Lord Ahmed has been misquoted in the Pakistani press. This video on Channel 4 bears out Lord Ahmed’s claim that he did not offer a bounty for President Obama. However, the video does show that he offered bounties for the capture of President Bush and Tony Blair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0tupmaqQ5Y

Sunny, he was pretty clearly misquoted, as was fairly obvious early on, and as the Telegraph has acknowledged. But what he did even before being misquoted (e.g. appearing on plaftorm with known terrorist) means that the disciplinary measures are still perfectly justified and he should absolutely not be exonerated as you suggest.

He has a terrible previous record and is, frankly, an embarrassment to the party, as Jenny Tonge was to hers (before it kicked her out). I will be writing more about this at Labour Uncut later. http://labour-uncut.co.uk

For info:

What evidently prompted Lord Ahmed to offer bounties for the capture of President Bush and Tony Blair were reports in the news that the US has announced a bounty of $10 million for the capture of Haziz Seed.

“Hafiz Muhammad Saeed is the amir of Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, a charity organization that is widely considered to be a cover organization for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), one of the largest and most active Islamic terrorist organizations in the world, operating mainly from Pakistan.

“The organization is banned as a terrorist organization by India, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Russia and Australia. India considers him one of its most wanted terrorists because of his alleged ties with Lashkar-e-Taiba and its involvement in attacks against India. The United Nations declared Jama’at-ud-Da’wah a terrorist organization in December 2008 and Hafiz Saeed a terrorist as its leader. In April 2012 the United States announced a bounty of $10 million on Hafiz Saeed, for his alleged role in 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_Muhammad_Saeed

Why isn’t the matter settled?

Why the lack of focus on Jack Straw who is facing court proceedings? why isn’t he suspended on hearsay?

This is crap and clearly a double standard exists. Ahmed didn’t say it and he said that they need to be brought to trial.

If you happen to be to the right of centre then you get away with anything and if you challange that you always have to justify it. It is nonsense.

So he didn’t call for his former party leader to be killed, merely arrested.

Can’t see he’ll have too many problems with that.

“Why the lack of focus on Jack Straw who is facing court proceedings? why isn’t he suspended on hearsay?”

I shall be as fascinated as anyone to discover whether Jack Straw authorised extraordinary rendition so someone could be tortured by Gaddafi’s security services to extract information. But that is a separate issue from Lord Ahmed putting bounties for the capture of President GW Bush and Tony Blair in response to the news that the US government is putting up a bounty for the capture of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the amir of Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, a charity organization that is widely considered to be a cover organization for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), one of the largest and most active Islamic terrorist organizations in the world, operating mainly from Pakistan.

The bountry offer was reportedly made because of allegations that Hafiz Muhammad Saeed was implicated in organising the terrorist attack on Mumbai in 2008.

Lord Ahmed’s speech was captured for the TV news as we can see from the link posted @1 so there is no doubt that he did offer in a public meeting, where he was the guest of honour, to put up bounties for the capture of President GW Bush and Tony Blair. The news on video shows that the subsequent reports in the media and the suspension from the Labour Party were not based on hearsay.

Rob: But what he did even before being misquoted (e.g. appearing on plaftorm with known terrorist)

… don’t think that’s true either. The Pakistani papers reported this but the video evidence doesn’t bear this out. He wasn’t sharing a platform with Hafeez, neither was Ahmed at event to honour him.

He spoke at two meetings. We have video for one. Do we have video for the other?

Lord Ahmed also gave another speech at Punjab University where he said something similar.

In the news report that followed from Waqt TV (which isn’t an entirely reliable source either), the newsreaders say he called for the murder (‘qatal’) of George Bush.

The real question is why is a Peer of the Realm giving aid and comfort to our enemies by criticising Britain in any way whatsoever overseas in a country that is a major sponsor of terrorism?

Sunny,

“He wasn’t sharing a platform with Hafeez”

I have just done some research on the sharing a platform fact, and it transpires that I saw it first on…your article here! You’re right, I really should make sure I get some more reliable sources…. (By the way, as the above commenter points out, recording has not yet surfaced from the second event, from which more facts may yet come out.)

Whether he was or wasn’t, he expressed solidarity with a known terrorist leader. Please stop making excuses for this person, who supports bombers and terrorists. He is not like you or I. That is not to mention a whole lot of other previous, as mentioned in the piece, such as meeting with members of Al Qaeda.

Please, tell me exactly why you his presence adds value to the Labour benches in the Lords.

Sunny,

“He wasn’t sharing a platform with Hafeez”

I have just done some research on the sharing a platform fact, and it transpires that I saw it first on…your article here! You’re right, I really should make sure I get some more reliable sources…. (By the way, as the above commenter points out, recording has not yet surfaced from the second event, from which more facts may yet come out.)

Whether he was or wasn’t, he expressed solidarity with a known terrorist leader. Please stop making excuses for this person, who supports bombers and terrorists. He is not like you or I. That is not to mention a whole lot of other previous, as mentioned in the piece, such as meeting with members of Al Qaeda.

Please, tell me exactly why you think his presence adds value to the Labour benches in the Lords.

Some are wondering why the US is taking an interest in Hafiz Muhammad Saeed.

Saeed is a leading member of the Difa-e-Pakistan grouping. Difa-e-Pakistan wishes to keep the NATO supply route through Pakistan closed. The route through Pakistan made up a third of all supply to Afghanistan. The closure of this route is costly, it forces the US to negotiate with some ‘family run’ states to the north of Afghanistan (Uzbekistan) who have poor human rights records, and may jepordise a quick exit from Afghanistan in 2014. The route was closed late last year following an erroneous anti-terror strike which killed 24 Pakistani troops.

Right of centre pundits are using the Lord Ahmed story to continue the ‘You cannot trust the left, The left are treacherous!!’ schtick, but are ignoring very recent changes to Pakistan revolutionary groupings. That coupled with the early gross misquotes and hysteria mongering makes me think this whole event will be swept under the carpet by both the Labour party and those who wish to shame them.