Talk:Asad Ahmad

Moving forward

As you're both no doubt aware by now, I have arranged for the page to be protected. It appeared that the wheels were spinning, but we weren't getting a huge amount of traction. I am confident we can reach a consensus on this within a few days if we work together on this, and communicate. I'd like to ask you both to keep a couple of things in mind:

• Please sign all of your posts by putting 4 tildes on them. Properly signed posts are much easier to read than Hagerman's autosignatures.
• The most constructive wikipedia discussions are based on mutual respect. We may not all agree with each other, but we must all consider each others opinions, and remain civil at all times.

I plan on making minor edits to this section to improve formatting and flow. I will not change the meaning or wording of anyone's posts (although I'll remove breaches of WP:BLP as I have in the past). Please let me know on my talk page if you want to discuss my reformatting edits.

Could you both start by providing a list of things you feel are wrong in the current version of the article (relating to the harassment thing). Try to keep your reasoning short (a sentence should do it): You'll get a chance to provide better reasoning later. I'd even suggest leaving out references at this point. Please don't respond to other people's suggestions; again, you'll get a chance to do that soon (I'll temporarily remove rebuttals in the interest of keeping things focused). In the list below, please add anything you think should be changed, added, or removed. What we're trying to do here is get a list of things we can further discuss. -- Mark Chovain 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, at this point I'm going to assume you're both happy that the list is at least complete. If you want to add anything else to the list, it would be better to do it sooner rather than later. I'm creating a section below for separate discussion of each of the points. -- Mark Chovain 21:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes

• Change "no evidence" to "insufficient evidence", or remove it. "No evidence" suggests that the complainant never even made a statement (which I'm fairly sure would constitute evidence). The MPACUK ref even says that Rogers was willing to testify once the case was revived. -- Mark Chovain 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Replace MPACUK reference. It's better than nothing so should stay if we can't find anything better, but I don't feel it counts as a reliable source. -- Mark Chovain 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Add that CPS tried to drop the charges, but that Ahmad "used a little known right in the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985" to have the matter heard. -- Mark Chovain 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with the changes Mark Chovain proposes. --82.45.250.13 (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I don't have time to add my comments to these points just yet, sorry - I will try to do so within the next 12 hours though. -- Mark Chovain 21:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"no evidence" -> "insufficient evidence"

It's just wrong to say the CPS said there was no evidence. Choosing not to present it due to various concerns is a different thing. --82.45.250.13 (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel "no evidence to offer" should be included as this is the correct and exact legal term to use which is confirmed by the CPS's own website, so we should use it. The complainants statement is only an allegation which becomes evidence at trial - which is why the CPS use the terminology they do. 213.78.150.47 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Old discussion has been archived to here. The website to which 213 is referring is: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section3/chapter_f.html#_Toc44573527 -- Mark Chovain 22:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"exact legal term to use which is confirmed by the CPS's own website" - if it's on the CPS website, presumably you can provide us with a link? --82.45.250.13 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to CPS website was given above on the 24/2/08 20:53. please check. If you read the relevant part, you will see that "no evidence to offer" was the only legal avenue open for not going to trial. The other two reasons apply before a charge or before a plea - neither of which we know apply in this case, as Ahmad put in a plea - we know this as it was due to go to trial initially in Sept which only happens on a not guilty pleas and through his stataments at the tme referenced elsewhere. It's all there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.150.47 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided repeatedly uses the term "offer[ing] no evidence", but this does not automatically mean there is no evidence (note: I'm not suggesting that the existence of evidence in anyway implies any culpability or guilt. Witnesses are often mistaken or lie, documents can turn out to be misrepresented or forged, etc, but they still constitute evidence). The problem with saying that the CPS "accepted there was no evidence", is we know that there was evidence, but it was flaky at best: The statement and testimony of the complainant; the letters and emails the complainant claimed came from Ahmad.

Perhaps we could borrow wording from the CPS site, and reword this as: "In a pre-trial hearing, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence and the charge was dropped." What do you think?

Note, this also drops reference to the specific court, which seems incidental to me - I'm happy to discuss that separately if you like. -- Mark Chovain 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything else to say on this? Are you both happy for me to go ahead and change this? -- Mark Chovain 21:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds great. Note that wording which expressly says the CPS had no evidence to offer, as opposed to did not present evidence, is unsupported by reliable source. However as you're not suggesting that I am sure all will be well. --82.45.250.13 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am suggesting 'no evidence to offer' - and I am getting tired of pointing you in the direction of the website quoted previously which you are obviously ignoring. It clearly and reliably tells what the options for the CPS were. And it says clearly "no evidence to offer". Your version does not even exist legally in any situation and is therefore inaccurate and actually wrong for any case. The Mpac article doesn't come into it. If you don't want to accept the reasons which led to it, fine. But if you accept the case was dropped at any point before the trial - then "no evidence to offer" was the only legal terminology the CPS could use. I suggest again, read the link - unless you think the CPS website is unreliable!213.78.150.47 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Calm down, guys, we're almost there :). The link does not include the text "no evidence to offer", or am I overlooking some equivilent text? It does include "offer no evidence" (and other similar forms) in a number of places. I've based my version on the "Offering no evidence" section. -- Mark Chovain 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology to make to Mark... I had missed your suggestion above of "In a pre-trial hearing, the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence and the charge was dropped." . I think that is fair. As for a press release or confirmation of the court activities. I called the solicitors quoted in the article who I spoke to before. They are willing to confirm on the phone or fax or email and have Ahmad's statement as quoted in the Mpack piece but said they have not made it available on the internet. So I don't know where that leaves things. 132.185.240.122 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. These pseudo-threaded conversations can take some getting used to. I've made the change to the article.

Regarding your conversation with the solicitors, there's unfortunately not much we can do with information that comes out of the conversation. To count as a reliable source, it needs to have been published somewhere, whether that be a well-circulated, and preferably archived newspaper, a book, or at a reliable place on the web. Lawyers are often a bit cagey soon after a trial, especially if there's a chance of further action by either side. Perhaps that will change soon, and they'll release the statement publicly. -- Mark Chovain 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a generally confusing discussion page - an easy mistake. Other mistakes people can make - forgetting which computer they're writing comments from. I note the user above usually signs (or, rather, fails to) from IP 213. But the apology here comes from a BBC IP address. Whoops... 81.1.118.151 (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacing reference

Can either of you find an alternate reference for this? I'm not from the UK, so don't have much familiarity with searching your public records. Is there likely to be a press release, or maybe even court transcripts available on the web? While a proper news story would be best (and could completely replace the MPACUK ref), a press release or transcript would be great to help confirm the MPACUK reference. -- Mark Chovain 01:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Including brief timeline of the case

If we use CPS dropping charges, then we must include more as CPS discontinued charges and so again must stick to legal accuracies and go into revival which then becomes long winded. I thought you wanted to avoid that. 213.78.150.47 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense whatsoever. --82.45.250.13 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually disagree that it necessarily becomes long winded. I think that there were a lot of incidental details in the longer version we've seen pop up recently. I think that the interesting details in this case are the the following events:

• Ahmad was charged, but denied the charges.
• CPS dropped the charges citing "public interest" grounds
• Ahmad was disappointed with that decision,(we get that from the Irish ref) and had the case revived.(we get that from MPACUK)
• The CPS offered no evidence at pre-trial.

All of these events are either about actions taken by Ahmad, or affecting Ahmad, so are great for a biography. The bits I objected to in the long version came in 2 sections: they were either hyperbolic, smelled of agenda, or were just incidental space-fill. I think we can easily do all of the above events justice in 2 or 3 sentences. We don't need to hypothesise on why CPS changed their reasoning, or if they were lying; We don't have references for what was going through the investigators' minds, so all we can do is present the facts about Ahmad's life, and let the reader look further into it if they so desire. -- Mark Chovain 01:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In principle I think that is fine. As long as the terminology is correct and accurate - let's see a draft if you are happy to do that. 213.78.150.47 (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure - I'll take a crack at it in a few hours. I expect it'll need some revision to be acceptable to both of you, so be sure to keep the comments coming in once I have something up! -- Mark Chovain 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Asad Ahmad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218152240/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/london/asadahmad.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/london/asadahmad.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 20:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asad Ahmad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123170712/http://tvpresenters.thetvroomplus.com:80/channel-85.html to http://tvpresenters.thetvroomplus.com/channel-85.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)