Thanks to a "lurker" for the pointer to The Economist's easier to read report and with a link to the published UK government report's summary.http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasm...im-brotherhood

The report:https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...n_Findings.pdf

A fine balancing act for some, as The Economist cites the two author's views:
In a relatively tough judgment, one of the report's co-authors, Sir John Jenkins, concluded:

For the most part, the Muslim Brotherhood have preferred non-violent incremental change on the grounds of expediency, often on the basis that political opposition will disappear when the process of Islamisation is complete. But they are prepared to countenance violence—including, from time to time, terrorism—where gradualism is ineffective.
But the report's other co-author, Charles Farr, offered a more lenient view of Brotherhood-inspired groups working in Britain. He found that "such groups had in the past held out the prospect and ambition of an Islamic state in this country as elsewhere" but went on to insist that "there was no indication that the Muslim Brotherhood still held this view or at least openly promoted an Islamic state here."