There is a particularly worrying story being carried by the excellent Ambush Predator blog about a Muslim sex abuser who was allowed to occupy a position of authority for far too long and despite the nonce doing things that should have rung alarm bells. According to the report on the Ambush Predator blog, a Muslim security guard, Zia Uddin aged 27, used the threat of being reported to the police to coerce and blackmail shoplifters into sexual activity.

Uddin, from Manor Park in the thoroughly Islamised London Borough of Newham, worked for Primark in Kingston Upon Thames and took the shoplifters who were young girls, to his security office. Once there Uddin blackmailed the shoplifters into performing sex acts with him telling them that they could either do the sex acts or be reported to the police and their parents. Uddin had denied at Kingston Crown Court a list of sex charges which were one count of rape, three counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and one count of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child. He was found guilty after a trial and sentenced to a gaol term of 14 years.

Whilst it is good and proper that this rapist Islamic savage has been imprisoned, Ambush Predator raised the very pertinent point that prior to Uddin’s arrest his behaviour should have given cause for concern to the store management. He was known to have kept condoms in his work desk and had a poor record for keeping records of shoplifters who had been apprehended. He had also asked colleagues to delete CCTV footage.

It is my belief from studying this story that any one of these infractions of procedure should have caused management to take an interest in Uddin’s behaviour and performance. Unfortunately these alarm bell incidents were either not noticed or not followed up and the big question for me is why this was the case?

Was it for instance that the management, whether that be local or more broadly, didn’t want to point the finger at Uddin for fear that Uddin might play the ‘race card’ when asked about the deletion of CCTV footage and poor record keeping? Was a fear of a long drawn out and damaging court or employment tribunal case involving Uddin a factor in why relatively obvious issues with Uddin’s performance and behaviour not dealt with? Obviously we do not know and may not find out, but as there have been other high profile cases of Muslims bringing vexatious court and tribunal cases, maybe this factor should not be entirely discounted as a reason for Uddin not being stopped earlier?

It’s difficult to understate the fear that many businesses, especially small businesses have, of being subjected to a fake ‘race’ case being brought against them. Even if the business is patently not guilty of any sort of discrimination, these cases are both expensive and time consuming to fight. I fear that until this sort of lawfare by those who play the race and religion cards is curbed, then there may very well be many more Uddin’s operating and getting away with serious crimes or stuff that may be not criminal but would count as gross misconduct. They wil get away with these things because of fear of the cost of dealing with a ‘race card’ complaint may be stopping management from firing or reporting to the police minority staff who do bad or criminal things.