Talk:Asad Ahmad/Archive 1

Someone keeps reverting the sourced inclusion of the harassment charges against Ahmad. It appeared in the London Paper on the date stated, the paper does not archive all article online however. Read wiki policy, sources do not need to be internet based.

Also do not make personal attacks.

i have tidied up the article, removing unverified material and inserting sourced material. i note some of the contents of this article appeared to be entirely untrue - for example it would appear he did not win a royal television society award - a programme he worked on did! a bit of PR work has been at play methinks!

wikipedia is not free publicity! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.76.75 (talk • contribs).

Your reference needs additional information, such as the title of the article involved. While offline references or sources are permitted, they must be identifyable rather than being a newspaper and a date. --Sigma 7 01:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To User Sigma 7: but there IS an identified source - it just isn't online. I have the paper! Also this is a matter of public record. He's been in court, he's currently on police bail, it's been in the papers. You should note that the person who is reverting all these mentions has been responsible for also putting in lies about Asad Ahmad an award, when he didn't! It doesn't take a genius to work out this is some very ham fisted PR. Delete it if you want, but it's all sourced.

To the person doing the constant reverting - are you denying that Asad Ahmad was arrested, charged, and bailed? Are you denying this was reported in thelondonpaper? Are you denying that he is to appear in court to face these charges? What has been written that is untrue? Everything is true, everything is public knowledge - what is the problem? Answer that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.76.75 (talk • contribs).

I think you're asking me, right? I don't have an opinion on whether or not thelondonpaper reported that he was arrested - it's not particularly relevant, as we need to have reliable sources. If a local entertainment rag is the only media outlet to report on a major media personality being arrested, then I suspect they probably have it wrong, and it's not worth connecting WP with potentially libellous claims. WP:BLP is there for a reason - it's not some PR excercise (I have nothing to do with Asad or the BBC - I've never even been to the UK!). If you can find a reliable corroborating reference, then I have no problem with it going in.

In answer to your question about what more information is required than publication name and date: We really need author, title, and page. But that's all moot without a corroborating reference. Mark Chovain 01:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The London Paper is *not* an entertainment rag - it's a London evening newspaper published by News International. The story was also reported in the Daily Mail - look back at the article's history and you will see back and forth about the inclusion of this. Someone - not hard to guess who - is attempting a cover-up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.143.107 (talk • contribs).

Don't confuse News International with News Limited (not that it would change your argument much). "The paper is targeted towards young readers, with emphasis on celebrity and more light hearted news, little analysis of news stories and uses lots of images and color." I'm not from the UK, but I'm pretty sure I know this kind of paper. In Australia, it's called MX: It gets handed out for free to commuters in and around all the major transport centres after work. How is that not an entertainment rag? The story was somehow overlooked by all the major news wires. This is sounding like a pretty serious cover up! Even Reuters are in on it! Is it at all possible that one of thelondonpaper's work experience students got confused by another Asad Ahmad? It's a pretty common name, you know. Regardless, in biographies of living people, references must be verifiable and WP:RSreliable. Thelondonpaper is neither of those. Potentially libellous claims must be taken out as quickly as possible. Mark Chovain 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user's objection to proposed expansion

I'd like to expand this article using the information in this revision. An anonymous user (btw please start signing your posts - we can't work with you if you won't work with us properly) objects to some part of this revision, claiming that it contradicts the BBC source. Could the anonymous user please state their specific concern here, so we can move to get this article expanded? Mark Chovain 23:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You are very keen to show positive PR is being done as far as winning the Award is concerned - implying lies and a cover-up. If you take a look at the sources and official BBC site - you will see it is correctly sourced. So what is your motivation with this page then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.148.26 (talk • contribs).

Unlike you guys (Chovain and abusive anon) I don't check this every day so didn't have a chance to respond. Why is it considered sensible to restore the article to a version which isn't written in house style (i.e. calls him "Asad"), contains unsourced and/or unverifiable statements (i.e. nominations for awards, things he reported on, him being a "recognisable face around the capital)? Chovain, you just seem to be a petty person who likes to have his way. You know nothing about the subject - or indeed London (you thought one of the city's main evening newspapers was an "entertainment rag"). The other anon. user has a very clear agenda. Still, I will work with you - I will make amendments to have this reflect style, and I will remove unverifiable and challenge verifiable but unsourced statements.

To the abusive anon - want to know what my motivation is? Well tough - I won't tell you and I don't have to. As long as I stick to truth and you peddle lies and cover ups, all will be as it was.

One question though - when Ahmad next appears in court, and it is reported upon, you're going to look pretty silly for all this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.76.75 (talk • contribs).

Before we discuss this further. Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Especially when there are two anons refusing to sign, it just gets way too difficult to work out who is saying what.

Wikipedia's Manual of style is a guideline, not a policy. That means that while we should work towards getting a version of the article that follows MOS, it's not grounds for reverting entire chunks of sourced information. Likewise, WP:RS is also a guideline. It says that material that is challenged, or likely to be challenged, should have a source, and the onus is on the editor that put the information in to find a reliable source. The guideline does not say that articles with unsourced claims should be immediately reverted, bowever, we do need to be a bit more wary with articles about living people. WP:BPL says that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives," and that "poorly sourced contentious material [...] should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles" (emphasis not mine). I hope that answers your first question about why we don't need to revert entire blocks of data just because he is called "Asad" instead of "Ahmad".

You are correct in claiming that I know nothing of the subject. I hadn't even heard of Asad Ahmad until I came along this conflict by accident. That's my strength here: I know WP's policies and guidelines, and I'm able to help apply them without subject bias. That's a good thing.

If Ahmad appears in court, and it is reported by sources that other editors can reasonably confirm, I won't look silly. If you think that, then you have missed all of my points. I am not saying he wasn't arrested: I'm just saying we don't have a good enough source for such a contentious claim at this point. If it is picked up by mainstream media, or in an offline format that others can easily confirm (doesn't really apply to recent "news"), then I'll be more than happy for it to go in. I will have done my job by stopping it from getting in here until it was verifiable. Mark Chovain 20:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice 82.35.76.75 hasn't accepted that his previous comments about not winning an RTS award were wildly false. I thought that would make you feel stupid enough and show how wrong you can be. We also look forward to the 3rd August to see if you are right about your "sourced" claims about a court case. You clearly accept you have a motivation and your abuse of Wiki clearly shows this and your fierce attack claiming Ahmad hadn't won anything before proves this also. Looking at your previous amendments, it looks like you must be working on behalf of a certain person don't you agree? After all isn't your vitriolic attack the best form of defence? You clearly have a nasty tone and bad intention as well as abusing Wiki for genuine users by covering up sourced facts - so why don't you leave Wiki to genuine users and possibly try getting a life? I am sure if sourced material does appear in the future nobody will object to its inclusion - this isn't about looking silly unless you wilfully try and abuse the system. Nobody is trying to do that from what I can tell apart from you. So why don't we all stick to what Wiki regard as sourced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.148.26 (talk • contribs).

At the same time, it's important that all sides of a debate assume good faith. Accusations of bad faith and hyperbole achieve nothing. Mark Chovain 23:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So you admit something is happening on 3rd of August - something that was inserted in the article in a sourced manner (i.e. referenced in an article in thelondonpaper? Why did you object to it's inclusion then? Are you gaming the system? I am not wilfully abusing the system - in inserted sourced material about harassment charges which you do not deny have been made, and about a further court appearance which has been scheduled which you do dot deny is happening. You've managed to find a regular user who will back you up - that doesn't make you right though. Anyway, I'll let it lie. Time will tell.

No. Why is this so hard for you to understand? It doesn't matter if it's true or not. When you edit a page (even a talk page), you get a little line above your edit summary that says, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*." (emphasis not mine). The first line of WP:V is really worth reading: 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.' Now the definition of reliable source is a flexible one, and WP:RS is only a guideline, but where we must take it literally, is in the context of WP:BLP, which is policy. It says, "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.". (emphasis still not mine)

Offline sources are fine if it's taken from books, as anyone can verify them (with a trip to their local library). Even a lot of newspapers are fairly widely available in libraries around the world. Offline sources are probably okay if the edit is not contentious. If you can find a reliable reference, then it should go in - hell, if it's true and he's found guilty, it'll probably get it's own section.

Please stop wasting my time with all this, "You're going to feel like an idiot when you find out it's true," and "So you admit its true". We care about verifiability, not truth. Mark Chovain 08:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reorganisation and adding new material

I've reorganised the article as previously it was something of a jumble - I've divided his career into "early" and "BBC London", and created an "other activities" section. I've added a couple of fact tags. I've also included a sourced section on the harassment charges, which have been covered in the national press —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.35.76.75 (talk • contribs).

Well done - looks good. I'm going to go and do some more cleaning up later today, which will probably involve removing most of the remaining unsourced stuff if I can't find any sources for it. Mark Chovain 22:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Harassment charges

The current section as it has stood in any of the revisions over the past week has been acceptable by WP:BLP standards, so it's not as if we need to immediately revert any changes. Can we please stop the edit warring, and just discuss the paragraph here please? We're so close to a compromise, but we'll never get there unless we all talk about it. Mark Chovain 23:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand - there's no dispute. It's all cool. Article is like a million times better than it was before and no one is edit warring

Sorry, I thought the recent edits were an extension of the earlier edit war. Mark Chovain 00:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

harassment charges

i've removed the lengthy account of the harassment charges, which have now been dropped. no need to quote at legnth from MPAC article. the case is closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.250.13 (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC) the MPAC article is the only source that details the conclusion of the case. while i don't doubt the main thrust of the facts in it, the source seems highly unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.250.13 (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The lengthy version of the charges section seems to place undue weight on the charges, which seem like they should be minor compared to the rest of his extensive career. Could the anon(s) putting it back in please discuss it here rather than edit war? -- Mark Chovain 08:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It has clearly been of great significance to some Wiki users that Ahmad was charged and they have tried to use this information to discredit him accordingly on this page (I also note from seeing the history of the discussion page that a user tried to make out tht Ahmad had not won an RTS award - referring to it as PR. A quick look at the RTS's own webpage shows this to be wrong and shows the intentions of some people who clearly have an axe to grind). The case took so many twists and turns and in itself was of significance through the legal process being used to challenge the CPS and Police it would seem highly interesting to many people that this action was taken by a current news anchor. He also always said he was innocent and the allegation was false - to have finally shown it whilst risking his career had he have been wrong, is again of great interest for many people. There is also a great deal of difference between the CPS 'declining to give evidence' and saying they 'have no evidence to offer'. The user who made the change is obviously trying to imply there was evidence but the CPS just didn't want to put it forward. The Crown is legally not allowed to do this in English courts. If they have evidence, they must disclose and present it - and if thy have none, then they must declare it to the judge. There is no option to decline to give evidence. This again supports what Ahmad always said and is of significance as is the fact that the complainant was referred to by the CPS as lacking credibility. It puts the whole case in a new light and begins to explain why Ahmad went to such lengths to refuse the cautions and revive the case (which is again of huge legal significance and possibly a first, in English law). I agree there are opinions in the MPACUK piece eg. islamaphobia etc but these have and should be kept out of the wiki page. For those people who will know about the allegations, it seems fair to present the outcome of the case. If Ahmad had lied and been found guilty, I am sure there would be no shortage of the Wiki user (above) wanting to put every detail in about the case. There is no word limit to Wiki pages, so if the reader does not want the details then they do not have to read on and if they do - they can get a overview of the lengthy MPACUK piece on this page sticking only to quotes and facts of te case without the opinion. Finally, there seems to be a grudge by the wiki user about the Mpac piece, ad yet he is still willing to use quotes and details from it. If that is the case, the facts in the article (and not the opinion) should remain unchallenged. (User talk:213.78.150.47)

We don't put undue weight on information because another editor is biased, and we want to get even. If your goal is to use this article to "clear his name", then you're as guilty of axe grinding as the other anon. In a few years time, Ahmad will be remembered for being a journalist, not for his day in court. Yes, it's interesting that the case progressed the way it did, but we need no more than two sentences on it. I think you need to step back a bit, and try to be more objective about this: A few months ago, we had an editor hell bent on discrediting Ahmed. Now the discussion seems to be swinging back the other way. This isn't some huge conspiracy. People are accused of things they didn't do every day. We should note the events in the article, but not dwell on them.

It's also worth reading my comment a few sections above (the one with lots of bold in it, that refers to verifiability a lot). Your source is not the best in the world: It's a blog, for starters. If we want to make claims, whether positive or negative about a person, then we need better sources than that.

I'm not suggesting that we go back to the other version: I'll rewrite it completely if I have to, but the current version is too long, and puts too much emphasis on the events. -- Mark Chovain 21:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between presenting no evidence and there being no evidence to present. There is no doubt that an allegation was made against Ahmad. There is no doubt that in the eyes of the law he is innocent. Both facts are presented. Anything else needs to be properly verified, not lifted from a source that reeks of unreliability and is peppered with inflammatory and politically-motivated statements. And in any case - is a lengthy discussion of one unfortunate innocent, which is now over - the most important thing about Ahmad? Aren't the details of his successful career in local television more important? If so why is the other user suggesting giving so much weight to the harassment allegation? --78.146.211.70 (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of "false" in harassment section heading

An allegation is an assertion, and is neither true of false. It is absolute fact that Thea Rogers alleged that he harassed her. There was indisputably a harassment allegation. The underlying asserted facts can be true of false, but an allegation is just that: An allegation. -- Mark Chovain 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the Wiki page for ALLEGATION you will see the word is described as a statement of fact by a party which they claim they can prove. It is therefore always a statement which is at least believed to be true by the party making it. A false allegation is when the allegation is made, but it is either knowingly false or when the allegation can be conclusively proved to be incorrect. Ahmad always said the allegation was false, implying it was made by Rogers who knew it was false. Either way, the case was finally dropped when Rogers allegations that Ahmad had harassed her were scientifically shown to not be true. This means those allegations, like Ahmad always said from the start, were indeed false. As the case centered around Ahmad always sayng the allegation was false, which was accepted by the court and CPS and was said in court to describe the case, it seems reasonable to describe it in the words it was ultimately shown to be. The word -allegation- could be used if the case went to court and on the balance of evidence Ahmad was acquited, or if the case was discontinued and not revived. Taking into account the desire to revive the case in order to show a false allegation and going to extraordinary lengths to do so warrants the term "false" when it is proved to be so. As for evidence - it seems there was "no evidence to offer" against Ahmad which would have been the exact legal words used in this situation if the CPS were not taking the case to trial based on their lack of evidence. So this was not a case of presenting no evidence. It was a case of analysing evidence and realising it did not support the allegation or charge - therefore 'no evidence to offer' would have been the language used. This is a legal point and no other. As mentioned above the CPS can not decide to present no evidence if they have it ahead of a trial or disclose it. As for the detail of the case, I understand your point but it has huge legal significance through its process that it is worth mentioning in some form of detail for those who want to read it. It was considered by may as a scandal and the lengths a serving presenter went to clear his name by breaking into new legal ground is noteworthy. You may regard this as muck racking, but somehow the editor in question doesn't seem the type to care. It is nevertheless, unique. As for the article, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee are broadly seen as a reputable body who often appear on the BBCboth radio and TV, ITV and other UK and foreign networks as a contemporary voice for British Musims who are often critical of Muslims themselves who may not integrate into British Society. As an article from a reputable organisation that deals in Muslim Public Affairs it should not be discredited so easily on its basic facts. Its own view point of those facts is a different matter and I agree these should not be included. Upon your own or someone else's investigation into the case, it may be possible to discredit the quotes (although this seems unlikely)and the court reporting, but without it, the court reporting should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.150.47 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A ridiculous argument. An allegation is an allegation, whether or not it is proven to be true or false. Let us be clear - no one is suggesting the allegation was true, but to play with words to such a ridiculous extent in order to abuse Wikipedia is out of line. And could you please present a reliable source regarding the January court proceedings? An opinion piece full of vitriol from a fairly extremist website doesn't cut it - it isn't "court reporting", it's an imflammatory article on a blog. As for MPAC being "reputable" - well, it isn't. Sorry.

Again, I'd stress that Ahmad is a successful local television personality, and that giving undue weight to this affair probably doesn't serve the end you're so doggedly pursuing. --82.45.250.13 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC) You are obviously finding it difficult to read the article with the ability to seperate the brief opinions at the beginning and end of the piece, with the quotes, dates, etc which are the substance of he piece. You do of course always hold the right to verify the dates, quotes etc with the CPS, Met Police or even the solicitor named (with his firm) in the article or the barrister also named. There is enough detail there and it is easy enough to check. I do not agree with trying to abuse Wiki, and I feel you are more concerned and always have been with abusing Ahmed's name. It is obvious you are trying to disguise this now, but weakly. Your earlier attempts to sraw as much attempts to the harassment allegations has now been reversed due to the outcome which proved Ahmed to be right. As for Mpac being extremist, this is obviously your opinion and there is little point engaging with you on this subject. You may feel all Muslims are extremists if that is your rule of thumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.150.47 (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"You may feel all Muslims are extremists if that is your rule of thumb." That statement speaks volumes about your agenda. Stop playing the religion card, I couldn't give a stuff about it. --82.45.250.13 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You talk of a compromise - there are none as far as facts are concerned which I have now bothered to check out with some of the officals involved in the case. I suggest you do the same. Alternatively, we leave the Harassment contents part altogether from this page. In that way Ahmad is recognsed for his success in television as you desire and the false allegations made by Miss Thea Rogers, will be left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.150.47 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

I've removed the section heading altogether and reduced the section on the now resolved harassment allegation to a single sentence. The reason for this in order of importance are:

1. Restoring balance to an article about a noted local television personality who was accused of a relatively minor offence and then cleared at trial. It just isn't a big enough deal to dominate the article, which should focus on his biog as a whole. 2. Removing the problem of the MPAC article being biased and an unsuitable source for the kind of info. the other user wants to insert. 3. Avoiding edit war about heading. User wants to insert "false" into the heading, which for the reasons explained by Mark Chovain, is incorrect. 4. Countering the efforts of another use to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Attempts to politicise the whole affair should be made elsewhere, not in an encyclopedia article.

I hope stability will be restored and the other user will stop blanket reverting. --82.45.250.13 (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

New version looks good. Can anyone find a better ref? I don't really like the blog ref, but if there's nothing else out there, it'll have to do I suppose. -- Mark Chovain 23:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed as this is not acceptable for two reasons: 1. The case did not go to trial. The trial was to be on the 7th January 2008. 2.The hearing was called so the CPS could ask for the case to be dismissed as they had no evidence to offer. This can be checked with the CPS themselves. To say the case went to trial and he was cleared implies that there was a case against him and he was found not guilty by a judge. Don't forget the CPS initially said they had a case against Ahmad when they discontinued it and Ahmad revived it. The crucial point if you are going to include this at all is that the CPS contradicted their earlier statement and Ahmad's earlier comments and reasons for fighting were vindicated before the case got to trial. These are important legal terms which change the whole outcome of the case and Ahmad's vindication is as complete as it could be as he was never faced trial for the charge. To be found not guilty at a trial is completely different to being called into court ahead of trial and being told there is no evidence to offer against you and then having the case dismissed saying you can leave without a stain on your character. If this is the way you are going to twist things - and it is clear it is being done intentially, then we will go back to the full explanation and let the reader decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.150.47 (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well what you're saying clearly conflicts with the source you yourself have provided. Saying people should "check with the CPS" is not acceptable.--82.45.250.13 (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the article again and you will see that I am spot on with what I am saying. So what is your reason for wanting to put Ahmad down for so long? You have tried to dispute everything from the RTS award to this - you clearly have a motive... it seems like you want to try and protect Rogers name for what were false allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.150.47 (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so childish. Some months ago this page was written in a completely inappropriate style and was essentially a puff piece to big up Ahmed's career - you resisted attempts to change it but in the end we got a decent article. Now you seem intent on inserting unneccessary detail - supported only by an unreliable source - about the harassment allegation. If the information you want to insert goes in, it will be based entirely on what is effectively a politically-motivated blog entry (the MPAC source). Also the article will be thrown completely out of balance.

As you've questioned my motives, perhaps you will permit me do the same back? Are you Asad Ahmed? If you are, can I suggest you stop trying to play with Wikipedia, because it always backfires on people when they do. --82.45.250.13 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering why MPAC UK might be considered an unreliable source, take a look at this about the organisation's founder - [1]. Yikes. --82.45.250.13 (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A legal point to note: a case once heading for trial can only be dismissed if it is discontinued or the CPS accept they have no evidence to offer. Under the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985, the CPS can discontinue a case only once. After that they have to take the case to trial. The only way the trial can be stopped under the Act is if the CPS accept there is no evidence to offer against a defendent whereby a request has to be put to a judge asking for the case to be dismissed. The Judge is allowed to refuse it. So in light of the fact the trial was dropped, it is safe to say the CPS said they have "no evidence to offer" which is the exact phraseology that they must use. Feel free to check it out. As for Bukhari, your reference regards his personal views. I am sure you and i have views which other people strongly will not agree with - however that does not undermine facts which can be seperated for what they are. I have never asked for opinion to be included in this page unless of course Ahmad has contoversial or opinions of note which is not being argued by anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.150.47 (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"You are clearly accepting the parts of the article you wish to and rejecting what you don't like personally. I am satisfied after checking out the facts that they are indeed true" [Your edit summary, when blanket reverting yet again]

My response that is simple: I think the basic fact the charges have been dropped can be included, as its difficult to imagine the MPAC source is mistaken/lying in respect of that basic fact. However, such a biased and unreliable source cannot be used to back up the fine detail, which is presented in a muddled fashion for political purposes. Specifically, we don't know the exact circumstamces as to how and and why the charges were discontinued. The assertion that the CPS admitted they didn't have any evidence seems fishy to me, and fits too neatly with the efforts of MPAC and yourself to present this as "Islamophobia". As it is, the wording in the article libels nobody and only states the basic facts. Even if we did have a reliable source for the detail you want to insert, I'd suggest including it would imbalance the article and amount to using wikipedia as a soapbox. If you want to discuss could you address those points, instead of name-calling and throwing out red herrings? MPAC might want to use this to whip up a controversy, but it's notable that the story appears not to have been covered by any media outlets. That speaks volumes. The views of the founder of MPAC are relevant because they point to the fact its considered a fairly extremist organisation, founded and run by people with an axe to grind. Therefore using it as a sole source for potentially defamatory information about the CPS, the Police and the person who was allegedly harassed is clearly wrong.--82.45.250.13 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly trying to keep this going using anything you can to keep the whole saga going. You have absolutely no argument about the legal accuracies and you are following your own agenda. I have never claimed Islamaphobia be included on this page and to be honest - I do not believe Isllamphobia to be relevant to the case. That is MPAC's opinion which I do not share. So let's address your points in a way that even you may understand: 1. You accept that the charge was dropped can be included as you accept it would be highly irregular for this not to have happened. This can ONLY mean that the case was revived as presumably you do accept the other sources which widely covered the initial decision by the CPS to discontinue the case ie. there are other sources for this. If you accept the other sources, you must also therefore accept that Ahmad did say that he believed the evidence was false and this quote was incorporated into the earlier version of this page that you clearly had no problem with. It is a statement he made and he also clearly stated considering taking future action. 2. The only way a case can go on after being discontinued is if it is revived. 3. If the case is revived and you accept that the case was dropped as in point 1. then the only way it can be dropped again at this point legally, is if the CPS offer no evidence. The CPS are not allowed to "decide not to present the evidence" in an English court, or not be bothered to go ahead or anything else. When a trial is set for any hearing the case must go ahead unless evidence comes to light which changes the nature of events and makes the CPS reconsider their position. Now, you may regard this as fishy or anything else. This is purely how the legal system works. You may be in a state of denial about the DNA and fingerprint evidence which is written about in the article, but there clearly was a reaon for the CPS to drop the case. Now, if you don't want to accept the reason, and you accept a trial did not go ahead and you accept the case was dropped, it can only mean the CPS accepted to the court that there is 'no evidence to offer'. They are not my words but the words which the CPS must legally use when they request a case to be dropped which then has to be put to a judge. Again, it is how the law works and they are the words the CPS must use in a court of law in their request to have the case dropped. It may not suit you, you may not like it, it may mean you were wrong about Ahmed all along, but that is the way the law works. So even if you dispute the bits you want to pick at - the basic facts which I propose are included are exactly that - facts. You or I don't have to accept the Islamaphobia comments, that is agreed, but Wiki should be legally correct and accurate and that is all I propose. If you have a problem with the article on the case being discontinued last summer - then we are in a whole new area. 4. As for balance - it is balanced. They are simple facts. We are saying exactly what happened and no more. Facts that don't suit you do not make them unbalanced. I agree nobody should be liabled. It is also hardly a soapbox to include a couple of details explaining that a presenter was accused of harrassment - he says it's all rubbish - he refuses cautions - and the CPS say they have no evidence before the trial. If you want, let's go back to the "false allegations" version. I have tried to compromise, shorten the version and include a legally accurate version of what you wrote. You insist on having something on the harassment in but you want it to be inaccurate, not make any legal sense, and stick your boot in. Me thinks you would have been jumping up and down and sticking both boots in if Ahmed went to court and was found guilty. Unfortuately that didn't happen. He had the balls to carry on and clear his name and prove he was innocent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.150.47 (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, ignoring the crucial point that you are inserting unnecessary information into an article without even presenting a reliable source for it. The article does not need to go into that level of detail about this incident, and even if it did the MPAC blog article would not be a reliable source for the reasons stated at length above. You make this assumption that the facts stated in the blog are incontovertibly true - but we can't rely on that. That's the point.

Clearly you have personal knowledge of this (indeed I suspect you might be Asad Ahmad), but that's neither here nor there. Your pronouncements on English law and the arguments you advance don't influence me in the least - I simply won't take your word for it, and anyway that's not how Wikipedia works. Come up with a reliable source for what you want to insert, and then we can talk. Even then, I doubt the detail you want to insert should be in the article anyway.

You never tried to compromise nor did you try and shorten the article - I did that. Anyone looking at the edit history will see that.

You seem to have misunderstood the point on balance. The article is a short one, and inserting so much detail on this one small incident into Ahmad's biography gives it undue weight. One sentence suffices: the case is closed, after all. It had no repercussions and barely received any press attention, as the people involved weren't particularly famous. --82.45.250.13 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You have made it clear that you are willing to accept that the matter was dealt with ahead of the trial. Do you have ANY explanation whatsoever as to why the case would not make it to trial other than the reason I have given? Are there any poosibilities you are aware of? It's quite simple. Before trial date, case is dropped - only reason = no evidence to offer. Please enlighten me if there are any other reasons in law why this might happen. You clearly are incapable of debating this point in your discussion and you are getting so desperate you are trying to work out whom I might be! It shows your identity to be the one that should be questioned - but I am not paranoid enough to really care! You should get out more... and maybe pop down to the library and read some books on Englsh law. It's not that difficult if you try. Please try and debate the point if you can. I am open and willing to be corrected if the points I have put are not correct. It's not as if your version now is any shorter - so what is the harm in being accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.150.47 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC) In addition to the above comments, I am copying a link to the CPS website whic explains their rules, procedures and guidlines. It should help you understand some basics and support what I have been trying to tell you. I hope it is not too complicated for you to understand. If it is, I'll happily shed some light on the matter: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section3/chapter_f.html#_Toc44573527 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.150.47 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How very tiresome... --82.45.250.13 (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)