Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Lord Ahmed goes to jail for texting while driving

The campaign to ban Sat Navs on the grounds they distract the driver from the road starts HERE! :D

And manual gearboxes.

As for carrying a small child in a car well... how can you be in charge of an infant and still give 100% of your concentration to driving? :D

SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE!!!!111!!!!one!!!11!!!
 
Zachor said:
It wasn't just saying there will be a march it was the inference that Ahmed was going to arrange a violent march. Big difference. BTW FYI I don't have problems with Muslims as individuals even though I disagree with the theology. I have a big and justified problem with Islamism. I don't play nice with people who want to kill or enslave me. Ahmed is just an apologist for Islamofascism.
Click to expand...

He never suggested he would arrange a violent march. Youre making that up to suit your agenda, in your tiny mind you think all muslims are violent dont you.
Whatever you may think in that twisted little tiny mind of yours Lord Ahmed is no Islamist.
 
trashpony said:
I was just correcting you :p
Click to expand...

Ah, I see :D.

Well the report says he was travelling at 60mph and finished the texting 3 minutes before the crash. That means he had driven a full 3 miles between the text and the crash. That's quite a distance, imo.

I thought that was exactly what he'd been nicked for.
Click to expand...

Well he's been done for dangerous driving which is my point. The law is:

Drivers caught driving and using a mobile phone may be faced with a roadside fixed penalty notice, which is three points on their licence and a fine of £60. The same penalty applies to a driver using a hands-free phone and driving badly.

If a case goes to court, in addition to points, they could face discretionary disqualification on top of a maximum fine of £1,000, or £2,500 in the case of drivers of buses/coaches and goods vehicles.
Click to expand...

On phones and accidents:

Courts take a serious view of drivers who are involved in accidents where mobile phones are considered to have contributed to the situation. If there is an incident or a crash, the authorities consider the use of any phone to be justification for the charges of careless or dangerous driving.

The penalties on conviction for these offences are far heavier than being caught driving and chatting on the mobile. They include heavy fines, endorsement, disqualification and, in serious cases, imprisonment.
Click to expand...

So why has Ahmed been done for DD when the judge has clearly stated that the texting did not contribute to the accident?

From the above it seems to me that Ahmed should've lost his licence and been fined a grand. Not nicked.

I think the judge has been influenced by the fact that someone died whilst at the same time admitting that there was no causal link between the phone and the crash.

:confused:
 
Apparently he wasn't texting at the time of the accident and crashed into the victims car as it was straddled the moterway having already hit the first car.

He pleaded guilty becuase clearly he should have seen the accident and had time to stop but didn't so I wonder if it was a case of him doing something else like reading his messages. Case of can't prove it.

Clearly it sends out a signal not to use your phone.
 
Spymaster said:
Ah, I see :D.

Well the report says he was travelling at 60mph and finished the texting 3 minutes before the crash. That means he had driven a full 3 miles between the text and the crash. That's quite a distance, imo.

So why has Ahmed been done for DD when the judge has clearly stated that the texting did not contribute to the accident?

From the above it seems to me that Ahmed should've lost his licence and been fined a grand. Not nicked.
Click to expand...

Are we once again arguing when we really agree? Well blow me down - that's not happened for a while :D :D

Yes looks like he's being made an example of doesn't it? He's appealing isn't he though?
 
Pot-Bellied Pig said:
He pleaded guilty becuase clearly he should have seen the accident and had time to stop but didn't so I wonder if it was a case of him doing something else like reading his messages. Case of can't prove it.
Click to expand...

Well if he'd been reading messages there would be a causal link, wouldn't there. And if you can't prove it, you can't do him for it.
 
trashpony said:
Are we once again arguing when we really agree? Well blow me down - that's not happened for a while :D :D

Yes looks like he's being made an example of doesn't it? He's appealing isn't he though?
Click to expand...

Oh we're not arguing, Trashy, I just don't get what's happened here. The whole thing's full of contradictions.

Yes, he's appealing which would suggest that they feel the sentence is abnormal. I'm inclined to agree.
 
Spymaster said:
Well the report says he was travelling at 60mph and finished the texting 3 minutes before the crash. That means he had driven a full 3 miles between the text and the crash. That's quite a distance, imo.
Click to expand...

Surely all they know for sure is it was three minutes since he last SENT a text - could well have been composing the next one, just deleted it afterwards, surely?

:confused:
 
HackneyE9 said:
Surely all they know for sure is it was three minutes since he last SENT a text - could well have been composing the next one, just deleted it afterwards, surely?
Click to expand...


But all of this is irrelevant when we consider that the judge himself said that that there was no link between the phone and the accident. And you can't do someone for what they might have been doing.
 
Spymaster said:
Well if he'd been reading messages there would be a causal link, wouldn't there. And if you can't prove it, you can't do him for it.
Click to expand...

Anyone who is found to have been sending text messages, whilst driving along a motorway should go to jail, and not just for six weeks.
 
I'm posting on my iPhone while doing 130mph on the A1(M) at Peterborough.


VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.
 
Sasaferrato said:
He stated that if that Dutch MP were to be admitted to Britain, there would be violent disorder on the streets from the ' Muslim community. '.
Click to expand...

So, he expressed a view on what could happen, but what has that got to do with this case or thread, apart from Zachor's agenda posting? :confused:
 
He's got some dodgy political views so bang him up if he sends an SMS when driving.

:hmm:

Have you been smoking the whacky baccy again?
 
Spymaster said:
But all of this is irrelevant when we consider that the judge himself said that that there was no link between the phone and the accident. And you can't do someone for what they might have been doing.
Click to expand...

Get off your knees and stop tugging your forelock, Spymaster.
 
HackneyE9 said:
Get off your knees and stop tugging your forelock, Spymaster.
Click to expand...

what?

ETA:

This is becoming a very odd thread, some people seem to be suggesting he should be done for something there’s no evidence of and others seem to think he should be done for holding views they don’t like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chilango
Is there a "we're utterly f*cked, and this just goes to show it" thread?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
228
Views
7K
LakieLady
LakieLady
Maggot
Peaceful protester recalled to jail due to lack of suitable tags
Replies
12
Views
615
hash tag
hash tag
tim
Dammit, Dannatt is another sleazy Lord on the take.
Replies
1
Views
203
kebabking
kebabking
PR1Berske
"Digital driving licence"
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
224
Views
4K
Chz
Chz
hash tag
Time for a Lucy Powell thread
Replies
2
Views
141
redsquirrel
R
Back
Top Bottom