Shahrokh Mireskandari

[Rhodes]

Has anybody been reading the amazing revelations in the Daily Mail this week about 'lawyer' Shahrokh Mireskandari who has been unmasked as a convicted fraudster and who was awarded his legal degree by a discredited mail order university in Hawaii which subsequently closed down. Mireskandari is incredibly representing Assistant Police Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur and Senior Scotland Yard Diversity official Yasmin Rehman in their respective race discrimination cases against the Met and is also close friends with the highly controversial Met Commander Ali Dizaei who previously stood trial accused of expenses fraud and perverting the course of justice and is currently under investigation over illeged misuse of a Scotland Yard credit card, it's a can of worms of the very highest order.

[Greg_Dyke]

a can now very well and truely opened Rhodes

[Rhodes]

Greg Dyke - Hadn't you heard about the case then, it's potentially dynamite and the shady MP Keith Vaz has also been drawn into the scandal as he too is a good chum of Mireskandari. By way of example Vaz had written a letter on House of Commons paper to the Chief of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) citing a complaint he had received from Mireskandari about the SRA's alleged prejudicial and discrimatory conduct against his law firm, namely Dean and Dean. At no time did Vaz mention in the letter their very close association where Vaz and his wife regularly use the executive boxes Mireskandari leases at Wembley Stadium and the O2 Arena.

[Big J R]

It's got to the time when either the loony-left BPA or the sensible senior officers at the Met., will win.

 

Unfortunately, we have another nasty inquest looming which may not help the Commisioners chances of winning.

[Rhodes]

Big J R - An interesting view however I think this scandal is going to blow up like an Atom bomb before too long and play right into the Met and Sir Ian Blair's hands. Clearly, reading between the lines, Tarique Ghaffur, Yasmin Rehman and, in particular Commander Ali Dizaei are all in bed with Mireskandari, as I'm sure is Keith Vaz, and it won't be long before they are all exposed and Ghaffur, Rehman and Dizaei unceremoniously expelled from the Met in disgrace and without a penny in compensation.

[MrMushroom]

Well, if it is in the Daily Mail then it must be true.....not!

[Rhodes]

Mr Mushroom - I'm not always the Daily Mail's biggest fan but they have certainly done their home work on this one. What is certainly not in dispute is the fact that Mireskandari is being painstakingly investigated by the Solicitor's Regulation Authority (SRA) over his bogus qualifications hence Mireskandari getting his good friend Keith Vaz MP to write to their Chief complaining about alleged prejudicial and discrimatory conduct against his law firm. The SRA's inquiry is focused on a 'law degree', and I use the term loosely, that was obtained from a 'University' in Hawaii which turned out to be a small office used as a mailing address that has since been closed down by the US authorities. I rest my case.

[MrMushroom]

That bit certainly is believable - such 'universities' used to be common in the USA. But the conspiracy bit seems a bit far-fetched. However, time will tell.

 

Did the Mail offer any evidence to show that Dizaei, Ghaffur, et al knew that the law degree was bogus (and if so, why the heck are they using a bogus solicitor? - seems doomed to failure)?

 

Is Mireskandari or his law firm based in Keith Vaz's constituency? If so, it is perfectly normal and proper for him to write a letter on his behalf on House of Commons notepaper (though you would hope he would do a bit of homework first to look into the complaint)? If Mireskandari or his law firm are not based in Keith Vaz's constituency then indeed he should not be using HoC notepaper for the letter.

 

Would you really want to use a law firm that needed outside help from a senior police officer to find flaws in a prosecution case? Surely that is the job of the lawyers in the firm, that is what they are paid for. How are they going to stay in business if they cannot do that themselves?

 

Sounds to me like there is an underlying bit of dodgy stuff going on which has been blown up out of all proportion in the normal tabloid fashion.

 

[Eastside Urchin]

shoot the ungrateful c**t

[Rhodes]

Urchin Mentalist - You rolled in late, were you out on the tiles again. I think Mr Mushroom is being a little naive here, he makes a fair point about Keith Vaz's Constituency, although I very much doubt Mireskandari lives in it, however the crux of the matter is that the third highest ranking Police Officer in the land (Tarique Ghaffur) is using a Solicitor with bogus qualifications to defend his case of racial discrimination against the Met, I understand that the Daily Mail have concrete proof.

[Big J R]

Rhodesy.

 

Just caught up on this weeks editions of the 'The Mail', and I think you're right.

 

Looks like the BPA have well and truly shot themselves in their feet.

 

I hope 'The Mail' eventually print all their evidence

[Rhodes]

Big J R - Thanks for that, yes I think this one will run and run and I see that now it has been announced 'dodgy' Commander Ali Dizael is to be investigated following the Mail's revelations. Allegedly Dizael was used as a consultant to identify flaws in a death by dangerous driving case being defended by, wait for it, his close friend Shahrokh Mireskandari. Dizael was cleared of corruption charges in 2003, reinstated and awarded 80k in compensation after suing for racial discrimination, he has since been promoted to Commander on a 90k salary. He is currently under investigation (yes another one) after he spent 5k on the Met's credit card on clothes, shoes and perfume whilst on a trip to the US, Dizael comes across as hugely arrogant and has extreme militant views about racism in the Police force.

[MrMushroom]

Originally Posted By: Rhodes

.... the crux of the matter is that the third highest ranking Police Officer in the land (Tarique Ghaffur) is using a Solicitor with bogus qualifications to defend his case of racial discrimination against the Met, I understand that the Daily Mail have concrete proof.

I read the Mail articles online. They really are hedging their bets on the matter of his qualifications and are only saying that they are being investigated and that the 'University of Hawaii' has been closed down for issuing bogus degrees. They do not categorically state that Mireskandari's qualifications are bogus - to do so would lay themselves open to being sued if they were wrong, for example, if he has a degree from somewhere else. However, as I said earlier, this is the most believable part of their allegations.

They are most specific on their allegations that Dizaei advised on how to defeat a prosecution case, so presumably they do have evidence for this.

As regards Keith Vaz's letter, they print it in full. Keith Vaz was writing it in his role as a member of the Justice Select Committee and it is a totally innocuous letter which states that he had had complaints from a number of firms of solicitors, Mireskandari's included, and asks them to look into it and respond. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...case-apart.html
Keith Vaz makes no remonstrations or allegations, just asks for a response to Mireskandari's letter. A perfectly normal thing for an MP to do, and a normal part of the job.

Interestingly, later in the article when the Daily Mail quotes from this letter, they leave out the part about complaints from other firms of ethnic minority solicitors so that it appears that Vaz is only writing about Mireskandari. They also leave out the request that the SRA meet with representatives of the various minority ethnic solicitors who have made complaints. Now why would this be? Could they be trying to make it appear that Vaz is writing only about Mireskandari?

I ought to say here that I am in no way a supporter of Keith Vaz, but I am concerned at the way some of the more right-wing sections of the 'street of shame' have hounded him in recent years.

As for Ghaffur using a solicitor with bogus qualifications - as I said in my earlier post, who in their right mind would do this if they knew that the qualifications were bogus? surely you would want a fully qualified solicitor, particularly if you are paying the sort of fees that the Daily Mail alleges Mireskandari charges -

[MrMushroom]

Originally Posted By: Rhodes

Dizael comes across as hugely arrogant and has extreme militant views about racism in the Police force.

Which is, of course, why the Mail do not like him.

[Rhodes]

Originally Posted By: MrMushroom

They are most specific on their allegations that Dizaei advised on how to defeat a prosecution case, so presumably they do have evidence for this.

Mr Mushroom - And there you have it, the chickens have come home to roost and Dizaei was dramatically suspended from duty today pending investigations on him allegedly offering advice on how to defeat an extremely serious prosecution case concerning a road traffic accident where somebody was killed, how must the victims family be feeling about that.

[Rhodes]

Originally Posted By: MrMushroom

Is Mireskandari or his law firm based in Keith Vaz's constituency? If so, it is perfectly normal and proper for him to write a letter on his behalf on House of Commons notepaper (though you would hope he would do a bit of homework first to look into the complaint)? If Mireskandari or his law firm are not based in Keith Vaz's constituency then indeed he should not be using HoC notepaper for the letter.

I see the net is slowly closing on Keith Vaz to explain his actions which are clearly untoward, obviously Mireskandari or his law firm are not based anywhere near Keith Vaz's constituency of Leicester East:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/14/labour.liberaldemocrats

[MrMushroom]

Originally Posted By: Rhodes

Originally Posted By: MrMushroom

They are most specific on their allegations that Dizaei advised on how to defeat a prosecution case, so presumably they do have evidence for this.

Mr Mushroom - And there you have it, the chickens have come home to roost and Dizaei was dramatically suspended from duty today pending investigations on him allegedly offering advice on how to defeat an extremely serious prosecution case concerning a road traffic accident where somebody was killed, how must the victims family be feeling about that.

Indeed, and it is good to see that the one thing they made specific allegations about is being taken up by the authorities.

[MrMushroom]

Originally Posted By: Rhodes

Originally Posted By: MrMushroom

Is Mireskandari or his law firm based in Keith Vaz's constituency? If so, it is perfectly normal and proper for him to write a letter on his behalf on House of Commons notepaper (though you would hope he would do a bit of homework first to look into the complaint)? If Mireskandari or his law firm are not based in Keith Vaz's constituency then indeed he should not be using HoC notepaper for the letter.

I see the net is slowly closing on Keith Vaz to explain his actions which are clearly untoward, obviously Mireskandari or his law firm are not based anywhere near Keith Vaz's constituency of Leicester East:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/14/labour.liberaldemocrats

As I said in a later post, upon reading his letter it was obvious he was writing in his capacity as a member of the justice select committee, not as a constituency MP. However, he should have declared his interest.

What really concerned me about the Daily Mail article, though, was the way they quoted very selectively from the letter to make it appear that Vaz was writing only about Mireskandari when in fact he was writing about a number of ethnic minority law firms. This does not mean that Mireskandari and Vaz are guilt-free, but it does mean that the Mail were not giving the complete picture - something that tabloids do to sensationalise a story.

[MrMushroom]

If Keith Vaz has done something wrong it is that he did not reveal an 'interest' in the subject of his letter, namely his association with Mireskandari.

 

The subject of declaring an interest is problematic in Parliament where the rules are quite lax. Parliament passed quite strict laws governing local councillors declaring an interest, even to the effect that a local councillor who has a financial interest in a matter being discussed may take no part in the discussion or vote and may even have to leave the council chamber while the matter is discussed (I used to be a local councillor so I have been subject to this myself).

 

However, they did not apply similar laws to themselves. As a result there are MP's paid as representatives of lobby groups or businesses who openly debate matters which affect those companies and vote on them. If local councillors are required to be above board, how come MP's are allowed to have their noses in the trough? Surely they should be governed by the same rules? But of course, the people who have their noses in the trough are the ones who make the rules.

 

As a result of the laxer rules in Parliament it is much more difficult to make a charge of conflict of interest stick at that level. Vaz is unlikely to be expelled from Parliament over this.

[Eastside Urchin]

what a load of bollox,guess what????

just another person taking the p!ss on our liberal interpretation of the law