Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

London St Paul's bomb plot: IS supporter Safiyya Shaikh 'got cold feet'

editor

hiraethified
Safiyya Shaikh


An Islamic State terror group supporter who planned to "blow up St Paul's Cathedral" was getting "cold feet" about the attack, a court has heard.

Muslim convert Safiyya Shaikh, 37, went on a reconnaissance trip to scope out the London landmark and a hotel.

She was arrested after asking undercover police to supply her bombs.

The Old Bailey heard she "had doubts" about the plot, but said she did not want to disappoint the "friends" she was conspiring with.

Shaikh, who admitted preparing an act of terrorism, was said to have become distressed following her arrest when it was disclosed to her that those two friends were actually undercover police officers.

A sentencing hearing heard Shaikh carried out a reconnaissance mission to the central London landmark in September 2019, but pushed the date of the attack back from Christmas to Easter.

She had also gone through the early stages of getting fitted for a suicide vest, saying she wanted to carry out a mass atrocity before becoming a martyr.

However, she cancelled a meeting with the undercover officers in October as she "started to get doubts", causing concerned police to swoop in and arrest her.
She wanted to kill loads of people to impress her chums, apparently.

 
Nice work by the old bill by the looks of it. It's just a shame she won't hang and will likely be on the streets again in 5 or so years.
 
Hmm: :hmm:

Defence counsel Ben Newton said:

"This particular terrorist act would never have actually happened. Three people were involved in this plot, and the other two were undercover police officers."
"There was no bomb, and there never would be....She didn't want to blow up a church of people, she just wanted friends."
 
"This particular terrorist act would never have actually happened. Three people were involved in this plot, and the other two were undercover police officers."
"There was no bomb, and there never would be....She didn't want to blow up a church of people, she just wanted friends."
'The police stopped her blowing stuff up, so nothing to see here' :facepalm:
 
So much so that she pleaded guilty.

Well yes, she did plan an attack along with them, so it'd be hard not to plead guilty.

Can't imagine it's that easy to encourage someone to go off and inflict mass murder on their fellow citizens, mind.

Apparently it's not that easy, yup, since she had cold feet and didn't actually attempt to inflict mass murder.

It's tricky, like entrapment usually is. There are a lot of justifications for it - what else can they do to get evidence, really - but it never feels like an open and shut guilty case, to me anyway.
 
From the BBC article

She was considered such a threat that MI5 made her the highest-level priority for investigation in the weeks before her arrest, according to Whitehall security sources.

It meant she was subject to a level of surveillance reserved for only the most dangerous potential attackers.
"I want to kill a lot," she told the officer. "I would like to do church... a day like Christmas or Easter good, kill more.

"I always send threats. But I want to make threats real."

She sent a picture of St Paul's Cathedral to the officer and wrote: "I would like to do this place for sure.

"I would like bomb and shoot 'til death... I really would love to destroy that place and the kaffir there."
First, there was mounting intelligence of her extremist ideology. She stopped going to a mosque because she suspected she would be reported for her views.

Second, a cyber operation revealed she headed a significant pro-IS social media chat platform that was pumping out propaganda and urging attacks on targets in Europe. Dutch counter-terrorism investigators linked that account to numerous threats in The Netherlands, one of which had led to the evacuation of a church.
 
A nonsense concept if ever there was one but if that’s what they want to call it we should be thoroughly charitable to the cause.
Didn't have you down as be 'charitable' to those convicted of terrorism type.
 
If it was a case of entrapment she would be pleading not guilty.

She doesn’t seem like the sharpest tool in the box though. And on the face of it the story sounds very close to entrapment, would imagine there are more details to suggest she was leading rather than being led, or else her solicitor should have advised her along those lines?
 
Bit unusual that her co-conspirators are coppers tho?

depends if they are actually co-conspirators, or just online 'fans' she's playing up to.

i would suspect that she started it off by talking (in broad terms) she wanted to do, and why, and the rozzers replied with 'ooh, that would be cool - tell us more...'.
 
She doesn’t seem like the sharpest tool in the box though. And on the face of it the story sounds very close to entrapment, would imagine there are more details to suggest she was leading rather than being led, or else her solicitor should have advised her along those lines?
Solicitors can advise but they can't make their clients act in the client's best interests
 
depends if they are actually co-conspirators, or just online 'fans' she's playing up to.

i would suspect that she started it off by talking (in broad terms) she wanted to do, and why, and the rozzers replied with 'ooh, that would be cool - tell us more...'.
Wouldn't be surprised if they'd said what can we do to help
 
depends if they are actually co-conspirators, or just online 'fans' she's playing up to.

i would suspect that she started it off by talking (in broad terms) she wanted to do, and why, and the rozzers replied with 'ooh, that would be cool - tell us more...'.
She pledged allegiance to ISIS and ran a Telegram channel inciting terrorism.


Fuck her.
 
Back
Top Bottom