Further Revelations of PVE Funding Mismanagement
BY ALEXANDER MELEAGROU-HITCHENS
Yesterday, I blogged about how public funds intended to prevent extremism (PVE) have been handed over to the Muslim Brotherhood. Today, David Rich, of the Community Security Trust, has picked out further examples of the mismanagement of the PVE fund.
Rich informs us that the recently published Tax Payer’s Alliance report on the disbursement of PVE money also shows a £20,000 endowment to the North London Central Mosque (NLCM) in 2007.
The NLCM is better known as the Finsbury Park Mosque and up until 2005 it was the pulpit of hook handed psychopath Abu Hamza. It was then handed over to the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), the UK’s main Muslim Brotherhood front group, thanks mainly to the work of the Metropolitan Police’s Muslim Contact Unit (MCU). At the time the MCU was under the influence of Robert Lambert, who honestly (but mistakenly) believes that Salafi inspired Islamists are the only effective weapon against al-Qaeda. He has written extensively in support of Salafism and Islamism in the UK since he retired, and recently wrote in defence of Islamist figurehead Daud Abdullah after revelations that he had signed a statement in support of Hamas (at the time, both I and my co-blogger Shiraz Maher wrote a response to Lambert).
Thus, in the vain hope that we can bribe extremists to help us, Lambert oversaw the take over of one of the UK’s most influential mosques by the MAB and in particular by Mohammed Sawalha who the BBC have referred to as a ‘fugitive Hamas commander’. Like Abdullah, two years later Sawalha was to co-sign a declaration in support of the actions of a proscribed terrorist entity.
There are a number of questions which Lambert must face:
- So far, what positive influence have Islamists had on preventing extremism?
- Does he regret handing over an influential mosque to a man who, at the very least, supports a proscribed terrorist entity?
- Should the police continue to engage with and promote reactionary religious ideologues as the answer to a more violent set of reactionary religious ideologues?