The Islamic school run from the home of a rapist: Owner attacked girl, 16, but council can't prevent his wife teaching primary pupils in the front room

The home of a convicted rapist is being used as an unregulated Islamic school for children. Ghulam Haider’s wife is teaching around 17 children of primary school age at the madrassa that she runs from their front room at weekends.

Former taxi driver Haider, 61, was jailed for six years in 2006 after a court heard he brutally raped a 16-year-old at a derelict churchyard.

The madrassa highlights a safeguarding loophole around children attending ‘out of school education’ centres, which require no monitoring from education watchdog Ofsted or local authorities. There is also no requirement for Haider’s wife, Sadiqqa, who teaches classes in their front room, to submit to Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.

The checks would flag up Haider’s conviction and are intended to prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups, including children. Ofsted described the madrassa, run from Haider’s semi-detached home in Acocks Green, Birmingham, as ‘deeply worrying’.

The watchdog’s head, Amanda Spielman, has previously warned that Islamic hardliners are preaching extreme doctrines in underground schools across the UK.

Her predecessor Sir Michael Wilshaw said: ‘I raised this issue time and time again when I was at Ofsted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5976491/The-Islamic-school-run-home-rapist.html

I would need to know more about the predicate charges of rape. Smells like there is more to this story.

In addition to the original link, I note in passing that rape is not paedophilia, and Sadiqqa is not a rapist.

Original Quill wrote:I would need to know more about the predicate charges of rape.  Smells like there is more to this story.

In addition to the original link, I note in passing that rape is not paedophilia, and Sadiqqa is not a rapist.

He brutally raped a 16 year old and spent 6 years in jail for this

How is he not a rapist?

I mean how are you even defending him, let alone ignoring the fact in the UK, he would never be allowed like any convicted sexual offender near children?

You are conflating matters with the age here, neglecting the fact, he raped a girl

How about you actually understand UK law

You are jumping to conclusions.

I would like to know more detail. Do you have a link to the predicate crime?

Original Quill wrote:You are jumping to conclusions.

I would like to know more detail.  Do you have a link to the predicate crime?

Errrrrr sorry??????

I am jumping to conclusions????

You claim he is not a rapist

Nobody said anything about paedophillia

So before I embarress you, explain how you back the view he is not a rapist??

In your own time

So...no link to the predicate crime then?

Original Quill wrote:So...no like to the predicate crime then?

Copout

He has been convicted of rape and am waiting to post the story for you

I would rather watch and allow you to continue to dig a hole where you stated he was innocent of rape, claiming he is not a rapiist

So explain to the forum, why you think he is innocent of rape?

In your own time

Wow Quill has gone silent

I have no idea, but maybe Quill can explain whether he would be happy to allow someone in the same room as a child, who raped a 16 year old girl

In the Uk and the US, someone 16 is a child

Maybe he can explain why he clearly is backing the view to allow rapists to be in the proximity of children?

He claimed without any knowledge of this, that the convicted rapist, was not a rapist.

And he claims to have been a judge as well

I guess that just proves he never has been

Didge wrote:Wow Quill has gone silent

I have finished with the subject. I've stated where I would like to see more on the story. I guess it's not available, so I've lost interest.

My goodness, you are unusually 'active' and hostile today. Whatsamatter, no one will play with you?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Wow Quill has gone silent

I have finished with the subject.  I've stated where I would like to see more on the story.  I guess it's not available, so I've lost interest.

My goodness, you are unusually 'active' and hostile today.  Whatsamatter, no one will play with you?

So the above translate as the following

"Sorry didge, I guess I put my foot in my mouth here and trying to backtrack to the fact this man raped a 16 year old girl and why I stupidly claimed he was not a rapist"

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/vile-cabbie-jailed-for-rape-of-girl-25379

Maybe you should tell the victim here, that she was not raped and that you believe her attacker is not a rapist Quill?

Let me know how that pans out mate.

Didge wrote:So the above translate as the following

No, it translates to:

Original Quill wrote:I have finished with the subject. I've stated where I would like to see more on the story. I guess it's not available, so I've lost interest.

My goodness, you are unusually 'active' and hostile today. Whatsamatter, no one will play with you?

Your putting words in my mouth is the superfluous part, and hence the second paragraph of my post.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So the above translate as the following

No, it translates to:

Original Quill wrote:I have finished with the subject.  I've stated where I would like to see more on the story.  I guess it's not available, so I've lost interest.

My goodness, you are unusually 'active' and hostile today.  Whatsamatter, no one will play with you?

Your putting words in my mouth is the superfluous part, and hence the second paragraph of my post.

Really, you questioned in your first post about whether he was a rapist

You then claim, its okay to place childen in the company of his wife, because she never raped anyone

You clearly question whether he raped anyone

You clearly did not believe he raped anyone either

You wanted more information and I have given this to you

His wife is either brainwashed and controlled or as evil as he is

As how could she stay with someone that brutally raped a 16 year old girl and then brought other children into her household?

So no you are not finished, you try to make pathetic excuses

I mean how racist of you to not think non-white people can be rapists

How many women here would stay with a husband who raped a 16 year old girl...?


And then run a class from home that meant loads of other children would be at your home every weekend with the rapist husband...?


Why are the authorities allowing this...!?

Seems like a loophole in the law is allowing this....though it could be one law for some and another for the majority.

As for a woman standing by her husband who has been found guilty of raping a 16 year old......the gangs of Pakistani Muslim men  who have operated throughout the UK for decades who are guilty of grooming and raping young girls,  are mostly married men.
The wives are either in denial, as this one seems to be, or too afraid to leave.

Gave you a green Syl, good post.

Prob too afraid to leave Syl. The Muslim wives have to accept and shut up.

Why are the authorities allowing this anyway. A rapist is a rapist no matter how old the girl.

Its difficult for these women to leave unless they have relatives that would be understanding and that they could go to. Its bad enough when they try to get an Islamic divorce. The community doesn't seem to look kindly on women divorcing or leaving husbands, it might be 'catching'.

magica wrote:Gave you a green Syl, good post.

Prob too afraid to leave Syl. The Muslim wives have to accept and shut up.

Why are the authorities allowing this anyway. A rapist is a rapist no matter how old the girl.

Thanks Mags.

I do think some Muslim women are finding their own voice, but it seems a lot of the oppression also comes from older female family members who cant adjust to the western ways of society.  
Its about time the authorities stopped closing their eyes, whilst trying to prevent racial discrimination they are making matters a lot worse.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I would need to know more about the predicate charges of rape.  Smells like there is more to this story.

In addition to the original link, I note in passing that rape is not paedophilia, and Sadiqqa is not a rapist.

He brutally raped a 16 year old and spent 6 years in jail for this

How is he not a rapist?

I mean how are you even defending him, let alone ignoring the fact in the UK, he would never be allowed like any convicted sexual offender near children?

You are conflating matters with the age here, neglecting the fact, he raped a girl

How about you actually understand UK law

Sadiqqa is the wife, who is not a convicted rapist unless the story left out a huge detail.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

He brutally raped a 16 year old and spent 6 years in jail for this

How is he not a rapist?

I mean how are you even defending him, let alone ignoring the fact in the UK, he would never be allowed like any convicted sexual offender near children?

You are conflating matters with the age here, neglecting the fact, he raped a girl

How about you actually understand UK law

Sadiqqa is the wife, who is not a convicted rapist unless the story left out a huge detail.

and?

Didge wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

He brutally raped a 16 year old and spent 6 years in jail for this

How is he not a rapist?

I mean how are you even defending him, let alone ignoring the fact in the UK, he would never be allowed like any convicted sexual offender near children?

You are conflating matters with the age here, neglecting the fact, he raped a girl

How about you actually understand UK law

Sadiqqa is the wife, who is not a convicted rapist unless the story left out a huge detail.

and?

And you said "how is *he* not a rapist" but Quill was referring to the she in the story, Sadiqqa, who isn't a convicted rapist as far as we know.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

and?

And you said "how is *he* not a rapist" but Quill was referring to the she in the story, Sadiqqa, who isn't a convicted rapist as far as we know.

and?

The checks would flag up Haider’s conviction and are intended to prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups, including children. Ofsted described the madrassa, run from Haider’s semi-detached home in Acocks Green, Birmingham, as ‘deeply worrying’.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I have finished with the subject.  I've stated where I would like to see more on the story.  I guess it's not available, so I've lost interest.

My goodness, you are unusually 'active' and hostile today.  Whatsamatter, no one will play with you?

So the above translate as the following

"Sorry didge, I guess I put my foot in my mouth here and trying to backtrack to the fact this man raped a 16 year old girl and why I stupidly claimed he was not a rapist"

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/vile-cabbie-jailed-for-rape-of-girl-25379

Maybe you should tell the victim here, that she was not raped and that you believe her attacker is not a rapist Quill?

Let me know how that pans out mate.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

He brutally raped a 16 year old and spent 6 years in jail for this

How is he not a rapist?

I mean how are you even defending him, let alone ignoring the fact in the UK, he would never be allowed like any convicted sexual offender near children?

You are conflating matters with the age here, neglecting the fact, he raped a girl

How about you actually understand UK law

Sadiqqa is the wife, who is not a convicted rapist unless the story left out a huge detail.

I agree, the story left out a lot of detail. That's why I left the thread...too many unanswered questions in the OP article.

As for didge's assertion that Sadigga is a rapist, despite being female, Trump often glosses over inconvenient detail in pursuit of his arguments. It's really de rigueu these days, despite the fact that it completely destroys the argument of the speaker. If caught in the lie, s/he will say "I meant to say wouldn't..."

It's another example of the irrationality of the right. People see that. Nothing you can say, aids them in seeing it...so you shrug and leave.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Sadiqqa is the wife, who is not a convicted rapist unless the story left out a huge detail.

I agree, the story left out a lot of detail.  That's why I left the thread...too many unanswered questions in the OP article.

As for didge's assertion that Sadigga is a rapist, despite being female, Trump often glosses over inconvenient detail in pursuit of his arguments.  It's really de rigueu these days, despite the fact that it completely destroys the argument of the speaker.  If caught in the lie, s/he will say "I meant to say wouldn't..."

It's another example of the irrationality of the right.  People see that.  Nothing you can say, aids them in seeing it...so you shrug and leave.

The checks would flag up Haider’s conviction and are intended to prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups, including children. Ofsted described the madrassa, run from Haider’s semi-detached home in Acocks Green, Birmingham, as ‘deeply worrying’.

Didge wrote:

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I have finished with the subject.  I've stated where I would like to see more on the story.  I guess it's not available, so I've lost interest.

My goodness, you are unusually 'active' and hostile today.  Whatsamatter, no one will play with you?

So the above translate as the following

"Sorry didge, I guess I put my foot in my mouth here and trying to backtrack to the fact this man raped a 16 year old girl and why I stupidly claimed he was not a rapist"

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/vile-cabbie-jailed-for-rape-of-girl-25379

Maybe you should tell the victim here, that she was not raped and that you believe her attacker is not a rapist Quill?

Let me know how that pans out mate.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly

His claim was that the wife isn't a rapist, which as far as we know is true. He never said the man isn't a rapist, just that he'd like to see the original case file.

To be fair, I think Quill thought Sadiqqa was the name of the male (rapist) in the story. That’s how it appeared to me.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly

His claim was that the wife isn't a rapist, which as far as we know is true. He never said the man isn't a rapist, just that he'd like to see the original case file.

Which shows he has no understanding of UK law and he did try to discount the fact the rapist had a committed a crime, by stating he needed to see more details. As if the article was lying about his conviction. In the UK people with sexualconvictions like rape, are not allowed to work with children. Yet, because his house is a madrassa. Where his wife is still married to this rapist and lives with him. She teaches children in their house, a school
That is dangereously wrong?

Can you understand that?

If you want to split hairs over what he said be my guest and miss the whole worrying issue about this

eddie wrote:To be fair, I think Quill thought Sadiqqa was the name of the male (rapist) in the story. That’s how it appeared to me.

Exactly

eddie wrote:To be fair, I think Quill thought Sadiqqa was the name of the male (rapist) in the story. That’s how it appeared to me.

It's right there in black and white, in the original OP article:

Daily Mail wrote:There is also no requirement for Haider’s wife, Sadiqqa, who teaches classes in their front room, to submit...

I wouldn't have brought it up if it wasn't quite obvious.  I think it's highly unlikely that the wife is the rapist.

I don’t think anyone thought the wife was a rapist?

eddie wrote:I don’t think anyone thought the wife was a rapist?

...and Sadiqqa's the one who is teaching the children. The children are in no danger.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I don’t think anyone thought the wife was a rapist?

...and Sadiqqa's the one who is teaching the children.  The children are in no danger.

How can you claim that?

Can you vouch to the parents, the children will not come to any harm?

When within the same house is a convicted rapist. Who would never be allowed to be within such a school working environment

eddie wrote:I don’t think anyone thought the wife was a rapist?

Quill is being an apologist here and wants to allow a loop hole in British law to stand, which places children at great risk. As it does here.

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:I don’t think anyone thought the wife was a rapist?

Quill is being an apologist here and wants to allow a loop hole in British law to stand, which places children at great risk. As it does here.

I don't know anything about British law. I don't practice there.

Didge wrote:Can you vouch to the parents, the children will not come to any harm?

No one can do that. Probably the greatest danger is when they cross the street.

If I had a young child there in absolutely no way I would send him or her  to the home where a convicted rapist of a young girl lived.

Likewise, I wouldn't send my child to a high-traffic area school.  It's of particular concern here, now, because Safeway wants to open one of their high-volume Gas Stations across the street from a combined facility for elementary and day-care kids.

It's important to assess the actual probability of risk, not just the squirm factor.  Ok, we don't like paedophilia, and paedophilia is a sex crime, and rape is a sex crime, so there is a link...but it's just optics. One car going 40-mph can bounce a group of 30 kids into next week.  It's just my concerns, but I worry much more about kids crossing the street in a high-traffic area.

Original Quill wrote:Likewise, I wouldn't send my child to a high-traffic area school.  It's of particular concern here, now, because Safeway wants to open one of their high-volume Gas Stations across the street from a combined facility for elementary and day-care kids.

It's important to assess the actual probability of risk, not just the squirm factor.  Ok, we don't like paedophilia, and paedophilia is a sex crime, and rape is a sex crime, so there is a link...but it's just optics.  One car going 40-mph can bounce a group of 30 kids into next week.  It's just my concerns, but I worry much more about kids crossing the street in a high-traffic area.

Regarding your first paragraph...children in most counties in England walk to and from school in high-traffic areas every day. Every day, crossing roads that are filled with safe places to cross.
Sorry but the parents in your area are bloody wimps! Don’t parents in California teach their kids to cross the busy roads from a young age? We do. We have to!

Secondly, your first paragraph bears no relation in any way whatsoever to the OP.
One thing is not the same as the other, just admit that you’d not send either of your beautiful daughters to a place where a rapist was.

eddie wrote:Sorry but the parents in your area are bloody wimps! Don’t parents in California teach their kids to cross the busy roads from a young age? We do. We have to!

Most of the streets and roads you have in England and Wales and Scotland would be considered downright rural in California.

Unfortunately, here in America--including California--urban planning is geared toward Republican values: ie, making money.  No one cares about pedestrians; as likely as not, they have no money anyway.  So, everything is parking lots, connector lanes, no sidewalks, no crossing barriers, and 4-lane (at least) highways.

Add to this mix, an off-freeway, cut rate gas station adjacent to an elementary school and day-care center, and you're just mixing dynamite with petrol.

Hahahahahahaha Quill, mate, what is that a picture of? England about 100 years ago?

I can’t even take you serously tbh. Please do go and do some further research. I can tell you, our roads are busy...busy. Very busy.
There are 14 million people in London. Think how many cars and buses that is.
Traffic is constant and fast.

And you have found photos of people being hit in the US....erm,...did you google any other country? You’ll find plenty every where.
I’m not sure what you sort of thought that would sort of prove.


Maybe your parents in the US are a little more scaredy cats?

Those are pictures of California, not UK.

The 3rd picture--the one of the accident--occurred less than a half mile from where Safeway is planning the new petrol station, adjacent to the elementary/day-care schools. Didn't you notice the American police cars and equipment?

Stayed in Miami one time, my brother in law went there a lot at one time on business, he hadn't been for a couple of years . In the taxi from the airport the driver explained why she was centrally locking the doors, muggers at traffic lights. Then at the hotel we asked at reception the way to a particular eatery, we'd been told about, they said they'd get us a taxi, we said its ok we'll walk. it wasn't far, they looked at us as if we were crazy. Strange Brits again. We got there ok, but it was a Chinese with a menu in Mandarin and Spanish, which none of us spoke and the staff didn't speak much English but we managed and then walked back, the receptionist looked quite surprised to see us, at least in one piece anyway.

How is this suddenly a thread about traffic?

You have a school. You have people coming and going, you have people passing it in their vehicles.

Having a child rapist within the school doesn't do anything to change the volume of traffic around the school or the likelihood that a child could be run down by a car.

It would seem to increase the likelihood of a child getting raped, though.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:How is this suddenly a thread about traffic?

You have a school. You have people coming and going, you have people passing it in their vehicles.

Having a child rapist within the school doesn't do anything to change the volume of traffic around the school or the likelihood that a child could be run down by a car.

It would seem to increase the likelihood of a child getting raped, though.

Quite.
But the point went whoosh.