Lord Ahmed goes to jail for texting while driving
- Thread starter purplex
- Start date
What else happens in your fantasy world then?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I don't see a problem with what I have written.
If you do, perhaps you would like to be more specific?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
If they had such evidence it would constitute a causal link, there is none so they don't.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
I hope the reason he's been sent to prison is precisely because it sends a message that if you text while driving you could go to jail, and that being rich, powerful and famous is no protection from facing the consequences of your crimes.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
What he's getting at is your statement that Ahmed was "probably texting away".
That is a fantasy statement based on nothing but your prejudice, since there is absolutely no suggestion and certainly no evidence that this was the case. In fact with the judge saying there was no link, we should assume that Ahmed was not texting or reading at all.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Spymaster, I have no "prejudice" to bring to bear on this in any way.
As I wrote that it just seemed moot to mention that he could have still been engaged in the process of texting.
Anyhow, enough, the police will (I would assume) have accessed what the actual texts were and might have an idea if the exchange was perhaps coming to a natural close. We cannot know this but as you say we have to concur with the judge saying this had come to an end at the point of the accident.
As I wrote that it just seemed moot to mention that he could have still been engaged in the process of texting.
Anyhow, enough, the police will (I would assume) have accessed what the actual texts were and might have an idea if the exchange was perhaps coming to a natural close. We cannot know this but as you say we have to concur with the judge saying this had come to an end at the point of the accident.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
By "prejudice" I meant pre-judged view that he was "probably still texting".
I did not mean to imply that you are any way prejudiced against Ahmed.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Oh, ok.
I gather from the timesonline link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5801891.ece
that he was exchanging messages with a journalist and they exchanged about 5. Whether that means Ahmed sent 5 or responded to 5 or what exactly, its just not clear.
I expect he is wishing that after the first incoming text he had just picked up the phone and rung the journalist and had a conversation using the handset.
Personally I think that would be, while still illegal, much less dangerous than texting. Further I expect the court would not have looked so sternly at that phone activity.
What I still don't get however, this is a wealty person with a high end car, the car may have had bluetooth for phones which gives him hands free, if not then a car kit with a speaker and mike costs only about £100 .. what is a wealthy person like this doing driving around with their mobile phone in a car that does offer them legal and safer hands free?
I used to live near a hotel that had lots of footballers as guests, used to get the same thing, top of the range cars and speeding drivers late at night all speaking on mobiles pressed to their ears.
It is so cheap to go hands free, I don't understand why people don't do it.
I gather from the timesonline link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5801891.ece
that he was exchanging messages with a journalist and they exchanged about 5. Whether that means Ahmed sent 5 or responded to 5 or what exactly, its just not clear.
I expect he is wishing that after the first incoming text he had just picked up the phone and rung the journalist and had a conversation using the handset.
Personally I think that would be, while still illegal, much less dangerous than texting. Further I expect the court would not have looked so sternly at that phone activity.
What I still don't get however, this is a wealty person with a high end car, the car may have had bluetooth for phones which gives him hands free, if not then a car kit with a speaker and mike costs only about £100 .. what is a wealthy person like this doing driving around with their mobile phone in a car that does offer them legal and safer hands free?
I used to live near a hotel that had lots of footballers as guests, used to get the same thing, top of the range cars and speeding drivers late at night all speaking on mobiles pressed to their ears.
It is so cheap to go hands free, I don't understand why people don't do it.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
<<hears the clanking noise and release of gas in airlock, turns handle, opens door, reaches through and shakes hands with crew from other space station>>
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Well there would still have been arecord of him using the phone before the accident so I doubt it would have made mauch difference.
I'd agree that talking on the phone is probably less dangerous than texting but it's still stupid. And of course hands-free's no help for sending text measages.
scifisam
deleted
Unusually, I think this sentence is about right. I can't see any grounds for saying the sentence should have been longer, since his texting apparently did not cause the accident.
I do hope this wasn't a case of 'setting' an example, though, because I loathe that; the sentence should always be for the criminal in question, not for any possible other future miscreants. I know I'd be annoyed if my sentence were harsher because of what other people might do.
I do hope this wasn't a case of 'setting' an example, though, because I loathe that; the sentence should always be for the criminal in question, not for any possible other future miscreants. I know I'd be annoyed if my sentence were harsher because of what other people might do.
scifisam
deleted
Maybe he does have a hands-free set. That's got nothing to do with texting.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
This is the weird bit though - as has been said, if it had fuck all to do with the accident, then he would have got a fine or at most a ban and fine. Instead he gets twelve weeks* inside, which tends to suggest there is rather more going on here than just texting on a motorway (as does the circumstances of the accident).
* six weeks
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I think that's exactly what this is. I can't find one other example of someone going to prison for using a phone. Plenty of fixed penalties but no prison sentences.
scifisam
deleted
I suspect it probably is 'making an example of him.' Like I said, I disagree with that. However, I agree with the sentence in itself and think it should be given to more people who commit the same crime, unless there are exceptionally good mitigating circumstances.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Bumped because of this remarkably bizarre ruling from the Court of Appeal:
Is this the first case of the Court of Appeal agreeing entirely with the original decision, but reversing it anyway?
Is this the first case of the Court of Appeal agreeing entirely with the original decision, but reversing it anyway?
Similar threads
