Jump to content

Lord Ahmed jailed


Recommended Posts

Lord Ahmed has been jailed for 12 weeks for dangerous driving.

I can't stand the odious little man myself and would have liked to see him jailed for a lot longer, but I accept that it would have been very difficult to show a direct causal relationship between him texting and him hitting the other vehicle.

As things stand, he has basically been jailed for dangerous driving because he was texting prior to the accident which will hopefully send out a very strong message about the way that people doing similar things will be dealt with by the courts in the future.

Overall, this was probably the best posible outcome - I just hope that they don't wrap him up in cotton wool in some youth club/open prison like they did with Archer.

Species caught in 2020: Barbel. European Eel. Bleak. Perch. Pike.

Species caught in 2019: Pike. Bream. Tench. Chub. Common Carp. European Eel. Barbel. Bleak. Dace.

Species caught in 2018: Perch. Bream. Rainbow Trout. Brown Trout. Chub. Roach. Carp. European Eel.

Species caught in 2017: Siamese carp. Striped catfish. Rohu. Mekong catfish. Amazon red tail catfish. Arapaima. Black Minnow Shark. Perch. Chub. Brown Trout. Pike. Bream. Roach. Rudd. Bleak. Common Carp.

Species caught in 2016: Siamese carp. Jullien's golden carp. Striped catfish. Mekong catfish. Amazon red tail catfish. Arapaima. Alligator gar. Rohu. Black Minnow Shark. Roach, Bream, Perch, Ballan Wrasse. Rudd. Common Carp. Pike. Zander. Chub. Bleak.

Species caught in 2015: Brown Trout. Roach. Bream. Terrapin. Eel. Barbel. Pike. Chub.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry, but it's an absolute travesty of justice. The man was texting whilst driving - fair enough. He wasn't caught for that though and happened to (innocently) become embroiled in a drunken man's accident some way down the road. He hadn't been texting for however many miles prior to the accident......Book him for the offence he did commit, not the possible offence he didn't. Absolute ******!

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tricky one, not helped by the usual **** poor UK standard of media reporting.

 

I believe that the Police have stated that Lord Ahmed stopped texting 3 miles from the accident site, but at the 60mph he was supposedly doing, that's only 3 minutes away, not long when one might be reading a text! Was there any suggestion that he didn't take avoiding action that might have been reasonable expected of a fully concentrating driver?

Geoff

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but it's an absolute travesty of justice. The man was texting whilst driving - fair enough. He wasn't caught for that though and happened to (innocently) become embroiled in a drunken man's accident some way down the road. He hadn't been texting for however many miles prior to the accident......Book him for the offence he did commit, not the possible offence he didn't. Absolute ******!
He should have been booked twice then. Once for texting whilst driving whether he had an accident or not, and once more for the actual accident.

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first one, yes, definitely. Why the second though?

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but it's an absolute travesty of justice. The man was texting whilst driving - fair enough. He wasn't caught for that though and happened to (innocently) become embroiled in a drunken man's accident some way down the road. He hadn't been texting for however many miles prior to the accident......Book him for the offence he did commit, not the possible offence he didn't. Absolute ******!

 

Standard prosecution - peer or not. like this here.. Whether intentional or not the issue is the same. If he is a peer, he should be more sensible. As a politician, if one of his constituents were killled and the Family asked him to lobby on their behalf I am sure that he would encourage a sentence.

"I want some repairs done to my cooker as it has backfired and burnt my knob off."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Standard prosecution - peer or not. like this here.. Whether intentional or not the issue is the same. If he is a peer, he should be more sensible. As a politician, if one of his constituents were killled and the Family asked him to lobby on their behalf I am sure that he would encourage a sentence.

 

You're missing the point mate!

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're missing the point mate!
I don't think so, what's the 'possible offence he didn't commit'?

The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Vaut mieux ne rien dire et passer pour un con que de parler et prouver que t'en est un!
Mi, ch’fais toudis à m’mote

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I find it a little hard to follow. His offence was txt'ing which lead to the charge of dangerous driving. I can't help thinking he would have gotten a much lesser sentence if the accident hadn't also happened. It seems to me that he's also being punished for the crash, for which he wasn't charged. Very good grounds for appeal as far as I'm concerned as the sentence appears dissproportionate to the punishment.

 

Rob.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...