity. A review of the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts) by Ofcom demonstrated that the programme had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context.

We accept, without reservation, the conclusions of Ofcom and apologise to the programme makers for the damage and distress caused by our original press release.

Let us hope that their ill-advised foray into the world of TV criticism will not be repeated. Let us also hope that there will be a full independent inquiry into the affair.

The Guardian reports the excellent news that Channel 4’s Dispatches editor Kevin Sutcliffe and Hardcash Productions, makers of Undercover Mosque, have issued libel proceedings against the West Midlands Police.

The documentary exposed extremist preachers in the West Midlands calling for homosexuals to be killed, preaching jihad, and generally spouting their own peculiar brand of demented medieval bullshit. The police, having determined that no crime had been committed by the preachers (something which the documentary makers did not allege), decided instead to try to prosecute the broadcasters, accusing them of distortion and misrepresentation.

The West Midlands Police appeared be trying to ingratiate itself with the local Muslim community, the result being this most egregious example of gesture policing.

Ofcom investigated the police complaints, and completely exonerated the broadcasters on all charges.

Channel 4 is supporting the libel suit:

The statements made by both the West Midlands Police and the CPS were completely unfounded and seriously damaging to the reputation of the programme makers.

We fully support this libel action as we feel that it is the only way to vindicate their reputations and to prove this was a responsible piece of public interest journalism. These unfounded allegations brought into question Channel 4’s standards of investigative journalism and a vindication for the programme team will be a vindication for Dispatches

The broadcaster also released a statement on behalf of co-claimants, David Henshaw, Andrew Smith and John Moratiel, from Hardcash Production:

The statements made by both the West Midlands Police and the CPS were completely unfounded and seriously damaging to our reputation. We feel the only way to set the record straight once and for all is to pursue this matter through a libel action.

It’s good to get these things out in the open.

Here’s a 20-second clip from the doc, featuring Abu Usama preaching the lurve:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftNxbnr9kiI[/youtube]

As we suspected, The Mail was wrong to say that Ofcom directly criticised the West Midlands Police in its ruling on C4’s Undercover Mosque – the most that can be said is that its tone was occasionally incredulous at the groundlessness of some of the complaints.

It is true, however, that all the complaints from all sources were completely and thoroughly dismissed. Those complainants included not only the WMP, but also 364 members of the public (“There appeared to be evidence that the complaints were part of a campaign”), the Islamic Cultural Centre and the London Central Mosque (for “unfair treatment” and “unwarranted infringement of privacy”), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and their embassy (for “unfair treatment”) who were represented by the notorious Schillings (of the Usmanov affair, among others).

The Saudi complaint was particularly silly. As Ofcom explain,

the programme made allegations against individuals from or
trained in Saudi Arabia, and organisations based there. The Committee found these
did not equate to allegations of wrongdoing by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (i.e. the
country’s government and monarchy)

In other words, usually addressed to paranoid adolescents, “It’s not about you”.

One question does present itself: if the Saudi case was such an obvious non-starter, what on earth could have induced Schillings to act on behalf of the petro-dollar rich kingdom in the first place?

UPDATE: (10:15 pm) Tahir Alam, assistant secretary of the MCB has defended the West Midlands Police:

I think the police acted responsibly by investigating within the current context.

There is an unhealthy focus on the Muslim community and coverage has been very unfriendly. It was not the first such programme to pursue a similar line of inquiry. These kind of irresponsible programmes damage community relations. Yes, there is freedom of the press, but that is no reason to target a select community in this way.

Meanwhile, The Telegraph carries a piece by the show’s producer, David Henshaw, who says

I have now written to the DPP and the Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police asking for an explanation for the highly damaging allegations made in August – allegations that sought to undermine legitimate investigative journalism and that unjustly blackened the reputation of my company and my courageous and entirely honest team of programme makers.

UPDATE: (25 Nov) David Henshaw, the director of Hardcash Productions, is seriously thinking of suing the WMP:

I really don’t like the libel courts and believe in a world of free comment. I don’t mind abuse, but Hardcash’s reputation has been severely damaged and it was a good reputation

The Mail claims to have seen Ofcom’s judgement on the unprecedented complaint by the West Midlands Police about Channel 4’s Undercover Mosque.

Not only has C4 been cleared, but the Mail says that Ofcom has also taken the unusual step of directly criticising the complainant. If true, it may have something to do with the fact that the West Midlands Police had absolutely no right to make the complaint in the first place, as Ofcom’s rules state that “Fairness and Privacy” complaints can come only from “the person affected” or someone authorised to act for them.

While it would be nice if the WMP were hauled over the coals for this egregious example of “gesture policing”, the good news is that C4 looks to have been completely exonerated. This is, of course, in accordance with MWW prophecy.

Last night’s Newsnight investigated West Midlands Police allegations against the Channel 4 documentary Undercover Mosque, and found that those allegations were groundless – something that informed commentators have long suspected.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwCrzp_Mo2M[/youtube]

Ofcom’s ruling is due soon. The Angel Gabriel has reliably informed us that they will come to the same conclusion, and the West Midlands Police will end up with egg on their faces – deservedly so.

The current Private Eye looks into the West Midlands Police decision to complain to Ofcom about Channel 4’s Undercover Mosque (see below).

They make the somewhat devastating point that Ofcom’s rules state that “Fairness and Privacy” complaints can come only from “the person affected” or someone authorised to act for them. The WMP is neither, so the complaint will not even be considered. It was clearly a gesture aimed at the Muslim community by Anil Patani, assistant chief constable (security and cohesion).

Private Eye asked the WMP why they hadn’t read the rules before lodging the complaint. A spokesman claimed that they “liaised” with Ofcom beforehand – a claim which Ofcom denies completely. Apparently they saw the press release only 10 minutes before it was issued.

The Eye also asked the CPS to cite some examples of the “complete distortion” they had accused Channel 4 of perpetrating on the views of the speakers in the documentary. CPS replied:

No. We don’t go into that level of detail.

Or indeed, the Eye notes, any detail at all.

The report concludes with by noting that Channel 4 and the HardCash production company are still considering suing the police for defamation. Good luck to them.

Just as a reminder, here are the “decontextualised” words of Abu Usamah, one of Green Lane Mosque’s main English-language preachers. The clip appears to be spliced together from two speeches, but both parts are pretty damning:

Any exonerating contextualisation gratefully considered.

(Thanks to Bartholomew for the heads up)

UPDATE: (Aug 17) The Guardian reports that Kevin Sutcliffe has accused the BBC of lazy journalism. They reported the WMP complaint to Ofcom as just another “TV fakery” story, when it was no such thing:

Particularly BBC News 24 which really just ran it as a TV fakery story. They framed the debate early on and that was lazy.

Leading media barrister Joanne Cash also criticised the police, and repeated that Channel 4 had strong grounds for legal action:

What’s happened here is outrageous and I don’t say that lightly.

Kevin referred to himself as the ‘poster boy’ of TV fakery. I say to you Kevin, you have also been the subject of some highly defamatory allegations

UPDATE: Paul Goodman, the shadow community cohesion minister, has written to Jack Straw, expressing his concern:

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this is a politically motivated referral, driven by the mistaken belief that the best means of dealing with separatist extremists is to appease them.

Some more backlash about the West Midland Police and CPS extraordinary decision to widen their remit to that of TV criticism.

First, a ballsy letter to The Guardian from Channel 4’s Kevin Sutcliffe:

In response to Mohammed Shafiq (Letters, August 10): neither the West Midlands police nor the Crown Prosecution Service have produced any evidence whatsoever to support their extraordinary and damaging allegations of unfairness made against Dispatches: Undercover Mosque. I am very confident of successfully defending this charge against the programme should the police decide to provide Ofcom with any evidence.

The highly offensive comments made in the programme speak for themselves – the speakers concerned were clearly shown making abhorrent and extreme comments in mainstream Islamic institutions. Many of these speeches were made in DVDs and in internet broadcasts which Channel 4 had no involvement in producing and which our journalists found available in the community.

Undercover Mosque allowed these comments to be seen in their proper context. All the speakers featured in the film were offered the opportunity to respond and their response was reflected in the programme. None of them denied making these comments and none of the individual speakers have to date complained of unfair treatment to Ofcom.

Channel 4 was fully aware of the considerable sensitivities surrounding the subject matter of this; however, I believe there was clearly an important public interest in exposing the unpleasant and even offensive views that were being preached in the name of Islam in some British mosques. This view was shared by the moderate Muslims interviewed in the programme who were appalled by the footage.

Kevin Sutcliffe
Deputy head of news and current affairs, Channel 4, and editor of Dispatches

And an editorial in The Telegraph by Charles Moore clearly arguing that the CPS and WMP are, in fact, off their heads. It contains a quick reminder of the contents of the documentary:

One preacher speaks of a British Muslim soldier killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan and says: “The hero is the one who separated his head from his shoulders.” Another says that all Jews will be killed at the end of time, and makes a snorting noise as if imitating a pig.

Shame on Channel 4 for showing this decontextualised snorting:

The BBC reports that the Crown Prosecution Service will not press charges against three speakers filmed in the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary Undercover Mosque. Instead, the West Midlands Police have complained to Ofcom about the programme itself.

CPS lawyer Bethan David said:

The splicing together of extracts from longer speeches appears to have completely distorted what the speakers were saying.

The CPS has demonstrated it will not hesitate to prosecute those responsible for criminal incitement.

But in this case we have been dealing with a heavily edited television programme, apparently taking out of context aspects of speeches which in their totality could never provide a realistic prospect of any convictions.

The programme is still available on YouTube.

The investigation initially focused on the speakers, but eventually turned on to the documentary itself. ACC Anil Patani for West Midlands Police said:

As a result of our initial findings, the investigation was then extended to include issues relating to the editing and portrayal of the documentary.

The priority for West Midlands Police has been to investigate the documentary and it’s [sic] making with as much rigour as the extremism the programme sought to portray.

According to the Press Release the West Midlands Police wanted to charge Channel 4 with stirring up racial hatred (which is odd considering Islam is not a race), but were advised by the CPS that this is not possible. So they have filed an official complaint with Ofcom, where details of the alleged distortions will emerge.

MWW will keep you informed.

UPDATE (14:55): Channel 4 has responded:

We believe the offensive views expressed by the people revealed in the programme speak for themselves.

We didn’t put these words into people’s mouths and all extracts were carefully contextualised.

The West Midlands Police have provided no evidence whatsoever to support their allegations.

The MCB website thoughtfully carries the written responses of some of the organisations implicated in Channel 4’s Dispatches exposé of Saudi-trained radical imams preaching hateful nonsense at some of the country’s leading mosques. They are case studies in denial and aggressive victimhood.

Shouaib Ahmed (PDF download) of Markazi Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith actually threatens C4 with legal action:

if I or any member of my staff or anyone who worships at the Green Lane Mosque or the Mosque itself are subjected to any form of physical attack as a result of your programme then you, HardCash Productions Ltd and Channel 4 will all be liable to prosecution for incitement to commit a criminal act.

Right. Channel 4 report the hateful words of a loony, and any backlash resulting from it is Channel 4’s fault?

Safiq ur-Rahman (PDF downlaod) of the UK Islamic mission also writes a long and angry whinge, highlight of which include:

But given our predilection for gratuitous Islamophobia and sacrilege of the highest Islamic – and Christian – sanctities, under the holy doctrine of absolute freedom of speech, it seems a little rich for anyone making so much fuss about some intemperate words blurted here and there by someone feeling hurt and angry.

And…

The Saudis did not need to buy British Muslim support. It was worth little and yet had this been possible, considering the trillions they contribute to the British economy, the Saudis were very well placed to buy up the British establishment itself.

The MCB link to the letters here. They make remarkable reading.