Appendix 1: Complainant’s response to Lord Ahmed’s appeal
To begin, based on what I have read which was quite difficult and was a struggle: Lord Ahmed is simply repeating himself, and his appeal is not based on anything new.
I am in pain, and cannot respond to every single point. However please do let me know if there is a specific point or points that you would like for me to address, and I will do so.
Lord Ahmed is stating I am being ‘malicious’, but also that Commissioner Lucy is also acting with “malice”. What does Commissioner Lucy stand to gain by going against her fellow peer, unless she is standing for the truth? Lord Ahmed is not capable of being dishonourable purely because he said so? I have only spoken the truth, even where the evidence would be to my detriment. I have not attempted to sugar coat anything.
I do not understand why I should be considering the impact of his family if they discover the truth – what about my family, and my life. What makes his life more valuable than mine? Everyone should know the truth about him. If he has done this to me, without remorse then he has done this before, and he will do it again. Mitigating circumstances and family does not excuse how Lord Ahmed conducted himself and how he should have been. He did not think of his family when taking advantage of me and abusing his power. It is not good enough reason to say, his family will be upset if he is expelled. In that case, all criminal activities should be ignored because of the impact on the criminal’s family.
The impact Lord Ahmed has had on me, is much worse than what he claims would be on him, should this come out. My life has never been the same and I will never be the same again. I have had death threats. My son was forced to drop out of university due to the mental trauma he had, knowing what happened to his mother. To this day, he blames himself for not protecting me from a predator. He deserves to be ostracised and exposed for what he is, a predator.
Lord Ahmed still has not responded to questions raised by Commissioner Lucy during her investigation which led to her strong sanction.
Lord Ahmed was given all relevant evidence—he admits there is evidence in his appeal but claims there was no logic to her decision. This is contradictory. His appeal is all over the place, as are the statement of truths provided by his friends. On the one hand, they claim not to know him and yet feel they are able to provide some kind of character reference. Why would you approach an acquaintance or stranger who does not know you as referee? Also it seems a bit odd to state they do not know one another, when they openly plaster their social gathering events.
It appears they have forgotten that Lord Ahmed has had two years to respond….he has had ample opportunity and time, given to respond by Commissioner Lucy. This argument is not applicable. It is an example of how Lord Ahmed manipulates facts and information.
Commissioner Lucy has acted fairly—I have not made an issue on the fact it took a second complaint to be heard. Nor did I complain on the time it took for this investigation to conclude, nor did I complain on Commissioner Lucy not upholding all my complaints. Any malice on her part against Lord Ahmed, would have led to all the complaints being upheld, which I would have preferred but I recognise the difficulty she faced in being able to do so. I feel she has done a brilliant job, and as said earlier, has been fair.
Lord Ahmed is making a strong allegation on Commissioner Lucy, and places her at disrepute in everything she has ever done. Lord Ahmed is simply attempting to divert everyone’s attention with case laws that do not apply to the House of Lords. Ultimately, he is still refusing to respond to any of Commissioner Lucy’s questions and response to the discrepancies in what he stated during the investigation, and acknowledge his refusal to cooperate with an investigation. This appeal was yet another opportunity to respond….and yet he still refuses, and continues to dance around the issue.
The evidence speaks for itself. He failed to provide any information requested by Commissioner Lucy, and a timeline of his events, mobile phone, letters etc. Those would have been enough to demonstrate his ‘innocence’.
Using his own example of Sahara Grill booking—this evidence could easily have vindicated Lord Ahmed. He was expecting that because he is a lord, he is not answerable and should not be questioned. Here is another example of where he is smearing Commissioner Lucy. She did not succumb to his charms so he is making false allegations against her. This could have helped his case but it worked in my favour because I was being honest.
I am shocked that Lord Ahmed is trying to divert attention away from his behaviour and failures to respond. He is accountable for his own actions. The DPS is currently investigating the way Met Police carried out their investigation. You are welcome to read the contents of the JR. The JR taught me that this is separate to a Police complaint, and the judge did state I needed to seek other means to get my complaints heard, as he stated I had merits to my case, and I could seek compensation (which led to me contacting DPS). Thus the way Lord Ahmed attempts to state my JR was a ‘failure’ is incorrect. Lord Ahmed seems to have ignored this part of the JR ruling.
Any reference to the police made by Lord Ahmed should be ignored because I can provide evidence for how the statement made by the investigating officer in charge of the case was incorrect or false. You are welcome to have a read of the JR paperwork I submitted to Commissioner Lucy, and additional evidences I sent to DPS. I feel I should state that this is not related to Lord Ahmed’s conduct for this investigation. He needs to focus on his own responses and this investigation and nothing else.
As mentioned above, this investigation is not about credibility but about how he conducted himself, and failing to respond to this. I did not want to make this about the Police, as that is separate to the House of Lords and you have your own procedures. He seems to have forgotten, that I do not work for the House of Lords and he does, so you are not investigating my behaviour, under the code of conduct.
Lord Ahmed appears to have issues with Sam Evans too, who would have been an appropriate person to be involved due to her expertise. It seems shocking that he has an issue with this. He is now stating that Commissioner Lucy and Sam Evans are biased and unfair. You would seek an expert who is experienced to be part of the investigation, who acts independently. You would not have someone who has little experience to be involved. He is stating someone random such as a ‘benefit specialist’ should have been appointed instead of Sam Evans?
Some other points that I feel need addressing:
- Has Lord Ahmed made clear that he opposed the changes to code of conduct in the two years of this investigation? I do not believe an innocent man would have issues with a positive change to the code of conduct. A person with nothing to hide would not care what code of conduct is being applied if he knows he has done nothing wrong.
- “Baddua” means ‘curse you’ or ‘damn you’ depending on context said, and definitely does not mean ill will. Here is example of clear cut lying, and an attempt to mislead others.
- Ms Butt was known to Lord Ahmed for years, and the two were family friends. It was her that introduced me to him. She simply spoke the truth over lying for Lord Ahmed. He appears to have omitted this. Her loyalties would have lied with him. Lord Ahmed knew I was vulnerable from the onset and was targeted for this reason.
- Lord Ahmed continues to claim I wanted to remain anonymous – nothing about me is seeking anonymity, this is self evident. Commissioner Lucy has addressed this in her investigation. If I had changed my mind, I would have stated this, and makes no sense why I would suddenly seek anonymity when I am writing to several people for help….including media. He knew I reported to the police, MP, Southall Black Sisters and to friends such as Ms Butt. Similarly I was sharing all this to my therapist, and GP, and about the events taking place in my life such as meeting with Lord Ahmed and later on, the spiking of the tea, and how this memory unravelled. If Lord Ahmed wants to seek confirmation of the conversations which took place in relation to the ongoing events in my life, I can get this for you.
- Also for point 89: We have the evidence from text messages retrieved by Dr Fone app that we agreed to meet. We also have the evidences from credible witnesses who saw the inappropriate messages, which appears to be ignored by him. Unlike Lord Ahmed, who has changed his story according to evidence presented to him, to cover his tracks, I have been consistent in what I have said, and this has not changed. I want to remain as truthful as possible as I feel this will shine through. Anything I have said to you, I have said to several people and do not change.
- Lord Ahmed is an experienced predator and knows that text messages can be retrieved but whatsapp messages once deleted cannot – I did not know this and learned this through this experience. Lord Ahmed’s preferred message was to reply on whatsapp. (The judge in JR knew this too, as it came out in discussion).
- Also this is not a question of whether I was in love or not with Lord Ahmed, but on Lord Ahmed’s conduct and mistreatment, abusing a victim. He abuses his power, and that is what is important to recognise. I was vulnerable and whether I fell into the trap of being coerced or induced into believing he loved me, is separate but explains why I allowed the mistreatment, and this is what is questionable: If I had been in the right state of mind, I would not have allowed myself to be used… sexually abused. He targeted me and used me because he knew I was not well, and would not realise what is going on – he was correct, as I did not know what was happening or taking place. For arguments sake, I am in “love”…does that mean it is not possible he sexually abused me or took advantage of me? This argument is quite concerning for a Lord or QC to make. It does not matter what I did or my ‘supposed ill intentions’ were… he was in the wrong. But to clarify—I had no bad intentions, and when I began to realise what he did through therapy i.e. sexually took advantage of a vulnerable woman. It was then I began to curse him and stated that I cursed him in Urdu that is “badua”. This way of speaking, is something I have inherited from my cultural background. Feel free to ask any one from Asian background who speaks Urdu, Hindi or Punjabi etc. Both Lord Ahmed and QC Imran Khan are being naughty to knowingly mislead this word, given the context it was said. No one in our heritage says I have ill-will for you. It just is not said and is weird for us to say it in our culture, whereas cursing someone is said when a person is mistreated is quite common.
- Why does Commissioner Lucy want to destroy Lord Ahmed? Why did she seek to destroy him afterwards, and not the first time I made the complaint – surely Commissioner Lucy would have jumped at the opportunity then. His arguments are all over the place. And she has not upheld every complaint I made. I should be the one claiming that she has been biased against me, and supported her fellow colleague, and only upholding what she could not get away with ignoring. However, she gained my utmost respect for being fair, and honest. That is all I ever wanted. She has been fair, thorough and balanced. I now feel she is remarkable woman, and deserving of being recognised by the Honours list.
- I do not doubt that Lord Ahmed has turned to his friends who ‘scratch each others’ back’ for references, and I am keen to see the evidence they bring where I supposedly fabricated the evidence.
- It is illogical that I would turn to media and supposedly confess to them that I am fabricating to get back at them. Why would I do this to strangers, no less Lord Ahmed’s friends?? How bizarre!
- Why would I confess this to a Pakistani person when I have stated how women are mistreated and blamed by my community? Where is the evidence other than the word of disgruntled journalist who is not only a friend to Lord Ahmed, by his own admission but also someone offended that I chose to go to a reputable media organisation such as BBC Newsnight instead of them. I contacted and emailed several media outlets, and chose someone highly regarded. It seems odd that I would confess this to Lord’s friend….! The journalist, [D] has omitted that as soon as BBC Newsnight wrote to Lord Ahmed for his side of the story, that he was ordered or sent by Lord Ahmed, to visit my father at his home in Rochdale. He then asked my father to sit in the car with him, and informed him that BBC are going to release documentary about what happened to me, and that he should be forcing his daughter to stop. He tried to intimidate my father by stating, his daughter is bringing shame to his family and to the local community. [D] also reminded my father that he is a public figure and it would have grave consequences on his position. My father had no idea I had contacted media before [D] unexpectedly and suddenly visited and spoke to him. My father did call me up, and reprimanded me, and appeared scared by [D] and Lord Ahmed. My father told me not to go ahead with the documentary. While I recognise [D] for this reason, I have no idea who this other journalist, [L] is – he clearly is lying when he says I have always been estranged from my family before this documentary. My family have always come back and forth, as we were not estranged. I have helped organised my siblings’ weddings before (we are four brothers and four sisters). My sisters would not have helped me breakdown the events in the early stages before the documentary and its airing.
- Also given the media attention that arose following the Newsnight coverage, would it not have been in the Pakistani journalists’ interests to then do their own piece based on their “evidence”.
- Furthermore, they felt they knew one another well enough, so that they could provide a written character reference for Lord Ahmed…but did not feel it was pertinent to let their esteemed friend know of a woman ‘seeking retribution’ by “fabricating a story”.
- Even with this said, I have mentioned above that [D] did know the truth but was supporting Lord Ahmed as they know each other well, and he tried to scare my father to make Lord Ahmed happy.
- This new “evidence” is quite questionable at best, and quite concerning, and demonstrates what Lord Ahmed is willing to do, to cover his tracks.
- No one asked for a character reference. He simply needed to answer questions; cooperate in an investigation; and be honest. Would Lord Ahmed, like for me to provide character references too? This is possible. Please let me know, and I will provide promptly. Again, this is not a credibility competition.
- Lord Ahmed knows many people in high positions, including these journalists, and as evident by the statement, they support each other by attending events they organise. Given how Asian – Pakistani women are blamed, it would be odd for me to make something up, and go to BBC Newsnight, and place my life at risk. I have received death threats simply by speaking up. You have my impact statement.
- There is NO media quote or statement to be found ANYWHERE that can be linked to me stating: “METOOMYLORD”. BBC Newsnight along with other more well known papers would have picked up on this. He is definitely not “MYLORD”. I believe in God, he is My Lord. Also he needs to elaborate on what he means by “number of my friends”. I only mentioned two people; one was the mutual friend, Ms Butt. Another, B was my friend’s younger sister. My actual friend has not even made a statement! B was an acquaintance at the time, who only knew bits of my life at the time.
- There are many holes in these new statements given – and the fact of the matter is that both journalists are lying for their friend. I would like to repeat, why would I go to men I do not even know to make a supposed confession. My opinion of Pakistani men is low, after Lord Ahmed’s treatment of me. I do not trust Pakistani men due to his treatment. It seems ridiculous to go to a media outlet and state I am making it up. Lord Ahmed and his goons, need to come up with something logical and plausible, if they are to lie!
- I was in tears with anyone I spoke to, and this can be verified by Commissioner Lucy, and can be seen in Police transcript interviews. I have been in therapy for years. The likes of these journalists and Lord Ahmed are why sexually abused victims cannot speak up. We are vilified and condemned, as though we are to blame, and lied against. I write emails everywhere, so where is the written evidence from my email. Anyone that knows me, including my work colleagues can confirm my character, and would do so honestly.
- These witnesses could have spoken up during the investigation and it is implausible they did not know and could not be contacted before.
- They write and report on Pakistani news, and they know Lord Ahmed well. They all made references to BBC Newsnight report, and he is a high profile person. Either they are very bad at their jobs, and do not know when it is a high profile case, that sells like “hot cakes”, nor have they heard about BBC Newsnight or they are lying because that’s what they do for one another. Why did they not come forward sooner - their reasoning is illogical and contradictory.
- Both [D] and [L] have written lies— false statements. There is no other way of stating this. They are lying, openly and knowingly.
The 27 pages of the appeal document is simply Lord Ahmed repeating the same arguments which could have been done in a couple of pages. Yet again he is seeking to cause confusion and delay, and to further exaggerate the grounds for his appeal, which can be summarised as below, and I have my thoughts underneath each ground:
Lord Ahmed appeals on the following grounds:
(a)Ground 1 – there were procedural irregularities during the investigation;
He is saying Commissioner Lucy has not followed the correct procedure which I disagree with. Committee would be the best judge of this.
(b)Ground 2 – the Commissioner’s findings are flawed and not based on evidence;
The report is quite detailed and full of evidence. This statement is untrue and baseless.
(c)Ground 3 – fresh evidence casts doubt on the credibility of the Complainant; and
Commissioner Lucy’s decision was based on evidence because being a Lord does not mean one cannot be abusive. He is not above the Code of Conduct nor the law. Furthermore, there is no “fresh evidence”. He has simply rehashed his arguments again.
As it is, while Lord Ahmed is from the House of Lords, I work for Citizen Advice and have been for ten years. I am known for my integrity and have made a real difference to people’s lives, and have not needed to be flamboyant in sharing this. Similar to Lord Ahmed, I could have references provided from people that know me too.
Also, if looking at the investigation, and how Lord Ahmed has responded, he has proven that he lacks credibility. This investigation is about his conduct and behaviour, not a battle of credibility. Furthermore, length of anyone’s employment has no bearing on this, and being a lord for 22 years has no meaning.
(d)Ground 4 – the recommended sanction is disproportionate.
If he claims he has done wrong, then there is no need for sanction. He knows he has done wrong, and wants a light slap on his wrist; however what he has done, and done so without remorse is criminal and unforgivable. He is an open embarrassment to the House of Lords. Commissioner Lucy has looked at the code of conduct and used this and his conduct as a basis to decide the sanction. Given how he has lied, and failed to abide by the code of conduct, and refuses to accept his reprehensible behaviour throughout the investigation, the sanction is proportionate.
He has not acted in an honourable manner from the onset, nor with how he treated me. He represents what the House of Lords stands for, and based on this, he should be expelled. The sanction cannot be anything less than expulsion.
As you can imagine, my feelings are raw, and I am quite distressed by this. I have had to contact crisis helpline, my work, my health and everything has been impacted a great deal. My life is not the same anymore. I need this to be resolved to help me move on. I am at breaking point.
Yours Sincerely
Tahira