Talk:Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article.--KGV (Talk) 05:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Residence

I don't know why my addition of the fact that he also lives in the Aldersbrook area of London (E12) was deleted. I have seen him there various times (I also live there), he currently has a planning application to the local authority there posted outside his house (and has previously had others posted there, before) and his car, from a Sheffield dealer, is in his driveway.

It may be argued that the place of residence of someone is not generally for Wikipedia. I would agree with that but there already exists a reference claiming he continues to live in Rotherham. Wikipedia profiles of politicians are notorious for their hagiographical content. If it is written that he continues to live in his home town then my addition should remain. Alternatively both places should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.200.152 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 12 January 2009

The fact that you have seen him does not make it a valid addition to Wikpedia. See Wikipedia:No original research. The link you added is not working at present. Also, when you add links, please could you format them properly, not just paste in a bare URL. Other authors have taken time to format references nicely for this article. If you must add this detail about where he lives, at least take the trouble to rewrite the whole paragraph. As it stands it doesn't read very well. I don't know what you mean by "hagiographical". But adding the fact that he lives in your street makes it look like you are boasting about the fact a lord lives nearby. JRawle (Talk) 00:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't added original research - my comments about seeing him are just reported here in 'talk' - I used a source (planning application details from a local authority) to support this addition. I shall try and tidy up the link (as much as my technical abilities allow). I think the para reads fine; it shows its evolution.

My point about "hagiographical" is that the profiles of many politicians seem to be often written, or amended, by their staff. I don't know who added the bit about him still living in Rotherham but I read it as likely to be an addition put there just to portray him as sticking to his roots. If whoever wishes to state he lives there then other residences should be also added. Personally I'd delete both but I was disinclined to delete a fact (living in Rotherham) that I have no knowledge about, hence my factual addition.

I have no interest, whatsoever, in happening to live near a Lord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.207.223 (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The unaltered link works for me and also follows the format (albeit longer) of the first foot note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.207.223 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The link is working now. I've formatted the two bare URL references. The first time details of his address were added, there was no reference, which is why it was removed. I agree it's not really necessary to say where he lives, and I don't think there's a reference for him living in Rotherham. JRawle (Talk) 11:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the Aldersbrook statement from the WP page. There's been no confirmation other than the planning application. This guy is a property developer (strangely absent from the WP) and that application is for 3 dwellings on one site. Do the maths. The reference to the application was removed to protect his address, which is a bit silly as his real address is easily visible (assuming the Cracrofts Peerage reference is correct). The application reference was 04/01184/FUL and it was with Barking & Dagenham. Bromley86 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Calls For Capture Of US President/Former US President - Suspended From Labour Party

According to a BBC report <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17723890>, he has been suspended from the party after allegations he called for a £10m bounty for the capture of US President Obama and President Bush.

Lord Ahmed is reported to have made the call after the US offered a $10m bounty for the conviction of the founder of a Pakistani-based militant group. He denied offering a bounty, saying he was talking about "war crimes" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Labour Party said if the comments were true they "utterly condemn" them. Lord Ahmed's alleged remarks, published in the Express Tribune newspaper, were said to have been made in response to an announcement from Washington earlier this month of a $10m bounty for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Hafiz Saeed, the founder of the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group. The Indian government blames Mr Saeed and his organisation of carrying out several militant attacks on its territory, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Ahmed, according to the Express Tribune, said: "If the US can announce a reward of $10m for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of £10m on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.225.188 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, he cannot sit as a lord due to his criminal conviction and subsequent jail term so it does look like he's finished as a politician of any stripe. Twobells (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sort of buried the lead here. The fact that the party suspended him PALES in comparison to his calling for the illegal capture of two American Presidents. Maybe if he murders Obama with his car you people will stop defending him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.196.81 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

header changed and updated with latest info, seems that Ahmed's title is being considered for revoke under the Titles Deprivation Act Twobells (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that referring to his suspension is burying the lede. These allegations (and the other "controversies" associated with him) are significant because he is a public figure; and he is a public figure largely because of his political career. If he were some random millionaire the allegations would hardly be newsworthy. Joe in Australia (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Media Reports

Here is detail on a lot of what was reported in Pakistani media; http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/6288.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.194.96 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Appointment

Why was Ahmed appointed to the House of Lords?76.246.36.153 (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably because he had blackmail information he could use to pressure other nonces. 2601:647:4D81:4206:8D65:1E62:E21A:53EA (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Point of view/contentious article

This is a good question per se, but please--also see all the foregoing disussions and notes etc: the article has several highly contentious points and is non neutral. It requires to be submitted to a very rigorous and expert editorial cutting/check and amendment, please, thanks. 39.54.58.4 (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)D'Olyly Vere

Claim to be "first Muslim life peer"

Do we have a source for this claim? As it's manifestly false (there weren't three Muslim peers created at the same time - Lord Alli and Baroness Uddin were both created peers a couple of weeks before Lord Ahmed), it would seem to be an odd claim to make. Proteus (Talk) 15:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The article as it stands also makes the astonishing claim that " Ahmed become one of the three first Muslim peers in the United Kingdom" sic. This is manifestly untrue; the first three Muslim peers of the United Kingdom were Francis Mathew, 2nd Earl Landaff, Henry Stanley, 3rd Baron Stanley of Alderley, and Rowland Allanson-Winn, 5th Baron Headley (unless I have missed someone in the interim).

I understand that the difference between life peers (granted seats in the House of Lords for the duration of their lives) and hereditary peers (who may pass on the appointment along with their title) is not necessarily apparent since it is common to refer to both groups simply as "members of the House of Lords", but the distinction in this case is important and should be carefully observed when writing about the subject. I am sure Baron Ahmed would not wish to be thought of as a long-dead figure, as all the other early Muslim peers are. 92.13.240.111 (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Baroness Warsi was also missing from the list, so I've added her and changed the text to read "Ahmed is one of the four current Muslim peers in the United Kingdom". "four current" is a bit awkward, but seems better than "four living", unless someone can think of better usage. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Amended the claim to be the the first Muslim life peer as it's not the case - the other two peers were created a couple of weeks before him.Bromley86 (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Reinstated the claim that Ahmed claims he's the first Muslim peer (actually life peer, just to avoid the obvious counter). I assume that the person who originally wrote it in based it on something and, although the interview linked to doesn't have Ahmed specifically saying he's the first, he responds to a question that states he is without correcting them. Bromley86 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Per a recent edit[1], becoming a peer (per the Letters Patent) does not mean you're a member of the House of Lords. That doesn't happen until you're introduced and swear an oath. I've checked and Baroness Uddin and Lord Alli were introduced to the HoL (21 July 1998[2]) before Lord Ahmed's introduction (13 August 1998[3]), so the claim doesn't stem from when they were introduced. Didn't bother adding that to the article, as it'd make it unwieldy. Bromley86 (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Jewish conspiracy allegations

Currently reads: "On the 14th of March 2013, reports surfaced that Lord Ahmed had blamed a Jewish conspiracy for his driving conviction.[36] He allegedly said in an interview in Pakistan that the judge who jailed him was appointed to the High Court after helping a "Jewish colleague" of former Prime Minister Tony Blair during an important case.[37] Lord Ahmed was suspended from the Labour party, for the second time.[38]"

I'd removed the second sentence (referring to the judge), as it's all part of the same conspiracy claim Further, from what I can see (without having access to the full transcript), the reference to the judge appears to represent a small fraction of his allegation, the main part being that the "Jewish media" placed pressure on the courts. It's been reinstated now because of the presence of Blair's name, but I'm not clear exactly what allegation Ahmed's making with the statement as reported (i.e. " the judge who jailed him for 12 weeks was appointed to the High Court after helping a “Jewish colleague” of Tony Blair during “an important case”.”"

I'd suggest that the whole conspiracy is expanded on as soon as someone gets their hands on the transcript. Until then, best remove the reference to the judge as that's (IMO) drawing attention away from the core of this alleged allegation.Bromley86 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, agreed. We're probably getting a very rushed and inaccurate version of what's actually happened and been said, and there's no need to hurry with this. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool, edited out. Looks like there are 4 transcripts, so we should have sight of one sooner or later. Looks like all of the reports are based on the Times one (which is subscription, unfortunately, but which likely doesn't have the transcript anyway). Still, I've yet to see one that emphasises the role of the judge vs. the general Jewish conspiracy.Bromley86 (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A week has gone by, and I still can't find anything online saying which Pakistani TV station he's alleged to have appeared on, let alone a transcript in Urdu or English. I'm going to re-word mentions of it in the intro and the new section to note that it's only an allegation at this point, rather than take an word of a single newspaper as proof, even though it's been widely repeated in other sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I've seen screenshots of the interview reproduced, but of course that means nothing in itself. Here's a reproduction of the Times article (although of course we can't use it in WP).

http://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/ahmed-in-the-times-one/

Frankly though, given his resignation from the JIF because of this, I'd be amazed if it wasn't true. Why resign if the transcript that his lawyers have been provided with is not an accurate one? Bromley86 (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It certainly seems that way, but we have to keep WP:BLP in mind. If this turns out to be a hoax or a smear campaign, then all they have to do is issue a timely retraction and point out that they acted in good faith on apparently valid evidence. Captain Conundrum (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Also note in his statement on the JIF website, he says he's resigning to protect the JIF, but refers to the matter twice as "allegations". So I can't see how we can call it anything other than an allegation, absent reasonable proof. Captain Conundrum (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the following is right for inclusion at the moment, but it might be useful when the antisemitism section gets fleshed out in supporting Medhi Hasan's assertion (on the back of the reports about Lord Ahmed's comments) of endemic antisemitism in certain sections of the Muslim community. “Lord Ahmed has, in fact, been made the target of a deep-rooted vendetta by the rivals – mostly the Jews lobby for his “crime” of exposing the increased anti-Muslim approach and policies of the Jews including their backed British media”, observed Mir Muhammad Sideeque Khawaja, Chairman Kashmir Watch International" [4][5]. (Love the reporting in that second one, "an alleged road accident while taking an alleged cellphone call during driving" - it ceases to be an allegation when you plead guilty to it!). Unsurprisingly, given the importance of Kashmir to Lord Ahmed, he knows Khawaja.[6] Bromley86 (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

2009 Expulsion from Labour party?

So, was he expelled in 2009, as per the Sky cite in the main article? http://news.sky.com/story/677016/jailed-peer-ahmed-freed-early-from-prison

I've a feeling that he might not have been, as I can't find any mention of him being let back in after his release. However, I've seen a number of reports that mention that he would have been automatically expelled. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1155043/Labour-peer-Lord-Ahmed-jailed-12-weeks-text-message-death-crash-M1.html Bromley86 (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Secondary Modern or Comprehensive?

Minor point and one I'm not certain of, so I've not reverted. Born 1957. Immigrated when 12, so 1969. Per Oakwood High School, Rotherham article, Spurley Hey became a comp in the mid 60s. So likely a comp when Lord Ahmed attended? Bromley86 (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, you're right. I'll revert it now, thanks. Captain Conundrum (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The World Forum

Any objections to me deleting that section? There's almost nothing out there about TWF and even its own website is remarkable free of real content. Bromley86 (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If he's still on the board, and if there's still an article about it, then it makes sense to mention it here, though a sentence in another section would be adequate, rather than a separate section. However, a case could be made for deletion of The World Forum: I can likewise find almost nothing about it online from a Google search (including Gnews and Gbooks). Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got a couple of hits using the prime patron, HH Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Both from the main UAE/Dubai-based newspaper Gulf News. The earliest reads like a prelim press brief[7], whilst the second mentions what was presumably to be the first meeting April 2007[8]. No report on how that meeting went (or even that it actually went ahead) and no subsequent reports. Sounds like The World Forum has fizzled, as with HH & Khalaf Al Habtoor involved I'd expect it to be constantly in a paper like the Gulf News if it hadn't. Bromley86 (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Using KaH's name, I've found confirmation of that first meeting actually taking place.[9] Bromley86 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Entry removed now as TWF wiki page has been deleted. Bromley86 (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Libya visit

Removed the Libya visit following from Controversies as there was no real controversy. Lord Ahmed's piece in the Guardian said, "Parts of the British media have already mischaracterised my visit to Libya as a "peace mission to Gaddafi"." However, there was only one article I could find with a negative spin on the visit - the Telegraph[10]. The Guardian ran a pretty complimentary article on it[11], and everyone else seems to have missed it. Bromley86 (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Lord Ahmed, just plain Ahmed or a mix?

At the moment we have a mix of styles in the article re. use of the honourific "Lord".

WP MoS is on the fence on this one; basically, they seem to say "figure it out yourselves". Way I see it, there's 3 ways to do it:

1. As far as the article is concerned, he's "Lord Ahmed" every time we mention his name (except when he's referred to as "he")

2. He's "Ahmed" at all times other than when we're discussing his investiture

3. He's "Ahmed" before his investiture and "Lord Ahmed" after.

Although the pedant in me likes (3), I can see that it'd get a bit messy and not be immediately clear to future editors. I looked at Lord Levy (predominantly plain Levy, but as with this article a mix of styles). Lord Archer is plain Archer throughout. Likewise, looking at the peers mentioned in this article, Baroness Uddin, Lord Alli are plain-name throughout, although Baroness Warsi suffers from a lack of consistency, naming-wise.

An argument against (1). Consistency across WP would argue against it, as AFAIK there are some lords out there who have "of somewhere" as part of their official title. Lord Ahmed isn't one of them (so he shouldn't be referred to as Lord Ahmed of Rotherham), but Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is (i.e. he shouldn't be referred to as plain Lord Ahmad). So, to avoid cluttering up the encyclopedia with Lord xxxxx of yyyyy, it might just be better to default to plain xxxxx.

Another argument against (1) and (3) might be how we treat royals; so the British monarch is called Elizabeth, not Queen Elizabeth. Although I accept that's a different case, it's perhaps related.

When talking about him, I invariably refer to him as "Lord Ahmed". Ditto for other Lords/Ladies/etc; to do otherwise feels passive-aggressive. I'd say the same for news articles on them. However, within the text of an encyclopaedia, my vote is for (2). Bromley86 (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bromley86. Great set of questions. I would prefer Lord Ahmed in the lead and perhaps first bio line (or first mention of his investiture), and Ahmed thereafter. My regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks GCS. Went with your suggestion; he's Lord Ahmed in the lead, Ahmed elsewhere. I did leave one Lord Ahmed in just after the investiture, as there was a certain symmetry given the context (it's talking about exactly when he was raised) and it fits with your preference. Obvious I didn't touch his name if it was in a quote. Bromley86 (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by Houses of Parliament-based editor(s)

There's been a number of edits recently from 194.60.38.198, which apparently is registered to Parliament.[12]

There's nothing wrong with that, unless you're aware of a conflict of interest, but please explain why you're making the edits. Especially if it's removal of cited material. Bromley86 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Baby Milk

There's been a couple of recent attempts to add a baby milk scandal. I've reverted these for a few reasons:

1. There's only one mention in anything like a reliable source, The Guardian.[13] One mention means it wasn't really a controversy.

2. BLP. This is a biography of a living person. As such, anything that's in it needs to be solid, rather than vague accusations. That Guardian article doesn't sufficiently assert that he did anything wrong.

3. Neutrality. We need to be neutral; these entries have not been (even without the bolding of statements in inappropriate places. Bromley86 (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

1. I disagree here, just because it wasn't picked up by other electronic papers in 2002 doesn't mean it was not a controversy. The source IS reliable and just becuase the topic that not of much interest to electronic versions of other papers, doesn't nullify its veracity.

The controversy is: For a UK politician that is a regular commentator in the House of Lords on Pakistani issues, to lobby for a corporation at the European parliament, and subsequently accepted paid positions and paid trips. Especially when that corporation has been accused of promoting unsafe bottle feeding instead of breast feeding in Pakistan where water supplies are often polluted, resulting in thousands of bottle fed children dying of diarrhoea.

All of which have documentary evidence, as stated in the article in a reliable source, The Guardian.--Tamaaz Khan (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Nothing vague here. Ahmed acknowledged all the facts himself which are present in the article. Ahmed first attempted to lobby on behalf of Nestle and later when pressed by the BBC it was learnt he had undetaken a paid position and paid promotional trip.

from the article

"They have suggested [the advisory role] because of my interest in other countries [namely Pakistan]," said Lord Ahmed.

Labour MEP Richard Howitt, European parliament spokesman on corporate responsibility, urged the peer to reconsider and warned him his independence would be compromised if he accepted an official position with Nestlé.

Nestlé has been accused of promoting unsafe bottle feeding instead of breast feeding in countries such as Pakistan where water supplies are often polluted, resulting in thousands of bottle fed children dying of diarrhoea."

On the Register of Lords' Interests: As on 16 July 2004 he listed as "*12(d) Non-parliamentary consultant Consultant on International Affairs to Nestle" [14]--Tamaaz Khan (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Accepted--Tamaaz Khan (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

1. It doesn't have to be electronic; you can cite an offline source. However, it does have to be reliable. This is not reliable. Neither is this. I'm not saying they're not true, just that they'll fail any reliability test in a BLP. (I'd be hesitant to use the BBC radio recording mentioned [15] as it's self-recorded, but it doesn't really add anything (other than Ahmed's motivations for changing his mind which, on the surface and to a disinterested bystander, seem reasonable)).

2. Going purely on the information presented in the Guardian[16], it is vague. First, it doesn't report that he's been paid anything (just that they were talking) (that register of interests[17] confirms it though). Second, the fact-finding mission is a reasonable thing for him to have done; likewise, changing one's mind is a reasonable thing to do. Finally, the article doesn't actually make any hard accusations (i.e. words like bribe, malfeasance, etc.).

3. On style, linking to the film isn't right; either Syed Aamar Raza has an article/section, or they're not linked. Wikilinking titles (Baby Milk Scandal Lobbying) isn't done either, AFAIK.

There may be scope to include it in the Controversies section, but in a very cut down form without its own sub-section; so I've added it. What I haven't added is all the extraneous info, as it's not relevant here. It's really not a big part of his life and hasn't seemed to get him into any trouble. Put like that, my edit may get cut by someone else. Bromley86 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The existence of Babar

I didn't add this as a cite, because it's arguably in WP terms lower quality than The Peerage. I will add this, as it's unarguably of higher quality. Bromley86 (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3317931/the-intimidation-of-short
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/register-of-lords-interests/lords-interests-amendments/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Rape - charged or convicted?

The introduction says Lord Ahmed has been convicted of rape in 2019 but the section only mentions him being charged. Which is it? This needs correcting. If both then additional information is needed. Andrew Swallow (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

• Ahmed was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison by Mr Justice Wilkie, which meant he would serve six weeks in jail, and he was disqualified from driving for 12 months.

Why does "12 weeks in prison" equate to "six weeks in jail"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Late reply but: non-life prison sentences in Britain are served behind bars to the halfway point (two thirds if a serious crime). For the remainder of the sentence, the convict is back in society, under restrictions if required, and can be recalled to prison if he or she reoffends in that time. I agree it should have been worded better. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Status after retiring from HoL

My understanding (after an initial error) is that Ahmed as of January 2022 is still a lord (Lord Ahmed of Rotherham aka Baron Ahmed), but no longer a member of the House of Lords. Is he still a Lord Temporal? Wikipedia (not an authority!) says without source "The Lords Temporal are secular members of the House of Lords, the upper house of the British Parliament". This in contrast with Lords Spritual, bishops in the HoL. So is a Lord who is not a member of the HoL a Lord Temporal? Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Controversies

I imagine the article is being edited right now, so I'll let it settle down. I'll come back in a few hours.

I think much of the article currently violates WP:BLP, and there is a lot of material in the Controversies section that is over-the-top polarized, without contributing useful information.

When I come back, I'll just excize stuff that I think violates policy. I'm not going to do much checking of sources, because WP:RS isn't my main problem with this article.

If you disagree with my edits once I've made them, revert me, and then come here and talk.

MrDemeanour (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It's mostly cited; in the end I removed just one uncited claim. But a lot of what remains is "cited", only in the sense that the citation confirms that "X said Y about Ahmed, who denied it". I don't think stuff like that belongs in a WP:BLP, so I may revisit. It amounts to rumours, with citations to show that the rumours really were spread.

12:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"committed whilst he himself was below the age of consent"

Is this appropriate, especially in the lede? It doesn't look like the article cited mentions this, nor do I believe he was being charged with statutory rape. And is it factually correct that all his offences were committed while under the age of consent? I believe it was 16 at the time, and he was 17 for some of them. Although the age of consent for homosexuals was 21 at that time. Don't know if the UK has Romeo & Juliet laws, or whether they had them in the 70s. Still, I don't understand how age of consent is relevant in a case like this. KRLA18 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)