PDA

View Full Version : No surprise then...



Cliphead
12th March 2009, 21:03
Texting peer released from prison.

The Court of Appeal has released a Labour peer who was jailed for 12 weeks for sending and receiving text messages while driving minutes before he was involved in a fatal motorway crash.

Lord Ahmed, 51, was charged with dangerous driving after using his mobile phone shortly before hitting a stationary car in the fast lane of the M1, killing Martyn Gombar, 28, from Leigh, Greater Manchester.

Ahmed pleaded guilty to the charge and was handed a 12-week jail term by sentencing judge Mr Justice Wilkie last month.

Linky (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/12/texting_peer_released/)

Lockhouse
13th March 2009, 09:02
I'm not surprised but I am appalled.

shaunbhoy
13th March 2009, 09:10
Texting peer released from prison.



O Gr8

LOL

TykeMerc
13th March 2009, 09:33
Let's see:-

Labour Party
Seat in the House of Lords
Muslim "community leader"
Kills some ordinary, unimportant white non muslim person as a result of careless driving

It appears to be a completely fair and proportionate punishment.

expat
13th March 2009, 09:40
Let's see:-

Labour Party
Seat in the House of Lords
Muslim "community leader"
Kills some ordinary, unimportant white non muslim person as a result of careless driving

It appears to be a completely fair and proportionate punishment.WRONG! Read the news reports. The 2 items are completely unconnected:

1. he texted while driving, and for that was done for dangerous driving.

2. some time later, the car he was driving crashed into a car that was stationary in the fast lane after its driver (who had been drinking) crashed into the central reservation.

The only connection is that it was the second incident, for which he was not to blame, that led to the normal automatic research into his mobile phone record, which uncovered the first incident.

So get your facts right before opening the mouth, and lay off the racist falsified claptrap please.

TykeMerc
13th March 2009, 09:57
WRONG! Read the news reports. The 2 items are completely unconnected:

1. he texted while driving, and for that was done for dangerous driving.

2. some time later, the car he was driving crashed into a car that was stationary in the fast lane after its driver (who had been drinking) crashed into the central reservation.

The only connection is that it was the second incident, for which he was not to blame, that led to the normal automatic research into his mobile phone record, which uncovered the first incident.

So get your facts right before opening the mouth, and lay off the racist falsified claptrap please.

I have read the reports.

1. If he had been texting while driving there's no proof that he wasn't reading/browsing his texts at the time of the "accident", any kind of texting activity is clearly not paying due care and attention while driving.
2. If he had been paying attention he would not had crashed into the stationary vehicle and caused the other persons death. The fact that the other person had been drinking is irrelevant to the Labour Peers inability to see and avoid the other car.
3. Causing death in avoidable circumstances (by paying proper attention to the road for instance) should carry a sensible and proportionate penalty and typically does. In this case the offender is a Labour Muslim Peer who according to the BBC local reporting yesterday was released early because his imprisonment was affecting his "community work" and amazingly his penalty was remarkably low in the first place.
4. Yes I am cynical about his treatment as a result of him being a Labour Politician with a peerage and the muslim card to play.

As someone who lives in West Yorkshire seeing the muslim population being treated differently by the Police and law is a daily occurence, it's not in any way surprising to me that a Muslim Peer has received preferential treatment.

Incidentally I made no mention of the ethnicity of the Labour Muslim Peer who killed someone else because of his careless driving, shove your racist claims in your orifice of personal preference.

sasguru
13th March 2009, 10:03
I have read the reports.

1. If he had been texting while driving there's no proof that he wasn't reading/browsing his texts at the time of the "accident", any kind of texting activity is clearly not paying due care and attention while driving.
.

Surely the presumption must be one of innocence i.e. there was no evidence he was doing anything with his phone at the time of the accident.
The pardon seems to a be a little too much; however I have very little sympathy with the drunk guy who crashed his car on the central reservation.

denver2k
13th March 2009, 10:13
As someone who lives in West Yorkshire seeing the muslim population being treated differently by the Police and law is a daily occurence.

Ohh i feel sorry for you then.

Your comments would be completely different if you were in the world of Boris Johnson, the true multiculturism where everyone live together with eternal love and harmony......:hug:

sasguru
13th March 2009, 10:16
Ohh i feel sorry for you then.

Your comments would be completely different if you were in the world of Boris Johnson, the true multiculturism where everyone live together with eternal love and harmony......:hug:

You say that for a joke but I think London is far more integrated than some areas of the north which seem to be ghettoised. This is not because people are somehow "better" but because the over-crowding in London means people have to live cheek-by-jowl and interact whether they like it or not. The ever-changing nature of London means ghettoes don't last long.

expat
13th March 2009, 10:51
The Dangerous Driving charge was for texting while driving. It was not connected to the accident, which was not found to be connected, and for which he was not found to blame.

Of course there is no proof that he wasn't reading his texts at the time of the accident. Where does that stand in an English court? "There is no proof that you weren't........"

Foxy Moron
13th March 2009, 10:53
There is little evidence but it is scientific fact

denver2k
13th March 2009, 10:55
You say that for a joke but I think London is far more integrated than some areas of the north which seem to be ghettoised. This is not because people are somehow "better" but because the over-crowding in London means people have to live cheek-by-jowl and interact whether they like it or not. The ever-changing nature of London means ghettoes don't last long.

No mate.....Although my words were wrapped in humour but Im quite serious about integration capability of this city and thats why i really like it.

In unis you can find loads of International (Chine,Africa,South America,East Europe,South Asia etc) and british ethnic minorities students. And all of them get on really well.

I worked in an international telco where approx half of the employees were non English i.e. American,German,French,Russian,Arab,Pakistan,India ,China e.t.c...Infact you could find people from (approx) every single country on the map.

So thats why i think its "multi" cultural and "diverse", whereas in other areas of this country, its usually only 2 or 3 predominant cultural groups, thats why people feel threatened and moan (there are loads of other reasons as well).

Thats my 2c worth....:freaky:

Moscow Mule
13th March 2009, 11:08
The pardon seems to a be a little too much;

A suspended sentence isn't a pardon.

d000hg
13th March 2009, 11:44
I have read the reports.

1. If he had been texting while driving there's no proof that he wasn't reading/browsing his texts at the time of the "accident", any kind of texting activity is clearly not paying due care and attention while driving.The legal system relies on it being proved you ARE guilty, rather then you proving you're not. It's of course likely but that's not good enough.

TykeMerc
13th March 2009, 12:04
The legal system relies on it being proved you ARE guilty, rather then you proving you're not. It's of course likely but that's not good enough.

Indeed, but there IS proof that he had been actively texting while driving a short time prior to him killing someone, that's clear evidence that he wasn't paying due care and attention.
Since the reports don't mention that the driving conditions were adverse when he crashed into the other vehicle and killed another human being rather than avoiding it that's again pretty clearly not paying proper attention to driving.

expat
13th March 2009, 12:11
Indeed, but there IS proof that he had been actively texting while driving a short time prior to him killing someone, that's clear evidence that he wasn't paying due care and attention. And that's what he got done for.
Since the reports don't mention that the driving conditions were adverse when he crashed into the other vehicle and killed another human being rather than avoiding it that's again pretty clearly not paying proper attention to driving. He got trial by jury, not trial by newspaper. The Crown Court decided that he was not to blame for the accident.But you know better. Right.

DieScum
13th March 2009, 12:15
Texting while driving shouldn't send someone to jail. It clearly only happened because of the seconf incident which he wasn't responsible for.

TykeMerc
13th March 2009, 12:31
But you know better. Right.

He KILLED someone else by driving into their car which had crashed some time previously, a driver paying proper attention would have braked to a stop or taken avoiding action.

The evidence that he had been reading and to take the biscuit SENDING texts prior to the fatal impact merely compounds the fact that the driver wasn't paying attention.

Taking voicecalls on a hands-free is regarded as distracting, reading tiny script and typing out a response while driving is a damn sight worse, anyone caught doing that should lose their licence for good, have their car crushed and be sterilised with a rusty chainsaw.

You're the one who brought the Press into the argument in your first post now you lambast me for a trial by press, decide which side you're on please.

sasguru
13th March 2009, 12:31
Maybe he did a favour by removing the drunk driver from the gene pool?

IGMC.

TykeMerc
13th March 2009, 12:37
Maybe he did a favour by removing the drunk driver from the gene pool?

IGMC.

Undoubtedly, but the death penalty for drunk driving isn't unfortunately on the statute books at the moment.