Talk:Mazher Mahmood/Archive 1

Removal of content

It seems that the admin here are also against free speech. User:Unityinjustice

Mahmood was dismissed from the Sunday Times for dishonest practices - This has been removed. User:Unityinjustice

UNTRUE. HE RESIGNED - 19 YEARS AGO. AND PLS NOTE THAT NEWS OF THE WORLD IS PART OF THE SAME ORGANISATION AS THE SUNDAY TIMES SO THEY WOULD HARDLY RE-EMPLOY SOMEONE THEY DISMISSED FOR "DISHONESTY"!!!! User:Paul adams

What's your source for this? Lower down a source is given showing his boss at the time says he did fire him. Where's your counter source? 193.129.65.37 10:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

George Galloways Web site has also been removed. User:Unityinjustice

The information on the witness Gashi has also been removed which is a crucial fact regarding the persons dishonesty and mental state when relied upon by Mahmood as a witness. This has been removed. User:Unityinjustice

GASHI MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO A COURT ORDER PREVENTING ANY PUBLICATION. User:Paul adams

Source? 193.129.65.37 10:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mahmood by his own admission kept the British Police in the dark until the News of the World were ready. This has been removed. User:Unityinjustice

UNTRUE. User:Paul adams

Mahmood admits criminal behaviour by stating to Time and other sources that he bought drugs himself to use in his stings, by giving that drug to another is considered supply under British Criminal Law - This has also been removed. User:Unityinjustice

MISINTERPRETATION!!! MAHMOOD ADMITS BUYING DRUGS TO EXPOSE DRUG DEALERS. HE HAS NEVER GIVEN DRUGS TO ANYONE EXCEPT A LABORATORY FOR TESTING!!! User:Paul adams

This seems like personal opinion. Only Mahmood knows why he buys the coccaine. Who are we to say that he doesn't buy it from his own personal dealer? Surely in this instance both sides of the argument should be given to allow Wikipedians (who're mostly quite grown up and clever) the right to decide between the two positions? 193.129.65.37 10:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Mahmood was investigated by the Press Complaints Commission over monies handed over to Gashi, he and another reporter were also investigated by the Police and again the PCC for other monies. - This has been removed. User:Unityinjustice

YES TRUE. MAHMOOD AND THE NEWS OF THE WORLD WERE CLEARED OF ANY MISCONDUCT. User:Paul adams

Sources? And surely if he was cleared then the WHOLE story should be in there again for Wikipedians to decide if the Press Complaints Commission got it right or not? We shouldn't just delete it as though it didn't happen. 193.129.65.37 10:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoever locked the page after cleaning this lot out must be a News International plant or maybe even a Mahmood fan. User:Unityinjustice

No one at Wikipedia did any of these things. A few people who I neither know, or who are in awe of some tin-pot kingdoms legal system (wouldn't the web be wonderful if every judiciary were able to censor the net?), kept removing any criticism of Mr. Mahood. User:62.202.7.223

THERE IS PLENTY OF CRITICISM OF MAHMOOD IN BRITAIN AND ON THE WEB. BUT ON THIS SITE WE WOULD LIKE INFORMATION TO BE ACCURATE. User:Paul adams

Photograph of Mahmood

This morning I spent 30 minutes fighting someone called “Paul adams” who insisted I not insert the picture, and was quite abusive in the message mechanism. Through persistence I (Suecom and 62.202.7.223) prevailed, and the picture survived. I’m relieved the maintainers have now locked the page, and I no longer have to keep putting the picture back. User:62.202.7.223

WE WERE UNAWARE THAT THE COURT ORDER HAD BEEN MADE ALLOWING THE PHOTO TO BE PUBLISHED. BY PUBLISHING THE PHOTO YOU ARE HELPING PAEDOPHILES AND OTHER NASTY VILLAINS FROM BEING EXPOSED BY MAHMOOD!!! User:Paul adams

While I laud your desire for accuracy Paul Adams I must admit you sound like a psychophant. You provide scant sourcing for your claims. For instance you claim Mahmood exposes paedophiles or criminals as a rule. In my anecdotal experience his general targets are celebrities. People like Sven-Goran Eriksson who have private (ie off the record) conversations published. Or he entraps people by asking them to do illegal things for him (prostitution, buying coccaine) which if he were a police officer would be illegal. He is ethically bankrupt. This is journalism at its most crass and embarrassing and (frankly) is why reporters have such a bad name. Publish his name, his picture and his address. Then he can get on to doing some real journalism. Meanwhile, I must also congratulate you on frustrating User:62.202.7.223. While I disagree with you, it's always nice to see a racist ("tin-pot little kingdom") realize the world is bigger than just his opinion. 193.129.65.37 09:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

62.202.7.223 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)62.202.7.223: This world is bigger than my, yours, or Paul Adams opinion. This is why I was so annoyed to see some ‘learned judge’ telling the rest of the world what it can, and can not publish. I equally defend your right to publish your opinions (that I’m a racist - untrue as it is). I insisted (like google, 5thnovember.blogspot.com, etc.) that Mr. Mahmood's picture remain public (preferably in his Wikipedia entry). Mr. Adams on the other hand felt he had the right to remove anybody’s contribution that he didn’t agree with (see the history). I simply wasn’t going to allow him to remove my contribution. I’m sad you don’t think I was right, but I respect your opinion (especially as I, like George, prevailed)

George Galloway

In response to Unityinjustice's comment, the information about Gashi and George Galloway is still available in the page's history. Once the page is unprotected, it should be relatively easy to revert the page to a good version from before the silly edit war between Paul adams, 62.202.7.223 and Suecom.

I agree that at the moment, it's ridiculous that the page asserts that Mahmood's identity is kept a close secret, without citing its sources, yet also contains a picture of this guy. How is that secret exactly? The article also fails to mention the fact that the recent publication by George Galloway is how Wikipedia came to have a picture of the guy in the first place. This is no small insignificant detail!

But I don't suggest a revert - I suggest a rewrite. Since the page was protected, the injunction preventing the publication of Mahmood's photo in England and Wales (which the article also previously mentioned but doesn't now) has been lifted. The picture can now be found on the RESPECT Coalition's web site. And the formatting is a bit sloppy. Squashy 18:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoods photo has been published. It is available here http://www.respectcoalition.org/?ite=1030 . This is the result of a court decision. Wiki editors have no right to over rule the courts! If it has been decided that revealing this mahmmod chap is legally permissible, then surely it is good enough for Wikipedia? User:Stephenjh

The photograph was printed in a national daily newspaper, The Morning Star, before any injunction had been sought, so it is already in the public domain anyway. GrahamN 02:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These are the most sensible comments on this page. 193.129.65.37 09:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Response to the above **

Prof Roy Greenslade - ex Sunday Times managing editor responsible for Mahmood: "I sacked Mazher Mahmood when I was at The Sunday Times for an act of gross dishonesty."

http://uk.pressgazette.co.uk/article/060406/fake_sheikh_showdown

CHECK OUT THE HISTORY. GREEENSLADE HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS A RACIST. HE HAS WRITTEN NUMEROUS ARTICLES OVER THE YEARS SLAGGIND OFF MAHMOOD. THIS IS JUST A PERSONAL VENDETTA BY THE PROF. HE IS LYING WHEN HE SAYS HE SACKED MAHMOOD...19 YEARS AGO! 195.93.21.130 08:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"WE WERE UNAWARE THAT THE COURT ORDER HAD BEEN MADE ALLOWING THE PHOTO TO BE PUBLISHED. BY PUBLISHING THE PHOTO YOU ARE HELPING PAEDOPHILES AND OTHER NASTY VILLAINS FROM BEING EXPOSED BY MAHMOOD!!!"

Aren't the police in Britain the best equipped to deal with this? Vigilantism is illegal in the UK.

NO. THE PRESS HAS AN IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY IN EXPOSING CORRUPTION. THE NEWS OF THE WORLD REGULARLY EXPOSES PAEDPOHILES ETC AND BENT COPS. OVER 100 VILLAINS HAVE BEEN PUT AWAY BY MAHMOOD...PEOPLE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABUSING OUR KIDS, PEDDLING DRUGS AND EVEN MURDERERS! 195.93.21.130 08:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My own organisation exposes more paedophiles in a month than the NotW does in 5 years, however we follow procedure, we let the police handle it, they are equipped to do so, legally charged to do so, that way, the person involved gets a fair trial, the police get a fair investigation and justice is served, the News of the World exceeds its remit - As indicated elsewhere, I know a lot of people in this area including the NotW yet your capitalisation indicates rather a fevered mind on this issue, we get told these people are guilty and the case is stilted from the start as there is no compulsion by the NotW to hand over any evidence that might work in mitigation against their story, the NotW is dictating injustice and remember, they have the death of an innocent man on their conscience, through their gutter reporting, he was kicked to death by a mob incited by the News of the World's campaign--Unityinjustice 19:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A criminal investigation can only be as pure as its investigator, when a police officer is found to be corrupt in the UK, his whole caseload is examined with a view as to whether other cases have been compromised, again I refer to the Time article, where he is unrepentant about buying real drugs such as cocaine with a view to use these to entrap people with, buying cocaine in the UK is ILLEGAL!!! The Police themselves would need special Home Office permission if they ever wished to use evidence or buy drugs for a sting op. Why is Mahmood exempt from the law?

Why wasn't Mahmood charged with supplying himself, the usage of the legal english defence of committing a minor offence to prevent a more serious one is lost here as Mahmood is supplying as is his target, the News of the World can also be seen as complicit in conspiracy to supply drugs, complicit in financing drug deals.

Mazher Mahmood - "I don't think there's anything wrong with us buying drugs" http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901021118-388910,00.html

CORRECT BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF EXPOSING DRUG DEALERS. I AGREE WITH HIM. NOW'T WRONG AS LONG AS YOU BRING THE DEALERS TO BOOK WHICH HE DOES. 195.93.21.130 08:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to the above - So the writer there states it is OK to finance and supply drugs without fear of reprisal, target people that Mahmood says are guilty, not the result of well evidenced and tried methods that the police use, in my eyes and the laws eyes, there is no mitigation whatsoever, Mahmood is as much a criminal as the people he he gets convicted, one of the things that is now going to happen is some of us are going to launch our own media campaign to get Mahmood investigated and hopefully criminally indicted as well, he has also made anti-semitic remarks, holocaust denial and tried to suborn an MP. The ends cannot justify the means, the police would not get away with it and I will be damned if Mahmood will either.--Unityinjustice 19:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again referring to Mahmood's own words in the Time article "Wolf in Sheikh's clothing" Mahmood also admits perverting the cause of justice and placing the Beckham's in possible danger by witholding the story so that the NotW could position themselves for the scoop.

THERE WAS NO RISK AS HE WAS AWARE WHEN THE KIDNAP WAS GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE HE WAS IN WITH THE GANG. THE BECKHAMS THANKED HIM FOR HIS ASSISTANCE. 195.93.21.130 08:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Prof Roy Greenslade has much to say on the NotW and Mahmood here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,969267,00.html

I apologise to the admin of this Wiki, I am new to Wikipedia and saw that much of the real information about Mahmood had been replaced and locked with information that was not a true representation, thank you for your patience in this matter. User:Unityinjustice

Why no mention of the Galloway business in this article?

Staging a bogus edit war in order to get a page locked and thus preventing newsworthy facts being added to an article probably isn't actually against any rules. But it reflects extremely badly on everybody involved, to put it mildly. Tsk. GrahamN 01:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

GALLOWAY IS JUST AN EGO MANIAC. DONT FORGET HE IS THE CHAP WHO DRESSED IN A RED LEOTARD ON BIG BROTHER AND WENT ON ALL FOURS PRETENDING TO BE A CAT. AND HE DESCRIBED SADDAM HUSSEIN AS "COURAGEOUS AND INDEFATIGABLE". HE IS A FAKE HIMSELF WHO CAN'T BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. 195.93.21.130 08:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Galloway has damaged himself enormously by flouting his responsibilities as the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow but I hardly see how this reflects on the ethics of starting an edit war to supress information. Nor does it reflect the accuracy or otherwise of the photo. You're simply using an ad hominem argument to further your own ends -- which appear to be psychophantic disinformation. 193.129.65.37 09:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the man writing in block capitals Mazher Mahmood's lawyer or an employee of News International? I am just curious, since it is unusual for anyone to defend the integrity of any journalist unless they have a personal stake. Also, Mazher Mahmood's offer of bribes to George Galloway sparked the current controversy. But apart from that, Galloway has had little to do with the "fake sheikh". So, the politician's integrity is not at stake here. Lastly, it would be nice if you WOULD STOP WRITING IN CAPITAL LETTERS. It does not make you more convincing, it looks like you are shouting.--Ahwaz 10:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest it is most probably Mahmood himself. Wouldn't it be nice if we could get Galloway posting on here too? 193.129.65.37 10:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In the event that the shouter is Mazher Mahmood, Wikipedia does have a policy for dealing with grievances that people have with articles about themselves - after all, Wikipedia won't last long if it makes enemies of the people that editors write about, regardless of which jurisdiction they happen to live in. But my point is, you need to report the grievance. Simply getting wrapped up in an edit war on the article itself won't solve the problem. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Hope that helps. Squashy 07:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Signing comments

Thank you all for your contributions so far. Could editors please sign their comments on this talk page by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end of their comments? It's possible to figure out who said what without you signing your comments, but signing makes it a lot easier - and I think it means the article will be unprotected a lot sooner too. The Wikipedia software will automatically turn your four tildes ~~~~ into your username and the date and time. Squashy 01:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Further Responses:

CHECK OUT THE HISTORY. GREEENSLADE HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS A RACIST. HE HAS WRITTEN NUMEROUS ARTICLES OVER THE YEARS SLAGGIND OFF MAHMOOD. THIS IS JUST A PERSONAL VENDETTA BY THE PROF. HE IS LYING WHEN HE SAYS HE SACKED MAHMOOD...19 YEARS AGO! 195.93.21.130 08:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Proof...? You are talking to someone who is related to a former Times and Sunday Times Editor, however, Mahmood being Mahmood would have made great guns out of this if it were a racial incident, imagine the headline, "Racism within Fleet St" and I am sure that Roy Greenslade would be in a far better position o back his statement up than Mahmood seeing as he would have had to cite a reason for dismissal and Mahmood would have had the chance to contest it, he did not and went to another News International publication. If it comes to it, I would recommend talking to someone called Tudor Hopkins who was in Personnel for both the Times publications, surviving the Grays Inn lock out and was there during Mahmoods time. What would have got up Roy's nose would have been the unprofessionalism and the dishonesty, this is still at a time when the Sunday Times was considered a good and reliable source for factual news, Mahmood would have rubbed many people up the wrong way with sloppy attituides and workmanship, I remember David Blake a Times editor who used to freak at the smallest impropriety, Charles Douglas-Hume left a legacy that carried on for many years and Mahmood would not have fitted well in that scenario, Murdoch paper or not.

George Galloway - Did George damage his credibility as bad as all that...? I don't think so, if you look at the trail of wreckage behind him of people that have taken him on, the US Senate, Mahmood, Hilary Armstrong, The Telegraph, so he dressed in a pink leotard and played a game in trying to make sure that the rest of the people in there fulfilled a task for Big Brother, it can be maliciously portrayed one way but what it does portray that he will ridicule himself for others benefit, it shows that he is a team player and willing to do whatever is needed for the greater good.

(I'm afriad that as someone who voted for George in the last election I can assure you the ground swell of feeling in the Bethnal Green area is that he has badly damaged his reputation. For his reelection prospects he question is really has he damaged it more than recent scandals have damaged the Labour Party? 132.185.240.121 08:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

IP 132.185.240.121: It is good to know that my BBC licence fee is paying BBC employees to criticise members of parliament on Wikipedia. But I wonder whether this is the best use of BBC resource. I will write to abuse@bbc.co.uk to find out.--210.211.234.50 10:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

George Galloway - As revealed on Channel 4 News, George made a great complaint about Mahmood's tactics in 1999 to Parliament, I wonder then if what Mahmood did may not be also interpreted as a means of revenge.

Mahmood - Buying narcotics, opoids and barbiturates as not sanctioned under the terms of use by the Home Office here in the UK is prescribed as a serious criminal offence. The act of buying Class A drugs, Class B Drugs with the intent to pass these drugs on to another, whether for profit or not is supplying, a serious criminal offence, the practice of financing the purchase of drugs with the intent to supply is complicity in the supplying of drugs, a serious criminal offence. The courts accepted that Mahmood gave Alford drugs, looking at other caees, Earl of Hardwicke as a good example, again it was seen as enticement and entrapment, both illegal.

Mahmood's Friends or Mahmood himself - I suspect also that a contingent not unlike the people at the White House are in here trying desperately to keep Mahmood's darker moments a secret, the truth will out, if it comes to it, I will put a website up listing every little bit with source and evidence as I tried to do in here, people are already coming forward about Mr Mahmood and his ways and I imagine that this is a nightmare for poor old Mazher but if you dance along a precipice and stop looking where you go, then downfall is what awaits him. If a story is only 75% factual then it is still a lie and I think that it is time for the media to reapply themselves to more truthful reporting, too long have the Murdoch papers become a tool of the spin and the machivellian manipulators, it is time for factual, open and unbiased reporting to return to our media sources here in the UK and of course the US. User:Unityinjustice

I appreciate those points - and, personally, I'm delighted that the guy has been outed. But remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want a soapbox, try Speakers' Corner. Wikipedia is (or tries to be) an encyclopedia. Points made in articles don't need to be true as much as they need to be verifiable, so we need to stick to stuff that can be backed up by a reliable source. Even if you know something to be true - if it can't be verified, then it can't go in. If these people you mention have published articles, that's great. If other media have referred to those articles, that's even better. If they have been referred to in news stories, and not just opinion columns or blogs, then that's better still. But ideas which newspaper editors have in their heads but never actually publish won't do. Squashy 08:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Admins: Please unprotect the article so it can be edited by the people who know about the subject

One of the band of self-appointed autocratic vigilantes who rule Wikipedia has apparently now condescended to allow people like me who are not "new users" to edit this article. Meanwhile, all you people who've been discussing this thing in depth on this page and who plainly know infinitely more about this business than I do, are not allowed to edit the article. Clearly this is an excellent use of the Wiki technology, and a fine way to write an encyclopaedia. Not. Still, using these unsolicited powers that have been granted to me by people who have no more moral right than I do to take away or grant anything at all, I have just added a paragraph about the episode with George Galloway. I do this reluctantly, because (a) it is deeply iniquitous and counter to the spirit of the project that some users should be empowered to impose their ideas on an article while others are prevented from doing so, and (b) I haven't been following the story especially closely and I've not cross-checked any facts, so it's probably not a very good paragraph. GrahamN 01:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I was about to release the lock on the article...but that bit of incivility coupled with the chaos on this talk page doesn't make me feel comfortable that reliably sourced information would be added. Self-appointed? For someone who has edited here as long as you have you seem to have a very shaky grasp on how admins are approved. Now, you can either continue to try and bully the admin staff into removing protection (neither of the protecting admins was me, by the way)...or people can register accounts and be able to edit this article in a few days...or you can place properly sourced information here and it will be added. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, or a social experiment, or a source for breaking news. --Syrthiss 02:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but Wikipedia articles should also be factually correct. You (and presumabaly others) by locking down this article have prevented it's update and correctness. Mahmood has been revealed, the court case is over, his identity should be available to everyone...no? http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=2127

Not that it matters - but I've just corrected GrahamN's false attribution of comments to me, which I think were actually posted by Unityinjustice. Easy mistake to make, and I hope I haven't misattributed them to someone else! But I've checked the history, and I'm fairly sure I've got it right now.

I appreciate that this is an issue which some people feel passionate about - and I don't believe that just because an editor feels strongly about something, it necessarily means that their edits will be biased or factually inaccurate. Personally, I'm in favour of the article's continued protection for the time being. Squashy 07:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning

The reason I set the article to "protected" status is that someone - I lost track of whom - was adding multiple instantiations of the photo to the article This was ridiculous; if it had only been done once, I would have simply reverted it and let it stand.

However, since it happened over and over again, and led to an edit war, I froze the article. DS 15:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but clearly there were other issues that needed to be addressed too. It seems like they've gone off the boil now - so thanks for intervening. Squashy 23:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This man is a reporter??!?

This guy sounds like just about the sleaziest reporter ever...if he was a cop, none of the charges would have stuck on entrapment. Reading this article (and other things about him) makes him seem morally and ethically bankrupt. Thank God someone exposed him. Yeesh. The Chief 14:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only sleazy, but also a troll. "Paul Adams" has been dutifully removing Mazher Mahmood's picture from Wikipedia. The only person who has a problem with his picture being published is Mahmood himself. Is anyone going to do anything about trolling by "Paul Adams", or shall I just continue reverting his trolling?--210.211.234.145 05:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought it matters that much that his picture's been printed, if he does his investigations in a disguise anyway. I think Mahmood typifies the way journalism isn't so much about reporting the news (especially not in the NotW), but about entertainment and sensation. And the way he plumbs the depths in order to create these stories shows just how bankrupt journalism and the news industry is. Not to mention the people that buy and read his "tripe".