This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jul/27/mazher-mahmood-thepeople

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Television actor whose career was wrecked by Mazher Mahmood John Alford: the TV actor whose career was wrecked by Mazher Mahmood
(about 21 hours later)
The devastating impact on a victim of one of Mazher Mahmood's sting operations is highlighted by the Sunday People today.The devastating impact on a victim of one of Mazher Mahmood's sting operations is highlighted by the Sunday People today.
The paper splashes on how the Sun on Sunday's investigations reporter, then working for its predecessor, the News of the World, wrecked the life of television actor John Alford.The paper splashes on how the Sun on Sunday's investigations reporter, then working for its predecessor, the News of the World, wrecked the life of television actor John Alford.
Indeed, it wrecked it so badly that it effectively ended his television and singing career at the age of just 25.Indeed, it wrecked it so badly that it effectively ended his television and singing career at the age of just 25.
Alford's case in 1997, a classic example of a Mahmood sting, was one of the first fake sheikh entrapments to catch my attention.Alford's case in 1997, a classic example of a Mahmood sting, was one of the first fake sheikh entrapments to catch my attention.
In almost every detail the subterfuge involved mirrors what happened in 2013 to Tulisa Contostavlos, whose trial on a drugs charge was abandoned after the judge ruled that Mahmood may have been guilty of lying and manipulating evidence.In almost every detail the subterfuge involved mirrors what happened in 2013 to Tulisa Contostavlos, whose trial on a drugs charge was abandoned after the judge ruled that Mahmood may have been guilty of lying and manipulating evidence.
Alford (real name Shannon) was something of a TV star in the mid-1990s because of his role in a hugely popular ITV series about the lives of fire brigade officers, London's Burning.Alford (real name Shannon) was something of a TV star in the mid-1990s because of his role in a hugely popular ITV series about the lives of fire brigade officers, London's Burning.
In a spin-off career as a singer, he also managed to get a couple of minor chart hits.In a spin-off career as a singer, he also managed to get a couple of minor chart hits.
So, by August 1997, when Alford met a man he was fooled into believing was an Arabian prince with movie connections, the actor-singer was a hot item.So, by August 1997, when Alford met a man he was fooled into believing was an Arabian prince with movie connections, the actor-singer was a hot item.
Alford, a wiser but still angry man at 42, relates in the Sunday People interview that it all began with a call to his agent in which Alford was promised a lucrative deal.Alford, a wiser but still angry man at 42, relates in the Sunday People interview that it all began with a call to his agent in which Alford was promised a lucrative deal.
He was invited to meet "His Royal Highness Mohammed Al-Kareen" at London's Savoy hotel. He was completely taken in by Mahmood's disguise, which included a Rolex watch and flamboyant arrival in a Rolls-Royce.He was invited to meet "His Royal Highness Mohammed Al-Kareen" at London's Savoy hotel. He was completely taken in by Mahmood's disguise, which included a Rolex watch and flamboyant arrival in a Rolls-Royce.
"Mahmood's outfit was so convincing, I bowed when I met him," he is quoted by the People as saying. "I thought I was in the presence of royalty.""Mahmood's outfit was so convincing, I bowed when I met him," he is quoted by the People as saying. "I thought I was in the presence of royalty."
The "prince" told Alford that if he was prepared to attend the opening of nightclub in Dubai there was a chance of making £1m by working alongside Robert De Niro and Sylvester Stallone. [The Contostavlos lure was Leonardo DiCaprio].The "prince" told Alford that if he was prepared to attend the opening of nightclub in Dubai there was a chance of making £1m by working alongside Robert De Niro and Sylvester Stallone. [The Contostavlos lure was Leonardo DiCaprio].
Far-fetched? Yes, of course it was. But this was a trap with big bait laid for an impressionable young man who, due to his fame, was being made seemingly amazing offers all the time.Far-fetched? Yes, of course it was. But this was a trap with big bait laid for an impressionable young man who, due to his fame, was being made seemingly amazing offers all the time.
Then came the sting. After drinks, which Alford - like so many other of Mahmood's victims - believed were spiked, he was asked if he could obtain drugs for the prince and his cronies.Then came the sting. After drinks, which Alford - like so many other of Mahmood's victims - believed were spiked, he was asked if he could obtain drugs for the prince and his cronies.
Alford, like many young celebrities, had been through a drugs stage. He said: "I had been on the party scene, going to clubs and taking cocaine, since I was young. But I'd put the drugs behind me by that point."Alford, like many young celebrities, had been through a drugs stage. He said: "I had been on the party scene, going to clubs and taking cocaine, since I was young. But I'd put the drugs behind me by that point."
But he knew a friend who could obtain drugs and, as he told the People: "Stupidly, I decided to do what they asked and get them drugs. I just felt I was totally in over my head."But he knew a friend who could obtain drugs and, as he told the People: "Stupidly, I decided to do what they asked and get them drugs. I just felt I was totally in over my head."
In the end, as the jury heard at his subsequent trial in east London's Snaresbrook crown court, he collected and supplied two grammes of cocaine to Mahmood plus 11 grammes of cannabis.In the end, as the jury heard at his subsequent trial in east London's Snaresbrook crown court, he collected and supplied two grammes of cocaine to Mahmood plus 11 grammes of cannabis.
"I was wrong to sort out the deal," he says now. "If it wasn't for Mahmood there would have been no drug deal. I wasn't a drug dealer, I was an actor.""I was wrong to sort out the deal," he says now. "If it wasn't for Mahmood there would have been no drug deal. I wasn't a drug dealer, I was an actor."
But Mahmood told the court he had prima facie evidence that Alford had been a drugs supplier. He told the jury he had received the tip from an anonymous showbusiness friend of Alford's.But Mahmood told the court he had prima facie evidence that Alford had been a drugs supplier. He told the jury he had received the tip from an anonymous showbusiness friend of Alford's.
Alford, who defended himself, argued passionately that he had been set up. But he was found guilty by the jury and the judge sentenced him to nine months in jail.Alford, who defended himself, argued passionately that he had been set up. But he was found guilty by the jury and the judge sentenced him to nine months in jail.
In the event, he served only six weeks after agreeing to wear an electronic tag. But he had been fired from his TV role and found it impossible to get acting work afterwards.In the event, he served only six weeks after agreeing to wear an electronic tag. But he had been fired from his TV role and found it impossible to get acting work afterwards.
Instead, he scraped a living as a roofer, ­scaffolder and minicab driver. There have been just a couple of TV appearances since in attempts to revive his acting career. But, according to the People's article, he lives on benefits.Instead, he scraped a living as a roofer, ­scaffolder and minicab driver. There have been just a couple of TV appearances since in attempts to revive his acting career. But, according to the People's article, he lives on benefits.
There cannot be any doubt that he broke the law by obtaining and supplying class A drugs. His response to Mahmood's request is suggestive of a mixture of naivety and stupidity.There cannot be any doubt that he broke the law by obtaining and supplying class A drugs. His response to Mahmood's request is suggestive of a mixture of naivety and stupidity.
As with the Contostavlos sting, however, the carrot was so large that Alford threw caution to the wind. In both cases, as with other of Mahmood's stings, once they complied with the journalist's requests, he had a public interest justification for publishing.As with the Contostavlos sting, however, the carrot was so large that Alford threw caution to the wind. In both cases, as with other of Mahmood's stings, once they complied with the journalist's requests, he had a public interest justification for publishing.
Mahmood said, in this recorded radio interview, that he feels no guilt because it isn't possible to encourage innocent people, no matter the amount of bait offered to them, to break the law.Mahmood said, in this recorded radio interview, that he feels no guilt because it isn't possible to encourage innocent people, no matter the amount of bait offered to them, to break the law.
Unless they are "at it", he said, "you can't entrap them." He argued that "entrapment is a lame argument" against his journalistic methodology. But is that really so?Unless they are "at it", he said, "you can't entrap them." He argued that "entrapment is a lame argument" against his journalistic methodology. But is that really so?
Sometimes - and I readily concede, not always and, arguably not in the majority of the stories he has broken - people have not been "at it."Sometimes - and I readily concede, not always and, arguably not in the majority of the stories he has broken - people have not been "at it."
And sometimes it is clear that the instances are so minor, so marginal, as not to warrant such elaborate subterfuge and the necessity of a vast investment of resources. Alford was one. Contostavlos was another. And they are certainly not isolated instances.And sometimes it is clear that the instances are so minor, so marginal, as not to warrant such elaborate subterfuge and the necessity of a vast investment of resources. Alford was one. Contostavlos was another. And they are certainly not isolated instances.