Ahmed in the Times – One

Very grateful to a regular reader for this information from the Times newspaper and researched and written by Andrew Norfolk, the award winning, Chief Investigative Reporter, no less!

Muslim peer blames Jewish Day one 'Jewish conspiracy' peer

Day Two with Opinion from Maajid Nawaz and Jahangir Akhtar, later.

Comments on, Naz Ahmed’s outrageous claims!, may interest readers.

Where’s Paul Jagger when you want him?

It would appear that one of South Yorkshire’s favourite sons is in a little local difficulty?

A complaint has been made against him about his Town Council Interests Declaration. His Declaration has been found to be deficient by a rather important omission, that of his shareholding and directorship of Wharncliffe Partners Limited, Company Number 06806800.

It must have slipped his mind? For at least three years!

When he returns from his Ski Lodge he, no doubt, will have some explaining to do.

Click on image to read the complaint in full. No longer works.


Scrutiny, thanks to the web, is going hyper-local! UKIP are in the lead locally for their efforts and Rothpol welcomes this and looks forward to future developments.

Update from UKIP:

UKIP Stocksbridge Withdraws Complaint Against Cllr Paul Jagger

UKIP Stocksbridge recently filed a complaint with the monitoring officer that Cllr Paul Jagger had failed to note on his declaration of interests his ownership in a company called Wharncliffe Partners Limited.

Whilst our complaint regarding this omission was technically correct it is now clear that this company relates to Mr Jaggers educational work and the failure to record this on Mr Jaggers declaration is a simple oversight and as such UKIP Stocksbridge are happy to withdraw their complaint with the monitoring officer regarding this matter.

Hope that clarifies the issue for readers and addresses Paul Jaggers point, in his comment.

View from the top?

This letter, published in last Friday’s Advertiser, makes interesting reading:

Standards committee not run by any one group

“I refer to the article of  March 1 regarding disruption at a recent meeting of Anston Parish Council, in which it was suggested by Mr Smith that the Standards Committee of Rotherham Borough Council is “run by the Labour group so nothing will happen there”.

As the Chairman of the Borough Council’s Standards Committee, I believe it is important that your readers are informed of the true nature of the committee.

The committee is composed of eight borough councillors, two of whom are from the Conservative group, and there are three representatives from parish councils. In addition the council, recognising the importance of independent and objective input into the maintenance of high standards of ethical behaviour by elected members, appointed five independent members to act in an advisory capacity.

The council has gone far beyond the obligations of the Localism Act and the practice of other councils in this regard.

In addition the Independent Person (which is a statutory appointment) is regularly consulted upon standards issues and plays a pro-active role with regard to ensuring high standards of elected member conduct are maintained.

With such extensive independent involvement in the business of the Standards Committee I am sure the public will agree that the committee is not run by the Labour, or any other, group.”

Cllr Alan Gosling, Chairman, Rotherham Borough Council Standards Committee

Labour’s Embarrassment Complete?

On Wednesday the Times Chief Investigative Reporter, Andrew Norfolk, broke another very embarrassing story concerning Rotherham and it’s turbulent Labour peer!

Featuring Lord Ahmed and some of his pretty outrageous views. On this occasion spoken by himself and broadcast on television, last year in Pakistan.

Rothpol would be very grateful for some scans from the Times, Wednesday and Thursdays editions, so that anyone who missed them can read the sorry tale for themselves, if any reader could oblige?

Meanwhile, as a warm up, I thought readers might like to review these links to stories that made it into the local and national press and media last week:

From the BBC: Labour peer Lord Ahmed suspended after ‘Jewish claims’

The Advertiser: Rotherham peer suspended over new controversy

The Star: Peer suspended by Labour

Yorkshire Post: Labour suspends Yorkshire peer over ‘Jewish conspiracy’ slur

The Telegraph: Busy people text while driving, claimed Peer jailed over fatal crash

The Independent: ‘There’s no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour party’: Ed Miliband condemns Lord Ahmed over claims he blamed imprisonment on ‘Jewish conspiracy’

The Guardian: Labour suspends Muslim peer after reports of antisemitic comments

New Statesman: Lord Ahmed accused of blaming Jewish media owners for his prison sentence

Mirror: Labour peer suspended over claims he blamed Jewish plot for being jailed after fatal car crash

Evening Standard: Labour suspend Lord Ahmed over ‘Jewish conspiracy’ claims

Daily Mail: Labour suspends controversial peer over claims he blamed a Jewish conspiracy for his dangerous driving jail sentence

At Rotherham Politics, we are left scratching our heads at the activities of Lord Ahmed and his apparently limitless ability to cause such offence. We are also continually baffled and dismayed at the failure of the Labour Party to adequately deal with him!

This time, there must be no way back for this deeply flawed individual.

Oh, the answer to my question?

Not by a long chalk! Especially if the labour party continues to stick their heads in the sand and ignore Rotherham’s central problem that Naz Ahmed, Jahangir Akhtar and Mahroof Hussain exemplify!

With Sajid Bostan’s words still ringing in my ears, “We’ve fixed the Council, we’ve fixed the Police and we’ve fixed the Advertiser,” we have a lot to put right in our Town.

Naz Ahmed’s outrageous claims!

From The Times:

Andrew Norfolk Chief Investigative Reporter
Last updated at 12:01AM, March 14 2013

A Labour peer who was jailed for sending text messages shortly before
his car was in a fatal motorway crash has blamed his imprisonment on a
Jewish conspiracy.

Lord Ahmed claimed that his prison sentence for dangerous driving
resulted from pressure placed on the courts by Jews “who own newspapers
and TV channels”. Britain’s first male Muslim peer also alleged that
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

He claimed, falsely, that Mr Justice Wilkie was hand-picked and sent
from London………

Read on… http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3713009.ece

Full text:

A Labour peer who was jailed for sending text messages shortly before his car was in a fatal motorway crash has blamed his imprisonment on a Jewish conspiracy.

Lord Ahmed claimed that his prison sentence for dangerous driving resulted from pressure placed on the courts by Jews “who own newspapers and TV channels”. The Muslim peer also alleged that 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”.

He claimed, falsely, that Mr Justice Wilkie was hand-picked and sent from London to carry out the 2009 sentencing at Sheffield Crown Court because no other judge was willing to handle his case. The alleged plot to punish him stemmed, Lord Ahmed claimed, from Jewish disapproval of his support for the Palestinians in Gaza. His comments were made during a television interview on a visit to Pakistan.

A leading solicitor said yesterday that if the peer had given the interview in Britain he could have been liable to prosecution for inciting racial hatred.

A Labour spokesman said that the party would investigate the comments. “The Labour Party deplores and does not tolerate any sort of racism or anti-Semitism. We will be seeking to clarify these remarks as soon as possible.”

The Times has obtained video and audio of the Urdu-language broadcast, in which the 55-year-old Pakistan-born businessman also claims, falsely, that his conviction was subsequently overturned “in a way that kept my honour intact”.

In reality, three Court of Appeal judges refused to quash the conviction.They said that the prison sentence was justified and that there should not be “one law for the rich and powerful and one law for the rest”.

The appeal court did agree to the “exceptional” course of suspending the sentence for 12 months after hearing that time in prison would hinder Lord Ahmed’s work building bridges between the Muslim world and others.

He was freed after serving 16 days in jail. Martyn Gombar, a 28-year-old Slovakian, was killed on Christmas Day in 2007 after his stationary car was hit by Lord Ahmed’s Jaguar on the M1 near Sheffield. A lengthy police investigation established that the peer sent and received a series of five substantial text messages while travelling at up to 70mph during an 18-mile southbound journey on the motorway.

The final message was sent less than two minutes before the fatal collision. Because no causal link could be established between the crash and Lord Ahmed’s texts, the peer was not charged with causing death by dangerous driving. He faced the lesser offence of dangerous driving and pleaded guilty at Sheffield Magistrates’ Court in December 2008.

The district judge adjourned the case to Sheffield Crown Court because he felt that his sentencing powers for the offence, up to six months in jail, were insufficient.

The maximum sentence for dangerous driving is two years. Passing a 12-week sentence at the Crown Court in February 2009, Mr Justice Wilkie told Lord Ahmed that he was guilty of “prolonged bad driving involving deliberate disregard for the safety of others”.

It was, the judge said, “of the greatest importance that people realise what a serious offence dangerous driving of this type is”.

In his TV interview, thought to have been broadcast in April last year, Lord Ahmed claimed that he should have been sentenced by a magistrate. “My case became more critical because I went to Gaza to support Palestinians. My Jewish friends who own newspapers and TV channels opposed this,” he said.

He alleged that Jewish-owned media organisations placed pressure on the courts to charge him with a more serious offence. He claimed that when the case was sent to the Crown Court for sentencing, no Crown Court judge, circuit judge or Recorder would agree to deliver his punishment. Instead, a High Court judge was sent from London.

Mr Justice Wilkie was alleged in Lord Ahmed’s interview to have risen to his elevated position after playing a role during Mr Blair’s premiership in “an important case involving a Jewish colleague of ours”.

It seems possible that Lord Ahmed was referring to the fact that Mr Justice Wilkie granted the Attorney-General an injunction against the BBC during the loans-for-peerages scandal, in which Lord Levy, then Labour’s chief fundraiser, had a prominent role.

The injunction, however, was granted in 2007, three years after Sir Alan Fraser Wilkie, a circuit judge since 1997, was appointed to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court.

At the time of Lord Ahmed’s sentencing in 2009 he was the Presiding Judge of the north-eastern circuit, which includes Sheffield Crown Court, and sat on many big cases in courts across the region.

Katie Wheatley, a criminal law expert and partner at the London solicitors’ firm Bindmans, said that if Lord Ahmed had made such claims in Britain he could have faced prosecution for a hate crime.

“If these words had been spoken or broadcast publicly to an audience in the UK it is certainly possible that they could lead to an investigation as to whether an offence of incitement to racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986 had been committed,” she added.

Ms Wheatley said that the Act did not allow for prosecutions for such offences when they occurred abroad.

Nazir Ahmed, who grew up in Rotherham and ran a number of shops in the town, was an elected Labour councillor who was made a life peer by Mr Blair in 1998 and has since become one of Britain’s most prominent Muslim political leaders.

He said yesterday that he had “no recollection” of giving the TV interview last year. “I’ve done a lot of interviews. If you’re saying that you have seen this footage then it may be so but I need to see the footage and I need to consult with my solicitors before I make any comments in relation to this,” he added.

The Times sent a transcript of Lord Ahmed’s comments in Pakistan to his solicitor, at the peer’s request, but no further response was provided.

Difficult to disagree with 43 Bishops?

SIR – Next week, members of the House of Lords will debate the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill.

The Bill will mean that for each of the next three years, most financial support for families will increase by no more than 1 per cent, regardless of how much prices rise.

This is a change that will have a deeply disproportionate impact on families with children, pushing 200,000 children into poverty. A third of all households will be affected by the Bill, but nearly nine out of 10 families with children will be hit.

These are children and families from all walks of life. The Children’s Society calculates that a single parent with two children, working on an average wage as a nurse would lose £424 a year by 2015. A couple with three children and one earner, on an average wage as a corporal in the British Army, would lose £552 a year by 2015.

However, the change will hit the poorest the hardest. About 60 per cent of the savings from the uprating cap will come from the poorest third of households. Only 3 per cent will come from the wealthiest third.

If prices rise faster than expected, children and families will no longer have any protection against this. This transfers the risk of high inflation rates from the Treasury to children and families, which is unacceptable.

Children and families are already being hit hard by cuts to support, including those to tax credits, maternity benefits, and help with housing costs. They cannot afford this further hardship penalty. We are calling on the House of Lords to take action to protect children from the impact of this Bill.

Rt Rev Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester

Rt Rev John Packer, Bishop of Ripon and Leeds

Rt Rev Graham James, Bishop of Norwich

Rt Rev Paul Butler, Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham

Rt Rev Richard Frith, Bishop of Hull

Rt Rev Nick Baines, Bishop of Bradford

Rt Rev David Rossdale, Bishop of Grimsby

Rt Rev Alan Smith, Bishop of St Albans

Rt Rev David Walker, Bishop of Dudley

Rt Rev Michael Langrish, Bishop of Exeter

Rt Rev Humphrey Southern, Bishop of Repton

Rt Rev Chris Edmondson, Bishop of Bolton

Rt Rev David Urquhart, Bishop of Birmingham

Rt Rev Jonathan Clark, Bishop of Croydon

Rt Rev Trevor Willmott, Bishop of Dover

Rt Rev Adrian Newman, Bishop of Stepney

Rt Rev John Wraw, Bishop of Bradwell

Rt Rev James Newcome, Bishop of Carlisle

Rt Rev Peter Burrows, Bishop of Doncaster

Rt Rev Keith Sinclair, Bishop of Birkenhead

Rt Rev Clive Young, Bishop of Dunwich

Rt Rev Tim Thornton, Bishop of Truro

Rt Rev Steven Croft, Bishop of Sheffield

Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill, Bishop of Lichfield

Rt Rev John Inge, Bishop of Worcester

Rt Rev Peter Price, Bishop of Bath and Wells

Rt Rev Stephen Conway, Bishop of Ely

Rt Rev Alistair Redfern, Bishop of Derby

Rt Rev James Langstaff, Bishop of Rochester

Rt Rev James Bell, Bishop of Knaresborough

Rt Rev Mike Hill, Bishop of Bristol

Rt Rev Christopher Chessun, Bishop of Southwark

Rt Rev Nigel Stock, Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich

Rt Rev John Pritchard, Bishop of Oxford

Rt Rev Ian Brackley, Bishop of Dorking

Rt Rev Jonathan Frost, Bishop of Southampton

Rt Rev Stephen Platten, Bishop of Wakefield

Rt Rev David Thomson, Bishop of Huntingdon

Rt Rev John Holbrook, Bishop of Brixworth

Rt Rev Tim Dakin, Bishop of Winchester

Rt Rev Peter Hancock, Bishop of Basingstoke

Rt Rev Andrew Proud, Bishop of Reading

Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, Bishop of Hereford

Wonder why TUSC Won? Last weekend leaflet!

Maltby by-election: TUSC’s final push

It’s the final weekend before the election to the North ward of Maltby Town Council, and TUSC are making a last big push before polling day on Thursday. A new leaflet is being distributed to residents through the week and another stall was done today (Saturday) on the High Street, which, as with previous stalls, was popular with the general public.

In the new leaflet there is a Q&A in response to questions received on the campaign, addressing questions about TUSC’s stance, agenda and Joe Robinson, their candidate. A new addition has been added to the ‘local issues’ section, about the state of Maltby’s High Street. To quote: “I propose that MTC seeks additional funding for a second street cleaner/community warden… as well as look into measures to stimulate local shops rather than more take-aways/throw-aways!”


During a Town Council meeting last Friday the council discussed issues such as the proposed play area on the New Estate. Whilst having a large unused budget councillors offered to fund a measly 10% towards the project. Councillor Christine Beaumont mentioned the sale of the former Tarran estate (Newland Avenue) for private development, despite the fact it was meant to be replaced with social housing – a TUSC campaigner plus a member of the public backed up this, while Beaumont insisted “there is not enough money for full social housing,” and “a mix of private and social housing is better”.

When a member of the public brought up issues to the town council, such as corruption, unspent money and failure to maintain notice boards, they were quickly shouted down and looked at with contempt. When discussing the failure to maintain and update many notice boards in Maltby, Cllr Beaumont’s response was – “they are the responsibility of Rotherham borough, not Maltby Town council” (despite being Maltby’s responsibility). For asking a few simple questions in a polite manner, a rude response filled with false information was given back; in true MTC style.

60 children in Rotherham at risk of being groomed and sexually abused!

The BBC Radio Sheffield breakfast show, last week, ran a series of articles on the crime of child sexual exploitation. Using the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the information the programme makers say that last year alone 200 children in South Yorkshire were considered to be at risk of being abused, 60 of those children are from Rotherham.

Anyone seen anything on the RMBC website on how to protect your children?



Rotherham Politics

Exposing the lies and half truths on Child exploitation

This deeply worrying headline is doing the rounds on social media networks including Twitter, what is being suggested here?

That the Rotherham child victims lied about being sexually abused?

That the Social Workers working with the abused children lied?

The parents of the child victims lied?

That national and local journalists covering the Rotherham abuse scandal lied?

Words fail me, a total disgrace.

Ralph Tipping

See also: Exposing the truth on child exploitation in Rotherham

View original post