TV STAR Chris Tarrant's suspicious wife Ingrid set a team of private detectives to watch the woman she believes is his secret mistress.
Determined to know every detail, she set a fling-buster team of private eyes on Chris and "the other woman", issuing the shock order:
"Nail him and I'll divorce him!"
Although Ingrid publicly declared this week that her husband wasn't the type to even kiss another woman, she is privately convinced the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? frontman has been having an affair with a 50-year-old business acquaintance for more than A YEAR.
In desperation she called in the detectives earlier this summer, gave them the woman's name, address, details of 59-year-old Chris's text messages and ordered them to:
# STAKE out a suspected lovenest in Bucklebury Common, Berkshire, which she nicknamed "F***lebury Common".
# FIX a secret tracking device to the family's silver Mercedes to monitor all Chris's journeys.
# TAIL the woman to check her every movement.
Today's revelations—plus news that the Tarrants have split after 15 years and Chris is now staying with friends in London—follow his amazing confession to the News of World last Sunday that the marriage was in crisis over a drunken snog with another woman in a divorcees' bar.
And last night friend of the couple told us how weeks ago worried 51-year-old Ingrid made an appointment to see former Metropolitan Police detective Jim Shurvell, of JVS Investigations, at his home in Epsom, Surrey, just seven miles from the Tarrants' Esher mansion.
"She was very distressed and was in a state of high anxiety," said the pal.
Proof
"She dashed into the house, paranoid that she'd be recognised by neighbours.
"She told the investigators that an affair would be straightforward to prove and outlined her plan of where the detectives had to be placed and at what time. She wasn't concerned about money or how much it would cost, she just wanted the proof.
"Once she had that proof, she was going to head for the divorce court."
She claimed Chris had been having a fling with the woman for over a year after meeting her on charity work.
Once she she was convinced of Shurvell's credentials, she hired him and his team for £30 an hour per detective to tail her husband.
In a series of face to face meetings with motorbike-riding, tough-talking Shurvell, Ingrid handed over details of the other woman's £1million in Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, where she lives with her partner, who was last night said to be devastated by the latest shock twist in the saga.
Gizmo
Ingrid's ‘dirty dossier' also pinpointed the isolated country property which Chris had just bought 25 miles away in Bucklebury Common, that furious Ingrid insisted on calling "F***lebury".
The house, called Osgood's Gulley, is approached by a narrow, unmade road and would provide the perfect love rat's hideaway, she believed.
Ingrid also instructed that an electronic tracking device should be secretly attached to Chris's car so they would know where he was 24 hours a day. The sophisticated gizmo was yesterday still believed to be on the vehicle.
Still emotional and distressed, Ingrid pleaded with the undercover team to be as discreet as possible.
Shurvell and his team covered both houses for several weeks, and tailed Tarrant throughout London and the Home Counties by car and motorbike. But in the end they had to report to Ingrid that they had uncovered no evidence of Chris being unfaithful, and no evidence of any contact with the other woman.
Disappointed Ingrid then called off the dogs and paid the bill.
Blamed
A family friend revealed: "When she was told the results of the surveillance Ingrid seemed extremely agitated and blamed the agency for failing to get the goods.
"Her friends feel very sorry for her. She is like a bird in a gilded cage with more money than you could ever imagine and a string of luxury cars and houses. And yet it seems like she's had the cares of the world on her shoulders."
When we contacted ex cop Shurvell he told us: "I never comment on clients.
"What are you trying to do, ruin me?"
Our inside source said last night: "It's very sad but there's no way back for Chris and Ingrid now.
"They've split up and Chris has moved out of the family home.
"But Ingrid has been very brave this past week, especially when she stood on her doorstep and told the world that she didn't believe Chris had it in him to even kiss another woman. But inside she clearly thought differently."
Ingrid, who has two teenage children with Chris—plus four from their former marriages—spoke out to defend the £3.5million-a-year celebrity after was seen snogging a busty brunette in the R Bar near their home.
Skirts
She branded some women in her neighbourhood as "desperate Surrey housewives" and insisted of the kiss:
"It would be something that someone did to him and before he knew it, it was over.
"I suspect that he didn't do anything. He's not the sort of person who would do that—but someone would do that to him.
"I've been with him in the past when women have thrown themselves at him and even lifted up their skirts with no knickers on. It's quite disgusting."
But last night she was in a differenct mood. When we put our latest revelations to Ingrid she said:
"All I can do at the moment is be the best possible mother to my children and sort it all out with Chris.
"I don't want to say anything until I've sat down and digested all of this."
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Sunday, September 10, 2006
INTERVIEW: Gordon Brown squares up to Labour rebels
By Ian Kirby, Political Editor
Gordon Brown has faced down his critics after a week of Labour war and pledged to brush them aside on his way to power.
In a breezy and confident demonstration of his new authority, the Chancellor laughed off this weekend's bitter personal criticism from hardline Blairites who blamed him for the leadership crisis that tore the Government apart.
Directly rebuffing ex-Home Secretary Charles Clarke's claim that he shouldn't assume he will be anointed Britain's next prime minister, Mr Brown openly threw down the gauntlet to anyone who thought they could rival him as future leader.
In a clear "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!" challenge, tough-guy Brown squared up to the Blairite rebels and said:
"I am HAPPY for there to be a leadership contest. I think there SHOULD be. If people decide they want to stand when there is a leadership contest, whenever that happens, they should feel free to do so. I would WELCOME the open contest."
But in a wide-ranging exclusive interview with the News of the World, he went on to:
* Pour CONTEMPT on Mr Clarke's claims he'd been "stupid" to be photographed laughing and gloating after leaving a meeting with the PM - in fact, he revealed, he'd been innocently chuckling with one of his staff about his newborn son Fraser's latest exploits. He said: "It comes to something when people even criticise me for smiling."
* DISMISS claims that he urged on Labour's anti-Blair rebels as 'nonsense'.
He said: "I made it very clear to people all week, privately, that Tony should make his own decision and we should support that decision ... any suggestion that I or those acting for me were directly involved in this is absolute nonsense."
* REJECT claims that he is a control freak saying 'I'm a team player."
* HINT that former Home Secretary Clarke's attack was motivated by a historic row over budget cuts.
* ICILY reject as "laughable" that attack and Mr Clarke's other highly-personal accusations that he was a psychologically-flawed “deluded control freak” .
* REFUSE to condemn the eight Labour rebels - branded by Mr Blair as "disloyal" - who had quit government posts in protest at the PM clinging to power and refused to rule out their returning to Government.
Mr Brown was speaking at the end of a tumultuous week in which Labour rebels had finally forced the PM to set a departure date - after which pro-Blairites led by former Home Secretary Charles Clarke reacted furiously by launching a diatribe of abuse at the Chancellor.
He was branded psychologically flawed, a "deluded control freak", a loner, and even "stupid".
But Mr Brown was having none of it - and went out of his way to make clear he is thinking and preparing to tackle far weightier matters than simply how to secure for himself the job of Prime Minister.
He also invited the News of the World into his family home and spoke for the first time about he is coping with becoming a Dad again and how his family always comes first.
While aides scurried in and out of his cluttered family kitchen, the Chancellor first warned how the civil war raging in the Labour Party would only succeed in driving away potential voters.
He made it clear he had initially believed the Labour unrest had been calmed by Mr Blair's announcement this week of his departure plans, and his shock at how the issue had been savagely reignited this weekend by Mr Clarke and Blair supporters.
He stressed: “We have all got to prove at every moment that we are doing the right thing for the country and we must never forget that the electorate are the final judge.”
He also made it clear that briefings from Downing Street suggesting that he and his supporters tried to mount a coup last week were totally wide of the mark.
Brown blasted: “That is completely untrue. I was not accused (by the Prime Minister) of that.”
Mr Brown also repeatedly insisted he did NOT orchestrate last week’s resignation of junior minister Tom Watson and seven ministerial aides. Mr Brown said: “There is no truth in the suggestion there was an attempted coup.”
The day before Mr Watson quit he visited the Chancellor’s home with a baby gift. But when the News of the World asked Mr Brown if they discussed the rebel’s resignation, he simply replied: “Tom Watson’s decision surprised me and he has made it clear he has never talked to me about any of this.
"The situation was sad, regrettable and caused us a great deal of grief."
Alluding to Charles Clarke’s criticisms and left wing rebels who want to take him on in a leadership contest, he said: “If people decide they want to stand when there is a leadership contest, whenever that happens, they should feel free to do so.
"I welcome the chance to put my views but people should be given the chance to put their views.
"I welcome a debate about new ideas and future policy and I welcome the fact that there are people with great talent within the Labour party.
"If people are going to stand in any future leadership contest then they are welcome to do so. They are not only free to do so but they should do so if that's what they want. I'm very open to all this."
But he warned that the anti-Brown faction, and attacks like Mr Clarke's, risk creating the very Labour Party split that everyone claim's they want to avoid.
“We have got to also recognise that there is no ideological divide within the mainstream Labour Party and we should not try to suggest that there is.”
However he couldn't resist also appearing to pile pressure on the Prime Minister to be clear with the public when he is going to stand down.
The Chancellor said: “This is not a time for deals, this is not a time for private statements.
“There is an issue, obviously, when a Prime Minister says that he is not going to contest the next election.
“It is for Tony to make a decision and to announce that in his own time, I do believe that is the right thing to do.”
Over the past three days, Brown has been subject to an unprecedented attack from his former Cabinet colleague, ex-Home Secretary Charles Clarke.
Clarke started by slamming Brown for being snapped with a broad grin as he left Downing Street.
Brown last night said the claims were ridiculous, while his aiodes labelled them “pathetic”.
He explained: “He was referring to me smiling and said I was sneaking out of Downing Street by the back door - I was actually simply coming out of my office in Downing Street!
“A photographer with a long lens got me joking to one of the people who works with me about my young family.
“There was nothing else, I didn't know the photograph was being taken. And the idea I sought a photograph like this is laughable. It comes to something when people criticise me for smiling.”
In a series of interviews, Clarke accused him of grinning for the cameras and slammed his leadership qualities.
Clarke claimed he was a “deluded control freak” with “psychological” issues that nmade him unsuitable to be Prime Minister, mocking: “Can a leopard change his spots.”
Brown warned that such attacks would quickly make the Labour Party unsuitable for government.
Deliberately contrasting himself from anti-Brownites touring the television studios, he said: “I have never for a minute, in all these discussions, taken my eye off the central question which is my duty to the country.
“That is to create economic stability and growth.
“Every day MY first thoughts are how I conduct my job as Chancellor in the interests of the country.
“I will not shirk from any of these responsibilites or fail to discharge them. These are the issues I will be judged upon.”
Mr Brown repeatedly insisted he had not orchestrated the letter sent to the Prime Minister that led to the resignation of junior minister Tom Watson and seven ministerial aides.
However, Mr Brown did meet Mr Watson the day before he sent the letter .
Watson visited the Chancellor’s Fife home to drop off a gift for his new baby, Fraser. But Mr Brown claimed: “I did not discuss the letter and it would not have been appropriate to do so.”
He added: “There is no truth in the suggestion that there was an attempted coup.”
"Tom Watson's decision surprised me and he has made it very clear that he has never talked to me about any of this. The situation was sad, regrettable and caused us a great deal of grief. "
But he defended the rebels disquiet by pointing out: “People HAVE had questions about the future.
“Where people feel strongly about it obviously that has led to events happening - but now we have all got to come together.”
And when asked if he would have the rebels back in government his response was extremely significant.
Mr Brown said: “I think what has happened is sad but I hope that people can come together in the future. "
Pressed if Watson and the others could reappear in a Brown government, he made its clear it is entirely possible ""We don't know where we are going to be in the future - we don't know even if I am going to be in Downing Street so we can't draw any conclusions at the moment about any of these things.
Mr Brown also insisted that reports of a series of blazing rows between him and the Prime Minister on Wednesday as they haggled over his departure are untrue.
He explained: “It is simply not true to say that there has been an argument or bickering.
“When we met that day we were obviously discussing the question of the leadership.
“What I said to him about that decision was what I had said before - that it was a decision for him. It was pretty clear that there was no basis for argument.”
“Just like every member of the public is saying, something has got to be sorted out in the next few years. Like anybody here we have all got the same question. But that does not mean to say I am wanting to have a particular answer. The decision is for him.”
But he also used his answer to emphasise yet again what he sees as the difference betweden him and the PM now.
While the PM's men are busy ensuring their man is going out in a blaze of personal glory, the man who is certain he will be Britain's next Prime Minister is getting down to the hard business of government.
He explained: “We also spent more important time discussing Palestine and Israel, Afghanistan, discussing the forthcoming spending review, discussing the pre budget report when I will be commenting on the state of the economy.
Mr Brown was at pains to stress that while potential leadership rivals plot and spin against him, he will be getting on with governing the country.
He will continue to play with a straight bat, supporting the increasingly beleaguered Tony Blair, adding: “The Labour Party has been united under Tony Blair's leadership and the idea there is some personal ideological divide between me and Tony is ridiculous.
“We have known each other for 20 years, we grew up politically together and we have made many difficult decisions together."
He claimed straight-faced: “This idea that there is personal tension between us this week that led to a vicious argument is completely wrong.”
With the autumn party conferences looming, Mr Brown hinted that his own leadership campaign will soon be underway.
After his conferences speeches he has the Pre Budget Report in November, and the three-year Comprehensive Spending Review early next year.
While his rivals tour the television studios, Mr Brown will be moving around the country.
He explained: “I am going to be going around the country after the pre-budget report and the spending review and we will be having hearings and events in every part of the country over the next few months.
“We will be listening to what people have to say as we prepare the next stage of our policies and my priority will be to listen to peoples questions and views and get a real sense of the issues that are affecting them: how we can ensure our children are better educated, how we can keep people more fit and have a more healthy society, how we can improve the National Health Service, how we can help savings for people."
Pointedly dismissed Blairite claims he's a political control freak, , “I will be joined by ministers - though I will be taking the lead.”
Asked if was indeed a 'control freak', he said: "Not at all. I would describe myself as a team player. I've been doing just that for over 20 years.
"My favourite sport is rugby and rugby is about teamwork and teamwork is the essence of what we do in Government.
However, he added honestly: "As Chancellor you've got to say no to people. You've got to be strong, you've got to control public expenditure.
"Often I have had to say no. There is no chancellor that has emerged in the last 20 or 30 years who hasn't been criticised for being tough with people."
It is known that when Mr Clarke was Home Secretary he clashed with the Chancellor about budget issues.
Mr Brown commented: "You have to take the rough and tumble of politics. Sometimes you think it's not fair but you just get on with the job.
"You are bound to have people saying that's a decision that I didn't want. The Chancellor is in the difficult position of having to tell his colleagues 'no'.
"And I did have to say 'no'. Sometimes people don't fully realise that the Chancellor has to adjudicate claims for public expenditure. So there are bound to people who feel they are hard done by."
And he summed up the current in-fighting in the Labour Party with a bleak warning about the consequences of a bitter fight over Tony Blair’s future.
He explained: “The question is, is there some fundamental unbridgeable divide inside the Labour Party on either ideology or anything else? The answer is no.
"I am supportive of the Government's foreign policy. There are big issues ahead but all in the context of policy's set by Tony which I support.
"That includes Iraq and the difficult decisions that have been made there and in Afghanistan."
"NHS reform will continue - nobody should be in any doubt about my determination to continue reform right across the public services. There will be no reversal on reforms. We are moving forward not backward."
Gordon Brown has faced down his critics after a week of Labour war and pledged to brush them aside on his way to power.
In a breezy and confident demonstration of his new authority, the Chancellor laughed off this weekend's bitter personal criticism from hardline Blairites who blamed him for the leadership crisis that tore the Government apart.
Directly rebuffing ex-Home Secretary Charles Clarke's claim that he shouldn't assume he will be anointed Britain's next prime minister, Mr Brown openly threw down the gauntlet to anyone who thought they could rival him as future leader.
In a clear "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!" challenge, tough-guy Brown squared up to the Blairite rebels and said:
"I am HAPPY for there to be a leadership contest. I think there SHOULD be. If people decide they want to stand when there is a leadership contest, whenever that happens, they should feel free to do so. I would WELCOME the open contest."
But in a wide-ranging exclusive interview with the News of the World, he went on to:
* Pour CONTEMPT on Mr Clarke's claims he'd been "stupid" to be photographed laughing and gloating after leaving a meeting with the PM - in fact, he revealed, he'd been innocently chuckling with one of his staff about his newborn son Fraser's latest exploits. He said: "It comes to something when people even criticise me for smiling."
* DISMISS claims that he urged on Labour's anti-Blair rebels as 'nonsense'.
He said: "I made it very clear to people all week, privately, that Tony should make his own decision and we should support that decision ... any suggestion that I or those acting for me were directly involved in this is absolute nonsense."
* REJECT claims that he is a control freak saying 'I'm a team player."
* HINT that former Home Secretary Clarke's attack was motivated by a historic row over budget cuts.
* ICILY reject as "laughable" that attack and Mr Clarke's other highly-personal accusations that he was a psychologically-flawed “deluded control freak” .
* REFUSE to condemn the eight Labour rebels - branded by Mr Blair as "disloyal" - who had quit government posts in protest at the PM clinging to power and refused to rule out their returning to Government.
Mr Brown was speaking at the end of a tumultuous week in which Labour rebels had finally forced the PM to set a departure date - after which pro-Blairites led by former Home Secretary Charles Clarke reacted furiously by launching a diatribe of abuse at the Chancellor.
He was branded psychologically flawed, a "deluded control freak", a loner, and even "stupid".
But Mr Brown was having none of it - and went out of his way to make clear he is thinking and preparing to tackle far weightier matters than simply how to secure for himself the job of Prime Minister.
He also invited the News of the World into his family home and spoke for the first time about he is coping with becoming a Dad again and how his family always comes first.
While aides scurried in and out of his cluttered family kitchen, the Chancellor first warned how the civil war raging in the Labour Party would only succeed in driving away potential voters.
He made it clear he had initially believed the Labour unrest had been calmed by Mr Blair's announcement this week of his departure plans, and his shock at how the issue had been savagely reignited this weekend by Mr Clarke and Blair supporters.
He stressed: “We have all got to prove at every moment that we are doing the right thing for the country and we must never forget that the electorate are the final judge.”
He also made it clear that briefings from Downing Street suggesting that he and his supporters tried to mount a coup last week were totally wide of the mark.
Brown blasted: “That is completely untrue. I was not accused (by the Prime Minister) of that.”
Mr Brown also repeatedly insisted he did NOT orchestrate last week’s resignation of junior minister Tom Watson and seven ministerial aides. Mr Brown said: “There is no truth in the suggestion there was an attempted coup.”
The day before Mr Watson quit he visited the Chancellor’s home with a baby gift. But when the News of the World asked Mr Brown if they discussed the rebel’s resignation, he simply replied: “Tom Watson’s decision surprised me and he has made it clear he has never talked to me about any of this.
"The situation was sad, regrettable and caused us a great deal of grief."
Alluding to Charles Clarke’s criticisms and left wing rebels who want to take him on in a leadership contest, he said: “If people decide they want to stand when there is a leadership contest, whenever that happens, they should feel free to do so.
"I welcome the chance to put my views but people should be given the chance to put their views.
"I welcome a debate about new ideas and future policy and I welcome the fact that there are people with great talent within the Labour party.
"If people are going to stand in any future leadership contest then they are welcome to do so. They are not only free to do so but they should do so if that's what they want. I'm very open to all this."
But he warned that the anti-Brown faction, and attacks like Mr Clarke's, risk creating the very Labour Party split that everyone claim's they want to avoid.
“We have got to also recognise that there is no ideological divide within the mainstream Labour Party and we should not try to suggest that there is.”
However he couldn't resist also appearing to pile pressure on the Prime Minister to be clear with the public when he is going to stand down.
The Chancellor said: “This is not a time for deals, this is not a time for private statements.
“There is an issue, obviously, when a Prime Minister says that he is not going to contest the next election.
“It is for Tony to make a decision and to announce that in his own time, I do believe that is the right thing to do.”
Over the past three days, Brown has been subject to an unprecedented attack from his former Cabinet colleague, ex-Home Secretary Charles Clarke.
Clarke started by slamming Brown for being snapped with a broad grin as he left Downing Street.
Brown last night said the claims were ridiculous, while his aiodes labelled them “pathetic”.
He explained: “He was referring to me smiling and said I was sneaking out of Downing Street by the back door - I was actually simply coming out of my office in Downing Street!
“A photographer with a long lens got me joking to one of the people who works with me about my young family.
“There was nothing else, I didn't know the photograph was being taken. And the idea I sought a photograph like this is laughable. It comes to something when people criticise me for smiling.”
In a series of interviews, Clarke accused him of grinning for the cameras and slammed his leadership qualities.
Clarke claimed he was a “deluded control freak” with “psychological” issues that nmade him unsuitable to be Prime Minister, mocking: “Can a leopard change his spots.”
Brown warned that such attacks would quickly make the Labour Party unsuitable for government.
Deliberately contrasting himself from anti-Brownites touring the television studios, he said: “I have never for a minute, in all these discussions, taken my eye off the central question which is my duty to the country.
“That is to create economic stability and growth.
“Every day MY first thoughts are how I conduct my job as Chancellor in the interests of the country.
“I will not shirk from any of these responsibilites or fail to discharge them. These are the issues I will be judged upon.”
Mr Brown repeatedly insisted he had not orchestrated the letter sent to the Prime Minister that led to the resignation of junior minister Tom Watson and seven ministerial aides.
However, Mr Brown did meet Mr Watson the day before he sent the letter .
Watson visited the Chancellor’s Fife home to drop off a gift for his new baby, Fraser. But Mr Brown claimed: “I did not discuss the letter and it would not have been appropriate to do so.”
He added: “There is no truth in the suggestion that there was an attempted coup.”
"Tom Watson's decision surprised me and he has made it very clear that he has never talked to me about any of this. The situation was sad, regrettable and caused us a great deal of grief. "
But he defended the rebels disquiet by pointing out: “People HAVE had questions about the future.
“Where people feel strongly about it obviously that has led to events happening - but now we have all got to come together.”
And when asked if he would have the rebels back in government his response was extremely significant.
Mr Brown said: “I think what has happened is sad but I hope that people can come together in the future. "
Pressed if Watson and the others could reappear in a Brown government, he made its clear it is entirely possible ""We don't know where we are going to be in the future - we don't know even if I am going to be in Downing Street so we can't draw any conclusions at the moment about any of these things.
Mr Brown also insisted that reports of a series of blazing rows between him and the Prime Minister on Wednesday as they haggled over his departure are untrue.
He explained: “It is simply not true to say that there has been an argument or bickering.
“When we met that day we were obviously discussing the question of the leadership.
“What I said to him about that decision was what I had said before - that it was a decision for him. It was pretty clear that there was no basis for argument.”
“Just like every member of the public is saying, something has got to be sorted out in the next few years. Like anybody here we have all got the same question. But that does not mean to say I am wanting to have a particular answer. The decision is for him.”
But he also used his answer to emphasise yet again what he sees as the difference betweden him and the PM now.
While the PM's men are busy ensuring their man is going out in a blaze of personal glory, the man who is certain he will be Britain's next Prime Minister is getting down to the hard business of government.
He explained: “We also spent more important time discussing Palestine and Israel, Afghanistan, discussing the forthcoming spending review, discussing the pre budget report when I will be commenting on the state of the economy.
Mr Brown was at pains to stress that while potential leadership rivals plot and spin against him, he will be getting on with governing the country.
He will continue to play with a straight bat, supporting the increasingly beleaguered Tony Blair, adding: “The Labour Party has been united under Tony Blair's leadership and the idea there is some personal ideological divide between me and Tony is ridiculous.
“We have known each other for 20 years, we grew up politically together and we have made many difficult decisions together."
He claimed straight-faced: “This idea that there is personal tension between us this week that led to a vicious argument is completely wrong.”
With the autumn party conferences looming, Mr Brown hinted that his own leadership campaign will soon be underway.
After his conferences speeches he has the Pre Budget Report in November, and the three-year Comprehensive Spending Review early next year.
While his rivals tour the television studios, Mr Brown will be moving around the country.
He explained: “I am going to be going around the country after the pre-budget report and the spending review and we will be having hearings and events in every part of the country over the next few months.
“We will be listening to what people have to say as we prepare the next stage of our policies and my priority will be to listen to peoples questions and views and get a real sense of the issues that are affecting them: how we can ensure our children are better educated, how we can keep people more fit and have a more healthy society, how we can improve the National Health Service, how we can help savings for people."
Pointedly dismissed Blairite claims he's a political control freak, , “I will be joined by ministers - though I will be taking the lead.”
Asked if was indeed a 'control freak', he said: "Not at all. I would describe myself as a team player. I've been doing just that for over 20 years.
"My favourite sport is rugby and rugby is about teamwork and teamwork is the essence of what we do in Government.
However, he added honestly: "As Chancellor you've got to say no to people. You've got to be strong, you've got to control public expenditure.
"Often I have had to say no. There is no chancellor that has emerged in the last 20 or 30 years who hasn't been criticised for being tough with people."
It is known that when Mr Clarke was Home Secretary he clashed with the Chancellor about budget issues.
Mr Brown commented: "You have to take the rough and tumble of politics. Sometimes you think it's not fair but you just get on with the job.
"You are bound to have people saying that's a decision that I didn't want. The Chancellor is in the difficult position of having to tell his colleagues 'no'.
"And I did have to say 'no'. Sometimes people don't fully realise that the Chancellor has to adjudicate claims for public expenditure. So there are bound to people who feel they are hard done by."
And he summed up the current in-fighting in the Labour Party with a bleak warning about the consequences of a bitter fight over Tony Blair’s future.
He explained: “The question is, is there some fundamental unbridgeable divide inside the Labour Party on either ideology or anything else? The answer is no.
"I am supportive of the Government's foreign policy. There are big issues ahead but all in the context of policy's set by Tony which I support.
"That includes Iraq and the difficult decisions that have been made there and in Afghanistan."
"NHS reform will continue - nobody should be in any doubt about my determination to continue reform right across the public services. There will be no reversal on reforms. We are moving forward not backward."
Sunday, September 03, 2006
BRITAIN'S TERROR SCHOOL
EVIL CLERIC LINKED TO PLOT
By Rob Kellaway
Police investigating a terrorist plot intended “to out-do 7/7” have uncovered the first al-Qaeda training camp in Britain.
It was being run at an Islamic school in the sleepy Sussex countryside.
Fourteen Muslims arrested over the alleged plot to take out a London landmark are linked to terror camps run in the school’s grounds, hidden from unwitting staff.
One of the 14 is hate cleric Abu Abdullah. Dubbed Attila The Scum, he is hook-handed monster Abu Hamza's No 2.
Abdullah, 42, who was born and bred in Britain, was detained just days after stating he would “love” to kill British troops in Afghanistan.
He is regarded by anti-terror detectives as a key figure in their investigation into a plot which an intelligence source said would “out-do 7/7.”
The arrests came after a nine-month surveillance operation involving MI5, which centred on suspects visiting the Jameah Islameah Islamic school in picturesque Catt’s Hill, near Crowborough.
Police took action on Friday night when the group gathered together at a Chinese restaurant called The Bridge To China Town in Borough Road, south London.
Owner Mehdi Belyani, 40, said the detained men were among a group of around 15 males and two small boys who came in for dinner.
He said some wore Islamic dress and they were talking quietly and acting normally while they ate from the restaurant buffet. Some he recognised as regular customers.
Mr Belyani said some armed officers and more than 50 others wearing helmets came into his restaurant at 10pm and kept the suspects and all the other customers inside.
He said: “The police stayed for more than two hours talking to the group one by one. The men were very calm and I could not hear what was being said.”
Ross Jackson, 18, who lives opposite, said: “There were about eight police vans and a large number of police in riot gear. There were police cars lined up on the street.”
At 10pm eight men were arrested at the restaurant. Three who had already left - including Abdullah - were arrested around the corner in Lancaster Street.
At the same time, another suspect - Bilbert Teye Baiden - was held in King James Street. Mousa Aboullah Brown, 40, was grabbed on Kitchener Road, E17, while Saloum Joh, 20, was held in Bessborough Road, SW15.
The men, mostly British Muslims of Pakistani origin aged 17 to 48, were being held at Paddington Green high security police station.
Security sources said the investigation was focusing on terror training and alleged recruitment and radicalisation of young British Muslims.
They believe the group was still in the early stages of planning the twisted attack on a famous London attraction.
Possible targets are thought to include Big Ben, Buckingham Palace, the London Eye, Canary Wharf or the Arsenal and Chelsea football stadiums.
Detectives believe more than half of those arrested in London had visited the Islamic school more than once.
The school, which has just 12 pupils in a £3 million former convent, frequently allowed outside groups to use its 54 acres of grounds at weekends.
The arrested men stayed in the school and used the grounds for “combat” training.
A Home Office source said: “The training was extreme and macho. It involved endurance in bad weather and bonding. In that sense it was like combat training.”
The source added: “They were being groomed for terror.”
Neither the owner, principal or any member of the staff of the school had any idea that fanatics were among their visitors.
Indeed, when Abu Hamza once turned up, the school’s authorities were so alarmed they banned him from coming again and handed over a letter expressing his views to police.
The school’s Imam Bilal Patel said: “When Hamza arrived we were immediately concerned about his strange behaviour. He and his followers set up camp in the grounds and they kept themselves to themselves.
“We had to tell Abu Hamza that we did not want him to come back again because he was strange. He had given me a letter explaining some of his views and I passed that on to the local police.”
One man who lives 500 yards from the school said: “Busloads of young Muslims would turn up on a Sunday in several red London buses, stay for a few hours and then leave.”
The man, who asked not to be identified, added: “No one ever knew what went on inside. Everything was extremely hush-hush. There seemed to be an unwritten rule that no-one ever spoke about what went on inside.”
Abdullah, real name Attila Ahmet, is a former spokesman for hook-handed Hamza, who was jailed for seven years in February for inciting his followers to murder non-muslims.
The No 2 is reviled for his anti-Western rants and for his hatred of Jews and gays.
He took over as the self-styled “emir” or leader of the extremist Supporters Of Shariah founded by Hamza at the notorious Finsbury Park Mosque in north London.
He was accused of taking control of the mosque when it reopened in August 2004 by using violence and intimidation but was evicted in February last year.
And Abdullah — who once said of Osama Bin Laden “I love him more than myself” - is banned from preaching in most mosques but claims to have 3,000 supporters.
He spreads his twisted messages at small-scale meetings to specially invited “students” in private houses and community centres.
Those views include supporting the use of household chemicals to make explosives.
He also believes Tony Blair is a legitimate target for assassination due to the government’s foreign policy. His view of the 9/11 attacks is that they were a “deserved punch in the nose” for America.
Abdullah converted to Islam eight years ago. His hardline views seem a world away from his upbringing.
He was born and bred in London, the son of Turkish-Cypriot parents. He was a football coach in the Bexley youth league, and was known to colleagues as Alan. The married father-of-four lives with his family in a terraced former council house in south-east London.
Two weeks ago he was asked what he thought of the 7/7 suicide bombers. He replied: “I wasn’t against them. These are my honourable brothers in Islam.”
He described the Tube and bus bombs in which 52 innocent people died, as a wake-up call. And he has said: “Sometimes the innocent have to pay the price.”
Abdullah also claimed suicide attacks are “halal”, or lawful.
He added: “The martyr that goes amongst his enemies is going to shield his people. He doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction, he only has household chemicals.”
Referring to Iraq and Afghanistan he said: “The West is escalating their killing of Muslims. We have a right to defend ourselves. If I had the means to go back there and kill an American or British soldier then I would love to do so.
“Those who are fighting Islam are targets: Tony Blair, the army, the police.”
Asked if he shared the view of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped off the map, he replied: “Absolutely. They are a treacherous people.”
He also said President Bush was “a scalp that needs to be taken.”
Speaking on the CNN news channel, Abdullah claimed the deaths of the 9/11 victims were “a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of Muslims that have been killed.”
By Rob Kellaway
Police investigating a terrorist plot intended “to out-do 7/7” have uncovered the first al-Qaeda training camp in Britain.
It was being run at an Islamic school in the sleepy Sussex countryside.
Fourteen Muslims arrested over the alleged plot to take out a London landmark are linked to terror camps run in the school’s grounds, hidden from unwitting staff.
One of the 14 is hate cleric Abu Abdullah. Dubbed Attila The Scum, he is hook-handed monster Abu Hamza's No 2.
Abdullah, 42, who was born and bred in Britain, was detained just days after stating he would “love” to kill British troops in Afghanistan.
He is regarded by anti-terror detectives as a key figure in their investigation into a plot which an intelligence source said would “out-do 7/7.”
The arrests came after a nine-month surveillance operation involving MI5, which centred on suspects visiting the Jameah Islameah Islamic school in picturesque Catt’s Hill, near Crowborough.
Police took action on Friday night when the group gathered together at a Chinese restaurant called The Bridge To China Town in Borough Road, south London.
Owner Mehdi Belyani, 40, said the detained men were among a group of around 15 males and two small boys who came in for dinner.
He said some wore Islamic dress and they were talking quietly and acting normally while they ate from the restaurant buffet. Some he recognised as regular customers.
Mr Belyani said some armed officers and more than 50 others wearing helmets came into his restaurant at 10pm and kept the suspects and all the other customers inside.
He said: “The police stayed for more than two hours talking to the group one by one. The men were very calm and I could not hear what was being said.”
Ross Jackson, 18, who lives opposite, said: “There were about eight police vans and a large number of police in riot gear. There were police cars lined up on the street.”
At 10pm eight men were arrested at the restaurant. Three who had already left - including Abdullah - were arrested around the corner in Lancaster Street.
At the same time, another suspect - Bilbert Teye Baiden - was held in King James Street. Mousa Aboullah Brown, 40, was grabbed on Kitchener Road, E17, while Saloum Joh, 20, was held in Bessborough Road, SW15.
The men, mostly British Muslims of Pakistani origin aged 17 to 48, were being held at Paddington Green high security police station.
Security sources said the investigation was focusing on terror training and alleged recruitment and radicalisation of young British Muslims.
They believe the group was still in the early stages of planning the twisted attack on a famous London attraction.
Possible targets are thought to include Big Ben, Buckingham Palace, the London Eye, Canary Wharf or the Arsenal and Chelsea football stadiums.
Detectives believe more than half of those arrested in London had visited the Islamic school more than once.
The school, which has just 12 pupils in a £3 million former convent, frequently allowed outside groups to use its 54 acres of grounds at weekends.
The arrested men stayed in the school and used the grounds for “combat” training.
A Home Office source said: “The training was extreme and macho. It involved endurance in bad weather and bonding. In that sense it was like combat training.”
The source added: “They were being groomed for terror.”
Neither the owner, principal or any member of the staff of the school had any idea that fanatics were among their visitors.
Indeed, when Abu Hamza once turned up, the school’s authorities were so alarmed they banned him from coming again and handed over a letter expressing his views to police.
The school’s Imam Bilal Patel said: “When Hamza arrived we were immediately concerned about his strange behaviour. He and his followers set up camp in the grounds and they kept themselves to themselves.
“We had to tell Abu Hamza that we did not want him to come back again because he was strange. He had given me a letter explaining some of his views and I passed that on to the local police.”
One man who lives 500 yards from the school said: “Busloads of young Muslims would turn up on a Sunday in several red London buses, stay for a few hours and then leave.”
The man, who asked not to be identified, added: “No one ever knew what went on inside. Everything was extremely hush-hush. There seemed to be an unwritten rule that no-one ever spoke about what went on inside.”
Abdullah, real name Attila Ahmet, is a former spokesman for hook-handed Hamza, who was jailed for seven years in February for inciting his followers to murder non-muslims.
The No 2 is reviled for his anti-Western rants and for his hatred of Jews and gays.
He took over as the self-styled “emir” or leader of the extremist Supporters Of Shariah founded by Hamza at the notorious Finsbury Park Mosque in north London.
He was accused of taking control of the mosque when it reopened in August 2004 by using violence and intimidation but was evicted in February last year.
And Abdullah — who once said of Osama Bin Laden “I love him more than myself” - is banned from preaching in most mosques but claims to have 3,000 supporters.
He spreads his twisted messages at small-scale meetings to specially invited “students” in private houses and community centres.
Those views include supporting the use of household chemicals to make explosives.
He also believes Tony Blair is a legitimate target for assassination due to the government’s foreign policy. His view of the 9/11 attacks is that they were a “deserved punch in the nose” for America.
Abdullah converted to Islam eight years ago. His hardline views seem a world away from his upbringing.
He was born and bred in London, the son of Turkish-Cypriot parents. He was a football coach in the Bexley youth league, and was known to colleagues as Alan. The married father-of-four lives with his family in a terraced former council house in south-east London.
Two weeks ago he was asked what he thought of the 7/7 suicide bombers. He replied: “I wasn’t against them. These are my honourable brothers in Islam.”
He described the Tube and bus bombs in which 52 innocent people died, as a wake-up call. And he has said: “Sometimes the innocent have to pay the price.”
Abdullah also claimed suicide attacks are “halal”, or lawful.
He added: “The martyr that goes amongst his enemies is going to shield his people. He doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction, he only has household chemicals.”
Referring to Iraq and Afghanistan he said: “The West is escalating their killing of Muslims. We have a right to defend ourselves. If I had the means to go back there and kill an American or British soldier then I would love to do so.
“Those who are fighting Islam are targets: Tony Blair, the army, the police.”
Asked if he shared the view of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Israel should be wiped off the map, he replied: “Absolutely. They are a treacherous people.”
He also said President Bush was “a scalp that needs to be taken.”
Speaking on the CNN news channel, Abdullah claimed the deaths of the 9/11 victims were “a drop in the ocean compared to the millions of Muslims that have been killed.”
Sunday, August 27, 2006
BRIGHTEN OUR LADS' LIVES
Be a pen pal for our troops
By Robert Kellaway
THE NEWS of the World today calls on its army of readers to lift the spirits of our brave boys and girls in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Single lads among the troops are having a miserable time with temperatures of 50C, no beer in sight and no girls to chat to.
In Afghanistan, there has been an unprecedented period of heavy fighting and casualties suffered without complaint.
In Iraq it’s just as hot with our boys constantly at work carrying out risky infantry patrols.
So come on girls, if you are single and up for a laugh we want you to send a letter and include a glam picture of yourself.
But please keep it decent, as unsuitable letters or pictures will not be distributed to the lads.
What you write is up to you, but remember the guys need cheering up.
For a reply, please include an address or email for the soldier, sailor or airman to write back to.
We are NOT forgetting the 1,000 service WOMEN in both countries working just as hard as the men.
So come on all you News of the World hunks, it’s time to do your bit and send the girls some encouragement - and a photo of you looking your best.
Send your letter and picture to: PENPALS, News of the World, 1 Virginia Street, London, E98 1NW or email them to [email protected]
If you are a man writing to a servicewomen mark your letter SERVICEWOMAN in the top left corner of the envelope or in the subject line of the email.
The letters will be distributed among single men and women of all three services in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are a total of 12,000 troops serving in both countries so atten-shun - get writing.
A spokesman for the MoD said: “This is a brilliant idea and we know it will give the morale of our people a fantastic boost.
“We will be working extremely hard to get all the letters out to single serving men and women as fast as we can.”
A Royal Marines Major about to serve six months in Afghanistan with 3 Commando Brigade from October, added: “It’s a great idea.
“A similar thing happened with my platoon in Rwanda in 1994.
“One of the lads wrote home complaining there were no girls to talk to, no beer and it was too hot.
“We got sackloads of mail back and some of the girls were kind enough to include a photo.
“Mail is always a treat to look forward to but this made it really special.
“A couple of the boys struck up genuine friendships and found girlfriends as a result.
“It gives the boys such a boost to know the girls back home are thinking about them, it only takes a minute to drop them a line.”
By Robert Kellaway
THE NEWS of the World today calls on its army of readers to lift the spirits of our brave boys and girls in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Single lads among the troops are having a miserable time with temperatures of 50C, no beer in sight and no girls to chat to.
In Afghanistan, there has been an unprecedented period of heavy fighting and casualties suffered without complaint.
In Iraq it’s just as hot with our boys constantly at work carrying out risky infantry patrols.
So come on girls, if you are single and up for a laugh we want you to send a letter and include a glam picture of yourself.
But please keep it decent, as unsuitable letters or pictures will not be distributed to the lads.
What you write is up to you, but remember the guys need cheering up.
For a reply, please include an address or email for the soldier, sailor or airman to write back to.
We are NOT forgetting the 1,000 service WOMEN in both countries working just as hard as the men.
So come on all you News of the World hunks, it’s time to do your bit and send the girls some encouragement - and a photo of you looking your best.
Send your letter and picture to: PENPALS, News of the World, 1 Virginia Street, London, E98 1NW or email them to [email protected]
If you are a man writing to a servicewomen mark your letter SERVICEWOMAN in the top left corner of the envelope or in the subject line of the email.
The letters will be distributed among single men and women of all three services in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are a total of 12,000 troops serving in both countries so atten-shun - get writing.
A spokesman for the MoD said: “This is a brilliant idea and we know it will give the morale of our people a fantastic boost.
“We will be working extremely hard to get all the letters out to single serving men and women as fast as we can.”
A Royal Marines Major about to serve six months in Afghanistan with 3 Commando Brigade from October, added: “It’s a great idea.
“A similar thing happened with my platoon in Rwanda in 1994.
“One of the lads wrote home complaining there were no girls to talk to, no beer and it was too hot.
“We got sackloads of mail back and some of the girls were kind enough to include a photo.
“Mail is always a treat to look forward to but this made it really special.
“A couple of the boys struck up genuine friendships and found girlfriends as a result.
“It gives the boys such a boost to know the girls back home are thinking about them, it only takes a minute to drop them a line.”
Sunday, August 20, 2006
LAIR OF THE BOMBER
EXCLUSIVE: Maz on terror trail
By Mazher Mahmood
IT is 2pm. I am sitting on an unsteady wooden bench at a street cafe in Rawalpindi.
An unshaven waiter pours tea and fennel seeds from a large metal pot into a thick, cracked glass and slaps it on the table. An old Vespa races past firing a salvo of grit and dust over the table.
Opposite me is a well-built man in his 40s. Despite the 32° heat, he insists we sit at the roadside, with people bustling past, rather than attract attention by appearing secretive and seeking the haven of the cafe's interior.
"There will be more bombs. Jihadis (holy warriors) will take action against Britain and the West," he whispers. "It's Bush, Mush (Pakistan's President Musharraf) and Blair that are to blame. They are responsible for terrorism. It is their foreign policies that are causing such pain to Muslims."
Liquid
I am in Pakistan to find out what led to the liquid explosives scare that all but paralysed Britain's airports. The words are those you'd expect to hear from the head of a terror cell.
Except the man I'm talking to is a Pakistani intelligence officer, tasked with tracking down terrorists.
His views are all too common in these parts.In a country where family and connections are everything, I only got to interview him because my late father's friend is a barrister whose son is an officer in the ISI (the Pakistan Intelligence Service).
No Westerner is going to get anywhere close to this access.
"We know that, since 2003, 24 men from Britain trained at an al-Qaeda camp on the Afghan border," he says.
"Sixteen of these are still missing. We have good information that they have all returned to the UK. But what is making it difficult to track these men is the fact that they all used fake names while they stayed in Pakistan."
The inference is obvious. That would mean 16 ‘sleepers'...terrorists, possibly suicide bombers, waiting to be activated in Britain.I have visited Pakistan, where I have many relatives, several times. The last was just four months ago. Even in the short time since then the atmosphere has changed. Once this place felt welcoming. Now, even as my photographer pictures me with innocent people in the street, there is anger in the air.
Educated people discuss anti-Muslim policies and worry about the country's coalition with Britain and America. Many of the middle classes believe that 9/11 and 7/7 were Jewish conspiracies and had nothing to do with Islamic extremists, while the poor daub graffiti and burn effigies of Bush and Blair.
Despite Musharraf's desperate attempts to put a lid on extremism, he is fighting a losing battle. It takes me just one phone call, for example, to secure a place at a leading madrassa or Islamic school.
The head of the Jamia Binoria school in Karachi, Mufti Naeem, is keen to help when I tell him my two sons want to attend. He promises to convert them into ‘proper' Muslims.
"We can provide accommodation as well," he says. "It's 3,000 rupees (about £26) per student per month. That includes food and everything."
Following the 7/7 atrocity, when it was revealed that two of the suicide bombers had undergone Islamic studies in Pakistan, President Musharraf banned all foreign students.
His order is effectively ignored. "We have lots of foreign students here, including several from Britain," Naeem smiles. And in this mix of conflicting loyalties are the many relatives of those arrested over the alleged terror plot — 23 in Britain and seven in Pakistan.
What do they think? To find out I travel to Mirpur, in north Pakistan, to meet Mian Naseer. He is the uncle of Rashid Rauf, the Birmingham man suspected of being the main figure behind the plot, and Rashid's brother Tayib, arrested in Birmingham.
"This is all just to divert attention from the atrocities being committed against Muslims in Israel," he seethed, his long white beard quivering in the sun. "These political tactics are beyond all us simple people."
Except Naseer, in his late 40s, is anything but simple. He lived in Birmingham until eight years ago and now runs a thriving business exporting sweetmeats known here as reveries to Britain. Rauf's family in Birmingham distribute a range of Asian sweetmeats and other food to shops across the Midlands.
Naseer's home is lavish, with a large drive and green lawn in a mountainous area which provides two-thirds of Britain's Pakistani population.
The area, once poor and populated with shacks, is now dotted with fashion able shops, hotels, car showrooms and pillared mansions that wouldn't be out of place in Beverly Hills.
The area has been transformed by vast sums of money being sent home by Mirpuris living in Britain.
Although these are religious people, life in Britain has made many very materialistic. But set against this is an atmosphere of bitterness among those who haven't been fortunate enough to have family in Britain who might transform their lives.
They feel that their old traditional way of life has been invaded by Western culture—and this contributes to a feeling of hatred towards Western values.
But Naseer is adamant that his family are innocent. "We are religious but we are not extremists," he tells me. "Our family have done a lot of charity work."
Indeed they have.
Rashid and Tayib's father, Abdul, is one of the founding trustees of the Crescent Relief charity that collected funds after last year's cataclysmic earthquake in Kashmir—though he left in 2001. Yesterday it was revealed that the Charities Commission is investigating reports of links between Crescent Relief and other British-based charities and the alleged bomb plot.
And last night Pakistani intelligence sources confirmed that they have arrested Abdul. He was picked up as he headed to Islamabad airport from his family home in Mirpur.
As sun sets it is now another stiflingly hot evening. I hear the call to prayer. For many it remains the sound of peace.
But for others, shuffling their way to imams of hate, it's a clarion call to Jihad.
By Mazher Mahmood
IT is 2pm. I am sitting on an unsteady wooden bench at a street cafe in Rawalpindi.
An unshaven waiter pours tea and fennel seeds from a large metal pot into a thick, cracked glass and slaps it on the table. An old Vespa races past firing a salvo of grit and dust over the table.
Opposite me is a well-built man in his 40s. Despite the 32° heat, he insists we sit at the roadside, with people bustling past, rather than attract attention by appearing secretive and seeking the haven of the cafe's interior.
"There will be more bombs. Jihadis (holy warriors) will take action against Britain and the West," he whispers. "It's Bush, Mush (Pakistan's President Musharraf) and Blair that are to blame. They are responsible for terrorism. It is their foreign policies that are causing such pain to Muslims."
Liquid
I am in Pakistan to find out what led to the liquid explosives scare that all but paralysed Britain's airports. The words are those you'd expect to hear from the head of a terror cell.
Except the man I'm talking to is a Pakistani intelligence officer, tasked with tracking down terrorists.
His views are all too common in these parts.In a country where family and connections are everything, I only got to interview him because my late father's friend is a barrister whose son is an officer in the ISI (the Pakistan Intelligence Service).
No Westerner is going to get anywhere close to this access.
"We know that, since 2003, 24 men from Britain trained at an al-Qaeda camp on the Afghan border," he says.
"Sixteen of these are still missing. We have good information that they have all returned to the UK. But what is making it difficult to track these men is the fact that they all used fake names while they stayed in Pakistan."
The inference is obvious. That would mean 16 ‘sleepers'...terrorists, possibly suicide bombers, waiting to be activated in Britain.I have visited Pakistan, where I have many relatives, several times. The last was just four months ago. Even in the short time since then the atmosphere has changed. Once this place felt welcoming. Now, even as my photographer pictures me with innocent people in the street, there is anger in the air.
Educated people discuss anti-Muslim policies and worry about the country's coalition with Britain and America. Many of the middle classes believe that 9/11 and 7/7 were Jewish conspiracies and had nothing to do with Islamic extremists, while the poor daub graffiti and burn effigies of Bush and Blair.
Despite Musharraf's desperate attempts to put a lid on extremism, he is fighting a losing battle. It takes me just one phone call, for example, to secure a place at a leading madrassa or Islamic school.
The head of the Jamia Binoria school in Karachi, Mufti Naeem, is keen to help when I tell him my two sons want to attend. He promises to convert them into ‘proper' Muslims.
"We can provide accommodation as well," he says. "It's 3,000 rupees (about £26) per student per month. That includes food and everything."
Following the 7/7 atrocity, when it was revealed that two of the suicide bombers had undergone Islamic studies in Pakistan, President Musharraf banned all foreign students.
His order is effectively ignored. "We have lots of foreign students here, including several from Britain," Naeem smiles. And in this mix of conflicting loyalties are the many relatives of those arrested over the alleged terror plot — 23 in Britain and seven in Pakistan.
What do they think? To find out I travel to Mirpur, in north Pakistan, to meet Mian Naseer. He is the uncle of Rashid Rauf, the Birmingham man suspected of being the main figure behind the plot, and Rashid's brother Tayib, arrested in Birmingham.
"This is all just to divert attention from the atrocities being committed against Muslims in Israel," he seethed, his long white beard quivering in the sun. "These political tactics are beyond all us simple people."
Except Naseer, in his late 40s, is anything but simple. He lived in Birmingham until eight years ago and now runs a thriving business exporting sweetmeats known here as reveries to Britain. Rauf's family in Birmingham distribute a range of Asian sweetmeats and other food to shops across the Midlands.
Naseer's home is lavish, with a large drive and green lawn in a mountainous area which provides two-thirds of Britain's Pakistani population.
The area, once poor and populated with shacks, is now dotted with fashion able shops, hotels, car showrooms and pillared mansions that wouldn't be out of place in Beverly Hills.
The area has been transformed by vast sums of money being sent home by Mirpuris living in Britain.
Although these are religious people, life in Britain has made many very materialistic. But set against this is an atmosphere of bitterness among those who haven't been fortunate enough to have family in Britain who might transform their lives.
They feel that their old traditional way of life has been invaded by Western culture—and this contributes to a feeling of hatred towards Western values.
But Naseer is adamant that his family are innocent. "We are religious but we are not extremists," he tells me. "Our family have done a lot of charity work."
Indeed they have.
Rashid and Tayib's father, Abdul, is one of the founding trustees of the Crescent Relief charity that collected funds after last year's cataclysmic earthquake in Kashmir—though he left in 2001. Yesterday it was revealed that the Charities Commission is investigating reports of links between Crescent Relief and other British-based charities and the alleged bomb plot.
And last night Pakistani intelligence sources confirmed that they have arrested Abdul. He was picked up as he headed to Islamabad airport from his family home in Mirpur.
As sun sets it is now another stiflingly hot evening. I hear the call to prayer. For many it remains the sound of peace.
But for others, shuffling their way to imams of hate, it's a clarion call to Jihad.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
IF YOU'RE A MUSLIM - IT'S YOUR PROBLEM
Editorial by Lord Stevens
WHEN will the Muslims of Britain stand up to be counted?
When will they declare, loud and clear, with no qualifications or quibbles about Britain's foreign policy, that Islamic terrorism is WRONG?
Most of all, when will the Muslim community in this country accept an absolute, undeniable, total truth: that Islamic terrorism is THEIR problem? THEY own it. And it is THEIR duty to face it and eradicate it.
To stop the denial, endless fudging and constant wailing that somehow it is everyone else's problem and, if Islamic terrorism exists at all, they are somehow the main victims.
Because until that happens the problem will never be resolved. And there will be more 7/7s and, sometime in the future, another airplane plot will succeed with horrific loss of innocent life.
Equally important, those British politicians who have seemed obsessed with pandering to, and even encouraging, this state of denial, must throw off their politically-correct blinkers and recognise the same truth—that Muslim terrorism in Britain is the direct responsibility of British Muslims.
If only they would follow the lead of Home Secretary John Reid, whose tough, pragmatic, clear-sighted approach has been a breath of fresh air. Only then can they properly work out how to tackle it.
For instance, every airport in Britain is in chaos over the plane bomb-plot alert as every passenger is subjected to rigorous security checks. Why? They take lots of time, lots of staff, and are extremely expensive.
I'm a white 62-year-old 6ft 4ins suit-wearing ex-cop—I fly often, but do I really fit the profile of suicide bomber? Does the young mum with three tots? The gay couple, the rugby team, the middle-aged businessman?
No. But they are all getting exactly the same amount and devouring huge resources for no logical reason whatsoever. Yet the truth is Islamic terrorism in the West has been universally carried out by young Muslim men, usually of ethnic appearance, almost always travelling alone or in very small groups. A tiny percentage, I bet, of those delayed today have such characteristics.
This targeting of airport resources is called passenger profiling—the Israelis invented it and they've got probably the safest airports and airlines in the world.
In all my years at the front line of fighting terrorism, one truth was always clear — communities beat terrorists, not governments or security forces. But communities can't beat terrorism unless they have the will to do so. My heart sank this week as I saw and read the knee-jerk reaction of friends and neighbours of those arrested in this latest incident, insisting it was all a mistake and the anti-terrorist squad had the wrong people.
I have no idea whether those arrested are guilty or not. But neither have those friends and neighbours. They spoke as if it was inconceivable such a thing could happen in their community; that those arrested were all good Muslims; that Islam is a religion of peace so no Muslim could dream of planning such an act.
But we heard the same from the family and friends of the 7/7 bombers, didn't we?
And the two young British Muslims who died as suicide bombers in Israel. Then there are the British Muslims known to have become suicide bombers in Iraq.
There is currently a huge, long-running and complex alleged Islamist bomb plot being tried at the Old Bailey. And a fistful of other cases of alleged Muslim terrorism plots such as the 21/7 London Underground case are also awaiting trial.
All this would suggest the blindingly obvious—that terrorism is a major problem for the Muslim community of Britain. Of course, there will be instant squealings that this is racism. It's not. It's exactly the same as recognising that, during the Northern Ireland troubles that left thousands dead, the IRA were totally based in the Catholic community and the UVF in the Protestant.
And that, most importantly, IRA terrorism only began to draw to a close when that Catholic community it was based in decided as a whole that it was no longer prepared to back violence as the only way forward. Interestingly, it was Catholic revulsion over republican terrorist atrocities such as Enniskillen and Omagh that fuelled that change.
Well, Muslim terrorism in Britain is based in, has its roots in, and grows in, our Muslim community. The madmen of 7/7 and other suicide bombings didn't hide among the Hindu communities, worship in the Sikh temples, recruit at Catholic churches, did they? It may be true that events in Iraq have angered sections of the Muslim community. I have no doubts, whatever Tony Blair says, that it was a catalyst. I also think it's entirely fair for Muslims, if they wish, to vocally oppose Britain's continuing involvement there.
I can recognise, too, that recent events in Lebanon inflame some people, and they want their voices of protest heard. The absolutely unacceptable problem is that this opposition is used by too many to turn a blind eye to, or excuse, terrorists in their midst.
Blasting a passenger airliner out of the sky, killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children, is NEVER acceptable. Under any circumstances. There is NEVER an excuse.
A terrible tragedy costing Muslim lives in Lebanon or Iraq or Afghanistan is never ever an excuse for terrorism here.
It is totally unacceptable, totally wrong. What one party perceives as a wrong, no matter how strongly they feel, does not, in turn, justify another wrong being done to avenge it.
And until every single member of the Muslim community believes that and preaches that—from an ordinary parent to imam or madrassa teacher—terrorism can't be beaten.
Politicians must accept this truth, and do something about it. One example would be to tackle this chaos at our airports and the passenger profiling I described earlier. Another must is to reconsider ID cards. The importance of knowing whether someone really is who they say they are has never been higher.
This must be combined with improved border controls, logging exactly who goes OUT of the country as well as who comes in should also be reconsidered, whatever the politically correct among us may say. The time terrorism suspects are kept in custody before charge has also caused dissent. Currently the maximum is 28 days—it may well be this should be reconsidered and, if necessary, raised again to, say, 42 days.
Plainly, Muslim terrorism isn't going away. We need to consider everything in our battle to defeat it. But that's the responsibility of all.
Not least the community where, sadly for them, it is festering.
[Site Editor's Note - I think it's worth mentioning that many of the comments below originate from regulars of Little Green Footballs.]
WHEN will the Muslims of Britain stand up to be counted?
When will they declare, loud and clear, with no qualifications or quibbles about Britain's foreign policy, that Islamic terrorism is WRONG?
Most of all, when will the Muslim community in this country accept an absolute, undeniable, total truth: that Islamic terrorism is THEIR problem? THEY own it. And it is THEIR duty to face it and eradicate it.
To stop the denial, endless fudging and constant wailing that somehow it is everyone else's problem and, if Islamic terrorism exists at all, they are somehow the main victims.
Because until that happens the problem will never be resolved. And there will be more 7/7s and, sometime in the future, another airplane plot will succeed with horrific loss of innocent life.
Equally important, those British politicians who have seemed obsessed with pandering to, and even encouraging, this state of denial, must throw off their politically-correct blinkers and recognise the same truth—that Muslim terrorism in Britain is the direct responsibility of British Muslims.
If only they would follow the lead of Home Secretary John Reid, whose tough, pragmatic, clear-sighted approach has been a breath of fresh air. Only then can they properly work out how to tackle it.
For instance, every airport in Britain is in chaos over the plane bomb-plot alert as every passenger is subjected to rigorous security checks. Why? They take lots of time, lots of staff, and are extremely expensive.
I'm a white 62-year-old 6ft 4ins suit-wearing ex-cop—I fly often, but do I really fit the profile of suicide bomber? Does the young mum with three tots? The gay couple, the rugby team, the middle-aged businessman?
No. But they are all getting exactly the same amount and devouring huge resources for no logical reason whatsoever. Yet the truth is Islamic terrorism in the West has been universally carried out by young Muslim men, usually of ethnic appearance, almost always travelling alone or in very small groups. A tiny percentage, I bet, of those delayed today have such characteristics.
This targeting of airport resources is called passenger profiling—the Israelis invented it and they've got probably the safest airports and airlines in the world.
In all my years at the front line of fighting terrorism, one truth was always clear — communities beat terrorists, not governments or security forces. But communities can't beat terrorism unless they have the will to do so. My heart sank this week as I saw and read the knee-jerk reaction of friends and neighbours of those arrested in this latest incident, insisting it was all a mistake and the anti-terrorist squad had the wrong people.
I have no idea whether those arrested are guilty or not. But neither have those friends and neighbours. They spoke as if it was inconceivable such a thing could happen in their community; that those arrested were all good Muslims; that Islam is a religion of peace so no Muslim could dream of planning such an act.
But we heard the same from the family and friends of the 7/7 bombers, didn't we?
And the two young British Muslims who died as suicide bombers in Israel. Then there are the British Muslims known to have become suicide bombers in Iraq.
There is currently a huge, long-running and complex alleged Islamist bomb plot being tried at the Old Bailey. And a fistful of other cases of alleged Muslim terrorism plots such as the 21/7 London Underground case are also awaiting trial.
All this would suggest the blindingly obvious—that terrorism is a major problem for the Muslim community of Britain. Of course, there will be instant squealings that this is racism. It's not. It's exactly the same as recognising that, during the Northern Ireland troubles that left thousands dead, the IRA were totally based in the Catholic community and the UVF in the Protestant.
And that, most importantly, IRA terrorism only began to draw to a close when that Catholic community it was based in decided as a whole that it was no longer prepared to back violence as the only way forward. Interestingly, it was Catholic revulsion over republican terrorist atrocities such as Enniskillen and Omagh that fuelled that change.
Well, Muslim terrorism in Britain is based in, has its roots in, and grows in, our Muslim community. The madmen of 7/7 and other suicide bombings didn't hide among the Hindu communities, worship in the Sikh temples, recruit at Catholic churches, did they? It may be true that events in Iraq have angered sections of the Muslim community. I have no doubts, whatever Tony Blair says, that it was a catalyst. I also think it's entirely fair for Muslims, if they wish, to vocally oppose Britain's continuing involvement there.
I can recognise, too, that recent events in Lebanon inflame some people, and they want their voices of protest heard. The absolutely unacceptable problem is that this opposition is used by too many to turn a blind eye to, or excuse, terrorists in their midst.
Blasting a passenger airliner out of the sky, killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children, is NEVER acceptable. Under any circumstances. There is NEVER an excuse.
A terrible tragedy costing Muslim lives in Lebanon or Iraq or Afghanistan is never ever an excuse for terrorism here.
It is totally unacceptable, totally wrong. What one party perceives as a wrong, no matter how strongly they feel, does not, in turn, justify another wrong being done to avenge it.
And until every single member of the Muslim community believes that and preaches that—from an ordinary parent to imam or madrassa teacher—terrorism can't be beaten.
Politicians must accept this truth, and do something about it. One example would be to tackle this chaos at our airports and the passenger profiling I described earlier. Another must is to reconsider ID cards. The importance of knowing whether someone really is who they say they are has never been higher.
This must be combined with improved border controls, logging exactly who goes OUT of the country as well as who comes in should also be reconsidered, whatever the politically correct among us may say. The time terrorism suspects are kept in custody before charge has also caused dissent. Currently the maximum is 28 days—it may well be this should be reconsidered and, if necessary, raised again to, say, 42 days.
Plainly, Muslim terrorism isn't going away. We need to consider everything in our battle to defeat it. But that's the responsibility of all.
Not least the community where, sadly for them, it is festering.
[Site Editor's Note - I think it's worth mentioning that many of the comments below originate from regulars of Little Green Footballs.]
Sunday, August 06, 2006
I THROTTLED JESSICA AS SHE TRIED TO PHONE MUM
EXCLUSIVE Holly & Jessica: Last secrets
By Neil McLeod & David Brown
THE shocking hidden truth about the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman is revealed by the News of the World in a sensational taped dossier.
For the first time since the horror that shocked the nation four years ago, twisted Ian Huntley has confessed that he THROTTLED screaming Jessica as she tried to phone her mum.
The details, though distressing, will give some comfort to their parents who have always been desperate to know the truth about the girls' last moments.
The killer's dramatic admissions after his stubborn refusal to co-operate with police are also likely to lead to a new investigation into the role played by lover Maxine Carr.
She served just 21 months for perverting the course of justice after claiming she had only a minor part in the murder cover-up. But Huntley claims she orchestrated it.
The 32-year-old killer poured out his guilt to mother Lynda Nixon, 51, the only person he now trusts, in three separate meetings at Wakefield jail, Yorks. Huntley told how he:
# STRANGLED Jessica to stop her screaming after Holly had died in the bathroom.
# SNATCHED her mobile phone to stop her calling her for help then realised: "I knew I could not let her leave the house."
# WATCHED in dread as police hunting the missing girls walked past her mobile on his draining board.
# TOLD Maxine of the killings on the night they died.
# OBEYED her when she plotted the cover-up and told him: "Burn the bodies or I will have to do it".
# FEARED he would be caught when police dogs sniffed his car as the 10-year-olds' bodies lay in bin bags in the boot overnight.
# DUMPED evidence in a rubbish bin at a nearby Tesco.
# PLANNED suicide on the fourth anniversary last week but was stopped.
# RAPED a girl in a nightclub in his home town.
But at the same time evil Huntley repeats his delusional claim—despite all the evidence—that Holly died by accident when she fell in the bath after a nosebleed.
A Cambridgeshire police spokesman said last night: "We are always interested in reviewing new information and will take it seriously to get to the truth of what happened that day. We have never believed the version of events Ian Huntley gave in court."
His younger brother Wayne, 30, who taped a series of conversations with their mother after her visits said: "This is the fullest account of what happened at Soham that Ian has ever given.
"He is in jail where he belongs but I am convinced he wants to kill himself and give some explanation of what happened before he does.
"I believe I had to make this public because everybody from the girls' families to the average person in the street deserves to know."
Mother Lynda gently coaxed the details from Huntley in a series of jail meetings lasting SIX HOURS.
He has always claimed he smothered Jessica accidentally as he tried to stop her crying after Holly died. But he told his mother:
"If she hadn't kept shouting, she'd have got out of the house alive.
"I was telling her to stop shouting so I could think. She kept saying: ‘You pushed her. You pushed her.'
"It was only when I put my hand on her shoulder as she went for the door, that I realised I couldn't let her leave the house."
Deluded Huntley insisted Holly suffered a nosebleed in his caretaker's house at Soham College four years and two days ago. He lied that she went to his bathroom, slipped and died—which was when Jessica began screaming.
He told Lynda: "I did not push her, Mum, I did not touch her. Jessica stood at the doorway screaming. Holly was in the bath. Mum, I had to get to her otherwise all the neighbours would have been round if I hadn't shut her up."
He chased her downstairs and took her mobile as she tried to make a call, thought to be to her mother. Huntley added: "As soon as I put my hand on her shoulder, then, you know...there are two bodies in the house."
Wayne explained: "He said he sat her on the settee and tried to calm her down. But she kept screaming."
Wayne asked his mum: "Did he say he strangled her? Linda replied: "Yes, he did as she got near the door. It was that stage when he knew she couldn't let her leave."
It is the first time Huntley has admitted killing Jessica in such a savage manner and proves the cold-blooded nature the murders.
Lynda also said Huntley told her the time of Jessica's death was 6.55pm. Experts previously thought it had been around 6.46pm when her phone was switched off. Lynda said: "Ian told me the time because I wanted to light candles for the girls."
Huntley refused to implicate Maxine throughout the investigation and 31-day Old Bailey trial, which ended with his conviction in December 2003.
But he is now firmly pointing the finger at his former girlfriend, who served half a 42-month sentence for perverting the course of justice by giving him a false alibi.
She lives in secret after the High Court issued an order guaranteeing her anonymity forever. It costs the taxpayer over £1million a year to protect her.
Huntley confessed to Lynda he told Maxine about the girls' deaths on the Sunday, the VERY NIGHT of the murders, possibly minutes after they died.
He sat on the landing of his house and rang Carr to confess what he'd done. Wayne asked Lynda: "Did Ian actually tell you Maxine knew on the night that the girls were dead? She replied: "Yes, yes. Ian said she knew everything that night."
Lynda also revealed that Huntley had wanted to give himself up TWICE but Maxine stopped him. His mother added: "She kept saying to Ian, ‘You have got to get rid of all the evidence'. Maxine told him to put the washing in, to talk to the media."
Huntley added that Maxine even washed the sheets on their bed after he told her one of the girls had sat on the edge of it. It was part of her plan to get rid of any trace of their DNA.
Scent
And he told his mother how Maxine later reacted with fury at what he'd done—but out of concern for herself, not his little victims. "I'm not losing my home or job for anybody," she snapped.
Huntley revealed for the first time how he put the girls' bodies in black bin liners, backed his car up to his house and put them in the boot. He kept them there overnight before driving to dump them at a beauty spot near Lakenheath air base in Suffolk the next morning.
In court, prosecution lawyers said experts believed the bodies had been placed there on the night of the murder. Huntley told his mother he was almost caught that night when two police dogs moved past the boot of the red Ford Fiesta but did not pick up the girls' scent.
Huntley also confessed exactly where he had dumped Jessica's mobile phone and thrown a can in which he carried petrol to burn their bodies.
Wayne said: "Ian told mum how he was washing his fingerprints off Jessica's mobile in his kitchen.
"Two officers came around two days after the girls disappeared and said they needed to have a look through the premises.
"He didn't make any attempt to hide the phone. He said he just left it, still wet, on the draining board.
"He told her, ‘I thought that was it, Mum. I thought I was going to be caught there and then.'"
"But the officers didn't notice it and walked out. He couldn't believe they had missed it."
Huntley put the phone in two bags then drove to Tesco in Ely, Cambs, and dumped it in a bin. It has never been found.
He told his mother that when he brought Maxine back from her mum's after the murders she began scrubbing the house clean of any evidence and told him to act as normally as possible. Huntley said: "She cleaned the place that hard the paint was coming off the kitchen wall."
Lynda recalled: "Ian said one day she was in such a state she hit him. She was saying that they should act normal."
Maxine also told Huntley to destroy the evidence, warning: "Your DNA will be on the girls." Wayne said: "Ian interpreted that to mean that he should burn the bodies. The thought going through his head at the time was, ‘Oh my God. I didn't want to do that.' He said he hadn't intended on going back to where he had placed the bodies."
He asked Maxine to go with him but she replied: "You do it, I'm going to bed." She ordered him to call in at his grandmother's house and make sure he was seen so he had an alibi.
"While there he rang Maxine and told her he couldn't bring himself to go through with it. But, according to Huntley, she coldly told him: "If you don't do it, then I will have to."
Huntley DID carry out Carr's instructions. He told his mother he threw one of two petrol cans he used in an overgrown pheasant coop. It was never found.
Wayne said: "I know what Ian did was dreadful and unforgiveable. But people should know Maxine she was far more involved than she has been punished for."
Huntley, who was investigated several times for sex offences before the murder, also confessed to raping a girl he met in a Grimsby club. He told Lynda: "Mum, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I didn't know her name or anything."
The News of the World can also reveal that he was plotting to make a SECOND attempt to kill himself, apparently to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the girls' deaths last Friday.
Last Saturday warders raided his room and found a stash of pills.
They acted after a tip-off from a fellow inmate who had been trading the tablets with Huntley.
He first tried to kill himself in June 2003 when he was on remand at Woodhill Prison, Bucks. He took 29 anti-depressants and ended up in a coma.
Wayne said: "He just cannot live with himself.
"And he is the type of person who will see it through one day."
Maxine's lawyer has said: "She denies what Huntley has said in the strongest possible terms."
By Neil McLeod & David Brown
THE shocking hidden truth about the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman is revealed by the News of the World in a sensational taped dossier.
For the first time since the horror that shocked the nation four years ago, twisted Ian Huntley has confessed that he THROTTLED screaming Jessica as she tried to phone her mum.
The details, though distressing, will give some comfort to their parents who have always been desperate to know the truth about the girls' last moments.
The killer's dramatic admissions after his stubborn refusal to co-operate with police are also likely to lead to a new investigation into the role played by lover Maxine Carr.
She served just 21 months for perverting the course of justice after claiming she had only a minor part in the murder cover-up. But Huntley claims she orchestrated it.
The 32-year-old killer poured out his guilt to mother Lynda Nixon, 51, the only person he now trusts, in three separate meetings at Wakefield jail, Yorks. Huntley told how he:
# STRANGLED Jessica to stop her screaming after Holly had died in the bathroom.
# SNATCHED her mobile phone to stop her calling her for help then realised: "I knew I could not let her leave the house."
# WATCHED in dread as police hunting the missing girls walked past her mobile on his draining board.
# TOLD Maxine of the killings on the night they died.
# OBEYED her when she plotted the cover-up and told him: "Burn the bodies or I will have to do it".
# FEARED he would be caught when police dogs sniffed his car as the 10-year-olds' bodies lay in bin bags in the boot overnight.
# DUMPED evidence in a rubbish bin at a nearby Tesco.
# PLANNED suicide on the fourth anniversary last week but was stopped.
# RAPED a girl in a nightclub in his home town.
But at the same time evil Huntley repeats his delusional claim—despite all the evidence—that Holly died by accident when she fell in the bath after a nosebleed.
A Cambridgeshire police spokesman said last night: "We are always interested in reviewing new information and will take it seriously to get to the truth of what happened that day. We have never believed the version of events Ian Huntley gave in court."
His younger brother Wayne, 30, who taped a series of conversations with their mother after her visits said: "This is the fullest account of what happened at Soham that Ian has ever given.
"He is in jail where he belongs but I am convinced he wants to kill himself and give some explanation of what happened before he does.
"I believe I had to make this public because everybody from the girls' families to the average person in the street deserves to know."
Mother Lynda gently coaxed the details from Huntley in a series of jail meetings lasting SIX HOURS.
He has always claimed he smothered Jessica accidentally as he tried to stop her crying after Holly died. But he told his mother:
"If she hadn't kept shouting, she'd have got out of the house alive.
"I was telling her to stop shouting so I could think. She kept saying: ‘You pushed her. You pushed her.'
"It was only when I put my hand on her shoulder as she went for the door, that I realised I couldn't let her leave the house."
Deluded Huntley insisted Holly suffered a nosebleed in his caretaker's house at Soham College four years and two days ago. He lied that she went to his bathroom, slipped and died—which was when Jessica began screaming.
He told Lynda: "I did not push her, Mum, I did not touch her. Jessica stood at the doorway screaming. Holly was in the bath. Mum, I had to get to her otherwise all the neighbours would have been round if I hadn't shut her up."
He chased her downstairs and took her mobile as she tried to make a call, thought to be to her mother. Huntley added: "As soon as I put my hand on her shoulder, then, you know...there are two bodies in the house."
Wayne explained: "He said he sat her on the settee and tried to calm her down. But she kept screaming."
Wayne asked his mum: "Did he say he strangled her? Linda replied: "Yes, he did as she got near the door. It was that stage when he knew she couldn't let her leave."
It is the first time Huntley has admitted killing Jessica in such a savage manner and proves the cold-blooded nature the murders.
Lynda also said Huntley told her the time of Jessica's death was 6.55pm. Experts previously thought it had been around 6.46pm when her phone was switched off. Lynda said: "Ian told me the time because I wanted to light candles for the girls."
Huntley refused to implicate Maxine throughout the investigation and 31-day Old Bailey trial, which ended with his conviction in December 2003.
But he is now firmly pointing the finger at his former girlfriend, who served half a 42-month sentence for perverting the course of justice by giving him a false alibi.
She lives in secret after the High Court issued an order guaranteeing her anonymity forever. It costs the taxpayer over £1million a year to protect her.
Huntley confessed to Lynda he told Maxine about the girls' deaths on the Sunday, the VERY NIGHT of the murders, possibly minutes after they died.
He sat on the landing of his house and rang Carr to confess what he'd done. Wayne asked Lynda: "Did Ian actually tell you Maxine knew on the night that the girls were dead? She replied: "Yes, yes. Ian said she knew everything that night."
Lynda also revealed that Huntley had wanted to give himself up TWICE but Maxine stopped him. His mother added: "She kept saying to Ian, ‘You have got to get rid of all the evidence'. Maxine told him to put the washing in, to talk to the media."
Huntley added that Maxine even washed the sheets on their bed after he told her one of the girls had sat on the edge of it. It was part of her plan to get rid of any trace of their DNA.
Scent
And he told his mother how Maxine later reacted with fury at what he'd done—but out of concern for herself, not his little victims. "I'm not losing my home or job for anybody," she snapped.
Huntley revealed for the first time how he put the girls' bodies in black bin liners, backed his car up to his house and put them in the boot. He kept them there overnight before driving to dump them at a beauty spot near Lakenheath air base in Suffolk the next morning.
In court, prosecution lawyers said experts believed the bodies had been placed there on the night of the murder. Huntley told his mother he was almost caught that night when two police dogs moved past the boot of the red Ford Fiesta but did not pick up the girls' scent.
Huntley also confessed exactly where he had dumped Jessica's mobile phone and thrown a can in which he carried petrol to burn their bodies.
Wayne said: "Ian told mum how he was washing his fingerprints off Jessica's mobile in his kitchen.
"Two officers came around two days after the girls disappeared and said they needed to have a look through the premises.
"He didn't make any attempt to hide the phone. He said he just left it, still wet, on the draining board.
"He told her, ‘I thought that was it, Mum. I thought I was going to be caught there and then.'"
"But the officers didn't notice it and walked out. He couldn't believe they had missed it."
Huntley put the phone in two bags then drove to Tesco in Ely, Cambs, and dumped it in a bin. It has never been found.
He told his mother that when he brought Maxine back from her mum's after the murders she began scrubbing the house clean of any evidence and told him to act as normally as possible. Huntley said: "She cleaned the place that hard the paint was coming off the kitchen wall."
Lynda recalled: "Ian said one day she was in such a state she hit him. She was saying that they should act normal."
Maxine also told Huntley to destroy the evidence, warning: "Your DNA will be on the girls." Wayne said: "Ian interpreted that to mean that he should burn the bodies. The thought going through his head at the time was, ‘Oh my God. I didn't want to do that.' He said he hadn't intended on going back to where he had placed the bodies."
He asked Maxine to go with him but she replied: "You do it, I'm going to bed." She ordered him to call in at his grandmother's house and make sure he was seen so he had an alibi.
"While there he rang Maxine and told her he couldn't bring himself to go through with it. But, according to Huntley, she coldly told him: "If you don't do it, then I will have to."
Huntley DID carry out Carr's instructions. He told his mother he threw one of two petrol cans he used in an overgrown pheasant coop. It was never found.
Wayne said: "I know what Ian did was dreadful and unforgiveable. But people should know Maxine she was far more involved than she has been punished for."
Huntley, who was investigated several times for sex offences before the murder, also confessed to raping a girl he met in a Grimsby club. He told Lynda: "Mum, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I didn't know her name or anything."
The News of the World can also reveal that he was plotting to make a SECOND attempt to kill himself, apparently to coincide with the fourth anniversary of the girls' deaths last Friday.
Last Saturday warders raided his room and found a stash of pills.
They acted after a tip-off from a fellow inmate who had been trading the tablets with Huntley.
He first tried to kill himself in June 2003 when he was on remand at Woodhill Prison, Bucks. He took 29 anti-depressants and ended up in a coma.
Wayne said: "He just cannot live with himself.
"And he is the type of person who will see it through one day."
Maxine's lawyer has said: "She denies what Huntley has said in the strongest possible terms."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)