Lord Ahmed goes to jail for texting while driving

[HackneyE9]

Have you been smoking with Sas?

How did the judge rule out texting during the three minutes, please? Not sending a text, composing one.

 

[Spymaster]

How did the judge rule out texting during the three minutes, please? Not sending a text, composing one.

He didn't.

What you are suggesting, he may or may not have been doing. But British law does not allow for people to be convicted for what they might have been doing. You can only convict someone of what they have been doing and what can be proved they were doing!!!

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.

Innit!!!

 

[HackneyE9]

He didn't.

What you are suggesting, he may or may not have been doing. But British law does not allow for people to be convicted for what they might have been doing. You can only convict someone of what they have been doing and what can be proved they were doing!!!

Indeed. But that's not quite the same your gloss that the judge said there was "no connection" between the phone and the crash.

 

[purplex]

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. '.

Did he, have you got proof of that, and please dont quote the Daily Mail at me.
So proof...I'm waiting darling

 

[weltweit]

He did, drive down the motorway composing and sending a number of texts. Then a couple of minutes since he sent a text he drove into a stationary vehicle killing its occupant, a vehicle which he admitted, were he driving safely he would have seen in time to have been able to avoid.

So he admitted to driving in a non safe manner, such driving which resulted in a death.

 

[purplex]

Indeed. But that's not quite the same your gloss that the judge said there was "no connection" between the phone and the crash.

Do you not think that would have been investigated to the full extent of the polices abilities (given what an institutionally racist bunch of backward fuckwits they are).

 

[purplex]

He did, drive down the motorway composing and sending a number of texts. Then a couple of minutes since he sent a text he drove into a stationary vehicle killing its occupant, a vehicle which he admitted, were he driving safely he would have seen in time to have been able to avoid.

So he admitted to driving in a non safe manner, such driving which resulted in a death.

No it didnt result in the death now did it, was he the only car to have hit the drunk who crashed, was he even the first.
If there was any proof that it did then he would have been prosecuted for that.
Maybe it did but he was a mason, eh

 

[Spymaster]

Indeed. But that's not quite the same your gloss that the judge said there was "no connection" between the phone and the crash.

Well the judge accepted that there was no causal link between the texting and the crash. That acceptence renders your theory that he may have been composing, moot. He may have been waving his cock out of the window at the time of the accident but there's no evidence to suggest so, so he's not being done for exposure!

I really don't see what your point is.

 

[weltweit]

No it didnt result in the death now did it, was he the only car to have hit the drunk who crashed, was he even the first.
If there was any proof that it did then he would have been prosecuted for that.
Maybe it did but he was a mason, eh

I think you might benefit from reading the bbc article linked to from the op. It was apparently Ahmed whose collision killed the other motorist. Yes he was not the first vehicle on the scene, one having had to swerve to avoid the car and another striking a glancing blow but it is my understanding that it was Ahmed's collission with the stationary car that killed its driver.

 

[longdog]

Nonsense Doggie, you don't have a phone.

I do.

I have a mobile phone with a dial

click-click-click-click

Still not working.

Nope

<rummages in glove box for DVD>

 

[longdog]

<flashes lights at car in front>

 

[Spymaster]

He did, drive down the motorway composing and sending a number of texts. Then a couple of minutes since he sent a text he drove into a stationary vehicle killing its occupant, a vehicle which he admitted, were he driving safely he would have seen in time to have been able to avoid.

So he admitted to driving in a non safe manner, such driving which resulted in a death.

He's admitted nothing of the sort, you're making stuff up!

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

 

[weltweit]

For spymaster:

Mr Justice Wilkie made clear the texting incident had no bearing on the fatal collision.

Sentence 'nothing'

But he added: "It is of the greatest importance that people realise what a serious offence dangerous driving of this type is.

"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."

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

 

[HackneyE9]

Well the judge accepted that there was no causal link between the texting and the crash. That acceptence renders your theory that he may have been composing, moot. He may have been waving his cock out of the window at the time of the accident but there's no evidence to suggest so, so he's not being done for exposure!

I really don't see what your point is.

No you don't, do you.

 

[Spymaster]

I think you might benefit from reading the bbc article linked to from the op. It was apparently Ahmed whose collision killed the other motorist. Yes he was not the first vehicle on the scene, one having had to swerve to avoid the car and another striking a glancing blow but it is my understanding that it was Ahmed's collission with the stationary car that killed its driver.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read the report in the OP.

The chap that got killed was pissed and had crashed his car. It was facing the wrong way on the motorway. There is no evidence to suggest that Ahmed would not have hit the bloke even if he hadn't been texting. Indeed from the fact that the two preceding cars either hit or narrowly missed the stopped car, we can suggest that Ahmed may well have hit him anyway.

 

[Spymaster]

No you don't, do you.

Well what is your point?

If you can't explain it, you probably don't have one.

 

[Spymaster]

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

I refer you back to the law on driving whilst using a phone and my quotes in post #53.

The fact remains that this is the only bloke ever to go to jail for simply texting while driving that I'm aware of.

 

[claphamboy]

No you don't, do you.

Well I am somewhat lost as to your point here too. Could you explain please?

 

[discokermit]

i think it's a far worse crime to drive on the motorway pissed, than it is to text.

so, well done lord ahmed! serves the pissed up cunt right.

 

[maldwyn]

I met him once and was hard pressed to find a single redeeming feature.

 

[Spymaster]

Well I am somewhat lost as to your point here too. Could you explain please?

Glad it's not just me. I think he's trying to be clever and failing.

 

[Fullyplumped]

oh he actually killed someone... the sentence seems very lenient...

The judge made it clear that he didn't kill anyone, but he got caught during the investigation. This was meant to be an exemplary sentence.

The court had heard how Lord Ahmed sent and received a series of five text messages while driving in the dark at speeds of, and above, 60mph along a 17-mile stretch of the motorway.

Mr Justice Wilkie made it clear the texting incident had no bearing on the fatal collision.

But he added: "It is of the greatest importance that people realise what a serious offence dangerous driving of this type is.

"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."

I think a jail sentence is entirely appropriate.

 

[weltweit]

...The chap that got killed was pissed and had crashed his car. It was facing the wrong way on the motorway. There is no evidence to suggest that Ahmed would not have hit the bloke even if he hadn't been texting. Indeed from the fact that the two preceding cars either hit or narrowly missed the stopped car, we can suggest that Ahmed may well have hit him anyway.

Indeed Ahmed may have hit him anyway, depends on a lot of things, but the previous two vehicles managed to avoid serious collision.

Anyhow, it was dark, there is precious little in the bbc article and Ahmed was probably texting busily away as he had been for some time ..

So he may be the first to be jailed for "texting while driving" and I accept there is some precision in how you have worded that. It is quite a difficult offence to be caught for. He is the only person I can recall being in court for such an offence, for which afaikt he pleaded guilty.

 

[claphamboy]

I met him once and was hard pressed to find a single redeeming feature.

In that case - hang the bastard.

 

[Nigel]

its just racist victimisation
if he was jewish & zionist he would have never got a custodial sentence

 

[Spymaster]

Anyhow, it was dark, there is precious little in the bbc article and Ahmed was probably texting busily away as he had been for some time ..

Cor blimey, do us all a favour, don't ever become a magistrate!

 

[Fullyplumped]

I'm really not impressed by his solicitor -

Outside court 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."

Who I suspect is this guy. What possible benefit can there be to his client in blustering like this on the courthouse steps? His client pleaded guilty to a serious crime and got an exemplary custodial sentence. Is an appeal court, or the public, supposed to be impressed? If the solicitor thinks an appeal might work, fine, but he should have kept his mouth shut and got on with it.

 

[Spymaster]

I'm really not impressed by his solicitor -

Who I suspect is this guy. What possible benefit can there be to his client in blustering like this on the courthouse steps? His client pleaded guilty to a serious crime and got an exemplary custodial sentence. Is an appeal court, or the public, supposed to be impressed? If the solicitor thinks an appeal might work, fine, but he should have kept his mouth shut and got on with it.

Tbf, he was asked his opinion and gave it. I agree with him.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Tbf, he was asked his opinion and gave it. I agree with him.

Mr Smith is his lawyer and supposed to act in his client's best interests, and I don't think he did so here. I agree that his client got an exemplary sentence because he is famous and the story made the news for that reason, and quite right too. Assuming that English criminal law permits exemplary punishment, it is right that judges take every opportunity to make a point like this. Famous people who don't like this should take more care not to get caught committing crimes.

 

[DarthSydodyas]

Indeed Ahmed may have hit him anyway, depends on a lot of things, but the previous two vehicles managed to avoid serious collision.

Mr Gombar and a passenger had escaped to the hard shoulder but Mr Gombar then dashed back to retrieve his mobile phone. One driver saw the Audi at the last minute and managed narrowly to avoid a collision. Another clipped the Audi before Lord Ahmed’s car ran into it.

Police accident investigators said that the Audi was not visible to other drivers until they were almost upon it.

source

Not by much. It was a lottery between the police being able to deal with this or someone making a much more full on impact.

I dont believe the judge made this sentence to appease the victims family or people not interested in the facts. Ahmed used a phone whilst driving and that was unacceptable, albeit it did not attribute to the actual accident.*


*That is unless the police found evidence he was prepping another text between the last one sent/received and the accident, closing that time window... not that I am aware of.