Sunday, May 27, 2007

Slapped Wrist for Yet Another False Accuser

One cold night in January 2006, in the Northern English city of Bradford, taxi driver Aftab Ahmed was at work as usual. Mr Ahmed, a 44-year-old Muslim, is married with two children. Before moving to England, he was a police officer in his native Kashmir.

On this particular night, he was approached by a group of teenage girls, who had obviously been drinking. One of them was so drunk she was incapable of looking after herself. The others wanted Mr Ahmed to take her home. The drunk girl's sister negotiated a fee of £13, and Mr Ahmed set off with the girl drunk in the back of his taxi.

"He gave her sister his registration and name before driving off. The trip, which should have taken 15 minutes, took three quarters of an hour because she vomited over the seats six times and Mr Ahmed was forced to stop repeatedly.

Unable to find her home address, he had to knock on doors and ask for directions. At one stage, he stopped a bus to ask the driver. He also phoned the girl’s sister to tell her that she was in a poor state of health, that he was worried about leaving her at home alone and said that he would leave her in the care of neighbours.

Mr Ahmed insisted that he had done his best to look after her but once home she dialled 999 and told police she had been raped. Several hours after he returned to work Mr Ahmed was arrested."

The police soon realised that the allegations were false, but the consequences for Mr Ahmed have been truly dire. He had his taxi licence revoked, and unable to work, his house was repossessed. He has been shunned by his community. His wife is on anti-depressants. Now that his name has been cleared, he is psychologically unable to work as he used to. He cannot accept women into his cab for fear of more false allegations.

The girl remains anonymous, protected by the law.

"The teenager, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was sentenced at Bradford Magistrates’ Court to a four-month detention and training order after admitting perverting the course of justice."

A pixellated image of the accuser can be seen here. She will only serve two months.

Lorraine Kelly wrote about the case in The Sun yesterday, saying "This girl has spat in the face of every woman who has ever been the victim of a rapist".

Surely it is time to remove the right of anonymity from false accusers. What possible justification can be made for retaining it?

What does the feminist lobby think it is doing, demanding the retention of this right? It makes absolutely no sense. As Lorraine Kelly noted, she is damaging the interests of genuine rape victims. I would like Women Against Rape to explain to us why they are not concerned about that.

As this girl is not a rape victim, she is not entitled to the protection accorded to rape victims. As a criminal liar who has destroyed an innocent man's life, it is in the public interest that she must be named.

No anonymity for false accusers!

Click here to write to the Attorney General's Office.

Click here to write to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Click here to write to your Member of Parliament.


Anonymous said...

I love how there are people that somehow thinks this primarily victimizes rape victims as a group, rather than the taxi driver.

I dont know what the real history of the polices treatment of rape is. Its a history written by feminists. But its entirely possible that this dark age, where alleged rape victims were treated so terribly was really just police using a healthy and rational dose of skepticism.

And there were times when they were willing to railroad men, even then: . Although that case obviously had big race element to it.

Anonymous said...

I think that any crime, including rape, should not be pursued if it rests entirely on the word of one person. That is to say that if all it not just only the accusers words that says the accused committed the crime but that it is only the accusers word that any crime even occurred, than it should never goto court and when an investigation reaches the point where they have reason to think no more evidence will come about, the case should be dropped.

Do we all agree with that?

Heretic said...

Comment number one.

"I love how there are people that somehow thinks this primarily victimizes rape victims as a group, rather than the taxi driver".

Of course, you're right, the taxi driver is the main victim in all of this. Lorraine Kelly was very sympathetic to that view in her article, as was the Daily Mail.

I don't expect the feminist lobby to care twopence about his human rights though. But we can at least ask them why they are doing such a poor job of defending the interests of rape victims. Of course all they are interested in is power for themselves. They are simply using the issue of rape as a cause celebre to promote their heterophobic and anti-male political agenda.