Second, my friend Tajammul Hussain, originally from Pakistan. We talked about the Prime Minister's reference to the links between the Pakistani intelligence body the ISI, and the Taliban, and agreed that although the connection had been discussed extensively in the media, the more so after detailed evidence had been published in Wikileaks, it was unwise of him to raise the subject while he was visiting India.

We talked also about the refusal of the Foreign Office to help secure fair compensation for his unfair dismissal by UNHCR, after he blew the whistle on their failure to audit expenditure of hundreds of millions of $. He used the UN appeals machinery, and although UNAT the appeal tribunal found in his favour, the paltry sum they awarded for totally inadequate compared with the ruin of his accounting career. The UN doesn't provide any mechanism for challenging the decisions of UNAT, analogous to the provision in English law for judicial review by the High Court of manifestly wrongful decisions of tribunals. How can this be remedied, when the victim's government point blank refuses to take up the cudgels on his behalf? That's what we have to consider.