Jump to content

Talk:Ali Dizaei

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Retrial?

[edit]

You can only get a retrial if the facts about the dishonesty of a witness were unknown to you at the time of the original trial because a retrial involves bringing new evidence. This is what he is very very very (to the point of it being odd to mention it) stressing in the press conferences. He said the witness was working for cash in hand to do his website - does anyone know for sure that he knew about the benefits fraud at the original trial? There was something in a newspaper article about this -does anyone have a link that establishes he knew about this at the original trial?? It might be useful to establish the real truth, which I'm sure Mr. Dezaei would want, being such an honest chap himself.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.237.158 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racism

[edit]

Why is there no mention of his exempletery Police record for the 23 years up to his (dodgy) conviction for a false arrest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.105.2 (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you haven't read the third paragraph, which describes his service before he started to get himself mired in controversy? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no mention of (a) the threats of violence that he made against former girlfriend Mandy Darougeh (b) the recommendation by the Police Complaints Authority, following the first trial, that he face disciplinary proceedings on four counts, or (c) that "Not One of Us" was withdrawn from sale because he had libelled two of his colleagues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.56.109 (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His career was not exemplary, and he was finally convicted on serious charges.203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary hyperlinking

[edit]

I noticed in this article, while I was consulting it for a general enquiry, that there is a mere mention of an amount of money expressed in pounds sterling, yet the £ symbol has been hyperlinked to the article on pounds sterling. Isn't this OTT? Who is going to want to be taken to an article on pounds sterling while reading up on a police officer? Had the article been about, say, the economy, OK. I've noticed this seeming overenthusiasm to link within a number of articles, but I've put this observation here since it is one of them, and I hope Wiki regular editors and writers will pick up on it. Ajarmitage (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is/was a police officer

[edit]

Note that Dizaei is still a police officer. He will almost certainly be dismissed, but he has not been dismissed yet. I'm getting rather tired of reverting supposition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he'll appeal, and then win his case? 86.133.102.79 (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From 1999, how much time did Mr Dizaei serve as an active police officer? And how does the promotion programme work in the UK Police Forces? 86.133.102.79 (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the first question, work it out. Suspended Jan 01 - Oct 03, and Sep 08 - Present. KTC (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above Inspector rank, which along with Sergeant is reached by exam (minimum of two years before promotion to Sergeant, usually at least another two years before promotion to Inspector), promotion for those destined for the most senior ranks can often be very fast, with officers sometimes spending only a year or two in each rank before their next promotion. There are no hard and fast rules. Dizaei's promotion does, however, seem very rapid for somebody who continually attracted such controversy. Draw your own conclusions as to the reasons! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war over Southwark Crown Court

[edit]

Could we please not have an edit war over Southwark Crown Court versus Crown Court at Southwark? Please discuss it here. I note that Little Professor has provided justification for his/her change "it's *Southward Crown Court*, both on its wikipedia page and on the official HM Courts website" whilst Ironman1104 seems to have said nothing on the matter. Not good. Here is a ref to what the COurt Service think it is called. Since they are its "owners", I'd be a little surprised if Ironman1104 wins the day. But hey, let's hear what you have to say. --12:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 13:03, 9 February 2010

Seconded. It's quite clearly known as Southwark Crown Court, just as every other crown court is known as XX Crown Court. Edit warring over it is petty, unnecessary and disruptive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there has been discussion at talk:Ironman1104; Ironman1104 appears to be appealing to the Court Act 1971, which established the Crown Court. He apparantly does not think that an instance of the crown court should have a geographic qualifier in the form of X Crown Court, but rather a qualifier of the form Crown Court at X. Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names refers. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, the common name of these courts is XX Crown Court. That is the name used by the media. That is the name used by the Court Service. That is the name, I have no doubt, used by most lawyers. We use the common name on WP and that is clearly the common name. The argument that the Crown Court is a single court which sits in individual buildings may be technically legally correct, but it is not normal usage. Ironman may also care to take a look at, for example, the Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) (Amendment) (Crown Courts) Regulations 1995, Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, and Tobacco Advertising And Promotion Act 2002, which all refer to Crown Courts in the plural, showing that this term is used even in statutory instruments. And of course, it is used frequently on HM Courts Service's website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but the references cited in the article all refer to it as Southwark Crown Court - e.g. BBC, Guardian. As does other media coverage - The Times, The Telegraph, Daily Mail - all referring to it as Southwark Crown Court. And if you want to play Googlefight (silly though that is), "Ali+Dizaei" and "Crown+Court+at+Southwark" gets 3 hits (one of them being this wiki page) while "Ali+Dizaei" and "Southwark+Crown+Court" gets 75,800. Little Professor (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I see that Ironman1104 has again deleted discussion of the issue on his talk page, without further comment there or here. I'm guessing that signals that war is over. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Merely busy with other stuff, slightly bored with the issue and tidying up my talkpage. I can see that if you wish to treat the court as defined by the casual and understandable way of referring to the building in which it sits, writing an encyclopaedia reference in pubspeak (apparently the preference of some here) then the term "Southwark Crown Court" will measure up to your low standard. The fact (and law) remains that there is only one Crown Court, which sits in a variety of locations. The indictment on which Dizaei was convicted will have been headed "In the Crown Court at Southwark", and any appeal in the CACD (sorry, the Court of Appeal Criminal Division) - not just in this case - will start with a reference to the Appellant having been convicted or sentenced in "the Crown Court at [say] Southwark, Inner London" etc as the case may be. A correctly expressed article could say that Dizaei was convicted in the Crown Court at Southwark, sitting in a building labelled Crown Court Southwark. But it is not Southwark Crown Court. Go and look at it. Or see the link which follows. It is, in confirmation of what I have said, not labelled "Southwark Crown Court" because this would fail to have regard to s 4 of the Courts Act 1971.
You can see a picture of the building in Southwark in which the trial took place here [[1]]. As you see, the building itself (in contrast to the website on which the photograph of it appears) is not labelled "Southwark Crown Court". QED.
Those who take a different view confuse jurisdiction and venue, which is what I said in the first place. But you'll be understood in the pub, which may be all that matters to you, or should. Best. Ironman 1104 15:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you are apparently accusing both HM Courts Service and the Parliamentary Counsel of using "pubspeak". But oh yes, you, who have a "general interest in legal matters", are indeed the expert and they are mere rank amateurs. The fact remains that pretty much everyone, officially and unofficially, refers to the building in which the Crown Court sits as the Crown Court, whether or not that is strictly correct in law. Even other Acts and Regulations have been known to do so (as cited above). Pedantry and a superior attitude win you no friends, particularly amongst others who also know what they're talking about. Oh. and here's another image for you! Apparently HM Courts Service have made another error! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More careful readers than Necrothesp (and they don't need to be much more careful) will already have observed that I was not making a point about how the building in which the Crown Court sits is generally referred to. On the contrary, I have already pointed out more than once that those, like him, who prefer inaccuracy are confusing the Crown Court jurisdiction with the venue of the trial, which was the point of my original edit. Necrothesp: by all means disagree with me for being accurate, but there isn't much point in disagreeing with me for saying something I have not said.
Interestingly, Necrothesp's earlier attempt to make his point by reference to statutory instruments (etc) which refer to Crown Courts in the plural is itself flawed. Leaving aside his misapprehension that statutory instruments and explanatory notes to statutes are drafted by "Parliamentary Counsel", which they are not, the context makes it clear that in each case it is the building (or venue) which is in issue. His only true statutory reference is his extract from the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which takes one to the Supreme Court Act 1981 s 83, where my point is clearly made. Ironman 1104 16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
In the light of the prolonged silence, can I take it that the persuasive force of my points is now universally acknowledged? Ironman 1104 14:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I think you can take it as a sign that we're tired of debating such an irrelevant, petty, pedantic point with somebody who rubbishes others' arguments, backed up with copious references, as "pubspeak". There are better things to do on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I would have hoped, though not expected, that of all the contributors above Necrothesp would have engaged with the point that his own carefully researched examples ('copious references') of the usage which he prefers have been misunderstood by him and are actually compelling examples of precisely the opposite. Why not actually engage with the point? I think we know why. Ironman1104 (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you've read Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names at all. I respect you think that you know best, but that seems to be true only within your frame of reference and not within the common frame expressed in Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names. Speaking as a teatottler, I'm able to parse Southward Crown Court as the Crown Court at Southwark. I see no need in this article to seek to make the point that there is but one Crown Court which has multiple premises; that point can be made elsewhere. As to the prolonged silence; you'll probably be well aware that if you treat others with indifference and contempt, they will return the favour. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I think you're failing to understand is that, despite your obvious belief in your own superior intelligence, the rest of us are actually not "misunderstanding" anything. We are merely using the terminology that almost everybody else uses, as per standard Wikipedia usage. If you disagree with that usage (i.e. use common name) then I suggest you either argue to change it on a more appropriate forum than this talkpage or set up your own wiki. The "correct" usage, as established in the Act, can be (and is) adequately explained on the Crown Court page without the necessity to change every reference in the encyclopaedia to your own preferred version (which is not, as we have already established, the preferred version of most other people in the country). If you choose to consider that usage "pubspeak" then so be it, but try not to patronise those who find normal usage acceptable in a passing mention in an article which is not actually concerned with the subject in question. That is pedantic and will win you no friends here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Black Police Association

[edit]

There is no reference in the body of the article to the National Black Police Association, of which he was apparently president. There should also be some explanation how an Iranian can be a member of the "Black" Police Association. Incidentally, Ali Dizaei is described as having joing UK-Iranian citizenship. I understand Iran does not allow joint nationality.203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ali Dizaei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ali Dizaei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ali Dizaei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ali Dizaei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ali_Dizaei&oldid=1231276968"