Its one rule for them and...... Its one rule for them and......
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1

    Contractor Among Contractors

    Flashman 's job has never been outsourced

    Flashman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,433

    Default Its one rule for them and......

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm

    21 months in prison and banned from driving for three years

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/7909510.stm

    12 weeks. banned from driving for a year

    Lord Ahmed's solicitor, Steve Smith, said he thought his client had been used as a "scapegoat" by those attempting to drive home the message about not using a mobile phone while at the wheel.

    He said he was launching an immediate appeal against the sentence.

    He said: "I've been with him. He's very philosophical. He's approaching it with great dignity."

    Members of Mr Gombar's family said they were not happy with the sentence.

    His cousin, David Cicak, said he was hoping for a long prison term.

    "He could be out in six weeks, that's nothing."

  2. #2

    Super poster

    ratewhore has no reputation

    ratewhore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The dark disturbing corner of your mind
    Posts
    4,756

    Default

    His legal team played the religion card:

    The barrister said his client provided an important function for the country both nationally and internationally, particularly in the field of inter-faith relations.
    Older and ...well, just older!!

  3. #3

    Richer than sasguru

    DimPrawn is a fount of knowledge

    DimPrawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Brexit Britain
    Posts
    34,552

    Default

    One had the best legal representation money could buy and a place in the House of Lords. The other didn't.
    I was miserable and depressed, but CUK turned it all around. Now I'm depressed and miserable.

  4. #4

    Double Godlike!

    Bagpuss is good enough for Jehovah!


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10,066

    Default

    Mr Justice Wilkie said: "It's clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident."

    Seems to contradict...

    "I have come to the conclusion that by reason of the prolonged, deliberate, repeated and highly dangerous driving for which you have pleaded guilty, only an immediate custodial sentence can be justified."
    The court heard Darren Upton had written a letter to Judge Sally Cahill QC saying he wasn’t “a typical inmate of prison”.

    But the judge said: “That simply demonstrates your arrogance continues. You are typical. Inmates of prison are people who are dishonest. You are a thoroughly dishonestly man motivated by your own selfish greed.”

  5. #5

    More fingers than teeth

    xoggoth - scorchio!

    xoggoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    xoggoth towers
    Posts
    13,109

    Default

    If you look at that other case it also says that the accident happened "shortly after" she had made the call. From the limited information available, the two are completely comparable.

    I would say that actually Ahmed's case is worse because he is at least ten years older. At that age one's eyes are usually well into losing the range of focus necessary to switch between text on a tiny screen and the road ahead.

    It is indeed one law for Muslim peers, another for the rest of us.
    bloggoth

    If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
    John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

  6. #6

    I Am Legend

    BrilloPad has reached the peak. Play again?


    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    103,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flashman View Post
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm

    21 months in prison and banned from driving for three years

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/7909510.stm

    12 weeks. banned from driving for a year



    It was lack of morals (Neil Hamilton etc) that bought down the Torys in 97 : will this case mark the end of the current Labour Government?

  7. #7

    Banned

    TykeMerc 's job has never been outsourced


    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Atlantis
    Posts
    8,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xoggoth View Post
    It is indeed one law for Muslim peers, another for the rest of us.
    Of course it is, sadly that's not a surprise to anyone with a brain.

    The addition of top notch legal representation probably helped too.

  8. #8

    Should post faster

    London75 has no reputation


    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    145

    Default

    I hate to defend the idiot as I hate driving texters but didn't she veer off the road and plough into a static motorist while he crashed into a static car that had already crashed and been hit by another car in the outside lane at night.

    I can see the similarities but whereas she did definitely kill the girl due to lack of concentration, he would have had the same accident texting or not.

  9. #9

    Godlike

    expat has more data than eek


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Brutopia
    Posts
    8,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by London75 View Post
    I hate to defend the idiot as I hate driving texters but didn't she veer off the road and plough into a static motorist while he crashed into a static car that had already crashed and been hit by another car in the outside lane at night.

    I can see the similarities but whereas she did definitely kill the girl due to lack of concentration, he would have had the same accident texting or not.
    That is how I read it. He was jailed for dangerous driving, not for having the accident; as it happens the first was only exposed because of the second. The judge acknowledged that the texting didn't cause the accident:

    Mr Justice Wilkie said: "It's clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident."

  10. #10

    Super poster

    tim123 has no reputation


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bagpuss View Post
    Mr Justice Wilkie said: "It's clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident."

    Seems to contradict...

    "I have come to the conclusion that by reason of the prolonged, deliberate, repeated and highly dangerous driving for which you have pleaded guilty, only an immediate custodial sentence can be justified."
    No, because the texting was 3 miles before the accident and the accident was caused by his driving into a stationary car in the outside lane.

    You might argue that the type of person who is going to text whilst in the outside lane is the type of person who always drives dangerously, but I think that (for most of you) stepping back and looking at your own driving might change your mind.

    So, no causal link between the criminal offence of "texting whilst driving" and the accident, which ISTM was exactly that, an accident which could easily have ended the same way if it were you driving down the outside lane at 70 mph to find a stationary car just in front of you.

    Thankfully, UK law prosecutes you for what (it can be proved) you actually did, not what you might have done.

    tim

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •