Here is the full Ofcom judgement as it relates to Undercover Mosque, aired by Channel 4 on Dispatches:

Introduction
Undercover Mosque was an edition of Channel 4’s investigative current affairs series Dispatches. The programme reported the observations of an undercover reporter who visited a number of Mosques and Islamic organisations in Britain. The programme stated that it had discovered extremism being preached in this country: “…an ideology of bigotry and intolerance spreading through Britain with its roots in Saudi Arabia”.

The programme included secretly filmed footage taken from Mosques and organisations. The undercover recordings featured the teachings of several speakers which the programme alleged to be homophobic, anti-Semitic, sexist and condemnatory of non-Muslims. The programme also included excerpts from books, CDs and DVDs that had been purchased from these Islamic centres, and from websites which were connected to the Mosques.

The programme included a number of excerpts from preachers and teachers such as:

“Allah created the woman deficient”.
“…it takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man”.
“By the age of ten, it becomes an obligation on us to force her [young girls] to wear
hijab, and if she doesn’t wear hijab, we hit her”.
“…take that homosexual and throw him off the mountain”.
“Whoever changes his religion from Al Islam to anything else – kill him in the Islamic state”.

The views of representatives from mainstream Islam were also included, as were responses to the allegations made by the speakers and organisations who had been covertly filmed.

Viewers’ complaints
Ofcom received 364 complaints soon after the programme was broadcast. There appeared to be evidence that the complaints were part of a campaign. The complaints were that:

• the programme was offensive to Muslims and demonstrated bias;
• speakers were shown espousing views that were offensive to non-Muslims;
• the programme glorified racism, anti-semitism, sexism and terrorism; and
• the portrayal of Mosque speakers covertly filmed for the programme was misleading.

Ofcom considered these complaints under Rule 2.2 (factual programmes must not materially mislead the audience) (see also complaint from West Midlands Police below), Rule 2.3 (the application of “generally accepted standards”), and Rule 3.1 (material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder must not be included in television programmes).

West Midlands Police Complaint
On 10 August 2007, West Midlands Police (“WMP”) complained to Ofcom about the programme.

West Midlands Police Major Investigation Unit had launched an investigation, immediately after the programme was transmitted, into whether criminal offences had been committed by those teaching or preaching at the Mosques and other establishments. In order to carry out this investigation, the WMP said that it required access to the material that was not broadcast.

On the 26 March 2007, the WMP obtained a production order for the unseen secretly recorded footage from Channel 4.

The findings of the WMP were presented to the Crown Prosecution Service (“the CPS”), who concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against any person featured in the programme.

However, the WMP stated that it and the CPS had then considered potential offences that may have been committed by those involved in the production and broadcast of the programme – specifically in relation to stirring up racial hatred. The CPS reviewed the available evidence and advised that “a realistic prospect of a conviction was unlikely”.

The WMP then referred the programme to Ofcom. It stated that it was “concerned with matters of public reassurance and the reduction of crime and disorder in all communities in the West Midlands area”. The WMP complained that:

• the programme had been subject to such an intensity of editing that those who had been featured in the programme had been misrepresented (creating an unfair, unjust and inaccurate perception of both some speakers and sections of the Muslim community within the West Midlands);
• the footage had been edited in a way that resulted in material being broadcast in a form so altered from the form originally delivered that it was “sufficient to undermine community cohesion”; and
• the programme was “likely to undermine feelings of public reassurance and safety of those communities in the West Midlands for which the Chief Constable has a responsibility”.

The WMP isolated five broadcast sequences as examples of instances where it said the editing process by the programme makers had led to a possible distortion of speakers’ comments (see Response below). It transcribed these five instances and asked for a comparison to be made between the original unedited speech and the extracts that were actually broadcast in the programme. On each occasion, the WMP highlighted what it called the “possible distortions as a result of editing”.

WMP also had some general concerns about the programme. These were that:

• the narrative provided in the programme potentially provided the viewer with pre-conceived ideas as to what a speaker was trying to convey;
• speeches from DVDs and internet broadcasts were played against footage from the Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham (“the Mosque”) which could have led to the perception that the speech was being delivered in the Mosque; and
• the programme may not have accurately reflected daily life in the Mosque.

Ofcom considered the WMP complaint under Rule 2.2 (factual programmes must not materially mislead the audience).

Response
Channel 4 said that WMP had made very serious allegations. However, the broadcaster added that, from a detailed consideration of the transcripts provided by the WMP and its own analysis of the making and broadcast of the programme, these allegations were “utterly without foundation”.

In Channel 4’s view, Undercover Mosque was an entirely responsible programme made in accordance with both the Code and best practice; and it raised issues very much in the public interest. Channel 4 said that WMP presented no case to answer in respect of the channel’s obligations under the Code and wholly failed to support its damaging allegations about the making of the programme.

Channel 4 indicated that the investigation which resulted in Undercover Mosque involved not only surreptitious filming but a careful analysis of specialist internet broadcasts and DVDs sold at Mosques and other Islamic institutions. The programme was made and edited over a nine month period. A thorough and timely opportunity to respond to the programme’s evidence and allegations was provided to the individuals and organisations featured critically in the programme and Channel 4 said its position was fairly reflected in the programme.

Channel 4 described how, after it had supplied the untransmitted material to WMP pursuant to the Court Order, it heard no more from WMP until the complaint by WMP to Ofcom. There had been no indication that the makers of the programme and Channel 4 would or had become the focus of the WMP investigation (as opposed to the preachers whose statements formed the basis of the Court Order).

It said that the compilation of five sequences from the programme contained in the WMP complaint and the transcript of the untransmitted sections provided in support was fundamentally inaccurate. Channel 4 said that WMP had not translated certain Arabic words and sentences, some of which carry a specialist meaning. The channel said it had engaged a firm of external solicitors and an experienced multi-lingual journalist and specialist in Middle East politics, Islamic Studies and Islamist organisations to correct the text. Channel 4 supplied Ofcom with what it viewed as this corrected transcript.

Channel 4 first made the general point that it appeared that WMP had a fundamental mis-understanding of the editing process by which television programmes are legitimately made. The channel said it was inevitable, in condensing a nine month investigation involving many hours of material, some secretly filmed, some from internet broadcasts and some from specialist DVDs, that there would be significant selection, distillation and subsequent editing of material and statements. However, the crucial principle is that no individual must have their words taken out of context or have their known views and position distorted or mis-represented so as to cause unfairness or mislead the audience.

Channel 4 said that it seemed to be the view of the investigative team at WMP that selecting one or more sentences from a longer speech and editing these into a programme, sometimes with an internal edit not immediately apparent to the viewer, is of itself improper and mis- leading. Channel 4 said this betrayed “staggering naivety” about the process of television production.

In relation to the five sequences that had been isolated by WMP (examined in detail below), Channel 4 asked Ofcom to consider them in the full context of the programme as a whole. The programme, it said, bore the clear and unambiguous message that extreme, anti-democratic and unpalatable views were being preached in a number of mainstream Mosques and Islamic organisations which claim to be committed to interfaith dialogue. The programme did not contend that any individuals were committing actual or potential criminal offences and all statements broadcast were shown in context and, where appropriate, the response of the individual concerned was fairly edited in the programme itself.

Five Sequences (as identified by WMP)
Channel 4 gave a detailed response to each allegation made by WMP. Below are the five sequences identified as misrepresented by WMP with the WMP’s allegation alongside Channel 4’s response.

Sequence 1
The programme introduced Dr Ijaz Mian as a “travelling speaker”, who gives talks at different organisations in Britain. Dispatches said that he praised the Saudi religious police and wanted to see them operating on the streets. The programme then went on to say that, “He has a radical plan for this country. Muslims shouldn’t accept British democracy”.

Dr Mian is then seen preaching saying: “King, Queen, House of Commons. If you accept it, then you are part of it. You don’t accept it, but you have to dismantle it. So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target, there will be no House of Commons. From that White House to this black house, we know that we have to dismantle it”.

WMP said that this quote suggests that “Dr Mian is inciting Muslims to target the public institutions of the UK and the West and directly dismantle them”. It pointed out that in the unbroadcast footage, Dr Mian explained that you could “[not] detonate…and destroy the building”.

WMP therefore argued that it was clear that Dr Mian’s means of dismantling is not through force but through persuasion. It said also that there are long sentences between comments edited together.

Channel 4 said that although there were several internal edits of Dr Mian’s speech, none distorted the meaning of what Dr Mian was saying in his speech. In support of this argument Channel 4 quoted another extract from this particular speech in which Dr Mian says “I would like to replace all these with Masjid, Masjid, Masjids”.

According to Channel 4, Dr Mian was saying that he would like to replace churches and temples with Mosques. In the speech, he is seen saying “…there will be a House of Commons but they will decide every issue in accordance with the Book of Allah and the example of the Prophet”.

Channel 4 said that once seen in context, it had accurately distilled and represented what Dr Mian was saying on this issue, i.e. that Muslims should reject and “dismantle” British democracy and democratic institutions and replace them with Islamic law and institutions.

Sequence 2
The programme introduced Abu Usamah. It stated that he preached at Birmingham’s Green Lane Mosque and he was its main English speaking preacher. The programme’s commentary then stated that Abu Usamah says that “Christians and Jews are enemies to Muslims”, Abu Usamah is then seen preaching:

“It has come to pass that the Nassara..the Yahud, America, the UK, France, Germany, they have come against the religion of Islam. Why give up your religion and your long legacy of Islam, to please someone who is the enemy to you?”

WMP objected to the fact that eight minutes of comments were edited from Abu Usamah’s speech. It said that in those eight minutes nearly every region or race including Arabs is described as an “enemy of Islam”. It said that the broadcast version only included western countries and Jews. It also said that while the tenor of the unbroadcast speech was unconfrontational, the comments were edited together presenting a more aggressive speech.

Channel 4 said that while there were two internal edits in this section, it in no way distorted the clear and ordinary meaning of Abu Usamah’s words. It also pointed out that, according to its expert translator, the police had omitted the sentence immediately preceding the second sentence broadcast. Channel 4 took the view that the translation of this statement clearly demonstrated that the editing process had not distorted the words of Abu Usamah. This was because the sentence showed Abu Usamah returning specifically to the topic of the Jews and the Christians immediately before that second sentence. According to Channel 4 he says (in Arabic): “Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion” (a quotation from the Qur’an: Chapter 2: verse 120).

Sequence 3
In this section of the programme, the voiceover states that the reporter had secretly filmed Abu Usamah teaching that “jihad is coming against the unbelievers”. Abu Usamah is then seen preaching:

“Verily Allah going to bring a group of people that he loves and they love him. These people will be soft and kind to the believers but they will be rough and tough against the kuffaar, they will fight in the cause of Allah. I encourage all of you to be amongst them, to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fastly approaching where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in a position of being uppermost in strength, and when that happens, people won’t get killed – unjustly”.

WMP believed that this quote suggested that Abu Usamah was encouraging people to be in a group to fight non-believers in the cause of Allah. It referred to a final unbroadcast paragraph in the speech which, it says, makes it clear that Muslims should not kill because they have been oppressed.

Channel 4 maintained that there was no misrepresentation whatsoever of the natural and ordinary meaning of Abu Usamah’s words. It said that WMP overlooked the full context of the programme and had failed to translate one Arabic sentence in which the speaker says: “Oh ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from His Faith soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him. Lowly would the Believers, mighty against the Rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault.”

The independent translator employed by Channel 4 notes that Abu Usamah actually misquotes from the Qur’an, using the word which means “fight” instead of the word which means “strive” or “struggle”. Channel 4 argued that the programme as a whole revealed that Abu Usamah did condemn what he refers to as “terrorism”. However, his speeches showed that he did not consider that “jihad” was actually terrorism and he prays that he and his listeners at the Mosque will be able to participate in this jihad soon against “the oppression of the kuffar”.

Channel 4 quoted extensively from the programme to illustrate this point.

Sequence 4
The programme presents another invited speaker, and the commentary states that the speaker refers to a Muslim who joined the British Army and was killed fighting against the Taliban. The speaker, known as Abdul Basit, says: “There was an individual who was killed in Afghanistan recently…it was a Muslim name. He came from a Pakistani family and do you know what they’ve written in the tabloid newspaper, ‘Hero of Islam’. ‘Hero of Islam’ who went into a Muslim Afghanistan to kill Muslims. Why? Because their crime is implementing Islam”.

The script says that the speaker then praises the Taliban fighters who killed him: “The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders”. WMP said that this comment was broadcast as it appeared in the undercover footage (although it was part of a longer speech).

Channel 4 said this section, as broadcast, was an entirely fair and accurate reflection of the views expounded by Abdul Basit to this audience.

Sequence 5
Here the commentary says that “kuffar” (described by Channel 4 to mean nonbeliever) is a word that the reporter often heard being used in a derogatory way.

When referring to kuffar, Abu Usamah says: “They are liars, they are terrorists themselves, liars. They will come before the people and talk and they are lying, you can’t believe them. He’s a pathological liar”.

WMP argued that the quote in the programme inferred that Abu Usamah is calling non- Muslims liars and terrorists. The full speech according to the WMP condemns terrorism. However, the WMP also states that “he [Abu Usamah] delivers comments that could constitute inciting religious hatred”.

With reference to the full transcript of the speech, Channel 4 insisted that Abu Usamah was calling all non-Muslims liars and terrorists and therefore it correctly and accurately represented what Abu Usamah said on this subject. Channel 4 then addressed the general concerns of WMP as follows:

• Channel 4 said it was demonstrably not the case that “the programme potentially provided the viewer with preconceived ideas as to what the speaker was trying to convey”. All extracts from speeches shown were set in their clear, correct and proper context.
• Channel 4 denied that the programme could have created any confusion on the part of a reasonable viewer as to where and in what context speeches were given. In particular, it said all undercover footage, speeches from DVDs and internet broadcasts were clearly labelled as such on screen with a caption with the title of the DVD and name of the broadcast and date where relevant.
• Channel 4 said it was not the purpose of the programme to “accurately reflect daily life in the Mosques concerned” as the WMP suggested, but rather “to demonstrate, as it powerfully did, that extreme views were being preached in some mainstream Mosques and Islamic organisations”.

Decision
Investigative journalism plays an essential role in public service broadcasting and is clearly in the public interest. Ofcom considers it of paramount importance that broadcasters, such as Channel 4, continue to explore controversial subject matter.

While such programmes can make for uncomfortable viewing, they are essential to our understanding of the world around us. It is inevitable such programmes which tackle highly sensitive subjects will have a high profile. Such controversial programmes may inevitably lead to a large number of complaints. However, investigative programming is amongst some of the most important content that broadcasters produce.

However, in dealing with such subject matters, broadcasters must always take care to ensure that the material broadcast is in accordance with both the general law and the Code. For instance, broadcasters must ensure that any offence caused is justified by the context, the content does not mislead viewers or those featured are not treated unfairly.

The vast majority of the audience understand that such documentaries are often edited down from hours of footage and, provided those featured in the programmes are not treated unfairly and that viewers are not materially misled, this is, of course, an acceptable practice.

It should be noted that complaints alleging misrepresentation of those featured in programmes – essentially allegations of unfair treatment of participants – can only be considered by Ofcom if made by those who participated in the programme and were the subject of that treatment or those with a sufficiently direct interest [2]. However, broadcasters must ensure that factual programmes (and portrayal of factual matters) must not materially mislead the audience so as to cause harm or potential harm.

Ofcom therefore investigated the viewers and WMP’s complaints under the following
relevant rules of the Code:

• Rule 2.2: Factual programmes…must not materially mislead the audience.
• Rule 2.3: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context.
• Rule 3.1: Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder must not be included in television…services.

[2] Ofcom has considered a fairness complaint from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, and a fairness and privacy complaint from The Islamic Cultural Centre and the London Central Mosque. The decision on these cases can be found on pages 44 – 67 of this bulletin.

Viewer Complaints
There were 364 complaints from viewers who believed that the portrayal of Islam was
offensive and biased. They stated that extremists were presented as representative of all Muslims and that the material broadcast was both racially and religiously offensive. Six of the complainants stated that the programme glorified racism, antisemitism, sexism and terrorism and complained that the inclusion of racist and sexist comments throughout the covertly filmed footage was itself offensive.

It is the case that Undercover Mosque did contain views and material that many would find offensive. The undercover reporter had secretly filmed evidence, and Channel 4 broadcast material, that would be considered offensive on grounds of religion, race, discrimination and beliefs. However, the transmission of such material is not itself a breach of the Code. Where such material is transmitted, broadcasters must ensure that generally accepted standards are applied, for instance by justifying the material by the context. In this case, its transmission was clearly justified by the context and in accordance with the Code. This was an in-depth investigative documentary exploring the existence of religious intolerance and extremist views being either preached or made available in some of the UK’s mainstream Mosques.

Ofcom considered that, in view of the editorial content of the programme (investigating the nature of views being expressed in some of Britain’s Mosques), the nature of the programme (a serious documentary focusing on an important issue of the day), Channel 4’s distinctive remit, the expectations of any given audience to a Dispatches edition (a strand known for its provocative exploration of current issues) and the clear statement at the start of the programme concerning the issues it sought to expose, any potential offence was justified by the context.

By investigating extremism and intolerance which existed in Mosques and other places, Channel 4 did not imply either explicitly or implicitly that such views were representative of all Muslims. On the contrary, Channel 4 had contributions from more mainstream Islamic representatives, which clearly put such extremism in context, explained that it belonged to a minority and was in fact unacceptable. The programme included contributions from representatives from mainstream Islam, namely Dr Irfan Al Alawi of the Islamic heritage foundation, Abdal-Hakim Murad of Cambridge University, Dr Taj Hargey of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, Mai Yamani, a Saudi author and Haras Rafiq of the Sufi Muslim Council.

The allegations made by the programme regarding the covertly recorded speeches were clearly identified by the programme as concerning a particular form of radical Islamic ideology which was contrasted with the views of the representatives of mainstream Islam also featured. In accordance with generally accepted standards, the extremist views put forward by some speakers were put within the context of a fuller understanding of the Muslim religion and there was no ‘bias’ in the programme against Islam.

Not in breach of Rule 2.3

While the programme certainly contained strong and emotive language, Ofcom did not consider that the transmission of these clips, when taken in the context of an investigative documentary could, on any reasonable judgement, be considered to have incited the commission of crime (such as race hatred). Each and every quote was justified by the narrative of the programme and put fully in context ensuring that none of the statements could be seen to glorify or glamorise violence or extremism.

Accordingly, Ofcom did not consider that the programme was likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder.

Not in breach of Rule 3.1

West Midlands Police Complaint
First, the WMP complained about five specific sequences in the programme which it said misrepresented speakers. Ofcom considered these complaints in so far as they related to (the standards objective) Rule 2.2 of the Code. This requires broadcasters to ensure that factual programmes do not “materially mislead the audience” so as not to cause harm or potential harm. Ofcom cannot consider complaints on the treatment and portrayal of those that featured in the programme unless it receives a complaint from (or on behalf of) those featured.

Sequence 1
In this section the WMP complained that the speaker, Dr Ijaz Mian, was misrepresented and appeared in the programme to be inciting Muslims to “target” public institutions. The WMP argued that the programme implied that the use of the term “dismantle” came across as a “forceful command” to dismantle British institutions.

In Ofcom’s view, taking into account the programme as broadcast and the unbroadcast material, Channel 4 did not portray or represent Dr Mian’s comments in a misleading way. It is clear from the programme that Dr Mian was not advocating violence or forceful action. Dr Mian’s comments were introduced by the programme, with the fact that he had a “radical plan for this country” and “Muslims shouldn’t accept British democracy”. The viewer would therefore understand that when Dr Mian said in his speech that he wanted to “dismantle” British institutions, this did not have violent undertones, but was in fact seeking support to reject and even bring down British institutions and democracy. In support of this, the unbroadcast footage is clear that Dr Mian was seeking to replace these British institutions with Islamic ones.

Further, it should be noted that the reason Dr Mian actually gives, in the unbroadcast footage, for not using violence was not moral or ethical, but because “…tomorrow they will build a bullet proof (sic) or do something different”.

For these reasons, Ofcom has concluded that this section of the programme was not
materially misleading.

Not in breach of Rule 2.2

Sequence 2
In this sequence, the programme states that that preacher Abu Usamah said that Christians and Jews were the enemies of Islam. Abu Usamah is then heard saying: “It has come to pass that the Nassara and the Yahud, America, the UK, France, Germany, they have come against the religion of Islam. Why give up your religion and your long legacy of Islam, to please someone who is the enemy to you?”

The WMP complained that Channel 4 omitted eight minutes of comments from Abu Usamah’s speech. The WMP was also concerned that the programme implied that in his speech Abu Usamah referred to a number of countries as the enemy of Islam, yet in the programme he was only seen referring to Western countries and Jews (i.e. Christians, Jews, America, the UK, France and Germany).

The removal of eight minutes of speech is not in itself materially misleading, provided the speaker is not misrepresented. Further, Ofcom does not consider that the representation of Abu Usamah’s comments here was misleading. By omitting some of the nationalities or organisations referred to in the speech (the Communists, the Socialists, the Latinos, the Africans, the Europeans), the audience was not materially misled into believing that the speech was more confrontational since it only mentioned Western countries.

It is also relevant to note that, in the untransmitted footage, just before the last sentence where Abu Usamah refers to “the enemy to you”, he quotes the Qur’an. He states “Walan tarda AAanka alyahoodu wala alnnasara hatta tattabiAAa millatahum” [3]. This is translated as, “…and never will Jews and the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion” [4]. It is therefore clear that the “enemy to you” in this part of the speech refers to Christians and Jews.

Ofcom has concluded that this section of the programme was not materially misleading.

Not in breach of Rule 2.2

Sequence 3
The WMP complained that Abu Usamah is seen, misleadingly, to be encouraging people to be in a group to fight non-believers. However, according to the WMP, Abu Usamah makes it clear that Muslims should not use their oppression as a reason to kill.

In Ofcom’s view, the sections chosen by Channel 4 reflected Abu Usamah’s speech in a way which did not materially mislead the audience. This section does not imply that Abu Usamah is encouraging or inciting people to violence. However, Abu Usamah states that when the Muslims are in the position of being “uppermost in strength … people won’t get killed unjustly” [our emphasis]. It is therefore clear from the section chosen in the programme that Abu Usamah has qualified his threat of killing people (as he does in his speech generally, e.g. people should not be killed indiscriminately or because they have been oppressed in the past). Nevertheless, the unbroadcast footage does confirm what is broadcast – that is, that while Abu Usamah is not making a direct call to action, he does suggest that violence will occur.

Ofcom has concluded that this section of the programme was not materially misleading.

Not in breach of Rule 2.2

[3] Qur’an: Chapter 2, verse 120.
[4] Translation of the Meaning of the Qur’an. Translated by Saheeh International – Jeddah.

Sequence 4
Here the speaker, Abdul Basit, criticises the Muslim who was a member of the British Army and was killed in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban. He denounces newspapers for calling him a hero and says that the real hero was the “one who separated his head from his shoulders”.

The WMP accepted that this section was broadcast as it appeared in the undercover footage. WMP acknowledged this quote from Abdul Basit’s speech is an unedited and direct quote from the speech – despite including this sequence in its complaint to Ofcom.

Having viewed the untransmitted footage, it is clear that this quote is unedited and in context.

Ofcom has concluded that this section of the programme was not materially misleading.

Not in breach of Rule 2.2

Sequence 5
WMP complained that that the programme infers that Abu Usamah is calling non-Muslims liars and terrorists. While his full speech according to the WMP condemns terrorism, the WMP also says that “he delivers comments that could constitute inciting religious hatred”.

It is unclear to Ofcom how this section could be viewed as materially misleading. The
quote is a direct quote. According to the WMP, the speaker condemns terrorism, but may incite religious hatred. However, it not clear why it is relevant that Abu Usamah condemns terrorism, when he is claiming that non-Muslims are liars and terrorists.

Ofcom has concluded that this section of the programme was not materially misleading.

Not in breach of Rule 2.2

In relation to the three general concerns raised by WMP, Ofcom found as follows:

• given that Ofcom has found that Channel 4 has not misrepresented any of the speakers (see above), it does not consider that the programme provided the viewers with pre-conceived ideas as to what the speakers were trying to convey;
• the programme made clear, either through the script or on-air captions, what the sources of DVD material or internet broadcasts were; and
• (with reference to WMP’s concern that the programme did not “accurately reflect daily life in the Mosque”) the choice of what material to include in a programme is an editorial decision for the broadcaster and not one on which Ofcom can or should intervene, unless there has been a breach of the Code.

However, it is important to note that the programme neither explicitly nor implicitly gave the impression that this programme set out to show daily life in the Mosque. The programme clearly stated that it was an undercover investigation into the promotion of extremist views and fundamentalist ideology in some of Britain’s Mosques. It was made clear to the audience that the establishments featured were, in some cases, unaware that such activities existed in their midst.

Undercover Mosque was a legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest. Ofcom found no evidence that the broadcaster had misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity.

On the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts), Ofcom found that the broadcaster had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context.

Not in breach.